1871 Climate Superstition

According to the IPCC, temperatures were cold in 1871, sea level was much lower, and the climate was much more stable. All of this utter nonsense – nothing more than well financed superstition. The same mindless superstition which infected academics in 1871.

ScreenHunter_311 Jun. 25 08.14

ScreenHunter_310 Jun. 25 08.14

We have often noticed that in the tabular statements of those compilers of weather records who write to the Times, useful and welcome as their communications are, every season is sure to be “extraordinary,” almost every month one of the driest or wettest, or windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known. Much observation, which ought to correct a tendency to exaggerate, seems in some minds to have rather a tendency to increase it.

10 Jan 1871 – IMAGINARY CHANGES OF CLIMATE. (Pall Mall Gazette.)

The animated gif below compares 1871 sea level in La Jolla, California vs. a recent high tide picture. There has been no change.


America’s largest and deadliest forest fire occurred this weekend in 1871, after weeks of intense heat, drought and wind.


ScreenHunter_1102 Sep. 30 00.39

15 Oct 1904 – Historic Forest Fires.

Chicago burned this weekend in 1871.



Massive fires occurred in Minnesota  in 1871


Florida was hit by two hurricanes within two weeks in August, 1871 – including a major hurricane. It has now been eight years since Florida was hit by any hurricane, and since the US was hit by a major hurricane.

In 1871, the New York Times was worried about climate change, just like they are now. Nothing has changed – intellectuals are just as stupid and misinformed as they always were.



91 Responses to 1871 Climate Superstition

  1. Voltaire says:

    Absolutely correct. Intellectuals are morons and morons are experts now.

  2. same old game, different century, different decade… They tried global cooling just twenty years ago, now its global warming, poor things they get no respect…. but they keep trying to sell that snake oil and they all have their garage full of it!

    • Mary Brown says:

      Who is “they”

      • aamichael666 says:

        “they” = fools and gullible people, you know … people who adopt the beliefs of others without looking at the opposing arguments first. Group-think it is called. It is usually socially vulnerable people who need an ideology to follow, so the financial corporations who will reap billions in Carbon Trading and Carbon Derivatives who have Media companies in hock up to their eyeballs with loans work at feeding these vulnerable people what they want to hear in order to construct a Group Think that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. Kind of like a new religion, except at least most religious beliefs are individual and personal rather than foisting their ideology and economic slavery on everyone else for no reason what so ever.

        The higher %age of CO2 in the atmosphere actually provided one fifth more crop yields across the globe this century, if we reduced it, who would feed the poor in Africa and Asia? I bet you the suits in New York and London who already have their derivatives to sell off of a new Carbon Market couldn’t give a damn about these people at all, and most Greenies I speak to always give me the ‘well the world’s too overpopulated anyway’ answer. This is the kind of sociopaths ideology that was circulating in Wiemar before the new Master Race started to march.

        If you want to adopt a new Religion, don’t force everyone else to adopt it … that’s just going to cause the rest of us to start fighting you all with a more forceful attitude, and it won’t end well for anyone. People don’t believe this complete CO2 junk ‘science’ that has been proven to be more crooked than a cork screw. Remember, Financial Rating agencies were also ‘qualified’ to rate financial products like MBS and CDO’s in 2008, and by 2009 everybody (who had a brain) understood that their ‘qualifications’ were work bunk. $$$ make the world go around, and climate alarmism is simply a business, just as crooked as any other, and with hoards of vulnerable people swallowing it hook-line-and-sinker. Just like a Pyramid Scheme, opportunistic thieves at the top, many more chumps at the bottom.

        • G Tyrebiter says:

          You cannot convince anyone of anything they do not want to be convinced of.
          Especially those good, Liberal, Brain-Washed ‘Global Warming Troglodytes’ who hide in the caves of their accepted pseudo-science / junk-science. Thus, I will no longer waste my time arguing with these people. After all: they’re all much smarter than me.

  3. Mark says:

    I’m sorry but blogs like this really get up my nose. You present this as ‘Real Science’ yet it is nothing more that a bunch of news articles used to unscientifically support a viewpoint.
    The articles are actually MORE likely to show that YOUR point of view is ‘…utter nonsense…’, however, I wouldn’t be able to say this for certain without some ‘real science’.
    You state that articles suggesting that the climate was changing in 1870s were examples of ‘…mindless superstition (sic)’ and then by association denigrate any of the current views (scientific or other) that consider global warming to be a real threat.
    Let’s leave aside your inflammatory choice of words, as at no point did the writers suggest any supernatural causation and that they had clearly been more mindful that you in their consideration of events.
    The articles are more likely to support the notion that even in the 1870s people were observing climate change. Im not talking about global warming here, more about localised (continental) climate disruption. From European settlement to the early 1900’s about 1,000,000 square km of forrest were destroyed. A quarter of all of the forests in the US were felled. It is just a little bit possible that the early settlers would have noticed a change in the weather as billions of trees were cleared.
    That would be my hypothesis anyway. There are probably a few peer reviewed articles written about this very topic. If I was going to support that hypothesis with some ‘real science’, I would conduct a thorough review of all of the peer reviewed journal articles and then do some other sciencey stuff like look at national historical records of temperature fluctuations and even go and measure temperature changes associated with logging, and do some modelling and extrapolate this to 1,000,000 square km.
    After all of that, I would publish these findings in a peer reviewed journal so that other science types could test my evidence and either agree or disagree with my hypothesis.
    Now they would probably be critical of my article, saying that I hadn’t considered the pre settlement fuel load, timber size, species flammability, fire fighting resources, population distribution and a whole bunch of other factors… and they would be right, because real science is a little more complicated that cobbling together a few articles and presenting OPINION as SCIENCE.


    PS Either the sea levels have risen about 20 meters or those pictures weren’t taken at the same angle. Look at the sea level in the background.

    • That is vegetation, you moron.

      • Juice says:

        No. Did you compare the background sea level in each picture? They images were taken at different angles. But so what? You can clearly see where the sea meets the rock in the front and it’s in exactly the same place in both photos.

    • Jeff says:

      Uh oh…you’ve messed with their religion…now they’re gonna give you an ear full!

    • jwoop66 says:

      Let me help you out, Mark.

      The temperature on planet Earth has NEVER been stable and consistent over time.


      We haven’t angered the gods, and brought calamity upon ourselves. We don’t need to sacrifice any virgins or burn anyone for witchcraft, so put away your pitchfork. Things are as they have always been with the weather – variable and changing.

      • aamichael666 says:

        Actually I think Mark has angered the God’s … the God of Common Sense is especially enraged, Concord is filling Nemesis in on the problem, and she doesn’t look too happy with Mark. Now we’re really going to get it, thunderbolts and lightening, cats living with dogs … that sort of thing.
        I consider the Climate Alarmists to be Lord’s of Misrule, kind of like a Saturnalia. If they ever get in charge of the US then there will be problems … oh, oh, ohBama says what? Christine Lagarde says what? Saturn is swallowing his children again, the God’s are in fact getting angry.

    • vonzorch says:

      Global climate change, been happening for at least 4.5 billion years. get used to it.

    • Jimmy B says:

      If I remember correctly (sic) means “spelling in context.” When correctly used, it indicates that there is a spelling error in the original document that is being quoted in the current document. It is used so that the reader will understand that the mis-spelling occurred in the original, and was not the current writers error. I cannot find any mis-spelling in either of the words “mindless superstition”

    • egorone says:

      When comparing photos , yes they have been taken at different heights , which is irrelevant !!
      What is relevant is the water level at the rock level assuming the tides are the same and not the background of the ocean on the horizon !!!
      Elementary dear Watson !!!

      • Mary Brown says:

        The picture is interesting but sea level is complex. Land rises and sinks, sometimes due to groundwater extraction. Recent research suggests that groundwater extraction, which is unsustainable, may be responsible for a significant part of the sea level rise. Since 1871, sea level is up approx ten inches. The long term trend line since the end of the Little Ice Age probably explains about 8 inches of that rise. The human contribution is about two inches since the fossil fuel age began after WWII.

        Next time you are at the beach, watch the waves roll in. Then realize that the ocean would be perhaps two inches lower if humans had never existed. That number is far from exact, but the true answer is almost certainly between 0 and 5 inches. Are you scared yet ?

        • Olaf Koenders says:

          “The human contribution is about two inches since the fossil fuel age began after WWII.”

          Really? Can you tell me which 2 inches (5 centimetres) on the left image is the fossil-fuelled one?


          Oh.. You said everything after WWII is due to humans? That means the line should be completely flat after 1945. So from then back to 1880, why’s THAT line not flat as well?

          So where did you hear that “2 inch” cr@p anyway? Absolute drivel.

        • Mary Brown says:

          to Olaf Koenders…

          Geez, you might try being a little nicer. I have no idea what you are even upset about or what your point is.

          First, I never said that everything after WWII is human. Having looked at the sea level data and trends, it seems to me that sea level has been rising for a long time (centuries). This pre-dates the fossil fuel era and is completely natural. It also seems to me that there has been a slight increase in the rate of rise. That may suggest an anthropogenic source since the beginning of the fossil fuel era.

          If you compare the trend line pre-WWII and post WWII, then it appears sea level rose an additional two inches from the ambient rate. This obviously is an approximation and we don’t know how much is due to AGW. But it would be hard to argue that AGW has added more than 2″ to sea level…give or take… and that’s probably within the error of measurement.

        • aamichael666 says:

          Mary Brown, we are all upset by all the morons wrecking civilization with bad ideas. Many have come, many have wrecked, but some people are getting a little pissed off.
          People tend to get angry when idiots wear them down over time with their dogmas, just like Japanese Water Torture … drip … drip … drip … alarmists are drips, and they never seem to cease, and the Main Stream Media seems to be totally compliant with applying this torture whilst never covering the many scandals surrounding the so called ‘scientists’. The University of East Anglia email leaks should have been devastating to your Religious Movement if indeed the MSM was doing its job of simply reporting news rather than helping concoct it based on an agenda.
          Next you will say we mere bloggers are all paid by ‘Big Oil’ right? That’s a favorite defense.

    • phjefferies8 says:

      Do you not understand the the angle increases the farther away it is? A literal geometric progression. It does not matter to the foreground, or the point.

      • aamichael666 says:

        logic will serve no purpose with alarmists, they only memorize the Abstracts from IPCC reports, everything else would require original thought process, which is asking too much I have noticed. I suppose I should feel sorry for them, but it would be like feeling sorry for syphilis rather than trying to treat it.

        • egorone says:

          the IPCC ????
          If an organisation ever needed to go …..the IPCC is atop of the list !
          Abolish the IPCC and prosecute the ECO-LOONS that infest it !!!

    • gloover says:

      Whether they were taken at different angles or not, which they clearly were, it makes no difference. The critical point is the water line at the rocks. It doesn’t matter from what angle the observation is obtained. You, in attempting a final slap of your elitist mentality has done nothing but prove you did not listen in either analytical geometry nor physics for that matter. I stop short of touching on your ignorance, because that would be something that only you could accurately assess.

    • Seventh degree says:

      Really Mark, get a job or something…you obviously did not get the point of the presentation: people get worked about events far beyond the event itself–like a tragic fire–and look to profound causes rather than the vicissitudes of life or climate…demagogues take advantage of the gullible, “low information voter”, “the oblivious”, you name it, just as Al Gore and his ken have done in our times…grow up, get some skepticism in your heart, read the facts, better: face the facts that global warming is a myth; “climate change” is now a propagandist’s term masked in a real event–climate does change as does weather, all out of our dominion; and the earth will be here long after we are gone but there are fools in the making right now in our classrooms thanks to leftist education and there will be more human made imagined catastrophes to garner panic in the future…

    • Jim Greaves says:

      Mark – you are a fool. The modern photo shows obvious human destruction of the upper part of that point of land, making a parking lot on which stupid incompetent humans may walk without tripping over a pebble. Look again at the beach and the shape of rocks next to it as it touches the point of land. Not 20 meters, you f o o l.

    • Filip Likar says:

      Good response

    • petersride says:

      “20 meters” as in > 60 feet? Would the rocks the size of humans be covered in the foreground? – just a lowly physicist…

  4. Karlos says:

    Seriously Steve, you can’t fling Ad Hom attacks at people like that and expect them to appreciate it. Everyone comes to this with differing information and presents an opportunity for you to educate, gain an ally, or make an enemy…

    One point made by Mark is observably true, he spotted that the picture IS taken from a different angle, so clearly he is no moron – Is it possible to get another image and represent it more accurately? Another could be deemed equally valid – that observers of the day theorized that localized clearing may have led to localized climate disruption .. We are happy to accept heat islands occur, right? As far as I am aware localized climatic systems are affected to a certain extent by vegetation levels. . or is that wrong?

    • It is not taken from a different angle. Both are taken from the same rock shelf on the other side of the Cove – which is one of my favorite California beaches.

      There are lots of bushes and trees growing on the top now. It was bare in 1871.

      • Mark says:

        Thanks for your input Steve. I’m happy to wear the moron’s crown, although I won’t be putting it on just yet. Of course I wasn’t talking about the vegetation on the top of the rock shelf. Look at the sea level in the background…the blue stuff.

        • David A says:

          Mark, the horizon is not the sea level, therefore the comment above is just silly. I think one photo is from a little higher angle. The rocks in the foreground have not moved much in the almost 60 years I have been going to the cove.
          CAGW is as much a study in human nature, as it is in science. The science is a great deal of Fubar. The climate science scandals are many and still growing.
          The actual science, which is not politically influenced, shows no sea level rise on the Calif coast during the satellite record.
          The actual science shows that fires, hurricanes, tornados, droughts, floods, etc are not increasing, many are decreasing. Peer reviewed scientific studies available for all of the above, and lots more.

        • You can go ahead and put your crown on Mark.

          I really do not know how normal engineering people make it through the day without gauging their eyes out with a fork when they eat.

        • Dave N says:

          I agree with Mark that the horizon at the rear appears to be shifted, so the first photo was probably taken from lower down, however the damning point is that the sea-level against the rock formations hasn’t changed one bit.

          The rest of his blather is well, blather. It wouldn’t matter if the articles were presented in “scientific” fashion; either they happened, or they didn’t. There’s a mountain of more examples from history; alarmists just choose to ignore them since it doesn’t fit with their “the weather is more extreme now” religion.

          PS: “superstition” “supernatural”. You expect this site to be “scientific”, yet you apparently need to brush up on reading comprehension.

    • Rich says:

      The camera was surely at a different angle. A smart person would look at the small rock in the lower right and see that the water has not risen an inch and actually looks lower in the newer photos. Focusing on the horizon is just wishful thinking especially since a small tilt in the camera, even as small as a fraction of a degree, can make the horizon appear much higher or lower. Maybe “Moron” is too strong of a word, so I will just say he has little to no common sense in this matter…

      • Focusing people on the horizon is an old Jedi mind trick. The interesting thing is the water levels on the beach and the rocks.

      • Norm Higgs says:

        Lens focal length can make a huge difference as well. A “long” lens has the visual effect of pulling the background much closer (to the viewer) than the midground and foreground – effectively ‘compressing’ the image back to front. This would have the effect of making the horizon look higher. As you pointed out – the small rock formation is the real indicator as it is clearly more exposed in the recent picture.

  5. CRISPY says:

    VERY unscientific indeed!
    Ask islanders who are a few inches above sea levels if the level has not gone up!
    They show up at every climate conference and ask for help.
    Also a recent study concluded that the Oceans warmed up MUCH more than model predicted and THAT HAS TO ELEVATE SEA LEVELS…Physics is a science…

    • Your mind is crispy. Coral atolls form and exist a few inches above sea level. Perhaps you should take some basic science instead of imagining that you are not a complete moron.

      • WaltC says:

        A lot of people also don’t understand how natural erosion works at the shore–it is constant. Sand is constantly moving–leaving one area and piling up at another, back and forth. Has nothing whatever to do with the ice caps melting…;) On some beaches not ravaged by hurricanes on the east coast, for instance, it is common to see 50-60-year-old beach houses (and older) on the ocean front still sitting on the same foundations they were built on. Some beaches get refurbished, some don’t need it; but it is always because of normal erosion and not dramatic rises in sea level, etc.

    • Steve….Crispy could use a little lesson in street politics too not just science. Islanders are typically resource poor. Global Warming is an engraved invitation to try to get at the government teet. With 100% probability this is what they are doing.

    • Mary Brown says:

      “Ask islanders who are a few inches above sea levels if the level has not gone up!
      They show up at every climate conference and ask for help.”

      This is called “rent seeking”.

    • aamichael666 says:

      Some places on the Pacific Plate are actually sinking due to tectonic motions, some are rising, but you never hear a Pacific Islands puppet leader taking that into account at a UN Religious Conclave do you? And why? Because they get more AID (read, bribes for said puppet and his family). It’s always CO2, and his island is always ‘sinking at a catastrophic rate’. Tectonics don’t matter because it does not fit the required religious dogma.
      I remember an investigation done into one of these puppets’ claims (forget which coconut republic it was … somewhere near PNG I believe), and 1800’s photographic evidence and regional tectonic analysis proved that his island was actually a foot or two higher than the 1800’s … but he will still show up at the UN with a tear in his eye, and a hand out to accept another envelope of aid that will never make it to the people of the island but will get him an extension on the Presidential Palace and airfares to fly around the world and talk at conferences where his religious proselytism is required in any particular month.

  6. Roger Dane says:

    Is it the angle of the photograph or ‘just’ the juxtaposition of the photo placed into the ‘web’ frame? Placing a mouse pointer on the largest rock outcropping and waiting for the photo to transition to ‘modern day’ will display a variance yet the distance of the ‘high tide’ from surface to the outcropping remains the same. The photo may be a few pixels off of where the ‘historical’ one is withing the frame.

  7. kedarsoni says:

    The sea level does appear higher as Mark observes. However, if you observe the sole human figure on the left corner in the old pic and then the humans in the new pic in the same area, the old pic shows a 20% larger figure. This means that the new picture was either taken from a location about 15-20% further away from the previous spot or the lens used in the new photo had a different wide-zooming capability. This in turn gives rise to a different perspective and the sea level in the background appears about 20-25% higher (comparing with the rock-base).
    Which is why in scientific photos, we require camera specs before commenting on anything.

    • Agree on the analysis of the GiF. A quick look at the first and last image (using Preview on iMac) does show a difference. If I see any relative difference in the high tide is is lower now. That assumes the last photo is indeed absolute high tide. Need specs and controls in photo science; off the cuff is just an illustration not science.

    • are you really that dumb? Horizon != Sea Level

      The most accurate gauge is the coastal measure that was quoted by the article. You warmist just can not deal with REAL science. Real science is when you observe and do experiments large or small by yourself without depending on others to predigest the results.

    • The main reason for the horizon being in a different position has to be that the photographer was not strictly at the same elevation. The photographer instinctively knew that the only point that needed to line up to prove the case was the coast line.

      Yikes. Libtards and math do not mix! ( you have to think for youself )

    • Bob F. says:

      Americans, coincidentally, are 20% fatter than they were in 1871. 🙂

      • aamichael666 says:

        ha ha ha … nice one. Got me thinking about my weight now. I’ll have to check a UN Report on average weights to prove you correct though before I believe this, because whereas my eyes do lie, the UN is infallible!

  8. John Vaughters says:

    Steven, I love your work right off the bat. It falls into my category of the KISS principle. (Keep It Simple Stupid). I often explain to people the very things you show in great detail. Thank You for your effort. Time is easily forgotten to those that do not pay attention. In any case I love this comparison, but the one thing that I was curious about was how high the land has risen in this area of CA from tectonic upheaval? Just curious, I imagine maybe a few inches, which would coincide with similar supposedly ocean increases of inches. Amazing how people fail to look at the scale of the data presented. Wow! now my feet will get when standing on this rock vs the entire east coast will be under water.

  9. InMAGICn says:


    California has many normal,reverse, and thrust faults, some immense (as in obduction formations).

  10. Wayne M says:

    People ask me, “Don’t you believe in global warming?” Lately I get asked, “Wayne, you don’t see that this is clearly global weather change?” This is what I believe is actually going on globally and has been in the works since the mid 1800’s. We are falling victim to Cultural Marxism and everything attached to it. Individual cognition is replaced by “Political Correctness” and when faced by cognitive dissonance these group thinkers lash out against truth in favor of propaganda and approval from their saviors. For those who have the time and interest here is a link to a video on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M

    Those that understand human nature are very capable of manipulating groups of people to have them eating out of their hand. Freud came up with the basis of this who passed it to Edward Bernays who did quite a bit with propaganda (public relations). All of that work wound up with Joseph Goebbels who instructed Hitler (narcissist personality) to use, “THE BIG LIE!” The bigger the lie the better. Now here we are not a 100 years later and history is going in a circle. Let’s end all the drama and realize that this excessive heating and cooling is just a “Fish Story!”

    • Dave N says:

      “People ask me, “Don’t you believe in global warming?””

      I’d ask them whether they mean that the Earth is warming, or that humans are supposedly contributing to it. After they answer and I reply “well why didn’t you ask that question instead”, I’d ask them whether they know themselves by how much humans are supposedly contributing.. just roughly.. in degrees C per decade.

      Once they demonstrate they have no clue what they’re talking about (which is usually immediately), and/or they attempt to divert the discussion by pulling out the “you’re just a denier” card, the conversation would conclude.

      • aamichael666 says:

        Don’t forget that ‘qualified’ people have proven it so we ‘deniers’ should simply comply with ‘science’. I have never had an intelligent discussion with a warmer (and I have tried many times), and find the vast majority of them to be socially vulnerable people, or complete materialists who wear their warmism like a defense mechanism for their Developed Country Guilt.
        Very manipulative people have singled this segment of society out to be taken advantage of, and to use them as a weapon against the rest to use a ‘democratic majority’ to loot entire developed and even developing economies.
        It’s really sad, a complete destruction of human potential just so a very few can draw power from the many. Nothing changes under the Sun. Humanity is no more socially sophisticated than it was 1000’s of years ago IMO.

  11. Gail Combs says:

    As far as the picture goes. The first thing that caught my eye was the rocks in the foreground on the right that is only seen in the modern picture. There is also another very small rock behind that outcropping that also appears.

    • Billagain says:

      The only part I was concerned with is looking at the tide line and the rocks. Compare the shore in the lower left near the present-day stairs. The photographer from almost a 150 years ago was using a much less sensitive film. His exposure could have been timed in minutes, not a fraction of a second, which means any surf movement around the rocks in the lower right would have been blurred. The film would have had less contrast and not benefited from the use of a modern UV filter which would have cut some of the coastal haze.

