IPCC sea level exaggeration


by Vincent Gray, Wellington New Zealand

Chapter 13 of the IPCC 5th WGI Report claims that sea level will rise by an amount between 0.26 to 0.97 metres by 2100 according to which of their new scenarios actually happens

Relative Sea Level,the distance between the level of the sea and the level of neighbouring land is what matters to most of us. The Level of the open ocean is only of minor importance. This Report tries to mix the two up in a single chart.

Relative Sea Level is measured by tide gauges which measure the distance between the level of the sea registered on specialist equipment and a supposedly constant benchmark location on the neighbouring land. carried out in over 1000 coastal locations all over the world. The records are averages, over a day, week, month or years.

Both the level of the sea and of the neighbouring land constantly vary  from place to place.and from  time to time.

The sea changes level constantly, diurnally and seasonally.  It is influenced by winds, storms and hurricanes and also by earthquakes. The level of the sea may be influenced by breakwaters and harbour works. The equipment may be damaged or its location altered by storms. Severe storms may prevent correct measurement and give a false reading which interferes with claims for “change.

Land surfaces may change. The land may subside by weight of buildings, and removal of minerals and groundwater. The Report illustrates the problem of measurement near land covered in iceGeological change (Isostasy) may result from plate movements and earthquakes. Many of these effects cause an upwards bias to the readings.

Long term trends may as much show these changes as any other influence. As a result they are not a reliable guide to the future.which should be based on a recent period of reliable measurements.

The recent installation of GPS levelling equipment on m,ay sites has greatly improved the reliability of the land-based benchmark. It has resulted in a nearly constant sea level change for many records it is therefore wrong to place reliance on older readings in order to assess future behaviour. It should be based on the most recent measurements which are the least likely to be affected by previous bias.

The records are publicly available at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level  (PSMSL) website at   at http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/map.html  which features a very convenient map of the world from which all the records can be obtained.

Many records are defective in one way or another. Many have gaps or sudden changes, Few have a long-term continuous record.  Frequently there is little sign of change during the recent decade. evidence. that currently there is little or no change in sea level. The following figure from Chapter 13, FAQ 13.1 Figure 1. illustrates this error.


It shows six tide gauge records compared with the supposed global average..

The actual current records, which are shown (rather small), disagree with this supposed trend

San Francisco is unchanged since 1990.

Charlottetown is unchanged from 1995 to 2010.

Antofagasta  is unchanged from 1980 to 2012

Pago Pago is unchanged since 2000.

Stockholm is actually falling.

Manila is a rogue record.The following website states that the gauge is subject to subsidence


The following records from the Philippines, show no recent rise.


I have published a study of the Pacific islands which also display no recent rise at


Recently there was a Pacific Forum meeting in Kiribati attended by our Prime Minister which complained that the islands were sinking. And we must take action

This is a recent tide gauge record from Kiribati


. These figures and also those from Australia continue to show little change. He same is true for many islands as shown at


Future projections for different places from the latest IPCC Report Chapter 13 are shown in their Figure 13.23 .


Every one of these actual measured sea levels have shown no sign of change for at least ten years, yet all the projections claim that this settled behaviour will suddenly change to an upwards level of around half a metre by the end of the century.

This is based on models which have failed to predict the lack of a global temperature increase for the past 17 year,.yet it is claimed they  are causing melting of ice, particularly in the Arctic

All the models assume that any temperature rise will be least at the poles and greatest at the tropics because the water vapour feedback is lower at the poles..They do not mention Antarctica where the ice is currently increasing

There are no measurements of temperatures on ice anywhere, on ice caps, oceans or glaciers. In all cases there are other influences.on their behaviour. In the Arctic it is the temperature of the ocean and the behaviour of the ocean oscillations.

The ice in the Arctic is beginning to grow now

The satellite measurements do seem to show a steady increase in sea level, but it seems to be little known that the instruments are subject to drift and they have to be calibrated on tide gauge measurements,

This is described in the following web address


which can be boiled down to


These satellite measurements have only been going since 1992. There have been several calibration problems and it is unclear to what extent it incorporates errors from tide gauges


Models based on an assumption of a temperature change that is not currently happening, and on melting ice which is absent from Antarctica and which appears to have ceased in the Arctic, are poor guides to practical sea level changes near a coast. These need to be judged from tide gauges measuring recent local behaviour with reliable equipment,, . The IPCC “projections” are thereby grossly exaggerated.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 30, 2013 6:14 pm

No problem, just “upjust” the data:
Satellite sea level data has been “adjusted” upward by 34% over past 9 years alone
There are many documented examples of sea level data from satellite altimeters being “adjusted” upward many years after publication, often repeatedly on the same data, and in defiance of the laws of probability, always in an upward direction. Seven documented examples can be found in the links in this post. A recent comment in a sea level article on the Yale Environment 360 site documents another example of sea level data being adjusted upward by 34% [by 1 mm/yr, equivalent to an additional 4 inches per century] over the 9 years since it was collected and published on the University of Colorado website.

October 30, 2013 6:31 pm

Seems to me that measuring sea level a lot like measuring your altitude while jumping on a trampoline. A host of factors come into play in addition to those mentioned such as volcanoes
on land, volcanoes at sea, erosion and kids skipping rocks

Pippen Kool
October 30, 2013 6:36 pm

[“pippen kool” if you want to denigrate 90 year old Dr. Gray, who has forgotten more than you’ll ever learn, put your name to your words, otherwise kindly STHU. Feel free to be as upset as you wish, because as you know I don’t have a lot of tolerance for people who taunt from anonymity. If you have a point, make it technically. So far all you have is hand waving – Anthony]

October 30, 2013 6:46 pm

Hockey Schtick says:
October 30, 2013 at 6:14 pm
No problem, just “upjust” the data:…..

Continued and lavish Calamatological funding is the key to the necessary data adjustments.
For people who are fearful of the rate of sea level rise please take a look at this terrifying graphic and warn all your loved ones to go to higher land areas now.

October 30, 2013 6:56 pm

FWIW: This is what I was taught, before satellites tried to improve upon it.
“So that the surface of the ocean can be used as a base for measuring elevations, the concept of “local mean sea level” has been developed. In the United States and its territories, local mean sea level is determined by taking hourly measurements of sea levels over a period of 19 years at various locations, and then averaging all of the measurements.
The 19-year period is called a Metonic cycle. It enables scientists to account for the long-term variations in the moon’s orbit. It also averages out the effects of local weather and oceanographic conditions.”
I was lazy and pulled that quote out of:
19 years to try to average out any known cycles,… and calibrate the satellites ?

Mike Smith
October 30, 2013 7:05 pm

The models say the sea levels are rising. So, where’s the missing water? Hiding in the deep ocean?

Ian Wilson
October 30, 2013 7:29 pm

If thermal expansion of ocean waters is a major factor in the increase in sea level on a regional basis then your map seems to confirm Bob Tisdale’s claim that although the bulk of the oceans have warmed – there has been no statistically significant warming in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific Ocean.

Neil Jordan
October 30, 2013 7:30 pm

Re u.k.(us) says: October 30, 2013 at 6:56 pm
I have commented on WUWT on several occasions regarding measurement of sea level, particularly the necessity to consider the Metonic Cycle and average sea level measurements over at least a cycle length. From an engineering or surveying point of view, American Council of Surveying and Mapping provides a good summary:
See my WUWT comments at:

October 30, 2013 7:33 pm

I have made an albeit cursory comparison between locally published tide gauge records that I need to refer to for design values, and what should be the same records in the PSMSL, and they don’t match.

October 30, 2013 7:35 pm

Jimbo says:
October 30, 2013 at 6:46 pm
I’ve often used that chart in class to teach students the importance of putting data in context.

October 30, 2013 7:37 pm

So it could be .36 Meters rise or even 373% greater…
If engineers designed like this…

Geoff Sherrington
October 30, 2013 7:41 pm

The most recent paper I have seen uses unadjusted data from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level applied to many global long term tide gauges. The overall conclusion is that sea level change from the data studied is 1 mm per year for the period 1900-2000.
There is no reason why a new paper should give the best result, apart from being able to build on previous papers. Therefore, the scientific exercise is to show the conclusion to be wrong, or accept it. If a different conclusion is reached, such as that by Chapter 13 of the IPCC 5th WGI Report, then the minimal scientific requirement is to explain any differences. It really is hard to find disagreement with the paper I cited. (Note that the paper was not published in time for the IPCC AR5 compilation).

October 30, 2013 7:51 pm

For information, the English translation of the tittle of my Contrepoints post mentioned here is “Oceans rise dangerously, except around islands”.
The post covers the 39 AOSIS Islands, AOSIS (http://bit.ly/1iw0tR5) being the “coalition of small island and low-lying coastal countries that share similar development challenges and concerns about the environment, especially their vulnerability to the adverse effects of global climate change. It functions primarily as an ad hoc lobby and negotiating voice for small island developing States (SIDS) within the United Nations system”
The initial idea was to check if there was any factual basis to support AOSIS money and international attention claims. Guess the answer!
I could provide, within reasonable time frame, an English translation of my post on request.

Go Home
October 30, 2013 8:00 pm

Once the seas get too high, we just need to start sequestering water in the antarctic. Problem solved. Probably cheaper than trying to slow the oceans rise by cutting co2.

October 30, 2013 8:16 pm

Caution with Isostasy adjustment!! These Tidal gauge data are only valid if they have a correct Isostasy adjustment. Your Example from Stockolm, for instance, can be a clear case where the sea is not retreating but, instead, the Earth “is rising”. The Scandinavian peninsula is one of the most known examples of evident isostasy, where the crust is rising. The same applies to Manilla in the reverse movement. If you cannot measure accurately crust vertical movements, all tidal gauge data is distorted and potential misleading. Any crustal horizontal mass transfer implies isostasy with time. That’s where any prediction of sea level rise fails!!! Trust me, I’ve worked on this issue for ages…
From a Jim Prall’s list skeptic.

Chris Edwards
October 30, 2013 8:18 pm

I would like to see data for new rock being formed under the atlantic set against old rock being consumed in subversion zones and while Mr Pachuri is down there measuring that he can measure the net gain in heat from all the lava being solidified! without an idea of that what good is the sea level rise guesses? I have writers block, I cannot find any words derogatory enough to describe the excuse for scientists who think they can get a computer to model this!

Jim Clarke
October 30, 2013 8:22 pm

“All the models assume that any temperature rise will be least at the poles and greatest at the tropics because the water vapour feedback is lower at the poles.”
I thought the models all predicted more warming at the poles and higher latitudes because absorption was already nearly saturated at the lower latitudes and there is a lot more ‘room’ for an increase in the greenhouse effect in the high latitudes.

M. Hastings
October 30, 2013 8:22 pm

Tonyb says it best, “Measuring sea levels is problematic”

October 30, 2013 8:23 pm

“There have been several calibration problems and it is unclear to what extent it incorporates errors from tide gauges” that’s not the only problem http://climal.com/measuring-earths-temperature.php

October 30, 2013 8:42 pm

The entire ‘positive trend’ in satellite sea level ‘measurements’ was produced by upjustments:

Jeff L
October 30, 2013 8:44 pm

My question is how they accurately (over the time periods of interest) separate out isostatic & tectonic effects from the tidal records. Those also should be long period variations, similar to so called effect of AGW. I would hazard to guess that Stockholm in fact is seeing some degree of isostatic rebound, which would look the same as a falling sea level (as it is a relative fall in sea level wrt the land).
I know the GRACE satellite gravity data is designed to address some of these issues but that is a very limited data record (just since 2002 , I believe) but how do you account for tectonics & isostacy in the pre-gps era?? My guess is it hasn’t been done, at least accurately, & that we know far less about the long term trend in sea level than we may think (if anyone has references to show that this has been done accurately (for lets say, the last 100 years) , I would love to see the link).

Nick Kermode
October 30, 2013 8:54 pm

“Many records are defective in one way or another. Many have gaps or sudden changes, Few have a long-term continuous record. Frequently there is little sign of change during the recent decade. evidence. that currently there is little or no change in sea level.”

October 30, 2013 8:56 pm

“There are no measurements of temperatures on ice anywhere, on ice caps, oceans or glaciers. In all cases there are other influences.on their behaviour. In the Arctic it is the temperature of the ocean and the behaviour of the ocean oscillations.”

October 30, 2013 9:20 pm

sometimes, it’s more than “exaggeration”, it’s lies:
30 Oct: BusinessSpectator Australia: Higher emissions target in line with science: council
By a staff reporter
The Australian Climate Council has backed the Climate Change Authority’s report calling for higher emissions reductions targets.*…
“If we fail to reduce our emissions adequately the economic impacts will be profound. We have to recognise this is an issue that will affect long term planning decisions for our economy and environment,” Gerry Hueston, a councillor who was formerly chief executive of BP Australasia, said…
“International action, particularly from the US and China is moving faster than was expected just a few years ago.
“Without stepping up to do our bit Australia could lag behind the world.
we know why US emissions have droppd & it’s got nothing to do with CAGW policies, PLUS:
Japan considers weakening 2020 emissions target: media
BEIJING, Oct 30 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Japan is considering a new climate target that would allow its greenhouse gas emissions to remain near current levels to 2020, weakening its international commitment to tackling climate change, according to media reports…
25 Oct: InternationalBusinessTimes: Canada’s 2020 Carbon Emissions Target: Epic Fail
Environment Canada said on its Web site the country will emit an additional 734 megatonnes carbon output 2020 versus the 701 megatonnes in 2011 when in fact it committed to reduce by 17 per cent by 2020 its carbon emissions from 2005 levels, as part of the 2009 Copenhagen Accord…
Overall, between 2005 and 2020, Canada’s carbon emissions will rise by 38 per cent, courtesy of its oil and gas industry…
(FUNDING FROM SHELL, TIDES FOUNDATION ETC) Pembina Institute analyst P.J. Partington believed matters can still be saved if Canada will commit to a strong political will…
28 Oct: BusinessSpectator: NZ on track to miss (emissions) targets by huge margin
New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise nearly 50 per cent by 2040, according to new government modelling, taking the country well off course to meet its commitment to cut emissions in half by mid-century.*…
China’s anti-pollution drive risks running out of gas
BEIJING, Oct 30 (Reuters) – A chronic shortage of natural gas is hurting China’s plan to move away from burning coal to heat homes and offices, raising the prospect of more choking air pollution this winter and beyond…

Mike Bromley the Kurd
October 30, 2013 9:21 pm

Alarmism around sea level ‘rise’ (better use “change” or “disruption”, kids) is such a simpleton’s simplification. Vincent Gray is correct in his outline…there are simply too many variables involved to make a blanket statement about alarming sea level rise. Horse hockey like intense Australian rains mitigating sea level rise, or “Katrina was made worse by Sea Level Rise”, or a supposed big sea-dome around Manila, or Grist’s “this is what climate change looks like” (in reference to the 2011 tsunami), are all examples of the distortion by the climate change druids. All of it is refutable, confirmed by the shrill responses when one tries. Again, geologists can teach climate scienceytistas a thing or two, but because Climatologists are an exalted lot, above reproach AND realistic sea levels, they will never learn.

October 30, 2013 9:29 pm

I once installed a GPS receiver on the roof of a major defense contractor (they wanted to play with things in the back yard I guess).
We tied the position of the receiver into a couple known GPS landmarks, while receiving corrections from another receiver situated on a pre-determined GPS point.
Gave the contractor the coordinates.
We got a call one week later.
When they turned on their receiver, they said they were 30 feet off of what we told them.
They weren’t receiving the corrections (radio link) from a receiver on a known point, that corrects for all the atmospheric effects, accuracy becomes ~1/4 inch.
Most large urban areas, are now about 1/4 ” (depending on the receiver).
The corrections are broadcast like Wi-Fi, for a fee ?
Oh, 2-3 times that in vertical.
I’ve been out of the game awhile, updates encouraged folks 🙂

October 30, 2013 9:29 pm

The author appears to be making the case that we should only look at recent tide data (the last ten years) as this is the most accurate and coincidentally agrees with his point that CAGW is overblown. Since global temperatures have been static for 17 years it would be expected that thermal expansion of the ocean would also tend to become static over the last 17 years (with some lag). This seems to be a somewhat circular argument not withstanding the overarching difficulties of obtaining accurate data in the first place. I agree with the overall thrust of the piece but the evidence as presented doesn’t really support it one way or the other.

