No Change In Manhattan Sea Level For Ten Years

Over the past ten years, sea level at Lower Manhattan has trended downwards about four inches.

Meanwhile, this is what our top climate scientists are saying about Manhattan sea level.

Here’s what NYC would look like if sea levels rise by 8 feet – Curbed NY

Stormy weather – Global warming –

Sea level rise at Manhattan has been averaging less than three millimeters per year since Republicans forced Democrats to give up their slaves in the 19th century. Most of this apparent rise has been due to the land sinking, and it will require more than 2,500 years for sea level to rise eight meters.

8518750_meantrend.png (1000×400)

As is almost always the case with climate scientists, they either have no clue what they are talking about, or they are lying.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to No Change In Manhattan Sea Level For Ten Years

  1. Rah says:

    But! But! “Miami will be gone soon.”. That was a headline I read just last week on my “news” feed along with many similar others every year. Hedlines like “Scientists say Miami could cease to exist in our children’s lifetime”, etc, etc.

  2. Mr GrimNasty says:

    This was all over the UK press, it raises many questions, especially about Christian Aid, written by a ‘Dr’, but clearly lacking any brain cells whatsoever.

    Suffice to say that their little red collection envelopes go straight in the bin these days.

  3. Josh says:

    If the trend follows, it will take around 850 years for NYC sea level to rise 8 feet. Your descendants 10s of generations away will suffer. You racist bigot!

  4. steve case says:

    In related news the web page for Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group
    has been down since July.

    Considering the data manipulations they did in January after no updates for over a year, one has to wonder what it is that they are up to this time around.

  5. Anon says:

    This has the Emperor’s New Clothes written all over it.

    Meanwhile, if you don’t believe the Tide Gauge, here is an eyewitness in the nearby Chesapeake Bay:

    ?ayor ?f ?isappearing ?sland ?aces ?l ?ore ?nd ?huts ?own ?lobal ?arming ?laim

    You have to wonder how people keep tuning into news that tells them:

    1] There is a 97% chance of Hillary being the next president
    2] Trump colluded with Russia
    3] Kavanaugh is guilty w/o any evidence.

    Admittedly, I was one of these people. Out of ignorance and complacency I suppose. I started reading the NYT and WaPo because they were the “papers of record” and it was a requirement for high school history. But when things just started not adding up, I had to depart. (facepalm)

    • JPinBalt says:

      Can you add James Hansen comments on Manhattan sea level to the unfounded bs list?
      i.e Manhattan underwater by 2008.
      “While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds.” – OCTOBER 23, 2001
      Prior post:

    • Disillusioned says:

      Wow. Gore blew him off. He basically told him to take what the scientists say, and not what he is witnessing.

    • Disillusioned says:

      ” But when things just started not adding up, I had to depart. (facepalm)”

      Me six.

      Unfortunately, many refuse to do even rudimentary addition.

  6. Andy says:

    Good point.

    Interesting that Hurricane Michael is not getting as much news as Florence even though far stronger winds, due to sparsely populated areas and not looking like it will be stalled.


  7. Johansen says:

    None of the events in Hansen’s description would happen, even if the sea levels rose – the birds, the cop cars, the signs in the windows. It’s just more of his trademark fairy-tale, Avenger’s comic book, Mark Twain-style, Midwest yarn-spinning bull crap. If you’ve ever heard his YouTube “Oceans are Going to Boil” piece, you realize this guy just loves to hear himself talk and get arrested in public with lots of cameras around, and he is completely full of nonsensical crap.

  8. Mrs Maam says:

    Some studies have shown that climate change denial has a lot of overlap with far-right nationalism. Considering what you post on both this blog and your Twitter, I can believe those studies.

    • tonyheller says:

      In other words, you don’t know anything about science and support mob rule by leftists.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Mrs Maam,

      You sound like someone who can believe anything.

    • Johansen says:

      Mrs. Maam thinks far right nationalism means ‘Nazi’, a movement in the mid-20th century which tried to sell far-left Socialism on the basis of race, instead of the usual schema of class-envy which motivates most people like herself

      The early Nazi posters were *direct knockoffs* of the Soviet posters from the same era. Same themes, same colors, same buzzwords

    • Anon says:

      Mrs Maam,

      That is an interesting comment. I was an Sanders supporter and HRC supporter in 2016 as well as a university Climate Change educator. I would never have thought in a million years that I would ever be reading or posting to a blog like this. I had been led to believe that the climate change skeptic movement was about as legitimate as the Flat Earth Society.

      However, in October 2016, Wikileaks published the Podesta Emails. That really opened my eyes as to who and what the Democratic Party really was: an extremely corrupt political enterprise. But even more surprising to me was that in that tranch of Podesta emails was this:

      WikiLeaks Exposes Podesta-Steyer Climate McCarthyism

      I just could not understand why John Podesta would be at all interested in destroying an academic statistician (Roger Pielke Jr.) doing disaster forecasting for the insurance industry? This set off a few alarm bells, to say the least.

      So as the Democratic Party had no problem running a phony Presidential nomination campaign, the thought then ran through my head: “Well, if they are willing to rig a democratic Presidential campaign then they likely would not give a second thought to tampering with the Climate Record if it served an end?”

      So, I actually thought I would spend a weekend allaying my fears by looking at the claims of the Climate Change skeptic movement. Needless to say, two days of verification research ran into six months and what I uncovered made me drop my participation in any kind of Climate Change education.

      The majority of people that post here on RCS are extremely pissed at the fraud they see being reported about Climate Change and that happens to dovetail with how the Progressive and Democratic Party regularly conducts itself in general, hence the incidental overlap with what you call “far right nationalism”.

      I am not a far right nationalist myself, but if I had to choose now between joining the “progressive” politicians and protesters that I saw Kavanaugh hearings or joining a far right nationalist group, I think I would opt for the later.

      • Anon says:

        PS: In 2016 if I had to characterize myself politically, it would have been as a “Dershowitz Democrat” devoted to civil liberties. As an educated PhD scientist, back then I regularly read publications such as the NYT, WaPo thinking I was getting the truth from such media outlets. But when you come here and post that RCS is somehow a “far right nationalist” purveyor of news, the only thing it prompts to do is get in the voting booth and cast a vote against every single democratic candidate on the ballot, regardless of anything they say they stand for.

        So why don’t you just go back to reading the Daily Kos and F–K OFF !!!

      • Disillusioned says:

        You keep knocking them out of the park.

      • AKM says:

        Anon, I also have a Phd in a science subject. In a European context, I have voted in the past both for right-leaning and left-leaning parties depending on the circumstances. Like you, I am appalled at the attempt at mob rule in the US over Kavanaugh. Similarly, I have been appalled over the years at the lies regarding climate science, as well as the smears of genuine scientists like Roger Pielke Jr. Your comments are excellent, and fully align with my beliefs. And even better that your comments appear here where Tony Heller presents data to counter the constant hype.

      • Robertv says:

        An educated PhD scientist ” had been led to believe” .

        • Anon says:

          Yeah, that is my own fault and a failure / laziness on my part. In the fundamental basic sciences, the peer review process is still rock solid: the excitation frequencies of the elements don’t change, so it is very hard to fudge a publication in the physical sciences. I had just assumed that the NYT and WaPo were similarly edited, gated and refereed and therefore were worth reading. I can see now that my trust was misplaced and that they have abused their readers. Now I am more likely to get the truth from Rush Limbaugh than from any one of those sources.

          Thanks for the Jordan Peterson link, will watch… and sorry about the emotional rant, but to see someone equate RCS as a “far-right nationalist” website was just too much to take last night.

    • spike55 says:

      Some studies show that belief in the unprovable anti-science myth of AGW has a lot of overlap with mindless susceptibility to brain-washing, and deep non-thinking, gullible, ignorant, non-educated leftism in general.

      Reading your post.. I believe those studies

    • Gator says:

      Every study demonstrates that those who use the term denier are scientifically ignorant knuckle dragging sheople. Mrs Ma’am unquestionably confirms those studies.

    • JPinBalt says:

      Yada, yada, yada Mrs Maam.
      “Some studies have shown that yo yo use has a lot of overlap with drought and should be banned”
      I am in no denial that global average temperatures have fallen for almost three years now, sea levels down, ice mass rising, but I prefer to see more data before denying climate change exists and that we are quickly going into the next ice age deeming far left nationalistic solutions like nuking the ice caps to save the planet.
      “Some studies have shown that Russian trolls posting about climate change denial being associated with far right nationalism has a lot of overlap with those making only 100 rubles an hour.”

  9. Steve N says:

    Audit of the HadCRUT4 Global Temperature Dataset
    The accuracy or otherwise of this interesting paper is not the point. What is far more worrying is that, if it is true that these data have not every been audited properly, this is the most shocking news regarding the study of climate science since it started.
    How the hell can anyone take the IPCC or any other body at their word if the source of all their findings is wrong?!

  10. Chewer says:

    It’s so nice that the liberals have spent so much time and money preparing for the end of this inter-glacial period. The saving of lives must have been their prime driving motivation.

  11. Keith says:

    A modest correction to great work as always. In the graph on Manhattan sealevels, the divisions on the Y scale are 0.1 meters, ie 10 cm which is ~4 inches. However the trend line over the last 10 years has dropped about a quarter of that. In other words 1 inch.

    It is still an excellent observation (data) to counter the hype (leftist propaganda).

  12. Rah says:

    Mrs Maam and Mr Sir? Me thinks someone has too much time on their hands.

  13. The scary Manhattan flooded picture
    refers to 8 FEET of sea level rise,
    which would take 813 years
    at 3 mm per year.

    You refer to 8 METERS of sea level rise,
    which would take over 2,500 years,
    at 3 mm per year.

    There seems to be a disconnect
    the 8 FEET claim in the
    simulated picture
    with your 8 METER
    calculation in the text.

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.