  12. Ted says:

    Having been a long time resident of La Jolla, the difference in the horizon line may be due to a rendition of the marine layer (coastal fog) that frequently lies 3 to 4 miles off the coast. The color of the marine layer is pretty close to that of the ocean. A sharper camera might reveal the subtle distinction between the marine layer and the ocean surface.

  13. Mike in MO says:

    Could the apparent variation in the horizon in the two pictures be as simple as the differing focal lengths and angles of view of the respective camera lenses? I highly doubt that both pictures were shot with the same film format, lens type, etc. Likely at least 1 of the images was scaled to get similar perspective. Reality is that modern optics quality is far superior of that 20 or 30 years ago – let alone half a century or more ago. Differing perspective would explain over 90% of the differences.

    • Norm Higgs says:

      Bingo! you win the prize! The recent picture was almost certainly taken with a much longer lens which would have the visual effect of pulling the horizon closer.

  14. Who says:

    Oh no! This is clear evidence of the effect that rising sea levels are having away from the immediate coasts. I’ll call it ‘global ocean mounding’ and it is a potentially catastrophic effect of global warm ….. I mean climate change. Imagine how many sea creatures won’t be able to survive the deeper than normal water far out at sea. Shame on you deniers for hiding this issue by just fosuing on the sea level near the coasts. In fact, I think I need a large NASA grant to study this effect for 20 years or so. And, I think I’ll need to travel all over the world gathering data and classifying this dangerous effect.

    • egorone says:

      ”Global ocean mounding” !!!
      Well said !!!
      The irony is , that you would probably receive such funding , and I would guess that such funding has already been granted for similar and even more ”out to Pluto ” Climate Doomist Ventures !!!!

      • aamichael666 says:

        I’m willing to offer some seed capital for this idea, to see if we can get Who into a UN research program so that we can satirize the complete lunacy of letting politicians and spin doctors write ‘science’.
        Global Ocean Mounding Institute.
        …the GOMI, endorsed by IPCC and ABCDEFGHIJK….
        GOMI has a nice ring to it does it not?

  15. Steve says:

    I heard that us ‘alarmists’ are smuggling the cold off the planet in cold pods designed by NASA so to be fair the DENIERS mights they may be right and the earth isn’t warming and it is definitely nothing to do with man mad effects.

    I read this on a blog and I think the guy who posted it was qualified sounded like scientist and he was an alarmist and said he had he had just re run his maths and apparently every alarmist on the planet is hiding heat.

    At first I wasn’t convinced but he posted some more info and now it makes perfect sense.

    But another guy i spoke to said that deniers have turned their freezers and fridges to coldest setting to try and counter act the cold smuggling by the Alarmists.

  16. egorone says:

    Great site in general to help expose the stupidity and corruption of this fiasco of global fraud !!
    Keep up the good work !!

  17. Phthisis1942 says:

    Let’s Get out the TIDE BOOKS. Every tide is different. Could one have been a “Spring Tide”? I watch tides in AK and HI. We would need to know time of day, direction of tidal flow(exact high tide?), any storm surge, height of wind waves, break, etc. Further, if we could positively ID various points on the rock outcrop and then hire some surveyor(me) to determine their elevations we could assign a vertical scale to each photo and then make a SWAG as to ocean height. Other than that, I think it is all just guesswork.

  18. Mary Brown says:

    Everyone is arguing the details of the pictures and the angles and the horizon and the size of humans, etc.

    But the obvious conclusion is that for all practical purposes, the sea level is the same. If you had a boat ramp or house or swimming hole, it’s all the same… 143 years later…

  19. Sbelse says:

    “Scientific” evidence is really just the generalization of observations. Why do the observations have to be peer reviewed to be worth considering? I mean, seriously, lots of talk about a picture that anybody can look at and see that “things” ain’t all that different at said location between the two time frames. Why are some doubting what they see in front of them? Why the lack of logic…for some? Sorry to challenge your politics . . . I guess. On the flip side, there are many coastlines that HAVE been altered over time due to various changes that include changes in sea level. I’ll offer Thermopylae as an example–although we are talking 2400 years vs 140 in that example. Incidentally, you should all know that sea level is not uniform across the planet. And it is not static on a day to day basis (which I offer to exclude discussion of the tides), let alone year to year. The earth — the universe — is complex. Lots more to look at than the location of the horizon in two different pictures, or a single molecule in the atmosphere like CO2. Just something to consider, But then again, this comment hasn’t been peer reviewed, so some of you might consider just ignoring it. Politics is always more important than truth. That’s one thing I’ve learned in my life.

    • gloover says:

      Instead of wasting time studying the arguments of science, all one has to do is look at the political platform around the movement. It was framed in the UN as a global economic stabilization action to transfer resources to third world countries to “make up for the destruction of the environment by the industrialized nations and give the third world the resources to catch up on technology”. It was no accident that Van Jones was Obama’s first named environmental czar. This whole movement is straight out of the play books of Marx, Saul Alinsky [sp] and others to regulate industry and derive a channel of wealth transfer and disrupt the base of the US. It matters not what the science says or does not say, it is a social engineering objective and the supporters will adapt their platform as needed to ultimately achieve their goal. We have seen it go from Global Warming, after the email gate to now Climate Change which they can fit to any situation. As recent as this past week it was discovered that NASA falsified the climate charts and are having to change them and within 24 hours Obama is giving a speech on how man made climate change is going to kill our children and nobody even blinked.
      The biggest problem is that not only do you have a base group of people whose only identity is the most convenient cause or crusade upon which they can attach themselves and third world leaders salivating at the possible spoils but you now have some fairly wealthy and powerful people entering the game who have seen the opportunity for more wealth and power by fueling the cry.
      The science has long been proven wrong, the past head of the NOACC, who is nearing 80 is touring proving that regardless of the so called science data, the number of mathematical iterations required to accurately predict weather even 5 days out is in the millions and that predictions over decades much less centuries is beyond the computing power that exist today.
      This all boils down to will. Whoever can go the long haul is going to win this, because it boils down to a major bluff by a player with unlimited financial support against the depth of the love and patriotism that true Americans have for this great country. It is a great test of our metal.
      We have to take a stand and show that the government works for the people and we have to give pink slips to those who have let assumed power go to their head. Educate ourselves, don’t buy into sound bites, get out and vote, get people we know to vote and let the unsuspecting know that America is slipping ever so silently away from them unless they are willing to take stock and stand and be counted.
      Sadly this issue of climate. is just one of many staged crises that we face and have to defeat in order to save our way of life.

  20. IPCC AR5
    Figure 13.6
    According to satellite telemetry GMSL between 2005 and 2012.5 increased about 20 mm. That’s about 0.75 of an inch. At that rate the sea level will increase another 8.25 inches by 2100. That won’t be a problem for anybody not dumb enough to currently live or build 4 inches above GMSL. Might need your high water pants.

  21. John says:

    About 10,000 years ago there was an Ice Age. The Earth has been warming ever since. It will continue to warm until it starts to cool again leading to another Ice Age. It ain’t rocket science.

    • Doug says:

      In a nutshell, John, it really is that simple, and a combination of melting ice caps and thermal expansion leads to global eustatic sea-level rise, which with cooling will go into reverse eventually. This cycle is characteristic of the Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary Period (the last 2.5 million years of geological history) and can account for sea level fluctuations of 120m up to a maximum range of 200m over a 100,000 year cycle. The causes of this change are entirely natural / astrophysical and obviously not anthropogenic, however it is open to speculation that we are having a very small impact on the rate of natural change.

      Generally geological and geomorphological evidence from all around the world shows that global sea level has risen about 120m over the past 10,000 since the end of the last ice age (an average of 1.2mm per year). Other regional or more local non-eustatic changes in sea level occur much more rapidly, generally as a result of geological processes such as sub-sea volcanism and sea floor spreading, subduction, earthquakes, isostatic uplift, regional crustal uplift or subsidence, etc. There are many good sources of information on this, such as for example Jack Morlock’s pages on the Geological Oceanography Program of the Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico (a reliable centre of oceanographic study) http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/eustatic.htm .

      Where I live in Scotland, sea level is actually falling relative to the land, due to a gradually slowing process of isostatic uplift or rebound after the melting of the Scottish ice cap and corresponding unburdening of the earth’s crust in this region. All around the coasts of the Scottish mainland we have raised beaches and wave-cut platforms that now stand up to 40m above present sea level. In the Baltic region the effect is much greater and there are raised beaches more than 100m above sea level. The land around the Baltic sea is still rising at up to 9mm per year. This post-glacial rebound of formerly depressed glaciated areas contributes substantially to the overall eustatic sea level rise due to glacial melting.

      Much more dramatic changes occurred in the Mediterranean region, which was cut off from the oceans during the Pleistocene ice ages by a land bridge at the straits of Gibraltar. For long periods the climate was cold and dry and the Mediterranean and Black Sea basins were mostly dry land with inland seas at levels way below the depressed global sea level at that time. Thick salt deposits in the Mediterranean record a history of repeated cycles of evaporation in these confined basins and subsequent refilling by oceanic water in warmer interglacial epochs including, of course, the Holocene, our present interglacial epoch. The last refilling of the Mediterranean and Black Sea basins occurred within the span of human history.http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/structure/tectonics/messinian/history.htm

      Now these pictures from La Jolla don’t really tell us anything definitive about global sea level other than that it has apparently not changed much, if at all, in the past century or so, but the small average measured rise is only a few inches, which would scarcely be visible in this medium distance view. Actually it appears that the sea level in the recent picture is slightly lower than in the 1871 picture, but this means nothing. We can’t gauge the relative change with any accuracy based solely on these two pictures, taken about 140 years apart at different stages of tide and weather conditions, both of which affect local sea level on a daily basis in a range of variability of at least 2m.

      Steve, I note that you say the recent picture was taken at high tide, but that cannot be fixed to a level of accuracy or verifiability for these two pictures to be used in support of any argument to disprove global sea level rise (which we do know is happening gradually anyway). Do you know exactly what the state of the tide was on the moment the photo was taken in 1871? I doubt it, and even if you can fix both pictures to exact high tides, the high tides themselves vary significantly between spring maxima and minima depending on the positions of the sun and moon, and local sea level may also vary by up to a metre or so depending on the atmospheric pressure. All these speculations about camera angles, lens focal length and other viewpoint or optical variables are entirely irrelevant.

      Hundreds of tide gauges around the world provide a reliable record of sea level changes over time. In some regions (such as Scotland and Scandinavia, Canada and the Bering Sea, etc, the land is rising out of the sea despite global eustatic rise in sea level. In other regions such as parts of the Mediterranean, Caribbean & Gulf of Mexico, and parts of the Pacific, etc, land subsidence has caused extensive coastal areas to be inundated by the sea. Tide gauges and historical records, as well as geological evidence show these extremes in variability well enough for them to be discounted from the overall picture, leaving the significant middle section of all the global records, representing relatively stable land-sea relationships, which do show the expected gradual sea level rise.

      All the geological variable are occurring all the time and are not subject to any human influence, but the factors that contribute most to sea level change, ocean temperature and global ice volume are potentially impacted to a small degree by accelerated global warming due to the release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and changes in land use, etc. It is more relevant therefore, to examine changes in temperature records and ice volumes. Reference other sections of this excellent web site.

  22. The whole thing is ofc more sinister than implied. The function of the global warming myth is of course to justify the sinister and evil UN Agenda 21 Socialist New World Order Totalitarian One World Government. Google it, read it, its truly is horrific. And its coming to a town near you soon.

  23. ren says:

    A tourist visiting Norway to witness tomorrow’s total eclipse of the sun was mauled by a polar bear as he slept.
    Jakub Moravec, 37, had travelled from his home in the Czech Republic to enjoy the natural phenomenon in the scenic surroundings.
    But he was lucky to escape with relatively minor injuries to his arm, chest and face after the bear broke into his tent and attacked him.

  24. Tab Numlock says:

    Please, please, please. Can’t we all just get along and admit that global warming would be great (if it were happening) and that the added CO2 is a boon to the biosphere? Very little built on the coast lasts for more than 50 years so sea levels don’t matter much.

  25. hunter says:

    Actually academics are more vulnerable to scams and group think than many would imagine.

  26. The problem of sinking of cities because of natural geological and ground settlement action is much worse than the rising of the sea. The Dutch magazine “De Ingenieur” had an article about that and used Jakarta in Indonesia as example. The soil gets more dense with less water and so gets less in volume.. Also the ground level sinks by nature . Lots of cities were built around rivers , so on alluvial soil and that will slink. More so: rivers and estuaries tend to be in geological areas that are tectonically lowering( as water looks for the lowest place) and that worsens this problem. Ad tectonic lowering to ground settlement. The article in “De ingenieur” calculated the calculated geologic sinking of the city was (as I remember) about 3 times worse than the rising of the water level. Even theoretically stopping the water from rising in climate-change policy would drain the city in the end , but 1/4 slower. I think that lots of the cities mentioned in the alarmist flood disaster-zone’s from the future are draining even without climate change. So is the same problem to New Orleans.. That city is lost anyways in some 100 years.. The Netherlands is sinking as well , because of normal unpreventable ground action. In fact rebuilding the city on higher soil or protecting it by levies is the temporaty solution . In the end there is an economic optimum of drainage protection cost and soil area price. As the processes are slow, but with some catastrophes here and there , there is ample time to move the city in a natural way . The Northsea and the Dutch estuaries are full of lost villages of the past. It is normal..The sealevel went up 120 meter in 9000 years, quite without us interfering with it.
    Is climate investment economically sound? Not at all.. It is propaganda driven expense. It has nothing to do with normal investment. And when considering the problem of natural sinking of cities, a complete waste of money.

    More islands disappeared of normal tectonic and geological processes than from climate change.. Look at all the atols UNDER WATER like tropical Sint Maarten(NL) , which is only a remnant of a much bigger island. So money spent to save a near worthless island that have to vanish anyways somewhere?

    It is the lack of knowledge on geology and its processes that drives these alarmist “moron” scientists. Obsession with just one little aspect , forgetting the total picture. And cashing in on your tax money in the same time. It is real pseudoscience what is given as realscience.

    • Doug says:

      As a practicing consulting geologist I agree with what you’re saying here Rene. Coastal subsidence and erosion is as much if not more of a problem than sea level rise. Some land rises, some falls. These changes are happening all the time due to geological processes, and in some places due to anthropogenic causes. The overexploitation of coastal aquifers has certainly resulted in subsidence of land surfaces up to 50ft in the worst cases and commonly in the order of 5-20 feet. Also coal mining in coastal areas has artificially lowered land levels and caused increased local flooding in some places. Some coastal cities built on unconsolidated sediments are literally subsiding under their own weight. Apart from all this, the expected rise in sea level due to possible global warming is not likely to exceed one foot. A far cry from the catastrophic picture feared and presented by panic-stricken ‘warmist’ believers. Antarctica is not melting significantly and neither is the Greenland ice cap melting at any rate above that which conforms to the general post-glacial trend.

      ‘The Right Climate Stuff’, which was founded by a group of retired NASA scientists and has gathered a growing band of professional supporters and contributors in all the fields of Earth Sciences, Planetary Science, Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics, which seeks to bring scientific rigour and rationality back to the fore and have some counterbalancing political influences to defuse the CAGW bomb. http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/

      The Right Climate Stuff recently published their scientific findings and analysis presenting a properly balanced view of the real global warming ‘threat’, which is actually no threat at all compared to other much more immediate issues impacting on the state of humanity and the planetary environment.
      Their well considered advice is neatly summarised in the paragraph quoted below…


      ‘Using the new Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) metric, we demonstrate that burning all remaining economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves on earth cannot raise global average surface temperatures more than 1.2o C above current levels. This AGW limit results from the much lower climate sensitivity range defined by TCS for the next 300 years, and a necessary market-driven transition to alternative fuels caused by escalating fossil fuel prices that result from dwindling world-wide reserves and rising energy demand of growing economies. This transition must begin before 2080 to meet energy demand, and should be completed by 2150 when alternative fuels will be more economical than recovery of any remaining fossil fuels. We demonstrate use of the GHG TCS metric that has an upper bound of 1.6o C, to compute “worst case” transient global temperature rise from all GHG for a realistic atmospheric CO2 scenario, where the concentration rises from the present value of 397 to a maximum of 600 in 2130 due to dwindling, more expensive fossil fuel use, and then declines back to below current levels by 2300.’

      There it is folks, the ultimate perspective on the size of our total impact on climate. If we burn all the remaining fossil fuels on the planet we might just manage to warm the Earth by a degree or maybe 1.6 degrees… and our political leaders are committing themselves to saving us from this disaster by spending trillions of dollars to prevent a rise in AGW beyond 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Well! it’s already a fete accomplis! We need not impose any tax or spend any money or change the status quo at all, in order to come home under target! At the end of it all the warmists, having driven unfounded fear into the hearts and minds of the politicians and the general populace and having misappropriated trillions of dollars in funding, will walk away from it all congratulating themselves on a great scam and all of us on a great triumph.

      This is the extent of the real disaster folks, it is a shameless and harmful fraud being perpetrated on all of us and the worst affected as always are the poorest of the poor, while the whole scam creates boundless opportunities for the rich to make themselves richer.

      ‘The sky will fall on your heads!’ they have repeatedly screamed in alarm, ‘stop polluting the atmosphere with CO2! Stop what you are doing! Run! Hide! Give us all your money and we will try to stop this disaster from happening!’ knowing full well all the while that no such disaster is ever likely to happen; at least not as a result of our impact on the global climate, even although China and India will go ‘full steam ahead’ with more coal burning power stations.
      They have used SELECTED AND MANIPULATED DATA, ALARMIST LANGUAGE, EMOTIVE ISSUES, and DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION to dupe the well-intentioned public and well-intentioned politicians into believing their scare and having successfully done so, thereby winning power and influence, they appear to have won a temporary victory through the use of POLITICAL INFLUENCE and PEER PRESSURE, to overrun their critics (for example http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm) and seize control of a huge share of the global economic pie, thereby actually diverting much needed funding from much more imminent and pressing needs in the developing world and depriving millions of people of access to basic resources and opportunities such as coal and cheap electricity.

      If all the trillions of dollars being committed to fighting this CAGW folly were committed today to writing off third-world debt and ACTUALLY ACHIEVING the MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS (remember them?) and the SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (2015) immeasurably greater good could be achieved for the benefit of humankind and indeed for the planet.
      Two key provisions, to ensure everyone has access to supplies of safe drinking water, and to provide access to electricity, would cost far less than the ‘Global Warming Defence Strategy’ and would accomplish far more to bring greater welfare, opportunity, and economic equity to the people of this world.
      It is quite ridiculous that the IPCC and UNDP (MDG & SDG) are both administered by bureaucracies under the aegis of the United Nations and yet to a very great extent they are not communicating common goals and one is undermining the other.

      It is time to stop this madness. The IPCC should be immediately unplugged from the funding stream that they have misappropriated and it should be disbanded. Scientists and politicians alike, who have deliberately exaggerated the scare should be prosecuted for bad ethics and criminal deception with intent to defraud. The funds we have already committed to this non-cause should be diverted to direct poverty alleviation measures and working towards sustainable development and the solving of a fast approaching WATER, FOOD AND ENERGY NEXUS, which if not addressed now will do infinitely more harm than a degree or two of temporary warming of the global climate.

      CO2 is not a pollutant. It is good for Earth to have this gas in the atmosphere at levels between 300 to 1,000 ppm. Higher CO2 levels at double, triple or even 7 times today’s level do not present any threat to the global environment at all, but lower levels do. CO2 is plant food. Plants cannot survive in an atmosphere with CO2 levels below about 180ppm and during the recent ice ages Earth was dangerously close to this critical threshold. Levels up to 1,000 ppm are good for enhanced plant growth and food production. This increased productivity is an observed phenomenon of the 20th Century rise in CO2 levels.

      I am not advocating the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels, and in fact I agree strongly that the present scale of burning of fossil fuels must be reduced and phased out before the resources are completely consumed, not because of global warming but for much more relevant and real reasons. Hydrocarbon resources must be conserved for the long term sustainability of the petrochemical, plastics and pharmaceutical industries, and for essential fuels to sustain efficient food production far into the future.

      What of climate change? Well a realistic one or two degree rise in global average temperatures is nothing to worry about, even 3 or 4 degrees would do very little harm and would probably bring about greater good through enhanced forest growth and food production thanks to the elevation of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. Climate has always been changing throughout the history of the Earth, and always due to natural or astrophysical causes that we cannot influence one iota. Ocean Currents (controlled by Continental Drift, the Coriolis effect due to Earth’s rotation, and thermo-haline circulation), Volcanic Activity and occasional asteroid impacts, Orbital perturbations (Milankovic Cycles) Solar luminosity, sunspot cycles, cycles and sudden changes in the Solar and Terrestrial Magnetic Fields all have strong influences on the dynamics of Earth’s atmosphere that we cannot change.

      If you want to predict the future don’t rely on misguided assumptive computer models, but look to all of the real data that records the past 4.5 billion-year history of the Earth environment. In past geological periods the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was many times higher than it is today and life evolved and thrived in great diversity, surviving extreme events that caused mass extinctions and allowed new evolutionary paths to develop. Throughout time the global climate changed radically through phases with different characteristics. In our present time we are in the Holocene, a warm interglacial period that represents part of the Pleistocene, an epoch of cyclical climate variability with long ice ages and short interglacial periods every 100,000 years or so. Carbon di-oxide levels in the atmosphere at Pleistocene present are lower than at any time in the Earth’s past except perhaps the mid to late Carboniferous period when there were also ice ages. Examination of the pattern of Pleistocene glacial cycles recorded in the ice-core data, and many other proxies, shows that we are ALREADY past the peak of the Holocene interglacial period and are due for a decline into the next ice age any time soon… If a little temporary global warming can stave off that inevitable future a little longer, it’s not a bad thing, but we must in the longer term prepare ourselves for a cold future that is likely to last about 60,000 to 80,000 years before the next Natural Global Warming cycle.

  27. epifin8 says:

    NO TWO high tides are the same. The author here did not even try to show the slightest comparison to these picture’s dates and what the tidal tables were reading on those specific dates. Shame, shame…Illogical logic is not a substitute for reason.

  28. ????? says:

    Extremes are a natural part of our climate, which constantly changes and is rarely stable for extended periods. I

  29. Free Republic(an) says:

    “According to the IPCC, temperatures were cold in 1871, sea level was much lower, and the climate was much more stable.”

    I don’t disagree. However, it would have been nice to see quote or link to corroborate.

    The rest of the article demonstrates that 1871 was see as every bit as much of a mess as any year in my lifetime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *