Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
NOAA has updated its extensive U.S. coastal tide gauge data measurement records (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.htm) to include data through year 2015. These measurements include tide gauge data coastal locations for 25 West Coast, Gulf Coast and East Coast states along the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. In addition 7 Pacific island groups and 6 Atlantic island groups also have coastal location tide gauge data measurements updated as well.
In all more than 200 coastal locations are included in these measurements with more than 100 of these coastal locations with recorded data periods in excess of 50 years in duration. None of these updated NOAA tide gauge measurement data records show coastal location sea level rise acceleration occurring anywhere on the U.S. coasts or Pacific or Atlantic island groups.
In June of 1988 testimony was provided before Congress by various scientists, including NASA’s Dr. James Hansen, claiming that man made greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for increasing global temperatures with the the New York Times reporting (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all ) “Global Warming Has Begun, Experts Tells Senate”.
The Times article noted that “The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century. Scientists have already detected a slight rise in sea levels.”
Its now been 28 years since the conjecture of these early sea level rise climate alarmist claims was presented to Congress. However the latest updated NOAA coastal tide gauge measurement data shows locations likely to experience only inches of sea level rise by mid century (not one to four feet as climate alarmists speculated to Congress in 1998) with that increase consistent with long standing and unchanging rates of sea level rise measured at these coastal locations. The longest NOAA tide gauge data record is at the Battery, New York with a 160 year long measurement period. This location along with all other U.S. coastal locations show no sea level rise acceleration.
Climate alarmists continue to try and mislead the public by claiming that the Statue of Liberty is in “imminent jeopardy” because of rising sea levels but the unchanging rate of sea level rise present at the Battery would require more than 20,000 years to cover the base (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/national-geographics-junk-science-how-long-will-it-take-for-sea-level-rise-to-reach-midway-up-the-statue-of-liberty/). That time period hardly qualifies as “imminent jeopardy”.
Additionally NOAA performs 95% confidence interval analysis of each location to determine if there are significant changes in the tide gauge measurement trends over time.
NOAA analysis of these 95% confidence interval ranges is stated as “Although the mean trend may change from year to year, there is no statistically significant difference between the calculated trends if their 95% confidence intervals overlap. Therefore, the most recent calculated trend is not necessarily more accurate than the previous trends; it is merely a little more precise. If several recent years have anomalously high or low water levels, the values may actually move slightly away from the true long-term linear trend”.
The 95% confidence interval analysis demonstrates that the linear sea level rise trend is stable and unchanging. This 95% confidence interval analysis is available for all NOAA tide gauge coastal location measurements.
In a May 15, 2016 Rutgers University graduation address President Obama told the assembled gathering (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/15/remarks-president-commencement-address-rutgers-state-university-new) that “in politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It’s not cool to not know what your talking about.”
Yet Obama had told the country in his Democratic nomination acceptance speech on June 3, 2008 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/03/obamas-nomination-victory_n_105028.html) that we would be able to look back upon his nomination and tell our children that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”.
Besides the monumental hubris of this statement it is apparent that President Obama was ignorant of the fact that the oceans have been rising for thousands of years since the end of the last ice age.
The rates of ocean sea level change have varied significantly over this time period with more recent studies showing greater detail of ocean sea level change information over about the last two hundred years. These changes in ocean sea level have occurred as a result of natural climate events as clearly shown in information (slide #36) from a recent presentation (https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/spe-curry-final.pdf) by Dr. Judith Curry regarding global climate science issues.
Additionally it is apparent that President Obama was ignorant of the fact that based on more than 100 NOAA long time period measured coastal tide gauge data records coastal locations were shown not to be experiencing acceleration of sea level rise.
President Obama has made numerous claims of coastal sea level rise acceleration at various U.S. locations but none of these claims is supported by NOAA tide gauge measurement data (
Perhaps President Obama might be interested in the latest coastal sea level rise tide gauge measurement data from Washington D.C. where he has resided for the last 8 years and for Honolulu, Hawaii where he was born.
NOAA tide gauge data shows the 91 year long Washington D. C. coastal location measurement period with an unchanging 1 foot per century rate of increase and the 110 year long Honolulu, Hawaii coastal location measurement period with an unchanging 5.5 inches per century rate of increase. President Obama’s claims of accelerating coastal sea level rise threatening U.S. locations is based on ignorance. As the President has said “It’s not cool to not know what your talking about.”
President Obama is not alone in being ignorant about ocean and coastal sea level rise concepts, information and data.
Climate alarmist media often carry scientifically flawed stories alleging impending coastal sea level rise catastrophe supposedly being driven by man made CO2 emissions. These flawed news reports many times reflect information provided the by Obama Administration national climate assessment effort through the report “Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment” (http://cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/Reports/2012/NOAA_SLR_r3.pdf).
This report presents various scenarios claiming that global mean sea level rise by 2100 will range between 8 inches to 6.6 feet. The mid range of the scenarios is about 3 feet of global mean sea level rise by the year 2100.
The alleged purpose of the report is to “help” local cities and communities “plan” for future sea level rise that could impact their locations. The report contains the following huge qualifications and limitations regarding the validity and applicability of these scenarios at specific local coastal cities and communities:
- “Scenarios do not predict future changes, but describe future potential conditions in a manner that supports decision-making under conditions of uncertainty”.
- “Probabilistic projections of future conditions are another form of scenarios not used in this report because this method remains an area of active research. No widely accepted method is currently available for producing probabilistic projections of sea level rise at actionable scales”.
- “Thus, specific probabilities or likelihoods are not assigned to individual scenarios in this report, and none of these scenarios should be used in isolation”.
- “None of these scenarios should be used in isolation, and experts and coastal managers should factor in locally and regionally specific information on climatic, physical, ecological, and biological processes and on the culture and economy of coastal communities.”
- “Scientific observations at the local and regional scale are essential to action, and long-term coastal management actions (e.g. coastal habitat restoration) are sensitive to near-term rates and amounts of SLR.”
Exactly how local communities and cities are supposed to use these scenarios for local sea level rise “planning” purposes given these incredible limitations is unexplained.
Also unaddressed in the “National Climate Assessment” report is any explicit discussion of the huge difference between “global mean sea level” and “local sea level” (also called relative sea level) concerning how these vastly different sea level rise data measurements apply or don’t apply at specific coastal locations. .
NOAA clearly notes (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/faq.htm#q1) that “There is an important distinction between the global sea level trend and relative sea level trends (based on local sea level measurements), which must be understood in order to interpret changes to a coastline or particular location, and to properly apply the information”.
The University of Colorado sea level research group which uses satellites to measure global mean sea level for making estimates of ocean sea level clearly states ((http://sealevel.colorado.edu/faq#n3134)) that satellite global mean sea level measurements “”cannot be used to predict relative sea level changes along the coasts”.
Instead the University of Colorado notes that “”Local tide gauges measure the sea level at a single location relative to the local land surface, a measurement referred to as “relative sea level” (RSL)”
For sea level rise planning purposes local coastal cities and communities need to rely upon NOAA tide gauge data with measurements of coastal sea level rise at specific local and related regional locations to address what kinds of sea level increases should be expected. Global mean sea level data and estimates are not applicable at specific coastal locations and inappropriate for use for local coastal planning purposes.
Southern California has some of the world’s most beautiful and expensive coastal communities on the planet including locations at Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Corona del Mar, Laguna Beach and Monarch Beach. The rate of sea level rise at these coastal locations is very important to these communities economic well being and to issues of property protection and enjoyment for the businesses and people that work and live in these communities.
A local newspaper the Orange County Register published two articles on April 24, 2016 (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/sea-713335-rise-level.html), (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/focus-713037-levels-rise.html) alleging that because of CO2 caused global warming the earth’s sea level rise is accelerating and could increase by 3 feet by the year 2100 and inundate local southern California coastal areas causing significant damage to Southern California coastal communities.
These stories based their sea level rise information on the “National Climate Assessment” report and incorrectly applied the mid range scenario to Long Beach, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. Additionally the articles failed to make any mention of the huge qualifications and limitations of the National Assessment reports global sea level rise scenarios.
There are four NOAA long time period tide gauge sea level rise measurement locations in the Southern California region located at San Diego (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410170), La Jolla (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410230), Los Angeles (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410660) and Santa Monica (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410840).
The NOAA tide gauge data for these locations which covers time periods from more than 80 to over 100 years ago through 2015 data measurements shows that there is no sea level rise acceleration taking place at these locations and that the rate of sea level rise is stable and between 3 to 9 inches per century at these locations not the 3 feet proclaimed in the alarmist article. This NOAA tide gauge data should have been discussed and presented in these Register articles.
NOAA 95% level of confidence analysis shows that there have been no significant changes in the rate of sea level rise at these Southern California locations during the long time period of these measurements. These 95% level of confidence intervals for the specific Southern California coastal locations are available at (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.htm?stnid=9410170), (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.htm?stnid=9410230), (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.htm?stnid=9410660), and (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.htm?stnid=9410840).
The climate alarmist news media have done a terrible job addressing the valid issues and information about sea level rise acceleration to the public. Much of what is written about this topic is inaccurate, misleading and erroneous. The media appear to have gone out of their way to ignore NOAA tide gauge data and instead incorrectly based alarmist sea level rise stories on inappropriate use of global mean sea level measurements and computer estimates and forecasts.
A recent study published in the Ocean & Coastal Management Journal (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569116300205) addressed the importance of using only tide gauge data for coastal planning not speculative global mean sea level estimates derived from ocean computer models using satellite sea level measurements.
Climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry presented some of the results of this paper (https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/) which included the following assessment of how communities should evaluate coastal sea level rise issues:
The network of tide gauges provides the only information of value for costal planning.
The worldwide naïve average of sea level is +0.24 mm/year with no acceleration.
The climate models have crucial flaws making them useless.
Planning schemes must only reflect the proven local and global historical data.
Further supporting the importance of using local sea level rise tide gauge measurements for coastal location planning needs NOAA clearly states that “Relative Sea Level Trends reflect changes in local sea level over time and are typically the most critical sea level trend for many coastal applications, including coastal mapping, marine boundary delineation, coastal zone management, coastal engineering, sustainable habitat restoration design, and the general public enjoying their favorite beach”.
Unfortunately misleading, erroneous and inaccurate information about sea level rise issues is often used by climate alarmists to try and make their case. Extensive NOAA tide gauge data measured at hundreds of coastal locations around the U.S.many with measurement periods longer than 100 years do not support claims of coastal sea level rise acceleration.
NOAA tide gauge data represents an extremely important scientific resource to address specific coastal location sea level rise issues. The real story about coastal sea level rise contained in this critical data needs to be told.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Excellent assessment!
Just wait, they’ll adjust the data and get a rise out of it
But wait…don’t I espy a Mannian hockey stick at the end of the graph…Obviously sea level rise is going to soon drown all coastal installations!!
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2016_rel2/sl_ns_global.png
The Honolulu tide guage shows an average trend of 1.41mm/y over 110 years of record.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1612340
On their 50y trend tab the most recent 50y trend is 1.30 mm/y ; the first one centred on 1930 was 1.99mm/y
That is DECELERATION.
The Jevrejeva graph also despite showing very strong 60 y cycle also shows the lastest peak to be lower than the previous one. That also is DECELERATION on a global scale. This is all derived from tide gauge measurements.
Boulder Colorado and signed up members of the Exploding Earth Society. There data does NOT represent actual water levels and intentionally so. Why does a global MSL index get an “inverse barometer adjustment”? The also do their GAIA [sic] adjustment based of totally speculative deepening of the oceans.
The whole idea of extracting sea levels even to the nearest mm by measuring the trough of the swell if facial. They can produce whatever long term trends want by playing with parameters.
It’s tide gauges that provide ground truth and the truth is that Boulder Colorado data is a lie.
The global sea rise trend, for what its worth, also shows deceleration although It is clear that 24 years of data is not very relevant. The rate of sea level increase from 1993 to 2003 is higher than from 2003 on. I’m just eyebolling the data but I’m pretty sure if one was to fit a quadratic curve it woud have a negative quadratic coeficient.
Weather is highly variable with space and time and as well with climate system and general circulation pattern. Temperature is part of the weather. — in the past few days in Hyderabad where I am living presented high fluctuations in temperature maximum with changing relative humidity factor. We integrate such weather over a region, nation and finally global. However, the integrated factor is biased by spatial distribution of the met network. In the case of oceans that covers two-thirds of the globe the measurements of realistic nature are available only after 1990. That means in both space and time the integrated weather or temperature is biased by network distribution over space and availability of data over time. Thus, the integrated global average temperature anomaly is biased by several factors, which are not known. In such a system we presume global warming component qualitatively under the system of “Settled Science”. Using such qualitative jargon, sensational pronouncements are made such as ice melt leads to sea levels rise leads to inundation of coastal zones leads to —, etc. Before making such hysteric conclusions or inferences that severely affects the economy – big business for insurance companies. On the USA West Coast, the historical factors that are affecting the sea level are primarily the earthquake and volcanic/tectonic activity. We need to under this factor on sea level changes. There are several other secondary factors like drilling for oil, gas, water, etc. In the case of countries like India in addition, the major factors that are contributing to sea level changes are man’s greed. They are destroying the coastal zones. This inundating the coastal areas in high tides associated with severe cyclonic activity. Over a period of time they present a pseudo sea level change.
Before we assess the sea level changes [rise or fall or no change] we must separate the causes and effects. Then only it has some value.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
“The NOAA tide gauge data…..80 to over 100 years ago through 2015 data .…between 3 to 9 inches per century at these locations not the 3 feet proclaimed in the alarmist article.”
Looks to me like about 6” (inches) per century, on average – Big Whoop!
Sooner or later – hopefully sooner – they will “pull” the “National Climate Assessment” from the shelves and replace it with something of value. The December 6, 2012 “Scenarios” document will be heralded as evidence of the climate lunacy that permeated the Obama Administration.
Obama WILL be remembered for his actions on climate – just not in the way he pathetically imagines!!!
Why I cannot find the updated versions, I followed the link but it still shows the old data.
At Fortress Louisbourg there is a tide marker from 1743 which indicates that the tide has been rising (relative to subsiding land) at around 30-50 cm/century for at least 270 years. This suggests that the rate of increase has been decreasing.
There is an interesting discussion of old tidal levels here
When Al Gore and his Hollywood buddies sell their beach side properties , then people might start to worry.
It is too late. The damage is done. Everyone you talk to seems to believe the seas have risen exponentially. When you simply state that there has been no acceleration of sea level rive in the past 150+ years, they look at you like you are crazy.
How do we get this information widely disseminated?
You look them square in the eye and calmly say “No, that’s wrong. NOAA just released their updated sea level rise info and there is no such danger.” Then give them the URL and tell them to see for themselves. People respond positively to plain statements of fact when presented that way.
Usually by calling you a flat earth climate denier.
You look into his eyes saying yes, from tomorrow you wear constantly Wellies
“Usually by calling you a flat earth climate denier.”
When that happens, I change the subject and explain that by hanging a 2 lb. lead fishing weight from their Johnson, over the course of a year or two they can re-grow their foreskin.
Usually shuts ’em up.
I doubt very much that the people who believe all this nonsense even know what exponentially means !
A lot of people don’t know what “exponentially” means. It means that the rate of change of a variable is proportional to the variable. E.g. H(t) = k* exp(r * t) -> dH/dt = r*H(t). Examples are radioactive decay, neutrons in an atomic bomb, and animal populations when resources are unlimited and there are no predators. People use the word as if it means “rapidly.”
A lot of people think the target growth that
Economists and governments are always claiming to be aiming for a optimum of 2% per year. But a “stable” sounding 2% per year is not stable. It is an exponential growth, which will double everything in 35 years.
Don’t be fooled into thinking that “stable” growth is stable. It’s not, it is explosive.
You’re undoubtedly correct. So maybe the first thing to do with these people is to ask them to define their terms. Then explain to them what they’re actually saying.
I think that keeping it simple is a good way to get the message out. I mention that the global average has been around 2.5 to 3 mm per year, and then add that the rate would have to increase around 250% to 7mm per year to end up with a 2 foot sea level rise by 2100.
The numbers are easy to grasp. I have made that argument many times when debating alarmist articles or talk on global slr. It always ends the conversation when I ask “When do you expect to see a global slr of 7mm or greater take place?”
This statement from NOAA quoted above does not compute for this ignorant truck driver:
“Therefore, the most recent calculated trend is not necessarily more accurate than the previous trends; it is merely a little more precise. If several recent years have anomalously high or low water levels, the values may actually move slightly away from the true long-term linear trend”.
One of you please enlighten me how:
From Miriam Webster:
adjective Simplee Definition of precise
1 : very accurate and exact
2 —used to refer to an exact and particular time, location, etc.
3 : very careful and exact about the details of something
Accurate and precise are synonyms. So if something is more precise then it has to be more accurate. Or is there something about the use of such terms in science or math that I am not aware of?
Rah: I’ve always liked the pictorial explanation of precision and accuracy in scientific measurement.
Here’s a link, I hope it helps (it worked for me years ago!)
http://www.honolulu.hawaii.edu/instruct/natsci/science/brill/sci122/SciLab/L5/accprec.html
They are not the same, there is a difference.
http://www.mathsisfun.com/accuracy-precision.html
Rah, I do sympathise.
As far as scientific measurements are concerned, accuracy and precision are different. I have a digital thermometer at home. It has an LCD display that reads to one tenth of a degree Celsius. So, we say that this instrument measures temperature with a precision of one tenth of a degree. If the temperature were to rise or fall by more than one tenth of a degree, the instrument would detect that.
In truth, I have several thermometers of the same type; all display values to one tenth of a degree. However, when placed next to each other, they don’t all display exactly the same temperature. Deviations of up half a degree are typical. So, although they display temperatures to a precision of 0.1 of a degree, I know that at least some of them are not accurate, i.e. some of them are not telling the ‘true’ temperature.
Well, to use a gun analogy.
If you can make a 2 1/2 inch group you are fairly precise.
If the group is centered on the target you are accurate as well as precise..
If the group is centered 3 feet to the left you are merely precise.
Precision without accuracy means precisely nothing. Without accuracy you merely kill the back wall or other people’s targets.
If the group is centered to the left 3 feet and more than 12 inches across you should find a sport you are good at.
That science has its own definition/meaning of this normal English word is odd and I have never seen it officially vetted as having a different meaning. The real meaning is (science cannot own this word for their own misuse) :
prəˈsīs/
adjective
marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail.
“precise directions”
synonyms: exact, accurate, correct, specific, detailed, explicit, unambiguous, definite
“precise measurements”
antonyms: inaccurate
(of a person) exact, accurate, and careful about details.
“the director was precise with his camera positions”
synonyms: meticulous, careful, exact, scrupulous, punctilious, conscientious, particular, methodical, strict, rigorous
“the attention to detail is very precise”
used to emphasize that one is referring to an exact and particular thing.
“at that precise moment the car stopped”
synonyms: exact, particular, very, specific
“at that precise moment the car stopped”
Accurate and precise are not synonyms. Precision is a measure of how tightly grouped a series of measurements are. Accuracy refers to how close a measurement is to an accepted or known physical parameter (the “correct” answer). Imagine a bullseye on a target. If you shot the target 10 times and all 10 shots hit the bullseye, you would be both an accurate and precise shot. However, if you hit the target with all 10 shots in the lower left portion of the target (or anywhere else but still tightly grouped) but missed the bullseye altogether you would be a precise but inaccurate shot.
Yes, and another 10 shots, equally spread around the perimeter of the target would be imprecise (not tightly grouped), even though the average (dead center) was highly accurate.
In healthcare the criteria for a test to be useable is a) must be sensitive, b) must be specific and c) must be meaningful.
There are boatloads of tests which are both sensitive and specific, but most flounder on the ‘meaningful’ tag. A ploy often used by Pharma but rarely noticed by John Q. Public.
Unfortunately, climate science has taken ‘footloose and fancyfree’ to a new level.
Thank you all for your replies and explanations. I understand now.
Carbon500 your target graphics did the trick best for me. Easy for this former SF soldier to understand shot grouping. Assuming the weapon used is reasonably accurate. Target one indicates a combination of shooter errors. Target two indicates good shooting fundamentals but the weapons sights need zeroed. Target three indicates proper technique and sights zeroed in.
The other day I was at the range and a guy asked me to try his Mosin Nagant Sniper Rifle with a red dot sight and nice tactical stock. I put three rounds down range at 300 yards and then we checked. My three shot grouping could be covered by a nickel but it was in the high left in the 5 ring. So while my shooting was precise it was not accurate because the sight was not zeroed for me.
Sorry target FOUR indicates good technique and sights zeroed.
At 300 yards with a red dot sight. A red dot that could be anywhere from 1mm to 3.5mm in diameter, optically covering much of the target.
Your shooting was accurate and precise. As accurate as the sights and rifle could be expected to perform.
Yes, you could possibly align the optic to your vision better, but that is impressive shooting with a red dot at 300 yards.
Dam*n fine shooting, though.
Old SF guy, simple analogy to shooting a target. Neither accurate not precise is all over the target. Precise is a tight grouping somewhere on the target. Accurate is a loose grouping on the 10 ring. Accurate and precise is no 10 ring left.
Sorry guys, but I find the use of the word precise for a consistently inaccurate aim ridiculous.
Or to put it somewhat different, to call a measurment precise when someone makes a consistent error a misnomer.
Feel free to find it ridiculous, but it is the standard definition taught in all scientific education. Wikipedia has a good explanation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
You, of course, don’t have to accept this definition, but your refusal will probably disqualify you from being taken seriously in most scientific conversations where precision and accuracy are hot topics.
Luke, As I read it I don’t think that the systematic errors (several examples of it given above) are covered by the word precision which according to your wikipedia link is the “closeness of agreement among a set of results”. Because the set of results have nothing to do with errors, it is merely as the words say “a set of results”
Wikipedia:
Luke, what I read on your Wiki link is that “precision is the closeness of agreement among a set of results” That says nothing about the systematic error in a set of measurements (or a systematic error in target shooting, as given as an example here).
Random errors are related to precision. In the case of shooting, that might be intermittent speed of a crosswind, vibration on an object you have steadied your gun on, minor imperfections on the surface of the bullet, etc… On each particular shot you will not be able to tell which random error skewed your shot, but if you are shooting in a consistent manner every time, you should still have a grouping around a particular point. So your shooting would be considered precise (within whatever that random margin of error was.)
Systematic error are sources of error due to something being wrong. In the case of shooting, the gun not being properly sighted is a case of systematic error. The wrong result you’re getting is because of the system and not a random factor.
oops… Hit submit on accident.
The systematic error goes to accuracy. Doing it wrong every time, usually gives a wrong result. Not always. If your precision is +\- 1 inch and your accuracy is a half inch off the target, then at least a portion of your shots will be correct. However if your precision was +\- 0.25 in, you would always be wrong if the same half inch systematic error was there.
NOAA would rather obscure the measurements using terms like “accurate” and “precise” instead of publishing statistical confidence levels. They are learning from the IPCC.
NOAA is not alone; the National Institute of Health also uses funny methods to research how harmful cellphones are – http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/05/do-male-rats-using-cell-phones-get.html?m=1 . Among their findings, rats using cellphones had a higher life expectancy, but developed more tumors (healthy tumors, Dr. Motl observes.)
I’m sure others will respond better than my feeble attempt, but “accurate” means how close to the true value, and “precise” means how close together the measurements are.
In target shooting, “accurate” would mean how close to center, and “precise” would be how well-grouped they were.
James, agreed. The catch is that there is no target value known in advance; the purpose of the measurement is to determine it. That’s where standard deviations should be used.
I think of accuracy as how close to the bullseye, and precise as the size of the bullet. It’s easier to hit a bullseye with an 18 inch shell than with a .22 bullet.
Where does reproducibility come into the picture ?
It doesn’t. We all have to have less kids to save the planet (see yesterday’s post). 😉
Maybe that is why so many flaming “liberals” do not like the idea of reproduced studies…
Most “results” should have been published in The Journal of Irreproducible Results.
I’m sure others will respond better than my feeble attempt, but “accurate” means how close to the true value, and “precise” means how close together the measurements are.
In target shooting, “accurate” would mean how close to center, and “precise” would be how well-grouped they were.
Accurate and precise are not synonyms.
Think of a dartboard.
You might be aiming for the bullseye but put all your darts into the double 20. That’s precise, but not accurate.
Throw another 5 darts aimed at the bullseye.
One hits the bullseye, the others the 3, 6, 11 and 20. Average the location of all the darts and it’s the bullseye.
That’s accurate but not precise.
5 darts into the bullseye is both accurate and precise
rah: Accurate and precise are synonyms.
It is accurate, but not precise, to say pi is equal to 3 .
It is precise, but not accurate, to say pi is equal to 2.7182818284590452353602875 .
It is accurate and precise to say pi is equal to 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399.
…im real terms, digital thermometers are more precise because they can yield temps to 2 significant figures. It doesn’t at all mean that a digital thermometer is more accurate than analog.
This is a constant play on words by climate pros. Has led to the bold assertion that ‘this is the hottest year on record’ many times by ,02 degrees when the equipment is not in any way accurate with such a measure.
No, they are not synonyms. Accuracy refers to the error margin for a number. Is the number accurate to 1% or 10%. Precision refers to the number of digits that are recorded. As an example: A series of numbers can be 999, 997,1002, 998, 999, … Those have three digit precision, but each may only be accurate to ± 2% or worse. Another series of numbers may be 99, 100, 98, 99, 100, … Those have 2 digit precision, buy may be accurate to ±1%. An instrument can be mis-calibrated by a large percentage and still give 3-digit precision.
Only half of the story. Are the tide gauges being lifted or sunk by movement of the earth beneath them? For the Battery Park instrument, satellite measurements show it is sinking at a rate of 1.5 to 2 mm/year (if I read it right). So the sea level increase is closer to 1.5 mm/yr, the rest being subsidence. You can find the info at PSMSL.org.
Great article. One of my sons has just spent an eye watering sum on a beach front property on Oahu so I sent this along with the tide gauge graph for Honolulu.
‘Thought you might like to see this graph that confirms that your investment is not threatened by any escalation in sea level rise caused by the demon CO2. The average of all tide gauges round the US mainland shows the same picture. A very slow straight line increase for over a century. No crisis.’
As Lex Luther would said to General Zod
“I have an affinity for Beech Front Property I want Australia”
So sea level rise SHOCK
How are Coastal Land Prices doing?
Well, people in Miami are certainly taking this seriously….
…and abandoning their homes by the droves
http://miami.curbed.com/2016/5/20/11719948/palladian-estate-coral-gables-sale
Here’s a Palladian estate in Gables By The Sea draped by Biscayne Bay on three sides asking $6.89 million.
That’s a bit much for a house soon to be under water 😀
Unfortunately a number of politicians in the Miami area are making a huge deal about sea level rise “due to climate change”…including the Republican mayor of Coral Gables.
Why don’t all the subscribers to WUWT put stupid offers in to buy politicians beachfront properties on the basis that their useful life is only going to be a matter of a few years and any offer will therefore seem generous. Publicising this would really make them squirm with embarrassment.
it’s worse than that….
People are also abandoning Los Angeles…because of the sea level rise there
Jon Landau just moved to the other side…..
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-florida-keys-sunshine-premium-1426176377
Ahhh but you forgot about the cheap federally subsidized flood insurance…
“In January 2014, the United States Senate passed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (S. 1926; 113th Congress). That bill would delay the increases in flood insurance premiums that were part of the Biggert–Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012.[4][7] The reforms from that law were meant to require flood insurance premiums to actually reflect the real risk of flooding, which led to an increase in premiums.[5] The National Flood Insurance Program is currently $24 billion in debt and taxpayers will be forced to pay for any additional payouts until that situation is solved.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Act_of_1968
That bill never became law. It never passed the House, and a similar bill that was passed in the House has not gone through reconciliation against the Senate bill. The current law is that properties that have flooded more than once may not be subsidized by FEMA as established in the 2012 law.
The Left’s political spin is that Biggert-Waters would have required flood insurance premiums to reflect the real cost of flooding. That’s nonsense. It could not be further from the truth.
The Left wants a small percentage of Americans — those who live near coasts and inland waterways — to pay off the cost of the federal government’s failed New Orleans levees, by paying ruinous rates for insurance, while enabling the feds to pretend to have not raised taxes. That policy is also supported by radical “green” activists who want to make coastal development economically unfeasible, by making mandatory flood insurance unaffordable.
That’s just wrong. It is morally wrong, and it is bad economic policy. Federal flood insurance on coastal property in many States, like North Carolina, is already profitable, without these rate increases.
Insurance rates are supposed to be based on the risks associated with the properties being insured. Raising their flood insurance rates would only make sense if the high losses in New Orleans and the profits in other States were products of mere random luck, implying that future risk to property in those States is higher than their loss history suggests.
But we know that isn’t true. Most States do not have cities which are built below sea-level, behind federally-constructed levees of questionable integrity. It’s not fair to make coastal homeowners in those States bear the burden by themselves of paying for the federal government’s expensive New Orleans levee blunder, while other citizens pay nothing.
Note, however, that the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 was just a band-aid. Biggert-Waters contains many other very bad provisions, including provisions which appear to be designed to increase the cost of insurance and discourage coastal development.
For instance, it has a provision encouraging, for the first time, the squandering of federal flood insurance premium money on private “reinsurance,” of the sort which has wiped out most of the reserves of the NC Beach Plan (now called the NC Coastal Property Insurance Pool). That’s just a way to siphon money from Americans, and put it into the pockets of (mostly foreign) reinsurance companies.
http://www.sealevel.info/biggertwaters2012k.html#100232
If there’s any entity on planet Earth which should self-insure, it’s the U.S. federal government! Private reinsurance makes no sense at all for the federal government. It is a scam, pure and simple, by an unholy alliance of reinsurance companies and leftist Climate Movement activists.
Biggert-Waters also has a provision directing FEMA to draw all new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The new flood maps will, for the first time, incorporate “climate science” to make sea-level rise projections. Those are code words meaning that new flood maps are to be based on future, hypothetical, politically-driven predictions of wildly accelerated sea-level rise, which are thoroughly inconsistent with sound scientific analysis.
http://www.sealevel.info/biggertwaters2012k.html#100216
It sets up a body to oversee this process, called the TMAC (Technical Mapping Advisory Council). This process will create fanciful “flood maps” which make billions of dollars worth of coastal property undevelopable, and which have nothing at all to do with real flood risk. It could end up being even a bigger economic catastrophe for coastal communities than the disastrous Biggert-Waters insurance provisions.
http://www.sealevel.info/biggertwaters2012k.html#100215
The TMAC has recently issued a deeply flawed political report, masquerading as a scientific assessment, based on the usual unscientific projections of accelerated sea-level rise. Coastal communities and property owners should be very worried.
Luke, Wikipedia is wrong (as usual). The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 did, indeed, become law:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3370
dave, I am familiar with New Orleans and its history. The original city was not built below sea level, though it did get flooded from time to time. That flooding replenished the soil. That soil now no longer gets to New Orleans. It goes out to sea. Add in the levees, some of that soil now raises the water level in the levees. With the loss of replenishment, you also have compaction, which results in subsidence. Go visit the French Quarter. It is over 300 years old. it is, or was the last time I checked 9 feet ASL. Now go over to the Mississippi River and look at the levees. Do the same with Lake Pontchartrain. Think about the siltation going on with the residual that does not go out MRGO and/or the River itself.
I would suggest an expensive media campaign throughout the U.S. election campaign that contrasts provable statements with alarmist b.s. and asks where the candidates stand. A preliminary statement about current government spending and policy might be helpful.
Manhatten is basically built on a lot of schist. [ok, ok, let the puns loose, I am ready] As such it does not have much in the way of subsidence and so is a bit more reliable than say New Orleans. Not surprisingly, the envelope of the tidal gauge follows the AMO cycle. Since we are in rollover of the AMO, the deceleration of the tidal height and probably a decrease in the next 10 to 20 years can probably be expected.
Haven’t they heard of indoor plumbing?
The were so worried about the accumulation the first thing the current Mayor did was try to get rid of carriage rides.
Manhatten might be built on schist but it is subsiding by between 1.0 mm/year to 2.7 mm2/year according to the GPS stations in the area.
The Battery Park GPS has recently reached the level of statistical significance and it is sinking by 2.12 mms/year. Since the near-by tide gauge is only recording sea level rise of 2.85 mms/year, one must conclude the real sea level rise is only 0.83 mm2/year.
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=2722.php
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/12.php
Other New York GPS stations.
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=3314.php
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=1895.php
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=1896.php
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=3312.php
Exactly. Fort Denison in Sydney harbor has measured 0.5 mm per annum for the last 100 years. This is more like the real number.
To summarize:
No alarming sea level rise
No alarming temperature rise
No alarming sea temperature rise
No alarming hot spot in the troposphere
No alarming increase in hurricanes
No alarming increase in storms or storm intensity
No alarming increase in the satellite record
So what’s all the fuss about?
well, since you ask…
calling pigs for supper got completely hotwhoppy.
Their really isn’t an alarming increase in the land station record either.
Other than that, excellent post thank you.
No change in ocean pH?
Where I live Helsinki
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/14_high.png
Stockholm
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/78.png
NY-ALESUND
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/1421.png
Oslo
http://www.climate4you.com/images/Oslo-NEW.gif
So tell me again how melting ice is raising sea levels in these places with lots of ice melt in winter summer cycles
Cat astrophe avoided
http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/That+was+close+very+nearly+catastrophic_3b2d32_4670334.gif
Like it
This is exactly why they focus on the bogus satellite gained average mean crap.
Well, it isn’t bogus… But you have to adjust it a bit.
1. The GIA (global isostatic adjustment was added in 2011 because the sea level wasn’t rising fast enough. The sea floor is sinking an estimated 0.3+ mm per year so they arbitrarily add 0.3 mm/Y. There is absolutely no sane reason to add GIA since this changes a measured sea level measurement into an estimated change in ocean depth.
2. They mask the land area. Now if the sea is sinking 0.3+ mm/y the land is rising 0.7+ per year. Lets call this LIA (Land Isostatic Adjustment). The masking artificially inflates the sea level 0.7+ mm/Y.
GMSL trend ~ 3.3 mm/Y – 0.3+ (GIA) – 0.7+ (LIA) = 2.2 to 2.3 mm/Y.
So the satellites are measuring the same sea level rise as everyone else. They are just reporting it badly.
PA, GIA is NOT global. GIA stands for Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
I guess by 2100 the populations of the Nordics and Scandinavia will have exploded due to refugees from rising seas :p
Finland’s land uplift, surely this affects sea level for places seeing subsidence.
http://www.fgi.fi/fgi/sites/default/files/Poutanen-Fennoskandia.png
Well, since I did not get any of my Scandinavian ancestors “cold survival” genes, I am doomed. On a happier note, I bet the Scots are gleeful about that map showing much of England sinking. Probably all shouting, “Faster! Faster!”
I bet the Scots are gleeful about that map showing much of England sinking. Probably all shouting, “Faster! Faster!”
The Irish are not fond of the English either. Those of us who are Scot-Irish even less.
Faster! Faster! Faster!
The good news is that in 2100 Scandawhovia will be the “California” of Europe.
Denmark
http://www.climate4you.com/images/Korsor-NEW.gif
PMSML data makes a mockery of the melting ice rising seas claim
Sea level measurements have no value if it is not adjusted to land elevation. Everyone knows that most land in Scandinavia is rising after the last Ice Age.
@nobody
True, but not important if what you’re trying to do is city planning on a 25 – 50 year timescale. You just care what’s happening locally.
Sea level measurements have no value if it is not adjusted to land elevation.
That would make satellite measured sea level worthless because they mask out the land areas.
nobodysknowledge
May 28, 2016 at 10:49 am
Sea level measurements have no value if it is not adjusted to land elevation. Everyone knows that most land in Scandinavia is rising after the last Ice Age.
____________
I dont disagree, but data post data.
Meanwhile all the land subsidence is “missing” in sea level rises alarmism
Are you saying land rises are outstripping sea level rises in all those places I added data for? Show me that please
nobodysknowledge
May 28, 2016 at 10:49 am
Sea level measurements have no value if it is not adjusted to land elevation. Everyone knows that most land in Scandinavia is rising after the last Ice Age.
-_____________________
Even so, remind we why I should be alarmed about sea level rise, doesn’t this rising of land add to sea level of everywhere else on the planet?
UK Ireland
Satellite sea level data is surely useless with this issue.
Which is why tide gauges matter, yes land is rising, but a tide gauge only measures water relative to shore, where it actually matters.
Mark – I eyeballed Helsinki on PSMSL.org and found that the city is rising at about the same rate as tide gauge sea level is falling. Net sea level rise is about nil it seems. Check PSMSL.org, click on Helsinki. Geo movement is under “other data”. A more careful analysis may show a net sea level rise but it would be very small.
DHR
May 28, 2016 at 12:00 pm
Mark – I eyeballed Helsinki on PSMSL.org and found that the city is rising at about the same rate as tide gauge sea level is falling. Net sea level rise is about nil it seems. Check PSMSL.org, click on Helsinki. Geo movement is under “other data”. A more careful analysis may show a net sea level rise but it would be very small.
__________________
Cheers mate, I must point out subsidence is not uniform, where there is stable bedrock no subsidence is detected.
For example Rautatientori square by the railway station (3 mm/yr), Jätkäsaari harbour area (4-7 mm/yr), new residential area in Pikku-Huopalahti (2-5 mm/yr), and Malmi airport area (2-5 mm/yr) were subsiding according to the INSAR measurements.”
Abstract
Ground subsidence is a known problem in several cities in the Europe causing difficulties for
urban planning, and occasionally, severe damages for existing buildings. In Finland, even
though subsidence problems have been detected in the city of Turku and Helsinki, however, extensive information about phenomena does not exist. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR)
interferometry enables the observation of large areas and it has been successfully applied to
measure ground deformations in various parts of the world. Heavy vegetation in Finland
complicates the use of the INSAR technique. This study, however, showed that advanced
interferometric techniques could also be applied in northern vegetated city areas. The subsidence
areas were clearly visible in the deformation map, which was formed using a long time series of
SAR data and an advanced INSAR algorithm. The INSAR deformation rates agreed well with the
levelling measurements that have been carried out in the area and as well as with the soil data.
http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2010/isbn9789517112819/article5.pdf
It seems land subsidence is not such an easy question.
Estimates I have seen tend to vary. In the discussion of estimates, the uncertainty seems have been lost along the way
nobodysknowledge wrote, “Sea level measurements have no value if it is not adjusted to land elevation.”
If what you’re interested in detecting is acceleration, then there’s no need to adjust for vertical land movement, in most cases. That’s because vertical land motion is usually very nearly linear over the time periods of interest. Thus, vertical land motion does not usually affect acceleration calculations.
The two exceptions would be when there’re major changes in human activities (such as water well pumping) which affect subsidence, and, occasionally, earthquakes.
Although the best tide gauges show a very wide range of sea-level trends, they all show the same thing w/r/t acceleration: there has been none since at least the 1920s. At most locations there’s been no detectable sea-level acceleration since the 1800s.
Even President Obama’s former Undersecretary for Science, Steven Koonin, a devout liberal, wrote that:
“Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today.”
Here’re some relevant papers:
http://sealevel.info/papers.html#acceleration
I used the NOAA tide guage data to determine that the sea level rise in the year 2014 in these garages was 2.07 mm/yr compared to the long-term average before the update of 1.62 mm/year.
Basically I took an earlier version of the database and matched up the stations between the new and old version. The earlier data had 2013 data and the later 2014. The average in the 2013 data was 1.62 mm/year while the 2014 version had 1.65 mm/year.
The only way the math works is if 2014 increased by 2.07 mm/year. It is certainly higher in the latest data but is that acceleration.
We really need a year by year sea level rise database in order to determine if there is acceleration. I mean one number for every single year 1856 to 2015.
I think you are seeing the effect of isostatic rebound post-glacoation
Melting ice has lowered relative sea levels in Scandinavia.
You are suffering from a bout of post glacial rebound
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
Same is true for most of Canada, a many times greater land area than Scandinavia. I would suspect the same would be true for Russia
The explanation of the NY Times and Obama’s ignorance is much simpler: they don’t understand the difference between “acceleration” and “rate” of increase; in this instance regarding sea level. For example:
To them the sentence “the hot rod accelerated down the street” simply means it went very fast (not faster and faster).
‘the hot rod velocitated down the street’
Both the N.Y. Times and Obama know EXACTLY what they are stating…They both believe in the same Agenda…21… Only fools give them excuses !
George,
I disagree, they are liars and get away with it because of a complicit media, it is intentional and calculated..
Ignorance and dishonesty are not mutually exclusive, Carcracking. The fact that they are habitual liars doesn’t mean they understand the science. They don’t.
I agree with you, George.
@rah,
In science, accuracy is how close a value is to the actual thing you are trying to measure, and precision is how close one measurement is to another. So they are saying that recent measurements are lining up with each other a little better, but they don’t know if they are any closer to the truth. If you measure the exact same thing multiple times and get a totally different result every time, you have a problem with precision. If you fix your equipment or your method so you end up getting about the same result every time you measure, you’ve fixed your problem with precision, but you still don’t know if your measurements are accurate. For that, you might, for example, calibrate your measurements against a known sample.
There are certainly some folks who’d like to find an excuse to make data adjustments to get the necessary “acceleration.”
Very interesting and instructive. Thanks.
We could do with a similar article about global tide gauge sea level movements up to end 2015.
Has anyone got a link to the NOAA data?
You mean this one? Left side. Click through and you can export to CVS.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.htm
@Larry Hamblin: well-written, informative article. Thanks.
Good post!
1. The current trend isn’t much different that the trend that ended in the 40s.
2. The current trend is relatively constant and if anything is attenuating.
3. The difference between LOD (length of day) studies of sea level and satellite measurements needs to be constrained.
Good article. The reason the sea level charts don’t show accelerated rise is because they haven’t figured out how to adjust data to show sustainable acceleration — i.e., this is a charade that would be very hard to continue year after year. Imagine a “pause” in sea level rise acceleration? Unthinkable! Maybe they could manage it on a logarithmic graph but then you’ve lost the media and the public.
Gee, I believe it’s Donald Trump, not Obama who willl be cited in history as being responsible for the “prevention” of catastrophic sea level rise. He will soon be also cooling the ECS and TCS numbers too. Federal scientists have begun preparations for Donald Trump for president! What is the term used for people who sell themselves for money? Watch for increasing numbers of papers from government agencies damping down the hype on climate change. Their more ideological confreres in universities will take a bit longer to reach the asymptote of hysteria. Then we will have only the activists not dependent on government largesse who, too, will eventually be forced to get back to saving the Nile crocodile and such.
One big plus (nothing is completely negative) is the greens have come around a bit in embracing nuclear (a last ditch effort to hang on to their ideological engine, CO2). I see an ever-present dialectic among the greens and the left in general. Like cherry picking a part of a statement out of context, only half of the thought or really a completely different thought is presented and its ultimate conclusion ignored. For example, government having taken a pre-emptive stand against coal has benefited natural gas and a grudging acceptance of nuclear. However, this coal remains in its trillions of tons in the ground and certainly gas and oil will eventually peak – I won’t guess when. Coal, with its unbeatable economics (free of ideological taxes) will be back. It will share a future with nuclear for electric power and also become feed for artificial oil, gas and petrochemicals. This isn’t “might”, this is a certainty.
Global warming won’t survive Trump. Without the Obama-era adjusted charts climate just looks like serial weather.
…Without Obama, the liberal “Green” gravy train is heading foe a cliff and the Gruber followers are too dumb to jump off
Just had an argument two days ago with my neighbors girlfriend ! She claimed the melting of all the Arctic Sea Ice would flood the entire U.S.A….Nothing I said would convince this college graduate that melting ice ice floating in water CANNOT increase the the level of the water ! All she kept saying was …”97%” !! etc…etc….
Just had an argument two days ago with my neighbors girlfriend
When even scientists and engineers argue about the details having a sensible discussion of global warming topics is hard with people who are knowledgeable.
Arguing with someone who failed or never took physics about global warming is an exercise in futility.
Hence the consensus argument: “97% of scientists are wrong but what the hey, they are scientists, how wrong can they be?”
People who are bad at math find this argument compelling.
Moral: Don’t deliberately argue technical topics with the most ignorant misinformed person you can find.
Sounds like the person I had an extended discussion with because she contended that there could be thunder without lightning. Very frustrating to get the blank stare when you try to explain what thunder is and how it is caused.
That’s why the neighbour’s gf can only get elected in California. The voters all say ” hey man, the neighbour’s girlfriend! I know her!”
@Marcus,
I went through that with a bunch of high-schoolers, although they could admit that Arctic ice cap floats, unlike Antarctica, the continent.
So I did a little show-and-tell a week later while serving them some illegal beer and grilling burgers. Hauled out my 12-inch stainless steel mixing bowl and the wide-mouth gallon pitcher we solar-brew ice tea in. The pitcher was full–warmish water, it was a setup. And a small bowl of my monster ice cubes for my medium-quality bourbon.
I got Mr. Loudmouth (McKibben-lite) to pour the water into the bowl, then put the ice in the water. I said, Here, have another beer.
Took the ice almost an hour to melt, even outside. I said, Okay. Who’s going to measure it? Here’s the funnel.
Loudmouth’s BFF did the honors. They all sat there in silence at the result. I said The arctic ice melting is going to flood exactly nothing.
..Fox News is fighting back too !
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4916259511001/why-is-doj-digging-into-records-of-climate-change-skeptics/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips
I cannot believe that report offered “potential” events, but did not assign probability because it is too complicated to make accurate predictions. Why mention possibilities at all if you have no clue what will happen? For heaven’s sake, I could potentially marry Brad Pitt (we are both alive), but the probability of that happening is 1.0 x10^-infinity. Making plans for the AllyKat-Pitt wedding would be as much a waste of time as local coastal governments making plans using the assumption that the local sea-level will rise 3 feet by 2100.
Actually, those wedding plans could be adjusted for use with another groom. AGW-inspired planning loses by a landslide. Again.