Understanding Sea Level Rise

Sea level may rise and fall several thousand mm per day at most beaches, but an additional rise of 2 mm/year destroys the beach.

Our leading climate experts tell us that this is true, and you just don’t have the education to understand it. It is too complicated for you.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

162 Responses to Understanding Sea Level Rise

  1. gator69 says:

    The same can be said about daily temperature changes, and the alleged .06 C of warming we ’caused’ over the past century.


    • averyharden says:

      This is a reply to your comment below that did not have a reply button to it.
      We should drop everything and focus on what this one guy, Dr Nils-Axel Mörner, says about sea level rise and ignore the other massive amount of science that says something else?

    • There is zero evidence . Hansen flood theory is based on an exponential increase after 2080. Cut the bullshit.

      • averyharden says:

        I was trying to learn a little more about Hansen and why you got the bug about him. I could not find anything on “flood theory” but did find this.

        “Yes, a Libertarian agrees with James Hansen’s free market approach to dealing with climate change.

        So, as the evidence accumulates in past observations, present observations, and future predictions in accordance with theory and basic physical reality, how does the Libertarian resolve this dilemma of property rights and individual liberty? How long can Libertarians place faith in a no consequences result from climate change? Is there any law system in play at the moment that can deal with these issues on a global basis? The answer is obviously, no.

        I would suggest they listen more to Jonathan Adler and less to policy handbooks from corporate funded Washington DC think tanks. I would suggest they research real free market solutions that deal with the first principles of Libertarian thought. Otherwise, this policy argument will move on without them. It’s time for Libertarians to get on board and bring their principles along too.”

  2. Latitude says:

    I can’t for the life of me…figure out why this paper is not getting the attention it deserves
    65% of tide gauges have shown no sea rise at all

    Click to access Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf

    • tom0mason says:

      I know I’ve tried on a few but….

    • averyharden says:

      They measure sea level rise with satelites doing altimetry. It is a very precise measurement. Sea level rise is an issue not to be alarmed by, but not to be ignored or denied. Our planners need to consider it..
      Instead of wasting your time grinding your ax against your political enemies, use your time to try and keep up with the science. I learned something interesting last night. Real Science does a lot of disinformation about sea ice as proof against warming even thought the arctic is the fastest warming place on earth. Now sea ice in Antarctica has become additional proof of “cooling.” You all don’t do counter intutitive, you should, but since 1956 when meaurements began, the south pole just had its warmest August day on record and the past 3 months have been the warmest winter on record. it is not clear yet, but maybe there is a connection in warming and sea ice. I am not saying that proves global warming, just that it is possible to have warming and more sea ice. Certainly you monkeys can’t keep going around claiming cooling.

      • It is not a precise measurement. The University of Colorado used to publish an error map, which showed the error almost as large as the trend.

        • averyharden says:

          So just throw out altimetry and do what, use tide gauges only. It sounds like the old attack the messenger if you don’t like the message.
          Also Steve, I still haven’t heard you state unequivocally whether you believe the poles are warming or cooling. You use a lot of sea ice stories so maybe you want to say things are cooling. But, you are too smart to be saying all those consensus temperature recordings are bogus. One could conclude that you are just being contrary.

      • Latitude says:

        It is a very precise measurement….

        No it is not AVery…..the working papers for Jason and Envasat are on the internet
        read them and stop saying stupid things

        • averyharden says:

          You saying there is no sea level rise and it is something not to be concerned about? What about the sea ice/warming point and refusal to look at the numbers.

        • gator69 says:

          I already shied you what the world’s leading expert on sea level had to say once, but because you are thick headed, lets try again.

          Another IPCC Scandal – Sea levels NOT rising

          According to expert reviewer for the IPCC

          26 Feb 10 – Dr Nils-Axel Mörner, a one-time expert reviewer for the IPCC, announced this week that, contrary to IPCC claims, sea levels are not rising.

          “Sea level is not changing in any way, ” said Dr Mörner in an hour-long interview with Kim Greenhouse of “It’s Rainmaking Time.”
          Dr. Mörner, who received his PhD in geology in 1969, is one of the greatest – if not the greatest – experts on sea levels in the world today. He has worked with sea level problems for 40 years in areas scattered all over the globe
          There is no change, says Mörner. There is absolutely no sea-level rise in Tuvalo, there is no change here, and there is zero sea-level rise in Bangladesh. If anything, sea levels have lowered in Bangladesh.
          We do not need to fear sea-level rise, says Mörner. However, “we should have a fear of those people who fooled us.”

        • averyharden says:

          Dr. Morner was not a “reviewer” for IPCC, his main claim to fame is his belief in dowsing. “Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. [2] He was elected “Deceiver of the year” by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for “organizing university courses about dowsing…”.[3] In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works.[17] Mörner declined the offer.[18]
          Bottom line is, Morner’s work claiming no sea level rise is not accepted by any serious scientist. Some of you denialist have glommed on to him though.
          Altimetery is very precise and sea level rise is fact.

        • averyharden says:

          I looked for the “working papers” for Jason Envasat and all I got was tired the old carnard about Arctic sea ice some how proving the arctic must not be warming. One should not waste time going any further than that. Microscopic nit picking the evolving evidence causes one to miss the big picture.

        • gator69 says:

          “Nils-Axel Mörner, born 1938, is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He retired in 2005.[1] He was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics (1981–1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997–2003). He is a critic of the IPCC and the notion that the global sea level is rising. He was formerly the Chairman of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and led the Maldives Sea Level Project.”


          Dowsing has nothing to do with sea level, and is an as hominem attack. You cannot dispute his sea level credentials and are now showing your juvenile and denier tactics.

          Please show that Morner’ observations on sea level are incorrect, and that his assessment of the do called ‘experts’ that the IPCC used is also incorrect.

          Once again…

          “One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC’s favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a “corrective factor” of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they “needed to show a trend”.”


          Facts, Avery, facts.

        • averyharden says:

          He is totally bogus, none of his “studies” were able to be confirmed in peer reviewed science. Anyway, how could a guy that thinks you can point a wood stick at the ground and say there is water down below have credibility on anything to do with science.
          Gator, why do you choose to believe him instead of all those using state of the art altimetry?

        • gator69 says:

          Again, Avery, you are beyond stupid and now a liar.

          ““Nils-Axel Mörner, born 1938, is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He retired in 2005.[1] He was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics (1981–1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997–2003). He is a critic of the IPCC and the notion that the global sea level is rising. He was formerly the Chairman of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and led the Maldives Sea Level Project.”

          And here is his latest peer reviewed paper you lying dipshit.

        • averyharden says:

          That is only the introduction, where is the whole paper.

        • gator69 says:


          “averyharden says:
          October 12, 2013 at 5:51 pm
          He is totally bogus, none of his “studies” were able to be confirmed in peer reviewed science.”

          Moving the goal posts again? Your claim is shown to be false, once again. You have zero credibility parrot.

      • Ben says:

        RE: averyharden – “even though[t] the arctic is the fastest warming place on earth”

        Summer 2013 was the coldest in recorded Arctic history…

        • averyharden says:

          It would be interesting to see the context of “the arctic being the coldest this summer on record”. The arctic is 1.5 degree warmer since 1900, double global rise in the same period. I think you focus too much on the wiggles in the trend line.

        • What do you think caused the record increase in ice this summer?

        • averyharden says:

          The presumption of “record increase” is missleading. The 30 year trend line is in a steady downward direction. 2012 was the lowest sea ice area on record. 2013 meant the very low 2012 point of the wiggle could only go up. This “record increase” is still below the 30 year trend line.
          Steve, I was hoping to hear from you regarding the recent temperatures from the south pole from June thru August showing the warmest winter since measurements began in 1956. Clearly the point should sink in that just because sea ice expands doesn’t mean it took lower temperatures to cause it.

        • gator69 says:

          We did not have full time weather stations in the Arctic until after the dawn of powered aviation. Your ‘fact’ is conjecture. Most arctic stations were not established until the end of WWII, and their ‘go to’ station today is located in a place known as ‘The Garden Spot of the Arctic’.

        • averyharden says:

          I think you underestimate the quality of the science.

        • gator69 says:

          I KNOW that you overestimate the quality of numbers pulled out of someone’s ass. 😆

          It’s called ‘Confirmation Bias’.

        • averyharden says:

          To be precise gator, it would be “thousands of asses.”

        • gator69 says:

          You said it! Now wear it. 🙂

        • Ben says:

          RE: AveryHarden – “It would be interesting to see the context of the arctic being the coldest this summer on record”

          From 1958 to the present, when records are solid. That isn’t a wiggle. My statement is supported by 55 years worth of data., 55 years meets every climates scientists definition of “long enough”

          Look for yourself.


        • averyharden says:

          That sure was an obtuse data set to make heads or tails of. I could only get one year to show. I did find this curious quote in the description of the dataset. “the mean
          temperature values are strongly biased towards the temperature in the most
          northern part of the Arctic! Therefore, do NOT use this measure as an actual
          physical mean temperature of the arctic.” The caps are theirs, not mine.
          If this is the best you got that is suppossed to prove the arctic warming consensus wrong, you are doomed to fail. I suspect the authors would not apprecite you trying to use their data to make a point they do not agree with.
          On the previous page of the report you asked me to read is this quote from the same editors.
          “Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.”
          Why are you so desperate to not see the truth.

        • David says:

          Avery, satellite records go back further then1979, it is just that they show a decrease in NH ice pre 1979, So 1979 is very near the high point. BTW there are not thousands of SH polar stations to show any such historic trend as you claim, and, even if the SH were to warm, it has not, it is so cold that little melt would occur. However the increase in sea ice is a strong indicator of no increase in heat. (DUH!!) Alaska is the fastest cooling place on the planet. The summer record is not controversial, and it was very cold. The increase in minimum ice extent was very large, historic even, and the result of more then the cold, but changing ocean currents and atmospheric winds, which were the primary cause of the NH sea ice decline according to numerous peer reviewed papers. Please spout less, and ask more questions, otherwise you become a troll.

        • averyharden says:

          You say Alaska has gotten colder? This was in USA Today this week. “Alaska’s temperatures are rising twice as fast as those in the lower 48.”
          NORTH POLE, Alaska — Up the road from Santa Claus Lane, past the candy cane-striped streetlamps, Cathy Richard’s backyard has a problem that not even elves — or the big guy in red — could fix.

          The wood deck moves up and down, like a slow-motion sleigh. “You leave for work and when you come home, it can be 7 inches higher,” says Richard, 36, a married bookkeeper and mom of three children.

          She knows the Grinch involved. Her home in this Fairbanks suburb, built in 2007, sits on land that thaws and refreezes so the concrete pillars holding up her deck have crumbled. The front walkway and garage floor are also cracking, and the lumpy lawn has fissures.

          Bad news for Richard — and, for the rest of us. Warmer temperatures are thawing the surface layer of land that covers most of Alaska and is known as permafrost (frozen below for at least two years in a row.) This thawing not only damages roads, buildings and airport runways, but also releases vast amounts of greenhouse gases that further warm the atmosphere — not just over Richard’s house but worldwide.

          The nation’s last frontier is — in many ways — its ground zero for climate change. Alaska’s temperatures are rising twice as fast as those in the lower 48, prompting more sea ice to disappear in summer. While this may eventually open the Northwest Passage to sought-after tourism, oil exploration and trade, it also spells trouble as wildfires increase, roads buckle and tribal villages sink into the sea.

  3. You don’t understand, Steve. It’s not the 2 mm that will destroy the beach. It’s when you add the 2 mm to the other 2000….

  4. How will the West cope with smaller beaches and a shorter ski season? Radical economic restructuring will be required.

  5. What these geniuses don’t get is that sandy beaches are created by the action of waves on land. The waves break up rock and wash away soil and silt until the particles of rock are a certain size. The ocean doesn’t erode the beach it creates it. These people are so stupid it boggles.

    • gator69 says:

      Coastline are among the most transient features on Earth, and anyone who does not know this has no business commenting on anything geologic. There are no permanent features on the face of our planet, the only constant is change. Many homes once built on the coast have either been claimed by the sea, or have seen the beach migrate far from their doorsteps over the past centuries.

      I spent many years as a geology student, and was shocked by the attitude of my first climatology professor. Unlike every geologist I had ever met, the climatologist seemed to think our Earth was static, even though I am sure he was aware of ice ages. That boggled my mind.

      • I have a question. Do these people think that oceans actually erode beaches? The waves don’t dissolve the sand, they wash it up the beach. If sea levels rise it would push the sand ahead of itself. The ocean creates sand bars….islands of sand in the middle of nowhere, sand dunes, breaker islands. Anywhere the shore goes, it makes sand. Did this idiot build a sand castle on the beach and watch it wash away have suffer emotional trauma from it that dissolved his brain?

        • gator69 says:

          Oceans do both. Currents remove sand from one area and then deposit it elsewhere, as they have since the dawn of time. Leftists think man runs everything, and do not understand higher powers, it is part of their mental disorder.

      • Billy Liar says:

        All those mountains are falling down too. I’ve never seen one falling up.

  6. averyharden says:

    This is the best science on the subject. I know, you will attack the sources and ignore the science. That suggest another agenda.

    • Cook is a crock.

      Tide gauges in California show no sea level rise for 30 years.

    • Latitude says:

      no AVery….this is the best science on the subject
      A full 65% of tide gauges show no sea level rise at all for the 20th century

      Click to access Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf

      • averyharden says:

        The quote below is direct from your source.

        “Consensus estimates of recent GMSL rise are about 2mm/year. Our estimate is 1mm/year.
        In the minority of locations where sea levels are rising the mean increase is about 4 mm/year and in some locations it is as large as 9 mm/year. The fact that sea level rise is not global should not detract from its importance in those parts of the world where it is a serious problem.”

        • Homer – you can’t stop land subsidence by purchasing a Prius.

        • Latitude says:

          AVery, do you have any idea what “minority” of locations would mean?…
          …yes, it’s sea level rise…..because the land is eroding or sinking

          If not, the “majority” of tide gauges would show water rising…they don’t

        • averyharden says:

          So that is the denialist response to sea level rise. The land is sinking. This is like the sea ice thing proving cooling even while thermometers show the temperature going up. I guess the thermometers are lying. Altimetery is the best way to measure sea level rise. The land can go up or down, makes no difference.

        • You can’t actually be as stupid as you pretend to be.

        • averyharden says:

          Steve, your kneejerk response to condemn me regarding that comment is due to you having software issues on this site. Half the time one can’t connect a reply to the comment, so the reader sees the comment out of context. This happens on a regular basis and you guys are quick to see red meat and pounce, not all the time, but some times. This quickness to presume to understand something is a flaw in the thinking over here.

        • AndrewS says:

          Homer said: Steve, your kneejerk response to condemn me regarding that comment is due to you having software issues on this site. Half the time one can’t connect a reply to the comment, so the reader sees the comment out of context. If you can follow the indents then you can follow the replies. It’s not a software issue, but a vision issue on your part.

    • Caleb says:

      Skeptical Science? You don’t think they have an agenda? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      Thanks. I needed a laugh.

      • averyharden says:

        Yea, they want to let the world know what the vast majority of climate scientist have learned about the issue of global warming. That is a worthy agenda. The massive disinformation campaign against that effort is not a worthy agenda.

        • What part of “this is the biggest scam in science history” is not sinking in?

        • averyharden says:

          Is it your position that the temperture readings showing warming from the Arctic: and now, just recently, the south pole, are bogus? I still can’t tell whether you think the temperature trend line of the earth is warming or cooling. I’m not talking man made or natural, just temperature.

        • LLAP says:

          Here is why Skeptical Science is not reliable (from WUWT):

          “Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.”

        • gator69 says:

          “The Truth about Skeptical Science

          Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site’s oxymoronic name “Skeptical Science” is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

          John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.

          Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

          “I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist” – John Cook, Skeptical Science

          A link from the Skeptical Science “About” page originally went to his cartoonist page,

          “John Cook: A cartoonist working from home in Brisbane, Australia” – SEV

          It is very important for Mr. Cook to keep up this facade, as once people learn of his lack of credentials and scientifically worthless employment history they are unlikely to take his website seriously no matter how he desperately pads his resume. As opposed to the highly credentialed climate scientists his staff harassed and censored;

          Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute (1992-Present); Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute (1996-Present); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)

          Roger A. Pielke Sr., B.A. Mathematics, Towson State College (1968); M.S. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University (1969); Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University (1973); Research Assistant, Pennsylvania State University (1968); National Science Foundation Trainee, Pennsylvania State University (1968-1971); Research Meteorologist, Experimental Meteorology Laboratory, NOAA (1971-1974); Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1974-1977); Distinguished Authorship Award, NOAA (1974); Leroy Meisinger Award, American Meteorological Society (1977); Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1978-1981); Chief Editor, Monthly Weather Review (1981-1985); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (1982); Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1982-1985); Abell New Faculty Research and Graduate Program Award (1984); Deputy Director, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (1985-1988); Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1985-2000), Abell Research Faculty Award (1987/1988); Researcher of the Year, Colorado State University Research Foundation (1993), Pennsylvania State Centennial Fellow (1996); Alumni of the Year, Pennsylvania State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (1999); Colorado State Climatologist (1999-2006); Engineering Dean’s Council Award, Colorado State University (2000); Adjunct Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University (2003-2006); Fellow, American Geophysical Union (2004); Visiting Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona (2004); Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder (2005-Present); Senior Research Associate, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder (2005-Present); Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (2007-Present)

          Refuting 104 Talking Points from Skeptical Science (PDF) (28pgs) (Lubos Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, March 29, 2010)
          Skepticalscience – Rewriting History (Shub Niggurath Climate, October 10, 2011)
          Roger Pielke Sr at the SS.com: A dark day in the climate science debate (Shub Niggurath Climate, September 18, 2011)
          Skepticalscience.com quote surgery on Pat Michaels (Shub Niggurath Climate, January 18, 2012)
          My Interactions With Skeptical Science – A Failed Attempt (So Far) For Constructive Dialog (Roger A. Pielke Sr., September 17, 2011)
          Final Comments On My Interaction With Skeptical Science (Roger A. Pielke Sr., September 21, 2011)
          Response To Skeptical Science On A Series Of Weblog Posts (Roger A. Pielke Sr., October 25, 2011)
          A Response to Skeptical Science’s “Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data” (Patrick J. Michaels, January 17, 2012)

          Update: In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums “hacked” and the contents posted online. What was revealed is simply astonishing,

          Skeptical Science: The Censorship of Poptech
          “The impact of that ban on PopTech was to silence him.” – [Skeptical Science]
          Skeptical Science: “Ding dong, the witch is dead”
          “Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43” “Ding dong, the witch is dead…” – John Hartz [Skeptical Science], March 2, 2012
          Skeptical Science: “[W]e’re all a bunch of leftists”
          “It’s official, we’re all a bunch of leftists” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], August 26, 2011
          Skeptical Science: The Partnership with Al Gore
          “This morning, had a long skype call with a guy working with Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project. […] He brought up the possibility of a partnership. […] an exciting opportunity and another vindication of what we’re doing” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 27, 2011
          Skeptical Science: From Al Gore to Al Jazeera
          “Al Jazeera want[s] to feature SkS as the Site of the Week… Am sending them some info and pics now.” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 28, 2011
          Skeptical Science: Too Inaccurate for Joe Romm
          “Just got this email from Joe Romm: You must do more post vetting. More errors are creeping into posts and it will start making people like me wary of using them.” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], December 2, 2011
          Skeptical Science: “Drown Them Out”
          “Badgersouth [John Hartz] and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated “Crusher Crew” where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011″

        • LLAP says:

          @Gator: Excellent find! I enjoyed reading it.

        • Ben says:

          RE: AveryHarden – “That is a worthy agenda”

          Compare scienceofdoom.com to skeptical science. One is full of vitriol, one is full of science. Both are pro-AGW.

        • averyharden says:

          There are extremes on every side of an issue. I don’t know what science of doom is and from the title, don’t care to know. It is like all those political pundits on tv, I never watch. I just want the facts, not opinion. There is to much opinion out there. We all have our partianship, the key is to recognize when we are being partisan and strive to find the nonpartisian.

        • Ben says:

          RE: Avery Harden – ” I just want the facts, not opinion.”

          I just handed you a gift, and you refuse to even look at it. scienceofdoom.com is fact and only facts. It’s math, lot’s of math. Vetted math. Peer reviewed by both sides, math.

          Best of all, they agree with you. I encourage you to at least look.

        • averyharden says:

          I will, thanks. You have to admit the name is bit off putting.

        • averyharden says:

          Ben, I admit I didn’t look too long at it. I read the first article and skimmed the second. It is a bit intellectual for my monkey brain. I like the instant gratification and political implications of Steve’s site here. I’m a political junkie first and climate science as an afterthought. I will check the site again later.

        • Ben says:


          Below is a quote from John Cook regarding scienceofdoom.com

          “Posted on 17 May 2010 by John Cook

          Back in February, Skeptical Science was honoured to receive the Woody Guthrie award from Dan’s Wild Science Journal. The idea is the award gets passed on from blog to blog, to those whom they deem a ‘thinking blog’. I’ve been sitting on it for nearly 3 months now but it’s time to dust off the award and regretfully pass it onto a worthier recipient. I’ve been agonising between a well known climate blog which I’ve admired for years and a newer, lesser known blog which has been a favourite haunt of mine in recent months. Finally, I made a decision today and have passed the award onto The Science of Doom by Steve Carson.”


        • averyharden says:

          The writing is obviously good. I wonder how big an audience he reaches. Still, for a layman like me, I like this site. I read skepticalscience but would not have anything interesting to add to the discussion. I am taking a great, free, online class in climate science right now. Called Conserva. You might find that interesting.

      • averyharden says:

        I guess that means you didn’t read the article.

  7. averyharden says:

    Steve, can you elaborate on how “land subsidence” relates to what I quote above your comment?

    • Tide gauges measure the relative level of water and land. They can’t distinguish between sea level rising and land sinking. All of the tide gauges which report “high sea level rise rates” are actually recording land subsidence.

      Does water pool at one end of your bathtub? Of course not – water seeks a flat surface.

  8. averyharden says:

    Any time the name Skeptical Science comes, the kneejerk response is to bash John Cook. The material on that site is heavily documented by lots of science. It is hardly the “opinion” of one man. Keep your bashing to the overwhelming consensis of scientist that accept the validity of global warming. You guys doing the disinformation campaign are a very loud, but small minority.

  9. averyharden says:

    gator, I can see why you probably can’t get a post in on SkepticalScience, but I won’t elaborate.

    • LLAP says:

      @Avery: See my post (above) and Gator’s (below mine).

      • averyharden says:

        I saw all that. Words are cheap.

        • gator69 says:

          Things you do not understand have no value. Ignorance is costly.

        • LLAP says:

          So, what you are saying is it is OK for John Cook to be devious. Lovely.

        • averyharden says:

          No, I’m just saying you don’t get it and your incurious mind is on the wrong side of history.

        • gator69 says:

          A Gleickist! 😆

        • LLAP says:

          @Avery: “No, I’m just saying you don’t get it”

          What don’t I get? Be specific.

        • averyharden says:

          Peer reviewed climate science articles come out every day. This is new stuff, building on what we already know. This massive foundation of what is known gets added to daily in small increments. These scientist spend inordinate amounts of time in research and preparing their articles for review by the scientific community. The papers get critiqued and made better. As a general reader myself, it takes a lot of effort to try and keep up with the evolving, ever refining, science.
          If you guys were legit, you would do the same. Instead you spend your time calling the scientist liars and frauds. When I read many of the sources you ask me to read, I often find they do not conclude what you are saying. They usually find issues with methodology but they don’t question the underlying science of global warming. They probably resent you sourceing them. Many of the people you all quote can be sourced back to pundits misquoting original sources.
          The denialist community is wasting everyone’s time, sort of like slowing down the process of letting the world know that cigarettes were bad for us.

        • kbray in california says:

          Obviously your enthusiasm for CAGW gives you a-very-hard-on.

        • averyharden says:

          I think what makes America great is our propensity to debate. Every citizen has power to try and influence people. We have always done it, and hopefully will continue to retain that right. I am currently taking an online class of climate science and am excited to be learning so much. I have also done lots of independent reading on the subject for years. I have travelled a good bit which reinforces my concern about the health of the planet. For example, Haiti was once a lush tropical place and today is mostly a man made desert. It is rare to see a blue sky in China. The list is endless. What are we leaving the kids and grandkids? This is a small fragile planet. The US can not wall itself off from what happens elsewhere.
          I appreciate that Steve has not cut me off. I expect it to happen any day.

        • I cut people off when it becomes obvious that they are only here to disrupt any intelligent discussion. You haven’t given any indication of that.

    • gator69 says:

      You never elaborate, you only bloviate. And note that those of us who ARE seeking truth are not censoring.

    • David says:

      Avery, you called a very detailed referenced response to Cook’s site, knee jerk. Go back and read the criticism, with the links. The only knee jerk response was yours.

  10. Glacierman says:

    Post hijacking. Avery is getting too far with it.

  11. averyharden says:

    Gotta run, no one disputes natural variability, just that man is adding something on top of it.

    • gator69 says:

      And without being able to determine NV, it is impossible th blame man.

      • averyharden says:

        As I have said before, the issue is not natural variation vs man; the issue is natural variation with the effect of man added to it. Feeback loops are where the problems arise when the natural variation processes are thrown out of balance by man’s byproduct waste. Also, natural variation processes taken place over much longer periods of geologic time than what we are seeing in the relatively short 100 years of man’s impact.

        • gator69 says:

          OK genius, list all the NV forcings and their contributions to climate change.

          Get busy! 😆

        • averyharden says:

          Let me see what I can do. You all are big on solar activity variations, though that is in a down cycle right now so we should be cooling. You won’t like this one but the million year chart showing 100,000 year variations of temperature and CO2 toggling along together is interesting. Clouds certainly have an influence. El Nino, la nina are a big influence.
          Thats all I can think of off the top of my head. I know there are a lot more. Tell me some.

        • gator69 says:

          Just as I thought, you don’t have a clue.

          Sunspots have been more prevalent over the past 70 years than at any time over the last 8,000 years. Feedback loops only exist in models.

          You were able to identify only ONE NV forcing, and got it wrong. 😆

          What a fool.

        • averyharden says:

          Some false statements there, I will get back to it.

        • averyharden says:

          You are so wrong about feedback loops. Sort of like saying gravity doesn’t exist. I want to study and get back to you on feedback loops.

        • gator69 says:

          “Also, natural variation processes taken place over much longer periods of geologic time than what we are seeing in the relatively short 100 years of man’s impact.”

          Ocean cycles? Do they occur only on century plus time scales.

          Steven, he is actually dumber than he pretends.

  12. gator69 says:

    “averyharden says:
    October 11, 2013 at 4:07 pm
    Some false statements there, I will get back to it.”


  13. averyharden says:

    Gator, can’t you have a normal conversation? Ocean cycles, I guess you mean El Nino and la nina. Yes, we had big el nino in 98 and it was very hot in the US. We have been in la nina of late and it has been relatively cooler. This relatively cooler decade we are in is still warmer than the decade before it. Natural variation, I get it. But what about the equivalent of, I think the number is, 4 Hiroshima bombs a second of man made greenhouse heat going into the ocean. You don’t think that has an impact on natural variation of ocean cycles?

    • gator69 says:


      I guess it’s time you read up on the PDO and AMO, et al. 😆

      Find a new hobby.

      • David says:

        The last two years have been ESON neutral. Avery, have you heard of the Oregon Petition, signed by over thirty thousand scientist, with over 11,000 PHDs?

        • averyharden says:

          The interesting thing about this site is that I am learning all the denial arguments. Now I just learned what the Oregon Petition is. I suggest you go to Wikipedia. They do a full description of it, then they show the criticisms of it. I suggest you read it. It is obvious that the list of signatories is bogus and the conclusion is even more bogus.

        • The interesting things about this site are the massive amount of documentation of climate fraud by government scientists, and the written evidence that the climate has always been troublesome.

          But you have your blinders on, and you don’t see it.

        • averyharden says:

          I just got thru enjoying the response to modeling by watching that nice fashion show of models and now we get a horse. I like your loosey goosey standards of moderating.

        • gator69 says:

          “Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

          In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.”

          So, they DO have over 31,000 scientists, in spite of the chicken little claims.

          The there is the Union of Concerned Scientists who have Dr Kenji…

          “Reader DJ writes in Tips & Notes:

          Since becoming a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists when I found out all you needed was a valid credit card, my curiosity about who and what they really are has spiked.

          I decided to put that theory to the test. I am very proud to announce that a member of my family has been accepted into this prestigious organization. With pride, I present new UCS member, Kenji Watts:

          Yes, Kenji is our dog. Apparently, the claim is true, all that is required to be a member of the illustrious group of “concerned scientists” is a valid credit card. No discerning questions were asked of me when I prepared Kenji’s application and no follow up check after the application was done. I simply put in his name, address, and provided a valid credit card that matched the address.”

          But then appeals to authority are for religions, and not science.

          As Galileo explained, it is “certain that the number of those who reason well in difficult matters is much smaller than the number of those who reason badly….reasoning is like running and not like carrying, and one Arab steed will outrun a hundred jackasses.”

        • averyharden says:

          At the end of the day, the Oregon Petition is a political document pushed by the usual suspects. It had nothing to do with science.

        • gator69 says:

          You are beyond stupid. The UCS is a political organization that does not even check credentials. The Oregon Petition has a vetting process to insure credibility.

          I have no patience for the willfully ignorant.

        • averyharden says:

          Many of the signatures could not be confirmed, some have distanced themselves from it. You read the whole story of it and it smells to high heaven of politics.

        • gator69 says:

          It is still more credible than the UCS, or even the IPCC, who have had Greenpeace members as authors.

          You suffer from confirmation bias and self inflicted ignorance. I have shown you are wrong and yet you keep squawking.

        • averyharden says:

          Wikipedia has more credibility than you or me, check out the Oregon Petition there.

        • gator69 says:

          Wiki has more credibility than you, not me. And their argument was refuted.

          Quit punishing yourself.

  14. gator69 says:

    The parrot squawks…

    “I think the number is, 4 Hiroshima bombs a second of man made greenhouse heat going into the ocean. You don’t think that has an impact on natural variation of ocean cycles?”

    More model driven drivel lapped up by the moron! 😆

    • averyharden says:

      You seem to even deny the scientific method. I guess that is a prerequisite to be a denialist.

      • gator69 says:

        Explain to me how I am denying the Scientific Method.

        I am not a NV denier, like you.

        • averyharden says:

          Modeling is standard practice in all areas of science. Models simply say, “if conditions are this, maybe we can presume that result”. Climate science models I have seen make a range of assumptions and a range of possible outcomes. The criticism I see coming from you all about models zeros in on just one of the assumptions of the model and ignore that the same model included other assumptions and predicted a range of possible outcomes.

        • gator69 says:

          You cannot accurately model that which you do not understand.


          End of discussion.

        • tom0mason says:

          Computer Models
          “On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], “Pray, Mr. Babbage,” if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right “answers come out?” I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.” – Charles Babbage, Computer Pioneer, 1864

          Known Climate Modeling Errors are in –
          – Clouds
          – Convection
          – Cosmic Rays
          – Eastern Boundary Regions of the Oceans
          – El Nino
          – Evaporation
          – Macroturbulence
          – Mountain Range Circulation
          – Multi-Decadal Variability
          – Near-Surface Temperatures at Night
          – Precipitation
          – Regional Climate Change
          – Seasonal Variability
          – Spatial Variations in Geothermal Heat
          – Stratosphere Climate Change
          – Transfer of Solar Radiation in the Atmosphere
          – Tropical Troposphere Temperatures
          – Upper Tropospheric Humidity

          “…all of our models have errors which mean that they will inevitably fail to track reality within a few days irrespective of how well they are initialized.” – James Annan, William Connolley, RealClimate.org

          “These codes are what they are – the result of 30 years and more effort by dozens of different scientists (note, not professional software engineers), around a dozen different software platforms and a transition from punch-cards of Fortran 66, to fortran 95 on massively parallel systems. […] No complex code can ever be proven ‘true’ (let alone demonstrated to be bug free). Thus publications reporting GCM results can only be suggestive.” – Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.org

        • averyharden says:

          Maybe you would agree that modeling can be a useful tool and that our ability to do modeling gets better as our software gets better. You are not suggesting that scientist should not do modeling?

        • gator69 says:

          Science should not rely upon models alone, and that is all the warmists have. I prefer studying facts, not fictions.

          Natural variability can explain everything we are seeing. Panic. 😆

        • Robertv says:

          My kind of models.

          I don’t know if they did any CO2 level study in the hall .

      • tom0mason says:

        Any for of model is useful in science is as far as it illuminates the true of nature. A scientific model is must be open to replication and validation for its purpose.

        Climate models are neither. They are a crime against the scientific community and anyone that holds them as a valid method to interpret climate is an idiot.

        • gator69 says:

          Or a fraud.

        • tom0mason says:

          You are correct as Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,”

        • averyharden says:

          Interesting to have flushed out this aspect of the denial side regarding modeling. I had no idea that a simple tool that is part of the scientific method could be such a lighting rod. Scientist should be free to seek their information anyway they think useful. Why would you want to restrict them? If there are problems with the results of models, peer review will flush it out.

        • tom0mason says:

          Sorry I can’t reply right now you have me laughing so much….

        • tom0mason says:

          Sorry about that but you really are a joker. Just as a little example of what’s going on please see WUWT blog or for a public record of dissent –

        • averyharden says:

          I did a quick skim there. It was basically the laundry list of all the things we are talking about here. It is too political, especially coming from the House. it makes it sounds like everyone is off into their own extreme camps with no middle ground. When you get into the list of “skeptics” and actually read what they are saying, they are not fundamentally disagreeing with the underlying science. They are talking methodology and degees of understanding and reasonableness of actually changing things. That is the way scientist talk.
          The problem is with the politicians creating a war where there isn’t one. Scientist aren’t absolutist like politicians are. They know new evidence arrives everyday and you have to adapt. Politicians can’t just read a paper till they find something they like then sort of ignore the rest.
          The dissagreement is not as great as some would make it out to be and agreement is greater than some would admit.

        • tom0mason says:

          Climate Change IS politics, science is secondary.
          And that is all I have to say on it!

        • tom0mason says:

          Oops….take 2
          Any model is useful in science if it illuminates the truth in nature. A true scientific model must be open to replication and validation for its purpose, to be considered useful.

          Sadly Climate models are neither. They are a crime against the scientific community and anyone that holds them as a valid method to interpret climate effects is an idiot.

        • averyharden says:

          I saw some modeling from a week before hurricaine Sandy hit and it was spot on. It is rare for such a storm to go where it did but this model saw it a week before. The quality of modeling improves as fast as the quality of software development. It is a good tool, not the only tool by any means.

        • tom0mason says:

          As I said there is nothing wrong with models. They are a tool but they are not proof of anything. They are just a tool.

          Climate models are nothing but unvalidated programs tweaked to give the required output by non-programers, and their output is dross. Anyone who believes the climate models are useful needs their head examining.

        • averyharden says:

          Models are just one of many tools scientist use. You underestimate the intelligence of people.

        • tom0mason says:

          Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,”

        • gator69 says:

          The warmists rely solely on models. Every one of their predictions is based upon models.

          Everything we are seeing is within the boundaries of NV.

        • tom0mason says:


        • averyharden says:

          Take away the tools from scientists and get back to what you want, magical thinking.

      • Robertv says:

        Models are a tool to sell the product but don’t necessarily reflect reality. Most (99,9%) women don’t look like this.

  15. gator69 says:

    The parrot squawks…

    “You are so wrong about feedback loops. Sort of like saying gravity doesn’t exist. I want to study and get back to you on feedback loops.”

    More model driven drivel lapped up by the moron. 😆

  16. Sundance says:

    Avery Harden – I just wanted to thank you for the comedy that you bring to this thread. My personal favorite joke was when you claimed an actual scientists with published studies to be bogus and then offered a cartoonist who worked on children’s books his whole life as your source of climate dogma. ROTFLMAO

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s