Twitter / SteveSGoddard: @ClimateOpp @tan123 @USATODAY …
Change in Manhattan sea level shows essentially no correlation with change in global temperature, but correlates almost perfectly with time (i.e. linear glacial rebound.)
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
Recent Comments
- D. Boss on The Clock Is Ticking
- William on The Clock Is Ticking
- arn on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- arn on The Clock Is Ticking
- Gordon Vigurs on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Disillusioned on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Disillusioned on “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Francis Barnett on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- dm on “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- arn on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
Let your twitter wrath rage 😉 Our National Energy Board has recommended the approval of the Northern Gateway Pipeline. http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/clf-nsi/fq/rcmmndtn-eng.html looks like China gets our oil. Incidently, THEY will pay world price whereas America got a substantial discount as they were our ONLY practical purchaser. No more $88 for $110/bbl of oil!
Unconfirmed reports say David Pukezuki’s head blew like a champagne cork. In true eco fashion his acolytes have decided to let his body rot in place.
Just as well, it had started to bloat some years back.
Sounds fair. His brain has been rotting in place for years. The body is just catching up.
The solution to the Manhattan sea-level rise is a flying, nuclear powered DeLorean!
….. like shooting fish in a barrell
The first plot of Temp. and sea level seems more scattered than the time plots suggest. Both temperature and sea level are generally going up over time. It is surprising that there is so little correlation. Obviously time is a better predictor of sea level at NYC than temperature.
The plot is the five year change in sea level vs change in temperature.
Why are you surprised? Sea level is up linearly while nearly half the time temperature was going down. No correlation.
Steven,
Masterful sir. Set the bait. Wait for reply.
It is clear that victory was 97% preparation, 100% pure fun.
They are not prepared…
It’s like taking candy from a baby. These people are intellectually disarmed.
Anyone can say anything on the internet but this is a matter of science and hence the opinions of unqualified individuals are neither here nor there. If you wanted to make a scientific claim, what you would need to do (whoever you are) is to fulfil the basic sanity check for a coherent, scientific argument by attempting to have your ideas published in a reputable journal. Otherwise you are just another blowhard with a blog.
Anyone with basic scientific training can see that there is no correlation between global temps and Manhattan sea level. Your refusal to acknowledge that, combined with your desire to censor discussion is very telling.
Do you also believe that citizens are unqualified to debate politics?
We were talking about science not politics. You presume to make technical arguments which challenge a scientific consensus (please don’t attempt some dreary argument that “consensus” is not science) and yet you have no formal training or expertise in climate science, no history of research, and thus are manifestly not qualified to do so.
If New York sea levels seem puzzling you might reasonably ask questions and try to learn more about the subject. If there is disagreement or uncertainty amongst climate scientists, you could reasonably argue for a point of view – but only at second-hand by referring to published papers and opinions of those with genuine expertise in the field.
However, is not reasonable simply to announce some factoid which you deem to be controversial and immediately congratulate yourself on winning a “debate” which no-one else is even engaged in. The idea that we might draw conclusions about global phenomena from a single data point is, frankly, laughable.
I’m not arguing against your imaginary consensus. I am simply showing that there is no correlation between sea level and temperature in Manhattan.
You have no clue what science is about.
” I’m not arguing against your imaginary consensus. I am simply showing that there is no correlation between sea level and temperature in Manhattan.”
You specifically stated that 8″ of sea level rise at NYC due to global warming was “impossible”. Am I to assume that you agree with the +8″ from global warming but you believe this has been offset by -8″ from other factors such as ocean currents, subsidence, or whatever (please explain)?
That sea levels are rising due to global warming is indeed a consensus view amonst national science academies and climate researchers. This is all very well-documented and quite easy to learn about if you are prepared to make the effort.
Oh. please …. I said nothing of the sort. I said that the increase in sea level seen on the tide gauge correlated perfectly with subsidence, not at all with temperature.
You also don’t understand that it only takes one failing case to disprove a theory.
If you can’t follow the conversation, don’t get involved.
O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion:
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
An’ ev’n devotion!
Allow me to refresh your memory:
—————————————————-
Michael Oppenheimer ?@ClimateOpp 23h
@SteveSGoddard @tan123 @USATODAY postglacial=4″since 1900 out of total 12″ at NYC. The rest is due to warming.
—————————————————-
Steve Goddard ?@SteveSGoddard 23h
@ClimateOpp @tan123 @USATODAY That is impossible. CRU shows 1850-1910 temperatures declining, while the tide gauge increased linearly.
—————————————————-
You specifically reject the idea that global warming has contributed 8″ of sea level rise at NYC.
Your claim that sea level data from a single location may constitute “a single failing case which disputes a theory” is scientifically ridiculous. Many factors affect sea level and a general rise due to warming may accomodate individual locations which are above or below the trend.
I see. You have absolutely no clue what we were discussing. I rejected his assertion bolded below.
—————————————————-
Michael Oppenheimer ?@ClimateOpp 23h
@SteveSGoddard @tan123 @USATODAY postglacial=4?since 1900 out of total 12? at NYC. The rest is due to warming.
—————————————————-
Steve Goddard ?@SteveSGoddard 23h
@ClimateOpp @tan123 @USATODAY That is impossible. CRU shows 1850-1910 temperatures declining, while the tide gauge increased linearly.
—————————————————-
There is no correlation with temperature and almost 100% correlation with time – indicative of linear glacial rebound.
Robbie Burns is wasted on alarmists.
Then again it might make their brains short circuit which could be a good thing.
In fact, I understand exactly what you said. You claimed that +12″ (including +8″ due to warming) at NYC since 1900 is “impossible” and to support this you expressed the scientifically naive idea that sea level rise at a specific location should be correlated with temperature.
I demonstrated that his 4/8 split has zero scientific support. You are obsessed with defending your religion, and can’t think or discuss the topic rationally.
Science should be reasonably explainable. To adjust temperatures by cooling the past and warming the present deserves a reasonable coherent explanation that no one seems capable of giving. Without a reasonable explanation, it gives the appearance of cheating, to further a political agenda.
Steven,
I think Noel is on to something. People should wait until they publish in a peer reviewed journal before announcing an astute observation or discovery.
Imagine how much better the world would have been if Shoemaker-Levy had kept their discovery to themselves until they were published.
Mathematicians like Terence Tao have it all wrong. Group exchange and interaction supported by projects like polymath8 only appears to lead to faster discoveries. It would have been better if all those mathematicians kept their ideas to themselves. Of course Terence should have written the paper first, but he isn’t taking Noel’s advice. Instead he is writing the paper last.
http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/polymath8-writing-the-paper/
Blinders on Noel, blinders on.
/sarc
Pre-publication announcements of important new ideas are fine provided an individual does intend to publish and thus present a formal, exhaustive argument to back up their claims.
Well Noel, we have also seen that so called qualified individuals regularly manage to have garbage science published in the august scientific journals and take license to freely spout scientific nonsense (Hansen for example) in aid of their cause. So it just depends on whether you want to surrender your mind to the alleged authorities or you want to do the hard slogging of checking the facts for yourself (Steven Goddard). You are free not to come here and read what Steven has to say. You are also free to put your trust in the Oppenheimers of the world. Just keep in mind the old saying “There’s a sucker born every minute” and just maybe I am one of them.
‘Climate science’ has little to nothing to do with science, and just about zero to do with climate. It sole reason to exist is to control people, to keep them scared while offering evermore expensive answers to a non-problem.
It is about control
Who gets to qualify the individuals and on what basis?
Who gets to decide which journals are reputable?
“If you wanted to make a scientific claim, what you would need to do (whoever you are) is to fulfil the basic sanity check for a coherent, scientific argument by attempting to have your ideas published in a reputable journal.”
If people like Noel did not exist, then comedians would have to create them.
Speaking seriously here for a moment, I am always puzzled by comments such as Noel’s. He is apparently educated — at least he seems to have good grammar, correct spelling (and extra points for not even any typos), clear phrasing and a good vocabulary. How can Noel be this well educated and yet still completely misunderstand how science works? Perhaps he is an example of C.P. Snow’s “The Two Cultures” situation.
I suspect that Noel (if he is reading this) will be shouting, “NO! NO! It is not ME who misunderstands science — it is YOU!” I assure you, Noel, the great majority of people who hang around WUWT do so only because they spent enough time researching the subject to see that the CAGW hypothesis is deeply wrong. You, Sir, have been hood winked, but not by anyone on this blog.
Sigh… excuse the WUWT. Insert Real Science. I am toggling between sites…
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Alarmism is the 21st century religious belief system.
For whom and for what benefit is easy to see.
“Ye Hypocrites, are these your pranks
To murder men and gie God thanks
Desist for shame, proceed no further
God won’t accept your thanks for murder.”
Noel insists we believe only the experts.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman
I am quite sure you understand that he never intended this to be used as a club to attack all scientific expertise.
He is referring to the progress of science and the fact that our knowledge expands in lots of little steps where older ideas give way to better ones. Sometimes that is a dramatic change, sometimes a subtle refinement to the limits of uncertainty. Newtonian mechancis is still valid in the appropriate context although you may need a little Einstein to increase the accuracy of your predictions depending on the question being asked (that incidentally is how modelling works: approximations used to create the model may not materially affect the question under investigation).
In order to reveal the “ignorance of experts” you are required to produce solid evidence and valid, detailed arguments which can withstand objective scrutiny. Scientific progress depends on real expertise in the subject and years of hard work not the kind of narcisssistic presumption that unqualified individuals are perfectly capable of judging the fine points of a discipline of which they have at best a very superficial knowledge.
Science is concerned with objective truth not subjective opinion. That is your fundamental problem.
“Science is concerned with objective truth not subjective opinion. That is your fundamental problem.”
You are concerned with who utters it. That is your fundamental problem.
I am addressing an extremely simple and fundamental problem. Change in sea level does not correlate with either absolute temperature or change in absolute temperature.
What is astonishing is that such a fundamental problem has slipped through peer-review.
I’m not here to debate matters of science which you are not qualified to discuss except in the broadest of terms. I’m here to point out the ignorance and presumption of false scepticism.
You are correct that average global sea level is not perfectly correlated with average global temperature. Local sea level even less so.
You are quite wrong to say that this has somehow “slipped through peer-review”. Factors affecting sea-level changes have been studied for well over century. There is much to learn about for anyone willing to do so.
In other words, you are getting your butt kicked and resorting to meaningless statements and appeals to authority.
The correlation between change in GISS/CRU global temps and change in sea level is zero. Junk science doesn’t get any worse than that.
If you want to “kick butt” you’ll first have to learn enough about the subject to make meaningful statements.
Surface temperature records do not always correlate to sea level, either at a given location or as a global average (they don’t even correlate perfectly to global warming but that’s another story) and no-one expects that they should. The “failure” which you like to trumpet does not affect theories which did not depend upon it in the first place.
You’re trying to run before you’ve even learned how to walk.
The discussion is about sea level on the East Coast of the US. You may well be the stupidest person I have encountered yet.
The only stupidity on display is your expectation regarding sea level response to temperature and the belief that you can make some kind of point about climate science and global warming by cherry-picking a 60 year period of measurements from a single location from two centuries ago (!).
I see. So you believe that sea level on the East Coast has responded to temperature change, but the signal mysteriously bypassed New York, which has the longest and most complete record in the US.
It must be that new kind of water which hides heat, and sea level rise.
Sea level is affected by many factors: glacier-induced deformation of the earth’s crust, the gravitational effects of large ice masses, ocean currents (AMOC on the east coast), thermal expansion of sea water, the recharge of confined aquifers, centuries-long lags in glacial melt responses, and others. None of these factors correlate perfectly with temperature either individually or en massse, although they are all influenced by temperature (or can be).
The precise contributions made by different factors at a given location is an interesting question but whatever specific circumstances there may be do not actually affect the big picture, ie the global average.
Globally, sea level rise is accelerating and, on the east coast, it’s accelerating even faster than the global average. The changes cannot be explained by post-glacial subsidence which is actually decreasing gradually over time.
Water is a very low viscosity fluid. If there was catastrophic sea level rise going on, it would be seen at all tide gauges around the planet. Every single one of them.
That would be true in a bathtub but the earth is a highly dynamic system the size of an, er, planet. I’ve already mentioned several influences which mean that sea levels do not conform to this naive expectation. It’s up to you now to stop talking and start learning.