Falling Sea Level

Sea level has been falling on the Atlantic seaboard for the past six years.

Screenshot 2016-03-21 at 09.18.43 PM

8534720 Atlantic City, New Jersey

Screenshot 2016-03-21 at 09.11.47 PM

8518750 The Battery, New York

Our top scientists say that Manhattan will be underwater no later than 2018, but this appears unlikely.

CXw8FQ6UMAA6kLt

Stormy weather – Salon.com

Sea level rise rates on the Atlantic seaboard peaked around 1950. There is no “human footprint.” None at all.

8518750 (2)

Sea Level Trends – Variation of 50-year Mean Sea Level Trends

About stevengoddard

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

397 Responses to Falling Sea Level

  1. Mark Luhman says:

    It is truly a scary world when some not right about anything is though as someone with all the answers. Is it that they all are the music man after all they all claim there is trouble in River City, in the play and movie it was about pool in today’s world, it is about climate, the worst part of this story is Hanson a lowly public employee ended up a rich to the tune of several million dollars yet his acolytes don’t understand how bad they have been played.

  2. Steve Case says:

    Satellite data says that the rate of sea level rise has been falling over the last ten years:

    • Jon says:

      You understand that what this graph shows is that rate at which the sea level is rising is decreasing, not that the sea level is decreasing (or getting lower), right? In fact, this graph shows that the rate in which the water is rising has stated to increase again.

      • Mike W. says:

        Too short a time period to make either projection. It could be reversion to the mean, or it is simply cyclic.

        • Oscarphone says:

          And the numbers here we are talking about are minuscule. A a little over a 1.5 tenths over four years. What’s the error factor here?

      • The sea level has been raising since the end of the last ice age, it will continue to rise until the next one starts. So of course we would only expect to see a change in the rate of increase vs an actual decrease. On a side note, if there were no sea level increase there would be no Mediterranean Sea.

      • Jon,

        In fact, as you note, the chart indicates a wash, being useful to argue almost anything. So the President and the rest fo the Alarmists who claim that the science is settled to include rising sea levels were wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong. Thanks for agreeing, Jon.

      • A reasonable person might ascertain from the chart that the rise and fall is cyclical, wouldn’t you think?

      • Scott says:

        My guess is that because Steve Case described the chart as “the rate of sea level rise” and the Y-axis of the chart is clearly marked as the “rate of sea level rise”, nobody is confused. Except possibly you.

      • Jon,

        So, you agree that this data can be used to support either case? In doing so, you would be supporting the idea that Pres Obama and the Alarmists are wrong about the clear threat of imminent catastrophic sea level rise being settled science. Thanks for that, Jon.

      • Steve Case says:

        Yes, you have it right, sea levels dropped from 2010 -2011 and since then there’s been a recovery which shows as an uptick. Indeed, my Excel sheet says that since the low point of February 2011 the rate has been a little over 6 mm/yr. The question is whether or not it’s going to continue to rise at that rate?

      • Anthony says:

        And factor in the sea levels have been rising for the last 17000 years.

      • Most people here are here because they know derivatives and integrals are part of the definitions of most terms. Population growth has decelerated since birth control became legal and cheap when there were just over 3 billion people. Yet population more than doubled just the same and the slope is still positive. For a person to work for a living takes energy. Population numbers are unequivocal and huge. We strain at some pretty tiny numbers because those are the very ones totalitarians point to when shrieking for the initiation of force.

    • dhardesty07@hotmail.com says:

      Looks like six years decline with three years rise to me. Not a ten year decline and with an overall change of .26 millimeters. Given the overall noise in the graph .26 millimeters overall change over a period of 10.5 years, as the graph indicates, is rather insignificant. But magic with numbers and outlandish claims do attract attention for the chicken little’s of this planet.

      • Jules says:

        You understand that this graph is measuring 10ths of a millimeter.

        Can you please tell me, is it credible to claim that you can measure sea level from a satellite in space to that level of precision? It seems absurd.

        • Particularly since satellite orbits decay.

        • Patrick B says:

          Again – measurements without proper error analysis. Classic climate reporting, but not science. Scientific measurements always involve proper error analysis – and that involves more than simple calculation of standard deviations.

        • richard40 says:

          Even if it could be accurately measured, less than a milimeter per year is so small, in 100 yrs you would have a rise of only a few inches, certainly not enough to redo our entire worlds economy to prevent.

        • And atmospheres evaporate… Mars and Luna have hardly any econazis pleading for totalitarian control because of the imagined evils of industrial civilization.

      • Frank Scott says:

        .26 millimeters is .0102 inches or the thickness of 2 sheets of paper. This does not even reach the level of noise in the grand scope of things.

    • Thank you for the graph and the data. It really helps when you can see these data and not have to rely on pretty media graphics.

    • Joe says:

      Regarding satellite data in general: Did the seas rise or did the satellite move lower? What is the precision used in the measurement of the satellite position, and what are the geological movements of the reference points due to tectonic forces as well as post-glacial spring back (which is far larger than these numbers in many places)? What are the orbital variations of the satellite itself? (It cannot possibly be flying to within 1 mm of its previous orbit per rotation…the earth is too lumpy.) What are the effects of orbital decay? (Hardly insignificant on a 10 year scale.) What are the variations in the gravitational field of the earth (which has to vary slightly if for no other reason than that the core of the earth rotates a bit slower than the crust…)? What is the measurement precision itself? (I presume this is 1/2 of the wavelength of the microwave used to measure)? What is the effect of differing amounts of water vapor in the air through which it is measuring? (This generates scatter, reflection, and mass, hence should have some effect on the successful transmission, length and refraction the measuring beam…) Were all the corrective adjustments to the raw data identical from 2006 to 2015? (Unlikely because someone _always_ decides they are smarter, so most likely changes something…)

    • Frank says:

      Uh, oh! The man-caused climate change industry has overlooked paying off the scientists keeping track of these sea level measurements. They need to get some hush money to those measurement takers ASAP.

  3. But…. but… if the sea level were falling, would not the water get saltier and urani… er… its uranium content also increase? So how are the Sensitive, Concerned and Aware to simultaneously deny the graph, blind themselves to salt levels and turn a deaf ear to the Geiger counters? Is there no end to the demands of Citizenship and Faith?

    • Marty M says:

      How dare you bring in real issues questioning this “science”. /s

    • Al D says:

      The water would perhaps get a little saltier, but could do the opposite due to other factors. Uranium levels wouldn’t necessarily rise for reasons independent of sea level data.

  4. Daniel Haney says:

    Circa 2004….
    And, in other news, Al Gore predicts that in 10 years the poles will no longer be ice covered.
    “This is proven science”, said Gore.

    • MichMike says:

      The personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the average of the other 99%. Not surprising to anyone. What surprises people is when they realize this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of all U. S. CO2 emissions. What then enrages them is that all the plans being implemented and proposed will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive. Just a different way to see the scam.

      • richard40 says:

        Glenn Reynolds had a saying on that. He said when the elite 1% leftists who are constantly telling us this is a crisis, start behaving themselves as if it is a crisis, then perhaps it is a real crisis. A good tipoff for me is if they really believe the sea levels are rising, and the climate warming, due to mainly human activity, why aren’t they reducing their own carbon footprints (the carbon offset indulgence virtue signalling scam does not count, I mean they actually use less carbon themselves), start selling all their beachfront property to prepare for rising sea levels, and buying farmland in cold states and in canada, then I might believe there is really something going on..

    • CDR says:

      The antarctic ice sheet is the largest in recorded history … and the arctic ice sheet, which did reach recorded minimums three years ago, has seen a steady recovery. Hmmm …

  5. Ppie says:

    I live in Manhattan and on the west side. The west side highway or where the sea wall meets the hudson river isn’t close to being under water even during high tide. There’s definitely not tape on anyone’s windows and the wind is the same as it always has been. The tall buildings create canyons and certain times of year like winter tend to be very windy but the buildings and windows are engineered for this, no tape required. Any restaurant you go to they automatically put water on the table whether you want it or not, it’s called good service. As for the increase in crime it’s because of bad policy and a hostile relationship with the police by the current liberal mayor.

    • Randy says:

      It’s not the same happy story in Miami. The sea level is up to the first floor of the Brickell apartments and half the coastline is inundated. Crime is on the rise, it’s hotter than haedes here and pestilence is on the rise. I routinely see people with tiny heads because of the Zika virus so Obama needs to throw ANOTHER $2B at fighting it.

    • Randy says:

      Ooooooh . . .you live on the WEST side! Nough said!

    • wwickeddogg says:

      There’s no increase in crime over the past 20 years, there is a huge decrease. Why would you get this so wrong?

  6. Didn’t t you hear?The sea level isn’t rising because the ground is more absorbent than what was once thought. I’m sure the climate change is also affecting the absorbency of soil, so there is a chance sea levels won’t rise at all. I know it seems like every prediction turns out wrong, but you are all deniers.

    • richard40 says:

      So if you now concede that sea levels are not in fact seriously rising, because as you just stated the rise is being soaked up by something else, basically nature compensating for it, then we dont have a real problem do we. Nobody here is denying any real data, we are just denying the radical environmentalist scare story interpretation of it. It looks to me like if anything is going on, nature is doing an excellent job of compensating for it and maintaining a steady state, so there is in fact no crisis.

  7. vincent says:

    the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth..The science is in…

  8. J Nerf says:

    The issue is that the observed “rise” or “fall” is less than a dime thick per year, while the actual variance to the measurements is much greater. What the data really means is that nobody can be sure (ie its statistically insignificant). If its going up or down, it’s too minute to really tell based on such a chaotic data set. But things like statistical significance get sacrificed on the altar of the precautionary principle every day, and the science media eats it up!

    • mandrewa says:

      I’ve had the same thought. The anticipated changes in sea level due to global warming are so small that we can’t actually measure them with our instruments given their imperfections. So what does it actually mean when some paper reports that sea levels are rising? Well I think this is actually partly based on models. That is the prediction is confused with observation. Thus for example we measure an increase in temperature of the ocean surface water in some area and then assume by physics that this corresponds to an expansion of the ocean, but that assumes that there is nothing else changing on in the system, which in fact is not known.

  9. Chain Lynx says:

    Oil…up to 50 mg please.

  10. Harry says:

    Funny, satirical or what? The links you provide show the exact opposite of what you show in your graphs here. Drudge links this with the claim of sea levels falling.

    • The links show exactly what I said. Sea level falling for the last six years.

      • MichMike says:

        The personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the average of the other 99%. Not surprising to anyone. What surprises people is when they realize this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of all U. S. CO2 emissions. What then enrages them is that all the plans being implemented and proposed will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive. I would LOVE for someone else to do more work on this topic as I developed this in about 3 hours using published government data but requiring a fair amount of extrapolation. Thanks!

        • Randy says:

          Is your data seasonally adjusted for variations in the earth orbit around the sun. For example, did you take into account during winter when the instruments are snowed in and no one can get out to read them? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a course in Adjusting Seasonal Variations in Otherwise Straightline Calculations . . .like the unemployment numbers, for example.

      • James says:

        I think that many commenters are confusing the two figures that were included in the article with the first figure that was included in the comments section. But there are many well taken points in the comments. The most interesting is that the units of measurement when compared to the standard deviation render all the fear mongering meaningless.

    • Latitude says:

      Harry, I know this is extremely difficult…but please try to keep up…

      The links are to graphs that go back ~100 years…
      …the post states the last 6 years

      • George says:

        Lattitude, YOU try to keep up. Yes, of course the OP says “6 years’ that’s because he wants of ignore the 100 year trend. This is just as disingenuous as Michael Mann’s hiding the decline with a hockey stick.

        • Latitude says:

          George, what does 6 years mean?

        • George says:

          Are you serious? What does six years mean?

          The first post of the thread lead with this:
          “Sea level has been falling on the Atlantic seaboard for the past six years.”

          You said:
          “The links are to graphs that go back ~100 years…
          …the post states the last 6 years”

        • Latitude says:

          I see……so there’s been an acceleration of sea level rise that kept up with the acceleration of CO2 rise

          moron

        • AndyG55 says:

          You can search as long as you like through the NOAA tide data, you will not find one long term tide series that shows any acceleration of sea level rise.

          There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signal in the NOAA sea level data.

  11. john says:

    Tony so….. you are saying that the sea level in a few places has gone down by .0002 meters in the last six years ? 2 ten thousandths of a meter ?

    Interesting factoid !!
    Is that data ONLY for one small area?
    How does this compare with the GLOBAL sea level? over the longer term ?

  12. B Da Truth says:

    A Global Con Job the largest fraud that has ever been attempted, and it’s time to imprison the perpetrators.

    • ofaycat says:

      You can bet that they will imprison us before we imprison them. The “they” have been planning this stuff for decades while we grazed lazily in the savannas of our decadence.

      It is all part of Agenda 21 (can be read on the UN web site in plain English) … world domination, population reduction. 90% of the planet left wild in no-go zone. But you can bet the elites will helicopter in to hunt.

      • Miss Creant says:

        “…while we grazed lazily in the savannas of our decadence.”
        I LOVE that, stealing it.

        As for the rest of it, I think we need to come up with more distinct definitions of “science” and “pseudoscience”.

    • 2nd biggest con job ever attempted. The 1st is Darwinian evolution. (Macro evolution not adaptation.)

    • you are absolutely 100% right, Al gore has made so much money off of this fraud he should be jailed and starved

      • Owen Glendower says:

        You remind me that I have occasionally said to friends & relatives, “If anyone is going to give me any lectures about my carbon footprint, it’s not going to be people like Al Gore or ‘Gulfstream George’ Clooney.”

  13. Al D says:

    Like I’ve said on several sites, land erosion is why the sea level appears to be rising in some areas. The left found these areas and used them to suck the ignorant masses into believing their lies. Don’t be duped by these money-grubbing tyrants. The globe is NOT warming. The ice is NOT melting at either pole, and the sea levels are NOT rising.

  14. Mark Marlowe says:

    Guys like Hansen…..Never in doubt, often in error.

  15. You can’t just link to random graph and make a claim and say it’s science. What study is this from? Whose research? What satellites? Please elaborate.

  16. Al D says:

    Most of the disappearing water is piling up on Antarctica despite increasing volcanic activity in some areas there. The leftists are using those hot areas to convince their ignorant minions that global warming is causing glacial melting where it is occurring.

  17. Dura_ACe says:

    hmmm….. ALERT_ SPOILER:
    Climate Denier statement ahead!!

    this has to be due to global warming,, ho – but wait, if the Antarctic is melting the levels should go up!!!
    Truth is that climate change has always occurred its only in the last 8 years that the looney left has taken it to be their new mantra….Led by the leader of the looney left the guy who leads from behind. BHO.

    if NOAA presented the data without any fudge data added, we’d see clearly that the global changes are cyclic -and for the record, volcanoes and natural phenomena are the biggest sources of greenhouse gases – not cows farting.

  18. kaykiser says:

    The October issue of Reader’s Digest published “As Our Military Sinks” which led readers to believe that rising sea levels are endangering Norfolk Naval Base and implying thatothermilitarybasesareendangered. What they didn’t say was that the land on which the base is located is actually sinking. See text of my letter to them below. Of course they never printed or acknowledged it.
    “The reason for sea level rise at Norfolk, VA naval facilities is due to land subsidence, not climate change. The area sits on the rim of a 35 million year old impact crater and has been subsiding steadily for all that time. … The prediction of 7 feet rise by 2100 is from a computer model from Virginia Institute of Marine Science that does not agree with reality of today. The suggestion that other global military sites are similarly endangered is unfounded speculation, political propaganda and bad science.”

    • Owen Glendower says:

      Thanks for the info on Norfolk. What’s happening there is not at all typical:

      “Though Norfolk is not unique in facing problems due to climate change, the area is uniquely positioned to feel substantial impacts due to the confluence of three major factors: rising seas, sinking land and shifting currents. Positioned on the Atlantic coastline in Virginia’s Hampton Roads region, Norfolk is experiencing steady land subsidence caused by the area’s unsettled geology and decades of pumping groundwater from the coastal aquifer. Simultaneously, the Atlantic current is shifting and the effects of this are most noticeable at “hot spots” for rising waters along the mid-Atlantic coast. This trifecta of issues means that relative sea level rise in Norfolk is occurring at more than twice the global average. The area is experiencing the highest rate of relative sea level rise on the East Coast.”

      Note that the writers carefully & properly use the term, “RELATIVE sea level rise”. Too bad everyone isn’t that honest.

      Full story here: http://themilitaryengineer.com/index.php/tme-articles/tme-magazine-online/item/481-adapting-to-flooding-in-norfolk

  19. Jonus Huster says:

    Great post. The warming people may have some credible claims. It’s a pity they cry wolf so much that we won’t be able to believe them when the odd time they are right.

  20. Joe says:

    I like to ask my climate change buddies, ” Hasn’t the climate always been changing, even before man? They of course have to answer yes. ” Then what data do you have that spells out how much of climate change is caused by man and how much is natural?” They of course have no answer because they have no data. ( Some try to BS their way around it but they can’t substantiate anything). The climate has always been changing and not always at the same rate. Can man destroy the environment? sure. Can we change the climate, Probably, but not drastically, baring a nuclear exchange. The climate will change more when a large volcano erupts than 1000 Chinese factories running. We should protect the environment but not at the cost of the world economy. The US is doing a pretty good job on practicing clean production. To bad we’re having to compete with those who don’t as they don’t have those costs. That part has to be fixed.

    • Dale Knight says:

      Excellent, succinct post, Joe.

    • chincherella says:

      You’re making too much sense Joe. Interject some raw emotion and a dash of religiosity for the climate true believers, and a good measure of Bolshevik economics– remember, you’re arguing with liberal brains.

    • MichMike says:

      The personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the average of the other 99%. Not surprising to anyone. What surprises people is when they realize this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of all U. S. CO2 emissions. What then enrages them is that all the plans being implemented and proposed will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive. Just a different way to see the scam.

  21. Tiger500 says:

    Global warming is a hoax. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that we actually have global cooling. If we were warming, there would no longer be volcanoes spewing molten magma through the thin crust mantel which is caused by the shrinking of the mantel due to cooling of the mantel.
    Imagine the earth is an apple and the peel is the mantel, the inside of the apple is the 6,000 degree molten magma. The surface is average 20 degrees Centigrade, the temperature gradient in the mantel is about 6,000 degrees, food for thought of thinkers.

  22. Cheyenne says:

    Hi, I’m really interested in finding out a bit more about the information in these graphs. Please let me know if you’d like to discuss.

  23. Jinx Fogle says:

    I am an environmental engineer. Fly over the United States some time look at population density. Then fly over Asia. The problem is in Asia. If we went without anything from now to eternity mans effect on the planet would not change, so come out from under the bed and enjoy life. Don’t fret you will be fine, stop worrying about what the “bad people” are up to. Life is fun, enjoy. If you want change, change your habits. Stop being a bother to the rest of us. I started in the 1970,s “doing my part”. Be happy we were fed bs for years, relax and have fun.

  24. chincherella says:

    This is exactly what was predicted: Ubama promised on the eve of his 2008 election that “…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal;” Why is anyone so surprised– did they all think he was LYING to us?

  25. James says:

    This is very misleading, and not much different than Michael Mann’s controversial hockey stick chart. If you click on the link below each graph, water level has been rising since 1911. Yes, there are periods where it drops for a while, but the obvious undeniable trend is that it’s rising. I don’t know about you, but don’t like it when people try to trick others, regardless of their political views. And from reading most of these comments, the author is getting away with it.

    • Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. 400 feet so far. It has nothing to do with humans.

    • MichMike says:

      The personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the average of the other 99%. Not surprising to anyone. What surprises people is when they realize this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of all U. S. CO2 emissions. What then enrages them is that all the plans being implemented and proposed will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive. Maybe you have an explanation for this?

    • Neal S says:

      You may have problems with basic comprehension. Steven stated particular places, and a particular period of time. He provides links so that you can check for yourself. He made no sweeping claims. You are trying to mislead others by your claim that Steven is misleading. Either that, or you lack basic comprehension. So which is it?

    • George says:

      James, you and I are thinking exactly alike. We’re both embarrassed at the level of dishonesty on this thread.

      Be skeptical of the global warming cultist, but don’t try to debunk them by using their dishonest methods too.

  26. In Christ says:

    For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, “He traps the wise with the snare of their own cleverness.” 1 Corinthians 3:19 NLT

  27. cimmerian77 says:

    #1 BULLSCHITT!! #2 Spare us…. nobody cares. The joke known as science today is the reason we pulled our kids out of public schools.

  28. Jiggles says:

    Sea levels have been falling since the last glacial period over the past ~12,000 years. Simply look at a Google earth satellite map of the coastal progressions since then..no data needed.

  29. joe 812 says:

    There’s a sucker born every minute

  30. More BS from the BS Regime.

  31. R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. (ret.) says:

    I am researching for the guy (or gal) who, in 1988, predicted:
    The West side Highway would rust out and collapse within a century,
    Our city water would contain lead,
    Our national debt would climb above $19 Trillion,
    Our college grads will not find employment, and in part, because some of them will not be able to read or write,
    Our military won two wars in the middle east but were pulled out late in the fourth quarter so our enemies are now killing Christians, Jews and Apostate Muslims from Belgium to India,
    Our leading candidates for President would be either a person under active investigation for committing felonies or a guy who never held a government job.

    When I find the person, I will listen intently to them. I ignore people who claim the sea will rise; they are nuts.

  32. Obviously, space aliens are stealing our water. Those icebergs aren’t melting, they are being teleported onboard the mother ship. I for one welcome our alien overlords. At least they aren’t asking for any money.

  33. Indy says:

    I guess Obama can lower the seas. All hail Obama !

  34. Lee says:

    Definition, “Climate Scientist”: False prophets and seers who are not only consistently wrong in their predictions, but are 180 degrees wrong.

    Definition, “Climate Denier”: An individual with intelligence, common sense, awareness of the real world and facts around them and who cannot be easily fooled or manipulated through the pack mentality.

  35. Justin Tyme says:

    Bummer. At this rate Al Gore will never drown.

  36. Smaug Carbone says:

    FACTS: Leftist’s Criptonite.

  37. hiram floss says:

    the globull warming equation: (available goobermint grants) x (political pressure) + (the carbon tax “facilitators” (who will get rich “facilitating” these unicorn credits)) = the science is settled…

  38. Richard Lord says:

    Until there’s a significant trend discovered over a 75 year period, all this so-called data deserves to be totally ignored. Because there has been one climate model after another found to be erroneous, flawed or a flat-out hoax, the public has adapted to immunize itself from this scientific climate rubbish.

  39. Thomas G says:

    I’m like the large majority of Americans. I could care less about all of this. I do know many
    people are making lots of money off Climate Change. Big conflict of interest, no?

  40. George says:

    All of you are idiots and give nothing but ammo to those who subscribe to the global warming cult.

    The top two graphs give a snapshot of the actual sea level decline over the last 6 years. If you click the link under each graph you’ll see the data graphed over 100 years. As you can plainly see there have been at least six similar declines since 1960, which were followed by additional rises. Go ahead draw those declines and ignore the general trend if you want.

    Whether or not the 100 year trend is of anthropomorphic origin or not, or what to do about it is debatable (certainly not “settled science” as Al Gore says it is) But this moronic analysis of the data by a bunch of idiots isn’t going to help your cause.

  41. Warren Platts says:

    New York used to be under a mile thick, heavy glacier. This could simply be the result of isostatic rebound.

  42. mandrewa says:

    Well, just a quick comment here. Possibly this has already been mentioned but I haven’t read all the comments.

    In any case I’ll mention glacial rebound. I’m not sure exactly when but not that long ago the area was under a mile of ice and I believe the land is still rebounding from that massive weight that has been removed.

    So the measurements in Manhatten are not necessarily reflective of what’s happening in the oceans in general.

    That doesn’t change the point about the Nasa scientist Jim Hansen, who seems to be impervious to evidence that contradicts his predictions and many of his ideas.

    • Glacial rebound is making Manhattan sink. You have it backwards.

      • mandrewa says:

        Well Steve, I’m surprised. I was sure you had it wrong but I just looked it up on wikipedia and according to something called GIA theory Manhattan is sinking slightly because mantle material underneath that part of the North American continent is moving northwest to accommodate the rebound upward of the part of Canadian shield that most recently had major amounts of ice on it.

        It’s a more complicated situation than I realized. Of course this depends on the GIA theory being correct.

        But if so Manhattan is actually sinking something like 1.5 mm per year and that in turn would mean that the Atlantic Ocean has recently been dropping something like 2 mm per year assuming there’s no error in the data or GIA theory.

  43. This story will be ignored by the 2 left coasts.

  44. He did it! Obama did it! He caused the seas to stop rising, just like he said he would! /sarc off

  45. Broseman59 says:

    Water comes from Outer Space yes this is true.

  46. Lou says:

    He is reality—we are flooding in the Atlantic costal cites in south Florida at high tide. Street drainage systems are not draining because the discharge pipes are now at sea level during high tide. Salt water enrichment is taking place in our water table. That wasn’t happening in 2008. So, either the state is sinking, or the water is rising. Those are irrefutable facts. So, don’t go stupid. The climate scientists predicted this and it is going on. You may want to ignore the data, but our city officials, and property owners are not because the reality is the sea has risen enough to start doing damage. Only a dumb ass who live in the safety of the inland areas, would challenge the real world circumstances. Those states suffering from damage, like Louisiana and Florida, have a far more realistic perspective—we are witnessing the changes.

  47. Jim Foles says:

    I have a sea wall in my backyard.. Gulf of Mexico… The water is as low as i have seen it.. Been living here on the same sea wall since 1998.. My oyster line is in the same place as before. Oysters can tell a story.. They stop growing on the median tide line. But that’s just some backyard science… Maybe the Gulf stays low and the Atlantic and Pacific get higher?? maybe ask Al Gore. He probably has a different twist on things.

  48. Stu Pedasso says:

    Probably a good indicator that the whole freakin’ world is going right down the drain?

    • I bow to the superior intellect !

    • Artfldgr says:

      Hi,
      I would like to put my 2cents in… here is what I see based on the physics I took at Bronx science (I now work in research computing in medicine).
      The people doing this work in the environmental area are NOT the best scientists, nor the guys who got top grades in physics, so a lot of what they say or model in their gedanken (thought experiments) sound good, but are not good as they do not take in account the actual physics in the way that a really good physicist would. In fact, I often see them being 180 degrees from what I often think is happening that I wonder why they don’t see it (ignoring the politics and giving them the benefit of doubt)
      Ok. The key here is the conveyor belt… they have it wrong.
      The conveyor belt that circulates is modulated by the temperature. They basically say that when its warm, it speeds up, and when its cold it slows down, but this is 180 degrees opposite of what should happen.
      When warmer, the differential between hot and cold is smaller, and so the conveyor should slow down. This then slows the amount of heat traveling north and the north in the path becomes dry as the water that is picked up is dropped off before it can travel as far.
      When the north is colder, as it is now, the conveyor speeds up, and the water that is picked up travels farther faster, and so increases the snow in winter AND the warm in summer as well. the reason is pretty easy to understand, water is the bucket that holds more heat than air. The colder the north is, the more buckets get trapped in snow, and the more water there is to trap. So, as that happens the conveyor speeds up. as the air has more water, its pressure is higher, as it goes to the poles, the shrinking is greater from any kind of base.
      So if you think of water droplets as buckets of temperature, the colder it is, the more buckets can travel farther and faster and the more buckets get taken out of the stream and are stored in ice and snow.
      From what I read they treat this as a thermal system where heat means more, and cold means less, when the reality of it is the differential between the equators heat modulated by sun spots (whose difference is small but critical at the poles where its difference is a lot more), and the poles modulated by the speed of the conveyor.
      If you think of the gradient as a ramp, the more the difference between the high and low ramp, the faster it goes, not slower. If the globe was warming, the difference would be less and the transport would be less, and so, the net collection of buckets that remain in the north decrease. What happens in the path has to do with the speed of transport and how many water buckets of heat..

      i probably didnt state that with clarity, thats my problem that i have yet to get over and may never get over givne my age. my apologies.

      • LYSOL MOTOROLA says:

        Perhaps you could have just siad that their computer models are just toys. I stopped reading the article when it cited Hansen. go look at
        http://WWW.AMORECONVENIENTTRUTH.COM to see what I really think

      • dt60093 says:

        “as the air has more water, its pressure is higher”

        This is not correct. Water vapor is lighter than water with low humidity. In fact, it weighs 60% as much which is why airplanes need more runway to takeoff when the humidity is high.

      • Marc says:

        I’m a fellow scientist and what you just said shows you know your profession.

        I also know this: you can google planet warming for most of the nine planets in our system and you will find out They Warmed. of course we were there. We did it and we Desperately Need To Be Taxed For Causing Global warming on Mars.

    • Tom says:

      Wow! Can’t argue with that.

    • Noel Celaigh says:

      Stu, I’m a Drain Denier. I believe that Aliens are siphoning off our water…which is bad, but the upside is that next they’re going to kidnap all the really gullible people and enslave them on their desert planet.

      then again…it could be the Clintons, stockpiling water behind their outhouse in Arkansas.

  49. I know that climate has been changing ever since we were born as a planet. It’s called weather and it has nothing to do with us. Mother Nature doesn’t need us. She takes care of herself. When she needs it warmer, the sun is hotter, when she needs it cooler, the sun is cooler. It has nothing to do with “man made” anything. And the “enlightened” ones told us that the water would be covering all of California by now. Is there anything we won’t swallow anymore?

    • Brandon says:

      Climate and weather are NOT the same thing. The suns temperature is controlled by the earth? Wow, you are stupid and by the way I know what you are swallowing. Psst…since you are so stupid and probably don’t get it I’m talking about cum.

      • Bill Lawrence says:

        Bingo!!! There you have it. All the intelligence, class, and maturity we have come to expect from certain types. Really makes you want to give a lot of weight to his pronouncements, doesn’t it?

        • Brandon says:

          Ahhh did I insult your Victorian sensibility? He used a bad word so it discredits his intelligence. I love how conservatives act so pious and self righteous while in public but are privately the most perverted and sexually deviant group in this country.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor Brandon,
          A newt in a human’s world.
          Reeks of far-left envy, despite and hatred.
          No wonder he “feels” so insignificant.

        • Vince says:

          Poor Brandon. A voice crying in the wilderness of “conservative” common sense. Why can’t be we all be as brainwashed as he is? Alas.

      • The difference between climate and weather is the same as the difference between dollars and cents. It’s the cents part you lack.

      • Pat O says:

        sure, Brandon, but stupid and willful ignorant are the same, and I like how you combine both without diminishing either.

      • Bob Dabolina says:

        You chose to insult this person by generalizing that they are gay and assuming they would be hurt by that. Accusing someone of having cum in their mouth to insult them illustrates a fascism within a person’s character that encompasses the entirety of liberal ideology.

        • Brandon says:

          Did you get some word of the day toilet paper? That wasn’t a generalization, that was me spinning their words to insult them. I personally have no problem with homosexuals but I know conservatives do and would take it as an insult. WTF does insinuating someone is gay have to do with fascism? Damn you people are stupid. As much as you want to assert that fascism is left-wing doesn’t make it true. Fascism is a right-wing system of government. FACT

        • g.w.kimball says:

          Brandon, read The Road to Serfdom, the classic discussion of why fascism and collectivist governments have the same structure. You might be a little more careful about who you call ignorant or stupid…

      • Mark M says:

        “Climate and weather are NOT the same thing.”
        For those who didn’t get the latest “settled science” memo:

        “A few years ago, talking about weather and climate change in the same breath was a cardinal sin for scientists.

        Now it has become impossible to have a conversation about the weather without discussing wider climate trends, according to researchers who prepared the Australian Climate Commission’s latest report.

        Previously, ”weather is not climate” was the mantra, but now the additional boost from greenhouse gases was influencing every event.

        It might even be the case that the mantra chanted after every catastrophic weather event – that it can’t be said to be caused by climate change, but it shows what climate change will do – has become a thing of the past.

        http://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-a-key-factor-in-extreme-weather-experts-say-20130303-2fefv.html

        Then again, the ‘useful idiots’ are always the last to find out, kept in the dark and fed on bs.

    • Never Say says:

      We wont swallow anything but there are a lot of people that want to seem superior and believe we are causing something.

      • The phrase is contributing to, not causing. The dopes who think we should do nothing about”contributing to” are just that…stupid . Can’t think any further than the end of their nose…great-grandchildren, anyone?

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Patricia! “The dopes who think we should do nothing about”contributing to” are just that…stupid . ”

          Of course it depends on how large that contribution is, whether the change is bad or good, and how much it would cost to forego that contribution. Those things are the points of disagreement.

          “Can’t think any further than the end of their nose…great-grandchildren, anyone?”
          Whose grandchildren? Only mine? Or maybe even the grandchildren in third world nations who will starve if we turn our food into biofuels?

        • What, precisely, would you have us do about any variations–as yet unproven–in climate?

        • Rick Robinson says:

          Hey Pat, your not so bright. Ever heard of the medieval warming period? It actually got warm enough in Greenland to grow crops. Wine could be made in northern England because the growing season was long enough to grow grapes. Much warmer then it is today, and there was no carbon output except for the firewood, organism’s breathing, and animals farting. This climate change crap is all about control by the elites.

        • dt60093 says:

          Every breath “contributes”. Air conditioning “contributes” massively. When I was young, it did not exist, but we managed without it. More people equals more contribution. Until clean energy can conveniently and economically meet the needs of humanity, we will inevitably continue to “contribute” in proportion to the world’s growing population and increasing ability to consume, especially in China and India.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The VERY BEST things we can do for our great grandchildren are….

          1. To make sure that economies are in a good condition.

          2. To make sure societies are not continually fighting for freedom.. that means getting rid of a LOT of the far-left agenda.

          3. Make sure there is high quality, consistent, reliable level of electricity and energy supply… that means coal, gas or nuclear

          4. And most importantly, to make sure that there is adequate atmospheric CO2 to allow plant life to feed the world… that means 700ppm+ atmospheric CO2

    • pondboy says:

      Other than you swallowing the words Mother Nature instead of the Creator of such tou are right on track !

    • Kathy Cain says:

      Kudos too your logic, we actually have been warming since the last ice age when the Hudson River was a glacier !
      Now we have spring thank goodness , I have cabin fever and I live in the southeast US lol .

    • Robert Jones says:

      Wentworth cheswell talked about Mother Nature not needing us. He/She was not suggesting that the Earth controls the Sun.

  50. chhelo says:

    Just thinking from my diving experience. There are vast cave networks along the coast of all the continents that intake and discharge water depending on current sea levels. Has anyone ever done a study to estimate overall capacity and the their affect on sea level? Do they have equal volume to the ice gained or lost in the Arctic, Antarctic or say Greenland? Anyone have any data?

    There are so many variables man is wasting his time to even worry about it. Again, its just another progressive program to redistribute wealth the the 1% elite under the smoke screen of lifting up the poor and needy.

    • dp says:

      The Hamza river, recently discovered, is freaking huge. No reason to believe it is unique, but it is definitely a heat pipe transfering energy to the ocean.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_River

    • Jason Calley says:

      Of course it is not an easy thing to know, but the last estimates I saw were that for every bit of fresh water we see on the surface (lakes, rivers, creeks, ponds) there is approximately ten times that much fresh water flowing in the aquifers and cave systems which we cannot see.

    • Stuart Soles says:

      I don’t think that pursuing knowledge is wasting time. Any knowledge gained benefits us all. Whether people are having an impact on global climate is up for debate. I agree with Kathy Cain from above- We have had glaciation and melt off before in earths history that wasn’t caused by humans.

  51. I also have a graph. It shows all the “science consensus”, it shows all the scientists by name who were caught falsifying information on climate heating, it shows all the times a “movie star” told us the ocean would be dead by 1990, it shows all the times we were told water would be so high we would lose our coastlines. It’s called the bulls*** graph. It’s not nice to fool mother nature.

  52. EtTu Brutus says:

    … the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!

  53. The statistical incompetence of most of those doing climate modeling is mind-boggling. The appropriate statistical methods for analyzing time series like these are Box-Jenkins procedures, e.g., ARIMA and interrupted ARIMA. These methods have been standard among statisticians and persons doing real applioed analysis of time series for at least the past half-century. Fitted trend lines and moving averages don’t cut it.

    I have seen exactly one published, peer-reviewed study of temperature trends that used ARIMA. This study found that the stationary process – underlying pattern of the temperature data — was ARIMA(1,0,0), i.e., a random walk. Almost all climate time series data for the last fifty years or so show no discernible trend; They are all random walks. You won’t find valid statistical analyses of these data in any climate journal, any UN study, or Salon though. Such analyses would quickly put the modelers out of business.

    Spread the word: Without Box-Jenkins procedures analyses of climate time series data are invalid.

    • John Galt says:

      Yeah, except ARIMA is linear. and just a 1-d model? Just temp?

      • Just temperature at any one level of the atmosphere or ocean, just sea level, etc. Let’s start with one dimensional analyses and see if they hold any water. As far as I can tell they don’t. Linear is always a good starting approximation. If you don’t like that then use more complex Box Jenkins procedures. All the time series data I’ve seen from climate researchers – including the charts in this particular thread are nothing more than instantiations of an underlying random walk process.

    • CrazyHungarian says:

      It looks like noise, but there could be a background signal there. I’ve always wondered if anyone’s done a FFT to look for that signal. (Fast Fourier Transform, for those not versed in sciences.)

  54. I live on Staten Island, and have for years. Literally no change of sea level on 100 year old pilings at Midland Beach.

    • Henry P says:

      Pilings?
      What is that? Is that a record of some sort?
      From my own investigations, I would expect little change over a period of 100 years.

      • JB Say says:

        Pilings hold up piers and other loads. We have been told that sea levels are rising, the rise is accelerating, that the eastern seaboard will be inundated soon. In decades, not centuries. So yeah, the pilings are a good record of that sort. Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. They don’t appear to be rising at alarming levels right now, if at all.

  55. woodNfish says:

    I don’t believe they have the technology to measure the sea level change that accurately from constantly changing data. I don’t believe sea levels are increasing or decreasing. I grew up in Tampa, Florida. It is basically a sandbar with a limestone base in some places. The beaches on the Causway between Tampa and St. Pete are the same as they were 50 years ago. I have family photos of beaches in Florida that go much farther back than that. All this nonsense about seas rising is the same as AGW – all lies and BS.

  56. Wayne Dorniels says:

    Derp, Global Warming!

  57. Jay says:

    I love you Steve but you know two cherry picked tide gauges don’t make the Atlantic Seaboard. Don’t be one of them : )

    • Steve J says:

      How can one be accused of cherry picking anything when the story is about the sea level in New York!??!! Did he use a New York sea level measuring device? Maybe you can explain how this one shows a sea level drop and I’m assuming you are going to say the one 100 feet away shows a 6 inch rise? Are you Michael Mann’s illegitimate son?

  58. Hugh says:

    Don’t fear man-made anything. Fear God, who said,

    “And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.”
    Revelation 16:8.

    • Dave says:

      “People were burned by the scorching heat and blasphemed the name of God who had power over these plagues, but they did not repent or give him glory”

      Revelation 16:9

    • Otto Zeit says:

      “Global Warming” for real! But when it happens, they won’t be blaming themselves (or CO2) — they’s be cursing God!

  59. Jim Lively says:

    I fixed GW by pulling the drain plug at the bottom of the Atlantic.

    You’re Welcome.

  60. Jay says:

    I would want to look at all the tide gauges, evaluate them for anything that could cause them to be creating false data and pick the most likely to be untainted, then average them. Or maybe you have a better analysis. Keep up the good work!

  61. Dwayne Keith says:

    The earth has been warming since the last ice age. The earth has been both water world and an Ice cube many times over and will be both again in the future. The left has seized on warming (re-read the my first sentence) so as to create a skim off free enterprise thereby handicapping it and allowing its preferred statist centrally planned economic systems to be even remotely competitive with capitalism and to create a slush fund off carbon credits and the like for various leftwing causes and programs.

    • Waldo Trout says:

      indeed. check out Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” … brilliant take-downs of supposed AGW proponents and as good as any Reason for the Panic mind-set of the left, giving the people something New to Fear.

  62. Latitude says:

    60% of tide gauges show sea levels falling or no sea level rise at all….

    http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf

  63. WC Montoya says:

    I’ve noticed the same thing along the south-east coast of Florida where I live. It’s always been about transferring the wealth of the Free Market countries to the Third World dictators. Along with the fact that Climate Change being a massive scam, the Free Market countries, including the U.S. are broke so there’s no wealth to transfer. At $10 million a day, if we started today, it will take 5,000 years to pay off the $21 Trillion the U.S. Owes. That assumes, of course, that the U.S. will have balanced budgets for the next 5,000 years also. An additional problem is that 47 cents of every dollar we use to pay towards the debt is borrowed money.

  64. Wilbur Cochran says:

    When one has questions about the validity of an assertion like rising sea levels I have not found that it hurts to see what the evidence within your own purview will tell you. There are certainly beaches around the Tampa area that would readily demonstrate a rise in sea levels.

