The sea levels are now reducing in the “hotspots of acceleration” of Washington and New York

[GURPS]

The sea levels are now reducing in the “hotspots of acceleration” of Washington and New York


Hopefully everybody remember Sallenger’s “hot spots” of sea level acceleration along the East Coast of the US.

Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd, Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America, Nature Climate Change 2, 884–888 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1597​

This was one of the many examples of bad science misinterpreting the sea level oscillations by cherry picking the time window.

As 6 more years of data have been collected, let see if the hotspots are now the “hottest on record” or if they have cooled down.

The logic of Sallenger & co. was based on the comparison of the rate of rise of sea levels over the first and second half of time windows of 60, 50 and 40 years, i.e. the comparison of the rate of rise over the first and the last 30, 25 and 20 years respectively of these 60, 50 and 40 years windows.

This did not make any sense to me, as if you do have sinusoidal oscillations of periodicity 60 years, positive and negative phases of 30 years, and you select the end of the time widows at the end of one positive phase, this way you will always have “positive acceleration” even if there is none, and everybody knew about periods and phasing of the natural oscillations.

 

[SamSpade]

I guess what they're saying is, that - over time, sea levels go up a little, and go down a little?
And that they purposely cherry-picked data from the trough at the early end, and the peak at a later end, and concluded they were rising?

Do they even know what they're doing at all?

 

[Larry Gude]

I guess what they're saying is, that - over time, sea levels go up a little, and go down a little?
And that they purposely cherry-picked data from the trough at the early end, and the peak at a later end, and concluded they were rising?

Do they even know what they're doing at all?

This is one of the best pieces I've ever read in terms of the comments section. Usually, comments yield the occasional nugget amidst the adds, name calling and jokes.

There is a bunch of ongoing commentary about stuff I hadn't considered such as the nature of the planet itself, tectonics, the movement of the planet, whereby a cooling planet, which we have, contracts, which it does, and, thus mountains are getting 'shorter' relative to sea level, the sea bed is deepening, also seen as 'rising sea levels', as well as some 18 year cycle of gravitational forces that have LONG been documented and how alarmists data is conformed to fit within that window and thus, the point that 20, 40 year data is not relevant when discussing the macro of the planet.

Basically, the chicken littles are arguing some data movement against a supposition of other static data that simply can not be static. And this is without even getting into whether or not rising CO2 is bad in the first place, again, another static argument in a non static environment.

 

[Monello]

Once Yellowstone blows that event will make all these studies useless. The summer I spent in the park many remarked that we had the best seats for that show if it did occur.

 

[Larry Gude]

Once Yellowstone blows that event will make all these studies useless. The summer I spent in the park many remarked that we had the best seats for that show if it did occur.

And then there is that.