Latest global warming scare report: If you live on the east coast, put on waders now

By Doug Powers

“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” – Barack Obama, June 2008

I don’t know about you, but I’m starting to doubt him.

Here’s the latest from the Everybody panic!! file:

Sea levels are rising much faster along the U.S. East Coast than they are around the globe, putting one of the world’s most costly coasts in danger of flooding, government researchers report.

U.S. Geological Survey scientists call the 600-mile (965-kilometer) swath a “hot spot” for climbing sea levels caused by global warming. Along the region, the Atlantic Ocean is rising at an annual rate three times to four times faster than the global average since 1990, according to the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

It’s not just a faster rate, but at a faster pace, like a car on a highway “jamming on the accelerator,” said the study’s lead author, Asbury Sallenger Jr., an oceanographer at the agency. He looked at sea levels starting in 1950, and noticed a change beginning in 1990.

Since then, sea levels have gone up globally about 2 inches (5 centimeters). But in Norfolk, Virginia, where officials are scrambling to fight more frequent flooding, sea level has jumped a total of 4.8 inches (12.19 centimeters), the research showed. For Philadelphia, levels went up 3.7 inches (9.4 centimeters), and in New York City, it was 2.8 inches (7.11 centimeters).

Is Philadelphia next to the Atlantic ocean? If it is these guys probably have a valid concern.

If all the alarmists have been correct for the past few decades, we should be able to buy ocean-front property in Omaha by now.

Read the rest at Michelle Malkin’s blog.

  • NEILIO

    I have to admit that the whole sea level thing is confusing to me. If the oceans are all connected (which we all know they are) how can the sea level rise in some parts, and lower in other parts? I think there has got to be more to this than people think. If you have two containers connected by a tube at the bottom of the containers, and you begin to fill one of them they will both start to fill because water seeks its own level. Now depending on the diameter of the connecting tube there is going to be a short lag for the second container because you can pour water into the first faster than the water can flow through the tube. But it will eventually settle at the same level in both containers.
    Now take that up to a global scale and obviously the model becomes quite a bit more complicated because there are many more factors to consider like water salinity and temperature, tidal forces, gravity, isostatic movement of the various land masses and plate tectonics, and I would assume there are some factors to which I am not aware. So I have to ask, do they take any other factors into account when they measure sea levels other than just the sea level? If not then reports like this are absolutely meaningless. For all we know it may very well be that the east coast is actually sinking, and the sea level has not changed at all.

  • I had the same thought, but tidal forces change isolated sea levels, and there’s erosion and other geological factors like continental drift, tectonic movement, etc. None of which have anything to do with CO2 or “climate change”, but isolated (locally perceived) sea level changes are possible for other reasons. Lord Monckton recently pointed out the erosion factor to explain some coastal changes.

    • NEILIO

      Well, that’s what is being claimed. That AGW is melting the polar ice caps and raising the sea level by the added water and thermo expansion of the oceans. But yes, that is exacly what I’m saying, that sea level changes are possible for other reasons. It all comes back to something I have maintained from the start, that we don’t know all of the factors. And that applies to measuring sea levels as well as predicting what the climate will be 100 years from now. It’s essentially all gueswork.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Ahhh, Lord Monckton and M. Malkin…! Let’s bow our heads and pay homage to these two intellectual behemoths..

    • NEILIO

      All you can do is mock them. You wouldn’t last 5 seconds in a debate with either one of them.

  • NEILIO

    If you disagree with what Malkin is saying here why don’t you just spell it out? But no, it’s Monkton and Malkin ma ma ma ma ma ma mama ma ma ma mamamamama mamama! You should blow your nose, you’re sounding a bit snotty.

  • Rob N. Hood

    I’m sounding snotty? hypocrisy thy name is Neil

    • NEILIO

      Ummmmmmmmm. Huh? What hypocrisy?

  • Rob N. Hood

    Nevermind, I know, you don’t get hypocrisy. It’s a mental block of some sort. I think if you ever do get it your head will explode.

    • NEILIO

      So, do you have any more insults for Mulkin or Monkton? Or just for me? Cuz I’d like to stay on the article posted if it’s not to much trouble. What do you think about sea levels? Aren’t you curious, like I am, as to why there are some places the level is up, and other places the level is down? What do you think of the story above? Do you see it as a story that’s meant to warn people of possible dangers, or as a story designed to scare you? I think it is fearmongering to push an aganda. What do you think? Or do you think I’m too impertinent and arrogant to share that with me?

  • Rob N. Hood

    I’ve done a lot of sharing with you and everyone else on this site. As to your impertinence and arrogance, it does appear to be bit greater than normal lately, perhaps Dan finally put you on the payroll?

    • NEILIO

      That’s hardly commenting on the story.

  • Joe

    I’m on the “payroll” for free. You get what you pay for. As to this article? Pure bunk.

  • Rob N. Hood

    More snark from the snark twins. Tag team o’snark.

    • NEILIO

      I think you better check the definition of snark. First of all “snark” is a blend of snake and shark by Lewis Carroll, it is a synonym for “snore” or “snort.”. What you mean is “snarky” which is -Rudely sarcastic or disrespectful.- Which more accurately describes your comments actually.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Wow you do know everything and are some kind of savant. What kind I kindly won’t say. And as usual it is I who is guilty, not thee. Must be nice.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Ok- how about this? More snarkiness from the snarkiness twins…? There, I did it! And what I did before was a short-hand version of the same thing. Boy, this is tough, being perfect and all that. I guess I’m just dull and pretty darn lazy, which is normal though for a Lefty. But I know if I work hard I may someday actually be worthy to pollute these pristine and superior web pages. That day is certianly a long way off for me, but my teachers and mentors here will help and guide me, that much I am sure of.

  • Darren N. Hood

    “U.S. Geological Survey scientists call the 600-mile (965-kilometer) swath a “hot spot” for climbing sea levels caused by global warming.”

    The whole story is bunk, as NEILIO alludes too. The average sea level can not be rising in one location (the so called “hot spot”), and not rising in other locations of the same sea and connected seas. What is happening in the 600-mile swath is the land is sinking. Or, far less likely, the land everywhere but in the 600-mile swath is rising.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Weather is not climate and climate is not weather. A meteorologist is looking at daily and weekly trends and is also looking at the fact that winter storms have been worse over the past few years. They can’t square that with what is still understood by many to be global warming when in reality, climate change is showing itself as a phenomenon of greater weather extremes of all sorts. Climatologists are looking at patterns that have developed over millennia. The two disciplines are related on the surface but they are two very different fields of study.

    Asking a meteorologist for good information about climate change would be somewhat akin to asking a personal trainer for cancer treatment.

  • Joe

    Climatologists get grants, i.e, $$$$$, “cha ching, cha ching.” Meteorologists don’t. Hell, if you are paid to look for agreement with an alleged fraudulent study that is your livelihood, puts food on your table, sells books, pays your bills, makes you a profit, so be it and go for it. (Not that it is fact, facts simply no longer matter) Money, called Grants, speak don’t they? Again, cha ching, cha ching……..

    The general public is finally seeing through their antics and Mr. Mann can probably retire in good financial order and I assume with a “hockey stick” in hand? Finally, asking a lay person such as you as well as I for facts is like asking a plumber to fix the power grid. Good hunting for other suckers that buy your sweet drink to attempt to clear your dry throat later when you, as others are found incorrect.

    Had to check in to see how the banter was going and I note that nothing has changed.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Meteorologists work for monoploistic mainstream and corporate owned mass media. No greater sugar daddy or pressure to conform than that. Next impotent lamestream agrument?

  • Joe

    “Momopolistic.” Nice word. Your statement is a contradiction to your previous posts. Now you see why I as others view this site on occasion. If we need a daily lecture from a liberal/progressive we may as well go back to college, eh? I’m told they teach our young ones well.

  • Rob N. Hood

    How is that statement different from others? Explain, if you can.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.