Tangier Island
By Paul Homewood
CBS have a report on rising sea levels at Tangier Island, in Chesapeake Bay here
The video is worth watching. The CBS reporter makes the usual attempts to blame it on “climate change”, but the locals know too much to fall for that old pony.
They know that sea levels have been rising, and land eroding, since 1850.
And they are right. Tide gauges in the area, such Sewell Point, Norfolk, confirm that sea levels have been steadily rising for a long time, long before recent rises in emissions of CO2.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8638610
The rate of rise is 4.6mm/yr, nearly three times the global rate. But there is a very good reason for this – the land is sinking.
Chesapeake Bay is the site of an ancient impact crater, caused by a comet or meteor. As a result the land has been subsiding ever since. Estimates by proper scientists suggest it is sinking at a rate of up to 3mm/yr.
For instance this recent study by John Boon et al found (Sewell Pt is SWPT):
In other words, this accounts for two thirds of the sea level rise.
The study also found no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise:
The sea in Chesapeake Bay is doing what it always has, and no amount of windmills and solar panels will have the slightest effect.
Trackbacks
- Delingpole: Liberals to Trump-Supporting Tangier Island ‘We Hope You Drown’ | GLA NEWS | Latest News
- Liberals to Trump-Supporting Tangier Island ‘We Hope You Drown’ – IOTW Report
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Warmists have never liked facts obscuring the truth.
Hi Paul–It is around this aspect of the debate, arguably far more than any others, that I have expended far too much breath for far too little impact. The sea level data are easily accessed by ANYONE with Internet access. A simple use of Excel to project sea level rise based on current rates shows that the media’s projections are hallucinations at best. Case in point: Alameda, California…A quick Google search finds article after article threatening 10 feet (120 inches) of sea level rise by 2100…yet at current rates WHICH HAVE NOT ACCELERATED, we should see 2.35 inches of sea level rise by 2100. So, the Press are ‘only’ inflating reality by over 5,000%. And yet…NOBODY in the mainstream media has the slightest bit of interest in facts (otherwise called ‘Science’). We are an illiterate, ignorant and apathetic society, cowing to an imaginary bogeyman while we nurture a cult of doom. I call it child abuse.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
CLASSIC example of how sea-level rise is deceitfully abused as evidence of anthropogenic climate change (AGW) when sea-level rise should be treated on a region to region basis to account for, in this case, land subsidence.
The other no-brainer to identify the wilful deception in this case is the fact that there has been no sea-level rise acceleration, despite accelerating CO2 emissions…
Reblogged this on Roald J. Larsen.
The key is that this sort of “flooding” is local, when it becomes “Global” we will know that the Sea Levels are really rising faster.
The rebound from LIA is still in progress, but is absolutely nothing compared to the rebound from the last Ice Age.
This graph says it all
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=%2fRcpS0TS&id=7A1187C60FA85F6AD7752B6D48B8390686A97CF0&thid=OIP._RcpS0TSdY5GlR59lEXgIwEsDM&q=historic+sea+level+rise&simid=607986599854411591&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
Latest books and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
My latest documentary and video of my presentation.
My website is
The Trans-mountain Pipeline will add 3/10,000 of 1% CO2 to the atmosphere.
Besides, CO2 is not a pollutant.
“Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
http://www.drtimball.com
It is interesting to look at how the Rolling 10 year trend has changed over the last 8 decades at Sewell’s Point.
In December 1938 (the earliest year for which the 10 year trend can be calculated), the 10 year trend was about +9.6 mm p.a., whereas now it is about +4.8mm p.a., however these figures should not be interpreted as a decline. The situation is actually more complex than that, with evidence of a cyclical pattern.
Over the entire period it has ranged between -7.1 and +18.5 and since the 1960’s there have been pronounced cycles of approximately 12-13 years from peak to peak.
The last peak was about +12.6 in 2011 and the last trough was about -0.8 in 2004, and we are currently nearing another trough which would be higher than the last one, although the peak in 1998 was about +18.3.
I have no idea why there should be this cyclical pattern in the rolling trend for this location although while the website states that “the average seasonal cycle has been removed”,
there may be other factors which cause cyclical changes. I haven’t done an analysis at other locations to see if there are similar cycles at other places.
I am not sure what you mean by “Rolling” trend. If you mean a moving average, it is well known that moving averages of stochastic (random) processes can produce APPARENT cycles. It is called the Slutsky-Yule effect. That is because the moving average involves an initial cumulation step.
It is not difficult to understand. Imagine a spike in the data, one year. That will increase the average associated (by design) with all the years in the window, It will look as if there is a (half)wave upwards lasting several years. Then if by chance you get a spike downwards a little later…
It is not an artifact so muich as a misinterpretation by our brains – which are not used to looking at these charts
There are ways of avoiding the effect.
“I am not sure what you mean by “Rolling” trend.”
I mean that you calulate the trend for the first 10 yeas (actually 120 months), i.e. in this case January 1928 to December 1937, then recalculate the trend every month, by taking off one month’s data from the start and adding one at the end until the end of the data, i.e, until the 10 years ending May 2017.
I suspect that most people might call a rolling average a rolling trend but I don’t mean that.
QV
A moving average of the first differences, then?
The Slustksy-Yule effect might still be relevant.
Reblogged this on Science is distorted by progressive philosophy.
As well as subsidence caused by the asteroid/meteor/comet strike the Chesapeake Bay area is also subject to negative isostatic rebound. Half of downtown Norfolk, which is always bitching about “climate-change-caused flooding”, is built on filled swamp which is also compacting and subsiding. Yet another cause of general subsidence in the area is ground water depletion which has incidentally resulted in salt water intrusion many miles inland.