Geological Society of America goes wild for meteorological Mann

Gosh, a breakout session on hurricane Sandy with Michael Mann, and they label it “breaking news”. From the Geological Society of America website:

BREAKING NEWS: GSA Session to Address Hurricane Sandy

GSA Annual Meeting Technical Sessions: Rapid Sea-Level Rise and Its Impacts: Past, Present, and Future I and II

Boulder, Colorado, USA – In response to the devastation caused last week by Hurricane Sandy, organizers of the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting technical sessions on rapid sea-level rise and its impacts have created a break-out discussion panel consisting of geoscience experts. The idea is to relate early findings and discuss how the changes caused by Hurricane Sandy to the U.S. East Coast tie into the scientific papers already scheduled for presentation.

Session organizers George T. Stone of Milwaukee Area Technical College, Michael E. Mann of The Pennsylvania State University, Stanley R. Riggs of East Carolina University, and Andrew M. Buddington of Spokane Community College recognized early the need to discuss the effects of Hurricane Sandy. The newly revised discussion panel will follow morning talks in room 219AB of the Charlotte Convention Center on Monday, 5 November.

Five GSA Divisions (GSA Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology; Environmental and Engineering Geology; Geology and Society; Hydrogeology; Sedimentary Geology) and GSA’s International Section have teamed up with the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists and the National Association of Geoscience Teachers to bring a multidisciplinary perspective to the problem.

Other talks in this two-part session (morning and afternoon) include “Pulses of rapid sea level rise: Their effect on past, present and future coastal environments and sequences”; Anthropogenic sea-level rise: ethical transgressions; and “Sea-level change during the last 2000 years in southern Connecticut.”

Breakout Panel Discussion: Hurricane Sandy and its Impacts

When: Monday, 5 Nov., 11:30 to noon

Where: Charlotte Convention Center, Room 219AB

Session 14: T121. Rapid Sea-Level Rise and Its Impacts: Past, Present, and Future I:


George T. Stone, e-mail:

Michael E. Mann, cell: 814-777-3136; e-mail:

Maybe they can discuss the recent admission by NASA JPL that the satellite sea level data is missing a good baseline reference and is likely corrupted by spurious noise:

Finally: JPL intends to get a GRASP on accurate sea level and ice measurements

New proposal from NASA JPL admits to “spurious” errors in current satellite based sea level and ice altimetry, calls for new space platform to fix the problem.

Likely though, it will be a doom and gloom breakout session with sea level accelerating and all that.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

This is just too silly for words!
So why am I expending words on it? Oh well……

Eric H.

“Anthropogenic sea-level rise: ethical transgressions”… Repent! You sinners against the earth!


“Geological Society of America goes wild”
It sounds like a college annual ball reunion………… is a college hop reunion!

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

Er, what ‘rapid sea level rise’? Did it increase by a tenth of a millimetre per year or something?

Brian H

Delusions of grandeur and guilt make strange bedfellows.


Atheists and climate alarmists: the crashing bores of the 21st century.

P. Solar

How do these supposedly scientific organisations get away with such blatant untruth and stupidity?
Even taking the flawed and pumped up satellite altimetry data, 3mm per year equals one foot per century. That is not “rapid” in any sense of the word.
This is insignificant in relation to nearly 13ft of swell and the height of autumn full-moon high tides.
I presume Mann will be wearing his false Nobel Prize medallion around his neck to give himself added authority while speaking.

Sounds like the conference on ‘Abrupt Climate Change’ organized by Nick Drake in Michael Crichton’s novel….. Crichton was not exaggerating one bit, was he?

S Basinger

Heh, they posted Mike Mann’s cell #.

David Schofield

“Pulses of rapid sea level rise” Tides?


“Rapid Sea-Level Rise and Its Impacts” yeah right – I wonder how long before they talk about modelled sea level rise since those nasty observations are all wrong now. Thank goodness great nobel laureates will be at the session to make sure they are of the highest integrity!

I too am intrigued by the “transgressions” bit. Perhaps it’s a session for transvestite geologists?


Climate alarmism appears to be controlled by just a handful of individuals. All roads appear to lead to Pennsylvania.

Peter Miller

The opinions of government funded geo-scientists are usually of no consequence, as these people have to toe the official alarmist line or there are immediate and very obvious employment consequences.
Can you imagine one of these individuals daring to utter the unspeakable truth of: “Yes, AGW does exist, but it is a minor phenomenon and no threat whatsoever to mankind. No, CAGW does not exist; that’s just a few guys’ overactive imagination.”
This would result in an immediate severance cheque. After all, nothing must be allowed to derail the Global Warming Industry’s gravy train.


A break out session of 30 minutes? They’ll hardly poured their coffee before the session ends. Unless it’s just our Mikey telling them what to say.


Pity Mark Steyn won’t be there.
The guy has no shame. After being given a clip over the ear by the IPCC and the Nobel people about his false claims, and humiliated by the ad in the newspaper on his own campus, he just carries on as if nothing happened.
Mike “Honey Badger” Mann …

Alex Heyworth

What a piece of work is Mann! How Nobel in reason! How implicate in Faculty!

Steve C

“Session to Address Hurricane Sandy” …
“technical sessions on rapid sea-level rise and its impacts” …
“Anthropogenic sea-level rise: ethical transgressions” …
Talking sense about “climate change” is a bit like talking to yourself, except you keep getting crazy, nonsensical answers.


Global Warming Disproof
Treating the Earth’s surface as a black body and populating it’s atmosphere with a mixture of GHGs and non-GHGs we have three sources of outgoing radiation. Integrating over a sufficient time period to eliminate the effects of seasons and day and night and integrating over the Earth’s surface spatially to eliminate variations with latitude we find that at mean temperature equilibrium the incoming radiation from the sun equals the outgoing radiation from our three Earthly sources of radiation.
We now remove the GHGs from the atmosphere and, if we like, replace them with an equivalent amount of non-GHGs. In order to restore radiative equilibrium (i.e. radiation from the Earth = radiation incoming from the sun) then the outgoing radiation from the black body Earth plus the now non-GHG atmosphere must increase to compensate for the removal of the GHGs.
Q 1) How do we get more radiation out of a black body?
Q 2) How do we get more radiation out of non-GHGs?
A1) Radiation from a black body can only be increased by increasing its temperature.
A 2) Non-GHGs are thermally radiating gasses. We can only get more radiation out of non-GHGs by increasing their temperature.
Q 3) How do GHGs affect mean global temperature?
A3) For the reader to answer.
If GHGs are better radiators than non-GHGs then the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is thus falsified. QED.

Ian W

This makes an interesting counterpoint to the insurance industry position on Sandy in the previous post.


Sponsored by the Rahm Emmanuel School of Climatology.


Jobs Jobs Jobs. It is necessary to invent a reason to spend “others people money” in Geological Society of America. The is nothing better than a Social Construction like Global Warming-Rising Waters etc….


Geologists bringing out the big ethical transgression guns of sea level rise. Shouldn’t they be more concerned about the ethical transgression of raping and pillaging the Pachamama with their drills every day? /sarc

I cannot understand why a bunch of normally sensible geologists want to be associated with that charlatan Mann. The dirt will rub off.


There creating jobs for themselves out of nothing! Outrageous!


To see “rapid sea level rise”, one could look at this chart of mean sea level at The Battery, NY. Notice the large acceleration over the last 50 years or so? Me neither. This chart of 50-year trends is also helpful to put current sea level rise in (recent) historical perspective.


The TRF-related uncertainty is currently 0.45mm/year and the new satellite will reduce it even further. Even currently the uncertainty almost an order of magnitude smaller than the sea-level rise signal! Please stop parroting that all sea-level measurements from satellites are currently completely wrong as if you were uninformed but stout denialists!


Maybe they are confusing rapid sea level rises and tides, well they do seem to have problems understanding natural cycles! Oddly I’m not actually being sarcastic, much….

Alan the Brit

The godless religion is thus boosted by the “profits” of doom! Give me more money!
David Schofield says:
November 5, 2012 at 1:33 am
“Pulses of rapid sea level rise” Tides?
🙂 Yes the sea rises rapidly twice a day down at Exmouth docks, sadly, it falls twice a day just as rapidly though!
The BBC are still peddling non-science in it’s Sunday night nature programme “Indian Ocean”, historically fascinating, scientifically crap! Shame really, the death throws of a once great British institution now nothing more than a laughing stock, only they keep the blinkers in place so can’t see it! Interestingly on yet another BBC nature programe yesterday afternoon/evening on Tasmania, the ugly spectre of DDT raised its head when talking about the near extinction of a native hawk due to egg-shell thinning 30 years ago. However, no mention was made of any of the dozens of other bird species on the island having had similar problems, curious how DDT seems to only affect birds of prey!

Sea level rises
How many millimeters exactly ?
How they measuring it ?

Perhaps by “rapid sea level rise” they actually do mean from storm surges. There were two sea level-based talks listed: “rapid sea level rise” and “anthropogenic sea level rise,” so maybe they’re distinguishing between the two.
While my degree is in geology, I’m not a working geologist and so am not a member of any professional organizations. Still, this is embarrassing, since geologists in general take the long view of climate change and aren’t fooled by short-term fluctuations and chance correlations. To me, it looks like this is a case of some small-college profs (well, except for East Carolina) hitching their wagon to the star of Michael Mann. Perhaps they haven’t been following the news.


Drat, I meant to make it clear that I was distinguishing between “rapid sea level rise” from storm surges and AGW sea level rise. I did not do a good job of that.


Is this a shameless attempt to claim relevance?
Surely it would be more appropriate to let things calm down before making this focus of interest-meetings; people have died.


Eco geek says
A 2) Non-GHGs are thermally radiating gasses. We can only get more radiation out of non-GHGs by increasing their temperature.
Non-GHGS are NOT thermally radiating gases. They neither absorb nor emit IR radiation.

Quick! before the winter’s snows begins and spoil the momentum!

Chuck Nolan

ConfusedPhoton says:
November 5, 2012 at 1:35 am
“Rapid Sea-Level Rise and Its Impacts” yeah right – I wonder how long before they talk about modelled sea level rise since those nasty observations are all wrong now. Thank goodness great nobel laureates will be at the session to make sure they are of the highest integrity!
I hope our other proud and honorable nobel laureate, Al Gore will be there and he can bring Dr. Peter Gleick. I can believe in CAGW as long as they have some fine upstanding Americans to establish and maintain the organization’s standard of honesty, integrity and ethics. Maybe Phil Jones will show up to help protect the historical sea level data. I’ve read he has some experience in safeguarding data.
I don’t care who, what, when, where, why or how the experts measure sea level. I will never in a million years believe they can prove sea level changed by 1mm.
They set the historical average by measuring changes in hundreds of meters then tremble in fear when somehow their numbers show sea level has risen how much? Paahh-leeeese.
Oh,I might add. if it has risen 1mm or 10mm or 1000mm, I don’t give a rip. IMHO, sea level changes. How do they not know there are sea shells on Mt Everest.

Nigel S

this most
excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave
o’erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted
with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to
me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.
What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me,
what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not
me: no,…


“Pulses of rapid sea level rise”?
Let’s see if I can guess: The pulses are gravitational; they occur on a cycle of 28 days; they seem to be made up of mini-pulses that happen four times a day.

Gary Pearse

Sober geologists? I guess they couldn’t stand passing up the cash for so long.


I hope some of the sensible US geologists will be at this meeting? Just to make sure the alarmists don’t get away with scientific murder………

lurker passing through, laughing

Once you accept the underlying assumption of rapid slr you can create any number of scary scenarios.
This is not really different from science fiction- once you assume faster than light, or an alien invasion, or psi abilities or etc. you can tell any number of entertaining stories that hold together pretty well. As long as you don’t question the underlying assumption.