October 30, 2013 10:05 pm

Since global temperatures have been static for 17 years it would be expected that thermal expansion of the ocean would also tend to become static over the last 17 years (with some lag).
The heat is hiding in them there oceans, don’t you know?
Even the alarmists can’t hide heat in the oceans and claim there is no thermal expansion as a result!
Flat sea rise is yet another reason to ignore Trenberth’s wild assertion of “hiding” heat.

Dudley Horscroft
October 30, 2013 11:46 pm

“Jeff L says:
October 30, 2013 at 8:44 pm
My question is how they accurately (over the time periods of interest) separate out isostatic & tectonic effects from the tidal records.”
I think you will find the answer is that prior to 1952 (when I left school) it was assumed that the oceans were not expanding and therefore all changes of apparent sea level in tide gauge records were, bar accident or shifting of the gauge, due to the land rising or sinking. Hence, nobody tried to separate our isostatic effects from tidal records.
BTW, how much sea water would have to come from melting ice to produce the “Parallel Roads of GlenRoy”? Alternatively, if from thermal expansion, what would the temperature of the oceans be?

October 31, 2013 12:02 am

Climate Scientists are like amateur fishermen. Everything gets adjusted upward. 🙂

Carin S
October 31, 2013 12:16 am

Just read a very interesting thing on Wiki about Stockholm and land raise since ice age. I live in Sweden so I’m well aware of this since school age.
The land raise has been on-going since the ice age with 20 mm/year about 2000 years ago. However around the time for the Vikings, 800-1200 AC, the land raise stopped.
That was the time when the Vikings went to Greenland and started agriculture there.
Hmmm – for me it is very evident that there were no stop in land raise but an increase of sea level due to that it was warmer and ice melted from Greenland and other places.
Sarcastic conclusion must be that the Vikings used a lot of log to burn and increased the CO2 levels so the planet went hotter.
Or was it just normal climate changes? This sort that some climate Taliban’s want to hide.

Geoff Sherrington
October 31, 2013 12:43 am

Vincent, you write –
“There are no measurements of temperatures on ice anywhere, on ice caps, oceans or glaciers. In all cases there are other influences.on their behaviour.”
I can’t understand what you mean. There was a whole debate, for example, about temperatures in the Antarctic, with Eric Steig and O’Donnell et al refuting the changes that even made the cover of Nature Magazine. The et al were O’Donnell [Ryan O], Lewis [Nic L], McIntyre [Steve] and Condon [Jeff Id])
More generally, the take-away point might be that ice does not melt (though it can sublime) until temperature reaches 0 deg C. Persistent ice temperatures below that would indicate a site with low potential to lead to sea level rise. The average temperature in Antarctica is about -37°C, so the ice there is in low danger of melting.
It also bears repeating that the melting of floating ice does not produce a sea level rise (Archimedes ca. 250 BC).
There are many temperature measurements on ice. Please say there was a typo or whatever, bigger than the one that shows.

October 31, 2013 12:49 am

Jeff L requests pre 1990 isostacy/tectonic data :-
Although I dont have time to go find the data, the London plate is slowly tipping into the english channel, rate of declination was carefully calculated back in the 1950 based on only land surface measurements initially and then linked to sealevel later, there must be data hanging around that somehwere

Geoff Sherrington
October 31, 2013 12:50 am

More data on sea levels. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology maintains a network of tide gauges in the tropical west Pacific, around where El Nino related measurements are made. We can presume it to be of high quality because it is modern design with many earlier problems sorted.
These estimates of recent rise indicate about 5.5 mm per year, a value somewhat higher than typical of other places. I’ve often wondered why they seem out of step, because clearly a portion of the global seas cannot just take off and rise faster than the rest forever. As Dad used to say, water finds its own level. The main candidate explanation to date is that the term of measurement, about 1992 to end 2012, is part of a cycle that is incomplete and might take decades longer to resolve.

Peter Miller
October 31, 2013 1:54 am

Steve B says: “Climate Scientists are like amateur fishermen. Everything gets adjusted upward.”
There is so much wisdom in that simple statement.
I have always been highly sceptical about satellite measurements of sea level. I just do not see how it can be done to the accuracy claimed, there are just too many variables. I cannot see how anything, moving at a high speed (20-30,000kms/hour) in a decaying, elliptical orbiting a couple of hundred kilometres out in space, can possibly claim to measure something not dead flat and static with an accuracy of 0.01mms. I suggest the adjustment process might even make His Manniness blush.
Anyhow, if the sea level is now static and the Arctic ice is recovering, that puts a couple of really hefty nails into the coffin of CAGW theory.

Louis Hooffstetter
October 31, 2013 2:16 am

Next time you’re at the beach, wade out into the water until it reaches your waist, and then kneel down. A climastrologist will tell you that the water level actually rose! This is the game they play with tide gauges in regions that are subsiding. It’s one of their many games and it’s obvious fraud. Over the course of the next few years, data from GPS CORS stations located near tide gauges will correct vertical land movement to show true sea level fluctuations.

October 31, 2013 3:00 am

Vincent Gray writes: “All the models assume that any temperature rise will be least at the poles and greatest at the tropics because the water vapour feedback is lower at the poles.”
You’ll need to clarify your post. For land+sea surface temperatures, the IPCC prognostications (2005-2100 with RCP6.0 Scenario) show both poles warming faster than the tropics. But for sea surface temperatures, they show the tropics warming faster than the poles.

October 31, 2013 3:27 am

All the models assume that any temperature rise will be least at the poles and greatest at the tropics because the water vapour feedback is lower at the poles.
Should it not be the other way round?

October 31, 2013 4:16 am

The ‘need’ for sea level increases is what drives these models , not science and not data for both of these refute the claims. And this is the give away , for take away the ‘need’ you your left with the reality without models telling you a very different story.

October 31, 2013 5:07 am

I know I have posted about this article before, but it seems to say again here
“The whole car is being assembled with this kind of precision with the aid of a “surface table” – a super-flat, 7m-long slab of cast iron that weighs 10 tonnes.
The accuracy of the build is regularly checked using a Hexagon laser, which will measure the position of any part of the car, in three dimensions, to one millionth of a metre.
This has given us a bit of a problem, though, as the surface table (all 10 tonnes of it) keeps moving.
After a lot of checking, it would appear that the surface table, and the whole of our Technical Centre, is actually floating.
The ends of the table move up and down by a couple of millimetres or so with the tide. We’re only a few hundred metres from the River Avon and the tide in the river makes the floor (and the surface table, and therefore our chassis) go up and down very slightly. ”
Can some explain to me how anyone can tell with accuracy. How much the sea level are raising or falling is within a few mm. Climate scientists would not know real science if it bit them in the arse.
The article above shows what happens when do real science. I am sorry alarmists don’t do real science.

October 31, 2013 6:25 am

A very poorly written article imo. It could have been summarized quickly as “Sea levels are rising at a slower rate than the IPCC forecasted and at a local level; changes in land height often dominate local conditions”.

Just an engineer
October 31, 2013 7:00 am

Mike says:
October 30, 2013 at 9:29 pm
The author appears to be making the case that we should only look at recent tide data (the last ten years) as this is the most accurate and coincidentally agrees with his point that CAGW is overblown. Since global temperatures have been static for 17 years it would be expected that thermal expansion of the ocean would also tend to become static over the last 17 years (with some lag). This seems to be a somewhat circular argument not withstanding the overarching difficulties of obtaining accurate data in the first place. I agree with the overall thrust of the piece but the evidence as presented doesn’t really support it one way or the other.
No SLR pretty much kills the “missing heat is hiding in the deep ocean” idea.

October 31, 2013 7:24 am

There was a mercury Tiltmeter in Auckland New Zealand that showed that Auckland tilted twice a day, matching the tides. IIRC there was a trough of mercury about a metre long, with a metal plate above at each end. The capacitance between the plates and the mercury could be very acurately measured.
Here’s someone else who made a tiltmeter:

Peter Pearson
October 31, 2013 8:55 am

Too many typos. And there’s only one ell in Manila.

October 31, 2013 10:06 am

IPCC will always be attacked for their past minor errors http://climal.com/climate-change-facts.php

R. de Haan
October 31, 2013 10:28 am

No sea level rise in the Galapagos Islands for 35 years: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/no-sea-level-rise-in-the-galapagos-for-35-years/
I am 100% sure sea level hasn’t changed over a much longer period of time.
In this regard I would like to refer to a photo published at the late John Daily website which is showing a clear picture of a rock at the Isle of Death in Tasmania with the sea level carved in it combined with the following text:
The 1841 sea level benchmark (centre) on the `Isle of the Dead’, Tasmania. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841. Photo taken at low tide 20 Jan 2004.
Mark is 50 cm across; tidal range is less than a metre. © John L. Daly.
Just like all the fuzz that is made over a natural temperature variation of plus minus half a degree Celsius temperature fluctuation, every word spend on sea level rise by the IPCC is 100% exaggeration. Hell, even the mention of “sealevel rise” is an exaggeration
Just look for yourself:
How many years are we going to recycle all this BS? I really wonder.

Policy Guy
October 31, 2013 10:28 am

Dr Gray, thank you
There was an article in a recent Discover magazine that focused how Venice was planning to respond to rising sea water and more frequent floods. It seemed exaggerated. Do you have any data relative to Venice?

John Moore
October 31, 2013 10:46 am

It seems to me that having lived with in a few miles of the sea on the English Channel side of the the SW counties that the important information is how far the tide comes in on open beaches at Spring tides (when the moon and sun are on the same side of the Earth). To the best of my knowledge of the last eight decades they are just the same — although a strong SE wind will bring the sea a bit further up the beach. Any other measurement seems to be just theory. I have made many enquiries of the Met Office and the Ordnance Survey who make our maps The latter have recently told me that the Datum Point for British maps is at Newlyn Harbour in the very far SW and that they are still using the height established in 1915 –1921 for countour maps with spot heights produced today. Surely it is only the highest tides that matter?

M E Wood
October 31, 2013 11:43 am

In Canterbury New Zealand there has been a series of large earthquakes since 2010.
The land has sunk relative to sea and river levels. All of New Zealand is now on alert to the imminent possibilty of major earthquakes. Minor earthquakes are common. See the New Zealnd site geonet. It seems that levels of sea and rivers will always be changing by small amounts.
This is not to consider the aggrading of of beaches of river mouths, many of these are braided rivers, and move gravels washed down from many mountain ranges.

October 31, 2013 8:54 pm

“Stockholm is actually falling” – well it would be, as GIA is causing the gauge to rise at almost 5 mm/year (several studies using CGPS/satellite data).
Sea level is rising at rates much greater than the much-quoted 3.2 mm/year global average in the western Pacific, and falling in the east, which is why Steven Goddard is right about Santa Cruz in the Galapagos. In general, satellite data reflects gauge rates rather better than fairly well across the Pacific. Both western and eastern Pacific rates are driven by ENSO, and can be graphically correlated quite convincingly.
You link to your SPPI South Pacific “paper” which claims “no recent rise”, Vincent – do you hold that “eyeballing” low-resolution sample charts published online by the BOM is a robust analysis technique?
I’d be interested to know whether you still believe that tropical cyclones can depress the sea surface, rather than raise them (“storm surge”) as they logically do due to low atmospheric pressure? How do you justify claiming that the illogical and unobserved depression of the surface lasts then lasts for periods of up to several years after the event?
Your claim that Australian sea-levels “continue to show little change” is, quite frankly, rubbish. Rates in the west and north match other SW Pacific rates well, and are certainly well above “little change”. Show us a few linear regressions over the period you refer to as “recent”.
There’s nothing alarming about rates worldwide, in general, but let’s deal with facts, not what amounts at best to ill-informed comment.

November 1, 2013 6:03 am

Dr. Willie Soon explains the problems with satellite measurement of sea level better than anyone I’ve ever seen, starting here:

That segment of his lecture is 24 minutes long, starting at the 17:37 point. The link should take you directly to 17:37. But, actually, I recommend watching the whole 58 minute lecture at least once. I promise, you’ll learn a lot.

%d bloggers like this: