L.A. Times climate science denial article instead shows the Times clearly denying well established climate science

The L. A. Times published an article claiming that “Trump’s climate science denial clashes with the reality of rising seas in Florida


The article fails to address easily available and comprehensive NOAA tide gauge data updated through the year 2015 (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.htm) showing that the Florida coastline is experiencing no acceleration in coastal sea level rise and that the rate of coastal sea level rise there remains constant and consistent over more than 100 years of long term period tide gauge data measurements.

This long term steady rate of coastal sea level rise is documented at numerous locations around the state including Mayport, Fernandina Beach, Key West, St. Petersburg, Cedar Key, and Pensacola.







Climate alarmists have been falsely claiming for 3 decades now that coastal sea level rise is accelerating but NOAA tide gauge data demonstrates that this is not happening in Florida or anywhere else around the world.

In addition to the Times article failing to address NOAA coastal sea level rise measurement science the article also fails to address the well established climate science showing that sea level has been rising for thousands of years since the end of the last ice age and that this increasing sea level is driven by natural climate change not man made global warming (https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/spe-curry-final.pdf).


The Times article also fails to mention that projections of future coastal sea level rise in Florida based on climate models have huge limitations and qualifications rendering such projections as nothing but pure speculation and conjecture (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/28/2015-updated-noaa-tide-gauge-data-shows-no-coastal-sea-level-rise-acceleration/).


The Times article mentions the recent increase in global temperatures but conceals the fact that the huge 2015–2016 El Nino is responsible for those increased temperatures not man made global warming (https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/spe-curry-final.pdf).


The L A Times article which accuses Trump of climate science denial regarding Florida sea level rise in fact provides a clear demonstration of the Times climate science denial and the outright use of the deception and distortion of climate alarmist propaganda by that paper.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Harley
September 19, 2016 12:36 am

The LA Times, probably annoyed by their last poll, which put Trump in front. Weren’t they the biggest offenders of BDS(Bush Derangement Syndrome)?

Reply to  Tom Harley
September 19, 2016 6:40 am

If I remember correctly, wasn’t the LA Times caught pretty much making up stories that were damaging to Schwartzeneger’s campaign back when he was first running for governor of CA?

Reply to  Tom Harley
September 19, 2016 9:27 am

Speaking of BDS this is SDS (Swedish Derangement Syndrome), soon to arrive here if the Dems are elected:
“It’s time to realise the new Swedes will claim their space” an ad insists, describing the Nordic nation as a “safe space” for migrants and concluding: “There is no way back. Sweden will never be like it was.” The campaign is called “The New Country” (hashtag #detnyalandet) with a website appearing alongside the film, arguing that residents should adopt foreign “cultures” and “languages”, rather than expect new arrivals to become Swedish.”

Reply to  BFL
September 19, 2016 10:04 am

People leave someplace because it has gotten so bad.
The first thing they do when they arrive at their new place, is demand that the locals become like the people they left behind.

Joel Snider
Reply to  BFL
September 19, 2016 12:29 pm

‘People leave someplace because it has gotten so bad. The first thing they do when they arrive at their new place, is demand that the locals become like the people they left behind.’
Yes. That’s what happened when all the Californians moved up to Oregon. They even used to have gag commercials locally, making fun of the trend back in the 70’s. It’s not so funny now.
The reason is, people very rarely see themselves or their attitudes as part of the problem.

Reply to  BFL
September 19, 2016 4:16 pm

That’s what happened when all the Californians moved up to Oregon.
Not all of em. Lots went to Colorado and F**ked it up too.

Reply to  BFL
September 19, 2016 6:59 pm

expat, reminds me of what I said to my brothers (1 in OR, 1 in CO) a few years ago, “there’s no escape, do not resist, we will assimilate”, or whatever that sci-fi line was. They didn’t believe that they could get just like “f’d-up CA”. Told ’em. BTW, I think OR has become much, much worse. No SoCal check I would guess.

Steve Case
September 19, 2016 12:40 am

Here’s a plot of data from The Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level
for three long running Florida tide gauges:
The chart shows you that the rate of sea level rise from 1940 to 1970 was flat. Today, the rate over the last 30 years is between 2 and 4 mm/yr. But earlier in the 20th century the 30 year rate was as high as 5 or 6 mm/yr.

Steve Case
Reply to  Steve Case
September 19, 2016 12:41 am

Let’s see if I can make the chart appear:

Steve Case
Reply to  Steve Case
September 19, 2016 12:51 am

No trend needed for that chart as it clearly shows that acceleration in the rate of sea level rise over the last 65 years for Florida would be negative.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Steve Case
September 19, 2016 5:36 am

Eyebaling the Key West, it doesn’t seem to trend very well with the NOAA graph in the main post. This should be the derivative of that, but it isn’t. Notably, the clear downturn on the NOAA graph in 63 is still significantly positive in your graph.

Steve Case
Reply to  Steve Case
September 19, 2016 6:43 am

Ben of Houston…at 5:36 am
Thanks for the reply
Hmmmm, I just plotted it out again in Excel using the Slope formula and it comes out the same. The data point at 1963 is the slope derived from the 1933 – 1963 time series. I “eyeball” 1933 and I see a significant dip below the trend line. The slope/rate of sea level rise wobbles around quite a bit depending on start and finish values.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Case
September 19, 2016 9:41 am

W.O.W just look at that meteoric rise in sea level…Nearly 1.5mm per change since 2011. Of course the same was recorded from 2002 to 2004, and 1971 to 1979 but following a 6mm drop from 1052 to 1972 SOOOO… Kinda Flat

Reply to  Steve Case
September 20, 2016 8:03 pm

Up here is Everett, Wa. we have very large tide cycles, up to 13 feet. Out at the Marina there is a drain pipe that has its bottom lip about 3-4 inches above the high-high tide. I have been going down there regularly for about 37 years. It has not changed. If we had changing sea levels at the rate the eco-freaks claim, that pipe would be touching water at high-high tide after a third of a century.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 25, 2016 9:03 am

Hi Steve. Hope you’re well, mate.
How did you work out the 30-year running mean for 1950 and for 2016? You’d need 15 years of data either side, wouldn’t you? Otherwise a 30 year running mean with 2016 at one end would not give you the rate at 2016 but 15 years earlier.
One of Tamino’s recent posts specifically mentions your graph here, if you haven’t been notified yet. That’s what brought me to it.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 19, 2016 6:16 am

To clarify; Even at the high end of 4mm/yr, that is only one-sixth of an inch. Six-tenths of an inch in a decade and six inches in a century. This is disaster?

Reply to  JimB
September 19, 2016 6:21 am

Wait: I screwed up. One sixth equals 0.0166 inches. So I erred on the really high side. That is 0.16 inch per decade and 1.6 per century. Geez . And I used to do calculus for fun.
[The mods agree with your (first) 1/6 inch = 0.166 decimal calculuslator. 8<) .mod]

Steve Case
Reply to  JimB
September 19, 2016 6:50 am

(4 mm/year x 100 years) / 25.4 mm/inch = 15.7 inches

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  JimB
September 19, 2016 9:33 am

Right on, Steve Case.
I sensed something wrong in the calculation when Jim B switched from “one-sixth of an inch” ….. to …. “six-tenths of an inch”.
4 mm/year = 40 mm [1.57”]/decade (10 years) = 400 mm [15.7”]/century (100 years)

Bryan A
Reply to  JimB
September 19, 2016 9:44 am

15.7 Inches… well there goes Miami

Stephen Skinner
September 19, 2016 12:54 am

And fails to mention that water extraction in this area has been causing land subsidence over many decades.

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
September 19, 2016 9:08 am

Yes. Miami drinking water comes from the Biscayne aquifer under Biscayne Bay and Miami Beach. And 2/3 of Miami Beach was created from fill from dredging Biscayne Bay. They were supposed to build it 4 feet higher but didn’t, and it is still compacting and subsiding. Anthropogenic SLR, but not from AGW

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  ristvan
September 19, 2016 11:22 am

And salt water intrusion into the fresh water table, much like the Nile Delta and Mississippi delta.

Stephen Richards
September 19, 2016 1:10 am

That photo looks photoshopped.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
September 19, 2016 3:57 am

Yes, look at the cars in the background, maybe 20 feet away..The tires are barely wet !

Reply to  Marcus
September 19, 2016 2:43 pm

Somebody else thought she must have driven into a hole!

Reply to  Stephen Richards
September 19, 2016 5:20 am

Yes, it’s aphotoshop of the original, with higher water levels added for this article.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
September 19, 2016 6:44 am

Looking at the size of the ripples in the foreground. If the water were that high and moving that fast, the car in the foreground would be moving downstream rather quickly.

Burks Smith
Reply to  Stephen Richards
September 19, 2016 9:42 am

The photo looks like some of the TV and Print reporting we in Florida saw during hurricane Hermine earlier this month. It’s probably not Miami, and the result storm surge and of rivers overflowing in the northern part of the state, not sea level rise.

Bryan A
Reply to  Stephen Richards
September 19, 2016 9:45 am

It was also from Sept 30, 2015 per the caption, not the current flooding situation

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Bryan A
September 19, 2016 5:49 pm

I live in the middle of the Canadian prairie, over a thousand miles from the ocean and I can show pictures that look much the same. We also have idiots who choose to simultaneously test the depth of water and their insurance coverage.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
September 19, 2016 12:43 pm

Any town/city has badly engineered roadways, where someone didn’t realize a low spot was part of an old waterway from decades ago. They just pave downhill and back up. Then, a large cloud remains stationary over the area and drops too much rain into one place. Motorists see the water, but don’t know how deep it is until their engine dies or they begin to drift sideways.

September 19, 2016 1:15 am

Global Sea Level Rise has been stuck at around 7″/century since 1800, and this century is no exception, regardless of CO2 levels…
There hasn’t been a discernible global warming trend in 20 years, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over just the last 20 years.
IPCC’s 2013 AR5 report (Chapter 2, pages 150~285) admits there hasn’t been ANY increasing GLOBAL trends of severe weather incidence nor frequency for the past 60~100 years for: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, droughts, floods, tornadoes, tropical storms, sub-tropical storms, thunderstorms, hail, etc..
CAGW is a complete bust based on the physics, the application of the scientific method and all empirical evidence (that hasn’t been tampered with)…
The true “denialists” are Leftists that still progandaize the disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis and have replaced the scientific method with religious zealotry.
Americans have had enough of this Leftist foolishness.
Americans want their country back, as the LA Time’s poll clearly shows: Trump +7…

Reply to  SAMURAI
September 23, 2016 3:42 pm

Satellite global sea level data has rise over last 23 years at 13″/century.
I assume, like temperatures, the satellite data is preferred.

September 19, 2016 1:27 am

Well, this evaluation of the data says different:

Reply to  Griff
September 19, 2016 3:00 am

Come on Griff, an “acceleration” based on 10 years of data? Like the worse “acceleration” in the periods 1900-1910 and 1940-1950?

Steve Case
Reply to  Griff
September 19, 2016 3:01 am

Tamino uses a sample size that decreases over time, for each data point from progressing from 1900 to 2000. He says, “every possible start year from 1900 to the year 2000, ending with the final year.” well the final year is 2015. So his method is to figure the rate as follows: 1900 to 2015; 1901 to 2015 until we get to 2000 to 2015 where the data stops. It’s important to note that he doesn’t continue the method up to 2014 to 2015 because if he did, you would quickly see how silly it is.
Each of the data points on the chart I posted earlier
represent the rate of sea level rise for the previous 30 years. What it shows is that the 30 year rate has varied over the years from a high point from 1920 to 1950 to a low point from 1940 to 1970 and relative stability in the 30 year rate since 1980. Overall the trend appears to be negative.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 19, 2016 4:57 am

The simplest way to analyze a graph. Look at the starting point- 1950. Look at the black dot, exposed to the full atlantic ocean. 4.8mm/year. Look at 2015, 3.9mm/year. Is the rate accellerating? Is 4>5. No.
You can use all sorts of fancy statistical methods to tease out different rates in subsets of the data in order to try and find causes for the rises and falls and devise some sort of physical model that mimics them. But the bottom line is the rate has dropped according to this data. Other sites may differ.

Reply to  Griff
September 19, 2016 3:02 am

Well of course.
Its written by a believer.
Looking for any way to analyse it that produces a convenient lie.

Reply to  Leo Smith
September 19, 2016 7:22 am

But the data?
Opinion is cheap… what about his data and methodology?

Steve Case
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 19, 2016 8:09 am

Griff – at 7:22 am
See my post above, his data is probably fine, but his method is ridiculous.

Reply to  Griff
September 19, 2016 3:51 am

..LOL Griffy, maybe next time find graphs that actually match with each other !

Brett Keane
Reply to  Marcus
September 20, 2016 2:45 am

I always think; “Don’t feed the trolls”. But this latest bunch seem to be just dog tucker themselves here! Feed well, hounds of justice. grin.

Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2016 9:56 am

You ignored the official NOAA sea level data,Anthony posted for Florida,to favor a highly cherrypicked claim, by Tamino who has a poor record on discussing climate matters. He has been caught numerous times fiddling with the data, to deliberately generate a different outcome.
Suggest that you stick with the NOAA data,Griff.

September 19, 2016 1:27 am

“the recent increase in global temperatures”
Another way to track changes in temperature trends is to construct a trend profile.

September 19, 2016 2:24 am

You don’t get it. Is sea level rising in Florida? ‘Nuff said.
And it’s Trump’s fault.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  kim
September 19, 2016 9:00 am

“And it’s Trump’s fault.”
Nope! It’s still Bush’s fault. It doesn’t become Trump’s fault until January 20, 2017.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
September 19, 2016 9:38 am

Oh, please, his rhetoric is already causing the seas to rise.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
September 19, 2016 1:12 pm

Nope! Obama established the exact day the sea levels stopped rising.
He said so.

Robert of Ottawa
September 19, 2016 2:48 am

That LA Times article will probably help Trump in Florida as the locals will say “What sea level rise?”

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
September 19, 2016 7:22 am

Or – ‘he’s dead wrong, we can see it’ ?
“in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., increased tidal flooding is forcing the city to spend millions fixing battered roads and drains — and, at times, to send out giant vacuum trucks to suck saltwater off the streets”

Billy Liar
Reply to  Griff
September 19, 2016 9:52 am

You can’t use policy actions as data. Sending out giant vacuum trucks may have nothing to do with flooding. It might just be to suck trash off the streets. As a concerned global warming zealot working for the city you could be sending out the vacuum trucks just to give appearance of a problem. You might be sending the trucks out because it’s good overtime work for your grateful employees who might otherwise let your tires down.
same applies to fixing drains.

Reply to  Griff
September 19, 2016 5:38 pm
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
September 19, 2016 3:18 am

In this connection I would like to present the following:
ESWARA’s 68th Lecture [by myself on the book] at NGRI and book “Climate Change and its impacts: Ground Realities” release by the Director, NGRI on 21st September 2016 at 11.00 AM. The Abstract of the Lecture is given below.
Dr.S.Jeevananda Reddy
Climate is what you expect and Weather is what you get. Weather and Climate include temperature, precipitation, wind, relative humidity, etc; and they are inter-related. Weather and Climate vary with “climate system” and “general circulation patterns”. Earth’s climate is dynamic and always changing through natural cycles. What we are experiencing now is part of this system and thus they vary with space and time. Changes in climate are not new. These inbuilt natural variations were there in the past and will be there in the future. Droughts and floods form part of natural variability in climate and form main part of the climate change. These are beyond human control and thus need to adapt to them.
However, with the increased interference of humans on nature, the natural variations are being modified resulting in two types of variations. The first is through greenhouse effect, forming more than half of the global average temperature anomaly since 1951 which includes global warming through anthropogenic causes. The second is through release of aerosols; and through non-greenhouse effect, forming less than half of the global average temperature anomaly. This is referred to as ecological changes which refer to changes in land and water use and cover. The Climate System is dynamic and comprises both urban-heat-island-effect as well as rural-cold-island-effect.
The global average annual temperature is derived from the data series over land and ocean but they present non-uniform distribution both with the space and the time. Systematic measurements over oceans, that covers two-thirds of the globe, started only around 1990 and prior to that the ships used to take observations en-route. Contamination of ocean waters as well as land surfaces is steadily increasing with the times that affect weather and climate. Satellites measured temperature data series are available since 1979. For the same period balloon data series are also available. With all these the past 20 years the trend of global average temperature anomaly showed a hiatus. There is a large difference in temperature anomaly time series constructed by different institutions.
In the global [land and ocean] temperature anomaly data series of 1880 to 2010, the trend presented an increase of 0.6 oC per Century. Over this trend superposed is a 60-year cycle wherein the sine curve varied between – 0.3 oC to and 0.3 oC. Even if we assume global warming component as 50% of the trend, then it is only 0.3 oC per Century. Also, the data is corrupted by having met network concentrated in urban areas and thus overemphasizing urban-heat-island effect and thus underemphasizing rural-cold-island effect. However, this can be overcome with satellite data. It all means that so far the Global warming component is less than 0.15 oC only. It is insignificant when compared to intra-annual and intra-seasonal changes in temperature and thus has little impact on nature. The global warming component was attributed to cause sea level rise, ice melts, glaciers retreat, impact on crop production, extreme weather events, rainfall-monsoon changes, etc. It appears there is no way we can expect these changes with that meager change in temperature. We must realize the fact “ignorance is terrible but exaggeration is dangerous”.
True that Nature/climate system is being destroyed by both natural disasters such as cyclonic activity, earthquakes, volcanic activity, tsunamis, etc; and activities to meet human greed such as wars, oil-gas-water extraction, physical destruction of ecologically sensitive zones and destruction of natural water flow systems, violation of acts or laws, etc. are often attributed to global warming. But this is not the case with flood disasters in Uttarkhand in June 2013; Jammu and Kashmir floods in September 2014; November-December 2015 floods in Chennai in Tamil Nadu and Nellore in Andhra Pradesh; September 2000 floods in Hyderabad in Telangana. All these disasters are associated with the apathy of government agencies as they were unable to control the illegal construction activities along the river banks and converting rainwater channels, rivers, water bodies in to concrete jungle. Now governments are wrongly putting the blame on global warming alone.
Heat and cold waves are also common to certain parts of India in summer and winter in association with the Western Disturbances and part of General Circulation Pattern. The IPCC conclusion in its AR4 Report that the Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035 has been withdrawn when UN Secretary General was questioned about the veracity of such pronouncements in 2009. Government informed the Indian Parliament after Paris meet in 2015 that 86.6% of 2181 of Himalayan Glaciers are not receding.
To prove the theories related to global warming and thus climate change conclusively we need to i) have evenly distributed space and time network of stations. ii) distinguish between global average temperature anomaly and global warming iii) distinguish between climate change and global warming iv) identify truncated part of the cyclic variations which lead to misleading inferences and v) control air, water, soil and food pollution.
The lecture (book) also discusses the meteorological cycles in peninsular India and their impact.
Note: I will be in USA during 23rd Sept to 23rd Oct. – San Francisco Suberb
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
September 19, 2016 6:40 am

I’ll just keep what I was taught some 60yrs ago: Climate is Weather over time.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Flyoverbob
September 19, 2016 9:49 am

Grandpa said it back in the ’60s, “A few years it’s colder, a few years it’s warmer. A few years of drought and a few years of floods.”
I think he’d still see it the same.

Reply to  Flyoverbob
September 20, 2016 9:04 am

No one under the age of 40 is qualified to even discuss climate.

Tom Halla
September 19, 2016 3:30 am

But if you only take the last few years, you can claim a higher and increasing rate. Of course, if you look at the graph, such excursions are “normal” and not unprecedented, but a true believer needs an exhibit to claim the US needs their climate policy implemented Now, or dreadful things will happen, like their side losing the presidential election.

September 19, 2016 3:46 am

….Sooooo, who is this post written by, and why are they using graphs from Tricky Nicky Stokes ?

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  Marcus
September 23, 2016 8:37 pm

This post was written by Larry Hamlin.
The “Nick Stokes” graph is actually from a presentation by Dr. Judith Curry as noted in the article.

Matthew Epp
September 19, 2016 3:47 am

Just curious, why aren’t they highlighting sea level rise in California? Is it not rising there?

Reply to  Matthew Epp
September 19, 2016 4:53 am

No. In California, climate change manifests itself as drought.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Michael Palmer
September 19, 2016 6:03 pm

Climate change always attacks where we are weakest! And when we’re not looking! It’s been studying us!

September 19, 2016 4:16 am

Climate scientists with ethics must admit “exaggeration is dangerous !”

September 19, 2016 4:17 am

Here’s the way it works. A developer owns a piece of swamp land. The local, county, and state governments see increased revenue to increase their salary and pension. It gets developed ( if not there will be lawsuits). Thereafter it rains, it floods, it’s climate change. Biscayne Blouvard in Miami was built through a swamp. It wasn’t high and dry to start with. There was a death rate associated with building it.
There are reasons some areas don’t get get developed or shouldn’t. South Jersey is one of them. It’s sandy, it’s swampy, it’s sitting on top of 16 trillion gallons of water, it’s close to the ocean, there are frequent wildfires. What could go wrong ? I know it’s New Jersey. After awhile we can have a lot of year round residents living on the ocean side of Rte. 9. It’s only money, and if a diaster doesn’t strike during my term in office, who cares ? Not my problem.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  rishrac
September 19, 2016 4:59 am

” The local, county, and state governments see increased revenue to increase their salary and pension.
While I understand your sentiment, that is a little heavy handed. Most zoning laws still require development to the “highest and best” use, which means to get the most in property taxes. That helps keep everyone’s property taxes down. While there certainly are abuses, the local voters can always change their local elected reps and replace development pushers with no growth ideologists.

Cold in Wisconsin
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 19, 2016 8:28 am

But if you limit the areas that can be developed, the price of housing goes through the roof (as in San Francisco for example) and no one can afford to live there. The voters want affordable housing, and they are not necessarily informed of all of the implications, so they don’t vote out the pro-development forces. I agree that your scenario is a possible self correction, but it often does not happen. In addition Florida property taxes are incredibly low already, with the majority of their tax revenue coming from sales tax and tourism taxes (from what I can see from the outside). That promotes population density, not low growth scenarios.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 19, 2016 10:34 am

In most cases it doesn’t. While I agree that humans come first, it depends on your connections as who can develope and who can’t. Taking farmland foe example and developing it into a housing development, the farmland generates for every dollar of tax, 86 cents of gain. For every dollar in additional tax results in a cost of $1.06. The result is ever higher taxes. Since I don’t have too much of an issue with development, I generally have an issue of how they are portraying events as a consequence. I’m familiar with Walker, LA and Denham Springs. How or why they were allowed to build the houses on the ground was/is a mystery. If I was aware it floods there, the builders and government should have known too.

September 19, 2016 4:45 am

The CO2 signature would be an acceleration of sea level increase. Warmest seem to have failed basic Calculus. It is the second derivative, not the first that matters.

September 19, 2016 4:46 am

Why don’t we admit that there’s an uptick in slr since c.2010? And we don’t know what it means for the future, right?

Reply to  scraft1
September 19, 2016 4:53 am

..The [sea] level has been rising at a steady rate ever since The Little Ice Age ended……You do know ice melts..right ?

Reply to  Marcus
September 19, 2016 5:11 am

…Oops ! Thanks Mod !! ;o)
[Yeah. It is only up north under the disappearing seal ice that climate change is proven by seal levels rise. Or fall. .mod]

Tom Halla
Reply to  scraft1
September 19, 2016 5:25 am

If you look at the whole graph, there have been similar short term excursions in the past, but long term stability. I am sure there are several ways of quantifying those excursions, but they are clearly not a major change.

Reply to  scraft1
September 19, 2016 6:30 am

It means there will be a “downtick” in the near term. Did you check the latest ocean energy uptake?

Wim Röst
September 19, 2016 5:09 am

Deltares’ Aqua-Monitor shows you were sea level rise did drown coastal area’s in the last 30 years: http://aqua-monitor.appspot.com/ Enlarge the area of your interest and check.
“Gennadii Donchyts: “The Aqua Monitor shows that, around the world between 1985 and 2015, about 173 000 km2, an area about the size of Washington State, has been transformed into land. At the same time, an area of 115 000 km2 has been transformed into water. Both documented and undocumented changes due to man-made interventions, natural variability, and climate change have now been revealed.””
“The Aqua Monitor uses freely available satellite data and Google Earth Engine, a platform for the planetary-scale scientific analysis of geospatial datasets that is now open to the general public.”
Source: https://www.dredgingtoday.com/2016/08/25/deltares-unveils-global-scale-tool-the-aqua-monitor/

Reply to  Wim Röst
September 19, 2016 9:03 am

Do the authors of that chart discuss soil subsidence, plate tectonics, falling water tables, aggressive land use and other sources as possible reasons for those changes?
Or is it just another case of “the argument from ignorance”: if it’s not AGW, what else “can” it be?

September 19, 2016 5:20 am

…I just noticed the ENSO Meter to the right has ticked down to negative .5 ….Does that mean we are still in a La Nina ?

Reply to  Marcus
September 23, 2016 4:50 pm

We’ve not been in a la Nina this year. La Nina is called when the la Nina thresholds are surpassed over a number of months – 5 months for most institutes. Even on a daily or weekly basis, very few of the Nina thresholds have been surpassed this year, and never all at the same time.
Nino 3.4 region is the coldest SST anomaly right now but not surpassing Nina threshold. Regions 1 and 2 aren’t even in the negative, and regions 3 and 4 are negative but not near the Nina threshold for SSTs. Region 3.4 is the most commonly used region to determine ENSO events by way of SSTs, and SSTs in that region have not dipped below the Nina threshold this year (BoM).
The Southern Oscillation Index is definitely in Nina territory, but SSTs have not yet followed suit sufficiently ta have brought on even a weak la Nina. That may yet happen over the next few months.

September 19, 2016 5:25 am

Just wanted to say once again, I’ve been banned from forums twice for providing that very sort of official data from official government sources on official government servers. One was when someone claimed “superstorm” sandy got a big help from recent sea level rise acceleration.

Phil Brisley
September 19, 2016 5:36 am

The L.A. Times, Washington Post, New York Times….etc.,etc. The MSM is awash with support for the scary man made global warming alarmist narrative. Here in Ontario it’s no different. This from their Public Editor in last Saturday’s Toronto Star:
“False balance – that is, a perceived need for journalists to seek the other side of a controversial issue when the overwhelming scientific consensus strongly supports one side. False balance wrongly seeks to provide equal weight to two sides of an argument when in fact the evidence-based information indicates there is no real argument.”
And in the same editorial essay they quote the National Climate Assessment report from a NYTimes article on climate refugees near New Orleans:
”what little (land) remains will eventually be inundated as burning fossil fuels melt polar ice sheets and drive up sea level”
The scare has legs.

Reply to  Phil Brisley
September 19, 2016 6:29 am

I’ve noticed this narrative for a while. It’s not biased reporting if our favorite authority declares it to be so because ‘science’. It’s the same with free speech. It’s okay to not allow someone to speak if our authority declares them ‘dangerous’ or ‘racist’ for whatever reason. The west is going to destroy themselves with circular logic. This false narrative of the left using opinions about science as science needs to stop. As much as I think Trump is sometimes a boorish,pompous a$$ I really think he will help provide some level of sanity (oh the irony) to how the government is abusing true science.

Phil Brisley
Reply to  chilemike
September 19, 2016 7:44 am

Well said chilemike, although secretly, I too support Trump for the same reason. The U.S., like Canada is basically a very well run country and shall remain so, no matter who the new leader is. (IHMO of course).
Hopefully, scientists (especially the academics) who have kept their heads down throughout this ordeal will be able to clarify the science and speak up in support of low sensitivity without fearing retribution.

Phil Brisley
Reply to  chilemike
September 19, 2016 9:16 am

IMHO of course.

September 19, 2016 5:48 am

Yeah, but here’s the thing – many people will accept the information in the article while only a few will question it and become aware of the truth.
The damage is done.

September 19, 2016 5:57 am

The papers are counting on their readers being incapable or unwilling to look beyond their newspapers and news broadcasts.

September 19, 2016 5:59 am

There is not only bias in media; surprisingly the bias is stronger in academic journals !! If a paper is not supporting a CO2 theory, you have hard luck to get it published. Ethical academics should come forward to establish scientific integrity in reviewing system.

September 19, 2016 6:03 am

There are two easy ways to rectify the differences between the historic constant change in sea level with the computer predictions
1) Go back and correct the earlier data. Just take a few cm off of 1900, really who will notice the difference?
2) Just change the meaning of the word “accelerating” in regards to sea level to mean “increasing at a constant rate”
Either way, problem solved.

Bruce Cobb
September 19, 2016 6:14 am

The Climate Liars are in full panic mode now, because it looks like Trump could actually win. The standaed MO is to use weather to try whip up the sheeple’s emotions – floods, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps, blizzards, lack of snow, fires, etc. They are relying on several things; people’s short-term memories, intellectual laziness, and the desire to be on the popular “save the planet” bandwagon. They are also relying on people’s ability to put up with what must be an unbearable amount of cognitive dissonance now.

Reply to  Marcus
September 19, 2016 8:31 am

oh heck.. now I want a Deplorable Me button..
Bright yellow tic-tac Trump optional

Reply to  Marcus
September 19, 2016 8:55 am

comment image
Rush’s deplorable T-shirts are ‘a huge hit’- Hillary slammed them before all of America, but now . . .

Reply to  Marcus
September 19, 2016 3:31 pm

I had 2 t-shirts and a hat with ‘Deplorable’ custom made last week. Why wait on someone else to make one for you?
Fun to wear!

Reply to  Marcus
September 20, 2016 2:23 pm

And I’m proud to be a DEPLORABLE,
for at least my mind is free.
And I won’t forget the hag who tried
to shame that part of me.
And I proudly STAND UP
with the truth and defend it still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt, the Left is bad.
God bless DE – PLOR – A – BLES!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 19, 2016 7:09 am

Bruce sez:
“They are also relying on people’s ability to put up with what must be an unbearable amount of cognitive dissonance now.”
We have created an electronic version of Aldous Huxley’s Soma in the form of personal handheld devices that serve as the opiate of the masses. Not enough people experience the cognitive dissonance to oust the ‘Climate Liars’ as you say.
But as you point out, all it takes is a change at the top and then the Climate Gravy Train goes off the rails.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 19, 2016 11:23 pm

..H.R.. 100 Gold Stars to you my fellow Deplorable !

September 19, 2016 6:24 am

Science lesson: Obama stopped the rising of the oceans, but now, alas, an evil Trumpkin has risen in the east who seeks to raise his wand and flood us all out [display graph]. We need a very strong potion — only a Hillarydillary can stop the evil Trumpkin.

September 19, 2016 6:40 am

Voters in Florida need to read WUWT regularly before California makes the move to spread it’s carbon taxes onto the rest of the country.

September 19, 2016 7:06 am

I hope that the following could be considered relevant to the discussion when it touches on the rate of increase of sealevels due to CO2 induced temperature rise:
NTZ has just posted about a new paper from Chinese authors about the warming pause , which they seem to consider to be still present :
The paper is from one of the Nature journals and at present full access is available :
I think that they are arguing that a strong series of La Nina effects since the 1990s is having a regional effect in tropical areas which is offsetting , via action on cloud cover, the intrinsic warming effect of CO2.

September 19, 2016 7:57 am

If I really was a denier of “climate change”, I would have to deny the several past periods of substantial glaciation. I would have to deny that where my house was built was once covered by a mile of solid ice.
If there is any fact we must face about “climate change” is that the term has NOTHING to do with climate. It is, in the modern media and social context, a statement of an ideology that is advocated with a consistent end goal. The end goals of every advocate of “climate change” all converge on justifying socialistic government policy that has the effect of reducing personal and collective energy usage, of suppressing the blessings of inexpensive energy, of increasing government micro-management of our lives, of justifying globalization and harmonization of government and government powers.
While I don’t fault people who seek the best for humanity, they have been seduced into supporting an ideology that has an evil end goal. Even taking something as simple as enabling every person on earth to enjoy the simple daily benefit of being able to store left over food in a small home refrigerator is something that hundreds of millions of people simply cannot do. Yet the advocates of “climate change” work to deny the necessary power generation to make that possible in the third world. Their socialism prevents many people from being sufficiently prosperous to afford even the simple things we take for granted int the developed world. All for the sake of a better planet. It is as if the plant were a deity that must be worshipped.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Rob Dawg
September 19, 2016 8:53 am

Oh dear. Look at poor Florida then. They must have had lots of SUVs back then.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 19, 2016 9:09 am

“They must have had lots of SUVs back then.”
Ummm, just the opposite, that’s about double the size of FL today, ditto the Bahamas. SL was ~40 meters lower back then.

Reply to  Rob Dawg
September 19, 2016 9:28 am

Excellent. I was just looking at Google Earth – picturing that outline as being where the water is about 200 feet deep today. Saved.Thanks.

Reply to  garyh845
September 19, 2016 9:29 am

Oops – Meant to hit 400 feet deep. Was thinking 400, don’t know what’s with my typing fingers.

September 19, 2016 8:22 am

Noam Chomsky wrote books about the wars in Vietnam and Cambodia. Ignoring his politics, the books do a good job of documenting how the press handles facts.
He showed that, if the facts interfere with their chosen narrative, the media will refuse to correct errors.
“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” link

September 19, 2016 9:01 am

The L A Times is just the crazy cousin of New Yorks crazy gray lady.

September 19, 2016 9:31 am

The LAT’s article (which throughout doesn’t distinguish between GW and AGW, nor CC and ACC) claims:
“Over the last decade, streets in low-lying neighborhoods have begun flooding during the highest tides, usually when the moon is full around the fall equinox.”
The suggestion being that prior to the ‘last decade,’ streets in low-lying neighborhoods in Miami never flooded during high tides?
Must be some historical data around here somewhere? Anyone?

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  garyh845
September 19, 2016 4:45 pm

Low-lying areas…Miami Beach has had some recent issues during king tides. How much is SLR vs subsidence?

Michael Jankowski
September 19, 2016 9:48 am

Interesting that the LA Times is so focused on FL.
Miami is already convinced of an acceleration in sea level rise. It is easy when you ignore subsidence.

September 19, 2016 11:42 am

As someone who lives in Florida, I’m kind of tired of being the poster child on climate change. There has always been flooding in the low-lying areas of Miami and Ft. Lauderdale. They occur when a new moon is relatively close to the Earth (during a new moon, the moon & sun are aligned to increase tides.) Some people call them “Spring tides” because they seem to spring up out of the ground even when it is not raining. September 2015 happened to be one of the best alignments in awhile. (These can also happen when the moon is full, but is usually larger during a new moon.)
“Astronomers who understand supermoons, which they call perigean full moons, had been expecting higher-than-usual tides. It’s not just a supermoon, though, causing the extra-high tides this time. The effect on the tides is being accentuated by the fact that we’re near the peak of an 18-6-year cycle of the moon, which features what astronomers call a minor lunar standstill.”

Sir Harry
September 19, 2016 1:06 pm

A paper demonstrating (using tide gauges and other measurements) that a significant rise in the rate of sea level increase, along with more frequent heavy rain events, is contributing to increased flooding in the Miami area. SInce this site is all about science, I’m confident that you’ll retract your claims above and acknowledge the accuracy of the original articles.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Sir Harry
September 19, 2016 1:23 pm

Sir Harry, you are conflating sea level rise due to global warming and sea level rise due to subsidence. Overpumping of ground water has bupkis to do with overall SLR.

Reply to  Sir Harry
September 19, 2016 2:15 pm

Thanks for completely misinterpreting the information in the paper. In case you were interested in a copy which is not behind a paywall, here it is — https://www.rsmas.miami.edu/users/swdowinski/publications/Wdowinski-et-al-OCM-2016.pdf
They are not ‘blaming’ climate change for this localized sea level changes. Nobody would blame any such short term shifts on climate change because sea-level is not nearly so predictable. The key line from the study that you cite is this one: “These findings support the results of recent studies suggesting that decadal-scale accelerating rates of SLR along most of the US Atlantic coast have occurred due to the weakening of AMOC. However, the acceleration along most of the US Atlantic coast began around 2000 whereas the acceleration in the Miami area was delayed and began after 2006.”
The AMOC cycle (and the NAO) is similar to the ENSO cycle in the Pacific (although not as extreme). Ocean level in the West Pacific can rise by as much as 2 meters due solely to the surges created by El Nino. It’s a lot easier to find information on this phenomena in the mid-Atlantic states than Miami because the effect occurred there first (and because all reports tend to emphasize the problem for the audience.)
For instance, here is one of the major reports on the phenomena: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150224/ncomms7346/pdf/ncomms7346.pdf and here: https://usclivar.org/research-highlights/extreme-sea-level-rise-event-linked-amoc-downturn
“In a recent paper, Goddard and colleagues show that this extreme sea-level rise event was a combined effect of two physical factors. First, it was partly due to an observed 30% downturn of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) during 2009-2010. This AMOC slowdown caused significant short-term changes in ocean temperatures and salinity east of North America, resulting in changes to ocean density and in turn imparting a rise in regional sea level. The extreme nature of the 2009-2010 sea-level rise event suggests that such a significant AMOC downturn is very unusual in the past century. The second contributing factor to the extreme sea-level rise event was due to a significant negative North Atlantic Oscillation index. The associated easterly or northeasterly wind anomalies acted to push ocean waters towards the Northeast Coast through a process known as “Ekman transport”, resulting in further rise in coastal sea levels in addition to that imparted by the AMOC downturn.” —
Normally, this an 18.6 year cycle (so an analysis ending in 2014, like the study you cite should begin before 1996.) However, the Goddard paper points out that this cycle is unusually large in the East Coast due to the timing between the NAO and AMOC.
The point is that, even if there is an underlying long-term sea-level rise, the AMOC & NAO cycles are the dominant effects over the short run.

Larry Butler W4CSC
Reply to  Sir Harry
September 21, 2016 9:33 am

Harry, ever walked the main streets in downtown Miami (or other SFL cities)? Lots of old buildings are sitting on pilings driven to bedrock. Look closely at the sidewalks between the building and parking lots, or building and street surface. Can you see the tilt of the sidewalk away from the more stable building-on-pilings? Duhhh.. South Florida is SINKING, since the first day a human set foot on it. It’s sinking away from the buildings! Even the building is sinking, but much slower. Why can’t we force climate scientists and NOAA bureaucrats to take courses in PLATE TECTONICS?

September 19, 2016 1:58 pm

The list of things that global warming believers have to place themselves in denial of, keeps growing longer:
Chaos and nonlinearity
The existence of the world before 1800
Ice ages
Popper’s deductive law of science
Prigogine’s nonlinear thermodynamics
The Lorenz attractor
Freedom of speech
Natural continuous climate change
The oceans
The existence of people with opinions different from their own

September 19, 2016 2:02 pm

LA times is a comic book . Made up fiction in a dying business .
Guess their strongly held views would prohibit them from taking
ad money from the auto sector . I mean why encourage it . They are killing the planet aren’t they .
How many trees has the LA Times consumed ?

Mumbles McGuirck
September 19, 2016 2:06 pm

Once more we have an article about sea level rise that is illustrated by a photo of flooded south Florida streets. And, again, these photos are of south Florida streets which were flooded by heavy, tropical rains and NOT sea level rise. This is dishonest and should be called out.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
September 19, 2016 3:27 pm

In fact, this is flooding due to sea level rise. The sea level rise is not due to climate change; rather, it is due to a regular tidal cycle known as the “spring tides” or “king tides” or “perigean tides”. These tides occur in South Florida without any rain at all.
In September, they were the largest in the last century due to an alignment of natural cycles. Such tides occur every month, but the moon is not normally in a straight alignment with the sun (it’s either above or below the straight line between the two.)
In September 2015, these tides coincided with the AMOC — plus (I believe) there was a hurricane off the coast which added to the storm surge.

September 19, 2016 3:43 pm

Now wait a minute
Are they recycling Atlantic US coast sea level rise as something new and scary?
We’re in climate goldfish 7-second memory-land. Again.
We already know why US Atlantic coast sea level rise is accelerating.
It’s because the Gulf Stream is slowing down:
What does that mean? Reduced heat transport to the Arctic, eventually Arctic ice recovery. If it goes the whole hog and stops Norwegian sea downwelling and deep water formation, we could be talking glacial inception.

September 19, 2016 6:17 pm

Aren’t the real deniers the ones that deny global warming is actually a very good thing . We are
extremely lucky to be in a warming cycle and if in some way we help then high fives all around .
If you like global cooling move to Antarctica where you can enjoy having roughly 1000 sq miles all to yourself . Well at least for the 30 seconds before you freeze to death.
All the wholly shit the earth has a fever crowd should be provide a one way ticket to Antarctica because at
an average high temperature of minus – 49 degrees they can escape the ravages of global warming and we don’t have to listen to their liberal /socialist agenda .

September 19, 2016 10:32 pm

Even in their own terms, even if temperature and sea level were rocketing up (which they aren’t) they confuse correlation and causation. Page 1 line 1 of the statistics manual.

Thomas Englert
Reply to  John Hardy
September 20, 2016 11:05 am

Maybe a spurious correlation problem, since correlation is a necessary condition for causation.

September 20, 2016 5:31 am

Sea level depends on the temperature of the water and the wind direction.

Johann Wundersamer
September 20, 2016 5:58 am


September 20, 2016 6:10 am

But it was warmer than now during the Holocene Maximum, some 8,000 years ago. Sea levels should have been slightly higher then.

Reply to  ralfellis
September 20, 2016 9:33 am

From what I have read of archeological digs, the shore line of the Gulf of Mexico was 50 miles inland from present, sea levels were 6 feet higher, 4-6000 years ago, compared to present. Lamb claimed glaciers south of 60°N began to form then, accruing the seawater in mountain glaciers. Now they melt back a little and we find ancient forests and human bodies that were buried by ice. Makes CO2 look pretty pitiful as a ‘forcing’.

Mark - Helsinki
September 20, 2016 9:37 am

The times is vile, see anything written by Davenport to confirm the eco agenda, lie after lie

Larry Butler W4CSC
September 21, 2016 9:26 am

Idiots. You’d think “they” had no brains at all. They can’t tell whether the sea is rising or the dock the tide gage is mounted on, like the one in the pluff mud in downtown Charleston is SINKING….

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights