Skip to content

Sea Level Sanity

February 8, 2016

By Paul Homewood 




Ron Clutz offers a bit of sanity:


Post Paris sea level alarms are ramping up:

As global temperatures rise, scientists know that sea levels will follow suit. Today, global sea level is the topic of two new papers, both published in Nature Climate Change. Source: Carbon Brief, today’s date.

Fortunately, antidotes for this feverish reporting are available. Some recent research reports published this year update our knowledge of sea ice and sea level dynamics.  Two papers below are by Australians  A.Parker and C. D. Ollier. They obviously are not employed by CSIRO, since they are working hard on understanding how the climate system actually works.

Full story here.

  1. February 9, 2016 12:17 am

    Paul. Email me. Might have something you could use.

  2. February 9, 2016 12:41 am

    Thanks, Paul.
    The Parker and Ollier paper (free access at is very interesting.

  3. John F. Hultquist permalink
    February 9, 2016 4:53 am

    I was searching for something and came across a sea level rise story. It is quite ancient and only reported on in 2002. My history classes were all 50 years ago so my knowledge has to be updated. Younger folks are likely aware of this:

    Marine scientists say archaeological remains discovered 36 metres (120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India could be over 9,000 years old.

  4. James Howard Jr. permalink
    February 9, 2016 6:43 am

    I lived, worked and sailed in Salcombe, Devon from 1973 to 2005, 32 years.There was no rise in sea levels in that time. This can be confirmed by dinghy-racing competitors, a retired harbourmaster, fellow pleasure boaters and many professional fishermen. Repeat NO rise!

  5. manicbeancounter permalink
    February 9, 2016 8:32 pm

    Ron Clutz’s article is yet another example of the difference between normal science and climatology.
    Normal science puts forward a hypothesis and tests it against real world observations or experiment. If the hypothesis disagrees with the observations then (after maybe appropriate checking that measurements are accurate by some independent calibration) the hypothesis is modified or rejected.
    In climatology actual observations are increasingly being calibrated on their fit to the theory. For instance as one blogger-scientist explained temperature homogenisation

    What if there isn’t a full record, or you can’t find any reason why the data may have been influenced by something non-climatic? Do you just leave it as is? Well, no, that would be silly. We don’t know of any climatic influence that can suddenly cause typical temperatures at a given location to suddenly increase or decrease. It’s much more likely that something non-climatic has influenced the data and, hence, the sensible thing to do is to adjust it to make the data continuous.

    Then, when challenged, this blogger (in the comments) does individually what the climate community does as a whole. That is get off the point; claims their challenger is not understand science as well as they do. They will never show their claimed better understanding by actually answering the criticisms, nor refer to independent standards that they adhere to, only denigrate the non-believers.

  6. TonyM permalink
    February 12, 2016 5:02 pm

    There is also an interesting paper that was linked in this blog recently recently, titled “Sea Ice In the Climate System – A Russian View” from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Available here:

    Click to access NSIDC-special-report-16.pdf

    It analyzes the links between sea ice extent and Arctic temperatures. One of the conclusions is that sea ice variations may be “an immediate direct cause of the two largest climate fluctuations in the Arctic in the present century.” Stick that in your climate models, IPCC!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: