More Anti-Science Hysterics From The New York Times

The New York Times says that Georgia and Florida are flooding, and it is caused by “global warming created by human emissions”

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 4.45.09 PM Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 4.45.21 PM

Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun – The New York Times

The two closest active tide gauges to those locations show that sea level is rising at exactly the same rate is was a century ago. There is not the slightest indication that humans have had any impact on sea level.

8724580

Sea Level Trends – State Selection

8670870

Sea Level Trends – State Selection

NASA says that Antarctica is gaining ice, meaning that Antarctic ice is reducing sea level.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 4.51.02 PM

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses | NASA

The beach at Fort Lauderdale looks exactly the same as it did 55 years ago.

1960

ScreenHunter_4022 Oct. 25 08.20 

2014

ScreenHunter_4023 Oct. 25 08.22

‘Where the Boys Are’ Disproves Rising Seas Scare

So basically the New York Times made up some BS, did no research, used no scientific method, drew irrational baseless conclusions and blamed it on humans because it suits their political agenda.

Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years – most of that time much faster than now.

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level (3)

File:Post-Glacial Sea Level.png – Wikimedia Commons

Fort Lauderdale is right at sea level. Unusually high tides are going to cause flooding. It has nothing to do with climate change.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 7.41.02 PM

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to More Anti-Science Hysterics From The New York Times

  1. oeman50 says:

    Norfolk always seems to be the poster child in Virginia for the impact of the “rising seas.” But no one mentions Virginia Beach, Hampton or Newport News, Norfolk’s closest neighbors. I guess they are OK? This is just the usual NYT BS.

    And the rulers? They are very helpful because when you are in a coastal city with very little elevation change for runoff, it is good to have them. It does not matter if sea level is 1 cm higher, it is the feet of water from a pounding rain trying to drain that is the problem.

    • fourtimesayear says:

      One paper I read says that more than half of that region’s “sea level rise” is from subsidence and half of that is from aquifer-system compaction.

      • Me says:

        It’s the same thing!

      • oeman50 says:

        Heard that as well, but it doesn’t fit the narrative, so NYT ignores it.

        • CVWaller says:

          “Because the land is sinking as the ocean rises, Norfolk and the metropolitan region surrounding it, known as Hampton Roads, are among the worst-hit parts of the United States.”
          If you had bothered to actually read the article.

          • Han hanna says:

            That’s a fair statement. Subsidence is the biggest issue but unfortunately does not sound as sexy as sea level. The region historically is called Tidewater, and not Hampton Roads the clunky industrial northern moniker plunked on the region some years ago to sound more like a financial center than what it really is, a tidewater of swamps. But people forget the region was called Tidewater and is a tidewater, and have a hard time wrapping their heads around the decades old tidal flooding.

    • Han hanna says:

      The NYT article was odd. Published the day after the chump of a storm, no doubt they waited until hurricane season to do it, so that it really sticks. (or does not) Norfolk has been made the poster child because a fella set up shop here and opened a business called Wetlands Watch. He and his friends spend countless hours calling media sites to try to get folks interested. One acquaintance of mine, suffering from depression and financial loss, has recently moved into an old home on an old creekbed owned by family, and has been swooned by WW into calling these news organizations, in hopes also that he will be bailed out of his own financial loss (hoping his home will be bought) from mis management. I’m shocked at hearing the real motive for the phone calls. Stiles also is dramatizing Norfolk’s dying trees, and confusing death of Crepe Myrtles that happened from record cold the past 3 years with saline intrusion from tide. He has had other misteps in identifying details of our local flora. Norfolk is over-represented as the ground zero for flooding issues and has far better drainage than Va Beach and Chesapeake and Suffolk, the latter 3 having poor clay soils and much trouble with growing simple vegetation and draining, while Norfolk’s plant species have deep tap roots straight down (tap roots do not grow in water like high water table) because of very pervious and healthy soils. Go figure. The biggest threat to Norfolk’s flora is from dry soils and drought, and is why the city planted 10’s of thousands of Crepe Myrtles and continue to do so, because the Crepe is the only tree that will take drought -if we were constantly wet and saline you bet they’d be planting a native swamp species. The city of Norfolk also will not accept their lack of care or maintenance of 100 year old drainage systems and put the blame on sea level. Norfolk also pours an acre new of concrete every month while removing trees and vegetation to do this whilst selling “Resiliency”.

      • Han hanna says:

        And the “sunny day flooding” pushed these days? The only time it is sunny when tide is high is when a distinct northeast fetch wind system is off the coast. (El nino caused much of this in the past year.) The local media tries to smoke people’s perception of this by suggesting these sunny day flooding events are unrelated to low press. systems. While flooding is an issue, it’s hard to accept statements as fact made by media such as in this article.

  2. Douglas Hoyt says:

    On January 14, 2014, the NYT had this to say:

    “Perhaps the weirdest factor of all pertains to Norfolk, Va., and points nearby. What is now the Tidewater region of Virginia was slammed by a meteor about 35 million years ago — a collision so violent it may have killed nearly everything on the East Coast and sent tsunami waves crashing against the Blue Ridge Mountains. The meteor impact disturbed and weakened the sediments across a 90-kilometre zone. Norfolk is at the edge of that zone, and the ancient cataclysm may be one reason it is sinking especially fast.”

    See http://thechronicleherald.ca/world/1179506-land-along-the-east-coast-is-sinking-just-ask-norfolk-va

    • Han hanna says:

      Yes, but for some reason the narrative slips (quietly) back to “sea level” as the prime reason, as if we will forget the geology.

  3. Colorado Wellington says:

    This is serious stuff. The Northabout crew just arrived in Tuktoyaktuk, Canada and reported on the dangers:

    “… has gradually seen the climate change. summers earlier by a month and winters later by a month, resulting in a huge change of lifestyle for the hunters in this area. Fascinating and absolutely terrifying change in such a short time.” -David

    It must be really bad if it terrifies a grown man like Hempleman-Adams but even the fearless young are afraid:

    “We arrived several hours ago in an area away from the rest of the village because it’s more sheltered and there’s a hurricane in the US.” –Ben

    They had to moor and shelter away from the village of Tuktoyaktuk because there is a hurricane in the US caused by global warming! They are doomed. No, we are all doomed! This horrifying thing is global. There is nowhere else to hide!

    I only hope Bobby K doesn’t see any of this. It would push him over the edge.

  4. AndyG55 says:

    Tony,

    Does “Pulling back the curtain” have Alaska in it.. can’t find.

    cheers

  5. AndyG55 says:

    Fort Lauderdale, sinking into the depths of the ocean

  6. Andy DC says:

    I did not see any boys (or girls) in either picture.

  7. Steve Case says:

    Colorado University and their Sea Level Research Group are not to be believed. Over the last decade or so they have manipulated the data to give a variety of results which always go in one direction. Here’s what the rate of sea level rise looks like as a function of time for various releases from CU over the last decade or so:

    • Steve Case says:

      What that graph is telling you is that the 2000 rate of sea level rise as reported in 2004 was about 2.2 mm/yr and by 2006 that 2.2 mm/yr was bumped up to over 3.0 mm/yr. It also says that by 2011 CU was telling us that the rate was well over 3.6 mm/yr by 2006. Since then it looks like they have begun to lower the rate prior to 2009. This paper Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent? along with the fact that the Jason3 satellite will come on line soon probably guarantees that the an acceleration of sea level rise will be “detected” and trumpeted by our wonderful left-wing media far and wide, and will be an orgy of unadulterated bullshit.

    • Neal S says:

      What excuses can they give for changing rates they had reported in past years? Certainly not TOB and it can’t be UHI. Maybe they didn’t know how to read tide gauges accurately before?

      It doesn’t matter. Since their new ‘results’ do not match the old ‘results’ for a past which is common to both, clearly one or the other or both are inaccurate and invalid.

      • Michael Croghan says:

        At best, your reasoning is flawed. At worst, you are just another Trumpish climate denier.

        • tonyheller says:

          Major moron alert.

        • Han hanna says:

          Why fall into political-climate hyperbole?? One can have questions about the details of climate change and not be a Trump supporter or a Republican. Stop throwing out this tired narrative.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            You’d think it should be possible but the absolute majority of global warming helievers I know in Boulder reverted to calling me a denier when I asked them questions. In fact, I can only remember one instance in the last 5 years when it didn’t happen and in that case the last fall-back argument of the believer was the precautionary principle. It’s hard not to walk away with the impression there is something seriously wrong with them.

          • Han hanna says:

            Colorado Well.: Be courageous. I am in the enviro business in my area, and am well known. There are far too many serious questions to ask about the popular narrative and solutions of the issue. I do it always. I’m not afraid because I know what I’m talking about. The reality is that not everything in this story is fitting neatly and all gears running smoothly -too much off track and gaskets blown. I’ve been childishly called Denier. (Who in the world calls people things like this??)

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            This CO2 fetishism would be a total comedy if it didn’t cost so much in life, treasure and loss of liberties.

            I don’t give up but I’m sure you know that their uncritical approach to this subject is a symptom of the much broader disease of collectivist “progressivism” and this fight is just part of the never-ending struggle with the totalitarians.

          • Han hanna says:

            Yes, no question the “collectivist progressivism” is clouding the subject and any truth to changes, be it natural or manmade. It’s laughable because there’s no real connection, and does not have to be any connection between the “collectivism” movement and environmental health.

        • Gail Combs says:

          OH look another Progressive falling back on name calling because he can not reason his way out of a paper bag.

          And these are the people who want to GOVERN the USA?

          Oh wait, that explains why real wages have decreased while the trade defict increased.
          The biggest item exported by the USA is trash — used paper,plastics and metal turned into shoddy goods by the Chinese and sold at a premium price.
          Obama ran up more debt than all the other president’s combined.
          The USA has been losing an average of 14 factories a day since he took office.
          Real jobs are lost while shitty part time jobs increase.
          The real unemployment is ~23-24%.
          AND all the debt the USA has been exporting is about to come home and since the country

          Wall Street Journal The Latest American Export: Inflation

          Now lots of countries are selling US debt at record rates.
          8/18/2016 Central Banks Now Selling US Debt at Record Pace

          E.M. Smith says Not Liking This SPY S&P 500 vs GLD Gold Chart (8/22/2016)

          Not much to say about it, really, other than to me it looks ugly. It looks very much like intervention by {someone} to prop up a narrative and not at all like normal market actions. SPY is rising, but with nothing real behind it, and GLD has topped, while the news is pushing it…..

          Remember there is lots and lots of money to be made by those in the know (George Soros and friends) by crashing a country’s economy and then buying up the real assets for pennies while the owners jump out of windows.

        • Neal S says:

          When I pointed out “Since their new ‘results’ do not match the old ‘results’ for a past which is common to both, clearly one or the other or both are inaccurate and invalid.” Michael Croghan says “your reasoning is flawed”. Let me explain in a way that might make sense to those willing to think.

          Lets say I took height measurements at regular intervals of growing child and published a report in 2005 showing how much they had grown per year at each year since their birth up till that time. I continue to take measurements, and 5 years later publish a similar report, but now my yearly growth readings for the time up till 2005 does not match what I published previously. I keep taking readings, but it keeps turning out that in more recent versions of my report, the growth rate for the earlier years just keeps getting bigger.

          You would quite rightly be skeptical of the accuracy of at least some if not all of my reports, if you were thinking that is.

          So how is this situation not substantially similar to the multiple reports over time of sea level rise, where the common past to these reports does not have matching rates of rise?

  8. Pingback: More Anti-Science Hysterics From The New York Times - Principia Scientific International

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.