on August 2, 2017 in World News

Al Gore Stumped by Mayor of Small Island Who Hasn’t Seen Sea Level Rise in 50 Years

Gore faced with an inconvenient truth of his own.

by Trey Sanchez

Former Vice President Al Gore was stumped on CNN by the mayor of a small town on an island in the Chesapeake Bay over claims that sea level rise is causing the island to disappear. Mayor James Eskridge happens to be a crabber and told Gore he hasn’t seen a change in sea level in over five decades.

Here is their conversation:

MAYOR ESKRIDGE: I’m a commercial crabber, and I’ve been working the Chesapeake Bay for fifty-plus years. And I have a crab house business out on the water. And the water level is the same as it was when the place was built in 1970. I’m not a scientist but I’m a keen observer, and if sea level rise is occurring, why am I not seeing signs of it? I mean, our island is disappearing, but it’s because of erosion and not sea level rising. Unless we get a seawall, we will lose our island. But, back to the question, why am I not seeing signs of the sea level rise?

AL GORE: Why do you think the erosion is due to, mayor?

ESKRIDGE: Wave action, storms.

GORE: Has that increased any?

ESKRIDGE: Not really.

GORE: So, you’re losing the island even though the waves haven’t increased.

ESKRIDGE: Yes, this erosion has been going on since Captain John Smith discovered the island and named it [in the 1600s]. And it’s gotten to our doorstep now and we focus on it more.

GORE: Well, arguments about science aren’t necessarily going to be of any comfort to you and I’m sorry for what you’re going through and your neighbors on Tangier Island. I read about you in the paper. There was an article in The Washington Post, I believe, after President Trump called you up. It won’t necessarily do you any good for me to tell you that the scientists do say that the sea level is rising in the Chesapeake Bay and that you’ve lost about two-thirds of your island already over a longer period of time. And that the forecast for the future is another two feet. If there was another two feet of sea level rise, what would that mean for Tangier Island?

ESKRIDGE: Tangier Island — our elevation is only about four foot above sea level. And if I see sea level rise occurring, I’ll shout it from the housetop. I mean, we don’t have the land to give up. I’m just not seeing it.

GORE: Yeah, okay. Well, one of the challenges of this issue is taking what the scientists say and translating it into terms that are believable to people where they can see the consequences in their own lives. And I get that, and I try every day to figure out ways to do that.

Roughly translated, that means if people are seeing no evidence of this supposed cataclysmic climate change, it’s because they’re too stupid and need “scientists” to explain why the science is settled and the people shouldn’t believe their lyin’ eyes. But don’t worry — Gore is trying hard every day to figure out ways to keep his global warming scam alive so he can earn more profits and sky miles on those private jet trips between mansions.

This cartoon, posted at Louder with Crowder, sums it all up very nicely:

Gore’s next alarmist film, An Inconvenient Sequel, is hitting theaters this weekend. It’s a follow-up to his first heavily-debunked Oscar winning-film, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore said the new film will show “Some of the dire consequences that scientists have been warning us about have been occurring sooner than was predicted.”

Same song, different verse.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/al-gore-stumped-mayor-small-island-who-hasnt-seen-sea-level-rise-50-years

Tags: , , , , , , ,


  • TheDudeofVoo

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/90f1e0797cd3bacbe93827ac6dde9a83c67938f6f559b94945292b267f763b87.jpg

    I’m sure Algore knows, the land in the area is slipping below sea level, throughout the whole Chesapeake bay area. A giant crater, the sixth-largest crater on Earf, sits out there on the Chesapeake bay bottom. A BOLIDE IMPACT – a meteor or comet that left an 85km-diameter crater there, about 35 million years ago. It is silly to hype global sea level rise by directing attention to places where the land is slowly falling into a crater.

    https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3147/5283/original.jpg

    https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3147/5261/original.jpg

    https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3147/5225/original.jpg

    ”Crater-related ground subsidence also may play a role in the high rate of relative sea-level rise documented for the Chesapeake Bay region. One of the locations of highest relative sea-level rise is at Hampton Roads (the lower part of the James River), located over the crater rim.”

    “The Chesapeake Bay Bolide Impact: A New View of Coastal Plain Evolution” published by the USGS.

    The land surrounding Chesapeake Bay region suffers from the combined effects of ground subsidence from three sources. Excessive pumping of ground-water has caused the aquifers to compact; The effects of the ice age, and the Laurentide Ice Sheet (the ice sheet caused a bulge in the Chesapeake area, which is collapsing).

    • George Matthews

      The worldwide ocean is steadily rising, wherever it is measured.

      • TheDudeofVoo

        ❝The worldwide ocean is steadily rising, wherever it is measured.❞

        Not really.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/db515c5cac5bbff6537f13924c2223c924cf05cceebaae7e883c5e3c51e8b7e5.jpg

        • Kapricorn4

          So what is the reason for the decline in ocean levels ? Is it increased evaporation from the surface due to warming of the atmosphere ?

        • George Matthews

          It is sheer ignorant foolishness to continually assert this nonsense. Get some education.

      • TheDudeofVoo

        ❝The worldwide ocean is steadily rising, wherever it is measured.❞

        Not really. Take the tide gage at Annapolis, for example. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/581d225dd5460bfb0c267b5b5e666d9fe4d9fd52fb08b7a2e26c4c6cf3d8ddbf.jpg The slope of “Sea Level” is negative since June of 2009. A negative slope means it is going down …. 97 months, and counting. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/71dcf4aa5ca7996b3a04c8ad10ab1493211eda351e9644ac4513d0f90856069f.jpg Baltimore, Maryland … like all of the Chesapeake tide gage stations, has been going down for 102 months, now … since December of 2008. Nearly ten years.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d878d25af3af43a759f2d8a54dec753fd12076fa73bece70ca26235a6f1dfac5.jpg

        • Kapricorn4

          The overall trend of sea level rise is still up, however. The minor downtrend over the last ten years may not be that significant in the longer term. (Looking at short term graphs is rather like trying to determine which way the stock market is going. You can get whipsawed by minor short term excursions. I once asked a famous stock trader how you tell the difference. He said that if he knew the answer to that, getting rich by trading would be easy.

          Oceans levels are probably rising due to the expansion of water in the oceans due to warming, rather than melting of ice at the poles.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            The biggest reason why reported sea levels (especially the satellite data) has been going up, is the fudge-factor called the GIA (Glacial Isostatic Rebound, also known as the PGR, Post-Glacial Rebound).
            Wöppelmann, 2009: ”To a large extent the origin of the differences lies in the methods used to correct the tide gauge records for vertical displacements of the land upon which they are located [e.g., Woodworth, 2006]. … Furthermore, the GIA models contain uncertainties in the knowledge of some geophysical parameters, which can yield to large differences in the magnitude and sign of the vertical displacement predictions [e.g., Woodworth, 2006].”

            Univ of Colorado: “Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to [GIA, glacial isostatic adjustment, otherwise known as post-glacial rebound] is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr (Peltier, 2001, 2002, 2009; Peltier & Luthcke, 2009). The magnitude of this correction is small (smaller than the ±0.4 mm/yr uncertainty of the estimated GMSL rate), but the GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent.”

            “What is Global Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) and why do you correct for it?” http://sealevel.colorado.edu/faq#n3113

            Well, there has been significant melting of landlocked ice, which adds mass to the oceans. The Earf is a tad warmer, so the oceans have warmed and expanded.

            Yes, overall, sea level has been going up … for a long time, well before any influence of Mannkind.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Greenland is still (apparently) contributing to sea-level rise, by melting, but it has ‘cut back’ a large amount … DMI dot DK says that Greenland melts out about 200 Gt per year, over the past decade. Right now, Greenland’s melt is about 145Gt behind that schedule. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/af47cc3a11b702524d1a4331dc048a1da1216fdcda5c4b6078fe61c9bf58a922.jpg Yeah, this says 130, but it is about 3 weeks old.

          • George Matthews

            Actually – I mean as observed – water is pouring off the ice caps, and the ice on mountains. There is nothing “probably” about it. The amount has been calculated. That is why the sea is rising. Your ignorance is disgusting.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝…Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,…❞ https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/870184797947789c33424fa949ac3609325786d08b13cc8736417e9b1dfcc4b5.jpg ❝… the Antarctic ice sheet [actually] showed a net gain of 112 billion tons [Gt] of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to [an increase of only] 82 billion tons [Gt] of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. … ❝Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.❞

            http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

            ”Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet … Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt/anum, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm per anum. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992–2001) give a similar gain of 112 ± 61 Gt/anum. …”

            Zwally, H. Jay, et al. 2015 “Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses.” Journal of Glaciology

            http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071

            There is less ice melting than previously thought.

            Thomas 2017: ”Here we review Antarctic snow accumulation… over the past 1000 years. … Our study suggests an overall increase in SMB across the grounded Antarctic ice sheet of ~ 44 GT since 1800 AD, with the largest (area-weighted) contribution from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP).”

            Thomas 2017 “Review of regional Antarctic snow accumulation over the past 1000 years” Climate of the Past

            Previdi & Polvani 2016: ”…observations indicate that there has been no significant change in Antarctic [surface mass balance] in recent decades.”

            ”…both global, and regional climate models, robustly project increases in Antarctic [surface mass balance] in response to global warming (Krinner et al 2007, Uotila et al 2007, Monaghan et al 2008b, Ligtenberg et al 2013, Frieler et al 2015).”

            Previdi & Polvani 2016 “Anthropogenic Impact on Antarctic Surface Mass Balance, Currently Masked by Natural Variability, to Emerge by Mid-Century” Environmental Research Letters

            http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094001/pdf

            Ice melting is symptomatic of warming … but it says nothing about the cause of the warming. There is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s CO2 is, or ever has been, a cause of warming; The only (supposed) ‘evidence’ comes from the fantasy world of computer models. There is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s further emissions of CO2 will cause warming … in fact, there is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s prior emissions of CO2 have caused any warming, either.

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • Kapricorn4

            Why are you so fixated on ice ? No one lives there and low temperatures are not conducive to life.

          • George Matthews

            As long as the ice stays there it does us no harm. But it doesn’t stay there because the melt water is coming off and raising the sea level.

          • Kapricorn4

            Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age 15,000 years ago, when the earth started to warm up by a few degrees, but CO2 is not the cause, it is an effect. As the ocean water warms, dissolved CO2 is released into the atmosphere, since CO2 is less soluble in warmer water than cold.

            Increased CO2 is actually of great benefit to both plant and animal life, since it enhances photosynthesis to produce food for all animals, including humans in a symbiotic relationship.

          • “Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age 15,000 years ago, when the earth started to warm up by a few degrees, but CO2 is not the cause, it is an effect. As the ocean water warms, dissolved CO2 is released into the atmosphere, since CO2 is less soluble in warmer water than cold.”

            You really should not confidently post when you clearly know nothing of the subject.

          • Kapricorn4

            My Ph.D. trumps your M.Sc., so there 🙂

          • Kapricorn4

            King Canute had the same problem.

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • George Matthews

            The melting ice is likely to raise sea levels by considerable amounts – sufficient to drown a large number of cities in all continents. Whether this can be prevented seems unlikely – though possibly a cessation of adding CO2 to the atmosphere by stopping the burning of all oil and coal might be helpful. But it doesn’t help with large numbers of uneducated people in the US deceiving themselves that it can’t happen. Could the carbon be extracted from the atmosphere? I don’t think there are any proposals yet, and may never be.

          • Kapricorn4

            Plants on land and plankton in the oceans extract CO2 from the atmosphere by using photosynthesis to produce carbohydrates and oxygen, that animal life in turn uses to extract energy by exothermic oxidation of these self same carbohydrates in a symbiotic cycle. Without CO2 in the air or dissolved in water, all life on earth would die off.

            The chalk bed rocks that are common over the earth, were produced by marine life that fell to the ocean floor as they died and formed calcium carbonate, which accumulated over millions of years. These rocks may then be subducted into the mantle by tectonic plate collisions. When heated, the CaCO3 then reacts to form CaO and CO2 which is emitted both by land and under ocean volcanoes.

          • cptspanky

            For the love of god stop stating truth and science in the same paragraphs.

          • George Matthews

            We need a process that would act much faster – at a rate comparable with the rate at which we put the CO2 into the atmosphere by our foolish burning of oil and coal. It looked like a good idea at the time, but it wasn’t. Is there such a process, probably depending on solar energy?

          • TheDudeofVoo

            NASA: ❝… the Antarctic ice sheet [actually] showed a net gain of 112 billion tons [Gt] of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to [an increase of only] 82 billion tons [Gt] of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. … ❝… we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.❞

            http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

          • TheDudeofVoo

            George, get educated.
            Lenaerts 2016: ”…surface mass balance (SMB) of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) … When forced … high-emission scenario RCP8.5), CESM projects an increase of Antarctic ice sheet [surface mass balance] of about +70 Gt/year per degree warming.”

            ”Even in a warmer future, projected surface run-off losses are dominated by mass gains through enhanced snowfall (Ligtenberg et al. 2013).”

            Lenaerts, Jan TM, et al. 2016 “Present-day and future Antarctic ice sheet climate and surface mass balance in the Community Earth System Model.” Climate Dynamics

            http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/10/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00382-015-2907-4.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs00382-015-2907-4&token2=exp=1456795973~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F10%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs00382-015-2907-4.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252Fs00382-015-2907-4*~hmac=da4122ec4b3f9c3547d477576777b5dc5288944983d35c39ce72d89f81f883cd

          • TheDudeofVoo

            George, do you realize that if your “Global Warming” hits, most all the models robustly project an increase of snowfall on the polar areas, with a commensurate increase in land-locked ice mass?
            Previdi & Polvani 2016: ”…both global, and regional climate models, robustly project increases in Antarctic [surface mass balance] in response to global warming (Krinner et al 2007, Uotila et al 2007, Monaghan et al 2008b, Ligtenberg et al 2013, Frieler et al 2015).”

            Previdi & Polvani 2016 “Anthropogenic Impact on Antarctic Surface Mass Balance, Currently Masked by Natural Variability, to Emerge by Mid-Century” Environmental Research Letters

            http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094001/pdf

            http://phys.org/news/2016-08-mid-century-antarctic-snowfall-offset-sea-level.html#jCp

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Much of that “… water … pouring off the ice caps, …” is replaced by snow in the next season. Greenland’s snow is considerably more the runoff, but not as much as the runoff + glacial calving; Antarctica’s snow is greater than the combined ice losses.

          • George Matthews

            You have totally misunderstood the situation – as is common with the cultish group you seem to belong to. The melting ice is NOT being replaced by more snow. That’s the whole point we need to be aware of.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            You totally misunderstand my post. Greenland’s seasonal accumulation of snow is generally WAY LARGER than the MELT, but Greenland’s snow accumulation is not as big as the combined melt & calving losses.
            Greenland’s loss of ice mass in the past decade has been about 60% meltwater, and 40% glacier calving (making icebergs). In the last decade, Greenland has been losing total mass of about 200 Billion Tonnes (Gt) … 200Gt more than the snow gain. Typically, Greenland has +600 Gt of snow accumulation. The meltwater mass loss is typically -480 Gt. The iceberg formation (glacier calving) is typically about -320 Gt.
            IF you can still do math, 600Gt is way larger than 480 Gt.
            But, 600 is not as big as (480+320).
            This snow-accumulation season, Greenland has acquired about +700 Gt of snow.
            http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/ https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4dbc64a1f44f5530a4c01041f0bb58016b237ff1514b3f0702c3a50eb670387a.jpg

      • TheDudeofVoo

        ❝The worldwide ocean is steadily rising, wherever it is measured.❞

        Not really. Take the Solomon Islands, for example … 219 months … 18+ years https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ead4896a68ed53c1d420c4762114aa0109cd38a54e6d0f106edf7182ee7f4e25.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/44266efc9f402f2da888b88511f44d36324ab2c646ab1fe211d9334b8aeb2f7b.jpg

        • George Matthews

          Yes it is rising. You can post nonsense hundreds of times but nevertheless it rises. Your fantasies in your head – I cannot imagine how they got there – do not alter the physical reality.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Well, yes, overall, sea level is rising … but, you added the stupid caveat,

            ❝…wherever it is measured.❞

            and that is false … that is the physical reality. You’re not a science denier, are you?
            NOAA dot gov: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9443090
            https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=822-116

          • cptspanky

            you not serious NOAA, they have been caught fudging the numbers on several occasions

            http://lidblog.com/noaa-fudged-climate-data/

            http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/19/hot-air-scientists-say-noaanasa-fudging-the-facts-on-2014-record-warmth/

            https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/300-scientists-blast-noaa-fudging-climate-change-data/

            this is just a couple of stories. why won’t the media talk about these stories?

          • TheDudeofVoo

            NOAA, like NASA and the EPA, have been flooded, filled with ideologues, and supported by the USA’s previous administration (O’bummer).
            However, I don’t see any influence in the tidesandcurrents section.
            https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9443090
            https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=822-116

          • George Matthews

            My intention was to emphasise that the overall sea level is rising – everywhere. You apparently believe it is not. Stop trying to assert that reality is not what is perceived by science.

            The whole planet is actually warming. The cause is the burning of coal and oil. The results of warming will be harmful to the whole human community. Sensibly, we should work to prevent it. Actually, it would be possible to prevent it by ceasing to burn coal and oil, and by investing in energy sources that do not emit CO2.

            I have developed biogas in Africa and it is catching on. In the 30 years since I started work it has spread widely in Kenya. Biogas does not add to the problem and can be used by ordinary people at a modest cost. Small farmers can cook their food and use machinery without adding to the world problem. It greatly improves life for those who use it.

            That is not the only solution to the problem but it does help. It would be useful if westerners took the problem more seriously and curbed their appetite for oil and so-called Natural gas. And close the coal mines.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            There is no observational evidence at all to show that burning (coal, oil, etc) is causing any temperature change.
            Temperature is not rising, everywhere … https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fbffedaa3877bf38519f940cfbbdd6fdf7a439223a5b27561d86e271b0bc7187.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/01f55b35f209abae81ef1d30bfe6abecae1b6f0e686ce18641e180763f6174e8.jpg
            Antarctica is actually cooling.

          • George Matthews

            Don’t demonstrate so often that you are a fool who denies the whole scientific observations of the relations between CO2 and temperature.

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • TheDudeofVoo
          • TheDudeofVoo
          • George Matthews

            My intention was to emphasise that the overall sea level is rising – everywhere. You apparently believe it is not. Stop trying to assert that reality is not what is perceived by science.

            The whole planet is actually warming. The cause is the burning of coal and oil. The results of warming will be harmful to the whole human community. Sensibly, we should work to prevent it. Actually, it would be possible to prevent it by ceasing to burn coal and oil, and by investing in energy sources that do not emit CO2.

            I have developed biogas in Africa and it is catching on. In the 30 years since I started work it has spread widely in Kenya. Biogas does not add to the problem and can be used by ordinary people at a modest cost. Small farmers can cook their food and use machinery without adding to the world problem. It greatly improves life for those who use it.

            That is not the only solution to the problem but it does help. It would be useful if westerners took the problem more seriously and curbed their appetite for oil and so-called Natural gas. And close the coal mines.

          • George Matthews

            The ocean is the same at every part of this global planet – or do you think we are on Terry Pratchett’s disc world?

          • TheDudeofVoo

            With regards to “sea level rise”, many serious climate scientists, like Carl Wunsch, Rui Ponte, and Patrick Heimbach (2007) are up front an realistic about how hard it is, to detect and measure “sea level rise” (and other parameters of climate change). Wunsch is an adamant supporter, “I believe that climate change is a real, major threat…”(1) but writes about the difficulties. Here is a condensation of an entire paper, into just a few paragraphs – I have kept only the lamentations and complaints of the authors, to make the point:

            Useful estimation of the [sea level rise] global averages is extremely difficult, given the realities of space–time sampling and model approximations. Systematic errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change: published values, and error bars should be used very cautiously.”

            ”Determining global and regional sea level shifts would appear to be a reasonably straightforward process … In practice, almost no aspect of this problem is simple, and calculations with known accuracy are very difficult.”

            ” Estimates of regional patterns of global sea level change … On large scales, some regions display strong signals, although few individual points have statistically significant trends.

            ”Large regions of negative anomaly [rates of sea level rise] exceed the estimated mean rate of rise in these data, and thus imply a net local sea level drop, although, obviously, one cannot infer that one is observing a true secular trend, anywhere. … No inference can be made as to the future continuation of any of the regional trends. … We turn now to the problem of determining the global trend means, which as described in the introduction, are small residuals of large spatial and temporal variations. Because of the difficulties with both datasets and models, much of the result here is inconclusive: the reliability of the global average estimates remains poorly known. … Each of the datasets (commonly tide gauges, altimeters, hydrographic measurements) has troubling issues of space–time sampling, and of physical interpretation. Altimetric data (CN2004) are widely accepted as providing the best available estimate of mean global sea level rise, although errors in the time-varying components of altimetric datasets are complex and not wholly quantified. As summarized in appendix B, the major sampling issues concern the cutoff at about 60°S from orbital configuration or floating sea ice, and the possibility of trends in the long list of corrections made to the data. For hydrography, the major problems consist of the very irregular space–time sampling, the bias toward the upper ocean, the seasonal cycle in sampling in the presence of a strong seasonal signal, and the possibility of systematic errors as the technology for salinity, temperature, and depth determination changed over the last 50 yr. … we believe the greatest uncertainty in the results lies with the possibility of systematic errors in both data and model, and for which we lack quantitative estimates. … The spatial averages are fragile. … That the magnitude, and even the sign, of the mean trend changes, shows the dependence of subglobal averages on the behavior in the Southern Ocean, where the data coverage is slightest. … The Southern Ocean contribution remains problematic, primarily because there are so little historical data from that region, but also because, from a modeling point of view, the unusual importance of eddy physics is incompletely accounted for.”

            Wunsch, Carl, Rui M. Ponte, and Patrick Heimbach 2007. “Decadal trends in sea level patterns: 1993-2004.” Journal of Climate

          • George Matthews

            Take a look at the evidence from the various Pacific Islands – some of them owned or occupied by the US – which are losing former cultivable land, so much so that the people on some of them are negotiating with New Zealand to relocate.

            Take a look at the Seychelles. All these islands that are based on coral reefs and atolls are facing a prospect of becoming uninhabitable.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Again, you’re discussing evidence of warming … which does not indicate anything about the cause of the warming. Well, Earlier in the Holocene, sea levels were about four hundred metres lower than the are, today. How did those islands and their coral reefs survive being high and dry? How did they manage, when the Laurentide Ice Sheet spanning North America, melted, torrentially, and drastically raised sea levels?
            Darwin, apparently, figured it out: Darwin, C., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882, 1887

            “No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of S. America before I had seen a true coral reef. I had therefore only to verify and extend my views by a careful examination of living reefs. But it should be observed that I had during the two previous years been incessantly attending to the effects on the shores of S. America of the intermittent elevation of the land, together with the denudation and deposition of sediment. This necessarily led me to reflect much on the effects of subsidence, and it was easy to replace in imagination the continued deposition of sediment by the upward growth of coral. To do this was to form my theory of the formation of barrier-reefs and atolls.” (Darwin, 1887, p. 98, 99) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5990dbba0eea30a2cc2ce10368bd172d2a16b5583ad06d3f1cbaef25ef22e02d.jpg

          • TheDudeofVoo

            The rate of “sea-level rise” is somewhat disputed, but it is probably greater than 1 millimetre per year, but less than 4mm/year.

            Wei, Gangjian 2007 ” Coral reefs … grow fast, with annual growth rates up to 10–20 mm”

            Wei, Gangjian, et al. 2007 “Sea surface temperature records in the northern South China Sea from mid‐Holocene coral Sr/Ca ratios.” Paleoceanography

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Weidong_Sun/publication/43480898_Sea_surface_temperature_records_in_the_northern_South_China_Sea_from_mid-Holocene_coral_SrCa_ratios/links/0fcfd5089bfd46456a000000.pdf

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Ford & Kench 2015: ”To date, [2015] studies of shorelines along sparsely populated and uninhabited islands have revealed a prevalence of shoreline accretion compared to erosion, leading to an increase in island size (Webb and Kench, 2010; Ford, 2013; Yates et al., 2013).”

            ”Despite our observations coinciding with locally increasing sea level we find no evidence islands are being “washed away”, … As sedimentary landforms, islands have demonstrated an inherent physical resilience in the context of rising sea level and other environmental changes (Webb and Kench, 2010, Kench et al., 2015). … no islands have disappeared from their reef platform.”

            Ford, Murray R., and Paul S. Kench 2015. “Multi-decadal shoreline changes in response to sea level rise in the Marshall Islands.” Anthropocene

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Kench/publication/284123363_Multi-decadal_shoreline_changes_in_response_to_sea_level_rise_in_the_Marshall_Islands/links/5685f58608ae1e63f1f37295.pdf

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝Take a look at the evidence from the various Pacific Islands – … – which are losing former cultivable land, … based on coral reefs and atolls are facing a prospect of becoming uninhabitable.❞

            Kench 2015: ”The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time-slices of shoreline position, over the past 118 yr, at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated. Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level. Results suggest a more optimistic prognosis for the habitability of atoll nations and demonstrate the importance of resolving recent rates and styles of island change to inform adaptation strategies.”

            Kench, P. S., et al. 2015 “Coral islands defy sea-level rise over the past century: Records from a central Pacific atoll.” Geology

            http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/04/27/G36555.1.abstract

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Wenzel & Schröder 2012: “While most of the basins show a sea level rise of varying strength, there is an indication for a mean sea level fall in the southern Indian Ocean. Also, for the the tropical Indian and the South Atlantic no significant trend can be detected. …”

            Wenzel, Manfred, and Jens Schröter 2012. “Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans

          • George Matthews

            You spend your time on this and other web sites stating the things which are not true. Do you think that this habit of lying has no result?

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • George Matthews

            There is a vast amount of evidence. But you will not see it if you keep your eyes shut. Can you imagine the contempt I feel for people spouting your nonsense?

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Yes, I can.
            So, back to islands that are based on coral reefs and atolls; but not specifically Seychelles.
            Ford & Kench 2015: ”Accounts and projections of islands being ‘washed away’ are a mainstay of political discussions and popular media reports of climate change impacts on atolls (Johnson, 2014; Lewis, 2015). Despite the widespread attention of the plight of atoll islands, there has been a paucity of evidence presented to underpin such assertions.”

            Ford, Murray R., and Paul S. Kench 2015. “Multi-decadal shoreline changes in response to sea level rise in the Marshall Islands.” Anthropocene

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Kench/publication/284123363_Multi-decadal_shoreline_changes_in_response_to_sea_level_rise_in_the_Marshall_Islands/links/5685f58608ae1e63f1f37295.pdf

          • cptspanky
          • George Matthews

            Yes, of course I realise it. But do you realise that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is rapidly increasing? Have you the slightest idea of what that will result in – is already resulting? This is not simply an interesting fact of science but has very serious implications for us all. It is already resulting in desertification in parts of the United States. I don’t much care about that as it’s what you need to suffer, but I do care about the process going on in much of West Africa and India. And the increase in temperature caused by the increase is having other important effects. The rise in sea level will at best cause the need for expensive sea defences in such cities as New York, Miami and many others. I think you may find some cities need to be abandoned, or moved inland. Probably London could be defended by another Thames barrage. But what about Boston? There’s a huge amount of ice in Antarctica and Greenland ready to melt if we don’t stop the warming. (I don’t know if it is already too late).

          • cptspanky

            The result is…nothing, the plants are growing in places they haven’t grown for hundreds of years. food is more plentiful as the greening continues. As for you worrying about high water damaging cities that built on low land close to the oceans., too bad don’t build close to the water.

          • George Matthews

            You demonstrate yet again the appalling ignorance of so many Americans. Is it because all those expensive schools teach nothing worth knowing but spend their time playing daft games – unknown in the rest of the world? I mean so-called football and baseball.

          • cptspanky

            once again you have shown no proof of anything, NOAA has been caught fiddling the numbers Australia government caught do the same. Do you remember climate gate? Scientists doctoring the numbers. Your can live in your ignorance and fraud as long as you like just don’t drag the rest of us into your delusion

          • ninetyninepct

            “Daft”? This shows you are British. How are your Muslim rape gangs doing? Have you stabbed anyone today?

            Islam and Muslims are the real threat to civilization, not a naturally changing climate.

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • TheDudeofVoo
          • ninetyninepct

            Yes George, it IS too late. Take your family and run down to the shore. Stand there until the oceans rise and wash you away to be lost forever. Please.

      • TheDudeofVoo

        ❝The worldwide ocean is steadily rising, wherever it is measured.❞

        Not really. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/34f0f3a22c99d33436a68e5142922fea1c4eab04ab8c45183a314802631a916e.jpg Neah Bay, Washington State