Skip to content

Catastrophic Sea Level Rise (But It’s Only An Opinion!)

May 21, 2019
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Today’s climate rubbish from the BBC:

 

image

Scientists believe that global sea levels could rise far more than predicted, due to accelerating melting in Greenland and Antarctica.

The long-held view has been that the world’s seas would rise by a maximum of just under a metre by 2100.

This new study, based on expert opinions, projects that the real level may be around double that figure.

This could lead to the displacement of hundreds of millions of people, the authors say.

The question of sea-level rise was one of the most controversial issues raised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), when it published its fifth assessment report in 2013.

It said the continued warming of the planet, without major reductions in emissions, would see global waters rising by between 52cm and 98cm by 2100.

Many experts believe this was a very conservative estimate.

Ice scientists are also concerned that the models currently used to predict the influence of huge ice sheets on sea levels don’t capture all of the uncertainties about how these are now melting.

Judgement day

To try to get a clearer picture, some of the leading researchers in the field carried out what is termed a structured expert judgement study, where the scientists make predictions based on their knowledge and understanding of what is happening in Greenland, West and East Antarctica.

In the researchers’ view, if emissions continue on the current trajectory then the world’s seas would be very likely to rise by between 62cm and 238cm by 2100. This would be in a world that had warmed by around 5C – one of the worst-case scenarios for global warming.

"For 2100, the ice sheet contribution is very likely in the range of 7-178cm but once you add in glaciers and ice caps outside the ice sheets and thermal expansion of the seas, you tip well over two metres," said lead author Prof Jonathan Bamber from the University of Bristol.

The IPCC report in 2013 only considered what is "likely" to happen, which in scientific terms means they looked at 17-83% of the range of possibilities.

This new study looks at a broader range of results, covering 5-95% of the estimates.

For expected temperature rises up to 2C, Greenland’s ice sheet remains the single biggest contributor to sea-level rise. However, as temperatures go beyond this, the much larger Antarctic ice sheets start to come into play.

"When you start to look at these lower likelihood but still plausible values, then the experts believe that there is a small but statistically significant probability that West Antarctica will transition to a very unstable state and parts of East Antarctica will start contributing as well," said Prof Bamber.

"But it’s only at these higher probabilities for 5C that we see those type of behaviours kicking in."

According to the authors, this scenario would have huge implications for the planet.

They calculate that the world would lose an area of land equal to 1.79 million square kilometres – equivalent to the size of Libya.

Much of the land losses would be in important food growing areas such as the delta of the Nile. Large swathes of Bangladesh would be very difficult for people to continue to live in. Major global cities, including London, New York and Shanghai would be under threat.

"To put this into perspective, the Syrian refugee crisis resulted in about a million refugees coming into Europe," said Prof Bamber.

"That is about 200 times smaller than the number of people who would be displaced in a 2m sea-level rise."

The authors emphasise that there is still time to avoid these type of scenarios, if major cuts in emissions take place over the coming decades. They acknowledge that the chances of hitting the high end of this range are small, around 5%, but they should not be discounted, according to the lead author.

"If I said to you that there was a one in 20 chance that if you crossed the road you would be squashed you wouldn’t go near it," said Prof Bamber.

"Even a 1% probability means that a one in a hundred year flood is something that could happen in your lifetime. I think that a 5% probability, crikey – I think that’s a serious risk."

The study has been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48337629 

 

 

Meanwhile back in the real world, according to Jevrejeva’s reconstruction of sea level rise:

The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm·yr− 1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 ± 0.5 mm·yr− 1 since 1970.

 

image_thumb49_thumb

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/jevrejevaetal2013gpchange.pdf

 

To get to a 2 meter rise by 2100, sea levels would have to accelerate like this:

 

 image_thumb26

 

Even the IPCC admit that sea levels are rising no faster now than between 1920 and 1950:

It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/yr between 1901 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/yr between 1993 and 2010. Tide gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate during the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.

 

 

The junk study which Matt McGrath gives prolific coverage to has many flaws. For instance:

1) It assumes warming of 5C by 2100, far more than any serious projections.

2) The error margins prove that their “expert judgements” are nothing more than guesswork. For example:

"For 2100, the ice sheet contribution is very likely in the range of 7-178cm

3) Unhappy that computer models aren’t scary enough, the scientists make predictions based on their knowledge and understanding of what is happening in Greenland, West and East Antarctica. Sorry, but subjective judgements are not science.

 

The BBC report states:

The authors emphasise that there is still time to avoid these type of scenarios, if major cuts in emissions take place over the coming decades. They acknowledge that the chances of hitting the high end of this range are small, around 5%, but they should not be discounted, according to the lead author.

"If I said to you that there was a one in 20 chance that if you crossed the road you would be squashed you wouldn’t go near it," said Prof Bamber.

"Even a 1% probability means that a one in a hundred year flood is something that could happen in your lifetime. I think that a 5% probability, crikey – I think that’s a serious risk."

As I have noted before, it is funny how all of these highly funded “scientists” always tell us to reduce emissions, as if it was their job to tell us how to live our lives!

But the idea that there is an arithmetical probability of 5% that we hit the high end of the range is crass and absurd.

Such probabilities may be calculated for random events based on known data, such as an asteroid strike or a flood. But their projections are not based on known data at all, which is precisely why even their GIGO computer models don’t support their assertions.

Just because Prof Bamber says something might happen does not mean it will.

52 Comments
  1. May 21, 2019 11:59 am

    Yet more fantasising

  2. Harry Passfield permalink
    May 21, 2019 12:07 pm

    Just as a thought experiment, if the the alarmists are right and a huge amount of melt-water is to be released into the oceans, would there not be some kind of feedback when the oceans cool as a result of all that cold water mixing with them? If the oceans cool, will that not cause global temps to drop as a result? Also, when the oceans cool so much, wouldn’t the out-gassing of CO² be reduced?

    • May 21, 2019 6:54 pm

      Harry, you are right in thinking that the effect of melting ice sheets upon sea levels is not as simple as they say. An important hydrology study was done by a Bangladeshi scientist Aftab Alam Khan published in Geoscience Frontiers. Among other findings, he said this:

      “A mass of fluid under the rotation assumes a form such that its external form is an equipotential of its own attraction and the potential of the centripetal acceleration. Above analogy reveals that even if entire polar-ice melts due to the global warming, the melt-water will not flow towards equatorial region where surface has an upward gradient and gravity attraction is also significantly low in comparison to the polar region. However, conditions at both the poles are different. Arctic Ocean in the north is surrounded by the land mass thus can restrict the movement of the floating ice, while, Antarctic in the south is surrounded by open ocean thus floating ice can freely move to the north. But this movement is likely to be limited maximum up to 60°S latitude where spheroidal surface has the maximum curvature (Fig. 6B). As usual, water can not flow from higher gravity attraction to lower gravity attraction rather it is other way around wherein higher gravity attraction of the poles would attract water from moving towards equatorial region and water column would be static at every ‘gz’ direction. Further, greater horizontal gravity gradient toward poles would also help melt-water to remain attracted toward polar regions.”

      The author is analyzing the effects of gravity and rotation to project sea level effects. His paper is Why would sea-level rise for global warming and polar ice-melt? By Aftab Alam Khan at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987118300446

      My synopsis is https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/co2-rise-≠-sea-level-rise/

  3. LeedsChris permalink
    May 21, 2019 12:07 pm

    Looking at the more ‘doom for Bangladesh’ stuff in the middle of that report I refer back to my posted comments last week … Researchers in Bangladesh itself report that the country has GAINED land area over the last quarter century based on surveys and aerial and satellite photos. Deltas and delta countries are dynamic coastal environments, but on balance the sediment being brought down by the Ganges, Brahmaputra and other rivers in Bangladesh is creating new land faster than it is being lost – about 20 sq.km a year if I remember correctly.

  4. Peter Yarnall permalink
    May 21, 2019 12:12 pm

    Here we go again. Let’s start by giving back to the sea the land that we have taken from it. Sorry Holland, Belgium, south West France, you lot will have to move house! Then we can start to dredge lost tidal estuaries which have become mud flats. Sorry misguided environmentalists, but the sea must come first.

  5. May 21, 2019 12:24 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    A 5°C rise is an unlikely scenario, because in the real world

    https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2019/05/20/growing-iceland-greenland-glaciers-make-scientists-gasp/

  6. Saighdear permalink
    May 21, 2019 12:59 pm

    hawgh munn, No-oh I don’t want to read OR HEAR anymore about this scm… Wish the Wife never paid the licence fee ( to keep the peace- you understand)
    Badenough listeningto the waffle on the Poitics Live show this lunch hour

  7. jack broughton permalink
    May 21, 2019 1:05 pm

    Say that as a result of these madmen we adopted the CCC approach and effectively shut the UK down, we would still drown as our contribution would be negligible. Are they advocating world war to reduce carbon to prevent a hypothetical sea rise?

    Also, did I not read recently, on the BBC even, that the Greenland ice is thickening against all “scientific” predictions? They are now trying to claim that the thickening is a sure sign of AGW, and that it will only delay doom.

    • bobn permalink
      May 21, 2019 2:22 pm

      Ice has been getting thicker in the Arctic and currently averages about two meters thick. The Northwest Passage has been blocked with very thick ice for the past two years, and is now impassable.
      2 major Greenland glaciers are growing in extent as are the major NZ glaciers.
      Most reputable studies (satellites) show that antarctic icesheets are growing in thickness. I hope the taxpayer isnt on the hook for paying this non-science propagandist in Bristol. I want a campaign to cut University funding as it is wasted on frivolous propagandists.

      • John F. Hultquist permalink
        May 21, 2019 5:59 pm

        Ice has been getting thicker in the Arctic and currently averages about two meters thick. The Northwest Passage has been blocked with very thick ice for the past two years, and is now impassable.

        This seems to be part of a sequence of episodic events. The thick ice (floating) appears to clog the surface openings and forming arches, ice arches. Free floating ice cannot move south.
        Eventually, storms (waves and currents) will break the arches and there will be a gusher via one or more of the straits, likely Nares Strait. WUWT had posts in 2009 and 2010.
        Link 2009
        Link 2010

  8. May 21, 2019 1:29 pm

    Sunday last I was listening to a retired NASA guy talk about his work on early satellite radar and sea levels. He mentioned that they discovered early on that the ocean does not have a single level, but because of gravimetric shifts in the earth’s composition, there are troughs and mounts in the middle of oceans. He stated that off Puerto Rico, for example, the sea level can dip or rise as much as 10-15 centimeters in regional areas. What we have for sea level is an average.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6131218/

    • bobn permalink
      May 21, 2019 2:25 pm

      Yep. What phase is the moon in when and where you measure. The moon drags ocean water up and down and to and fro.

  9. Chris Davie permalink
    May 21, 2019 1:50 pm

    An essential part of the “solution” to the non-existent problem is that “even if we might be wrong you must, as an insurance, do as we say”. That way, natural change can be shown to be due to the solution and it will never be irrelevant. It’s very insidious.

    • Pancho Plail permalink
      May 21, 2019 10:52 pm

      If they were consistent over this, they would be demanding billions being spent on a missile shield to protect us from impact by a marauding rock from space which could instantly exterminate us all

  10. May 21, 2019 1:50 pm

    12:30pm Radio2 Huge controversy cos Fairbourne a “canary in the coal mine” seaside village in Wales is subject to bandwagoning by the Global Warming mob
    The local council saying seal level rise means it will need at 8m high sea wall by 2104 & is talking as if it soon needs to be evacuated.
    Vine tweeted
    2️⃣ As sea levels rise, we look at why the village of Fairbourne on the Welsh coast could be evacuated?
    Local residents/councillor called to protest about Vine using the word “catastrophe”
    saying the sea sometime comes over the existing wall at special tides, but the council decisions are responsible for problems ..eg the way the authorised construction on the flood plain not so long back, and most of the village is OK

    ‘So people like Vine/Council should cool down , cos they are screwing up property values and business that is doing fine.’

  11. Bertie permalink
    May 21, 2019 1:51 pm

    Sad to report, the GW words have become so mainstream that they appeared in a clue for the Telegraph cryptic ‘toughie’ crossword today:
    “Creature hard to isolate from effect of global warming?” (3,5)

  12. B Dussan permalink
    May 21, 2019 1:56 pm

    Well, what else is new? Isn’t it quite apparent that most of the predictions on global warming / climate change and associated spinoffs are based on “expert opinions”? And, to add insult to injury, most of them experts conveniently ignore the real dangers that humanity is already up to the kazoos, like overpopulation and poisoning of most of the fresh waters, atmosphere, top soils and ocean fish habitats….

  13. Gerry, England permalink
    May 21, 2019 2:03 pm

    Yet another paper that diverges from the IPCC reports because they are not scary enough. Will they up the scary level in AR6 I wonder? There is some irony in quoting from the IPCC to combat the extreme alarmism.

  14. Broadlands permalink
    May 21, 2019 2:14 pm

    “The authors emphasise that there is still time to avoid these type of scenarios, if major cuts in emissions take place over the coming decades.”

    (1) Quantify “major cuts” please for those next eight decades. We are now at more than 35 billion tons annually. How many tons per year will be needed?
    (2) What should be done to protect those in the path of this climate catastrophe?
    Constant, almost daily doom-and-gloom forecasts without some specific answers is what is creating public anxiety. That’s irresponsible science and journalism?

    • David Albert permalink
      May 21, 2019 5:11 pm

      “That’s irresponsible science and journalism?”
      That last sentence should end in an” !” not an “?” and I would agree wholeheartedly.
      Even the presumption that changing emissions will change the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is falsified as nearly all of the growth is natural. The angst being felt by the ill-informed is the result of the media/ climate hysteria cabal successfully denying the truth to be broadcast or printed and the scientists not actively challenging the lies.

  15. bobn permalink
    May 21, 2019 2:33 pm

    Its not science! You sentence corrected below:

    That’s irresponsible anti-science propaganda posing as journalism!

  16. Mike Jackson permalink
    May 21, 2019 3:56 pm

    “expert judgement study” = “wild-ass guess”

    “structured expert judgement study” = lick finger, hold up in air, make wild-ass guess.l

  17. May 21, 2019 4:05 pm

    I looked at the supplementary information attached to the main PNAS paper –
    https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2019/05/15/1817205116.DCSupplemental/pnas.1817205116.sapp.pdf
    It makes interesting reading on it’s own but also because it gives the names of the experts.
    One of those, who has quite a high profile, is Robert Bindschadler. He gave a lecture in 2012 published on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkohtjiq7E4
    It’s really worth watching and you can draw your own conclusions. suffice it to say that imho:
    1. the current media hype isn’t justified
    2. The Global warming expected this century is enevitable.
    3. CO2 didn’t get mentioned!

  18. Jon Scott permalink
    May 21, 2019 4:52 pm

    Actually there is another garbage message in this one rubbish article. That is regarding the silly place at the beginning grandly announcing “How climate change is affecting an Indian Island”. They just throw in climate change… no qualification no nothing. This is galling especially when there is real research out there in the literature.. Notice even in the title it says “land subsidence. In their propaganda piece a one time farmer now fisherman even says what the problem is….IT IS THE RIVER……but that does not stop the BBC lie machine
    “https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326648752_Substantial_land_subsidence_and_its_impact_on_Kalinagar_Sundarban_Delta_West_Bengal
    1. Deltas subside NATUTALLY due to dewatering. 2 Deltas especially delta fronts are highly unstable. 3. have people tramping around on them next to channels and you get the same phenomenon as you see on the beach when you pat the sand…liquefaction occurs and the river exploits this lack of cohesiveness.
    The shear dishonesty of the BBC in respect of reporting on climate suggests money is changing hands to promote the lie OR there are people who are psychologically disturbed running the show. Which is it?

  19. europeanonion permalink
    May 21, 2019 5:17 pm

    I do hate the practice of using pejoratives to reduce my opponents. I would rather pity them for their dependence on some controlling authority to keep them afloat and in such a way ruin the best years of their lives which their intellect could be serving.

    With Paul, here, we celebrate the independent mind and sheer persistence.

    Many scientists mentioned because of their aberrant summations seem to be employed initially with an expectation that they will prove the whimsy of their employer rather than being loyal to fact and following the thread. With so many reins in the hands of the state it is no wonder we see a train of questionable scientific offerings. None of these learned people would wish themselves out of work or, worse, show a rogue sensibility to popular misconceptions.

    At the moment there are votes in playing to the fears and fancies of the electorate and as long as politicians use marketing to sell their wares this atmosphere will prevail. The Norfolk Broads are descending, Those peat lands were never meant to be dry, their composition is such that they shrink upon drying and are prey to the winds.

    Not so much that the sea is rising but that the land is dropping. As more people inhabit our island more land that should be left wild and unkempt will be dragooned into employment. Yes, there is a man made catastrophe and it is the fixation with strategic numbers in population to feed wars, factories and mobs.

  20. Barry Capsey permalink
    May 21, 2019 5:32 pm

    Such arise would indicate these deluded souls expect thousands of cubic KILOMETERS to rais sea levels by that much! -Plus melting ice cubes do NOT raise the water level. Try it at home.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      May 21, 2019 6:12 pm

      Note the article is NOT about floating ice.
      to accelerating melting in Greenland and Antarctica

    • Robert Jones permalink
      May 21, 2019 7:22 pm

      Christopher Booker wryly commented on the melting ice-cube ‘phenomenon’ years ago. He points out that when the ice in your Gin & Tonic melts the level of fluid in the glass doesn’t change because the ice-cubes displace their own weight of fluid. Simples!

      • May 21, 2019 10:06 pm

        Yes, but Greenland and Antarctica are not floating bodies so the ice cube analogy doesn’t apply there.

  21. Athelstan. permalink
    May 21, 2019 7:42 pm

    “Edited by Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany, and accepted by Editorial Board Member Hans J. Schellnhuber April 8, 2019 (received for review October 5, 2018)”

    FFS.

    At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per century. It is probably not rising at all.
    Sea level is measured both by tide gauges and, since 1992, by satellite altimetry. One of the keepers of the satellite record told Professor Mörner that the record had been interfered with to show sea level rising, because the raw data from the satellites showed no increase in global sea level at all.
    The raw data from the TOPEX/POSEIDON sea-level satellites, which operated from 1993-2000, shows a slight uptrend in sea level. However, after exclusion of the distorting effects of the Great El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998, a naturally-occurring event, the sea-level trend is zero.
    The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites are able to measure ocean mass, from which sea-level change can be directly calculated. The GRACE data show that sea level fell slightly from 2002-2007.
    These two distinct satellite systems, using very different measurement methods, produced raw data reaching identical conclusions: sea level is barely rising, if at all.
    Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.
    In the Maldives, a group of Australian environmental scientists uprooted a 50-year-old tree by the shoreline, aiming to conceal the fact that its location indicated that sea level had not been rising. This is a further indication of political tampering with scientific evidence about sea level.
    Modelling is not a suitable method of determining global sea-level changes, since a proper evaluation depends upon detailed research in multiple locations with widely-differing characteristics. The true facts are to be found in nature itself.
    Since sea level is not rising, the chief ground of concern at the potential effects of anthropogenic “global warming” – that millions of shore-dwellers the world over may be displaced as the oceans expand – is baseless.
    We are facing a very grave, unethical “sea-level-gate”. here

    Nils-Axel Morner.

    ergo: SL rise of 2 metres by 2100 = prime beeboid propaganda / pnas ‘wot if scenario’ computer generated speculative twaddle or as we usually name it………… BS.

  22. quaesoveritas permalink
    May 21, 2019 8:15 pm

    How about this?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48265217

  23. Gamecock permalink
    May 21, 2019 8:25 pm

    ‘This could lead to the displacement of hundreds of millions of people, the authors say.’

    And?

    If you can’t handle the risk, don’t build on the seashore. It’s not everyone else’s problem. It’s YOUR problem. There is no collectivist sharing of risk of where people build. Should I build a house on the beach, it encumbers no one else but me.

    ‘To try to get a clearer picture, some of the leading researchers in the field carried out what is termed a structured expert judgement study, where the scientists make predictions based on their knowledge and understanding of what is happening in Greenland, West and East Antarctica.’

    At least they have a sense of humor.

  24. May 21, 2019 10:23 pm

    One of the striking facts in the video, I posted earlier, is that ‘rapid’ sea rise is a phenomenon that began around the year 2000. It’s at 24:12 in the video – https://youtu.be/Bkohtjiq7E4?t=1452.
    That would suggest to me that there isn’t a direct relationship with Global Warming. Also, the ‘rapid’ sea rise appears to accelerating at an enormous rate, again suggesting it has nothing to do with warming.
    Robert Bindschadler is critical of the media for the hype and interestingly also of the IPCC in the way they forced participating scientists into making guesses for each of the scenarios –
    19:12 https://youtu.be/Bkohtjiq7E4?t=1153.
    He is also amendment that whatever is happening we have no control over it and also will have plenty of time to adjust to whatever comes to pass.

    Anyone who hasn’t watched Prof Richard Lindzen should do so –

    Lindzen had been a lead author for the IPCC –

    “The Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), expected to be released sometime in 2001, is already coming under heavy criticism from various directions. But none has been more devastating than the one delivered on March 1 by one of the report’s lead authors.”
    https://cei.org/content/ipcc-report-criticized-one-its-lead-authors

    It’s important for one’s sanity to appreciate the history of the IPCC –
    “The Rio Conference in 1992 was crucial for the position of climate change in world politics. The formation of the UN Climate Convention, the UNFCCC received support from most of the world’s countries. The UN’s quest for the new world order, global equalization and justice now had a collective external threat that affected all countries of the world. Climate science under the auspices of the IPCC was turned into post-normal pseudoscience, subordinate to higher goals, ie the UN’s pursuit of the new world order.” (Google Translated)
    http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2016/02/25/media-och-klimathotsfragan/

    This isn’t a conspiracy theory –
    “Geo-Economics and Geo-Politics Drive Successive Eras of Predatory Globalization and Social Engineering: Historical emergence of #climate change, #gender equity, and anti #racism as State doctrines, by Denis G. Rancourt, Ontario Civil Liberties Association”
    http://ocla.ca/blog-ocla-report-2019-1/

  25. Andrew Dickens permalink
    May 21, 2019 10:38 pm

    There was a report in The Times today stating that 200 million people were feared to be at risk from rising sea levels. I wrote to the editor pointing out that the UK Environment Agency had 5 years ago stated that the Thames Tidal Barrier (built in the 1980s to cope with storm surges and high tides), which was expected to last until 2030, would not now be replaced until 2070 at least, as the expected rise in sea levels had not materialised.

  26. Pancho Plail permalink
    May 21, 2019 11:15 pm

    Are they seriously suggesting any significant melting of the land ice on Antarctica? The average temperature on the coast (or North Antarctica, as I like to call it) is -10K and is -40K over the majority of the rest (South Antarctica). For about 3 months of the year coastal temperatures in small parts of the continent may peak at 10K.

  27. I_am_not_a_robot permalink
    May 21, 2019 11:16 pm

    Parker and Ollier 2017:
    ‘… It is clear from the analyses of the tide gauges of the “NOAA-120”, “US 39”, “PSMSL-162”, “Mitrovica-23”, “Holgate-9”, and “California-8” data sets and the United States Pacific and Atlantic coasts that the sea level has been oscillating about the same almost perfectly linear trend line all over the 20th century and the first 17 years of this century …’.
    https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/14/study-sea-level-rise-not-following-co2-rise-growing-inconsistency-between-tide-gauges-ipcc-models/
    In my non-scientist opinion tide gauge averages are a good general proxy for the GAT because they are relatively free of manipulation.

  28. May 22, 2019 12:30 am

    Correction to my previous comment –

    /‘rapid’ sea rise/ should have been /’rapid’ loss of ice/

  29. May 22, 2019 12:38 am

    Pity the BBC didn’t Tweet it because one could have replied with –

    /As the evidence from the measurements does not support the IPCC expectations or the even more alarming predictions by the local California panel, these claims and the subsequent analyses are too speculative and not suitable for rigorous use in planning or policy making./

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569117303071

    So much for ‘settled science’

  30. Richard bell permalink
    May 22, 2019 1:14 am

    This was shown on BBC WORLD NEWS which airs on PBS in the USA …. they interviewed Michael Oppenheimer and he droned on about New York being under water and sea level rise as though it was a dead certainty ……. BBC are not to be trusted or believed on anything any more which is disappointing ….. but the fact is the are Climate Change Promotors !!!

  31. Bruce of Newcastle permalink
    May 22, 2019 3:05 am

    I enjoyed this fine article today:

    High-Quality Jadeite Tool Discovered in Underwater Ancient Salt Works in Belize (20 May, via Fox News)

    Nice find. The Mayan salt mines are interesting archaeology, especially with the use of salt for food preservation and trade. The bit which was interesting from a climate perspective was this:

    During the Classic Period of A.D. 300–900, high-quality translucent jadeite was typically reserved for unique and elaborate jadeite plaques, figurines and earrings for royalty and other elites. However, McKillop and colleagues recovered the jadeite tool at the site of an ancient salt works in southern Belize called Ek Way Nal. This site is part of a network of 110 ancient salt working sites covering a 3-square-mile area McKillop discovered in 2004.

    These sites are located in a saltwater lagoon surrounded by mangrove forest. Sea level rise has completely submerged them underwater and the soggy mangrove soil, or peat, preserves wood, which normally would decay in the rainforest of Central America.

    So it looks to me that sea level rise since the latter first millenium AD has flooded these salt deposits forcing their abandonment. Who knew CO2 was so powerful over a thousand years ago!

  32. M E permalink
    May 22, 2019 6:24 am

    from Earthquake damaged Christchurch New Zealand

    EQ DAMAGED SUBURBS AND THE RISING SEA
    Sea levels are rising but the EQs in Chch pitched whole suburbs into this reality well ahead of anyone else with land sinking substantially during the quakes. The worst hit is probably South New Brighton where everyone seems to have failed residents; insurers, govt, council.
    ………………
    Earthquake services. 22 June 2018 Facebook.

    Notice they still have to claim that sea levels are rising while reporting a topic about earthquake causing coastal land to sink. Bureaucratic speech patterns.

  33. dennisambler permalink
    May 22, 2019 10:56 am

    “The study has been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”

    This is the appeal to false authority. If you are a PNAS member, you can effectively publish without peer review. If you are a PNAS editor, as for example John Schellnhuber is, you can give the green light to papers reflecting your own agenda and reject those that don’t.

  34. Mike chen permalink
    May 22, 2019 7:36 pm

    How will alarmist explain level decrease during 1800 when the industrial revolution ramps up?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: