More Data Tampering From The Harris Administration

The NASA sea level web page shows that sea level rose very slowly from 1950 until the early 1990s (about 0.75 mm/year) – and then rise rates more than quadrupled since the early 1990s to more than 3 mm/year.

Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

But three months ago, NASA showed sea level rising more than twice as fast from 1950 until the early 1990s (about 1.7 mm/year) – and about 2.6 mm/year since the early 1990s.

Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I can’t find any long term tide gauges which show any significant acceleration since 1990.

Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents

Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents

Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents

Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents

Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents

And more than 80% of NOAA tide gauges are below NASA’s claimed average of 3.3 mm/year.

Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents

More stunning climate fraud from the current squatters in the White House. But there is more to this story. The NASA sea level graph shows rapid rise from 1920 to 1950 and then little sea level rise from 1950 to 1980.

Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

But NASA’s temperature graph shows 1920-1950 as being very cold with 1921 being one of the coldest years on record. Why would sea level be rising rapidly when temperatures are cold, and then rise rates slow down after 1950 when temperatures were warmer?


The NCAR graph from 1974 correlates much better with the sea level graph, because it shows rapid cooling after the 1940s.

14 Jul 1974, Page 1 – Lincoln Evening Journal at

NASA shows the year 1921 as being one of the coldest years on record, yet the historical record shows it as being one of the hottest.

01 Aug 1921, Page 4 – The Cincinnati Enquirer at

04 Sep 1921, 61 – New York Herald at

The average daily maximum temperature in the US during 1921 was second highest on record.

The percent of warm days in the US during 1921 was the highest on record, with 58% of days over 65F.

The ice between the North Pole and Alaska was “thin and rotten.”

29 Jan 1922, Page 35 – The St. Louis Star and Times at

10 Nov 1922 – WORLD CROWING WARMER. – Trove

07 Apr 1923 – NORTH POLE MELTING. – Trove

TimesMachine: February 25, 1923 –

Glacier National Park was melting fast and predicted to be ice free by 1948.

29 Dec 1923, Page 5 – at

Australia had the world record heatwave in 1923-1924.

BOM – Australian Climate Extremes

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier at

29 Sep 1939 – What is The World Coming To? – Trove

29 May 1940, Page 14 – Cumberland Evening Times at

18 Feb 1952 – Melting Icecaps Mystery – Trove

31 May 1947 – MELTING ICE CAP DANGER – Trove

Why were glaciers rapidly melting and sea level rising quickly at a time when NASA claims temperatures were very cold?

The sea level data has been altered by the Harris administration to make it look like rise rates quadrupled right when satellites started being used. But satellite data is equally as useless. The ocean surface is very rough, satellite orbits decay, and satellite measurements frequently have an error nearly as large as the trend.

Global mean sea level results

Even worse, they add in 0.3 mm/year for a global isostatic adjustment (GIA) to the satellite record. This is done because the sea floor is sinking in response to glacial rebound after the end of the last ice age.

What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), and why do you correct for it? | CU Sea Level Research Group

GIA would be relevant if you were calculating properties like ocean depth or ocean volume  which can’t be directly measured, but it has no validity for sea level – which is directly measured and is essentially the distance from the center of the earth. The only justification to make any adjustment to sea level would be to account for measurement error – and GIA has nothing to do with measurement error. A sinking ocean floor lowers sea level, not raises it. And if they are going to use GIA, they would need to add it to the tide gauge data too.

There is nothing new about this fraud.


It is wrong to mutilate or suppress the record of an observation of a phenomenon of nature, but it is also wrong to make a bad use of the record. In fact, it is the misuse of meteorological data, not the observing or publishing, that constitutes a crime against the community. Observation and careful research are to be encouraged as useful. Misrepresentations are to be avoided as harmful.

The “Independent Press” as the “Voice of the People” should be not only “Vox Populi” but “Vox Dei “, repressing all cheats and hoaxes, defending the truth and the best interests of the whole nation as against the self-interest of a few.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to More Data Tampering From The Harris Administration

  1. Dave Burton says:

    The sum of measured sea-level trend plus 0.3 mm/year GIA isn’t really a rate of sea-level rise (SLR). It’s what they think the rate of sea-level rise WOULD BE if the ocean floor weren’t sinking. Calling it SLR is misleading.

    “it… means their ‘mean sea level’ is now floating, phantom like, above the waves.”Greg Goodman

  2. Conrad Ziefle says:

    I think the implication goes to all models of the earth. Tiny measurements, or estimates, have huge volumetric implications when applied over huge areas. Any modeling has a few of these at the disposal of the modeler to alter a tiny bit this way or that and still be within the values accepted by the scientific community. The more complex the model, the more of these variables available to incremental adjustment. In many cases, numbers are taken as the consensus of experts, and we all know all wrong that is often found to be later. All such models need to be scrutinized in detail and discussed openly by all factors of the scientific community.

  3. Thank you Tony, great work!

  4. Works4Me says:

    Don’t forget land is sinking much faster then ocean rise. Brine is beginning to contaminate ground water which is a much bigger problem then a few milimeters of ocean rise. Grabbed couple links below, lot more info. avail.

    Incredibly Sinking State: The Lowdown on Subsidence | KCET

    2 inches a month: California sinking faster than ever, infrastructure in danger.

    • David A says:

      Yet California politicians spend billions on a train to nowhere, instead of improving water infrastructure! Someday the mega drought really will come. These people are quite insane.

  5. Shawn Marshall says:

    When Truth is relative then only their intentions are germane – the ends justifies the means even if the means are inflated.
    In a world in which gender is relative to feelings there is no limit to insanity.
    Some of us believe that the Creator made a world that operates by physical Laws which are unknown to us but approximated by mathematical theories which do a pretty good job in describing reality as well as we can.

  6. Roger Culver says:

    Do you coordinate with CFACT, CDN, or CO2Science?

  7. paul donaldson says:

    Hi Tony, thanks for post your hard work.

  8. Charles Diaz says:

    I’m not a scientist, but considering the Tectonic Plates are always on the move, doesn’t that make measuring sea level almost impossible? How can a mass of water be measured when the floor is moving up or down?

  9. Anon says:

    Hi Tony,

    /I can’t find any long term tide gauges which show any significant acceleration since 1990./

    It would seem that no one else can either:

    “There are no full-length graphs of representative high-quality tide gauges. Fig. 13-17 has graphs going back only to 1970, despite the fact that the best tide gauges go back over 150 years, and despite the fact that the literature indicates that at least 60 years of tide gauge data are needed to determine a robust SLR trend. FAQ13.1 Figure 1a (p.89) has a few such graphs, but shrunk to the size of postage stamps, and only back to 1950. Good quality graphs of full-length tide gauge records from high-quality tide stations are absolutely essential for “grounding” the reader’s understanding of sea level, in particular the (lack of) response (thus far) in rate of SLR to GHG forcings, and the amounts and timescales of typical fluctuation in relative sea level, and the variation in relative sea level trends between locations. The omission of such graphs appears calculated to hide the fact that, thus far, sea level rise has not increased in response to GHG forcings, and will surely be powerful ammunition for critics of the IPCC and its Reports.

    There is no admission of the fact that, over the period during which there have been large GHG emissions(roughly, the last 2/3 to 3/4 century), the rate of coastal sea level rise, as measured by tide gauges, has not accelerated.

    And there is a lot more relevant information in that document. Just look in the right hand column, for the word “REJECTED” to find all of the contradictions, inconsistencies and loose ends. (lol)

  10. Ulric Lyons says:

    There should be a marginal temporary acceleration of sea level rise from 1925 and 1995, due to weaker solar wind states driving a warm AMO phase via negative NAO/AO conditions. The accompanied general Arctic warming is driven directly by the negative NAO/AO conditions increasing warm humidity events and cyclones into the Arctic, and by increased warm ocean transport into the Arctic by the warm AMO phase. There is also an 8 month lagged feedback from El Nino episodes driving major warm pulses to the AMO, and El Nino episodes normally increase during each centennial solar minimum due to increased negative NAO/AO conditions.
    The warm AMO phase drives continental glacier retreat and Greenland ice sheet melt.

  11. Aussie says:

    As you have explained previously, water finds its own level. If we zero out the subsidence and rising charts we find that all tidal gauges are recording a very slow increase in level. A trend which, as you point out, has been there since the mid 1800s .

    Nils Axel Morner, a ocean level expert, left the IPCC as they were a political rather than scientific organisation. His decades of experience and study were just too grounded in reality….

    NASA is now the same – utterly woke and totally untrustworthy. When did we hear CNN and co talk about the astronauts and other ex NASA staff writing in alarm over NASAs abandonment of science…

  12. D. Boss says:

    I guess the big question is, will the sheeple wake up to the constant and blatant fraud from “official” sources about measured data “adjustments”?

    Eventually the litany of failed predictions of doom have to register in the brains of the all too many feeble minded.

    But how much damage to civilization will be done by the false “fixes” to this misanthropic delusion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *