An Open Invitation to Ira Flatow

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I had to go to town yesterday, and so I was glad it was Friday, because it’s Science Friday on the local Public Broadcasting System station and I can listen on my truck radio. In general I enjoy Science Friday, because the host, Ira Flatow, has interesting people on the show and he usually asks interesting questions … except when it’s about climate change. In that case his scientific training goes out the window, and he merely parrots the alarmist line.

In any case I was listening to Science Friday yesterday, and Ira referred to some recent pictures of flooding in Miami, Florida, as evidence that climate change is real and is already affecting Florida. It was the radio so no pictures, but he was referring to photos like this that have been in the news …

miami floodingHe was talking with a young woman, a Chicana climate activist. He and the activist agreed that this was clear evidence of anthropogenic climate change. In response to his question, she said that she was definitely using the Miami flooding to drive home the message that people should be very afraid of human-caused climate change, and that we’re already seeing the effects. I was depressed thinking of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that such false claims would cause.

I fear that both of them have been taken in by what I call a “scientific urban legend”. It’s easy enough to do. It happened to me a lot a while back … not so much lately, my urban legend detector works pretty well these days.

In this case, the urban legend is the false claim that warming over the last century has accelerated the rate of sea level rise. There is no sign of this claimed acceleration.

From the beginning of the climate alarmism in the 1980s, the long-predicted acceleration in the rate of sea level rise has been … well … the kindest description might be “late to the party”, because the predicted acceleration still hasn’t arrived. James Hansen famously predicted back in 1988 that in forty years the West Side Highway in New York City would be underwater. From the 1988 levels, to swamp the West Side Highway would require about a 3 metre (10 foot) sea level rise.

We’re now 27 years into his prediction, two-thirds of the way there, and instead of two-thirds of three metres of sea level rise, the sea level rise in NYC since his prediction has been … wait for it …

Three inches. 7.5 cm.

And from this point to make his prediction come true, we’d need ~ 9.9 feet of sea level rise in 13 years … that’s three quarters of a foot (225 mm) each and every year for the next thirteen years. Never happen. His prediction, like the overwhelming majority of climate alarmist predictions, is total nonsense. Here’s the data, from the PSMSL.

tides new york battery psmslNote the lack of any evidence of acceleration in the New York record … but we were talking Florida, not New York. Unfortunately, the Miami record is short, truncated, and intermittent. There are records from the thirties to the fifties, then a five-year gap, then the record stops abruptly in the eighties, with the last few years missing data. As a result, it’s useless for looking at acceleration of sea level rise. However, there are a couple of long-term stations in the vicinity. Here are the two longest continuous tide station records in Florida:

mean sea level trend key west flKey West  Note the lack of any acceleration. Here are the 50-year trends for Key West, with the trend values located at the center of the 50-year interval.

variation 50 yr sea level trend key west flNow, look at the error bars (vertical “whiskers” with horizontal lines top/bottom). If the error bars of two trends overlap, the difference between them is NOT statistically significant. And in this record, every single error bar overlaps every other single error bar … meaning there is NOT any acceleration of sea level rise over the period 1915-2015.

Next, the corresponding graphs for Pensacola, Florida, only slightly shorter:

mean sea level trend pensacola flPensacola

variation 50 yr sea level trend pensacola flAgain we see the same thing. All of the error bars overlap. No acceleration.

Now, in case you mistakenly think this lack of acceleration of sea level rise is unique to Florida or New York, let me point you to and quote from an article in the Journal of Coastal Research. The authors sum up their study as follows (emphasis mine):

Conclusion:

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.

Note that the “sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010)” are the standard alarmist predictions of sea level rise. The study says that not only is there no acceleration in the record, sea level rise has possibly slowed very slightly over the last eighty years … go figure.

So like I said, this is an opportunity for Dr. Flatow (he has a couple of honorary PhDs …) to abjure his mistaken ways. I’m posting this here, and I’m also sending a copy to him, as well as to other PBS addresses … we’ll see how it plays out. I’d be most happy if he were to post a reply here stating something like ‘If the data changes I change my mind … what do you do?’, but that may be too much to hope for.

All the best,

w.

AS USUAL: If you disagree with someone, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU OBJECT TO. This lets everyone know both who and what you find incorrect.

TIDAL DATA: PSMSL

FLORIDA DATA: NOAA Tides and Currents

0 0 vote
Article Rating
337 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 3, 2015 3:50 pm

Rework your math in the beginning. It’s off.

Roy Jones
Reply to  Alex (@PlancksLaw)
October 3, 2015 4:00 pm

To make the same point without the abrupt terminology:
I think you’ve mixed up meters and feet as you work through the calculation. You convert 3 meters to 10 feet, then deduct a few inches from 10 feet but call it meters – then convert the 9.9 meters back to even more feet.

Roy Jones
Reply to  Roy Jones
October 3, 2015 4:05 pm

Which in no way invalidates your conclusion at the end of the paragraph:”
” His prediction, like the overwhelming majority of climate alarmist predictions, is total nonsense

SCheesman
Reply to  Alex (@PlancksLaw)
October 3, 2015 4:03 pm

As off as your reading comprehension?
AS USUAL: If you disagree with someone, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU OBJECT TO. This lets everyone know both who and what you find incorrect.

SCheesman
Reply to  SCheesman
October 3, 2015 4:06 pm

Thank-you, Ray.

Mike Macray
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 5, 2015 1:41 pm

Another lovely post Willis. I too had apoplexy listening to Friday’s Flatow. Sadly you both missed the obvious: All that mud flowing down the Mississippi, Amazon, Niger, Irrawaddi, Yellow, Yangtse and the rest of them! It’s no wonder the sea level is rising by metes and bounds. And then there’s mount Everest still getting higher… which should lower sea level if they used the top of Everest as the Datum. What’s up with That?

Jimbo
Reply to  Alex (@PlancksLaw)
October 4, 2015 7:01 am

Tony has just posted something up on sea level rise. He goes to town on these adjusters with graphs.

Rampant Sea Level Fraud In Academia And Government
Posted on October 4, 2015
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/04/rampant-sea-level-fraud-in-academia-and-government/

Tom Dayton
October 3, 2015 4:02 pm

The reality is that, as Tamino has shown repeatedly, sea level rise has been faster than linear. https://tamino.wordpress.com/?s=sea+level

Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 3, 2015 4:45 pm

Tom Dayton,
tamino and skepticalscience readers at their annual convention:comment image

Bill 2
Reply to  dbstealey
October 3, 2015 5:53 pm

What does that have to with Tamino’s work, which cites peer-reviewed literature?

Reply to  dbstealey
October 3, 2015 8:21 pm

Perhaps just to aggravate some of you people, the 97% number Obama recently stated as fact. Don’t want discussion about any made up numbers but, assuming there is a large number of people claiming AGCC, how many of those same people also were experts on the coming Ice Age, then Global Warming and now are so confused they call it Climate Change? So the president tells us 97% agree man has done irreparable harm and it’s too late, send all your money, do any of you see a pattern?

Mike
Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 1:23 am

What does that have to with Tamino’s work,

Grant Foster aka “Tamimo” is cowardly propagandist who makes lots of mistakes but deletes any challenge or corrections to what he posts.
He never steps out side the sanctuary of his blog where he controls all content and is free from being shown for the fool that he is. That is how a propagandist works, it is not how science works.
Those who choose to believe his BS are pictured above. Get the picture?

Mike
Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 1:29 am

What does that have to with Tamino’s work,

Grant Foster aka “Tamimo” is cowardly propagandist who makes lots of mistakes but deletes any challenge or corrections to what he posts.
He never steps out side the sanctuary of his blog where he controls all content and is free from being shown for the fool that he is. That is how a propagandist works, it is not how science works.
Those who choose to believe his BS are pictured above.

Hivemind
Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 5:24 am

Somebody probably told them that there was no evidence that global warming was real and this was their response.

notfubar
Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 3:44 pm

Is there any way they could be persuaded to stay put there though high tide?

Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 3, 2015 5:18 pm

Tom
Why don’t you do something important and novel by telling us what is wrong with the paper by Houston and Dean. I read it when it came out and have never seen a credible challenge to its findings. Understandably it has just been ignored. Easier that way.

Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 3, 2015 6:21 pm

This is probably a futile effort. But I read the Florida sea level blog of Taminos. And I cannot see how his 3rd chart of projected rates could possibly follow from the first and second. And in any case, his third chart has such large error bars, I don’t see how any conclusions could be drawn from it. And that is without even asking the question of how could the error bars get larger as we get close to the current year.

Jimbo
Reply to  dbakerber
October 4, 2015 5:47 am

EVEN IF Tamino could show a rate of sea level rise how do I know it’s due to melting ice / thermal expansion??? Could we be seeing an acceleration in the rate of groundwater extraction?

UN-IGRAC – 2010
Global groundwater depletion leads to sea level rise
A collaboration between IGRAC and the Utrecht University lead to a joint article which is presently in press in Geophysical Research Letters….
Large-scale abstraction of groundwater for irrigation of crops leads to a sea level rise of 0.8 mm per year, which is about one fourth of the current rate of sea level rise of 3.3 mm per year….
——–
Reference:
Yoshihide Wada et al – 26 October 2010
Global depletion of groundwater resources
Geophysical Research Letters
DOI: 10.1029/2010GL044571
Number of times cited: 133

Jimbo
Reply to  dbakerber
October 4, 2015 6:00 am

Even if there is an acceleration – who done it? Melting ice? Thermal expansion? Or man?

Abstract – 8 May 2012
Yoshihide Wada et al
Past and future contribution of global groundwater depletion to sea-level rise
Recent studies suggest the increasing contribution of groundwater depletion to global sea-level rise. Groundwater depletion has more than doubled during the last decades, primarily due to increase in water demand, while the increase in water impoundments behind dams has been tapering off since the 1990s……
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051230/pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051230

Anne Ominous
Reply to  dbakerber
October 6, 2015 10:52 pm

At the risk of sounding like a nitpicker, I have to wonder what “faster than linear” means.
Speed of light in vacuum is pretty damned linear. Something that accelerates is not necessarily going “faster than linear”… it depends on the acceleration, and the slope of the linear line.
From what I’ve seen the acceleration, while slight, is negative. So dbakerber’s “faster than linear”, might well be correct, depending on what he means… but it’s getting “faster” in the opposite direction he thinks.
I have yet to personally see Tamino directly answer a probing question. Even those which should be easy.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 3, 2015 11:22 pm

You’re exactly right, Willis, about the lack of acceleration in rate of sea-level rise, and about Tamino (Mr. Grant Foster).
Tom Dayton wrote, “as Tamino has shown repeatedly, sea level rise has been faster than linear.” But Tamino has not actually shown that. He only thought he showed that. He botched it.
Tamino’s error was that he conflated satellite altimetry data with tide gauge data, creating the illusion of acceleration in rate of sea-level rise, where none actually exists. (The IPCC made the same mistake. Tony Heller memorably called it the “IPCC Sea Level Nature Trick.”)
I tried to point out Tamino’s mistake to him, politely, but his blog is heavily censored to stifle such dissent, and especially to prevent corrections of his own errors. That’s how he can get away with the misinformation he spreads, which confused Tom Dayton.
You’re also right, Willis, about the necessity for at least 50 years of tide gauge data to compute a robust long-term sea-level trend, too. On my site I have a list of other sources making that point, here:
http://www.sealevel.info/papers.html#howlong
I don’t have that AMSAT Pacific Country Report for Kiribati in that list, currently, but it’s a good one, and I’ll add it. Thank you for the link!
However, your other link doesn’t work You wrote, “it’s well known (see here and p. 8 here) that you need about fifty years of sea levels to get reasonable accuracy.” The first “here” link doesn’t work.

chris y
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 3, 2015 11:36 pm

I just downloaded the most recent satellite altimetry data and it shows a slight deceleration over the entire record.
From the paper you cited- “We analyzed the altimeter data from November 1992 to April 2010 and found a deceleration of -0.06 mm/y2.”
So the satellite record shows slight deceleration from 1993 – 2015.
The tide gauge record shows slight deceleration over 80 years.
Apparently one way to show ‘acceleration is to truncate the tide gauge data after 1992 and append the satellite altimetry data, since this provides a step increase in the rate of sea level rise.
The strange thing is that the tide gauges are used to calibrate the satellite altimetry data.
From the same paper you cited-
“…measurements were in good agreement up until 1999 and then began to diverge with the altimeters recording a significantly higher sea-level trend than worldwide-tide gauge records. Domingues et al. say that an explanation for the divergence is ‘‘urgently needed’’ (p. 1092) This divergence adds significant uncertainty to the altimeter measurements because tide-gauge records are used to calibrate the altimeter and correct for drift (Bindoff et al., 2007).”

George Tetley
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 12:22 am

To quote you Willis,
“And naturally ,” Looking at ALL, I am still waiting for someone to put the MOON into the calculation, hmm maybe its to big ?

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 7:14 am

I banned myself from Tamino/Foster’s site after he deleted most of my submitted comment and then attacked me for the remaining out-of-context sentence. I realized that going to his site is a waste of time.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 9:24 am

I recognized Tamino’s ‘attack with everything true or not then claim victory if any one part is ignored’ propaganda style right out the gate. When a person uses anger, insult, and tortured data instead of polite discourse, I write them off quickly too.
Basically, I don’t engage with folks that, in my opinion, demonstrate sociopathic tendencies.
Anything he has to say will need to be vetted by someone of merit before I will waste any time on it. My time is too precious to me to waste it finding his errors, no matter how clever he finds them. Let him run to the end of his chain and bark at others…

Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 4, 2015 1:19 am

Tom Dayton and Bill 2, Tamino’s work is based on computer models which all fail to show the current temperatures, rainfall/draught, storm count/intensity and sea level change.
Willis’ work is based on real data, not models and what is observed is that despite a (small) increase in temperature in the previous century (and none in this century), there is no accelerating sea level increase, to the contrary.
Thus if you speak of reality, don’t use the output of failed computer models as argument, you make yourself only look foolish on this blog…

joeldshore
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 4, 2015 6:04 am

Ferdinand,
This is simply untrue…completely untrue. Did you even bother to look at the links before you made this claim?
His “Florida Sea Level” post is based on data, not models.
His “Sea Level Rise: Faster than Projected” post looks both at real data AND models in order to conclude that the sea level rise is faster than projected by the modeling.
And, I could go on…

Jimbo
Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 4, 2015 5:34 am

Tamino’s blog he cites peer review you say.

Abstract – July 2013
Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts?
………..The reconstructions account for the observation that the rate of GMSLR was not much larger during the last 50 years than during the twentieth century as a whole, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semiempirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of the authors’ closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the twentieth century.
American Meteorological Society – Volume 26, Issue 13
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
==================
Abstract – January 2014
Global sea level trend during 1993–2012
[Highlights
GMSL started decelerated rising since 2004 with rising rate 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.
Deceleration is due to slowdown of ocean thermal expansion during last decade.
• Recent ENSO events introduce large uncertainty of long-term trend estimation.]
… It is found that the GMSL rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during the last decade, as a part of the Pacific decadal-scale variability, while the land-ice melting is accelerating the rise of the global ocean mass-equivalent sea level….
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397
==================
Letter To Nature – 23 March 2014
The rate of sea-level rise
Present-day sea-level rise is a major indicator of climate change1. Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ~3.1 mm yr-1 (refs 2, 3). However, over the last decade a slowdown of this rate, of about 30%, has been recorded4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It coincides with a plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming1, 9, 10, 11, 12……
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html

Greg Goodknight
Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 4, 2015 8:47 am

It bears repeating that E.Grant Foster, aka “tamino”, doesn’t have any college degrees or any solid scientific training. Evidence to the contrary is, once again, solicited.
He did some amateur astronomy under the wing of Janet Mattei at the AAVSO. Any more than that?

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  Greg Goodknight
October 4, 2015 9:13 am

Tamino’s credentials are not relevant to him being wrong.

Reply to  Greg Goodknight
October 4, 2015 9:48 am

Christopher Keating has nothing worthwhile to add.
Readers may not recall, but Christopher Keating was featured in an article here last year:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/about-that-30000-to-disprove-global-warming-contest
Keating was so thoroughly ridiculed by commenters for arranging his phony “wager” (he annointed himself as the exclusive, final, and only arbiter of who would be paid for answering his challenge. Hey, based on that formula, I can offer a reward of ten trillion quatloos to anyone proving that unicorns don’t exist (but like Keating, I reserve the exclusive right to determine whether anyone has won my challenge).
That’s what Keating did. Instead of offering a completely bogus award that will never be paid, he should start taking ethics classes, followed by placing his $10,000 into an escrow account with a neutral third party, which would employ eminent scientists selected equally by both sides of the debate, and who will decide if Keating’s challenge was met.
But we know there’s as much chance of that happening as Keating riding a unicorn to class…

Menicholas
Reply to  Greg Goodknight
October 4, 2015 4:46 pm

Careful DB…have the seen the recent surge in the quatloo exchange rate?
Some folks is losing they shirtz!
;’-)comment image

Anne Ominous
Reply to  Greg Goodknight
October 7, 2015 12:12 am

I concur with “Davie in Canmore”.
Tamino’s credentials have zero to do with whether he is right or wrong. Scholarly acedemics can be wrong; “waste disposal engineers” can be right. What matters is what they say, not who they are.

Bryan
Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 4, 2015 7:14 pm

I looked at the linked post, “Florida Sea Level”.
The money graph (the 4th one) shows the rate of sea level rise using the latest year as the end, and each previous year (from the beginning to the year 2000) as the start.
Guess what? It happens that the 2nd and 3rd graphs show a bump upward in sea level during the last 3 years. Now we can’t be sure that it will return to the trend, but previous bumps (in the 40’s and in the 70’s, as seen in the 2nd and 3rd graphs) have returned to the trend.
So of course if you show the rate with a nearby year (about 15 years previous) as the start, and the current year as the end, the current bump will cause the rate to be high. As you move your start date backward in time from the that (15 year previous) year, the rate will get lower and lower, since the significance of a bump at the end gets smaller and smaller as you go back in time for your start year.
If you chose the 1940’s bump as your end and a year 15 years before that as your start, and then went backwards in time for your start year, you would see a similar result, showing that at that time the sea level rise was “accelerating”. But gee, a few years later, once the data returned to the trend, if you used THAT year as your end year (and went 15 years previous for your start, and then went back from there for the start), the picture would be totally different, showing no acceleration at all. You would see the same phenomenon using the 1970’s bump as your end year, and repeating the process. But choosing a year after that 1970’s bump (after it returned to the trend), and repeating the process would again not show the acceleration.
It seems to me that all his analysis really shows is that the sea level has bumped up (above the trend line) recently. It has also bumped up before, and in those instances it came back to the trend line. Will it come back this time? I don’t know, but I have no reason to believe that it won’t.

Reply to  Bryan
October 5, 2015 12:46 am

Bryan wrote, “all [Tamino’s] analysis really shows is that the sea level has bumped up (above the trend line) recently. It has also bumped up before, and in those instances it came back to the trend line. Will it come back this time? I don’t know, but I have no reason to believe that it won’t.”
Right. The ocean, being full of water, tends to slosh. As Willis (and many other experts) have noted, you at least a half-century of data to derive a robust long term trend from a tide station’s measurements of sea-level.
However, Tamino also made another, more fundamental, error. He created the appearance of acceleration by using a different sets of tide gauges for different portions of his graph.
There are only four GLOSS-LTT (Long-Term Trend) tide gauges in Florida:
Fernandina Beach (beginning in 1897) 2.05 mm/yr
Key West (beginning in 1913) 2.33 mm/yr
Pensacola (beginning in 1923) 2.12 mm/yr
Mayport (beginning in 1928) 2.50 mm/yr
The three longest tide gauge records are from widely separated gauges. Pensacola is in the Central Time Zone, in the Florida Panhandle, near Mobile, Alabama, on the Gulf of Mexico. Fernandina Beach and Mayport are near the Georgia state line, on the Atlantic Ocean. Key West is the extreme southernmost tip of Florida; nautically, it is about equidistant between Pensacola and Fernandina/Mayport. (The distances are large; Fernandina/Mayport is closer to me, in North Carolina, than it is to Key West.)
None of those GLOSS-LTT graphs show any statistically significant acceleration in sea-level rise, except for Fernandina Beach, where the rate of sea-level rise appears to have increased about 100 years ago (when CO2 was ~300 ppmv), but hasn’t increased since.
So how did Tamino manage to produce a graph showing an apparent acceleration in sea-level rise, despite the best actual Florida tide gauges not showing any acceleration? Easy: he conflated data from different locations.
That’s scientific malpractice. Local rates of sea-level change can vary a lot from one location to another, due to differences in local vertical land movement, so by creating a graph with different locations graphed for different time periods, you can create the illusion of either acceleration or deceleration. That’s what Tamino did.
The first 16 years of Tamino’s graph is just a graph of sea-level at Fernandina Beach. But for the right-hand end of his graph he combined data from eleven Florida tide stations, presumably eleven of these fifteen:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.htm?gid=1238
As it happens, most of the shorter tide gauge records are from locations which have experienced somewhat higher rates of sea-level rise than have the locations with the three longest measurement records. For instance, Fort Myers (with a record starting in 1965) has seen 2.73 ±0.5 mm/yr sea-level rise. So by including its data in the mix, Tamino could increase the “average” rate of sea-level rise for the dates since 1965, helping to create the illusion of accelerated sea-level rise.
Tamino’s “Florida Sea Level” analysis is very shoddy work.

Duster
Reply to  Bryan
October 5, 2015 10:50 am

It seems that many of those gauges are located in areas where development and ground water extraction could have local effects on apparent mean sea level through local ground subsidence.

DD More
Reply to  Bryan
October 5, 2015 3:25 pm

And have they corrected or over-corrected for the 18.6-yearly Luna Nodal cycle?
The Dutch seems to have found it.
Local Relative Sea Level
To determine the relevance of the nodal cycle at the Dutch coast, a spectral analysis was carried out on the yearly means of six main tidal gauges for the period 1890–2008. The data were corrected for atmospheric pressure variation using an inverse barometer correction. The spectral density shows a clear peak at the 18.6 -year period (Figure 1). The multiple linear regression yields a sea-level rise (b1) of 0.19 +/- 0.015 cm y-1 (95%), an amplitude (A) of 1.2 +/- 0.92 cm, and a phase (w) of -1.16 (with 1970 as 0), resulting in a peak
in February 2005 (Figure 2). No significant acceleration (inclusion of b2) was found.
CONCLUSIONS
Coastal management requires estimates of the rate of sealevel rise. The trends found locally for the Dutch coast are the same as have been found in the past 50 years (Deltacommissie, 1960; Dillingh et al., 1993). Even though including the nodal cycle made it more likely that the high-level scenarios would become apparent in the observations, no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise was found. The higher, recent rise (van den Hurk et al., 2007) coincides with the up phase of the nodal cycle. For the period 2005 through 2011, the Dutch mean sea-level is expected to drop because the lunar cycle is in the down phase. This shows the importance of including the 18.6-year cycle in regional sea-level estimates. Not doing so on a regional or local scale for decadal length projections leads to inaccuracies.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00169.1
Linear trend lines on sinusoidal curves are very time dependent.

Bruce Cobb
October 3, 2015 4:04 pm

To be precise, it would need to rise 117 inches in 13 years, or 9 inches per year. Or, interestingly, the rate would have to zoom from 1/9th inch per year to 9 inches per year, or 81 times as fast.

Paul Westhaver
October 3, 2015 4:08 pm

ERROR Bars!!!
Well you don’t see that every day.
When error bands are superimposed over data sets, certainty takes a hit, as it should. That was refreshing to see.

rd50
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 3, 2015 6:26 pm

These are the error bands (confidence interval) for the slope. So the plotted straight line should be within this band. If you want it for the data sets (data points), calculation of the “prediction interval” and plotting such would be needed. Would be much wider and straight lines, not curve lines as shown.
Never calculated and seen displayed on this site.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  rd50
October 3, 2015 7:42 pm

I’ll take what I can get. “If you [also] want it for the data sets…” mmm yes…”Never …seen displayed on this site.” I did once. kill joy. 🙂

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  rd50
October 3, 2015 7:47 pm

I have a particular pet peeve of erroneously implied measurement precision (and I mean precision as compared with accuracy) Nobody uses error analysis anymore.

October 3, 2015 4:10 pm

So, the good Dr. Flatow is flat wrong.
(Hey, somebody was going to say it.)
/grin

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  JohnWho
October 3, 2015 5:20 pm

I continuously read his name as Dr. Dataflow. Some kind of visual perceptual;cognitive thing I guess.

bobbyv
Reply to  JohnWho
October 3, 2015 8:13 pm

Flatow flat out wrong.

John M. Ware
October 3, 2015 4:13 pm

Does Al Gore still own that seaside property in California? Apparently he is not expecting the sea to take it away during his ownership, and he expects to be able to sell it. If the sea were rising at a rapid rate, those expectations would be frustrated.

Reply to  John M. Ware
October 3, 2015 4:22 pm

Don’t believe Gore bought “seaside” property, but he did buy property that overlooks the Pacific.
Perhaps he wants to be able to watch as his neighbors lose their homes.

RayG
Reply to  JohnWho
October 3, 2015 4:53 pm

Al Gore bought a San Francisco condo that is in the flood zone from a 20 foot rise in sea level. That is the condo building. Perhaps the Goreacle’s condo is on an upper floor.

Editor
Reply to  JohnWho
October 3, 2015 5:04 pm

Yes, Gore bought a condo right on the ocean in SF. Any significant SLR would flood the lower levels, rendering the building probably useless.

Menicholas
Reply to  JohnWho
October 3, 2015 5:19 pm

Obama reportedly bought a sea level mansion in Hawaii.
The noted climate scientist and sea level expert Leonardo Di Caprio recently testified on sea level rise and climate change before congress, and shortly thereafter invested a huge sum in a multibillion dollar sea side real estate development in Central America.
Actions speak louder than words.

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia.
Reply to  JohnWho
October 3, 2015 6:55 pm

The Knob on the hill.

asybot
Reply to  JohnWho
October 3, 2015 8:45 pm

These people screaming “sea level rise” and then buying depreciated shore properties are like Soros and friends killing the coal industry and then buying coal companies for pennies on the dollar ( just recently btw). These people are evil.

Richard G
Reply to  JohnWho
October 5, 2015 11:04 pm

He wanted a front row seat for the carnage.

Alx
October 3, 2015 4:16 pm

I was depressed thinking of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that such false claims would cause.

I am not so much depressed thinking of the fear such false claims might cause but depressed that people (scientists no less) are capable of making false claims so easily without a second thought.

October 3, 2015 4:16 pm

Seriously,
” He and the activist agreed that this was clear evidence of anthropogenic climate change.”
should make us all cringe.
No, it is not “clear evidence of anthropogenic climate change”. It might be clear evidence that there has been a lot of rainfall in that area, However, to link that rainfall to whatever anthropogenic activity they are implying has changed the climate requires more that just “because we said so”.

Reply to  JohnWho
October 3, 2015 5:28 pm

An October Nor’easter is causing massive flooding in South Carolina and parts of North Carolina. How often do Nor’easters form in October? This must be clear proof of climate change.
And a strong Cat-4 hurricane formed in the Atlantic. How often do category 4 hurricanes form in the Atlantic in October? Don’t pay attention to the 1893 Cheniere Caminada hurricane, the 1898 Georgia hurricane, the 1910 Cuba hurricane, the 1921 Tampa Bay hurricane, the 1944 Cuba-Florida hurricane, the 1948 Miami hurricane, the 1950 Hurricane King, 1952 Hurricane Fox, 1954 Hurricane Hazel, 1955 Hurricane Ione, 1956 Hurricane Greta, and 1966 Hurricane Inez. You see, those cat-4 October hurricanes don’t count because the data is old and therefore not robust. This one, Hurricane Joaquin is special. This is the new normal. From now on, every October will be plagued will dangerous category 4 hurricanes, unlike any time in the past.
(Is [end sarcasm] really needed?)

Reply to  alexwade
October 3, 2015 7:28 pm

REX Block:
“This stretch of the East Coast from Charleston to Washington, D.C., is expected to be deluged as a result of a weather pattern called a “Rex Block,” which is forecast to bring heavy rain to the area’s already-oversaturated grounds.
This “powerful” low-pressure system over the southeast is moving slowly northeast, carrying heavy rainfall and expectations for high tides, the NWS said.”
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/02/hurricane-joaquin-and-rex-block-to-bring-life-threatening-floods.html

Reply to  alexwade
October 3, 2015 7:31 pm

Dating prior, the war of 1812 ended after a hurricane wiped out the east coast of the US. Some Historians say the English had other obligations, other wars that ended the war the States started. After the original White House was burned, a hurricane hit worse than Sandy. It became almost impossible to move troops and supplies after that and the fighting ceased.

brians356
Reply to  alexwade
October 3, 2015 9:50 pm

I heard the ‘H’ word on the weather channel today. The rains expected in the mid-Atlantic states will be (wait for it) … “historic.” Now there’s word which has been deflated to meaninglessness. Joining “unprecedented”.

Reply to  alexwade
October 4, 2015 2:15 am

Yes, alexwade, unfortunately the /sarc tag is required here, as many of the WUWT posters (both warmists and skeptics)have the same sense of humor and sarcasm as does Dr. Sheldon Cooper. The /sarc tag acts to draw them a simple picture of explanation that they may more readily understand. Bzynga!

Billy Liar
Reply to  alexwade
October 4, 2015 12:14 pm

brians356
October 3, 2015 at 9:50 pm
The rain in the Carolinas is not directly associated with Hurricane Joaquin, that is 600 nm away in Bermuda (as a Cat 2).

Menicholas
Reply to  alexwade
October 4, 2015 4:49 pm

Unfortunately, the rains there are on the order of a 1000 year flood event, and many are suffering greatly, and some are dead.
This may well be one of the worst flooding events in our country’s history.

jeanparisot
Reply to  alexwade
October 5, 2015 5:12 am

It provides an anecdotal reference for a stepwise change in weather patterns … better than the wet streets of Miami for sea level rise. I wonder if all that water on the Miami streets is even brackish?

RoHa
Reply to  JohnWho
October 3, 2015 10:33 pm

Exactly. I don’t see how it is evidence of anything anthropogenic rather than natural.

Latitude
October 3, 2015 4:17 pm

We have something very screwy going on down here (Florida Keys) with our sea level rise. First, Key West is moving NW faster than the measured sea level rise. Second, As you move further up the Keys, you reach a point where there is no sea level rise at all. As measured by historic markers, docks, sea walls, etc.
So….do we have sea level rise or not?…..depends on where you look

benofhouston
Reply to  Latitude
October 3, 2015 4:26 pm

The answer is yes. However, you have land rise too. Geologic effects are on the same order of magnitude as sea level rise, so it easily cancels out or multiplies if you don’t account for it..

Latitude
Reply to  benofhouston
October 3, 2015 4:53 pm

or not…….65% 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

Reply to  benofhouston
October 3, 2015 8:43 pm

Latitude, did you not understand the point benofhouston was making at all? There are main places in the world where the crust is rising faster than the water level. Local geological effects are often much larger than the effects of global increases in ocean volume for determining the tide level. Geological effects can work the other way too. For example, the rate in Grand Isle Louisiana is .9 meters per century since 1947, roughly 5.3 times the global rate. Why? Because the land, the actual land itself is sinking. This is called subsidence.

Reply to  benofhouston
October 4, 2015 1:30 am

Most of the Nordic countries were under a thick layer of ice during the last ice age, that still gives a rebound of some one meter uplift per century in Scandinavia. The reverse is true for e.g. Venice which is sinking…
Some man-made help is added too, by pumping away drinking water from the deeper layers (as is the case for Venice) and urbanization which compacts the earth layers.
One need to take this into account when looking at tide gauges.

Latitude
Reply to  benofhouston
October 4, 2015 6:39 am

Andrew…yes I did

benofhouston
Reply to  benofhouston
October 4, 2015 2:14 pm

Latitude, then I fail to see what you are objecting too. The facts are fairly simple. We are experiencing global sea level rise of ~2mm per year. However, various landmasses are rising or falling, which causes some tidal gauges to show nothing and some to show drop.

Menicholas
Reply to  benofhouston
October 4, 2015 4:52 pm

No doubt the isostacy associated with post glacial rebound is a large factor in the sea level changes in many locations.
But there are many other tectonic, geologic and geographic peculiarities and circumstances which cause various areas and regions to rise and fall with respect the sea.

spangled drongo
Reply to  Latitude
October 3, 2015 5:59 pm

Those same “supertides” that affected you were also tipped to do likewise on the east coast of Australia but all we got here were record low tides, so much so that boats in marinas were going aground more than they had ever before and pontoons were breaking off from their walkways.
There has been anecdotal evidence of quite a few exceptional low tides here recently.

asybot
Reply to  spangled drongo
October 3, 2015 8:49 pm

Is that kinda like Guam tipping over due to “Global Warming”??

Menicholas
Reply to  spangled drongo
October 4, 2015 4:53 pm

HEY!
Show some respect!
Guam is very top-heavy.

Reply to  spangled drongo
October 4, 2015 6:03 pm

Rebound from the last ice age?
Australia?

Menicholas
Reply to  Latitude
October 3, 2015 7:10 pm

This is why by looking at widely spaced markers and gauges, one can begin to draw some conclusions.
One cannot do the same by examining one spot closely.

Reply to  Menicholas
October 4, 2015 12:11 am

Menicholas wrote, “by looking at widely spaced markers and gauges, one can begin to draw some conclusions.”
Yes, and, FYI, “widely spaced” means somewhere around 400 km (250 miles).
I studied this a few years ago. I compared sea-level trends at long-term tide gauges which were varying distances apart, and I found that only at distances less than about 400 km is there a substantial increase in correlation between sea-level trends measured at pairs of tide stations, when the stations are closer together.
Menicholas also wrote, “One cannot do the same by examining one spot closely.”
It depends on what sorts of conclusions you’re making. You cannot determine much about the rate of change (first derivative) of global sea-level, just by examining one tide gauge record closely, because in many places local vertical land movement has more effect on local sea-level change than does global sea-level change.
OTOH, if you have over a century of data at one location, you can reach valid conclusions about the acceleration (2nd derivative) of globally averaged sea-level, just by examining one tide gauge record closely. That’s because in most cases the factors which affect vertical land movement (like PGR) are very nearly linear at century time scales, and also at those time scales gravity tends to even out sea-level changes due to water level change, around the globe.
Consequently, the world’s best long-term tide gauges show a great range of sea-level trends (first derivative of sea level). E.g., in Oslo, sea-level is falling ~3 mm/yr. In New York City, sea-level is rising ~3 mm/yr. So I agree with you, Menicholas, that you cannot say much about the global sea-level rate of change from just one gauge.
However, all the best long-term tide gauge records have measured nearly identical sea-level rise acceleration (second derivative) since the 1920s. In every case, the acceleration is essentially zero
Here are NOAA-generated sea-level graphs, with linear regression calculated and graphed, from a dozen or more countries. To anyone who knows how to read a graph, it is obvious that none of them show any statistically significant long term change in rate of sea-level rise since the 1920s (and since before that, in most cases):
http://www.sealevel.info/120-022_Wismar_2015-5_40pct.jpg (Germany)
http://www.sealevel.info/9414290_SanFrancisco_2015-10.png (San Francisco, USA)
http://www.sealevel.info/050-123_Landsort_2015-10.png (Sweden)
http://www.sealevel.info/680-140_Sydney_2015-10.png (Australia)
http://www.sealevel.info/040-321_Oslo_2015-10.png (Norway)
http://www.sealevel.info/8518750_TheBattery_2015-10.png (New York, USA)
http://www.sealevel.info/230-051_Marseille_2015-10.png (France)
http://www.sealevel.info/500-041_Mumbai_2015-10.png (India)
http://www.sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_2015-10.png (Honolulu, USA)
http://www.sealevel.info/060-351_Helsinki_2015-10.png (Finland)
http://www.sealevel.info/170-011_Aberdeen_2015-10.png (UK)
http://www.sealevel.info/8574680_Baltimore_2015-10.png (Baltimore, USA)
http://www.sealevel.info/305-021_Poti_2015-10.png (Georgia)
http://www.sealevel.info/9410170_San_Diego_2015-10.png (San Diego, USA)
http://www.sealevel.info/110-092_Swinoujscie_2015-10.png (Poland)
http://www.sealevel.info/190-091_Brest_2015-10.png (France — this record is over 200 years long)
http://www.sealevel.info/9447130_Seattle_2015-10.png (Seattle, USA)
http://www.sealevel.info/840-011_Balboa_2015-10.png (Panama)
http://www.sealevel.info/822-101_Victoria_2015-10.png (Canada)
All of those gauges have were >100 year sea-level records. Unfortunately, there aren’t any of those in South America, but here’s a >70 year record:
http://www.sealevel.info/870-011_Montevideo_2015-10.png (Uruguay)
In every case we see the same thing: the very large increase in CO2 emissions and levels since the 1940s has caused no detectable increase in the rate of sea-level rise.

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
October 4, 2015 9:00 am

Yes, Dave, after posting that comment I realized it was not a very complete thought.
Excellent post by you!

Roy Jones
October 3, 2015 4:19 pm

“Note that the “sea levels predicted for 2100 by ………. Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010)”
It’s after midnight here in the UK. If I’d had one more drink I’d be wondering if the Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010 paper was the same as the Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010) paper, but with the paragraphs in a different order.
Time to switch off.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Roy Jones
October 3, 2015 4:39 pm

got error bars for that?

asybot
Reply to  Bubba Cow
October 3, 2015 8:51 pm

Maybe not but he definitely had a bar.

Richard G
Reply to  Bubba Cow
October 5, 2015 11:25 pm

If I go to the bar and they make an error in my drink request, I will not be happy.

Latitude
October 3, 2015 4:20 pm

BTW…Willis we have that every year….sometimes twice…..it even has a name, given to it long before global warming…..it’s called a King Tide….this year it coordinated with a SUPER MOON! (those names tickle me!)

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
October 3, 2015 4:30 pm

Willis…nevermind, I did some looking and found out you guys out there call them King tides too!

Tom Dayton
October 3, 2015 4:22 pm

Hansen did not actually predict the West Side Highway would be covered in 40 years. He predicted that would happen eventually if CO2 doubled. The journalist interviewing him is the one who posed the question poorly. This was explained clearly, with source material, years ago: http;//skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-about-the-West-Side-Highway.html

Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 3, 2015 4:47 pm

Tom Dayton,
Hansen was flat wrong. Why try to defend his wild-eyed predictions?
To educate yourself, put “hansen” in the WUWT search box.

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
October 3, 2015 6:06 pm

Tom
My advice is to educate yourself by not sticking to one site, this one, or any other. You get one angle from WUWT, but there are a heap out there with equally valid views.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 3, 2015 6:34 pm

Simon,
Here is a mean sea level (MSL) tide mark carved into rock in 1841:
http://www.john-daly.com/photomrk.htm
Today, the MSL is the same.
What is your conclusion? That verifiable, empirical observations are accurate? Or that self-serving assertions that the sea level rise is accelerating are accurate?
Pick one.

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  dbstealey
October 3, 2015 6:47 pm

Simon
October 3, 2015 at 6:06 pm
When ‘equally valid views’ conflict, where does one go?
Two things that are true, by definition, cannot contradict each other.
Either the rate of change of sea level is increasing, or it is not.
Its just a matter of working out which data has not been interfered with,looking it up and drawing an obvious conclusion.
Where some famous celebrity has made a prediction, its possible to make a judgement call on that prediction.
When journalists don’t change despite new information about the prediction, its time to stop listening to them and still find out what the reality is.
As Aesop points out
‘Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow’
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aesop107142.html

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
October 3, 2015 7:31 pm

DB
I certainly have a lot more faith in those who study this stuff than some lame mark on a rock. And they tell us the sea is rising and will continue to do so.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 3, 2015 7:40 pm

Simon says:
I certainly have a lot more faith…
That says it all. Simon’s religious faith trumps empirical evidence carved into rock.
Skeptics know the sea level is rising. Naturally. But all the alarmist predictions of the natural sea level rise accelerating were wrong.
When one side of the debate makes alarming predictions that are always wrong, sensible people will question their original premise, and their unstated motivations.

TYoke
Reply to  dbstealey
October 3, 2015 8:08 pm

DB already made the point, but Simon’s quote is so extraordinary that it deserves a second look. Here it is again:
“I certainly have a lot more faith in those who study this stuff than some lame mark on a rock.”
Simon is prepared to reject the physical evidence right in front of him because he has “faith” in a particular set of authorities he has pre-chosen. If you are not one of those pre-chosen authorities, nothing you say, and no evidence you present, will get through.
The weird thing is that WE are the ones called deniers.

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
October 3, 2015 9:23 pm

TYoke
So is the sea not rising? Have they got it all wrong? Did we not land on the moon?

benofhouston
Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 6:17 am

Simon, don’t put words into our mouths. Basic analysis of tidal gauges both American and Global has shown no overall acceleration. SkS’s claims to the contrary relied on cherry-picked data and ludicrously small error bars, aided by too-short time frames and conflating satellite and land-based gauges.
There is just no basis with moon hoax comparisons

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 11:32 am

DB
So we have some pretty clever people, who use very clever equipment, to measure sea level rise to the nearest mm and you place your belief (and reputation) in… well…. your worship of a mark on a rock. And you accuse me of being religious. You are a funny guy DB.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 11:50 am

Simon sez:
So we have some pretty clever people, who use very clever equipment, to measure sea level rise to the nearest mm…
Who might those “very clever” folks be? As TYoke wrote above:
Simon is prepared to reject the physical evidence right in front of him because he has “faith” in a particular set of authorities he has pre-chosen.
So which is right, Simon? Empirical evidence, carved into rock 174 years ago?
Or your un-named “pretty clever people”?
Pick one or the other, Simon. In this case, they can’t both be right.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 12:07 pm

Simon,
One more correction:
You keep erecting a strawman, trying to put skeptics into the position of saying there is no sea level rise. That is not the question. you are trying to re-frame the argument so you can claim that you won. Wrong.
The question is this: Are human CO2 emissions the cause of any sea level rise beyond what has been naturally occurring over the past couple of centuries?
Skeptics of the ‘climate change’ scare know the sea level has been naturally rising, and that the rise has not accelerated. We also know that the assertion that human emissions have anything to do with sea levels is a mere conjecture, with no supporting measurements.
So, Simon, we have this situation:
1. Sea level rise has remained constant, with a slight, long term deceleration:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3144596227_545227fbae_b.jpg
2. The planet was recently (≈300 ybp) in the second coldest episode of the entire Holocene. It has been recovering, in fits and starts, ever since:
http://www.lwhancock.com/images/Ljugzvist2010.gif
3. If human emissions have an effect on sea level rise, then that must be observed on top of the steady, long term trend in SL rise:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/sea-level.gif
Conclusion: there is no evidence of any “fingerprint of global warming” in the sea level record.

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 2:04 pm

DB
Actually you IMHO are wrong. It is possible to have the mark visible both now and in the past. If the photo was taken at a different time of tide …. or one was taken during a small tide and one a larger one (tides can vary by metres), then yes the photo and the rising seas could both be right and probably are. But we agree anyway that sea level is rising.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 2:17 pm

Simon,
You’re grasping at straws. The John Daly site explains that the mark was carved at mean sea level (MSL). The pics were taken at MSL. Do you understand MSL?
Yes, sea level is rising. Naturally. Long term the rise is decelerating. There is no verifiable measurement-based evidence showing that human CO2 emissions have anything to do with sea levels.
You really ought to give up on this particular argument. Belief is all you’ve got.

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 2:55 pm

DB
Cool, we agree that sea level is rising. We are making progress. Now tell me why you think it is rising? Saying we are coming out of an ice age is not an answer. What is it specifically that causes the level to rise?

Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 6:54 pm

Simon,
Instead of trying to change the subject, try to reply to my comment:
“There is no verifiable measurement-based evidence showing that human CO2 emissions have anything to do with sea levels.
No doubt you are deflecting because it is your belief that human emissions are the cause of sea level rise. Is that what you think?
If not, relax, it’s simply nature at work. Nothing to be alarmed about.
But if you believe human activity is the cause of sea level rise, post your evidence here.

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 7:56 pm

I am not going to answer … again… your unanswerable question. You have been told so many times (it has become utterly utterly boring) that it is not possible to give a figure because no figure could possibly be given. And no (yawn) that does not mean the game is over. It just means the question is ridiculous. You always default back to that position of stomping your feet and blocking your ears when you are caught out.

rogerknights
Reply to  dbstealey
October 5, 2015 7:04 am

Simon October 4, 2015 at 2:55 pm
DB
Cool, we agree that sea level is rising. We are making progress. Now tell me why you think it is rising? Saying we are coming out of an ice age is not an answer. What is it specifically that causes the level to rise?

1. Silt being deposited by rivers.
2. Ground water extraction going into the oceans.
3. Global warming (mostly natural) expanding the oceans from higher temperatures and from causing glacial melt..
4. The U. of Colo.’s spurious redefinition of sea level as oceanic volume, which is rising more than sea level, because ocean floors are sinking into the earth.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 5, 2015 10:14 am

Simon, you lose. I said:
Instead of trying to change the subject, try to reply to my comment:
“There is no verifiable measurement-based evidence showing that human CO2 emissions have anything to do with sea levels.”

I added that if you believe human activity is the cause of sea level rise, post your evidence here. As usual, you deflected.
Your response:
I am not going to answer
That’s because you have no credible answer. Either you have evidence, or you don’t. Saying my question is “unanswerable” means you don’t have evidence. Thus, all you have is your religious faith that CAGW is causing accelerating sea level rise.
So the game is over. You’ve got nothin’.

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
October 5, 2015 11:29 am

rogerknights
I will be so impressed if you can supply a link to a reference that is on any level credible for the pile of nonsense you just wrote.

timg56
Reply to  dbstealey
October 5, 2015 2:02 pm

Guys,
When you run across someone as clueless as Simon, you should just keep on walking.
He’s clearly indicated that he is perfectly ok to let someone else do his thinking for him. If he really was interested in learning he would look into the data himself. What he would find is that sea level rise – whether measured by tidal gauge or satellite – has been steady over the length of the record keeping. And whether one wants to use tidal gauge date (1.7 mm / yr rise) or satellite data (3.3 mm / yr rise), it is pretty hard to get worked up over 8 – 10 inches per century.
The beauty of Simon’s position is he doesn’t have to do the math and can continue to hold onto his belief system, no matter what any real world data might indicate.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 5, 2015 7:16 pm

tmg56,
You’re right, of course. Simon’s argument is made up of assertions, which are based on his eco-religion. Science has nothing to do with his beliefs.
For rational readers, we can see that sea level rise has been gradually decelerating:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Sea_Level_Holgate.jpg
All the wild-eyed scares over Manhattan and Florida being inundated are no more than a figment of the alarmist crowd’s imagination. Real world evidence shows that isn’t going to happen.

bit chilly
Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 3, 2015 4:59 pm

i like it when people from sks come here. proper moderation allows people to voice alternative opinion and any factual evidence contrary to the meme remains. sks should try it sometime, you might see a better average than 0.75 replies per post 🙂

Steve Case
Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 3, 2015 5:29 pm

Dr. Hansen has said that five meters is possible by the end of the century. He proposed a doubling of thr rate every ten years.
If you run the numbers on that, it comes to almost a millimeter per DAY by 2100.

billw1984
Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 3, 2015 7:09 pm

Hmmm, that explains how and why Hansen vigorously objected to the article’s inaccuracy at the time and immediately asked for a correction to be issued and then went on TV and explained how he was misquoted. Oh wait, he didn’t?

HocusLocus
Reply to  billw1984
October 4, 2015 5:39 am

Stage magicians do not usually interview their audience afterwards to single out and instruct those who did actually swoon from an earnest belief in magic, even though such a belief robs the magician of recognition for the difficult skill of prestidigitation.
But in a particularly bizarre moment of history (the mid 1970s) Uri Geller was touring the world bending spoons with his ‘mind’ and the Shirley MacLaine set was eating it up. A group of stage magicians, evidently concerned that this bona fide belief in psychokinesis had gotten a bit out of hand, broke out through the fourth wall or whatever they call it to publicly demonstrate how these tricks can be performed. The intractable Geller responded by acknowledging their skill, but insisted that he chose to do it (as famously described by James Randi) “the hard way”.
Perhaps Hansen is just trying to save the world “the hard way”.
It really does seem that die hard AGW is a mule-like conversion, to channel Asimov. When forced to ignore insufficient or conflicting evidence and assert the cause, unlike Geller who was the lone wolf, they probably confide their true objectives among their peers who grant them indulgence from sins of omission and misdirection. Take one for the team.

Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 4, 2015 2:31 am

As explained in this WUWT post (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/) Hansen predicted his sea level rise in 20 years (2008). Some convenient and belated back peddling has muddied this date, but suffice it to say that Hansen had no idea at the time of what he was talking about. It was nothing but pure and unadulterated ego-driven hyperbole. I suspect the same holds true today.

Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 4, 2015 7:03 am

Tom, I myself am waiting for Hansen to be right eventually. I’m just sitting down next to my cats, sipping a lovely coffee…eventually Hansen will win out, its going to be a very nice feeling on that day I can assure you. I can just see the two of us; grinning from ear to ear together. And maybe Hansen is with us on that special day, maybe he has a cat or two, like we do?

Reply to  Tom Dayton
October 4, 2015 9:26 am

I’m going out on a limb here, but it may be that Simon and some others do not understand “acceleration”.
“So is the sea not rising?” he asks.
Of course it is rising and has been for a very long time; we all know that.
The issue is the rate of change of that rise.
(Sorry if I got too elementary.)

AndyE
October 3, 2015 4:24 pm

Look forward to Ira Flatow’s reply – if any!

Michael Jankowski
October 3, 2015 4:26 pm

“King Tide” flooding is annual in Miami.

Latitude
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 3, 2015 4:32 pm

…and Ft Lauderdale, Pompano, West Palm, Hollywood, Florida Keys, etc etc
Has been going on since the beginning of time.

October 3, 2015 4:28 pm

I still think Marc Morano’s post of the opening flyover of the Fort Lauderdale beach versus current views of the same place is the most immediate indisputable evidence of almost no change in half a century : http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/25/film-where-the-boys-are-disproves-rising-seas-scare-the-beach-is-exactly-as-wide-now-as-it-was-in-1960/
Actually I’m sure sections of Manhattan’s West Side Highway have flooded more than once over the last several decades . I lived at the end of Peck Slip by the Fulton Fish Market from 1984 til 2005 and it flooded back to Water Street twice during hurricanes in the ’80s . Quite a mess with cases of fish floating among the drowned cars and vans . And they fried all the electrics in the basement which was constructed in the 1870s as a big tub with layers of brick and straw and asphalt but needed a higher rim .
Even smaller tides than those named storms flood sections of the FDR with some frequency . Sandy , tho , flooded the whole area at least a meter and a half deeper than anything I experienced .
But these floods never last more than 6 hours .

Menicholas
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 3, 2015 7:06 pm

I have old pics from the 1920s of Lummus Park and one of the same place today…beach looks identically wide then as now.
Claughton/ Brickell Key in Biscayne Bay is an excellent example as well.
See my post below.

timg56
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 5, 2015 2:11 pm

RE: Beaches being as wide now as in past years.
Keep in mind the the Corp of Engineers spends a lot of time and money rebuilding beaches.
I believe it is to counter
a) erosion from storms
and
b) erosion resulting from earlier human efforts to counterat natural erosion.
As a kid we spenmt 1-2 weeks every summer at OC MD. Still own a place there. A multitude of strategies have been tried there. I believe the only ones which have worked is large scale planting of native dune grasses to reduce loss from big storm events and pumping of sand from the bottom a few hundred feet out from the beach bak onto it.

John W. Garrett
October 3, 2015 4:28 pm

Ira Flatow is required to adhere to the NPR party line or he will lose his meal ticket.
Were he to depart from the agenda, they’d turn on him like jackals.

Reply to  John W. Garrett
October 4, 2015 7:05 am

It’s more than likely Ira does not require food of any kind; more often than not he seems to be running on some kind of bio-fuel neatly injected into his legs. Anyway, that’s how it sounds to us

Don Easterbrook
October 3, 2015 4:37 pm

“If an honest man is proven wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.”

gymnosperm
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
October 3, 2015 8:54 pm

+1

Abder
October 3, 2015 4:37 pm

There is a similar event, on this video, about sea level rise in Florida, but in French ; people seem not to be concerned so much : http://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/usa/la-floride-en-proie-a-la-montee-des-eaux_1108595.html

thingadonta
October 3, 2015 4:39 pm

We used to play a game at school called Chinese whispers.
Someone would quietly whisper something into someone’s ear, they would then repeat it word for word to the next person, and so on. To make things interesting, the whisper might be somewhat complicated and more than just a sentence or two. The last person would report to the group what they heard.
What would often result after about 20 people was totally different to what the first person said, usually biased towards what individuals within the group would want to be said. The teacher had to stop this game after statements came out against certain people which were totally unrelated to what was started at the first whisper, and often much shortened and simplified.
A few observations:
-people didn’t always pass on a message correctly as they might not have heard it properly, in such cases what gets passed on tends to mirror the person’s or group’s individual bias. This was largely unintentional. If they heard it correctly but didn’t understand the message, what they passed on was often worse.
-sometimes people made things up, especially if they didn’t quite hear it properly but didn’t want to admit they didn’t hear it properly and therefore slow the game (or if they didn’t understand it an didn’t want to be embarrassed). But importantly, there is no way the next person would know that this was the case, as they did not have access to the previous person’s whisper. Moreover, the overall effect was usually cumulative, so often no-one was at fault.
-People at the end often didn’t want to report what they heard at the end if they strongly suspected there had been some sort of misinformation somewhere.
-It was also usually quite difficult to trace who had reported wrong information.
I would suggest that chinese whispers plays a large in the climate science field, as it does in many others.

gbaikie
Reply to  thingadonta
October 3, 2015 4:53 pm

In a scientific field, you would write down exactly what was whispered and pass the note.

James Francisco
Reply to  gbaikie
October 3, 2015 6:48 pm

In my world of aircraft maintenance many times the aircraft discrepancy that was written down by a pilot or maintenance people, did not match the discrepancy that I saw. I’m sure the pilots were trying to get it right.

Reply to  gbaikie
October 4, 2015 7:08 am

And you would also include a copied version of the original text, and in very creepy instances, you would include the very fingers which first typed the text

JoeJ
Reply to  thingadonta
October 3, 2015 5:12 pm

Completely off topic here, but I once read about a particular phrase that would survive an entire room of Chinese-whisper transfers, and I can assure you from personal experience (more than once) that it’s true. Try this: “My nose is in your ear”.

thingadonta
Reply to  JoeJ
October 3, 2015 8:32 pm

Maybe off topic, but I should have added:
sea level could accelerate under climate change—sea level could be accelerating under climate change—sea level could have accelerated under climate change—sea level has accelerated.

Reply to  JoeJ
October 4, 2015 12:22 am

Sea-level rise has accelerated, but not since the 1920s.

Marcuso8
Reply to  thingadonta
October 4, 2015 3:07 am

Some Humans tend to only see and hear what they want to see and hear !! BTW , in Canada this same ” experiment ” was done in French class !! Quite hilarious !!

October 3, 2015 4:48 pm

It seems no fact will dissuade them from this Bravo Sierra
they don’t care
it’s the religion
we are entering some new dark age
the forces of the 7th century gather in the East
while they wring their soft hands over sea level rise
Gaia help us!

Dahlquist
Reply to  rebelronin
October 3, 2015 7:32 pm

Reb
You sure got that straight on. WTF? This President is … And the rest of em too.

Monna Manhas
October 3, 2015 4:54 pm

I am reminded of the following:
If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
Deuteronomy 18:22

Reply to  Monna Manhas
October 4, 2015 12:40 am

+1

Editor
October 3, 2015 4:54 pm

Re: Flooding in Miami The most often featured picture of tidal flooding in Miami is of a particular corner that was actually built below Mean High Tide — water people will know that this means that the expected high tides will always flood this spot. There are drains and pumps to keep the corner clear, but sometimes they get overwhelmed.
In other words, stupid city planning! Who would authorize a street and stores to be built below the expected high tides in the canal just two block away?

BFL
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 3, 2015 5:23 pm

New Orleans…..

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 3, 2015 5:45 pm

Just like most all the damage done by Katrina in New Orleans was due to a faulty assumption that you can build a ship canal 12 feet higher than surrounding neighborhoods and never expect a blowout. I’d bet that very few people in New York even know that many of the subways are well below sea level, and susceptible to a major surge event, like Sandy

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 4, 2015 12:24 am

But relatively tiny amounts of money would have ensured that the levies in New Orleans were hurricane proof.
Compared to the hundred’s of billions of dollars hurled at preventing hurricanes.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Recovery_Act_Innovation.pdf

Menicholas
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 4, 2015 9:20 am

Nothing will make a city which is below sea level “hurricane proof”.
When one looks at the damage from Katrina in nearby Mississippi, where the storm actually hit and the storm surge was the worst…one can see why. The storm surge was 27 feet high in the right front quadrant, and penetrated 6 miles inland, and as much as twice that along bays and rivers!
6 to 12 miles inland. The surge went right over the top of I-10 and kept going for several miles more!
Just think about that for a second.
And a 27 foot surge, with waves on top of that!
What did the damage in New Orleans was a pin prick compared to where the worst of the storm hit…but since the city is below sea level, and many ignored, or were unable to comply with, evacuation orders…the result was many fatalities.
A direct hit from a Cat 5 is impossible to protect against…it will level everything and flood the debris.
And then there are the dozens to hundreds of individual tornadoes which are often spun off main circulation.
Hurricane proof for a tiny sum?
Sorry Frog, I usually agree with you, but you are incorrect here.
If you have been the places I have been after storms, like North and South Carolina after Hugo, or Homestead and Florida City after Andrew…you would know different.

Menicholas
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 4, 2015 9:24 am

BTW, even the rebuilt New Orleans levees, although much improved, are not built to withstand a direct hit from a cat 5 storm…it would simply be too expensive to do so, and would likely not work no matter how much was spent.
Mother Nature rules the coastlines. Hurricanes are the enforcers in this domain.

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 5, 2015 2:01 am

Apologies @Menicholas, for my rash simplification.
What I should have said, is that tiny amounts invested in fortification and elevation of levees would serve the people of New Orleans better than the hundred’s of billions now dedicated to the manipulation of the weather. And those hundreds of billions do not even seem to have been dedicated to the task of reducing CO2 output, but instead, squandered on outlandlish nonsense that purports to be “innovation”.
So, this was more or less the contrast that occurred to my mind.
Sometimes, I am too rushed or attempting to be to pithy.
But, absolutely, having seen, only this morning, the footage of a multi-storey building being turned inside out by the typhoon in China, I can see that there my use of the words “hurricane proof”, in this instance, come across as ill-informed!!
Thanks for picking me up on this lazy rhetoric.
I didn’t even spell levees correctly – it was bad…

Simon
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 3, 2015 6:03 pm

Kip
So you agree that we should be considering long term sea level rise when deciding where to let cities expand?

Chip Javert
Reply to  Simon
October 3, 2015 7:02 pm

Simon
I believe Kip’s point was it’s stupid city planning to build below mean high tide.
Actually, I know that was his point because Kip explicitly said it in his post. You apparently had difficulty understanding that concept in his original post, so I doubt my post will help you…

Khwarizmi
Reply to  Simon
October 3, 2015 7:14 pm

Simon,
“when deciding where to let cities expand” …
====================
The creation of new land was for the need of human activities.
Notable examples include:
Large parts of the Netherlandscomment image
Much of the coastlines of Mainland China, Hong Kong, North Korea and South Korea. It is estimated that nearly 65% of tidal flats around the Yellow Sea have been lost due to reclamation.
Inland lowlands in the Yangzi valley, China, including the areas of important cities like Shanghai and Wuhan.
Large parts of Rio de Janeiro, most notably several blocks in the new docks area, the entire Flamengo Park and the neighborhood of Urca
Parts of Dublin, Ireland
Most of Belfast Harbour and areas of Belfast, Northern Ireland
====================
etc, etc, etc:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reclamation

Simon
Reply to  Simon
October 3, 2015 7:29 pm

Khwarizmi
So pretty dumb doing all that stuff when you know the sea will keep rising don’t you think?

Editor
Reply to  Simon
October 3, 2015 7:30 pm

Reply to Simon ==> The first step, I believe, is not to build below local sea level in a waterfront city — avoiding subsiding land fills (Portsmouth/Norfolk, Virginia) and historic mud flats (New York suburbs) only a few feet above sea level should also be pretty much mandatory.
See my earlier post on Hurricane Sandy: “From the Scientific Urban Legend Department: ‘AGW Sea Level Rise Made Sandy More Destructive’”.
The historic fact is that sea ports are built on the sea and docks need to be within some number of feet of mean low tide so ships can dock and be loaded and unloaded. Over the historic periods (last two thousands years) in Europe and the Mediterranean area, some sea ports find themselves underwater now, and some miles from the sea. Coastlines are tricky things….
Humans have built cities in places they shouldn’t be, in hind sight, forever. From the Los Angeles megalopolis in a near-desert to the tiny village of Quinhagak, Alaska on a gravel bar at a bend in the Kanektak River (naturally, the gravel bar is slowly being washed away).

asybot
Reply to  Simon
October 3, 2015 9:05 pm

@Khwarizmi, dang my home town was under water glad we fixed that or I wouldn’t be here, @ Simon are you just being obtuse on purpose? As a Dutchman we take great pride in managing the sea, helping and exporting the tech to the rest of the world. ( Bangladesh, Venice (Italy), New York, China etc) and many other places rather than sit around and whine about SLR.

asybot
Reply to  Simon
October 3, 2015 9:20 pm

@Khwarizmi; Now I know what you are trying to say! SLR ! You are blaming the Dutch reclaiming land and pumping water into the sea all the time you, you you….

Jimbo
Reply to  Simon
October 4, 2015 6:20 am

Simon,
Long term sea level rise has been flattening. Sea level has been generally rising for thousands of years. So yes, we have and should continue to take into account the possibility of future sea level rise.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig68.jpg

Reply to  Simon
October 4, 2015 7:11 am

I’m nodding Kips head. It’s a trick I learned last year while nodding my own head

Menicholas
Reply to  Simon
October 4, 2015 9:26 am

San Francisco, Lower Manhattan, Boston…the list is as long as the list of coastal cities.

ferdberple
Reply to  Simon
October 4, 2015 10:08 am

So you agree that we should be considering long term sea level rise when deciding where to let cities expand?
===============
worrying about “sea level rise” is nonsense. you are talking a matter of inches over a century. what you must worry about is storm surge, which is often 10 to 20 feet over a matter of hours.
storm surge is a problem anywhere there is a shallow coast-line, such is found along the east coast of the US. this allows the wind to drive the water forward over the shallow bottom, where it piles up against the coast into a tsunami like wave.
in fact, storm surge is locally much like a tsunami, and should be treated with the same respect. Instead we tend to dismiss storm surge because it is more common and more limited in the area affected.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
October 4, 2015 11:39 am

Fred
So you think it is nonsense to consider predicted sea level rise in when considering future construction and settlement? Please tell me you are not a town planner.

rogerknights
Reply to  Simon
October 5, 2015 7:16 am

Simon October 4, 2015 at 11:39 am
Fred
So you think it is nonsense to consider predicted sea level rise in when considering future construction and settlement? Please tell me you are not a town planner.

Not if the predictors are warmist alarmists and they are basing their predictions on dubious or discredited science.

James Strom
Reply to  Simon
October 5, 2015 11:30 am

Reply to Khwarizimi
Our host ran this animation of the growth of Manhattan a few years ago. The gradual rise in sea levels has been no match for human skill in construction:comment image?w=720
The area used to be called New Amsterdam, by the way!

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Simon
October 5, 2015 4:21 pm

Simon writes “So you agree that we should be considering long term sea level rise when deciding where to let cities expand?”
If an area was going to be OK for say 100 years then according to your argument we shouldn’t use it now and for the next 5 generations in case sea level put it at risk in the future.
Do you think the cities in 100 years will look anything like they do now?
I don’t think many people actually understand the rates of change that are likely. Not only is sea level related change over the next 5 generations going to be “manageable” its going to be unnoticeable.

Menicholas
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 3, 2015 6:54 pm

Also in Miami, a hugely expensive real estate development has recently been erected on a island (Brickell Key)which is a spoils pile from some dredging that took place in the 19th century.
Henry Flagler dredged the Miami River and dumped the dredged material in a few piles at the north end of Biscayne Bay.
That this pile of sand has been sitting right where it was dumped for over 100 years, and has recently ben built upon, is a direct refutation of any sort of rapid encroachment of the ocean i this area.
Photo evidence abounds. Just google Brickell Key and click images.
Here are some I have saved from past discussions:
http://s1350.photobucket.com/user/menicholas/library/Public/Miami%20and%20other%20Florida%20Pics?sort=3&page=1
The Don Cesar hotel on St. Pete Beach has stood in the same spot since the 1920’s, and old photos of this famous structure show the Gulf of Mexico in very nearly the same place back then, as is the case now. And difference is hard to spot.
Ditto for the many Art Deco period hotels which line Collins Ave on South Beach in Miami.
Lummus Park, just across the street from these hotels, which is right on the beach, is very nearly exactly has it has been for 100 years. And the ocean appears to be very little if any closer to it.
Hurricane Sandy wrecked many buildings in the New York and New Jersey regions. Some of these were beach homes which had stood where they were built over 100 years ago…right on the beach.
That says to me that the ocean has moved very little in all that time. Precariously placed structures lasted for all that time before a random storm happened to be large enough, and also to occur during a high enough tide, to damage them. Almost all of those places would have been wrecked if Sandy had hit the day after they were built.

Menicholas
October 3, 2015 5:13 pm

Miami has had a period of onshore winds lasting several days, plus has saturated ground due to heavy recent rains.
How it can be that anyone can claim that sea level rise is accelerating, when we have tide gauge data proving that it has not, is perhaps the strangest part of the whole CAGW house of cards.
This is not lie trying to figure out the temp of the whole earth, when we have no thermometers in many regions.
It is not likely the malarkey about sea ice, because it is happening right down at every beach and estuary in the world.
In my view, the tide gauge data, when taken as a whole, is unequivocal.
And good on Willis too, for pointing out the error bars.
One can find individual months in nearly every tie series in which tie gauges recorded higher levels as much as 100 or more years ago, as those seen in individual months in recent years.
IOW, The daily and the monthly range is greater than the multi-decadal rate of change.
When it comes to flooding during storms, it is just as true now as it ever was that the big factors are the time of high tide and the tidal range at the particular location of the storm.

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
October 3, 2015 5:15 pm

Doh!

spangled drongo
Reply to  Menicholas
October 3, 2015 6:17 pm

Tide gauges aren’t really the best guide to SLR. What really counts are the highest, normal weather, king tides and these, at our place, are lower today than they were 70 years ago.

rd50
Reply to  Menicholas
October 3, 2015 6:59 pm

These are the error bands (confidence interval) for the slope. So the plotted straight line should be within this band. If you want it for the data sets (data points), calculation of the “prediction interval” and plotting such would be needed. Would be much wider and straight lines, not curve lines as shown.
Never calculated and seen displayed on this site.

Reply to  rd50
October 3, 2015 7:56 pm

Please explain what you are trying to say if anything other than confuse an issue.

michael hart
Reply to  rd50
October 4, 2015 1:50 am

rd50 posted the same comment half an hour ago upthread and hasn’t been back to justify it there, so we can safely assume he/she probably won’t do it here either. I call troll.

michael hart
Reply to  rd50
October 4, 2015 1:52 am

that’s half an hour previously

Bubba Cow
October 3, 2015 5:24 pm

Coincidentally, I had to go to town yesterday as well so I fired up my wood burning Tacoma and headed down our dirt road here in rural Vermont and the foliage is excellent and so I wonder just why I turned on NPR?? I, too, got Ira and it ruined my fine mood.
When I got home, I wrote NPR and VPR and told them we would not be continuing our “sustaining memberships”. I was not so upset to have them elect targeted commercials a few years back – hey the money thing has to be tough – but to adopt a political propaganda agenda of regressive extremism??!! I suggested they be renamed to National and Vermont Political Radio and they correctly call another show “Only Some Things Considered”.
What I wonder is with the Coronation of Hillary looking dim, with Bernie never having a chance except with the children, what are they going to do if Donald Trump becomes President? Or any Republican? Will that change the science?
It will be a long and arduous unwinding with bunches of shrill screaming and we all will need to buckle down and tell these “useful idiots” to grow up beyond their adolescence, move out of parents’ basements, get a real job (and education too probably), face the sustainability indoctrination squarely, and repent:
https://www.nas.org/articles/sustainabilitys_war_on_doubt
get the full pdf at link – it is an excellent study of how the old sustainability meme took over and uses climate change on campuses

Reply to  Bubba Cow
October 3, 2015 8:06 pm

Bubba, I have been thinking a lot about what’s next. I am now afraid, Bernie Sanders is selling himself as a savior of the youth, free education for all. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler all had the same line, free and good for all. It’s not about who or why if anyone has done anything, it’s all about control of the masses. Just like last election cycle, the kids that voted only heard that they could stay on their parent’s health care plan until they turn 26. Now they know that that didn’t mean that their parents had to pay for it, and now they are paying for others. Free is expensive, but free sells political power.

timg56
Reply to  Allan Near
October 5, 2015 2:21 pm

Bernie Sandrs is no Lenin, Hitler or Stalin.
He strikes me as well intentioned.
He also strikes me as rather naive.
I wouldn’t vote for him, but he would have to try very, very hard to perform more ineptly than our current President.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Allan Near
October 5, 2015 3:53 pm

@timg56
Do not believe that a man can spread less evil in the world from ignorance than from malice. It is a slender thread with which to support your optimism.

October 3, 2015 5:29 pm

“Venice appears to be continuing to subside at a rate of about 2 millimeters a year,” said Yehuda Bock, a research geodesist with Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and the lead author of a new article on the city’s downward drift. “It’s a small effect, but it’s important,” he added.”
http://www.miami.edu/index.php/features/venice_still_sinking/
Is Venice, Italy the ONLY city SINKING into the muck at 2mm/yr? Or, can we assume every city built on coastal muck, like my Charleston, SC, is sinking about 2mm/yr…including the tide gage measuring sea level?!
If we deduct 2mm from the 2.33mm/yr for Key West’s tide gage, what do we get? Is the sea rising or, as with Venice, the only place on the planet that seems to be under the microscope for sinking, is the tide gage sinking with the dock and city it’s mounted on? Why does Plate Tectonics stop where sea level alarmism begins??

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Larry Butler
October 3, 2015 5:47 pm

not to mention that the muck just washes out from under the city as water ebbs and flows

Don K
Reply to  Larry Butler
October 3, 2015 6:13 pm

“Is Venice, Italy the ONLY city SINKING into the muck at 2mm/yr? Or, can we assume every city built on coastal muck, like my Charleston, SC, is sinking about 2mm/yr…including the tide gage measuring sea level?!”
Of course not. New Orleans is sinking considerably faster than that. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6623

billw1984
Reply to  Don K
October 3, 2015 7:18 pm

Because the Army Corp engineers diverted the rivers flow many years ago. Causing the city to sink and the delta/coastal marshes to be washed away instead of the delta and the state of LA continuing to get bigger.

Menicholas
Reply to  Don K
October 3, 2015 8:38 pm

In New Orleans, the much underlying the city is actually compressing and/or oxidizing.
The natural state for the Mississippi delta region is for the river to drop it’s load of sediment over a given region for a number of years, thus building up the land in that area. Then a large storm or stream flow will cause the river to shift positions, and flow to the sea via a different route. The previous route will be left high and ( relatively) dry, although leaving scars and marks of the previous channel. The new route will typically be the new most direct and lowest route to the sea. The new route will then become the site of deposition for the sediment load of the river, as the river spreads out and hence slows down, which causes suspended solids to settle out. This process continued, and was repeated, over and over again and encompassed a wide region in Southern Louisiana.
It has occurred for millions and millions of years. Until recently, when the Army Corps of Engineers decided to channelize and contain the river.
The sediment load that used to replenish the delta and marshlands in southern Louisiana is now carried out into the Gulf of Mexico, via the long and sinuous crows foot of land which can now be seen well south of New Orleans. Since the river is channelized, and is not allowed to spread out, slow down, and drop its load of sediment in the delta, it is instead transported right into the Gulf, and helps to create the semi permanent dead zone of esterification and red tide algae in that part of the Gulf.
And meanwhile, the areas that used to be replenished by the constantly shifting river are now left to oxidize and erode away…including the land underlying the city of New Orleans. The city is now below sea level in many sections, and sinking more every day…as noted.
Why that city, which also happens to be in one of the places in the world which is most vulnerable to, and frequently hit by, hurricanes and tropical storms, was rebuilt in place and at great cost…is truly mystifying…even if one does not believe that storms will be worse or more frequent, or that sea level rise is accelerating.
If one does believe these things, which many of the regulators and lawmakers who concern themselves with these matters claim to do, it is a mind boggling mystery why the occasion of much of the city being wrecked was not taken to be the time to move it to higher ground.

Menicholas
Reply to  Don K
October 3, 2015 8:39 pm

Mods,:
…the muck underlying the city…

Menicholas
Reply to  Don K
October 3, 2015 8:41 pm

esterification = eutrophication.

asybot
Reply to  Don K
October 3, 2015 9:32 pm

@Menicholas, In our area we had ( on a MUCH smaller scale) a similar problem the largest side effect from the channeling was to kill landlocked salmon spawning beds and nearly killing the fish stocks completely . Thankfully we are changing large parts of the “river” back to it’s original meander natural delta and hopefully returning the fish and other wetland creatures!

Marcuso8
Reply to  Don K
October 4, 2015 3:27 am

You also have to add in the fact the Northern hemisphere is still springing back into place ( rising ) from the weight of the ice that once covered it during the ice ages , thus , adding to the tiny sea rise !!!

Jimbo
Reply to  Larry Butler
October 4, 2015 6:50 am

Land subsidence can occur when too much groundwater is extracted.

Many other locations on the Atlantic coast are experiencing similar effects related to groundwater depletion. Surface-water flows have been reduced due to groundwater development in the Ipswich River basin, Massachusetts. Saltwater intrusion is occurring in coastal counties in New Jersey; Hilton Head Island, South Carolina; Brunswick and Savannah, Georgia; and Jacksonville and Miami, Florida (Barlow).
The chart below shows monthly-mean water levels from 1964 to 2003 for a well in Cook County, southwest Georgia. The well is used for irrigation and public-supply purposes and offers a good visual representation of long-term groundwater declines due to excessive pumping. [d] – data for the chart is available.
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/gwdepletionchart.gif

Miami a part of the Everglades subsidence zone.
See the map. 45 out of 50 states experience subsidence.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182/pdf/12Everglades.pdf
Land Subsidence in the United States
http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fs00165/

Reply to  Jimbo
October 4, 2015 8:13 am

The Biscayne Aquifer underlies most of the Miami region and they pump about 700 million gallons per day out of it. Another potential impact on Miami flooding is surface water management. As the South Florida Water Management District dryly put it (pun intended):

Modifications to natural flow patterns have been made in the Biscayne Bay watershed to accommodate growth and control flooding. These changes have affected the volume and timing of fresh water discharged to the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands.

http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/ws-26_bbcw_aquifer_salinity_investigation.pdf
You can also check out the canal system that pumps stormwater from the western suburbs of Miami to the sea. http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/infographic_rain_drain.pdf

Alan Robertson
October 3, 2015 5:47 pm

Sometimes, I’ll also tune in to NPR broadcasts; gives me an excuse to yell at the radio.
Instead of calling NPR a bunch of lying propagandists, I just think of them as Government Radio.

Steve Case
October 3, 2015 5:56 pm

If you Google thi title
“Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the satellite era?”
You will find a presentation from 2010 and produced by Dr. R.S. Nerem of Colorado Universiy’s Sea Level Reasearch Group. That presentation although five tears old now remains correct that acceleration in the rate of sea level rise since satellite records began is negative.
CU’s website is easily found and contains a link to the data. It is a simple matter to copy out the text file and employ Microsoft Excel to calculate and verify that the rate of sea level rise since 1992 has indeed exhibited negative acceleration.

Neville
October 3, 2015 5:57 pm

Willis your Jimmy Hansen is a wimp. OZ’s ABC science expert (?) once told Andrew Bolt that 100 metres SLR was possible in 100 years. He has a lot of catching up to do since then of course. Fair dinkum where do they find these drongoes?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/100_metres_williams_is_already_four_metres_down_in_four_years

stuartlarge
October 3, 2015 5:59 pm

Hi Willis.
You might like to know you have been cited in this paper
http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

Billy Liar
Reply to  stuartlarge
October 4, 2015 3:45 pm

Great paper! I haven’t read it all but the summary was brilliant.

stuartlarge
October 3, 2015 6:00 pm

In the CO2 section

John Coleman
October 3, 2015 6:17 pm

Lets say the Ocean is rising at Miami and it is resulting in flooding. What proof has anyone presented that this is a result of the activities of our civilization? And, particularly, is there any new evidence to finally prove the often claimed but never proved connection between the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and the minor (if any) increase in atmospheric temperatures and any link of all this to any increase in sea levels. Since there is no significant melting of Antarctic polar ice, what meaningful sea level rise are we talking about? The compaction and resulting sinking of land masses is a more likely reason behind more coastal flooding than a rise in ocean levels. I am absolutely frustrated by the media’s constant jump from any reported climate change event to blaming it of our civilizations use of fossil fuels and the resulting minor increase in carbon dioxide.
As usual I learn a lot from the posts of WUWT and the meaningful flood of comments. Thanks to all.

Reply to  John Coleman
October 3, 2015 6:54 pm

+100…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 3, 2015 7:00 pm

I wish that Ira Flatow would make some kind of comment on this thread, as I’m sure he has seen it. Pro or con – the debate is not “settled science”: (Hello Ira Flatow, are you out there somewhere???).

Menicholas
Reply to  John Coleman
October 3, 2015 8:51 pm

We have seen credible evidence that much of the ongoing sea level rise may be due to such factors as the draining of the Caspian Sea, drawdown of groundwater tables the world over, and whatever mountain glacier melt is ongoing…in addition to any warming of the oceans…which must include the deep ocean/abyssal plains waters…which are only slightly above freezing all even in tropical regions.
A relatively small pond will cool sufficiently in winter to remain very cold at the bottom right through summer, due to thermal stratification and the colder dense water being trapped down there. Such a pond will continue to warm up all summer long.
I would hazard a guess that the deep oceans are likewise and in similar fashion still warming up from the cool-off they got not just during the LIA, but even still from during the tens of thousands of years long Pleistocene glacial epoch. And hence expanding slightly.

601nan
October 3, 2015 6:41 pm

The thing that calls itself ‘Ira Flatow’ is lost in space.
Ha ha

General P. Malaise
October 3, 2015 7:18 pm

Willis are the tides measured for mean or the high, high tide and low, low tide?
is there any relation between the high, high tide and low, low tide? could some increase or decrease actually just be the noise level in measurement?

Gary
October 3, 2015 7:20 pm

They will tout a heavy rainstorm as clear evidence of AGW yet call 18+ years of a plateaued average global temperature cherry-picking. The only reason to take them seriously is they fuel political action — to our detriment.

October 3, 2015 7:24 pm

Yup. I live (mostly) directly on the ocean in South Florida, and have no intention of selling soon.
Also, see essay PseudoPrecision in my most recent ebook for further info on this topic. Willis has it nailed.

Steve Case
October 3, 2015 7:56 pm

Ira Flatow has no incentive to respond here. Some one a few days ago on these boards pointed out that the other side is winning the argument in all areas.
He doesn’t have and he’s not going to.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 3, 2015 8:23 pm

He’s still looking for the data (models) that will support his views…then he will comment…

Marcuso8
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 3:38 am

What is scary is that so many people believe him without actually checking / testing !!! It truly has become a religion (or cult )…
Please keep us informed with your great work Willis ..Thanx

Steve Case
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 1:36 pm

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it.

rogerthesurf
October 3, 2015 8:11 pm

If you want to see some exaggeration re sea level rising, check out this report.
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/effectsofsealevelriseforchristchurchcity.pdf
It would be laughable except the City Council of my city, Christchurch NZ, is using it to base “mitigations” for the next 100 years.
I kid you not, 18,000 properties are going to be inundated or otherwise affected within 100 years by a cool 1 metre of sea level rise.
With a council caveat on each properties title, there are doubts whether these properties will be insurable, a definite fear that these properties will become immediately worthless, and an assurance from the council that alterations or improvements to these properties will require what is known here as a “Resource Consent” . This means presumably that if you can show that your property can survive the expected inundations and you can convince the council that your property will remain functional etc you may be able to carry out some improvements. Only catch is the cost of the paper work. I spent over NZ$200,000 on a resource consent once and it still was refused.
This is an example of what the climate change scam can do to you!
If anyone wants to study this paper and make comments to me, please leave a message at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Cheers
Roger

Reply to  rogerthesurf
October 3, 2015 8:27 pm

Maybe we should introduce Ira Flatow to (the main data SLR collector) – Nils-Axel Mörner…

HAS
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 2:24 am

The irony is that the legislation that covers these assessments is quite sensible and says two things: the assessment has got to be based on the likely effects of climate change, and no CYA in the assessment (that comes later in the management phase but only if the assessment shows the effects are uncertain, unknown, or little understood, but potentially significantly adverse – a test unlikely to be passed in the case of coastal processes even on 100 year time frames because it is a slow progressive process).
The local engineers who did the assessment claimed RCP8.5 was “likely” (improperly invoking the CYA card) and made CYA assumptions throughout a model fitting exercise that double counted uncertainty and lacked empirical validation for critical elements.
In crude terms they managed to turn a coast line that on 100 year time frames is accretiing as fast as RCP6.0 is going up, into one that’s lapping all over the beach properties.
The general problem is that those that ply their trade as environmental consultants (in this case a firm called Tonkin and Taylor) don’t know much about risk management on long-term time frames, and don’t understand that risk is driven by uncertainty and therefore best estimates of the uncertainty is what is required of them (not some made up numbers based on CYA).
They will learn the hard way through the courts that if they are concerned about CYA their duty of care lies in an accurate assessment of the uncertainty, end of story, because there is as much cost to the community of over-egging the assessment as there is to underestimating it.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
October 4, 2015 8:26 am

Roger:
I would think the City Council would be more concerned about the land moving again (as it did in the 2011 earthquake). Up to 40 centimeters in a few minutes is rather more dramatic than sea level’s slow rebound from the last glaciation.
http://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Our-Science/Natural-Hazards/Recent-Events/Canterbury-quake/Hidden-fault

October 3, 2015 8:33 pm

The journal Nature published this graph of sea level rise:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/carousel/nclimate2159-f1.jpg
The raw data is on the left bar graph. The adjusted “data” is the bar graph on the right.

October 3, 2015 8:41 pm

University of Colorado shows that sea levels are not unusual. They certainly aren’t accelerating:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel4/sl_mei.png
In fact, the long term trend shows deceleration:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Sea_Level_Holgate.jpg
Next, decadal sea level changes:comment image

Billy Liar
Reply to  dbstealey
October 4, 2015 4:10 pm

dbstealey
As is very plain from your first graph, sea level measured by satellites closely follows ENSO because all the satellites measure is the giant pile of warm water in the Pacific blown westwards by the trade winds. Satellite altimetry is fraught with difficulties and the satellites do not measure what people are interested in which is relative sea level (sea level plus or minus vertical land movement) where they live. Relative sea level is easily and accurately measured by local tide gages.

Reply to  Billy Liar
October 4, 2015 7:07 pm

Billy Liar,
I have no idea how that post ended up there. I was trying to reply to one of Simon’s comments, way upthread.
I agree that tide gauges provide the best SL data. It requires, at the least, maybe a couple hundred around the planet; more would be better. A thousand would be easy to do, and inexpensive compared with the AGW scare, costing $billions per year.
Some land is rising, some is subsiding, but with enough tide gauges average SL change would be pretty easy to determine accurately.
Won’t happen, though. The ones doling out the grants don’t want the public to see data like that.

Tony
October 3, 2015 8:48 pm

Does anyone know why Sydney sea level rise is so much less? Fort Denison is in the middle of Sydney harbour, built on solid bedrock sandstone.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0Rq7YE35Vcg/VDRH7LaTPrI/AAAAAAAAQYs/kKzpDr-FboE/s1600/680-140.png

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 3, 2015 11:54 pm

Plausible. The Warragamba Dam was built about 65 km SW of Sydney CBD. It holds 2027 gigalitres of water when full. This is rather heavy! Completed 1960 and enlarged 2009. All this weight of water has undoubtedly depressed the earth in its vicinity, which means that areas surrounding the dam – likely out to 65 km or more, could be rising.
Incidentally, between 1998 and 2007 the catchment had very low rain fall and capacity was reduced to 32.5%. The NSW government then started the building of a desalination plant – CAGW alarmists said that the drought would continue!! It then started raining, and on March 2012 the dam overflowed. The desal plant operated for the first 2 years and in 2012 was shut down. Believed not to have operated since except for maintenance and testing purposes – to be started if dam levels reach 70% and then continued in operation till levels reach 80%. It uses reverse osmosis, powered by the Bungendore “Capital Wind Farm”. A reasonably sane use for the wind farm as the desal plant is not worried if the wind blows or not, it can take whatever power is being produced.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 8:48 am

Sydney is actually sinking at -0.89 mms/year.
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=2405

spangled drongo
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 11:43 pm

“Land is rising?”
No, Willis, I have heard that land is actually subsiding by almost the same amount from recent measurements which means nothing happening but in Moreton Bay highest astronomical tides are lower today than they were 69 years ago by around 10 inches.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Tony
October 4, 2015 4:15 pm

Australia is tectonically rather stable and Sydney might more closely reflect what’s actually happening with sea level compared with the measuring the middle of the ocean from 50 miles up in space where contemporaneous atmospheric pressure measurements for the inverse barometer correction are hard to come by (ie they need to be modelled and 1 hPa error in the model = 10 mm error in sea level).

adrian_o
October 3, 2015 9:46 pm

The way the climate scam works in Florida is fairly transparent to the locals.
In 1980, as the town grew, South Beach built Alton Road, on the prosperous edge of town.
Alton Road was built to be a few inches UNDER sea level at king tide, and to be used at all other 99% of the times.
Then the climate scam started, and twice a year or so, at very high tide, like a strange procession of fireflies on the Discovery Channel,
at very high tide, “climate action” politicians, local, state and national, shoeless, gather by a lectern on inundated Alton Road, with full blast TV coverage, to show the ravaging effects of climate change.
Look at the calamitous pictures here
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/miami-drowning-climate-change-deniers-sea-levels-rising
“The problem is the city is run by climate change deniers” they say.
See, otherwise Alton Road would raise itself out of the seas and walk, or the seas would retreat. If you are credulous enough and know that you “got the science.”
People on Alton Street know the scam better, and elect “climate change deniers”.
The local gauge shows that sea levels had risen by the same 3mm/year ever since measured.
The latest political pilgrimage to Alton Road ended in a farce, since cameras, and reporters arrived for the strange pilgrimage. And politicians, with powerful speeches blasting climate deniers.
But there was no flood, as the city had installed powerful drainage.
One can check on page 15 of the recent technical document
“Designing for High Tidal Tailwater”
http://tinyurl.com/ogjefu8
a photograph of the temporary, soon to be made permanent, pumps on Alton Road in South Beach dated October 2014, which took care of the high tide that month.
That made such a laughingstock of all the climate alarmist politicians and media gathered to show cast that Miami is swallowed by global warming,
made such fools of the climate scare scam promoters that ALL of them lost in the November 2014 elections all offices, starting with the governor, a few weeks later.
Even though Jeb Bush was not running, this showed to him and to Marco Rubio that being a climate apocalyptic is a losing proposition, these days.
That is what I referred to about Alton Road as a medieval religious climate pilgrimage site.
PS Notice also on page 6 the historic sea level rise, the one measured so far, of 0.5 ft/century, after half a century of massive emissions,
And the TEN TIMES BIGGER sea level rise which, in the view of idiotic climatologists, would start, like, next Tuesday when the laws of physics change.
PPS I spent last summer near the old port in Marseille, where secular city mayors, around 1880, forbade the religious pilgrimages to Notre-Dame de la Garde, the last sight of those who sailed from Marseille around the world.
http://www.notredamedelagarde.com/?lang=en
The US is a free country, and climate pilgrimages are allowed.
At one’s peril.

Latitude
Reply to  adrian_o
October 4, 2015 6:47 am

adrian….excellent post!….you are 100% correct

Geoff Sherrington
October 3, 2015 9:55 pm

Willis,
My personal position on the subject of sea level change globally is that it is profoundly unscientific to use mm per year measures for a dynamic ocean, when we know almost nothing about the dynamics of the deeper 50 % of the ocean.
It is not for me to show the rate of change of anything in the deeper 50%
It is up to the proponents of measurements of sea level change to show if there is, or is not, a quantitative change in the deeper 50%.

October 3, 2015 11:38 pm

It should be mentioned that global warming may increase the severity of flooding in two ways;
One is the increase in sea level which is discussed here, but the other is more heavy rain.
As most people know, tropical rain is often more intense than the rain in colder areas. The reason for this is that warm air can carry more water than cold air.
The water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7% for every 1 °C rise in temperature.
Over the last century we have seen an increase of approximately 0.75 °C in average global temperatures. If some of this warming is caused by an increased level of greenhouse gases due to human emissions, then some of the heavy rain is also caused by human emissions.
/Jan

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
October 4, 2015 12:03 am

Then repeat the exercise conducted by Willis Eschenbach, above.
But, this time by looking at rainfall total averages.
You will find, similarly, that when you look at graphs of global rainfall averages you will find NO TREND.
Here in the UK we are constantly being told that we face heavier rainfall, induced by global warming.
The records disagree.
Not only is there no acceleration of rate of increase of rainfall – THERE IS NO INCREASE AT ALL.
This was discussed here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/uk-rainfall-2012-the-report-the-met-office-should-have-produced/

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 4, 2015 12:21 am

Interesting data frog, but the total averages of rainfall does not tell so much about the risk of flooding.
Flooding is caused by extreme precipitation events, not by averages.
The Epa data indicate an increase for the US:
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/heavy-precip.html
/Jan

Billy Liar
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 4, 2015 4:26 pm

Do you seriously believe everything the EPA puts out? Someone needs to deconstruct that NOAA graph which is presented with no reference to the data upon which it is based. I’m sKeptical..

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 12:59 am

I must say, Jan, I’ve had it up to here with your style of “global warming MAY increase the severity of __________ (insert favorite feared disaster here)” alarmism.

Ha, ha, good observation, I am afraid that’s how I am, and that’s my style.
Thanks for the comment however; I will see if I am able to be more specific, I’ll honestly do my best.
You see, the problem is that the middle way is hard to defend and that is why the climate discussions are so polarized. We either hear that we stand before an apocalypse because of runaway effects if we don’t act immediately, or that the human emissions have no negative effects at all, ever; only huge positive ones which we allegedly know for certain.
I think the truth is somewhere between there and that there are some great uncertainties.
However we can also give some quite good predictions based on well established scientific facts. One of those facts is that warm air can carry more water than cold air. We can therefore expect more heavy rainfall in a warmer world and this will case more flooding.
/Jan

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 1:53 am

I really had a good humored laugh at you comment of my style Willy because I thought it was a good observation. I did not mean to impolitely laugh at you.
You may be right that the Epa has a weak fundament for the data shown on their website.
I see that IPPC’s AR5 report also say that there is low confidence in the trends in flooding on a global scale:

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

AR5 WG1 page 2-57
That means that my foundation for warning of more flooding solely rely on the fact that the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases with increased temperature. This should give more intense rain.
However, I have not found any reliable observational support so far.
/Jan

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 2:40 am

I think it takes more than a quick look at the data to determine whether it is bogus or not.
I have enough confidence in the scientific community to think that if the information shown on the Epa site had been totally bogus they would have been confronted by this by more than some bloggers.
/Jan

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 4:54 am

Just to be clear about what my last answer were pointing to, I quote it here

Go figure … seriously, Jan, go figure—GO FIGURE THE DATA YOURSELF BEFORE QUOTING IT! You can do this just as well as I can. Why should I need to go to the trouble to show your data is bogus? That just makes you look foolish.
RUN THE NUMBERS BEFORE UNCAPPING YOUR ELECTRONIC PENS, folks, that’s your job, not mine.

More specifically I have two objections to this.
Firstly I think it is too much to ask ordinary commenters here to run the numbers for themselves. There would not be many comments here if everyone had to follow that.
The second objection is that it usually takes more than a quick running in a layman’s homemade computer program to debunk a scientific article. I see that you do that here, Willis, and you have also in several occasions pointed to serious weaknesses in these articles. While I think you do a good job, I do not think that any of us is in the position to do general quality reviews of scientific articles before we quote them.
That does not mean that we should use all information we find uncritically, but I think a good general rule is to try to use stuff were people can be held accountable. The best source of this is actually peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals. The journals risks their reputation and the scientists risk their career if they publish bad science.
A second best source is the information found on federal government’s sites like the EPA.
As the concrete discussion here shows, the EPA may have a weak fundament in this case, but as a general rule I think they are quite reliable.
The reason for the reliability is that the sites are read by many people and that the government institutions are held accountable for the content. If the content on these sites contradicted the general consensus among university professors and other independent scientists, there would be a highly visible protest. The protests we hear now comes mostly from laymen.
/Jan

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 10:14 am

their data on PM2.5 is simply made up, they just tried (and may succeed) in claiming that they have authority over all water in the US including the puddles in your driveway, their mercury rules are a scientific joke

I do not agree on this.
I think mercury and PM are considerable health hazards, and that is not something only a claim from EPA.
Similar institutions in EU and other countries assess these risks in the same way.
PM shortens the life of millions of people and mercury damage people’s brain.
Just take one extreme example of the unfair burden of this pollution: The Inuits living in Greenland are heavily disturbed by mercury pollution.
They live close to the nature, and they are so few that their contribution to pollution is negligible, but they eat animals which are contaminated by pollution which mostly originates from coal fired power plants.
I think both the Inuits and Americans deserve cleaner environment. It is enough wealth around to pay for that.
/Jan

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 1:55 pm

Well, other nations have similar regulations
The emission standards for EU can be found here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075
I strongly doubt that the small amounts you mention is meant to cover all the costs of mercury pollution in the US society.
As a comparison, the costs of mercury pollution in EU are calculated to 10 billion per year here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/presscenter/pressreleases/20130107
Cost estimates in the similar range for US can be found here. http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/050228.asp
/Jan

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2015 10:53 pm

Hm, I see you have written an article about Mercury here a whole ago,
The EPA’S Mercury madness
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/31/the-epas-mercurial-madness/
I think this article is very misleading.
The problem is that mercury pollution is all about primary versus secondary sources. The primary sources is the ones that move the mercury from deep deposits to the surface. The sources for this is volcanos and mines, including coal mines and coal burning.
After the mercury emitted from the primary sources has fallen to the ground, it can be re-emitted several times by secondary sources such as forest-fires, dust storms and evaporation from oceans.
http://www2.epa.gov/international-cooperation/mercury-emissions-global-context
Your article does not separate the two and is therefore very misleading.
/Jan

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 5, 2015 7:14 am

Willis says:

However, according to Table 1.3 in EPA’s own analysis,16 mercury only has benefits of $.004–$.006 using a 3 percent discount rate

Willis, I am afraid you have misunderstood the table
They say:

Avoided IQ Loss Associated with Methylmercury Exposure from Self-Caught Fish Consumption among Recreational Anglers
3% discount rate $0.004 – $0.006

This is only a small subset of all negative effects of Mercury exposure to the public.
Firstly, they only take the monetized value of lost IQ, not all the other documented effect of mercury pollution, such as Impairment of speech, hearing and walking, premature death et cetera.
Secondly, they only take the exposure of Metylmercury from Self-Caught Fish Consumption among Recreational Anglers.
People are also exposed to mercury through commercially caught fish as well as other nutrients and breathing.
Another important point is that these numbers are for the implementation year only:

Monetized benefits estimates reported here are for the implementation year: 2016. As such, certain health endpoints that take years to manifest, such as avoided IQ loss from MeHg prenatal exposure, may not be fully quantified in the analysis year.

The cost savings of avoided IQ in the first year are negligible since the IQ loss mainly affects the small children. It will take a generation to see the full savings.
/Jan

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 5, 2015 12:43 pm

Willis Say:

Numbers are your friend. If your claim is that those are the wrong numbers because they are too small, flapping your lips does nothing. Quote and point out for us the larger EPA numbers from that same analysis quantifying the larger losses you claim I have “misunderstood”.

The numbers are small because they have only calculated the monetary effects for a subset of the damages caused by Mercury. Other benefits, which are listed but not quantified are:

Mercury: health
Impaired cognitive development
Problems with language
Abnormal social development
Potential for fatal and non-fatal AMI (heart attacks)
Association with genetic effects
Possible autoimmunity effects in antibodies
Mercury: welfare
Neurological, behavioral, reproductive and survival effects in wildlife (birds, fish, and mammals)

These environmental gains are undoubtedly important and is wrong to disregard this just because it is not monetized. By disregarding them, we say that they are worthless and that is wrong.
Some effect may even be impossible to monetize. What is for example the cost saving for the US from reducing the Mercury pollution in the fish eaten by the Inutis in Greenland?
Well, anyway, the Supreme Court has spoken and the consequence will probably be that EPA make an effort to quantify and monetize these benefits.
As I see it this is an unnecessary delay since the already quantified benefits of PM and SOx reduction shows that the benefits by far outweigh the costs. The delay throws away both human lives and money.
/Jan

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 5, 2015 4:46 pm

Jan writes

one of those facts is that warm air can carry more water than cold air. We can therefore expect more heavy rainfall in a warmer world and this will case more flooding

You need to think that thought right through, Jan. The only way heavier rainfall can occur is if at other times there is less rainfall otherwise the net effect is more energy being transferred higher in the troposphere via the latent heat of vapourisation. That would be a negative feedback and cause cooling at the surface.
So now…why will a warmer atmosphere result in less rain at times? Is that an obvious result too?

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
October 4, 2015 12:16 am

Jan… the warmists always focus only on the possible negative. What about the benefits that some areas will receive with a much needed increase in rainfall if indeed human emissions lead to more rain. If you look at the planet, it has become 11% greener over the past 30 years. Crop yields have increased enormously as well. A greening planet is a good thing… or do you prefer a brown, parched one?
While there just may be some negatives somewhere if rainfall has increased, the benefits so far seem to far out-weigh the possible negatives.

michael hart
Reply to  alcheson
October 4, 2015 2:20 am

And Jan might also remember that much flooding occurs (or is noticed!) where humans have built in the wrong places without proper regard for likely consequences.
Like, ummm, the flood plains of rivers. It happens in the UK and makes the inevitable floods even worse than they would have been. When the houses get flooded and possibly uninsurable, more than one person of global warming-strength stupidity is going to ignore the real reason why it happened.

A C Osborn
Reply to  alcheson
October 4, 2015 6:19 am

Jan, I am afraid that you have misplaced your confidence in the scientific community.
Another HISTORICAL FACT (ie data driven) is that more extreme weather occurs when the overall climate is colder as the power for extreme weather comes from the difference in temperatures between the Tropics and the Poles, not from the overall temperature itself.

B
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
October 4, 2015 4:43 pm

“I have enough confidence in the scientific community to think that if the information shown on the Epa site had been totally bogus they would have been confronted by this by more than some bloggers.”
Jan, as a lawyer who has worked with and cross examined many expert witnesses in thirty years, who has seen the political bias and corruption of government bureaucrats, I’m always amazed at the naïveté of such a belief, that the government will always be truthful. I hope you don’t think of yourself as a critical thinker, because you are not. And for you to say that the truth must be somewhere in the middle in science is equally naive and not critical thinking. It’s a self serving attempt to sound reasonable. In the process Willis is showing how unreasonable your thinking can be. You think you would have been reasonable taking the middle position in the historic scientific debate of whether the earth is round or flat? You want to have one foot on both sides of the crevice as the earth opens up. Good luck with that.
Think.

Reply to  B
October 4, 2015 6:40 pm

Jan says:
“…mercury damage(s) people’s brain.”
When I need a comedy straight man, I know where to look…

NeedleFactory
October 4, 2015 12:44 am

Do not expect any response from Ira Flatow; below is a letter I sent to my local PBS radio station in June 2012, which went unanswered:
Your fund raising letter arrived today. I am happy to gift KQED $250, but there is a condition attached:
“Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” On Forum last December 7, to quash a caller, Michael Krasny and Ira Flatow both stated categorically of the Climategate emails: “they’ve been disproven.”
I believe that statement is false, and believe both Krasny and Flatow knew, or ought to have known, that it is false.
I emailed Krasny, Flatow and the PBS Ombudsman about this matter (copy is attached). As none responded, I conclude that KQED stands behind their words.
Thus my gift KQED is conditioned on either of two events:
(1) Krasny or Flatow cite reputable evidence showing the Climategate emails are fake, or
(2) acknowledge on-air their misspeaking and apologize for any misunderstandings created.
“KQED is entitled to their own opinions, but KQED is not entitled to their own facts.” Should neither (1) or (2) occur, when time comes for KQED’s broadcast license to be renewed, I shall report an “unfair/biased broadcast,” a breach of the public trust, to the FCC as an informal objection to license renewal.
Sincerely,
[NeedleFactory]

Mike
October 4, 2015 1:52 am

Jevrejava is definitely playing in the alarmist camp but is actually doing some very detail science despite that. Enquiring minds need to read the papers in detail, not just scim the misleading abstracts and titles.comment image
figure 8 excerpt from Jevrejeva 2014: “Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807”
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/504181/

Fitting a second order polynomial to the GSL12 for the period
1880–2009 gives an acceleration of 0.001 mm·yr−2, which is much
smaller than the 0.009 mm·yr−2 reported by Church and White
(2011) for that time period. Fig. 15 shows that, at periods longer than
100 years, global sea level reconstruction is characterised by a positive
acceleration of 0.02 mm·yr−2 over the full period of 1807–2009.

0.001 mm/yr2 is 0.1 mm/y faster per century .
She carefully avoids pointing this out in the abstract and conclusions sections but buries it in the detail of the paper, preferring to fit a quadratic to both the early steady downward trend 1800:1850 and essentially linear increase since 1860 and report solely this acceleration in the abstract and conclusion.
Well, we would not want to kill the gold cow now, would we ?
Despite the misleading presentation this is a detailed and thorough paper.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Mike
October 4, 2015 4:39 pm

Isn’t it odd that the error bars of both reconstructions do not overlap for significant periods. Someone must have underestimated error or they’re working on a different planet.

nobodyknows
October 4, 2015 3:00 am

I just have a question about sea level rise. There are many reports of the erosion of the coast, and that sea level rise is increasing the erosion. But I cannot find the opposite, that the erosion is causing some sea level rise. There must be huge masses of sediments going into oceans every year. This must give a natural increase of sea level, It is strange that it is so difficult to find out how much.

TYoke
Reply to  nobodyknows
October 4, 2015 4:58 pm

It is certainly true that erosion is a force that raises sea levels. However, on a geologic time scale that leveling is balanced by the buckling of colliding tectonic plates, which continues to create new mountains.
The Himalayas for instance, are still getting higher, and that effect causes sea levels to drop.
If the solid part of the earth were perfectly even in elevation, our planet would be a WaterWorld.

Don K
October 4, 2015 3:12 am

Willis, You might want to read Chapter 13 of the IPCC AR5 if you haven’t already. Other than paying some homage to climate models that are at best unreliable and more likely completely broken, I think you’ll find it interesting and not terribly objectionable. And it is divine scripture to acolytes of the Church of Climate Change such as NPR and Ira Flatow. It’s take on sea level rise from 1900 to 2015 per figure 13.27 — about 20cm (8 inches). Combining that with your photo, one concludes that Miami was built somewhere around mean higher high water. Probably not all that great an idea. (A dredge and some judicious remediation could probably fix the specific problem in the photo for a century or three if anyone cares enough to spend money rather than whining). BTW even if sea level rise is not that big a deal, humanity genuinely is building way to much stuff with very low (often negative) freeboard compared to the highest likely tidal+wind+storm levels. And that’s before counting in subsidence due to isostacy, sediment compaction, and pumping fluids out from under infrastructure.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

rocdoctom
October 4, 2015 5:45 am

“NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because a Lockheed Martin engineering team used English units of measurement while the agency’s team used the more conventional metric system for a key spacecraft operation, according to a review finding released Thursday” September 1999
Metric to English conversions (and vice versa) can vex even the smart guys. Unit conversion, although simple in concept, was one of the most common sources of error in student work when I was teaching College Algebra.

Srga
Reply to  rocdoctom
October 4, 2015 11:29 am

That is after the Hubble needed adaptive optics for the same reason. They have learnt how to repeat their mistakes.

Mike
Reply to  Srga
October 4, 2015 12:09 pm

That may be an urban legend. I read and offical explanation that someone had misplaced the measuring rod. Could be and excuse, thoght it looked pretty detailed and choherent.
The other explanation is that they were so used to making mirrors for spy satellites that they made the usual diameter. The slightly shorter focal lenght was close to what is needed to looking at the planet , not the infinity of deep space.

Bruce Cobb
October 4, 2015 6:24 am

Like all Warmistas, Ira Flatow is both a professional liar as well as a coward. As well, he is no scientist; he just plays one on what I now call “National Government Radio” (although I still listen to it).

treyg
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 4, 2015 3:15 pm

National Progressive Radio

October 4, 2015 7:13 am

But wait, there’s more:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/5e92d30f16ca4e5a86f70cab104909d0.htm
“Date:
August 27, 2015
Source:
AP / Powered by NewsLook.com
Summary:
NASA has released new images showing global sea level rise. The agency’s scientists say sea levels have risen four inches in the last two decades. (Aug. 27) Video provided by AP”
Just listen to the last few seconds of that video, “…the amount of warming we cause and the amount of CO2 we release.” So, we are causing warming somehow AND we are releasing CO2. They leave it up to the viewer to link CO2 to warming since they know that the link has not been scientifically proven.

October 4, 2015 7:17 am

Thanks, Willis. Very good article.
It seems to me that according to the official data around ~3mm/year is what the global sea level is rising.

Mike
October 4, 2015 7:43 am

I’m not sure what is “official” but the Jevrejeva graph above goes from about -120 to 190 from 1860 to 2010. That close to 2mm/year aveage over that period, with a miniscule acceleration which is smaller than the data uncertainty.

Mike
Reply to  Mike
October 4, 2015 8:00 am

That is to say that sea level IS rising but there is no sign it has anything at all to do with the supposed impact of massively increased GHG since 1960.
Obviously the current situation in Miami is more to do with storm swell plus a perigee, full moon ( Sept 28 ) at an eclipse configuration but you can count on alarmists to miss real cause. Headless chickens are notoriously bad a science subjects.

October 4, 2015 8:12 am

Working for NPR, Flatow has no choice on his climate change coverage. The NPR news Chief is Michael Oreskes, brother of Naomi Oreskes. No doubt if anyone working for NPR were to deviate from NPR’s diktat, they would be fired. It is interesting to note that NPR has not considered the brother/sister relationship a potential conflict of interest that should be disclosed. Now I dont agree with my brother on many things, but I dont see how they could possible consider non-disclosure as reasonable. Heck, you cant even win prizes from radio stations if your close relatives work there.

Reply to  dbakerber
October 4, 2015 9:04 am

This may be a distinction without a difference but I believe Science Friday is independently produced and public radio stations buy the syndicated broadcast. Nonetheless, NPR climate coverage is not exactly fair and balanced.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/about/about-science-friday.html

ferdberple
October 4, 2015 8:58 am

Like Willis, we also spent many years sailing around the world in a small boat.
What I found most interesting were the charts of the remote Pacific islands drawn the better part of 250 years ago by the likes of Cook, Bligh, and Vancouver.
These charts are remarkable works of precision. Most of these areas have never been resurveyed. The original charts are all we have.
Yet, when one looks at these charts one notices something quite startling. These charts are all drawn to 1 foot precision for water depths less than 1 fathom (6 feet).
And in the 250 years since these charts were drawn, there has been vi