That is very bizarre. Most of the geology sites I roam and discuss in, there is a near universal disbelief/disregard in CAGW. Too much rock history to get overwhelmed by assumed religious bleating and ranting. They’re real geological hazards aplenty that we’re not ready for without taking someone’s assumptions and beliefs without direct proof.
I’d equate the CAGW believing geologist numbers roughly equal to the geologists who believe in the healing power of crystals… If you can’t state/prove something with hard science, not polemic rants, then you haven’t proved anything. To get to the core, the geologists who do, er insist, on healing minerals always have a substantial financial stake on the silly folks who buy things on superstitious belief.
Still, the old cranky individualistic geologists are the most likely characters to spend a lot of time insulting each other and often have to be put in time out by list moderators. Loud noisy boisterous curmudgeons who delight in shock value… Science still rules. Opinions may diverge on any particular theoretical strata paragenesis.
If this society meeting is quiet and accepting, they’re not really practising geologists, they might be desk bound administrators who thought their geology credits merit something, but don’t get out much to study rock strata in situ.. And they likely have some financial stake in the whole AGW fright fest.
I hope the reality is that the audience is full of angry truculent practising geologists who haven’t bought into four CO2 molecules per ten thousand whomping up a hurricane/extra-tropical nor’easter for the delight of CAGW funding dependents and democrats.

Gary Pearse says:
November 5, 2012 at 6:08 am
> Sober geologists?
I don’t know about sober, but I can confidently predict that there will be beer served later in the day.
Of course, someone will have to explain that in this case “rapid sea level rise” is taking somewhat less than 10,000 years (or a few million if you want to avoid the noise of the recent ice ages).

Come to think of it, reporting “breaking news” to a geologist will likely get them thinking about earthquakes, not meteorologists. Or Nobel prize non-winners.

“When Mother Nature decided in 1980 to change gears from cooler to warmer, a new global warming religion was born, replete with its own church (the UN), a papacy, (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and a global warming priesthood masquerading as climate scientists. Selfish humans in rich, polluting countries were blamed for the warming and had to pay for past trespasses by providing material compensation to poor nations as penance. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions became the new holy grail. With a warm wind at their backs, these fundamentalists collected hundreds of billions of dollars from naive governments that adopted their faith on behalf of billions of people. No crusader was ever so effective.
The message was stark. If the non-believers didn’t convert immediately, our children and grandchildren would face a hell on earth. The priesthood excommunicated and humiliated sceptics and deniers. Alternative views were not tolerated and, where possible, were suppressed. Did someone mention the dark ages?”

David L.

This really isn’t that complicated. There is abundant sea level data to examine. Sandy hit during a full moon at high tide. We need to invoke some crazy dependence on CO2 ppm levels to explain this? What is wrong with these people? As a scientist, it’s really frustrating to listen to the AGW crowd. It’s even more frustrating to listen to lay-people that couldn’t even sketch a CO2 molecule be so certain about all of this as well.


Corruption is becoming easier to see and the groups involved.
Mass media, science publications like Nature, science societies, academic science departments, government science departments, politial agencies, and the list goes on.
Bringing corruption to all.
And some in the past have said godliness is of little value or importance. Do away with prayer and devotion to the Most High. We are not continuously in His Presence. He is nowhere to be found.
Those snared by naturalism have brought forth fruit, and it is not good. For all to see.


Hmmmmm…. Mann’s cellphone number should probably be redacted. Not that I have any interest in wasting my time dialing those digits…

PaulH says:
November 5, 2012 at 7:26 am
> Hmmmmm…. Mann’s cellphone number should probably be redacted. Not that I have any interest in wasting my time dialing those digits…
Calling it at 1135 might have amusement value. 🙂 He gives enough talks I suspect he’ll have it off then.


Wow, it is truly disheartening to realize that so many of my fellow geologists have been drinking the alarmist kool-aid, and drinking deeply I might ad.