This is hilarious. NY isn't sinking. Overall global sea level rise has REMAINED at about 1mm/year for about 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-05]
Avg. sea lvl. rise has been about 0.9-1.0 mm/year for centuries. It rose a bit faster part of 20th Cen., but some say it's DEcelerating. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-04]
Lonny backpedals away from his stronger claim that sea level has been rising at "exactly the same rate for 300 years."
How did Lonny read the first sentence in Houston and Dean 2011 stating that sea level rose by 1.7mm/y over the 20th century, but not admit that it contradicts his mistaken claim about "< 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years"?
It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011, Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.
Even Houston and Dean said "there is consensus among the authors that sea level accelerated from 1870 to 2004." They just cherry-picked 1930, the starting point with the lowest best-fit acceleration. Then they pretend to question if "sea level has accelerated during the 80 years from 1930–2010" and somehow ignore the fact that best-fit accelerations are even higher starting after 1930.
On top of that, anyone who cites Houston and Dean 2011 to support a claim that global sea level is "DEcelerating" should be aware that this is the result of a simple mistake where they neglected to take into account the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. When Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 corrected their error, the best-fit acceleration was positive.
The most hilarious bit, however, might be their response to these corrections. Houston and Dean had selectively cherry-picked a single starting date of 1930, then Rahmstorf and Vermeer calculated figure 2. Like my figure on page 2, Rahmstorf and Vermeer didn't selectively cherry-pick a starting year like Houston and Dean did. Quite the opposite!
How do Houston and Dean respond? They actually complained that Rahmstorf and Vermeer were somehow being "selective". This brazen reversal of the facts might have surprised me before I saw Jane baselessly accuse Layzej of cherry-picking for loading the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998 and kept demonstrating that he would never grasp that irony.
If Jane/Lonny really had "many counterexamples", it's strange that he cited the one paper that had already been repeatedly prebunked and another regional paper which Houston and Dean cited while trying to explain away the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. Again, Lonny doesn't seem likely to grasp that irony but he might be able to ask why his "many counterexamples" led to this statement in the IPCC AR5 SPM:
"Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."
I've also linked to a great talk on sea level rise by Jerry Mitrovica. That's how scientists learn about science outside of their fields: reading literature reviews, watching talks by publishing scientists, double-checking trend and uncertainty calculations by independently writing code. In contrast, Jane/Lonny refuses to write a single line of code or perform a single uncertainty calculation, then cites a paper he really should have known had already been prebunked. Could it get any worse?
It got worse. Lonny's accusing scientists of being "liars" once again because he once again fell off the peer-reviewed literature wagon and landed in crackpot blogland. Lonny doesn't seem to realize that he's citing a crackpot rant which redefines "global sea level" from the standard scientific definition which averages sea level everywhere in the global oceans, to his own "special" definition which eliminates ~99% of the ocean which isn't right next to shore.
A real skeptic would note that satellites and tide gauges independently yielded trends from 1993-2009 of 3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/year and 2.8 +/- 0.8 mm/year for the actual scientific definition of global sea level. How could those independent measurements be within each other's error bars, unless the scientists at NASA and the NAS are incompetent and/or liars? Since Lonny Eachus is accusing many scientists of being liars, wouldn't his accusations be more compelling if he could come up with a single shred of evidence that independent scientists lied about these independent results, and somehow manipulated both of them to show the same "erroneous" trend?
Here's a massively incomplete list of the scientists Lonny is accusing of being "liars":
NASA (backup): 3.21 mm per year
University of Colorado (backup): 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm/yr
US NAS and UK Royal Society, p16: "Long-term measurements of tide gauges and recent satellite data show that global sea level is rising, with best estimates of the global-average rise over the last two decades centred on 3.2 mm per year"
I just showed you a quote from NAS. That's not good enough for you to finally stop accusing all those scientists of being "liars"?