First Round Knockout At Madison Square Gardens

ScreenHunter_441 Dec. 19 18.11

ScreenHunter_442 Dec. 19 18.16

Twitter / SteveSGoddard: @ClimateOpp @tan123 @USATODAY …

Change in Manhattan sea level shows essentially no correlation with change in global temperature, but correlates almost perfectly with time (i.e. linear glacial rebound.)

ScreenHunter_444 Dec. 19 18.59

About stevengoddard

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

43 Responses to First Round Knockout At Madison Square Gardens

  1. redjefff says:

    Let your twitter wrath rage πŸ˜‰ Our National Energy Board has recommended the approval of the Northern Gateway Pipeline. looks like China gets our oil. Incidently, THEY will pay world price whereas America got a substantial discount as they were our ONLY practical purchaser. No more $88 for $110/bbl of oil!

    • redjefff says:

      Unconfirmed reports say David Pukezuki’s head blew like a champagne cork. In true eco fashion his acolytes have decided to let his body rot in place.

      Just as well, it had started to bloat some years back.

  2. Laz M says:

    The solution to the Manhattan sea-level rise is a flying, nuclear powered DeLorean!

  3. Traitor In Chief says:

    ….. like shooting fish in a barrell

  4. Scott Scarborough says:

    The first plot of Temp. and sea level seems more scattered than the time plots suggest. Both temperature and sea level are generally going up over time. It is surprising that there is so little correlation. Obviously time is a better predictor of sea level at NYC than temperature.

    • The plot is the five year change in sea level vs change in temperature.

      Why are you surprised? Sea level is up linearly while nearly half the time temperature was going down. No correlation.

  5. Ben says:


    Masterful sir. Set the bait. Wait for reply.

    It is clear that victory was 97% preparation, 100% pure fun.

    They are not prepared…

  6. Noel says:

    Anyone can say anything on the internet but this is a matter of science and hence the opinions of unqualified individuals are neither here nor there. If you wanted to make a scientific claim, what you would need to do (whoever you are) is to fulfil the basic sanity check for a coherent, scientific argument by attempting to have your ideas published in a reputable journal. Otherwise you are just another blowhard with a blog.

    • Anyone with basic scientific training can see that there is no correlation between global temps and Manhattan sea level. Your refusal to acknowledge that, combined with your desire to censor discussion is very telling.

      Do you also believe that citizens are unqualified to debate politics?

      • Noel says:

        We were talking about science not politics. You presume to make technical arguments which challenge a scientific consensus (please don’t attempt some dreary argument that “consensus” is not science) and yet you have no formal training or expertise in climate science, no history of research, and thus are manifestly not qualified to do so.

        If New York sea levels seem puzzling you might reasonably ask questions and try to learn more about the subject. If there is disagreement or uncertainty amongst climate scientists, you could reasonably argue for a point of view – but only at second-hand by referring to published papers and opinions of those with genuine expertise in the field.

        However, is not reasonable simply to announce some factoid which you deem to be controversial and immediately congratulate yourself on winning a “debate” which no-one else is even engaged in. The idea that we might draw conclusions about global phenomena from a single data point is, frankly, laughable.

        • I’m not arguing against your imaginary consensus. I am simply showing that there is no correlation between sea level and temperature in Manhattan.

          You have no clue what science is about.

        • Noel says:

          ” I’m not arguing against your imaginary consensus. I am simply showing that there is no correlation between sea level and temperature in Manhattan.”

          You specifically stated that 8″ of sea level rise at NYC due to global warming was “impossible”. Am I to assume that you agree with the +8″ from global warming but you believe this has been offset by -8″ from other factors such as ocean currents, subsidence, or whatever (please explain)?

          That sea levels are rising due to global warming is indeed a consensus view amonst national science academies and climate researchers. This is all very well-documented and quite easy to learn about if you are prepared to make the effort.

        • Oh. please …. I said nothing of the sort. I said that the increase in sea level seen on the tide gauge correlated perfectly with subsidence, not at all with temperature.

          You also don’t understand that it only takes one failing case to disprove a theory.

          If you can’t follow the conversation, don’t get involved.

          O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
          To see oursels as ithers see us!
          It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
          An’ foolish notion:
          What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
          An’ ev’n devotion!

        • Noel says:

          Allow me to refresh your memory:
          Michael Oppenheimer ‏@ClimateOpp 23h
          @SteveSGoddard @tan123 @USATODAY postglacial=4″since 1900 out of total 12″ at NYC. The rest is due to warming.
          Steve Goddard ‏@SteveSGoddard 23h
          @ClimateOpp @tan123 @USATODAY That is impossible. CRU shows 1850-1910 temperatures declining, while the tide gauge increased linearly.

          You specifically reject the idea that global warming has contributed 8″ of sea level rise at NYC.

          Your claim that sea level data from a single location may constitute “a single failing case which disputes a theory” is scientifically ridiculous. Many factors affect sea level and a general rise due to warming may accomodate individual locations which are above or below the trend.

        • I see. You have absolutely no clue what we were discussing. I rejected his assertion bolded below.

          Michael Oppenheimer ‏@ClimateOpp 23h
          @SteveSGoddard @tan123 @USATODAY postglacial=4β€³since 1900 out of total 12β€³ at NYC. The rest is due to warming.
          Steve Goddard ‏@SteveSGoddard 23h
          @ClimateOpp @tan123 @USATODAY That is impossible. CRU shows 1850-1910 temperatures declining, while the tide gauge increased linearly.

          There is no correlation with temperature and almost 100% correlation with time – indicative of linear glacial rebound.

        • Andy Oz says:

          Robbie Burns is wasted on alarmists.
          Then again it might make their brains short circuit which could be a good thing.

        • Noel says:

          In fact, I understand exactly what you said. You claimed that +12″ (including +8″ due to warming) at NYC since 1900 is “impossible” and to support this you expressed the scientifically naive idea that sea level rise at a specific location should be correlated with temperature.

        • I demonstrated that his 4/8 split has zero scientific support. You are obsessed with defending your religion, and can’t think or discuss the topic rationally.

    • Andy DC says:

      Science should be reasonably explainable. To adjust temperatures by cooling the past and warming the present deserves a reasonable coherent explanation that no one seems capable of giving. Without a reasonable explanation, it gives the appearance of cheating, to further a political agenda.

    • Ben says:


      I think Noel is on to something. People should wait until they publish in a peer reviewed journal before announcing an astute observation or discovery.

      Imagine how much better the world would have been if Shoemaker-Levy had kept their discovery to themselves until they were published.

      Mathematicians like Terence Tao have it all wrong. Group exchange and interaction supported by projects like polymath8 only appears to lead to faster discoveries. It would have been better if all those mathematicians kept their ideas to themselves. Of course Terence should have written the paper first, but he isn’t taking Noel’s advice. Instead he is writing the paper last.

      Blinders on Noel, blinders on.

      • Noel says:

        Pre-publication announcements of important new ideas are fine provided an individual does intend to publish and thus present a formal, exhaustive argument to back up their claims.

    • Robert Austin says:

      Well Noel, we have also seen that so called qualified individuals regularly manage to have garbage science published in the august scientific journals and take license to freely spout scientific nonsense (Hansen for example) in aid of their cause. So it just depends on whether you want to surrender your mind to the alleged authorities or you want to do the hard slogging of checking the facts for yourself (Steven Goddard). You are free not to come here and read what Steven has to say. You are also free to put your trust in the Oppenheimers of the world. Just keep in mind the old saying “There’s a sucker born every minute” and just maybe I am one of them.

    • tom0mason says:

      ‘Climate science’ has little to nothing to do with science, and just about zero to do with climate. It sole reason to exist is to control people, to keep them scared while offering evermore expensive answers to a non-problem.

      It is about control

    • Tel says:

      Who gets to qualify the individuals and on what basis?

      Who gets to decide which journals are reputable?

  7. Jason Calley says:

    “If you wanted to make a scientific claim, what you would need to do (whoever you are) is to fulfil the basic sanity check for a coherent, scientific argument by attempting to have your ideas published in a reputable journal.”

    If people like Noel did not exist, then comedians would have to create them.

    Speaking seriously here for a moment, I am always puzzled by comments such as Noel’s. He is apparently educated — at least he seems to have good grammar, correct spelling (and extra points for not even any typos), clear phrasing and a good vocabulary. How can Noel be this well educated and yet still completely misunderstand how science works? Perhaps he is an example of C.P. Snow’s “The Two Cultures” situation.

    I suspect that Noel (if he is reading this) will be shouting, “NO! NO! It is not ME who misunderstands science — it is YOU!” I assure you, Noel, the great majority of people who hang around WUWT do so only because they spent enough time researching the subject to see that the CAGW hypothesis is deeply wrong. You, Sir, have been hood winked, but not by anyone on this blog.

  8. Andy Oz says:

    Alarmism is the 21st century religious belief system.
    For whom and for what benefit is easy to see.

    “Ye Hypocrites, are these your pranks
    To murder men and gie God thanks
    Desist for shame, proceed no further
    God won’t accept your thanks for murder.”

  9. Gamecock says:

    Noel insists we believe only the experts.

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman

    • Noel says:

      I am quite sure you understand that he never intended this to be used as a club to attack all scientific expertise.

      He is referring to the progress of science and the fact that our knowledge expands in lots of little steps where older ideas give way to better ones. Sometimes that is a dramatic change, sometimes a subtle refinement to the limits of uncertainty. Newtonian mechancis is still valid in the appropriate context although you may need a little Einstein to increase the accuracy of your predictions depending on the question being asked (that incidentally is how modelling works: approximations used to create the model may not materially affect the question under investigation).

      In order to reveal the “ignorance of experts” you are required to produce solid evidence and valid, detailed arguments which can withstand objective scrutiny. Scientific progress depends on real expertise in the subject and years of hard work not the kind of narcisssistic presumption that unqualified individuals are perfectly capable of judging the fine points of a discipline of which they have at best a very superficial knowledge.

      Science is concerned with objective truth not subjective opinion. That is your fundamental problem.

      • Gamecock says:

        “Science is concerned with objective truth not subjective opinion. That is your fundamental problem.”

        You are concerned with who utters it. That is your fundamental problem.

      • I am addressing an extremely simple and fundamental problem. Change in sea level does not correlate with either absolute temperature or change in absolute temperature.

        What is astonishing is that such a fundamental problem has slipped through peer-review.

        • Noel says:

          I’m not here to debate matters of science which you are not qualified to discuss except in the broadest of terms. I’m here to point out the ignorance and presumption of false scepticism.

          You are correct that average global sea level is not perfectly correlated with average global temperature. Local sea level even less so.

          You are quite wrong to say that this has somehow “slipped through peer-review”. Factors affecting sea-level changes have been studied for well over century. There is much to learn about for anyone willing to do so.

        • In other words, you are getting your butt kicked and resorting to meaningless statements and appeals to authority.

          The correlation between change in GISS/CRU global temps and change in sea level is zero. Junk science doesn’t get any worse than that.

        • Noel says:

          If you want to “kick butt” you’ll first have to learn enough about the subject to make meaningful statements.

          Surface temperature records do not always correlate to sea level, either at a given location or as a global average (they don’t even correlate perfectly to global warming but that’s another story) and no-one expects that they should. The “failure” which you like to trumpet does not affect theories which did not depend upon it in the first place.

          You’re trying to run before you’ve even learned how to walk.

        • The discussion is about sea level on the East Coast of the US. You may well be the stupidest person I have encountered yet.

        • Noel says:

          The only stupidity on display is your expectation regarding sea level response to temperature and the belief that you can make some kind of point about climate science and global warming by cherry-picking a 60 year period of measurements from a single location from two centuries ago (!).

        • I see. So you believe that sea level on the East Coast has responded to temperature change, but the signal mysteriously bypassed New York, which has the longest and most complete record in the US.

          It must be that new kind of water which hides heat, and sea level rise.

        • Noel says:

          Sea level is affected by many factors: glacier-induced deformation of the earth’s crust, the gravitational effects of large ice masses, ocean currents (AMOC on the east coast), thermal expansion of sea water, the recharge of confined aquifers, centuries-long lags in glacial melt responses, and others. None of these factors correlate perfectly with temperature either individually or en massse, although they are all influenced by temperature (or can be).

          The precise contributions made by different factors at a given location is an interesting question but whatever specific circumstances there may be do not actually affect the big picture, ie the global average.

          Globally, sea level rise is accelerating and, on the east coast, it’s accelerating even faster than the global average. The changes cannot be explained by post-glacial subsidence which is actually decreasing gradually over time.

        • Water is a very low viscosity fluid. If there was catastrophic sea level rise going on, it would be seen at all tide gauges around the planet. Every single one of them.

  10. Noel says:

    That would be true in a bathtub but the earth is a highly dynamic system the size of an, er, planet. I’ve already mentioned several influences which mean that sea levels do not conform to this naive expectation. It’s up to you now to stop talking and start learning.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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