  65. BobM says:

    See…President MrObama “The Historical” said he was going to Moses back the seas.

  66. Chris says:

    The world has already been scorched and we are all dead. Al Gore’s doomsday clock ran out a while ago, and carbon emissions did not decrease before it did, so this debate is happening in our collective imagination within a fragment of the space-time continuum that is disconnected from reality.

  67. BobM says:

    I’ll bet John Podesta will report on the rising sea levels the minute President MrObam leaves office.

  68. Obama wants Climate Change deniers to be prosecuted! What he is really referring to is the associated Tax Programs. They are not to be denied.

    Don’t know about you but I do not like the idea of government taxing my breathing in & out. Besides, breathing out Carbon Dioxide makes my plants and lawn happy. And, in return they provide me Oxygen.

    Think this is over the top? Consider these are democrat we are talking about, you know, the tax & spend folks. Who would have believed way back when that we would have to RENT our home and Transportation from a government agency. Don’t believe this; then don’t pay the taxes.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Listener! Reading the pdf you linked to, it appears that the bedrock locations of NJ will see a sea level rise of about 240mm over the next 14 years, or about 17mm per year average. The long term average (for the last 100 years) is about 4mm per year. Do you honestly think that the authors of the paper are correct in forecasting a rise of more than four times average in the next 14 years? If yes, when do you expect that increase to begin?

  69. K. Chris C. says:

    So called “climate-change” is a tax scheme, a form of make-work welfare for its scientice schemers, a further expansion of tyranny’s power, and a Khazarian move closer to realization of their “super-government.

    Protocols 2:2 “The intellectuals of the Goyim will puff themselves up with their knowledges and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.”

    Protocols 5:1 “We shall create an intensified centralization of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws. These laws will withdraw one by one all the indulgences and liberties which have been permitted by the Goyim, and our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions as to be at any moment and in every place in a position to wipe out any Goyim who oppose us by deed or word.”

    Protocols 5:11 “By all these means we shall so wear down the “Goyim” that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a nature that by its position will enable us without any violence gradually to absorb all the state forces of the world and to form a super-government.”

    An American citizen, not US subject.

  70. david says:

    Oh, no! You mean Climate Change is not causing ocean levels to rise dramatically? Could Climate Change be a hoax? Oh my, oh my! Our trust has been dallied with, our dreams of power over weather has been dashed!

  71. notlrac says:

    There is one body of weather prognosticators that has an 87% accuracy rate for over 100 years…the Farmers Almanac. Their predictions are made years out by using cyclical analysis and celestial location. The weather services have a 17% accuracy rate using satellites and computer modeling. Anthropomorphic global warming is a total farse designed to redistribute wealth from producer nations to 3rd word nations that cant feed or adaquately employ their own populations by having industry fund the failed states thru the corrupt UN.

  72. Henry P says:

    Sea level is simply falling because it has been globally cooling

  73. Rick Lagtag says:

    someone finally telling the truth, this admin wants to place all climate deniers in prison along with hillary

  74. BS Detector says:

    Click on the links to the gauges — they do not match the graphs he has plotted in the article on this page – in fact they show clearly rising sea levels throughout the entire time the gauges have been in place! But I guess he is counting on his readers to not check out the actually NOAA gauge data and just take his (false) word on things. No sourcing for the graphs he displays in the article. The links go to the actual NOAA gauge data which does not match the article. Absurd nonsense here.

    • The links show exactly what the blog post says. Are you a complete moron?

    • Latitude says:

      I’m beginning to understand why some people believe in global irritable climate syndrome

    • Jason Calley says:

      Sigh… Hey BS Detector! If you plan on disagreeing you need to do two things. First, a little basic politeness might be in order. Second, you really ought to learn to read and make graphs so you do not embarrass yourself.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Sorry, but the data from the links gives EXACTLY the graphs as SG has posted.

      There is only one person using BS here, and that is YOU.

  75. Jimma says:

    Omg, you deniers are so dumb. The sea level is rising, the added weight of the sea just makes it appear to be falling. It’s going to spring back as a tidal wave in a few months. It’s mad about SUVs too.

  76. Kurt Smith says:

    Ocean levels have always been my biggest chip when arguing global warming with libtards. I’m always asking them about and reminding them that NO WHERE in the world are levels rising, anywhere. And now whaddya know? They’re falling ?!
    But just wait. If Bill Nye can BS his way through explaining why global warming can actually cause more snow in the winter, wait and watch him, or maybe Algore, spin and tap dance his way through telling us why lower sea levels actually means the planet is warming (uh…duuhhh…cuz more water’s evaporating…duh)
    Liberalism – a mental order that really should be stamped out.

  77. sjd says:

    What utter nonsense..any real scientist knows 6 years is a grain of sand on the beach…statistically insignificant (and dishonest to use to try and make a point). While the ocean has in fact been rising since the last glacial period for at least 12,000 years.

  78. Marz says:

    Everyone is focused on the vast sea level conspiracies afloat, no one is paying attention to the fact the sky is falling. There’s data fer sure, when solar energy takes off, we will finally see that data, proving the sky has been falling for decades, and we will be terrified, and gladly pay “sky high” taxes to fix the problem, a requirement to own solar facilities. Anyone who says otherwise will be “climate changed” into silence. (“Climate change” will become a political meme to refer to those mafia science types of the previous century, and “overpopulation” will own up.)

  79. Bob says:

    Lol. Stephen I think you’re holding your charts up to the light backwards when you look at them. I clicked on both the Atlantic City and The Battery chart links you provided and both bring up NOAA Tide and Current pages that indicate rises in sea level. Both of them; rises. I was laughing too hard to check all of your bogus material references. What are your trying to do here other than provide misinformation to fuel further disagreement?

    • Where do these idiots come from? The graphs show exactly what the blog post says.

    • Latitude says:

      Bob…”Sea level has been falling on the Atlantic seaboard for the past six years.”

      …true

    • Terry says:

      Dear Bob, If sea level were rising or falling it would deviate from the mean of the graph. Let me ‘splain to you that the point (no, not that little one on your head) is that for the last six years the sea level is subsiding to BELOW the mean. So…. No acceleration. See?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Poor Bob, lacks the basic intelligence to figure out that SG’s graphs show the data from the two links exactly.

      There was steeper drop from about 1973-1979 in both sets of data, but nevertheless, SG’s comment stands as being totally correct.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Bob! Maybe you and BS Detector (comment up the thread) can get together and study how to read graphs. You both seem to not be reading the dates on the bottom of the graphs at the NOAA link.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I love the way these AGW trogs come in and CONSTANTLY display their rabid ignorance.🙂

  80. Walt Peterson says:

    Post-glacial rebound?

  81. Steve Smith says:

    But that idiot Al Gore said it going to be the other way. …and here’s to all of the idiots who followed Big Al.

  82. Ray Van Dune says:

    All I want to see is a big coffee-table book (or blog) filled with pairs of beautiful photos of America’s shorelines: photo A being taken in ~1900 and photo B of the same spot taken in ~ 2000. At the oft-claimed 3mm rise per year, we should see a clear 3 meter rise.

    Now, I have seen several “coincidental” photo pairs like this that essentially show the high-tide line to be in the same place, many years apart. BUT, I have never seen a pair of photos showing a clear rise, much less three meters. I am prepared to be convinced that I am wrong – just quit telling scary stories, and show me the photos. Produce the evidence. That’s all it takes, and you win!

  83. Jim says:

    it’s all about the money, Scientists have to protect their jobs. No money no jobs for the scientists on either side. Also be the reason why big pharma has not released a cure for cancer.

  84. picric_acid says:

    The most likely explanation is not that sea levels are falling, but that the Atlantic Coast is rising as people are no longer accumulating paper copies of National Geographic Magazine.

  85. Ernie Lane says:

    Whenever I hear any of that global warming stuff — rising sea levels, I am reminded of a TV show a while back that, among other things, mentioned the “hundreds” of ocean floor steam vents. If the Earth itself is hot enough to make those, and volcanoes, anything that takes place on the surface of the Earth (or above it) just doesn’t matter in that regard.

    Another show about a relatively complete wooley mammoth found in Siberia said Siberia had a “lush, subtropical climate” back when it died.

    And then, of course, there’s the sun.

  86. Coprolite says:

    Isostatic Rebound may also have some effect with the New York geology. Previous glacial ice, up to 4 miles thick, created so much weight across the land mass that the caused the land to sink under the weight of the ice. When the glaciers receded the land mass began to rebound. So two actions maybe at play here, rising sea levels and also rising land levels. The rise of the land mass maybe greater then the rise of sea level suggesting that the sea level is actually dropping.

  87. Ernie Lane says:

    Whenever I hear any of that global warming stuff, I am reminded of a TV show a while back that, among other things, mentioned the “hundreds” of ocean floor steam vents. If the Earth itself is hot enough to make those, and volcanoes, anything that takes place on the surface of the Earth (or above it) just doesn’t matter in that regard.

    Another show about a relatively complete wooley mammoth found in Siberia said Siberia had a “lush, subtropical climate” back when it died.

    And then, of course, there’s the sun.

  88. I should start selling bridges here on Salon.

  89. Karl W. Schwab says:

    The east coast is rising, do to plate tectonics, and moving westward. The west coast is being subducted by the Pacific Plate, The entire North American continent is drifting west-northwest.

  90. another_conservative_in_exile says:

    Why is this even news? Didn’t Obama promise this, if elected?

  91. jammeriz says:

    Kind of reminds you of Henny Penny…..of Chicken Little. You know, the “sky is falling” story. Same kind of stories that were written back in the 1 century…folktales that make light of paranoia and mass hysteria. Good to see that some people are still in the storytelling business….all for a profit mind you.

  92. George DuPont, Capt. USCG/USMM (Ret) says:

    I am a retired USCG/USMM Officer, with a little more than 70 years on the water, since I was a little swamp sprite… I have been sailing on the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay for more than 70 years. My observations: except for rare, unusual low tides, and high storm tides, the water levels for both High and Low tides have come up to about the same line on my boat docks for 70 years… No changes at all. Both normal high and low tides reach the same reference points. Some 20 years ago, I installed bronze markers on the pilings. The tides come to the same points, only in lunar or storm tides are they higher. This is for both the Gulf and the Bay. Interesting. Just the facts, no embellished figures.

  93. JV says:

    QUICK!! Somebody needs to call Al-Buffoon about this!!

  94. Vince says:

    This cannot be. Obama, Hillary, and Bernie said it was settled science.

  95. Brad Fregger says:

    Slowly but surely the truth is exposed. It’s a difficult task because it’s been buried under tons of bull dung for decades. This universal blindness will be studied in university classrooms for as long, with students wondering how so many intelligent people could be fooled for so long. The perpetrators will be laughed at and held up for ridicule for centuries.

  96. Joseph Smith says:

    Progressive predictions: 1: looming Ice Age, 2: Hole in the Ozone Layer is going to cook Earth, 3: Fossil Fuels are almost gone, need to cut way way back, 4: Global Warming causing Impending doom, 4: Now it’s Climate Change, well because climates are always doing precisely that, Changing! So now the left can blame any storm, too much rain, a drought, an earthquake on Climate Change and who can say otherwise, with their “it wouldn’t have been as severe if not for carbon emissions” and now they propose criminal chargers for people and Corporations that refuse to “admit to Man made climate change”.

  97. Razi Saydjari says:

    You made the drudge report with the sea level data. Wider dissemination of the truth is always helpful

    • Bill says:

      I just made up those facts and sent it into “Salon” and about 20 or more such sources (CNN, ABC etc.) and they bought it hook, line and sinker.
      Looks pretty professional and reasonable in fluctuation highs and lows.
      SUCKERS

    • evdebs says:

      FRALO VIA GETTY IMAGES
      By Ryan McNeill and Deborah J. Nelson

      July 10, 2014 (Reuters) – Coastal flooding along the densely populated Eastern Seaboard of the United States has surged in recent years, a Reuters analysis has found.

      During the past four decades, the number of days a year that tidal waters reached or exceeded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration flood thresholds more than tripled in many places, the analysis found. At flood threshold, water can begin to pool on streets. As it rises farther, it can close roads, damage property and overwhelm drainage systems.

      Since 2001, water has reached flood levels an average of 20 days or more a year in Annapolis, Maryland; Wilmington, North Carolina; Washington, D.C.; Atlantic City, New Jersey; Sandy Hook, New Jersey; and Charleston, South Carolina. Before 1971, none of those locations averaged more than five days a year. Annapolis had the highest average number of days a year above flood thresholds since 2001, at 34.

      The analysis was undertaken as part of a broader examination of rising sea levels Reuters plans to publish later this year.

      As many Americans question the causes and even the reality of climate change, increased flooding is already posing a major challenge for local governments in much of the United States.

      “Chronic flooding is a problem our coastal managers are dealing with every day,” said Mary Munson, executive director of the Coastal States Organization, a Washington nonprofit representing 35 states and territories. “Flooding causes the quality of life in these communities to decrease along with the property values, while the flood insurance rates go up.”

      In Charleston, for example, a six-lane thoroughfare regularly becomes impassable when high tides block rainwater from emptying into the Atlantic Ocean, restricting access for half of the city to three hospitals, four schools and police headquarters. The city, which has more than 120,000 residents, has $200 million in flood-control projects underway.

      Laura Cabiness, director of public service for Charleston, said street flooding has always been a problem in the low-lying city. But more recently, she said, “it’s deeper than usual and higher than usual, and the tide has remained higher longer.”

      For its analysis, Reuters collected more than 25 million hourly tide-gauge readings from nearly 70 sites on the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts and compared them to NOAA flood thresholds.

      Reuters then narrowed the analysis to include only the 25 gauges with data spanning at least 50 years. Nineteen gauges were on the Eastern Seaboard, three on the West Coast, and three on the Gulf Coast. Comparing the years prior to 1971 to the years since 2001, the average number of days a year that readings exceeded flood thresholds had increased at all gauges except two: those in St. Petersburg, Florida, and Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

      The trend roughly tracks the global rise in sea levels. The oceans have risen an average of 8 inches in the past century, according to the 2014 National Climate Assessment. Levels have increased as much as twice that in areas of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts where the ground is sinking because of subsidence – a process whereby natural geological forces or the extraction of underground water, oil or gas cause the ground to sink.

      The most dramatic increases in annual flood-level days occurred at 10 gauges from New York City to the Georgia-South Carolina border, a stretch of coast where subsidence accounts for as much as half the rise in sea level in some locations, according to U.S. Geological Survey studies.

      Charles Chesnutt, a coastal engineer with the Institute for Water Resources, a policy and planning arm of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said the evidence “is very compelling and suggests we ought to be looking more seriously at the problems that are coming at us now.” The Corps of Engineers is the lead federal agency on coastal flood control projects.

      The Reuters findings are supported by a pair of soon-to-be-published studies from scientists at NOAA and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. Reuters adapted its methodologies from those scientists and sought their input.

      Old Dominion University researchers Tal Ezer and Larry Atkinson found in their study that the U.S. East Coast is “a hotspot of accelerated flooding,” and that flooding outside of storm events has increased in frequency and duration.

      They found that changes in the Gulf Stream may be contributing to increased flooding from rising sea levels. The current off the Atlantic Coast pulls water away from the shore as it flows northeastward from Cape Hatteras. The researchers said that as the climate has warmed, the current has weakened, so it’s not pulling as much water away.

      The NOAA study examines flooding at 45 tide stations around the United States. It is expected to be released this summer.

      Flood thresholds are indicators, not confirmation, of flooding, but scientists say the tide gauge readings are a reliable measure of increased flooding.

      When seas hit the flood threshold in Annapolis, the 306-year-old city that is home to the U.S. Naval Academy, forecasters expect water to start ponding in the historic city dock area. A few inches more, and water begins reaching backyards and the tops of storm drains in some areas.

      During high tides on April 30 and May 1, and again on May 16, more than six inches of water swamped restaurants and shops in historic buildings along the city dock. Makeshift flood walls of boards and garbage cans blocked doorways. People removed their shoes and rolled up their pants to wade to work.

      • We Texans view east coast flooding with great calm.

      • Eric Walker says:

        You are an idiot. All the green activist billionares have purchased sea level estates all over the world.

      • Bodhisattva says:

        “In Charleston, for example, a six-lane thoroughfare regularly becomes impassable when high tides block rainwater from emptying into the Atlantic Ocean, restricting access for half of the city to three hospitals, four schools and police headquarters. ”

        When was the 6 lane thoroughfare built? What sort of land is it on? How much urbanization occurred around it and when?

        A lot of ‘recent flooding’ can be blamed on projects that were sited and built poorly.

        • Gnome Sane says:

          Are they saying Mean Sea Level (elevation = 0) is changing? If so, that’s going to affect all terrain elevation and GPS data that are based on MSL.

        • jitiro says:

          “regularly becomes impassable when high tides block rainwater from emptying into the Atlantic”

        • PepticSkeptic says:

          I live in Charleston now as I have for the last 25 years. This report is bullscheisse. BULLSCHEISSE. Put that in your smipe and poke it.

      • Laurent says:

        Fill dumped on softer material will subside. Much of the waterfront areas of our cities is fill. A comparison of old maps of Manhattan Island in NYC with the shoreline of today shows a huge filled in area. These are the areas that flood.

      • I have no doubt of such facts…however…why did the sea level rise?

        I learned on good authority that the dominant factor regarding ocean level is the volume of the various volcanic ridges around the world. A little more spreading means more hot rock floating isostatically on the mantle giving a larger ridge volume and a smaller ocean basin. The net effect would be oceanic “overbank flow”, better known as a sea level rise. .I hate it when I have to quote stuff I learned in 1975 but I was indeed surprised when the prof. threw up his hands and said he couldn’t figure out what was happening…and he was a professor of Marine Geology. Maybe rocks act differently now or maybe those mid ocean ridges have all been factored in through detailed bathymetric sonography….Oh well. Flooding is flooding and if your feet are wet…raise the city. That’s what we did in Chicago….like about 100 years ago. But then we had Jimmy Hoffa to bring in the dirt. Hm…he’s not around anymore.

      • steve dawson says:

        Is the water rising or the land sinking?

      • Jack Hooper says:

        No major storms since Katrina? Man occupies less than 12% of Earth’s surface. Oceans cover 71.4% of Earth’s surface. Man’s activities on the Earth is miniscule and statistically insignificant. And so why do assholes keep making it sound like Man has the ability to cause a change in an ecosystem that has maintained an atmosphere able to accommodate life as we know it for millions of years? The contempt of these morons is more than stupidity, it is political and an attempt to enslave mankind. Castor’s Cuba is an example of 5% Communist Party Members enslaving 96% and claiming it is for the enslaved that the 5% control every aspect of life for the 95% How F’ed up is that. .

      • John says:

        In the 1800’s Aquia, VA was a sea port with ships loading tobacco (now known as evil tobacco) for export to Europe. Now it’s a creek. It is a simple fact that land moves, and water levels at the “coastline” seem to change. A few inches over a 100 years makes the actual coastline seem radically different. A small amount of silt in the bay, and the rainwater in Savanna may well not drain like it did. Lots of causes but no mention of “global warming.” Does the commenter above actually feel high tides are the fault of global warming? Or has the moon decided to believe the fraud Gore and just freak out in sympathy?
        I’m tired of the hubris of those who, 1) think we are the problem, and 2) think U.S. dollars can change it.
        Damnit, I have a right to be here, as much as someone in China, the only difference is I don’t pollute, and I pay for clean cars, water and air. They don’t.

      • jitiro says:

        That article pretty much sums up the issue (that coastal places are being flooded by tides much more frequently now than since 1971), but there are 100 times the number of words that your average climate change denier is willing to read, let alone comprehend or agree with. Only when the issue affects them directly will they act, and then that will be to blame liberals, corrupt government policies, Obama, etc. It’s like listening to a broken record, while ankle deep in sea water.

        • Aleric says:

          Selective wording is the tool Leftists use to alter and change existing data to match their agenda. No one is fooled by your lies any longer. I have been alive long enough to see the “experts” talk about over population and food sources running out by 1990. A new ice age comming about in the 1980s, and of course the ever droning nuclear war and radiation disasters that never happened.

        • gator69 says:

          Gosh, looks like the natural climate change denier missed this paragraph…

          The most dramatic increases in annual flood-level days occurred at 10 gauges from New York City to the Georgia-South Carolina border, a stretch of coast where subsidence accounts for as much as half the rise in sea level in some locations, according to U.S. Geological Survey studies.

          Rising seas are to be expected in an interglacial, just as are rising temperatures.

          And they wonder why we laugh and call them Chicken Little.😆

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey jitiro! “It’s like listening to a broken record, while ankle deep in sea water.”

          OK, suppose that I AM, in fact, standing ankle deep in water. Unless the rising sea level is new and unusual, why should I blame it on CO2? If you want to claim that a rising sea level is due to recent human CO2, the least you can do, the very absolute least, is to show that the rise today is somehow different than it was BEFORE the increase in CO2. So… what does the record show? What do actual tide gauge measurements show? Nothing unusual, that’s what they show.

          The number of words from people you think are experts is irrelevant. Even the number of flooding incidents is not relevant. (After all, the number of flooding incidents can be related to a LOT of factors, many of which have nothing to do with whether the sea level has been influenced by CO2.) If we want to prove that there is some new factor (CO2) which is influencing sea level rise, you need to show that current sea level rise is somehow different from what we have seen BEFORE the change in CO2.

          Jitiro, you are probably a bright person. THINK! Is sea level rise now different from what it has been in the past?

      • Ron Shipman says:

        and yet the water always recedes somewhere.

    • mzstitch says:

      Truth being the key word in your statement. Sadly many global warming oops, I mean climate change scientists have been found to be reporting dishonestly for years now.

  98. James Braginton says:

    THROW GORE IN JAIL!

  99. Another nail in the coffin of the Global Warming Hoax .

  100. iambicpentamaster says:

    Well, that’s certainly an inconvenient truth for the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change scammers.

    • Bruce Dull says:

      But keep in mind, The Obama Administrations focus for the Department of Justics is the prosecution of Climate change deniers, not corruption in government, gun violence in Chicago or the identification prosecution of ISIS in the US. NO Climate Change Deniers.

  101. iambicpentamaster says:

    Of course these findings will be denied and/or explained away by the blind-faith ‘scientists’ who ‘settled’ this ‘science’.

    Someone forgot to cook the books.

  102. Grizz Mann says:

    Wow, Obama came through with that sea level promise.

  103. Latitude says:

    I’ve always found it amazing…that where the land is rising…..sea levels are falling
    ….and where the land is sinking….sea levels are rising
    isn’t that just amazing………./snark

  104. D Johnson says:

    I’m making a prediction, THE CLIMATE WILL CHANGE! Whenever it comes a time it doesn’t we are in deep doo.

    • Whether it’s cold or whether it’s hot, we’re gonna have weather, whether or not.

    • Bruce Dull says:

      So what caused the hundreds of Ice Ages and the warming trends that followed them over millions of years without cars and factories? (That was a rhetorical question)

      • dlethe says:

        Obviously martians migrated to earth and brought the same coal-powered factories that devastated their own planet. If only the people from Mars had their own Al Gore, then their planet would be a lush oxygen-rich paradise.

      • ketch20too says:

        dinosaurs burning fossil fuels

    • Hendrik Kanavel says:

      Your prediction is a simple fact that climate change types/radical leftist cannot afford to acknowledge. Climate changes every hour of every day around the planet.
      The dynamic forces generate the energies that create the weather necessary for continued life on earth.
      This process began the moment the planet came into existence and will always continue as long as the Creator wants it to do so.

    • J Cuttance says:

      Hang on.
      If I make the counter prediction that the climate won’t change very much, and even if it does we’ll be fine, we’ve both bet on both horses and it’s the betting agency that wins. Again.

  105. Lynn Wood says:

    And we are attempting to measure a facet of a dynamic interactive system. The terrain could be rising or falling due to crustal movement, the surface level of water could be affected by barometric or tidal pressure.

    which means, the measuring stick could be rising or falling relative to the water, the amount of water rise or fall may also be affected by factors not previously known or considered.

  106. Mike Nordel says:

    Liberals are mental midgets. They will never admit they were wrong. ever.

    • Timothy Frohlick says:

      Most of my hard science friends are not liberals. A lot of liberal arts people tend to be liberal. There are exceptions. T

    • Mike Herman says:

      If they had brains, they wouldn’t be liberals.

    • evdebs says:

      Conservatives are into bestiality and sell their mothers into white slavery.

      • amitorelocato says:

        Put down the pipe, you ignorant moron.Go and check the mail box for your food stamps and welfare check and enjoy drinking your beer on the front porch.

      • Dan Servos says:

        evdebs, Thank you for your cogent contribution to this discussion. It displays a level of thoughtfulness and helpfulness that speaks volumes to your true character, and I am wiser for having read it. Please let me know when you might have something else to share.

  107. Rich says:

    This guy is having fun all right. Playing us for fools.

  108. Marc Webb says:

    AGW, what a joke!

  109. Susan Nash says:

    eh, wanna buy a condo on Miami Beach….

  110. I seem to recall that the melting glaciers will increase sea level and half of Manhattan will be submerged?

  111. I seem to recall that the melting glaciers will raise the sea levels and with that the land mass will be underwater, like Miami and New York.

  112. Mary Berg says:

    But, but . . . I thought because of GLOBAL WARMING, the ice caps were melting so the seas were rising & gonna drown all of us by July!!

    Jeepers, you nutcase-Chicken Little’s need to make up your fickle minds WHAT disaster scenario you want to settle on & stick with it!!

  113. jitiro says:

    These are cherry picked numbers.
    Follow the links (included above in original post and copied below) and look at the full graphs. It’s an obvious upward trend.

    8534720 Atlantic City, New Jersey
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8534720

    8518750 The Battery, New York
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

    • Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. There is no evidence of acceleration. Sorry you are too dense to understand.

      • Grey says:

        Actually it peaked about 4300 years ago. It’s been dropping ever since.

      • Chuck says:

        And yet you use deceptive language and graphs implying that sea level is dropping, discounting the cyclical variation in global ocean sea level and fail to show or acknowledge the fact that on a longer time scale the trend is ever upward to higher sea levels. I’m all for debunking the alarmist brigade, but disingenuous misdirection and half truths only serves to signal that you’re either talking about things you can’t understand, you are deliberately lying, or you’re a paid shill and deliberately lying.

      • xenotropic says:

        First: Here’s a graph[1] with multiple peer-reviewed citations for the proposition that sea level rise has (other than the last century) basically halted in the last few thousand years. Do you have a citation to peer-reviewed science for your proposition?

        Number two: first you write a blog post about *six* years of data, then you try to rebut the observation (in the NOAA data you cite!) that it’s been rising over 100 years by referring (without citation) to a trend of 20,000 years. What’s the relevant time frame here? Seems like it might be the last 150 years — since industrialization, when we really started altering the environment. In that NOAA data you cite, and I’ll cite again, [2] it shows an upward trend.

        Finally: your last graph is just a derivative (in the mathematical sense, showing slope, or rate) of post-industrialization data (after 1880). It’s just another way of showing the sea level has been rising in the last 150 years.

        I’m not going to try to prove to you in one blog post comment that climate change is real, any more than I would try to show you how radio waves or a jet engine works. However, there’s no doubt that because of the processes of modern industrial science — the same ones that say climate change is real — your wifi works and 747s fly. And certainly six years of cherry-picked data, sweeping unsupported generalizations, and personal insults aren’t very convincing of the skeptic point of view.

        [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png
        [2] http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8534720

      • Mostly it’s been land that’s been rising…following the global warming deglaciation. It’s still rising. Inch by inch the land is rebounding. Now that might not matter to an ocean basin…but what would matter is the volume of the oceanic ridges.

    • smithy says:

      Great view… Are you saying there was enough man-made climate change in 1910 to create that much of a sea level rise? Think about it and use your brain please…

    • Jitiro, can you please explain why sea levels were rising in the 1800’s as much as not? Was it the 1858 Rickshaw your great grandmamma was lifting. Because rice is not a fossil fuel.

  114. ntesdorf says:

    The important thing, for the CAGW Alarmists, is not whether the climate is getting hotter or colder, but the fact that if you do not pay up big sums of money to them and those in charge, the weather will get really nasty, erratic and stormy very soon.

  115. Vaag says:

    Looks like the jury needs to look at more evidence in an unbiased and logical way.

  116. Art says:

    If they finally admit the climate is cooling, what will the tell us to do differently from what they are telling us now?

  117. Sheila Mikes says:

    I have a house in the Florida Keys,you guys need to form a corp.and sell flood insurance ! You could make millions off those idiots who think the sea is rising !

  118. Dave Norby says:

    Paul Erlich, Al Gore, Jim Hansen and the rest of these doomsday creeps are the modern day version of snake oil salesman. Environmental jihadists.

  119. Mark Morris says:

    Get it demoncrats. You can NEVER trust govt. They are ALL LIARS who make laws to take your money, and punish your success. Even when you vote for them you LOSERS!

  120. Iben_Hadd says:

    Most disappointing!
    With predictions of a 200′ sea rise I was looking forward to owning sea front property.

  121. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

    But…but…but…Miami is under 500 feet of water! At least that’s what I heard, and I certainly trust the words of the Warming looter cult at the State-controlled media over my own lyin’ eyes.

  122. Al Kent says:

    How can sea level rise or fall on the Atlantic seaboard. Water seeks its own level. The Atlantic can’t be higher or lower than the Pacific. It’s the same water.

    • Continents are like ice floes, and the magma they float on is very pushy

    • David A says:

      On the mm scale SL is constantly changing, some areas up, some down, due to many causes on many time scales, ; 18 year lunar cycles, disparate weather patterns, storm tracks, atmospheric pressure changes, different ocean basin heating and cooling, etc…

  123. Walt says:

    You deniers need to open your eyes! Don’t you know that parts of Europe, water freezes at 0 while here in the US, it freezes at 32! You need to watch Al Gore’s favorite documentary, Waterworld.

  124. Philip says:

    Hello there,

    Thank you for your continuing reports in your emails.

    I am keenly interested in the real possibility that, over time, the centre of gravity of the earth may in fact slew a little relative to the upper earth’s crust due to a solid iron core within the earth’s molten iron core, especially when added to any effect of the convecting mantle.

    Such a slewing or shifting would cause a rise in sea level on one side of the earth and a corresponding fall on the opposite side of the earth exactly equal to the amount of slew. There are in fact other fluctuations in sea levels possible due to shifts over time of masses within the mantle that could further obfuscate and confuse the picture.

    The people who were shocked and surprised to discover that climate in fact changes at all and to jump to the conclusion that this is unnatural can be nowhere close to realising that there is an awful lot we do not know that could and most likely will explain these phenomena.

    Sincerely,

    Philip Rock

  125. Scott Royer says:

    Thank you for sharing this. Sadly, I will have to have you prosecuted under the RICO statutes.

  126. Thad says:

    Whether the land near NYC and New Jersey is rising – or sea level is falling – the prediction is still wrong. Manhattan won’t be under water anytime soon.

  127. Brian Nasset says:

    Nobody has still been able to tell me what man made event caused the 1 mile deep glacier that once covered The Seattle Area all the way to Portland Oregon

  128. Bolton says:

    I have two questions for the man made global warming nuts!!! What caused the ice age?? And how did it go away???? No SUV’s or coal plants 100 million years ago!!!!

    • Very good…vertical tectonics is what drives horizontal plate motion. The dominant factor regarding ocean level is the volume of the various volcanic ridges around the world. A little more spreading means more hot rock floating isostatically on the mantle giving a larger ridge volume and a smaller ocean basin. The net effect would be oceanic “overbank flow”, better known as a sea level rise. .I hate it when I have to quote stuff I learned in 1975 but I was indeed surprised when the prof. threw up his hands and said he couldn’t figure out what was happening…and he was a professor of Marine Geology. Maybe rocks act differently now or maybe those mid ocean ridges have all been factored in through detailed bathymetric sonography….Oh well. Flooding is flooding and if your feet are wet…raise the city. That’s what we did in Chicago….like about 100 years ago.

    • Henry P says:

      it is the sun and atmosphere,
      playing with one another….

  129. Joe Clarke says:

    Sail on outta here Salon Magazine before all the water dries up as NOT PREDICTED. Maybe now that climate alarmism is not Obama’s top priority he can deal with real enemies like those certain ethnic terrorists he cant bring himself to identify by their name.

  130. Steve Smith says:

    Wow. Most deceptive posting by Steven ever. That, or he has fundamental problems understanding the science.

  131. anon says:

    OMG the oceans are boiling away. Take my money.

  132. David says:

    How come no one mentions that all life on earth has thrived every time there is a warning period? Why is it all doom and gloom over a degree or two? Oh, right, money !

  133. Meteo says:

    Aw come on folks, I am a meteorologist and have been one for 30+ years and don’t believe in the hype the AGW crowd spouts but this conclusion that sea level are dropping is disingenuous at best. Yes its 100% true that sea-levels have fallen over the last 6 years…did the same thing from 2005 through 2010, and again from 1998 to 2003 and at least 8 or 9 other times in the past 100 years. The 100 yr trend is indeed rising but its also not fair of the AGW people to take the rate and extrapolate it into the future. If one looks at the data you’ll see since 1998 sea level trends have been nearly flat. It all depends on what your starting point is.

  134. estepheavfm says:

    You hurt my safe space. I demand you set up a Maoist student “Cultural Revolution” committee to tell you what you are allowed to publish from now on. I’m calling the police to have you arrested for “climate denial.” The UN claims there is a consensus and they have vote on the sun *(no effect of climate) and have declared the “science” is settled. If the UN says so, its so, don’t you know who”s boss? You hurt my safe space and made me cry. You ought to be taxed for this. Sheesh.

  135. Cake says:

    It’s all about redistribution of wealth.

  136. I often wondered what happened to the glacier that geologists say was in exact location of my house. With the consensus of all the scientists that carbon based emissions are causing global warming, I finally realized that it must have been the campfires of the cave men that melted that glacier. I am eternally grateful for their carbon emissions.

  137. EnvEcon says:

    Did anyone here actually click on the links below the graphs to look at the long term trends?
    Just as one day’s weather doesn’t define a climate trend, one decade’s sea level trend doesn’t define sea level rise.

    http://www.env-econ.net/2016/03/lies-damn-lies-and-sea-level-data.html

    • Only a complete moron would think six years is one day

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey EnvEcon! Yes, I think that most of us DID look at the longer term charts. I am curious what you think of those longer term charts. When you look at them, do you see any correlation between sea level rise and increasing CO2 from humans? If so, how would you describe that correlation?

      • EnvEcon says:

        Jason, At first glance the correlations look lower than some might expect. I haven’t really delved into that data. My goal here was to simply make the case that we shouldn’t be using short time periods (especially time periods over which we have seen the same phenomenon before) to draw long-term conclusions.

        • gator69 says:

          My goal here was to simply make the case that we shouldn’t be using short time periods (especially time periods over which we have seen the same phenomenon before) to draw long-term conclusions.

          Please point us to your posts condemning the cherry picked and much too short time period of 1979 to present. The Earth is 4,500,000,000 years old, and this interglacial is over 10,000 years old.

          1979-2016 is a good run for a TV series, but is nothing in the scheme of climate, it is a blip.

        • AndyG55 says:

          at no point does SG draw long term conclusions, in fact he does the opposite

          He just points out the FACT that so-called “climate scientists” have drawn some pretty stupid long term conclusions, and made some very stupid statements, based on zero evidence.

          I think even a gullible twit like you would have to agree with that.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “we shouldn’t be using short time periods (especially time periods over which we have seen the same phenomenon before) to draw long-term conclusions.”

          Oh .. are you talking about the 20 or so warming period from the around 1979 to 1998 on which this whole AGW nonsense was originally based., even though that short term trend was pretty much the same as the period from 1915 -1945 .?

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey EnvEcon! “My goal here was to simply make the case that we shouldn’t be using short time periods (especially time periods over which we have seen the same phenomenon before) to draw long-term conclusions.”

          Yes, exactly! In fact, I would generalize that truth a bit more. No trend — none of them! — has any real importance unless it is associated with a specific time period. Additionally, trends that are shorter than known cycles have to be taken with a grain of salt. One of the main sources of the “is too!” “is not!” arguments between warmists and sceptics is that each may be specifying a trend with time intervals different from the other.

          It is true that the sea level has been falling for six years. It is true that the sea level is rising over the last century. It is true that current sea levels are lower than they were at the end of the medieval warm period. It is true that seas are tremendously higher now than they were 12,000 years ago. What is true is always attached to WHEN it is true.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I find it quite hilarious that all it takes is SG posting a simple FACT that the Atlantic sea board sea level has been dropping for the last 6 years, and every wannabe kooks comes out of their crevasses.

      Unable to dispute this first FACT, they resort changing the time period to a longer period which shows the general very steady small trend over the last, but are still totally unable to dispute SG’s second FACT……

      …..that there is ABSOLUTELY NO INDICATION of any human effect on sea level.

      Well done SG. Proven correct on both counts. 🙂

      • EnvEcon says:

        Andy,

        Assume conclusions much?

        Based on the data I reported, I make no claim that there is or isn’t a human effect on sea levels. My only intent was to point out that the post uses a small piece of data to imply something other than what the full data set shows. When you look at the full data set that was used, the trend is opposite what SG shows. As I conclude in my post “…the trick to good statistics is to draw conclusions from the data and not draw data for the conclusions.”

        So here are the facts we can draw from the data:
        1) Sea levels have trended down from 2010-latest available datum.
        2) Sea levels also trended down from about 1920-1930, and again from 1945-1950, and again from 1970 to 1980, and again from 2000-2005 and from 2008 to 2009.
        3) There are other periods during that time when sea levels have trended up.
        4) If we look at the overall trend from 1910-present (the period covered by this data set), sea levels have trended upward.

        Feel free to dispute any of these facts based on the data set used in the analysis.

        Any other conclusion you choose to read in to my post is an assumption on your part.

  138. Even NOAA came out and admitted global temperatures have not risen in the past 58 years.

  139. When I moved to Grand Prairie (inland, in Texas) in 2002, our area flooded slightly because we were in an area prone to flooding, but it stayed in one area. Since then, a toll road (and its service roads) have been built, along with new warehouses (we are a hub of logistics), and when it rains the water covers the roadway almost all along Oak Dale (between Beltline and Roy Orr). It’s not global warming to blame, it’s concrete/cement that’s to blame. You cover up porous earth with non-porous concrete, you get increased flooding. They are finally building in proper drainage culverts so that the water can drain down to the river and Mike Lewis state park. It only took 2 years of flooding for them to figure this out. I guess northerners are slower learners.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Karren J Curry! I live on coastal Florida and see pretty much the same thing here. Yes, some place are flooding more — and other places are flooding less. The only common factor I see is what we humans are building, paving and bulldozing. Rising seas? Not so much…

  140. twangit says:

    You can talk numbers, stats, etc but for some real practical everyday evidence, each Summer I go fishing down at the Gulf of Mexico. I always go to a concrete canal that has been there for years and years. It’s a good place to catch fish, shrimp, and crab. On the side of the canal I notice year after year the water level is the same as it’s always been since I’ve been fishing there for 36 years. I remember back in the 80’s and 90’s all the scare talk about global warming, rising sea levels and soon there will be flooding of all coastal areas unless we act now, blah, blah, blah. You can see the discoloration in the concrete on the side of the canal from the water level being constant year after year, barnacles too. The water level does vary with the tides and after big storms etc, but It always settles back to the same spot. Apparently, all the climate change sheep haven’t checked this out yet. Maybe I should give them a call.

  141. Tiger500 says:

    Actually there is data to support that at a period of time long ago, the sea covered the mid-west of USA due to numerous reptiles found in places like South Dakota, So only logical answer is the sea level has been falling since day one.

  142. Brian says:

    Um, you do realize the projections are about the GLOBAL AVERAGE sea level, yes? You’re sounding like the guy who sees a snow in Dallas for 5 minutes and then claims, “Global warming is a hoax!!!”

  143. Pingback: On The Numbers | Rich TAkes!

  144. as heat still rises -200 * air will take its place at this carbon based Earths Poles as it warms up to -100* along the way down with increased levels of frozen water vapor and frozen CO2 = Dry Ice as frozen CO2 cools the air 10 times faster and 20 times longer than the frozen water vapor, so as long as heat still rises there will always be Ice at the Poles as Al Gore is a proven fraud in science as he has publicly failed grade school science, as there is nothing beyond self-debunked prediction and flawed incomplete debunked so called science to prove Carbon based Humans Climate Warming as Montana had California Climate 1000 years ago for 200 years after 20 Ice ages in the last 2 million years with Ice Core samples showing us Ice Ages with higher levels of CO2 than in the air than today as Carbon based Oxygen = CO2 = Carbon dioxide is the cause of the first atmosphere causing the carbon cycle = Nature = Environment = all Carbon based Life on this Carbon based Earth where everything has Carbon in it

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s