Sea Levels DECLINING on East Coast...

[MickeyW]

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.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05...s-of-acceleration-of-washington-and-new-york/

 

[notquiteright]

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.

Actually the bad science and cherry picking is on the deniers side of the equation. Sea levels do fluctuate but the trend is and will continue to be a slow rise. Right now Australia is experiencing a rainy period and lakes that are normally dry salt beds are 75% full. A convergence in the South Pacific is concentrating some rainfall.

But nice try... eace

 

[MickeyW]

Actually the bad science and cherry picking is on the deniers side of the equation. Sea levels do fluctuate but the trend is and will continue to be a slow rise. Right now Australia is experiencing a rainy period and lakes that are normally dry salt beds are 75% full. A convergence in the South Pacific is concentrating some rainfall.

But nice try... eace

And I maintain, as I always have that Climate Change/GW pushers, all have an agenda. Follow the money! Algore is making a fortune off of his BS, and the govt. gets to control more people, with fear tactics.

The Earth will do what it wants to do and man has no real control over her. The folly......................is in the fear mongering, because the earth will cycle in and out and all about......................on it's own.

 

[Deuce]

And I maintain, as I always have that Climate Change/GW pushers, all have an agenda. Follow the money! Algore is making a fortune off of his BS, and the govt. gets to control more people, with fear tactics.

The Earth will do what it wants to do and man has no real control over her. The folly......................is in the fear mongering, because the earth will cycle in and out and all about......................on it's own.

Follow the money! Financial interests only exist on one side of this argument!

 

[Skeptic Bob]

And I maintain, as I always have that Climate Change/GW pushers, all have an agenda. Follow the money! Algore is making a fortune off of his BS, and the govt. gets to control more people, with fear tactics.

The Earth will do what it wants to do and man has no real control over her. The folly......................is in the fear mongering, because the earth will cycle in and out and all about......................on it's own.

I tend to stay out of these debates because I don't have the time or patience to sift through all the science and pseudo-science both sides spew back and forth. But "follow the money"? Come on, man. Which side, by FAR, has the most money riding on this issue?

 

[Threegoofs]

And I maintain, as I always have that Climate Change/GW pushers, all have an agenda. Follow the money! Algore is making a fortune off of his BS, and the govt. gets to control more people, with fear tactics.

The Earth will do what it wants to do and man has no real control over her. The folly......................is in the fear mongering, because the earth will cycle in and out and all about......................on it's own.

Yep. Follow the Money.

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

 

[countryboy]

Follow the money! Financial interests only exist on one side of this argument!

Right, because climate alarmists work for free. And government backed "green" energy schemes are an illusion.

 

[ocean515]

I tend to stay out of these debates because I don't have the time or patience to sift through all the science and pseudo-science both sides spew back and forth. But "follow the money"? Come on, man. Which side, by FAR, has the most money riding on this issue?

The UN, and it's various offshoots are looking for something along the lines of $20 trillion dollars. Scientists and others are looking for billions.


United Nations and Climate Change


Forbes Welcome

So tell me, what side has money on it's side and in it's eyes?

 

[notquiteright]

And I maintain, as I always have that Climate Change/GW pushers, all have an agenda. Follow the money! Algore is making a fortune off of his BS, and the govt. gets to control more people, with fear tactics. The Earth will do what it wants to do and man has no real control over her. The folly......................is in the fear mongering, because the earth will cycle in and out and all about......................on it's own.

Ahhh yes, no doubt more intel you gleaned while working for that agency that 'doesn't exist'...

Yes it's all to make Al gore rich... :lamo

never mind there are truly informed experts who can explain the sea level fluctuations- it's all a big hoax to control us all.... eace

 

[Deuce]

Right, because climate alarmists work for free. And government backed "green" energy schemes are an illusion.

I don't feel like you quite got the intent of that post.

 

[longview]

Ahhh yes, no doubt more intel you gleaned while working for that agency that 'doesn't exist'...

Yes it's all to make Al gore rich... :lamo

never mind there are truly informed experts who can explain the sea level fluctuations- it's all a big hoax to control us all.... eace

You do know there are Experts that do not accept the published rate of sea level rise.
This really a moot point as NOAA publishes their gauges from around the world, is an easy .csv format.
Sea Level Trends - MSL global stations trends table
A quick spread sheet load, will show the average of all the recorded gauges (about 235), comes out to an
earth drowning .33 feet per century.

 

[MrT]

Right, because climate alarmists work for free. And government backed "green" energy schemes are an illusion.

And this, my friend, is what we call a "false choice."

You responded to a post that insinuated the anti-warming side of the debate has more money funneled into it than the warming side by insinuating that must mean that folks on the warming side are receiving zero money.

 

[MickeyW]

Follow the money! Financial interests only exist on one side of this argument!

Nope...both sides. But, the vast majority of world citizens lose ......by being pro-acceptance of climate change.

I tend to stay out of these debates because I don't have the time or patience to sift through all the science and pseudo-science both sides spew back and forth. But "follow the money"? Come on, man. Which side, by FAR, has the most money riding on this issue?

Both......but I'd say the EnviroWhackos have more. Shadow entities, are pro GW/CC malarky!

Right, because climate alarmists work for free. And government backed "green" energy schemes are an illusion.

Exactly!

The UN, and it's various offshoots are looking for something along the lines of $20 trillion dollars. Scientists and others are looking for billions.


United Nations and Climate Change


Forbes Welcome

So tell me, what side has money on it's side and in it's eyes?

You got it....the key phrase is...
"The undeniable truth is global warming alarmists raise and spend far more money – including far more untraceable special interest “dark money” – than global warming skeptics."

And it has been costing the average Joe .....a bundle. Green cost a lot more than no green......and the fools who buy into CC promote the insanity and all of us are paying more for it!
Cars cost a lot more today because of some of these ridiculous emissions controls.
Unleaded gas costs more, produce costs more, good and service costs more....believing the Greenies is believing in bankruptcy for many...or doing with less.

I wish I had one of those VW diesels w/o the emissions controls on it....

 

[countryboy]

And this, my friend, is what we call a "false choice."

You responded to a post that insinuated the anti-warming side of the debate has more money funneled into it than the warming side by insinuating that must mean that folks on the warming side are receiving zero money.

No, the post I responded to stated flat out that there was only a financial interest on one side.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05...s-of-acceleration-of-washington-and-new-york/

The only reason I see for Watts to worry about this letter is if pundits are spinning it. The letter acknowledges right up front in the abstract: "Rather, there are spatial variations of SLR superimposed on a global average rise. These variations are forced by dynamic processes1, 2, 3, 4, arising from circulation and variations in temperature and/or salinity, and by static equilibrium processes5, arising from mass redistributions changing gravity and the Earth’s rotation and shape."

I didn't carefully read the paper, but it looks like they did a fine job. Figure 4 is handy:

I did a quick search on Doran as at first I confused her with the 97% study. Most of her work is coastal studies, and she works at the St Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center, St Petersburg, Florida.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=0&q=author:Kara+author:S.+author:Doran&hl=en&as_sdt=0,38

The closing paragraph before going into methods:

Our analyses support a recent acceleration of SLR on
~1,000 km of the east coast of North America north of Cape
Hatteras. This hotspot is consistent with SLR associated with a
slowdown of AMOC.
​

 

[Jack Hays]

Bad science / Oceans
[h=1]The Unsinkable “Sinking Atolls” Meme[/h]Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach I’ve written before about the study of Arthur Webb and Paul Kench regarding the fact that coral atolls are not being swallowed by rising seas. Their conclusion in that study was that the claims of sinking atolls were contradicted by the actual measurements of the islands in question. The measurements showed…

 

[KLATTU]

Ahhh yes, no doubt more intel you gleaned while working for that agency that 'doesn't exist'...

Yes it's all to make Al gore rich... :lamo

never mind there are truly informed experts who can explain the sea level fluctuations- it's all a big hoax to control us all.... eace

One thing we skeptics know is that a warmist can explain away everything .

Oh wait, did I say skeptics? I forgot-the order went out to call us deniers.
The Associated Press wants reporters to stop calling people ?climate deniers? : TreeHugger

LAFFRIOT

 

[Lord of Planar]

One thing we skeptics know is that a warmist can explain away everything .

Oh wait, did I say skeptics? I forgot-the order went out to call us deniers.
The Associated Press wants reporters to stop calling people ?climate deniers? : TreeHugger

LAFFRIOT

I agree skeptic isn't the correct word either, but it works for lack of a better one.

Science is all about being skeptical. It is those scientists trying to shut down "skeptics" that are discrediting their field.

 

[KLATTU]

I agree skeptic isn't the correct word either, but it works for lack of a better one.

Science is all about being skeptical. It is those scientists trying to shut down "skeptics" that are discrediting their field.

Yes. Precisely. Exactly.
Skeptic should be assumed for anybody working in a filed as complicated as climate science, where there are so many unknowns.

The lack of the skepticism that exists is indicative of how much the agenda is driven by politics.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes. Precisely. Exactly.
Skeptic should be assumed for anybody working in a filed as complicated as climate science, where there are so many unknowns.

The lack of the skepticism that exists is indicative of how much the agenda is driven by politics.

That's why 'denier' is such an appropriate word.

Science clearly is saying one thing, and you guys are not only denying they are saying those things, you're denying that those things are good science. Look to IPCC discussions in this forum for a reference point.


Denier.

 

[longview]

That's why 'denier' is such an appropriate word.

Science clearly is saying one thing, and you guys are not only denying they are saying those things, you're denying that those things are good science. Look to IPCC discussions in this forum for a reference point.


Denier.

Do tell! what is the "one thing" that science is saying?
Be concise, we do not want that "one thing" to be subject to misinterpretation!

 

[Lord of Planar]

The lack of the skepticism that exists is indicative of how much the agenda is driven by politics.

So true.

It is amazing that so many put up with it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That's why 'denier' is such an appropriate word.

Science clearly is saying one thing, and you guys are not only denying they are saying those things, you're denying that those things are good science. Look to IPCC discussions in this forum for a reference point.


Denier.

Oh go blow it out your...

I'm sick and tired of your blind following of the dogma.

 

[Renae]

I tend to stay out of these debates because I don't have the time or patience to sift through all the science and pseudo-science both sides spew back and forth. But "follow the money"? Come on, man. Which side, by FAR, has the most money riding on this issue?

If you were actually honest, you'd know the amount spent proving AGW is far more than against it. But that requires honesty.

 

[Renae]

Oh go blow it out your...

I'm sick and tired of your blind following of the dogma.

When one is dedicated to saving the world, the future, there is no dogma too dogmatic that it cannot be followed blindly!