A Few Other Stations

Mr. Wakefield doesn’t seem to like the tide gauge data from Boston, since it so easily shows how wrong he was about “NO acceleration.” He wants me to “do a few other stations, like in Australia and Brest, France.

Continue reading

Sea Level Rise has Accelerated

There seems to be some interest in global sea level as estimated by tide gauges. In particular, we have recently been directed to a graph of the data from Church & White, which is the most reputable of the available choices. Alas, the graph we were directed to only shows their data up to the end of 1992. What, you may wonder, happens after that?

Continue reading

Boston Sea Level

How one plots the data can have a big impact on whether or not one can “see” acceleration or deceleration of sea level in tide gauge data. Here, for instance, is a plot of sea level at Boston (data from PSMSL, and I’ve removed the annual cycle):

Continue reading

Does Willis Eschenbach have Any Honor?

Let’s find out.

He wrote a new post at WUWT claiming this about James Hansen’s 1988 prediction of the course of temperature change over the following 30 years:

Continue reading

Sea Level Rise is Accelerating

Willis gets it right? Not.

Willis Eschenbach has a post at WUWT claiming to show that sea level rise is not accelerating. What he actually demonstrates is that he doesn’t know how to tell.

Continue reading

Can Albert/Alberto Parker/Boretti Handle the Math?

I only recently found out that Albert Parker/Alberto Boretti and C.D. Ollier published a “Discussion” of my paper with Patrick Brown about the analysis of sea level time series. You can get your own copy of their paper here.

Continue reading

Scott Pruitt and the Whiny Crybaby Losers

Scott Pruitt wants to replace science with a 3-ring circus

Scott Pruitt, new head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), wants a “red team/blue team debate” about global warming. That’s where two sides argue different opinions on some topic, and at its best it brings greater clarity about the issue. In this case, red is “The consensus of climate scientists is wrong,” blue is “The consensus is right.”

We’ve already had this debate, for over 100 years, right where it should take place: the scientific literature and scientific conferences. The red team lost. Big time. But they are sore losers, whiny little crybabies.

Continue reading