The sea levels are now reducing in the “hotspots of acceleration” of Washington and New York

Guest essay by Albert Parker*

Hopefully everybody remember Sallenger’s “hot spots” of sea level acceleration along the East Coast of the US.

Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd, Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America, Nature Climate Change 2, 884–888 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1597

This was one of the many examples of bad science misinterpreting the sea level oscillations by cherry picking the time window.

As 6 more years of data have been collected, let see if the hotspots are now the “hottest on record” or if they have cooled down.

The logic of Sallenger & co. was based on the comparison of the rate of rise of sea levels over the first and second half of time windows of 60, 50 and 40 years, i.e. the comparison of the rate of rise over the first and the last 30, 25 and 20 years respectively of these 60, 50 and 40 years windows.

This did not make any sense to me, as if you do have sinusoidal oscillations of periodicity 60 years, positive and negative phases of 30 years, and you select the end of the time widows at the end of one positive phase, this way you will always have “positive acceleration” even if there is none, and everybody knew about periods and phasing of the natural oscillations.

The logic was clearly flawed, but obviously Nature did not accepted any comment. The science is settled, and can’t be discussed.

So, let see the data, for example for Washington DC and The Battery NY, to check if the hotspots have produced huge sea level rises since December 2009.

The figure below presents the MSL (monthly average mean sea levels) and the SLR computed with 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 years’ time windows for Washington DC and The Battery NY.

Is there any one able to spot any sign or acceleration or simply oscillations? With the data up to December 2009 and with the data up to April 2016, not a chance. There are only oscillations about same longer term trend.

Which is then the novelty of the last 6 years of data? Since December 2009, the sea levels have declined in both Washington DC and The Battery NY, -3.3 mm/year in Washington DC and -10.7 mm/year in The Battery NY.

It seems that immediately after December 2009, the last month of data considered by Sallenger & co. in their June 2012 paper, corrected online June 2013 with the publishing in the supplementary of the actual numbers, a positive phase of the oscillations has been replaced by a negative phase.









*Note: Originally this story was submitted under a pseudonym “Giordano Bruno”. The author, Albert Parker has consented to it being changed to his real name. – Anthony Watts


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 29, 2016 9:26 pm

Great pseudonym 🙂

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 29, 2016 10:34 pm

Yeah, I was just about to write the same thing! One of my all-time favorite heretics. The Catholic Church still gets apoplectic if you mention his name, and refuses to recognize him. He was light years ahead of Galileo.

Reply to  MRW
May 29, 2016 11:21 pm

Galileo purloined a lot of Bruno’s ideas, but wimped out when it came to standing up for them, so he got house arrest. Bruno got burned at the stake in the Campo di Fiore, with hot coals shoved down his neck. Bruno’s biographer, Ingrid something-or-other–not willing to cross the room to read her name–translates some of the irreverent evidentiary materials from his trials. Wow. Bruno makes Trump look like Mother Teresa.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 2:21 am

MRW – just crossing the data base
Giordano Bruno: Philosopher / Heretic, … › ucp › book › chicago
Mobile-friendly – Ingrid D. Rowland’s biography establishes him once and for all as a peer of Erasmus, Shakespeare, and Galileo
Cheers – ;-/

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 6:13 am

An article about sea levels, providing a perfect segue into….the Catholic Church, of course! Galileo was punished, quite comfortably I might add, for stating the Copernican heliocentric model was fact, which the Catholic Church agreed was possible, yet he did so without evidence, which was scientifically irresponsible — much like Sallenger’s peer-reviewed “research” cited above. But today, we can publish culture-altering nonsense without accountability.
The heliocentric hypothesis was not confirmed by observable data until 1727 by James Bradley, in 1838 by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel and decisively in 1851 by Foucault.
While we’re at it, we can thank the Church for the university system and the scientific method, neither of which would exist today. So, will you counter my points here, or continue with unrelated and skewed attacks toward an organization you are biased against? Never mind.

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 9:10 am

Wouldn’t have received nearly the punishment he did if he hadn’t been an ordained priest.

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 9:28 am

Actually, Patrick of SD, not exactly correct:

While we’re at it, we can thank the Church for the university system and the scientific method, neither of which would exist today.

Both were invented by Islamic Science. The university system (900+ AD) and the scientific method (11th C). Monckton has written about the latter a few times here.
Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, is generally considered to be the oldest university in the world. Apparently there was one in India but it is in ruins. Al-Azhar University was founded roughly the same time as the city of Cairo, in 969 AD. It still stands today. The Muslims introduced libraries to Europe through their hub in Cordoba.
Ibn al-Haytham invented the scientific method and codified it, specifically.
Ibn al-Haytham: The Muslim Scientist Who Birthed the Scientific Method
Monckton (one brief mention)
After Queen Isabella kicked the Muslims (1480-1490) out of Spain, and then the Jews (1492), because she wanted the Pope to make Spain the Seat of the Holy See, Christian historians rewrote history and claimed Islamic Science advances for themselves. The entire heliocentric argument came from Islamic Science. Neither Copernicus nor those who came after him invented it. This is in older history books and is based on writings preserved by Christian monks and Jewish scribes who traveled to Cordoba to get latin translations of Islamic Science starting in 900 AD.
[??? Revising temperatures AND history, eh? .mod]

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 9:46 am

A light year is the same time as any other year, a fraction over 365 days. A light year is a measure of distance, not time; are you saying he was 5.88 trillion miles ahead of Galileo?

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 9:47 am


[??? Revising temperatures AND history, eh? .mod]

Read the 20+ pages starting at pg 182, in Robert Briffault’s The Making of Humanity. Briffault wrote The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, and H.L. Mencken lionized hi in 1930.
Also, a book Joseph McCabe wrote in 1936 confirms what I write. Can’t remember name. Buried across the room and too lazy to dig for it.
I don’t know where you live, mod, but a major museum exhibition detailing all this has hit the global capitals for the last 10 years starting in England in 2006. Only now making it to the Arab countries.
[Yes. It is part of a well-funded anti-Western propaganda package eagerly awaited by the well-funded anti-Western media and academia elites. .mod]

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 9:53 am

What did I say about temperatures??? 😉

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 9:57 am

I don’t think “a well-funded anti-Western propaganda package” was operative in 1919, do you? That’s when Briffault published. Truth is thorny. Especially when you can’t read, write, or speak the original languages.

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 9:59 am

Like they said at the start of The Big Short, you don’t look, you don’t find.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 11:40 am

OMG mod. MRW is correct. Read a bit more without your rose-colored glasses. However, it should be noted that because of the ubiquitous presence of civilization “walls” (IE China), many discoveries were, in essence, duplicated independently in later eras, not an uncommon phenomenon in our world of silo’d peoples. Even 10-commandments stories, nearly identical in number and content, were created prior to those recorded in our Judeo-Christian sacred texts.
There really is nothing new under the Sun.

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 11:45 am

The entire heliocentric argument came from Islamic Science.

Nah, it is much older than 1400 years.

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 1:09 pm


Nah, it (Heliocentric view) is much older than 1400 years.

How so? The Ptolemaic view started in 200 AD, which the Catholic Church adopted as eternal law and killed anyone who didn’t go along with it for 1500 years. The Chaldeans did the astronomical work, however, in the 10th to 7th C BC; empirical work. But Islamic Science was all about rendering the Greek and Chaldean ideas mundane, useable, and applicable. They did the actual study and calculation of what the Greeks proclaimed was true; they wrote it down. In other words, set about verifying it. Their work in medical diagnoses we use today. Our entire western pharmacopeia comes from them. Ditto their surgical tools, used at Cedar-Sinai in 2016. Same with eye surgery.
But who would know this unless we study history in Arabic. Do you know Arabic? I don’t.
Instead, we have the equivalent of Arabic gangs of bloodier Bloods and Crips (the whack-job Wahhabis) invented in 1800 AD in tribal meetings in the middle of a desert night terrorizing western political minds and states.

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 1:27 pm

Unfortunately, Islam stopped advancing a long time ago. Now it has regressed to its 7th century roots. It attacks everyone of a different religion, and those with no religion. It violently attacks everyone. What to do?
My suggestion: declare Islam a world outlaw religion, and treat its disciples like you would treat any mad dog.
Or, we could be all kisssy-face, and hope they start to like us…

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 1:41 pm

If you compare Catholic Theology with Earth Worship Theology they look the same in many ways. Fear of future punishment is a tool which is always used to get people in line with goofy doctrine etc.
Earth Firsters top (mortal sin) Earth sin would probably be something like an oil spill.
A Catholic “mortal sin” often has to do with sex, and there are varying types of sin also.
In the Catholic Theology a person can buy ‘sin credits’ which will help you or a relative out of purgatory and a good spot in heaven.
In Earth Worship an environmental sin can be forgiven by the purchase of Carbon Credits.
Both claim to be the only true religion even though the Earth Firsters would not allow such a title of ‘religion’ they can become a tax exempt organisation.
This Earth worship is nothing new on planet Earth.
I was born and raised a Catholic with ten years of Catholic school which included the fertility rite of the May Pole dance and such. I think you will find that both religions practice many of the same rituals.
There are many books on this so I end my book here!

Bob Kacey
Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 2:02 pm

Islam had access to a LOT of Greek and Roman classics in Egypt (Alexandria) and the Mideast once they conquered that territory that was then lost to Rome and Western Europe – for a while. It wasn’t the Christian Romans who burned/destroyed so many books but pagan Germans, until THEY were finally Christianized. Consider the career of Pope Sylvester II one of the most accomplished “scientific” Popes:
Gerbert was born about 946 in the town of Belliac, near the present-day commune of Saint-Simon, Cantal, France.[6] Around 963, he entered the monastery of St. Gerald of Aurillac. In 967, Borrell II of Barcelona (947–992) visited the monastery, and the abbot asked the Count to take Gerbert with him so that the lad could study mathematics in Catalonia and acquire there some knowledge of Arabic learning. In the following years, Gerbert studied under the direction of Atto, Bishop of Vic, some 60 km north of Barcelona, and probably also at the nearby Monastery of Santa Maria de Ripoll.[7] Neither place was under Islamic rule at the time.
Borrell II of Barcelona was facing major defeat from the Andalusian powers so he sent a delegation to Córdoba to request a truce. Bishop Atto was part of the delegation that met with Al-Hakam II of Cordoba, who received him with honor. Atto was mesmerized by the palaces in Cordoba and returned with great respect for the Arabs[citation needed]. Gerbert insisted that Atto teach him more about these Arabic princes who seemed to him more interested in the sciences and literature than warfare[citation needed]. Gerbert was fascinated by the stories of the Christian Bishops and judges who dressed and talked like the Arabs, well-versed in mathematics and natural sciences like the great teachers of the Islamic madrasahs. This sparked Gerbert’s veneration for the Arabs and his passion for mathematics and astronomy.
Also check out this FAR from complete list:
Perhaps you can provide us all with a list of Islamic scientists down through the ages and into the current age???

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 2:26 pm

Islam is 1/4 of the world’s population. It’s not all of them. It’s a particular and tiny subset. WE suffer when we fail to make the distinction. WE shoot ourselves in the foot when we make knee-jerk assessments, and act out of ignorance. WE damage ourselves when we don’t keel-haul the absolutely irresponsible current admin and its merry band of national security advisors who have no knowledge of history, disdain diplomacy in favor of personal legacy-creating directives, and who lie to the public to get away with their destructive actions. Obama’s judgment is appalling. But it was Clinton and that crew who got rid of all the seasoned, highly educated, Russian analysts and Arabists from the State Department. An absolute disgrace.
You’re aware, aren’t you, that ISIS is composed of the Iraqi Army people we ditched in 2003–even when we were warned otherwise–who were left bereft and unable to feed their families, and a pile of American materiel and weaponry they decided to make use of. They were p*ss*d. How would you feel if these a-holes bombed your state for no reason? I’d be steaming, and seeking revenge.

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 2:46 pm

I agree that blunders were made. Aren’t they always, in a war? But Islamic atrocities began way before 9/11/2001. The war just provided a convenient excuse for more terrorism. There’s always an easy rationalization — if they want to keep killing people. And obviously, they do.
Unless and until there’s at least a big minority of “peaceful” Islamists going public with demands that Islamic terrorism must end, I consider them to be as complicit as the ‘good Germans’ were during WWII.
At this point I would handle things differently. But since I’m not likely to be in a position to do anything, that doesn’t matter. All I can do is vote.

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 3:32 pm

Patrick of SD wrote: “Galileo was punished, quite comfortably I might add, for stating the Copernican heliocentric model was fact, which the Catholic Church agreed was possible, yet he did so without evidence, which was scientifically irresponsible ,,, The heliocentric hypothesis was not confirmed by observable data until 1727 by James Bradley, in 1838 by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel and decisively in 1851 by Foucault”.
Galileo’s evidence was that the motion of the planets against the background of the star was far easier to explain via a heliocentric model than a geocentric model. Galileo’s observations of the moons of Jupiter orbiting that planet showed how much simpler motion appeared to be from a stationary frame of reference.
The scientists you cite as proving the heliocentric model wouldn’t have been able to do their work if they had been educated only in Church’s infallible dogma. Suppression of ideas and free inquiry was the problem with the Church.

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 3:50 pm


But Islamic atrocities began way before 9/11/2001. The war just provided a convenient excuse for more terrorism.

Some did, you’re right. But we allowed Clinton’s admin to hold sway. Leon Hadar, a former bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post, laid it out in August 1992 with his lengthy, and at times sarcastic, Cato Institute article, The “Green Peril”: Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat in August 1992.

Unless and until there’s at least a big minority of “peaceful” Islamists going public with demands that Islamic terrorism must end, I consider them to be as complicit as the ‘good Germans’ were during WWII.

I don’t feel responsible for the Christian nuts who bomb Army sites, churches, or doctors’ clinics. Why should I? But we will be nailed by history—as ‘good Americans’, as a nation, as citizens—for allowing Bush to bomb Iraq when it did not cause, or have anything to do with, 9/11.

All I can do is vote.

Me too. I’m voting for Trump.

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 4:05 pm

Thanks for the historical references and info. Much appreciated.

Perhaps you can provide us all with a list of Islamic scientists down through the ages and into the current age???

Don’t know any of the current Islamic scientists. But for a list of the past ones during their “Golden Age,” you can Google them, or consult National Geographic’s site which sells both children and adult versions to accompany, and expand the info contained within, the 1001 Inventions museum exhibition.

richard verney
Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 11:30 pm

The Muslims introduced libraries to Europe through their hub in Cordoba.

I do not understand this comment since muslims are recent, and people were not muslims in the Ancient World, and surely we are talking about the Ancient World.
One of the greatest library of the Ancient World was the library at Alexandria. This was well before Egypt became muslim, and was when it was under Greek dynastic rule.
it was probably the Greeks who introduced libraries into Europe, albeit at that time countries’ [borders] were not well defined, somewhat fluid and in and around the Mediterranean there was a ‘close’ connection with Turkey and Syria.
[“Kingdom” borders were very well defined, and they closely followed language and cultural divisions (or led to language, cultural and religious divisions), but kingdom boundaries were seldom today’s political boundaries. Across the sea, Egypt’s control over the Nile delta began well before 2000 BC, and was ruled separately from anybody in Grecian peninsula – until Alexander conquered the area. The library in Alexandria (and dozens others) were teaching scholars many centuries before Mohamed invented the Muslim religion in 650-700. Whose zealots then burned the library at Alexandria as soon as the Muslims conquered Egypt. .mod]

Reply to  MRW
May 31, 2016 3:29 am

You guys are obviously much more informed than I however, the church more recently picked another loser when the elders decided to back the misguided Obama Care program.

Reply to  MRW
May 31, 2016 9:58 am

MRW, nobody ever claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. None of the 23 charges in the declaration of war had anything to do with 9/11.

Reply to  MRW
May 31, 2016 10:02 am

PS: ISIS started in Syria, not Iraq.
While there are undoubtedly former Iraqi soldiers in ISIS, to try and claim that ISIS is made up of former Iraqi soldiers is highly inaccurate.

Reply to  MRW
May 31, 2016 11:37 am


PS: ISIS started in Syria, not Iraq.
While there are undoubtedly former Iraqi soldiers in ISIS, to try and claim that ISIS is made up of former Iraqi soldiers is highly inaccurate.

I guess you missed this major exposé in Der Spiegel a year ago:
Iraqi Officer Under Saddam Masterminded The Rise Of ISIS, Reports Spiegel
Spiegel: Secret Files Reveal the Structure of Islamic State
Scroll down for the section, “The Beginnings in Iraq.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 30, 2016 12:08 am

I hope you do not meet the same fate as your hypocorism predecessor.
We live in dagerous times once more, with irrational blind-faith fanatics in control of the levers of power, patrolling the world like a malevolent virus and itching to take their revenge on any latter-day Brunos. Or latter day Cathars.
And they are stacking the RICO pyre as we speak….

Reply to  ralfellis
May 30, 2016 9:42 am

Just in case you really want to get into reality and get branded a heretic. Check out Those guys got 90% accurate earthquake forecasts since Jan 1, 2015. The actual realities of our world are far from much of the accepted science.

ferd berple
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 30, 2016 10:19 am

The Catholic Church imprisoned Bruno and put him on trial for 7 years, then hung him upside down and burned him at the stake.
Who among us would not contradict ourselves and thus be found guilty if we were imprisoned and questioned for 7 years?
Why would the Church hang Bruno upside-down except to ensure that he did not die of smoke inhalation, but rather to ensure he had air to breathe and would feel the maximum amount of pain from the flames burning his flesh.
What sort of an institution claims to represent the God of Love, when it still has not repented of its own Sins?
Given these events are true and well documented, the Church has zero moral authority on the subject of God. Let he that is free of Sin cast the first stone.

Bob Kacey
Reply to  ferd berple
May 30, 2016 1:49 pm

Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic doctrines (including Eternal Damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and Transubstantiation). Bruno’s pantheism was also a matter of grave concern.[4] The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake in Rome’s Campo de’ Fiori.
He was turned over to the secular authorities. On 17 February 1600, in the Campo de’ Fiori (a central Roman market square), with his “tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words”, he was burned at the stake.[33] His ashes were thrown into the Tiber river.
Duh – he wasn’t executed for any of his scientific theories but because of his unrepentant pantheism and paganism. Since he was a Dominican Friar he was also kind of a shitty person as far as personal morality and truthfulness. The actual historical evidence is he was probably mentally ill. And, the Roman Church ALWAYS turned over such people to secular authorities for physical punishments, including executions.

Reply to  ferd berple
May 31, 2016 5:46 am

It would depend on the true definition of what the true church is. When did Catholicism come into existence? For a true definition and example of what the church is, one must go to a true source. Read the book of Acts and the epistles, not Catholic doctorine, which by the way came into existence some six hundred years after the true church was founded in Jerusalem.

Reply to  ferd berple
May 31, 2016 11:19 am


Duh – he wasn’t executed for any of his scientific theories but because of his unrepentant pantheism and paganism. . . . mentally ill.

Proving you know nothing about it, even less about Giordano Bruno, and haven’t read Ingrid Rowland’s book. “Science,” btw, in those days was known as “Philosophy,” and Galileo repeated Bruno’s claim that the proper language of philosophy is mathematics. Kepler was a fan of Bruno’s.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 30, 2016 4:14 pm

Is the earth cooling? cooling masses lose size do to thermic exhaustion, causing “earth shrinkage” not meant to drag that horrifying word shrinkage into any tender areas, however it is true, as the earth cools, its mass detrious shrinks therefore being a “looser foot” in the water sock…. this entire idea is political shamming to “blame humans” for something and justify huge carbon emmiting meetings for “those who are about to profit” in narcissist persuits driven by tiny egos needing “boost” on the public stager…. like uh, personalities seeking plunder and fame.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 30, 2016 9:46 pm

I have a suspicion that Giordano Bruno is a new pseudonym for Steve Goddard, aka Tony Heller. He posted a similar cherry pick of location and time frame in March

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 30, 2016 10:49 pm

Whoever it is, it is an appropriate attack on the Church of Climate Change.
It is far past time for the Climate Scam to end.
Unelected bureaucrats like John Holdren, Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Karl should be put on federal criminal indictment and trial for corrupting the public records with which they are entrusted.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 31, 2016 6:12 am

This has been the most fascinating discussion I ever recall reading! Thank you to all contributors here.

Clyde Spencer
May 29, 2016 9:27 pm

Those who are responsible for preparing tide tables are well-acquainted with the periodicities of the tides. Some of the lunar periods are nominally 20 years, and they are all capable of reinforcing or cancelling the effects of other influences to create apparent periods of greater length than the simple lunar influences. I think that it would be instructive if one of those experts would forecast tides out several years and see if they would explain such things as a claimed acceleration of SLR.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 29, 2016 10:05 pm

The lunar spiral cycle is exactly 18.6 years. You can see it in the ‘varved clay’ deposits from tha last ice age in Sweden.

Reply to  Martin Hovland
May 30, 2016 2:17 am

I’ve done quite a bit of work on lunar cycles, never heard of a “spiral cycle”.
Varves sounds interesting : refs , data ?

Paul Westhaver
May 29, 2016 9:45 pm

I propose that with all the volcano and earthquake activity on the Pacific ring of fire, it would be a plausible argument that rather than water levels rising or falling, land is subsiding or lifting.
How would anyone really know?

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 29, 2016 10:58 pm

Land is subsiding and lifting but in different places due to tectonic forces [tectonic plate collision ] but that doesn’t affect global sea levels, or relative sea levels, much.
Uplift due to glacial rebound can affect sea level regionally but not globally.
In the New York area subsidence is occurring while further north the land is rising
“Relative (local) sea-level rise in the New York area is greater than worldwide sea-level rise primarily due to ongoing glacinl isostatic readjustments”.

Reply to  GregK
May 30, 2016 3:06 am

” but that doesn’t affect global sea levels, or relative sea levels, much.”
Actually the tectonic factor is usually the dominant factor for changes of relative sea-level, particularly over long time periods.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 29, 2016 11:54 pm

“it would be a plausible argument that rather than water levels rising or falling, land is subsiding or lifting.
How would anyone really know?”
Dunno. Beats me-

Reply to  observa
May 30, 2016 5:17 am

This cannot be correct. It does not fit the correct political narrative!

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 30, 2016 12:07 am

Don’t you love this bit-
“Geoscience Australia senior seismologist Dan Jaksa said the quakes were caused by tectonic stress due to Australia’s continental plate moving about seven centimetres a year.”
while the Oz CSIRO reckon their best estimate for global sea level rise is 1.6mm/year for the 20th century from their read of the world’s available data.

John Teisen
Reply to  observa
May 30, 2016 12:23 am

If Oz is moving East at 7 cm per year and sea level rising at 1.6 cm per year, will it be completely under water by the time it crashes into New Zealand?

Reply to  observa
May 30, 2016 6:33 am

That 1. 6mm is just the bow wave.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 30, 2016 2:18 am

By referencing GPS referenced tide gauges.

George Tetley
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 30, 2016 2:42 am

Sailing from New Zealand to Norfolk Island there is an underwater volcano, from some 10 km away you can see the “high lift” on the horizon passing over there is a difference in temp of about 10c in 5,000 meters of water., ( 1 off ? )

Reply to  George Tetley
May 30, 2016 3:25 am

I hope that you are not suggesting that you can the see the thermal expansion due to 10 deg C with the naked eye.

Claire Alexander
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 30, 2016 8:29 am

How would anyone really know? Satellite data.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 30, 2016 2:42 pm

You made me smile

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 30, 2016 6:06 pm

People are asking why this is happening. Isn’t it obvious? Global warming is melting the polar ice caps. See, that was easy. Even though melting the ice caps puts more water in the ocean, which the feeble minded will think should raise the levels of the sea, I, as a fully authorized member of the scientific community that knows that the issue of global warming is settled science, can assure you that putting more liquid in a container (like an ocean basin) will actually lower its level.
Now that I have put the skeptics in their place, can I now have a government grant to study how putting more water in the oceans lowers sea level? The grant needs to be big enough to get my own private jet so I don’t look less credible than Al Gore.

Reply to  Bart
May 30, 2016 11:20 pm

Does ice floating on the top of water in a glass raise or lower the water level as it melts? Would this answer be masked by the thermal dynamics of the volume of water? I’d do the experiments myself but I get a bad case of sustained sympathetic bladder just thinking about how I would go about it.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 30, 2016 11:12 pm

Satellites. If they can recalibrate the height of Mt. Ranier from 14,410.6 (1956 USGS) to 14,411.1 using GPS data (or is it 14,416?), one would think they can keep track of land elevation change. However, since I don’t know where the 14,416 number came from, and really, “Sea Level” is a philosophy, not a science, this all seems to be nothing more than whacking with an axe and then measuring with a micrometer, expecting meaningful comparative data over time.
Paul raises a good question – a man with a watch knows what time it is… a man with two watches is never sure, and in particular will be maddened when the delta doesn’t just diverge or converge but oscillates over time.

Joel O’Bryan
May 29, 2016 10:42 pm

Taking the derivative of a noisy signal is always a dicey proposition. Just more noise to smooth or a real signal if some proper filtering is used. But that takes time.
And time is not on the warmists’ side. The calendar is their worst enemy. Witness the “Pause.” With each passing year the Prob(scam exposed) increases just by nature.

May 29, 2016 11:24 pm

Sea level rise rates are simply not accelerating. See data movie…

Reply to  tommoriarty
May 30, 2016 12:49 am

You might be mistaken about that.
[Here’s]( a meta-analysis that concludes there has been an acceleration.
It’s doesn’t come with the florid exaggerations of your link. (Such as *A major purveyor of this lurid climate-porn prediction is Stefan Rahmstorf * – Pffft!)
But a lot of people might find that it can be better respected by such omissions.

Reply to  tommoriarty
May 30, 2016 12:58 am

I see you go for measured and evidence based language: A major purveyor of this lurid climate-porn prediction is Stefan Rahmstorf
Nevertheless you might be mistaken. This meta-analysis concludes that there does appear to be an acceleration: Our results point to a global sea-level acceleration of 0.54±0.27 mm/year/century between 1898 and 1975.
It lacks the emotive language of your link, but many would judge that better respect comes from the omission of such language than its inclusion.

May 30, 2016 12:05 am

But – the Sallenger paper was referenced in the “This Changes Everything” by Naomi Klein. The revealing thing about it’s inclusion in popular “expose”, is not simply that the science behind the anti-capitalist faux-eco agenda is mostly fiction. But that those who present and vet these distortions are not really very smart.
Inasmuch as – it would be wise to create a hoax which could not be debunked by reference to real world evidence within the next decade – or less.
It is also revealing that Naomi Klein cannot instinctively tell shit from shinola.
Or the alternative conclusion might be that she can, but that she herself is full of shit. And willingly so.
Science has been utterly corrupted by government money. And THAT really does change everything.
Sallenger et al, was barely worthy of criticism.
It was imbecilic garbage from the very beginning.
This kind of material should be included in basic high school classes as an example of how not to do science.
I guess that in the past, people presumed that nobody would do anything this stupid – because of the obvious stupidity required.
But now, we had better teach this stuff explicitly. Otherwise,look what happens. What happens is Sallenger.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 30, 2016 5:41 am

It is also revealing that Naomi Klein cannot instinctively tell shit from shinola. Or the alternative conclusion might be that she can, but that she herself is full of shit. And willingly so.

It’s the former. She has two years of university, no hard science training at all. None. She thinks that because she had two best-selling books, the first on fashion logos and the second on political shock doctrines, she is established to judge the merits of climate science. Her parents were political activists.

george e. smith
Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 5:34 pm

Seems like she has the perfect qualifications to render an unbiased opinion, on ANY subject.
It is difficult to present a biased view of a subject of which one is completely ignorant.
Well the Kardashians have made a successful career out being famous for being absolute nobodies, so that gig can’t be replayed even by Naomi Klein.
She needs to come up with a new recipe for conspicuous irrelevance.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 30, 2016 9:51 am

Portland, Or., is now essentially following Germany of the 1930s. They aren’t exactly burning books, but they are removing any books or other publications from state schools that question anthropogenic global warming. I expect a kind of Scopes Trial for some leading “denier.”

Reply to  Nick697
May 30, 2016 11:33 am

Yes, I was reading about this, just yesterday.
However, the articles which I found on the topic had attracted unadulterated scorn.
Scorn, which mostly took the form of statements contradicting the accepted “global warming” consensus.
A tiny number of bot-like alarmists had attempted to quell the riot – but the discontent is rising.
The book banning is a coup for the skeptics.
A combination of the Streisand effect, natural rebelliousness and natural curiosity will lead many more people to take an interest in the skeptics case.
It would take a reasonable person less than an hour to grasp that the sea level rise scare is a dud.
All that they have to do is kick the wheels and look under the hood.
Nothing is happening.
And then, if sea level rise is NOT accelerating – then doesn’t cast doubt on the entire proposition that the post LIA warming is accelerating due to man-made emissions.
Because, if AGW is really taking effect – then the sea levels SHOULD be rising at an accelerating rate.

May 30, 2016 12:19 am

Giordano Bruno was convicted of heresy, hung upside-down, gagged and naked, and burned at the stake.
His crime? He was too successful in promulgating ideas that threatened the social order. Any current thoughts about what orthodox AGW preachers want to do to ‘denier’ heretics is purely coincidental.

Reply to  Sasha
May 30, 2016 9:21 am

He was an ordained priest of the Catholic Church who claimed, “that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved.”
That was enough to get you burned at the stake as an ordained priest without even considering his scientific views. Today, a priest would still be ex-communicated for it.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  TeaRunner
May 30, 2016 11:21 am

What worries me is that in Transubstantiation, the Catholics admit to being both cannibals and vampires.
Excuse my biting wit, but maybe they just don’t realize what’s at stake.

May 30, 2016 12:21 am

Giordano Bruno was convicted of heresy, hung upside-down, gagged and naked, and burned at the stake.
His crime? He was too successful in promulgating ideas that threatened the social order.
Any current thoughts about what orthodox AGW preachers want to do to ‘d e n i e r’ heretics is purely coincidental.

May 30, 2016 1:00 am

Global warming is fiendishly clever! It can make sea levels go down just to confuse us.

Reply to  Roy
May 30, 2016 3:47 am

All the disappeared Northern Hemisphere ice has allowed muvver erf to inflate a little.

Reply to  Roy
May 30, 2016 10:51 am

It’s toying with us!

Reply to  Roy
May 30, 2016 8:52 pm

ROTFLMAO!!!! Great one!

Reply to  Roy
May 30, 2016 8:55 pm

That’s just what I was thinking. Just goes to show how low those capitalist polluters will bring themselves.

May 30, 2016 1:12 am

“The logic was clearly flawed, but obviously Nature did not accepted any comment. The science is settled, and can’t be discussed.” …..Bad grammar, or have I had too many beer ?

Sam Dennis
Reply to  Marcus
May 30, 2016 7:46 am


Mike Smith
Reply to  Marcus
May 30, 2016 8:14 am

Probably a little of both as “beer” should have been plural. Have another one….

Ian L. McQueen
Reply to  Marcus
May 30, 2016 8:16 am

I am assuming that the writer’s first language is not English, for I have heard forms like “……Nature did not accepted any comment” from a number of people who were speaking English as their second (or third, etc.) language.
Ian M

Michael Smith
Reply to  Marcus
May 30, 2016 8:41 am

I thought the comment was brilliant and made a note of it.

May 30, 2016 1:15 am

“Is there any one able to spot any sign or acceleration or simply oscillations?”
Ok, it’s getting bad now !

May 30, 2016 1:37 am

Post glacial isocratic uplift and sinking is only one component.
This is map of Atlantic Ocean floor .
Red line shows Mid Atlantic Ridge MAR. Because of seafloor spreading and the movement of the ocean floor and of the continents outward from the ridge, the Atlantic Basin is widening at an estimated rate of 1 to 10 cm (0.5 to 4 inches) a year, while the ridge has an average spreading rate of about 2.5 cm (1 inch) per year.
Currently The MAR is up to 3 km in height above the ocean floor and 1000 to 1500 km wide.
Material for building the ridge is not created from the thin air, it comes from the earth’s mantle and has to be replaced by sinking of (nearby) continental shelf elsewhere.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  vukcevic
May 30, 2016 3:01 am

new material is created all the time with magma under water Vuk. Not directly relating it to your point but there is a LOT of extra mass in the oceans because of eruptions.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  vukcevic
May 30, 2016 3:06 am

Plus ocean water passes through the crust in many locations, so there is plenty of convection, and that water expands. Cant remember where I read it but the ocean it is claimed takes away 25% of the heat via this convection.
Add in the ocean floor bends, and who knows what else, plus the pumping out of land based ground water and flushing it into the oceans after we use it.
I have no faith in the scientific body actually being able to give anything like an accurate figure, there is too much “certainty” in this area for it to be really credible. It’s “best we have” and that is not “good enough” to assess actual risk.
The fact the continents move has only relatively recently been accepted and that was an easy one once we had the tech.
Too much maths faffing and guessing because of logistical and technical inadequacies

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 30, 2016 3:07 am

“bends”? Ocean floor vents

Johann Wundersamer
May 30, 2016 2:07 am

A graph derived of real data says more than 1000 model runs. Thanks – Hans

May 30, 2016 2:12 am

comment image
PMSL data from Federicia in Denmark, next to Vejle one of Rockefellers’ “resilient cities”.
The city “expects” 250 mm of sea rise by 2050 ( ave 7mm/y from today ) despite current sea levels DROPPING by 6mm/y. Not much sign of acceleration here.

May 30, 2016 2:28 am

I doubt the accuracy of these graphs. The last two graphs show respectively 50 and 25y trends and 40y and 20y trends of equal length . Not possible. Padded data or what?
Also these kind of sliding trends are effectively a running mean on the rate of change. Running means are notorious for inverting peaks troughs, so certainly NOT a good basis to seeing whether recent data is going up or down. image
Sliding trends were the basis of Marotzke & Forster’s failed 2015 paper which concluded there was not trace of high sensitivity models being more likely to be wrong despite showing that there were indeed two distinct groups in their results ( they just had not noticed ).comment image
They’d mangled the data so much with their sliding trend filters that they confused themselves ( into thinking what they wanted to think all along ).

May 30, 2016 3:08 am

Sliding trends can be very distorting ( it’s a form of running mean which can invert data peaks and troughs ) . Applying a proper low pass filter to NY Battery shows that there is not acceleration. Indeed since the 1998 El Nino there is yet another of those pesky ‘pause’ things going on.comment image

Reply to  Greg
May 30, 2016 3:13 am
Reply to  Greg
May 30, 2016 3:14 am
Reply to  Greg
May 30, 2016 3:35 am

According to Major et al 2012 ( linked above ) NY shows greater relative sea level rise than the global average due to subsidence. That data has a little under 3mm/y over the last century with NO acceleration.

Reply to  Greg
May 30, 2016 4:02 am

Here is the NY Battery data as rate of change with a 10 year low-pass filter. Here we see the difference between a real filter and sliding trends. A real filter removes all the high frequencies.

Reply to  loisannjohnson
May 30, 2016 3:21 am

You point is ?

Reply to  Greg
May 30, 2016 4:24 am

potential subsidence

Reply to  Greg
May 30, 2016 5:20 am

Al Gore stood there to get his ocean-depth-brain-sensor calibrated. It’s wobbly.

Reply to  Greg
May 30, 2016 8:18 am

Thanks Lois. I see no reason to argue whether Battery Park is a landfill but now you said what actually meant: the tide gauge is not in the park it is on the quay-side.
What would be relevant here is whether tide gauge at the Battery is on solid ground or not. This site was a military battery to defend NY. since 1623, it was not built on the more recent land-fill zones.

Reply to  loisannjohnson
May 30, 2016 5:28 am

Mayor Bloomberg was warned about the potential sea surge and flood in the event of hurricanes or tropical storms in March, 2009. He knew about the New York Bight. He did nothing about it. So when Sandy happened, he called it Global Warming and shuffled it onto the federal government. And Obama got to grandstand.
New York City Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2009

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 8:01 am

Hurricane Sandy was a typical category 1 hurricane that the alarmists in the media have dubbed a “Superstorm”. It caused so much damage to NYC and N.NJ because the storm track was a direct hit and it made landfall during a full moon high tide.

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 9:09 am

Yeah, Chris, and Bloomberg’s people predicted it in their report…and–I believe because I haven’t read it in a while–that they suggested Bloomberg end the damage these storms have caused since the first half of the 1800s by getting the Army Corps of Engineers to build something to protect the lower end of Manhattan.

May 30, 2016 3:42 am

Not related but just read that some company is proposing a 35,000 panel 10mgw solar farm near our town in north east Victoria Australia for the princely sum of 20 mil ,they will be using auto tracking panels and will be ,leasing or selling when finished .
Why do I smell snake oil ?
Proposed site is not that far away from local landfill maybe should use methane fired generator instead ?
Anyone see something wrong with these figures .

Reply to  Robert
May 30, 2016 4:18 am

It gets better their solar will be connected to the grid and push out the surrounding energy so anyone wanting to buy clean green power .

Reply to  Robert
May 30, 2016 4:25 am

have you got a link to info on that , who is doing it ? is it concentrated solar or flat PV.
Wholesale flat PV should be around 0.50 euro / watt now. It’s the rest of the tracking land purchase and electronics which will cost more.

Reply to  Greg
May 30, 2016 5:07 am

Sorry I believe it’s flat pv , more info down the page .

May 30, 2016 4:33 am

Karegar, M. A., T. H. Dixon, and S. E. Engelhart (2016), Subsidence along the Atlantic Coast of North
America: Insights from GPS and late Holocene relative sea level data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, doi:10.1002/
Received 29 JAN 2016 Accepted 15 MAR 2016 Accepted article online 17 MAR 2016
Kareger is seeing groundwater pump out lowering the land.
See also: and trend for US Gulf Coast at: “The mean sea level (MSL) trends measured by tide gauges that are presented on this web site are local relative MSL trends as opposed to the global sea level trend. Tide gauge measurements are made with respect to a local fixed reference level on land; therefore, if there is some long-term vertical land motion occurring at that location, the relative MSL trend measured there is a combination of the global sea level rate and the local vertical land motion.” and which says:
“Mean Sea Level Trends for Tropical and Gulf of Mexico Stations
The graphs compare the 95% confidence intervals of the mean sea level trends. Trends with the narrowest confidence intervals are based on the longest data sets. Trends with the widest confidence intervals are based on only 30-40 years of data. The graphs give an indication of the differing rates of vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year. The calculated trends for all stations are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century.”
QED, to figure out the true rate of climb of the water, one must also account for the motion of the land. The two worst sea level “rise” rates for the US are Eugene Island (9.65 mm/yr) and Grand Isle (9.05 mm/yr) , both in La. However, in both cases, the land is sinking about 4x the rate of the Gulf rising. If the rate of sea level rise doubles over the next 80 years, from a hair under 2 mm/yr to almost 4 mm/yr, the land will only be sinking at 2x the rate of water rise.
Of course sea level is NOT “falling” up in Alaska; those gauges are bolted to rocks which are rebounding upwards at much higher rates. The overall US map shows Skagway, AK with the highest rate of sea level “dropping,” -17.59 mm/yr.

Reply to  riparianinc
May 30, 2016 8:23 am

…Glacier Bay contained a huge continuous icefield up to 0.9 mi (1.5 km) thick that covered more than 2350 mi2 (6000 km2 ) at the peak of the LIA (1770 AD). Rapid calving and associated upstream drawdown lead to its collapse in less than 160 years, with the main trunk of the icefield retreating 75 mi (120 km) in fjords as deep as 1640 ft (500 m). Using our reconstruction we calculated that an ice volume of about 820 mi3 (3450 km3 ) was lost above sea level during the post-LIA collapse, comparable in volume to Lake Huron, and equivalent to a global rise in sea level of nearly 0.4 in (1 cm). An additional 60 mi3 (250 km3 ) of below sea level glacier ice was lost in the fjords. To our knowledge this retreat in Glacier Bay is the largest post-LIA deglaciation in the world…
The result of this retreat has been the most rapid glacial rebound in recent history, with relative sea level around Glacier Bay falling as much as 30mm/yr.

Reply to  riparianinc
May 30, 2016 10:16 am

Question? Are most of those posting Geologist? Like with Global Warming & Climate Change articles none provide qualifications.
I have somewhat an understanding of the above due to ancillary studies of Physics, but only on a macro level. Anyway, when I post provide formal education background, Business and Personal information relevant to the post along with external sources. Why is this never provided for the above?

Reply to  Lee Tousignant
May 30, 2016 11:55 am

No idea what “never provided/business/personal information above” means. Lee T has not posted any such information about him/her self. Moreover, no one else does either. No idea why a blog post needs bio or biz info. I could be a third grade drop-out and still understand the point Dixon et al are making. Besides, if I’m the subject of the questions, Lee T is asking about the wrong people. Do Dixon et al (plus the journal which published them) know what THEY are talking about? I didn’t write the article; I only cited it. Neither am I an employee of NOAA. I know about their web page; I don’t maintain it.
Nevertheless, for the record, here’s what googling the authors for a moment turned up:
Dixon is a full professor, School of Geosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
Education BSc (Geological Science) [with honors], then University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; PhD (Earth Science): University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Full CV at:
Makan Abdollahzadeh Karegar is a PhD candidate grad student at that same school;
Engelhart is an Asst Prof, Department of Geosciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA Ph.D., Earth and Environmental Science, 2010 University of Pennsylvania
M.Sc., Geography, 2005 Durham University
B.Sc., Geography, 2004 Durham University
Hope all that helps.

May 30, 2016 5:05 am

Only link I have is the name of the rag and the date it was published,
The Wangaratta Chronicle ,Friday may 27 .
Also in this rag is an article that reckons 4 in 5 voters support renewable energy in this electorate .

Otis Buchanan
Reply to  Robert
May 31, 2016 4:44 am

Is a full professor more credible than a two year community college student?

May 30, 2016 5:27 am

I have always doubted this silly claim. However, it would be much easier to find credibility with this author if he wrote as if he were educated.

Otis Buchanan
Reply to  Ron
May 31, 2016 4:40 am

Yes, but he is a FULL PROFESSOR, and not just half full.

Reply to  Otis Buchanan
May 31, 2016 8:26 am

Some folks are assistant or associate profs; further down the scale are lecturers. I have been an associate prof several times but that was 20 years ago and not in geology.
Besides, if anyone has a problem with either NOAA’s gauges or Dixon et al’s take on geodesy, etc, then please find a science flaw in their facts or logic. So far, no one has tried to “adjust” anything like the GulfNet C4G runs out of LSU, nor the Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) used to keep the benchmarks honest. Most states have a CORS network now, and many of them have been running long enough to have headings.
If you’re interested in that sort of thing check out “GPSVEL 1.0: U.S. plot;” one of several samples on UNACO’s “Integrated Data Viewer” page at: (last accessed May 21, 2016)
or this PDF:

May 30, 2016 5:33 am

Everybody driving around in gas burning engines contributing to earth’s green house effect ending like the planet venus with evaporated oceans, and 800 degree surface temperatures.

May 30, 2016 5:33 am

too many people on the east coast…
US is tipping over like Guam

Reply to  Latitude
May 30, 2016 7:45 am

No its tipping on the west coast causing lower water on the east coast. I think its too many illegals in California causing the problem. Illegals should move east.

Reply to  Honest John
May 30, 2016 10:23 am

to where, Atlantis, maybe? 😉

May 30, 2016 5:51 am

Why is this so hard to believe,first of all this Washington DC & New York these are both Highly Democrat infested areas. The amount of hot air that comes from a Democrat is much larger than from Normal human beings. Second the effort to be a Liar takes more ability and that sucks the pressure out of the area which causes the water to drop. So Obama Lied the watered did Not rise once he became President.

randy h
May 30, 2016 5:52 am

The last 10 years of data discredits everything the global warming alarmist are claiming. How can msl be declining when the earth is being cooked? Even over the last 170 years we see a msl rise of about 1/10th of an inch per year UNWAIVERING to a time before industrialization and Henry Ford. That alone suspects a larger event such as a naturally declining ice age that may be on a cycle on the order of 1000’s of years.

May 30, 2016 5:56 am

Trying to extract mm/century changes in sea level change from incoherent cm/year changes in noisy sea level data around the world is like trying to find fly excrement in beach sand. These intellectual exercises should be called what they truly are: mental masturbation.
Besides, who cares. We are in an interglacial warmup period. Ice is supposed to be melting. It is the ice that we see growing in the rear view mirror that I would be worrying about, an indication that we may be at the end of this IWP.

May 30, 2016 6:10 am

Climate change, fake rapes, ‘borrowed’ prosperity, cultural appropriation, trans gender fantasies…….what will democrats think of next?

Reply to  SD3
May 30, 2016 9:23 pm

SD3 – do you really want to know? Ask Woody Allen or Corey Feldman.

May 30, 2016 6:26 am

Wait a minute! Obama is running around telling us that because of GLOBAL WARMING and the polar ice melting, the seas are risingand will eventually wipe out mankind unless he’s allowed to tax us more. Now you are telling us the seas are not risging but doing just the opposite. Are you now asking for higher taxes because the seas are falling? Who is telling the truth here? I guess we are all going to have to move to Kansas and pay higher taxes no matter what.

War Rex
Reply to  kimdi01
May 31, 2016 12:10 am

kimdi01, you are so wrong! Taxes are lower in Kansas.

May 30, 2016 6:34 am

liberals are liars it comes from smoking pot

Reply to  Farley Crispy
May 30, 2016 5:35 pm

Farley brain dead logic employed there Crispy. Using some Razor sharp thinking and making the fewest assumptions possible I am going to conclude liberals lie because they believe the Ends justify the Means. A lie is acceptable because the ultimate goal, Socialist Utopia , is worth it.
But what do I know…Smoke ’em if you got ’em.

May 30, 2016 6:43 am

Maybe the eath is flat and leaning west ….

Jon Lorenzen
May 30, 2016 6:50 am

Help me out here. How do you have a sea LEVEL on a globe? It’s not possible.

Reply to  Jon Lorenzen
May 30, 2016 10:21 am

Gravitational logic. Level is relative. Space is curved. Hillary is crooked.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Jon Lorenzen
May 30, 2016 9:30 pm

Level does not mean flat, it means equidistant from the center of mass of the Earth at all points of the surface in question, with some self-adjustment due to rotational affects.

May 30, 2016 6:51 am

Sorry but science is settled. Time to get political .an open letter with 1,000s of signatures from informed sceptics to Donald Trump is what we need. Now ,so he can use it against the lying dems and get puplic informed of the complete lunacy of agw and the folly of spending trillions on making the climate colder.with so called green energy.

May 30, 2016 7:03 am

Id like to know if the measurements are relative to a surface such as ocean floor or a referance point on land. Author might check plate tectonics as a contributing/explanatory factor. Its widely known the north american plate is subducting into the mantle on the west coast. On the east coast it is rising. In addition, the whole plate moves like all others on this planet. I would expect sea levels to ‘be rising’ in a similacr fashion. GrwgK ‘s reply is similar, but much more thorough. Nice work gregk.

May 30, 2016 7:11 am

You have it all wrong. Approximately 8 years ago Obama was elected, and the Earth began to heal and the seas stopped rising… sarc off

Reply to  pjarhead
May 30, 2016 8:28 am

[snip – getting too off-topic -mod]

May 30, 2016 7:14 am

The author is obviously ESL. He needs a better editor for more credibility.

Barbara Skolaut
May 30, 2016 7:30 am

There’ll be hell to pay now, Anthony. This article made Drudge. 😀

May 30, 2016 8:10 am

The only thing that is settled here is that the ignorance and greed in Man is never-ending and there is little to be done about it. Man-made stupidity.

May 30, 2016 8:14 am

“We have caused such such global warming that…..wait…..we have caused such climate change that we’re melting the polar ice caps! By 2013, Miami will be underwater, we’ll have to depopulate Manhattan, and move the East coast inland by 20 miles……uh….wait………No, we’re draining the oceans! Our wasteful use of seawater has made the oceans disappear by, uh, by…..uh….evaporation or something. Oh what the hell, whatever it is, we’ve done it! And only by giving trillions of dollars to leftist NGOs and collectivist governments will we have a hope of having any oceans in five years!”

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Sardondi
May 30, 2016 8:35 am

Miami is now being portrayed as “Ground Zero” for sea level rise.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
May 30, 2016 10:09 am

Sea level rise at Miami is about 0.09 in. per year and not accelerating.
Miami Beach monthly tide gauge records end in 1981:
Records at Virginia Beach Key south of Miami run from 1994-2015:
Key West records are from 1913-2015:
Miami is sucking freshwater from the underlying limestone and dumping wastewater into the ocean to the tune of about 360 million gallons per day, which might cause some subsidence. In any case, that is the cause of salt-water intrusion into the aquifer, NOT “climate change.”

May 30, 2016 8:20 am

How can you make projections based on the measure of sea level since there’s so many variables? All these influence sea level: changing barometric pressure, Sun tides, Moon tides, distant storms, earthquakes, underwater volcanoes, in addition to sea ice, rain runoff, glacial melt, drought, evaporation and probably salinity and sea life. Measure it? Perhaps. Usefulness of the measure? Doubtful.

tom s
May 30, 2016 8:20 am

Ok, so what say Nature? I think that journal would be more aptly named “Nurture”, I you know what I mean.

May 30, 2016 8:34 am

The New York Time article on the Marshal Islands being covered by water due to global warming left out one critical scientific fact.
What did they leave out? The Marshal Island chain is an Atoll. The natural life cycle of an Atoll ends by sinking. The residents of the Marshall Islands are suffering because they built their village on a sinking atoll, not because of Los Angeles automobiles.

Reply to  Dennis
May 30, 2016 8:57 pm

I thought it was because of too much toilet paper usage.

Michael S
May 30, 2016 8:35 am

But…But….what about the computer “models” showing sealevel rise all around the world?? how will we ever be able to get the U.S. to embrace our definition of “climate change”?? these “scientists” are more concerned with their government paychecks to bother themselves with the real science behind whatever “climate change” is. They curse the rest of us fir not believing their little game of charades and card tricks.

Reply to  Michael S
May 31, 2016 5:52 am

Evaporation is happening faster than polar caps melting because of green house effect, and too many polluting cars on the road.

May 30, 2016 8:54 am

The sea level in New England and NY is dropping (MLW), because the land is rebounding from the compression (of the 1 mile thick Laurentide Ice Sheet), that melted off about 9000 years ago. Like most of the “Global Warming” nonsense, the science has been subordinated to dogma.

Reply to  Eugene G. Kelly
May 30, 2016 9:19 am

Then I guess we have little to worry about regarding sea levels . . . .

May 30, 2016 9:13 am

File this with the Michael Mann Hockey stick chart and the University of East Anglia falsified temperature data . . . .

Reply to  j
May 30, 2016 9:27 pm

You cannot say the UEA temp data were falsified – they were actually “lost,” not falsified. So, we can all go back to believing in the global warming.

May 30, 2016 9:23 am

You mean there’s yet ANOTHER inconvenient truth for the Global Warming religion?

carlos broker
May 30, 2016 9:24 am

I have no idea what the [pruned] these people are talking about. All I want to know is whether sea level is high or [pruned] lower. Can some brainiac answer this?

Reply to  carlos broker
May 30, 2016 2:41 pm

Global mean sea level is creeping up at about the same rate it has since we started measuring, as far as we can tell. What it’s doing at the coast near you depends mostly on what the land is doing. End of story,

Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
May 30, 2016 3:13 pm

“what the land is doing” YES!!!! the typically forgotten rest of the puzzle. if you only know what the water is doing you’re wasting your time.

Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
May 30, 2016 6:05 pm

That’s pretty much the complete picture and all that anyone needs to know.
Sadly, almost nobody will take note of such a simple presentation.
They prefer to be baffled by garbled nonsense,

May 30, 2016 9:29 am

just more garbage about the scam that our government is playing on the gullible idiots who buy into the global warming con game they are playing. The left hates the idea that we are still unable to control every citizen in the country and that the UN still can tell us what to do, eat and spend our money on, not matter how hard they have tried to make it so. It is just driving the left nuts that they can totally control every thing you think say and do.

Preston Venzant
May 30, 2016 9:30 am

Though science is and foremost the leading edge of technological advancement, it is not a true/false categorical proof of anything in either direction. Today’s truth becomes tomorrows antiquated structure. Ultimately, not enough information has been gathered to prove climatologists predictions or ‘facts’. Therefore, what is the only unmovable truth? The Bible. It says and I quote, “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.” This is the comment made to Noah by God Almighty. Though it is not scientific it is from the Creator of science. For science is nothing more than the study of creation. Monkey wrench has been thrown.
[Others disagree with you. .mod]

Mike Jefferson
May 30, 2016 9:34 am

I guess 0dumbo really could make the seas recede? It would be the only “promise” he fulfilled other than transforming Amerikkka into a 3rd world shitehole.

Leigh stelzer
May 30, 2016 10:17 am

Obama said that with his election the sea would cease to rise. Bravo well done

May 30, 2016 10:19 am

“Sea level rise hotspots” are the Washington Post and the New York Times! Ha ha 🙂

May 30, 2016 10:22 am

All the oceans are connected, therefore if the sea level rises in one location it should then rise in all locations. If this is not correct please explain how it could be different.

Reply to  Mark Coker
May 30, 2016 11:21 am

Gravity, atmospheric pressure, currents, and wind. For relative sea level, add tectonics.

Reply to  Mark Coker
May 30, 2016 11:39 am

Mark C,
In almost every area, the land (and ocean floor) is either subsiding or rising. Therefore, one tide gauge is not a reliable measure of sea level changes.
But taking the average of the hundreds of tide gauges does provide an accurate sea level change metric.
All tide gauges averaged together show only a minuscule rise in the mean sea level; it is a smaller change than satellite measurements, which are much too coarse to measure millimeter changes. Satellites were not designed to measure sea levels, although they can show if there is any ±change.
Finally, the small, long term rise in the mean sea level is not accelerating — yet another failed prediction made by the climate alarmist crowd.

May 30, 2016 10:24 am

If we sacrifice Al Gore on the North Pole will global warming end?

Reply to  Mark Coker
May 30, 2016 11:18 am

yes it will. a man with 0 science background and divinity school flunkie.

May 30, 2016 11:19 am

Sea level gauges up the Northeast US Coast — Sandy Hook, NJ…Montauk, NY…Bridgeport, CT…Newport, RI…Boston, MA…New Castle, NH…Bar Harbor, ME — all have falling sea level since 2010.

Reply to  verdeviewer
May 30, 2016 12:33 pm

Not doubting that, but links would sure be timesheets if you have ’em.

Reply to  sf
May 30, 2016 5:16 pm

See below. Most if not all of those gauges are also on NOAA’s map
As “Mr. Bruno” notes, the trends oscillate and these drops will likely reverse. I’m noting those along the Northeast coast are dropping in tune. Moving south we see a different pattern. Stations south of Virginia down to Key West are showing a rise.

Reply to  verdeviewer
May 30, 2016 5:43 pm

Scroll up to long post. Those NOAA links also account for the land’s motion. That’s why sea level in the Guf really isn’t rising at 9.65 mm/yr. The Eugene Island gauge is sitting on sinking ground, just as the Pacific isn’t falling almost 18 mm/yr at Skagway AK. That gauge is bolted to a climbing rock.

Reply to  sf
May 30, 2016 5:44 pm

Opps. My bad. Scroll up to my long post . . . . .

Reply to  sf
May 31, 2016 5:47 am

Sea level in the Gulf “really isn’t rising at 9.65 mm/yr…”
Something that bears repeating every time you see a news article about “climate refugees” being relocated from islands in the Mississippi Delta.
Westward along the Texas coast the land is sinking due to aquifer depletion. Some areas around Houston are subsiding at a rate of 55mm/year, making them more susceptible to “unprecedented” flooding as reported in the news recently. Is it any wonder the tide gauges along the Texas coast show as much as +6.6mm/year sea level trend?
Look eastward along the Gulf coast to Panama City, Apalachicola, and Cedar Key, FL — tide gauges less affected by population growth and land use change. You find a sea level trend of around +2mm/year that is NOT accelerating.

Reply to  verdeviewer
May 30, 2016 4:29 pm

More accurately, “tide gauges…”

May 30, 2016 11:35 am

I have found that most climate scientists when discussing global climate change and the melting of the ice caps and glaciers miss one part of the water cycle equation. Water has three properties. Liquid, solid and gas. If fresh water melts and it warms enough from the sun light it will turn in to a gas and evaporate in to the atmosphere. Eventually the earths weather pattern will be effected by these moisture laden cloud formations. Like we are seeing now around the earth. Torrential rains and extreme constant winds. The sea levels will not rise. We will just drown like rats…

Reply to  Timothy Ritchie
May 30, 2016 3:55 pm

Except there is nothing unusual or UNNATURAL about any of rains or wind “now seen around the earth.” It’s called weather.
And if you want to consider yourself a rodent, be my guest, but leave the rest of us out.

May 30, 2016 11:39 am

“The Sky Is Falling, ANd I Can ‘Prove’ It!” is a great way to begin a grant application.
Especially when the falling sky is being used to amass political power.
Just sayin’

May 30, 2016 11:41 am

Love the article and the pseudo scientific explanations of the readers, all contradicting each other and proving nothing. One thing I do know that is the hundreds of friends I have who live alongside the ocean all around the world have never reported a rise in the ocean at their place! That the ocean is rising or falling at any given location is NOT due to the volume of water anywhere, but the elevation of the land, which indeed does slightly rise or fall depending on it’s location to shifting plates, or indeed, in the case of much ocean side property in the USA, is the result of the “land” settling, as much of it is artificially created land which is always going to “settle”. I am content to know that MGW (if it exists) is actually good for plant life and human kind, as it will very slowly (if ever that is), allow formerly unsuitable areas for crops to be opened up for production.

May 30, 2016 11:46 am

Exposing another Obama lie.

May 30, 2016 12:01 pm

NEWFLASH – Sallenger has read this article and the comments, and he now accepts that these locations were not genuine “hotspots” of accelerating sea level rise.
However, he and his team have identified some new cherry picked locations where formerly sea level rise appeared to be decelerating but has now shifted to a 4 year accelerating trend…
Only joking. But I wouldn’t put it past them.
Nothing is too dumb for these fools. And nobody can be too gullible.
Thankfully, politicians and the journalists are very very gullible indeed. And they control public opinions and the public purse.
So, I expect that we will see a new list of sea level rise “hotspots” within a few years.
And then a few years later, these locations will show a return to around the normal 20th century rate of rise.
There will always be an extreme something, for alarmists to draw our attention to.
Meanwhile the bigger picture is unchanged.
And the perception that sea level rise is changing is also unchanged. Here is what was being said in 1959.
“Believed in large part to be the result of the melting of the world’s glaciers, sea level has been rising at a rapidly increasing rate, amounting to as much as a 6-inch rise from 1930 to 1948 (Marmar, 1948). This is about four times the average rate of sea level rise during the past 9000 years, as recorded by Shepard and Suess (1956). It should be noted that more than a six-fold increase in the rate of sea level rise occurred in the mid-1920’s at the same time there was a striking change in the rate of glacial melting in the north (Ahlmann, 1953, Fig. 11).”
Erling Dorf 1959.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 30, 2016 3:34 pm

Was that paper written by Dr. Suess right after he wrote The Cat in the Hat?

Reply to  pepeekeocom
May 30, 2016 5:42 pm

Yeah, the cat in the hat is a Nature submission on “potential behavioural shifts as adaption to climate change and extreme rainfall, in domesticated felines”.
Later he researched wild species adaptation to extreme cold, and wrote “the Fox in socks”.
Many people ignore the seriousness of his popular works on climate impacts.

May 30, 2016 12:42 pm

The graph shows increasing MSL. How do you get the title “..sea levels are now reducing…” from that?

Reply to  bob
May 30, 2016 4:00 pm

The rate of sea level rise has reduced and is now in line with the historic rates, dating back to well before the man-made climate change nonsense..

Reply to  bob
May 30, 2016 5:50 pm

It is true that it is a bad title.
It should not have been “sea levels are now reducing in the…”. It should probably have read, “SLR rates are now reducing in the…”
Although, that’s not a very catchy headline.
And the first few sentences do explain what is really meant.

Denby Bob
May 30, 2016 12:56 pm

Rich, there’s some math and graphing going on here, let me know if you need to borrow my slide rule.
bd ______________

May 30, 2016 12:58 pm

I heard/read about this years ago. Sea levels on the US East coast were rising.
But sea level is sea level. If they were rising THERE, they’d also be rising elsewhere on coastlines around the world.
First thing that came to mind was plate tectonics.
Second thing was too many people on the east coast weighing it down – maybe, like that scientist-politician Hank whatsisname suggest regarding Quam, too many people in one place could cause the island to flip over. Maybe the same is true of the US continent. I wonder what’s on the other side? Atlantis?
All kidding aside, the idea that the oceans could only rise on ONE coast of ONE continent is ludicrous and it amazed me it went unchallenged.

May 30, 2016 1:03 pm

Great article. Lots of buyers are reluctant to purchase real estate in Sarasota due to global warming concerns. I always try to level their fears.

May 30, 2016 1:11 pm

It is quite clear after reading the replies here that no one know what is going on and many of you are guessing to go,with you agenda.
[True. And the better choice at this point in time is? .mod]

Reply to  Greg
May 30, 2016 1:31 pm

If you decide to read the article you can learn about the subject. If that’s not sufficient, put ‘sea level’ into the search box. You will find a mountain of sea level data, and you can read comments from all sides of the discussion. Because this site does not scientific censor different points of view.
Then you can make up your mind. That’s reasonable, no?

Reply to  Greg
May 30, 2016 3:05 pm

For Mod and for Greg,
More accurate take: there’s a lot less guessing than either of you realize. Geodesy measurements by themselves don’t explain WHY the benchmarks are moving as they do (both horizontally and vertically) but they can resolve whether or not only the water is moving or if both the land and the water are moving. The botany-biology-engineering folks most commonly invested in attempted coastal restoration are usually not surprised by vertical changes. However, the heading changes surprise them. Geologists not all surprised.
By contrast, here’s a good attempt to merge several different pools of data from different branches of the overall geology discipline into a unified picture of what is going on: (the first of 3 annual workshops so far) then the Blom et al slides at:

Reply to  Greg
May 30, 2016 4:10 pm

If you read this article and all the other literature concerning climate change, you will arrive at the same conclusion: no one knows what is going on, and that includes climate scientists. That’s the whole point of all this research, and we should be very wary of those who want the power to control everyone else by claiming they will save us from climate change.

May 30, 2016 1:39 pm

Thanks for the information. It proves my theory that we should stop shoving climate change down people’s throat and just make everyone stop pollution!!!!

May 30, 2016 2:24 pm

I have yet to find a detailed explanation of the whole rising sea level thing.
When ice melts, the volume it occupies shrinks, and vice versa, (which is why pipes burst when they freeze). So if the polar ice melts, ONLY the ice above sea level will add to the volume of the oceans, right? Seems they are assuming there is WAY more ice above sea level than below, but is that a known fact? If it is, fine. But I don’t want to hear a “we guess it is.” When you see a floating iceberg, everyone knows that the part you see above the water line is only a tiny bit of the whole thing, (hence the phrase, “tip of the iceberg”).
I can’t help but think they are counting on most people not knowing that water expands when frozen.
Fill a glass with ice, then add water to fill to the brim. Let it sit in the hot sun until all the ice melts. You will find the water level drops below the brim.

Reply to  Mike
May 30, 2016 3:10 pm

Mike – only valid for the floating ice at the North Pole or already off the land at the South Pole. Aside from the supposed thermal expansion of what’s already ocean, the other big “rising” concern of AGW is ice sitting atop land which will run down to sea as water if it melts. That ice really will raise the ocean level if it melts. End of the Wisconsin about 18K years ago; sea level rose about 130 m. The US Gulf Coast moved about 100 miles north, from the edge of the shelf to about its current location.

May 30, 2016 2:26 pm

I have yet to find a detailed explanation of the whole rising sea level thing.
When ice melts, the volume it occupies shrinks, and vice versa, (which is why pipes burst when they freeze). So if the polar ice melts, ONLY the ice above sea level will add to the volume of the oceans, right? Seems they are assuming there is WAY more ice above sea level than below, but is that a known fact? If it is, fine. But I don’t want to hear a “we guess it is.” When you see a floating iceberg, everyone knows that the part you see above the water line is only a tiny bit of the whole thing, (hence the phrase, “tip of the iceberg”).
Fill a glass with ice, then add water to fill to the brim. Let it sit in the hot sun until all the ice melts. You will find the water level drops below the brim.

May 30, 2016 2:40 pm

MDW, regarding your university comment.
Most people would accept that ‘The Platonic Academy’ founded ca. 387 BC and lasted 916 years (until AD 529) as the first University who taught the scientific method. Of course institutions of higher learning such as Pandidakterion, Gundishapur, or Pushpagiri existed before the birth of Islam.
I think you are referring to Madrassas which are quite different from a Western-Style University, an autonomous organization of scholars.

Reply to  barcamantok
May 30, 2016 3:46 pm

thank you!
and aristotle did more to establish the scientific method than the ‘relgion of peace’ which has always been a negative sum game- realizing wealth by robbery and status by slaughter.
much less any gang of cannibal/vampire/zombie worshippers

Tomas Cora
May 30, 2016 2:47 pm

Jail the climate de..liars.

May 30, 2016 2:52 pm

I think we all know what needs to happen. The people best known for fixing problems should be involved. They have a long and storied history of benevolent use of power. We should all have to pay a portion of our federal reserve notes to them regardless of consequence for our lifetimes. And our children’s lifetimes. This group of moral superiors should never be questioned and anyone questioning them should be name called and immediately blacklisted.
Of course I’m speaking of politicians and bankers.
They know exactly what to do.
Silly mundanes shouldn’t be allowed to question them or the lemmings that sing their tune.

War Rex
Reply to  bearsfan4life
May 31, 2016 12:36 am

bearsfan4life, for a moment there I thought you were talking about the philosopher kings from Plato’s Republic, as led by the king of kings, AlGore, who has perfected the AlGoreitm for self-enrichment, while killing democracy simultaneously. BTW, used to be like you, but 20 or so years back moved to Denver area, where ownership actually has the single goal of W – Superbowl. Kind of hard to resist this logic after so many yrs here.
Also, as a southsider, this yr is setting up perfectly for my ultimate fantasy. The flubs will win the first 3 games of the WS, at which point the Billy Goat curse will kick in and with their annual choke, they will lose the last 4, game 7 by 1 run when they have a 3 run lead, 2 outs in the 9th, bases loaded, an an opposition GS occurs on a 3-2 count. The southside will go wild with joy!
Sports is much more important than AGW cant (I won’t call it a theory, since there is no scientific basis), There is at least some reality to sports. In fact, there is more reality in WWE contests than in AGW cant.

May 30, 2016 3:02 pm

I’m sure this proves global warming and that it’s all the fault of white American men.

War Rex
Reply to  Sutpen
May 31, 2016 12:38 am

Yeah, all the hot air emanating from algore

May 30, 2016 3:17 pm

I do not believe on the global warming theory. Yet I consider myself a person who cares for the planet. I believe that we should not pollute the oceans,the rivers the air with industries. I make sure that my trash is recycled
but the global warming is not a true story in my humble opinion.

May 30, 2016 3:34 pm

Obsession with attempts at somehow measuring the level of water in a spherical plastic bucket is about as sensible attempting to measure the height of a blob of jelly on a flat plate. It is all misdirection by pseudo scholars with long names, past and present. Never mind which church they belong to.

Climate change is real?
May 30, 2016 4:22 pm

Global warming is real. At the end of winter this year there was a day that started out -33 degrees F and by about 2:00 PM it was 52 degrees F. That is a differential of 85 degrees in the space of 8 hours. No one survived, everyone died. I now understand that a 1 degree C rise in temperature over 100 years will kill everything living on the planet Earth, at least anyone left who managed to survive the existing temperature variations happening daily. I barely survived this morning, which started out at 71 degrees F and is now 89 degrees only five hours later. Global warming is real, and so is global cooling. Be careful when putting on a coat, it can cause your temperature to rise by many degrees, further adding to the danger.

erin ryan
Reply to  Climate change is real?
May 30, 2016 4:42 pm

You’d think after a temperature increase of 15 deg. C and a sea level rise of some 150 meters, we’d understand that climate change is real ..
i suppose when the next Ice Age comes around the alarmists will start yet another religion based on their fear of reality
PS .. here in Colorado we call it weather, and don’t worry too much about sea levels .. yet

May 30, 2016 4:25 pm

the only way that the poles will melt is if the tilt of the earth changes. Duh! Are we really this stupid?

May 30, 2016 4:29 pm

Al gore will have to find a new way to take other people’s money

May 30, 2016 4:48 pm

Loved the post from Climate change is real? It is funny, how when humans move from place to place, they rarely encounter the same weather in their new abode as in the one they left. What to do?? They adapt. And so does nature in all its forms. If you think you cannot adjust to say, a few degrees of change over many centuries, you might ponder how most temperate regions adjust by over 40 degrees of average daily temps between the seasons and yet no species are wiped out. When you might wonder why no one even cares about this MGW madness any more, just think why – it doesn’t affect their lives in any way, nor will it in their time on Earth. We have gone to forecasts that are epic failures so many times, the forecasts now are for centuries ahead, so no one alive now will be around to see those forecasts also are damnable lies.

T Sullivan
May 30, 2016 4:56 pm

Great news!!!!
Made my holiday!!!

May 30, 2016 5:19 pm

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”

May 30, 2016 5:20 pm

I blame Bush.

May 30, 2016 5:46 pm

Hank Johnson (D-GA), world renowned oceanic scientist, plate tectonic physicist and part time representative, explained all of this. Rep. Hank said that this phenomenon was due to a huge amount of water being sloshed over to the Asian region every time Guam flips over. Thus decreasing sea levels on the US east coast. Ingenious!

May 30, 2016 5:51 pm

You’e been lied to folks.

A Eagle
May 30, 2016 6:16 pm

Alot of off-topic chatter equals blab – no matter how highly-educated the diversionary idiocy.
Take this post, for instance…

May 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Oh, my…
I hate to say it, but you seem to have been hit with one of the heirs of Jagged85.
There’s a whole subculture of Islamic pseudoscholarship going on around the net, and one of the most famous cases was Jagged85 on Wikipedia. Basically, he did what MRW did (cite something that had little or nothing to do with his claim), then complained when people tried to correct him. He did thousands (literally) of edits to Wikipedia, and did permanent, real damage to it.
Basically, ignore everything MRW claims.

May 30, 2016 6:36 pm

In related news, 97% of Climate Scientists don’t have a friggin clue about Science or the Climate, but they love being included as a talking point in Al Goron’s and Lord Obama’s numerous ignorant Pontifications.

May 30, 2016 6:39 pm

With china dumping billions of tons of sand and dirt into the ocean to build islands, you`d expect a little rise.

Reply to  Mike
May 30, 2016 8:16 pm

Don’t tell these dills or they will add it to their list of islands that prove sea levels are changing.

Reply to  Mike
May 31, 2016 6:06 am

The Chinese are dredging sand and dirt from the ocean floor and piling it up above sea level. This should lower sea level slightly.

May 30, 2016 7:10 pm

What the masses don’t get is that nature always seeks balance. Global warming as well as global cooling is natural…man has not made even the slightest of impact. Just think of all the nuclear bombs (2000+) detonated on the earth, most during the 50s and 60s with no correlation to this junk science. This global warming ideology is nonsense.

May 30, 2016 7:54 pm

“Both were invented by Islamic Science. The university system (900+ AD) and the scientific method (11th C). Monckton has written about the latter a few times here.”
Since Islam has disconnected cause and effect, how did they develop science? Oh. Global climate change has disconnected cause and effect.

Andrew Bennett
Reply to  Milwaukee
May 31, 2016 4:38 am

Can I suggest to people to look closer to Islam as a religion. I have had a couple of trips to china in the last year and the Moslem people there do not follow anything like the “religion” in the middle east. The difference is quite staggering.

Reply to  Andrew Bennett
May 31, 2016 2:21 pm

Andrew – this is pretty simple: do they believe in and follow the Koran or not?

May 30, 2016 7:58 pm

Watch “saving the planet” by George Carlin.
Climate change is socialist progessive globalist corporatist propaganda. The snake oil, magic elixir, feel good potion of this century. Kind of like tulips.

May 30, 2016 7:58 pm

“Chris Fishers May 30, 2016 at 8:01 am
Hurricane Sandy was a typical category 1 hurricane that the alarmists in the media have dubbed a “Superstorm”. It caused so much damage to NYC and N.NJ because the storm track was a direct hit and it made landfall during a full moon high tide.”

While Sandy was rated category I while at sea, by the time landfall happened it had been downgraded,to whatever is below a category I storm. Katrina is still the last named tropical storm to make continental U.S. landfall. Because of global warming and everything.

Reply to  Milwaukee
May 30, 2016 8:13 pm

Minor quibble – – Rita hit the TX-LA border a few weeks later.

Reply to  Milwaukee
May 31, 2016 9:35 am

Milwaukee – I agree – and posted here at WUWT at the time.
Close to real-time, I figured out the weather buoy closest to the landfall. I picked a couple bracketing Delaware River/Atlantic Ocean.
On neither did wind speed readings reach “hurricane” definition more than momentarily.
I knew to watch because I predicted that the media would carry on as they eventually did. This confirmed a lot of what many people have been saying: the media play up weather events in order to sell tickets, and the catastrophists and politicians have no problem with any of this lying.

Darwin Wyatt
May 30, 2016 8:19 pm

You had me until the Iraqi stuff. Pretty sure the Kurds and Iranians that Saddam gassed don’t miss him. And thank God Saddam and the Iraqi army (Isis) don’t have the 550 tons of yellow cake (now sitting in Canada) to process like the iranians? Thank you to the American soldiers who took it from him!!!
As for Saddam and his involvement in 9/11, I suggest you read pages 78,83 of the 9/11 report. It clearly states saddam offered ubl santuary to carry out his plans. After 9/11, is that the kind of guy you leave in power? Or his other many atrocities?
It’s just sad president Obama threw the Iraqi people under the bus or they’d be voting today instead of being slaughtered.

Reply to  Darwin Wyatt
May 30, 2016 9:39 pm

@Darwin Wyatt,
I have the pdf version of the report with the original pagination. My copy is the one sold by U.S. Government Printing Office and is entitled:

Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Saddam Hussein isn’t mentioned on pages 78 and 83.

Reply to  Darwin Wyatt
May 30, 2016 9:43 pm

Page 79 has this passage:

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53

Reply to  MRW
May 30, 2016 9:46 pm

Correction: it was pg 79 of the PDF, pg 61 of the report. Sorry for the mix-up.

Professor Fate
May 30, 2016 8:21 pm

This just in:
A Mr. C. Little of Kenosha, WI claimed today that the sky is falling. He offers proof by exhibiting an object that he claims fell from above and struck him in the head. Although it appears to be an acorn, Mr. Little is firmly convinced it is, in fact, a piece of the sky. Consequently, he is applying for a substantial grant from the federal government to study this phenomena in detail. The goal of which is to avert a planet wide catastrophe by constructing huge nets that will cover the globe to catch the falling pieces.
Al Gore has weighed in stating: “Makes sense to me.”
More on this as it develops.

May 30, 2016 8:42 pm

Everyone understands that human knowledge increases exponentially over time. If AGW is not the cause of rising seas (the east coast does not represent the planet), a warming atmosphere, weather changing, ice melting, the oceans becoming more acidic and warmer, and constantly increasing C02 in the atmosphere, then what exponentially increasing human knowledge supports an alternative? There is none. We already have the smoking gun. Get used to it.
Or take a group of people from a cross-section of the political spectrum and put them in a room with a NASA scientist who explains that we have a rover on Mars and the only evidence is an image on a screen which can be easily computer generated. Everyone in the room accepts the minimal evidence that suggests we have a rover on Mars. Take the same group in a room with another NASA scientist who explains decades of human knowledge that supports AGW and only the conservatives in the room deny the evidence. Does that make any sense? Of course not. What’s different?
Conservatives were born with more fear in their DNA from evolution and it is sub-conscious. It fully explains what differentiates them from everyone else on the political spectrum. The most common symptom of paranoia is the sense that everyone is out to get you and conservatives obviously think government is out to get them. Since they sub-consciously associate AGW with government out to get them, no amount of evidence will convince them it is real. Bizarre. And when evidence gets in the way of an irrational fear, the brain makes stuff up to deny it, that’s how the brain works. That is why you always find conservatives making stuff up about AGW science and is why they should not be in positions of public policy – they prioritize irrational fear over the well-being of the people, country, even the planet. I have never had a conservative take me up on an offer to drive or ride in my electric car. Once I figured it out, I stopped offering about 3 years ago. It is all sub-conscious, rooted in evolution and they aren’t even aware of it. But is really obvious.

May 30, 2016 9:04 pm

God is showing everyone how foolish “man-made” climate change is.

May 30, 2016 9:16 pm

Get a spell checker & hammer checker. Your credibility shrinks with such bad writing.

Jack Dale
May 30, 2016 9:43 pm

Steve Goddard tried a similar cherry pick of of time frames and locations in March.
Coincidence – I think not.

Reply to  Jack Dale
May 31, 2016 8:50 am

Erm…the locations were cherry-picked by Sallenger et al for their paper in Nature.
Skeptics didn’t cherry pick the locations – the alarmist Sallenger did that.
And this is the rebuttal/debunking of such cherry-picking nonsense.
You can’t debunk someone elses cherry-picking of extreme trends without making reference to how those specific locations tend to return to the mean trend over time.
Cherry picking is dumb. That’s why we have to keep an eye on locations cherry picked by alarmists.

Jack Dale
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 31, 2016 9:02 am

Of course the locations chosen by Sallenger et al were cherry picked. What part of “hotpots” do you not understand? Read the abstract
The 6 year time frame cherry picked by Bruno is far too short to drawn any meaningful conclusion. Sallenger et al used 59 years.

Reply to  Jack Dale
May 31, 2016 12:26 pm

YOU read it –
“Here, we present evidence of recently accelerated SLR in a unique 1,000-km-long hotspot.”
“Recently accelerated” – read that.
It doesn’t matter that he considered 59 years – the acceleration which he reports is perceived to have occurred “recently”.
Bruno shows graphs extending back to 1880. So he’s “using” 136 years.
He is showing that the acceleration which appeared to have occurred “recently” is merely an artifact of choosing locations where the natural oscillation about the overall linear trend, has ended high.
Now, a few years later, it no longer ends on high on apparent acceleration.
Look at the graph of the Battery gauge using your own eyes.
Do YOU see overall acceleration?
Try holding a ruler up to it.

Darwin Wyatt
May 30, 2016 10:02 pm

Then you know what it says? Please share it with us. Or do you contend that in saddams police state he didn’t know what his intelligence officers were doing? Hilarious your brainwashing.

Darwin Wyatt
May 30, 2016 10:48 pm

Funny how you left this part out?
“Iraqi officials offered bin ladin a safe haven in Iraq”.
Who in their right mind after 9/11 would leave a dictator in power who offered to help Bin Ladin? One with chemical weapons and 550 tons of yellow cake? Saddam would be processing it as we speak. Just like the Iranians. Thank you American soldiers. Heroes all.

Reply to  Darwin Wyatt
May 30, 2016 11:44 pm

Darwin Wyatt,
And it was preceded by

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting Iraqi officials offered bin ladin a safe haven in Iraq. […]

In other words, conjecture.
The ‘yellow cake in Iraq’ was debunked, or don’t you remember. And “Just like the Iranians?” Hyperbole. You wouldn’t last two minutes in a military briefing room with that level of adolescent drama.

May 30, 2016 11:18 pm

Does this mean that the waters as the world turns over like Guam? What is Al Gore going to do with his multi-million dollar beach front Malibu home?
Oh the horrors!

Darwin Wyatt
May 31, 2016 12:25 am

You are a victim of mind control. Read.
It’s the same (low grade yellow cake) the peace loving mullah’s in Iran are processing into enriched uranium as we speak. Just as Saddam would be were he still in power.
Further, I would hardly call “according to the reporting” conjecture. If that’s the case, then the entire 9/11 report is conjecture. Sorry, as best we know, Saddam offered BL safe haven to carry out 9/11.

Reply to  Darwin Wyatt
May 31, 2016 2:56 pm

From the article you linked to:

There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

War Rex
May 31, 2016 12:46 am

There is an old, old book or sometimes questioned provenance. The Travels by one Marco Polo. There is a small section, and I use the spelling here of some translators, called “The Provence of Irak”. What you will find is same old, same old = same new, same new.

May 31, 2016 4:50 am

Ah, another sign of global warming.

May 31, 2016 5:01 am

The progressives thought that they had the perfect sky-is-falling paradigm in the pseudoscience climate change/earth warming fraud. Finally real science is catching up. The fraud is unraveling faster than the progressives can lie to keep it alive. Fraud of this magnitude should be a capital crime.

May 31, 2016 5:47 am

Anthony Watts is associated with the Heartland Institute which is a front for the fossil fuel industry and has zero credibility. They would never be invited to court of law to testify as expert witnesses. Like supporters of Trump, the site is selling snake-oil.

Reply to  gery katona
May 31, 2016 9:23 am

Gery Katona–lurked under many bridges recently? Calling anyone who disputes you religion a vendido is nothing more than name calling.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 31, 2016 12:24 pm

Speaking of name-calling, what do you think referring to AGW as a religion says about you? I know exactly why conservatives think they way they do and can name over 3 dozen of their traits and entire “ideology” and they all have a common denominator. No name-calling or trash talking required.

Reply to  gery katona
May 31, 2016 12:55 pm

Environmentalism is a religion:
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right b