Lack Of Sea Level Rise Documents There’s No Global Warming And Even Less Man Made Global Warming

Image: Can Thailand tell us anything about climate?

Who would counterfeit data if the measurements really did show a problem?

You might say that the sea bed and land is rising also. Really? At the same speed, same direction, over 1000’s of years?? Possible, not very likely , but where is the human induced sea level rise caused by melting of the ice at the poles because of my old SAAB? Remember Bill Nye said the changes are unprecedented FAST! Well, do you see it? Do you ..? Hint .. The sea would cover the horizontal crack caused by wear and tear of waves.


Sea level in the Galápagos (from WUWT, Kip Hansen):

Monthly and annual tide gauge records at the PSMSL station located on Isla Baltra show relative sea levels rising and falling and mostly staying within a 100mm/4inch band since 1985.  El Niños are known to have a positive effect (raising) on sea levels in the eastern Pacific and we see these noted on the annual graph above.

Just to be thorough we have to look at Vertical Land Movement in order to know if it is the sea surface or the land that is moving — up or down.  The good news is that there are CGPS (continuously operating GPS stations — CGPS@TG) in the Galápagos:

Nothing in particular going on with Vertical Land Movement, other than something that seems to be a seasonal cycle, but constrained mostly in a range of about 1 inch (0.025 meters).  Even with this short ten year record, we  can see that there is no upward VLM disguising rising sea level.

Combining Tide Gauge and CGPS data it does not appear that there has been any SLR at the Galápagos over the last 30 years (Read more of Kip’s thorough and informative article debunking the man made warming nonsense).


Terrifying Sea Level Rise At Sydney





A Critique of Satellite Global Mean Sea Levels

Abstract: The global mean sea levels (GMSL) from the satellite altimetry missions have been provided since 1993. It is shown here that these results are more a computation than a true measurement, suffering of arbitrary adjustments and corrections, and failing validation against more accurate and reliable products. Sea levels provided by a network of tide gauges provide a superior result.

2. Determination of Absolute Sea Level Height Is not Simple

There is no such thing as an altimeter placed on a single satellite that can actually measure the instantaneous state of the sea surface all over the world with the claimed accuracy. The ±0.4 mm/yr in the +3.4±0.4 mm/yr GMSL claim of Figure 1 is only the fitting accuracy. Every single “measured” point has an unassessed accuracy, as nobody ever validated the GMSL product, which is more a computation than a measurement.

As written in [1]: “Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously monitored against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality.

As may be inferred from the words “These measurements are continuously monitored against a network of tide gauges.” and “models and corrections become available”, the final result depends more on computation than measurement. (Bold added)

3. Role of Subjective Calibration and Correction

The reported absolute global mean sea level (GMSL) product includes the calibration against a network of cherry-picked tide gauges; the generic introduction of models and unspecified corrections; and a major correction for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). The last is to account for the “fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle” as written in [4]. “Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models”. (Bold added)

Figure 4. (a) Relative sea level rise at the Fort Denison tide gauge over the full time window. (b) Variation of 50-Year mean Sea Level Trends in the Fort Denison tide gauge. (c) Relative sea level rise at the Fort Denison tide gauge over the short time window October 1992 to present of the satellite. (d) Vertical position of the nearby SYD GPS dome. (MSL images (a) and (b) are from [11], data for the MSL picture (c) is from [12], GPS vertical velocity image (d) is from [13]). The short term absolute sea level rise trend is +3.06 mm/yr.



Dr. Roy Spencer

Is Satellite Altimeter-based Sea Level Rise Acceleration from a Biased Water Vapor Correction?


Tony Heller

NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering

NASA has doubled 1880 to 1980 sea level rise since Hansen 1983. In 1983, NASA showed very little sea level rise after 1950. Now they show rapid sea level rise from 1950 to 1980.

1983: 1983_Hansen_etal_2.pdf  2016 :Sea Level

This fraud should not surprise anyone, because they have also doubled global warming via data tampering during that same time period.



More On The CU Sea Level Screw Up

2004 version: sl_cu2004_rel1.2.pdf     2015 version: 2015_rel2

Based on comments yesterday, I am not sure that everyone recognized the gravity of this CU sea level disaster. Not only don’t the years line up on the X-Axis between the two versions, but in the 2004 version the Jason data begins an annual cycle earlier than in the 2015 version.

I have tried to figure out what sort of error could lead to this type of mess, and can’t fathom how it could have happened. It looks like they are just making data up.


Accelerating Sea Level Fraud In Climate Science

By Tony Heller

Climate scientists say sea level rise rates have increased from 1.4 mm/year to more than 3 mm/year, and that it is the fastest rate in 2,800 years.

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. Using it only for the satellite data is both junk science and fraudulent.

Additional fraud has been introduced by altering the tide gauge data.  Over the past five years, NASA has lowered 1930-2000 sea level rise rates, and then introduced a post-1993 hockey stick at the end. This makes it look like sea level is rising faster now.

2014    2019

But the tide gauge data tampering story gets worse. NASA has massively altered their tide gauge data over the past 40 years. In 1982, James Hansen showed sea level rise rates dropping close to zero after the mid-1950s. Their current graph shows acceleration after 1940.


Sea level rose quickly during the 1940s.  Glaciers were melting at an astonishing rate, and climate experts were worried the melting ice was going to drown seaports.


Fort Denison data ‘more accurate than satellite’ on sea levels




Newscats – on Patreon or Payoneer ID: 55968469

Cherry May Timbol – Independent Reporter
Contact Cherry at: or
Support Cherry May directly at:


Why do CO2 lag behind temperature?

71% of the earth is covered by ocean, water is a 1000 times denser than air and the mass of the oceans are 360 times that of the atmosphere, small temperature changes in the oceans doesn’t only modulate air temperature, but it also affect the CO2 level according to Henry’s Law.

The reason it is called “Law” is because it has been “proven”!

“.. scientific laws describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true ..”

That means, the graph proves CO2 do not control temperature, that again proves (Man Made) Global Warming, now called “Climate Change” due to lack of … Warming is – again – debunked!