Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
In remembrance of the victims of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma: I have held off publishing this essay until after the damage from Hurricane Irma could be determined hoping not to add to the fears, angst and now sorrow experienced by both victims and their relatives. My prayers and sympathy go out to all who have suffered losses.
Sea Level Rise: Is it the greatest threat the posed by Climate Change today?
The press tells us it is:
“The current best estimates predict that sea level will rise up to 6.6 feet, or 2 meters, by the year 2100.” — The Climate Institute, “Sea Level Rise: Risk and Resilience in Coastal Cities” by Erin A. Thead
“A rapid disintegration of Antarctica might, in the worst case, cause the sea to rise so fast that tens of millions of coastal refugees would have to flee inland, potentially straining societies to the breaking point. Climate scientists used to regard that scenario as fit only for Hollywood disaster scripts. But these days, they cannot rule it out with any great confidence. The risk is clear: Antarctica’s collapse has the potential to inundate coastal cities across the globe. … If that ice sheet were to disintegrate, it could raise the level of the sea by more than 160 feet — a potential apocalypse, depending on exactly how fast it happened.” — The NY Times, Looming Floods, Threatened Cities, a three part series by Justin Gillis
But is it, really?
“Sea level has been rising for the last ten thousand years, since the last Ice Age…the question is whether sea level rise is accelerating owing to human caused emissions. It doesn’t look like there is any great acceleration, so far, of sea level rise associated with human warming. These predictions of alarming sea level rise depend on massive melting of the big continental glaciers — Greenland and Antarctica. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing. Greenland shows large multi-decadal variability. …. There is no evidence so far that humans are increasing sea level rise in any kind of a worrying way.” — Dr. Judith Curry, video interview published 9 August 2017
# # # # #
Sea Level Rise (SLR usually hereafter) is being characterized in the press — newspapers, magazines and television reports — as the latest and greatest threat to mankind from human-caused climate change.
Why? It is always difficult to assign motivation to social memes but it is not disallowed to speculate. The Global Warming threat has lost much of its appeal with the general public — air temperatures simply have not risen as threatened 30 years ago by James Hansen, despite the changing metrics used to measure and promote it, and, quite frankly, it no longer looks like they are going to. I needn’t repeat the story of IPCC model prediction failures and the shortfall of actual global temperatures to match their alarming projections. As we know, the public face of Global Warming shifted from Dangerously Rising Air Temperatures to Climate Change (including Extreme Weather, and Sea Level Rise) over the last 20 years — though the scientific community has always used both terms interchangeable (for the most part). But we see fewer magazine covers featuring a flaming Earth — instead we more often see images super storms and NY City underwater with the Statue of Liberty half submerged.
I have written about sea level rise here: here, here, here, here and here. The previous essays are not prerequisites but are interesting specific examples.
There are two important points which readers must be aware of from the first mention of SLR:
- SLR is a real imminent threat to coastal cities and low-lying coastal and near-coastal densely-populated areas.
- SLR is not a threat to anything else — not now, not in a hundred years — probably not in a thousand years — maybe, not ever.
The first of these two facts is a convenient tool for propagandists — those wishing to raise public alarm about “climate change” as a currently-ongoing disaster.
It is easy enough to find some place on the planet foolishly built and occupied within a few feet of local relative sea level at some time in the past which is now flooding at Spring Tides [sometimes referred to as King Tides] or during periods of storm surge. Given that the average rise of the seas over the last century or so (the total length of our dependable instrumental record) has been about 8 to 12 inches, the chance that occasional tidal flooding will occur in these locations is almost 100%.
The propaganda opportunity is so great that a PR firm has created the King Tides Project to use these naturally occurring “highest tides” to raise the alarm about global SLR.
SLR is a real threat to coastal cities — today
First, let’s not kid around — The sea itself, whether rising or not, is a real imminent threat — a clear and present danger — to the many coastal cities and highly populated areas of the world that lie at or very near local mean sea level.
My recent essays on Miami Beach and Guangzhou–Canton point up real-life present-time examples of entire cities at risk from today’s sea level, today’s tides, and already experienced storm surges. Streets and neighborhoods have been built below Mean High High Water (highest normal tides) and below-ground infrastructure (water and sewage pipes, underground utilities, parking garages, subways) built many feet below sea level requiring them to have pumps to keep things dry and working.
There are not only cities currently below sea level (New Orleans, Amsterdam, Georgetown [Guyana]) but also major portions of whole nations (the European Low Countries and parts of the UK and Ireland among them). In Asia, Bangladesh, most of which is made up of river delta less than 12 m/40 ft above sea level, about 10% of its land would be flooded by 1 m/3 ft of SLR or storm surge.
Any sea-side or estuary-side city with major assets within ten feet of current sea levels are at risk now and those not taking active measures to mitigate those risks are placing losing bets on their futures. The tendency of societies to allow building in harm’s way seems inexhaustible — and to me, inexplicable.
An Example
The megapolis of Los Angeles, California is one of the country’s largest cities (and place of my birth, these many long years ago). It is nestled in the Los Angeles Basin, surrounded by coastal mountains.

An inundation of greater Los Angeles would be a truly world-class disaster. It is home to over 18 million people.
The NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer, designed to inform us of the threat of sea level rise, allows us to map the inundation that would be caused by up to 6 feet (2 meters) of sea level rise. Let’s see what that would look like if it happened to LA — here is Los Angeles Basin, with six feet of extra sea level:

Now look at that — almost nothing happens. From Santa Monica in the north all the way down to San Pedro, almost exactly nothing. Up near the top , there is the bright green “low-lying area”. Primarily a section called Venice (you guessed it — a developer built canals lined with houses – waterfront homes) and a little flooding near the Marina Del Rey and Playa Del Rey (the King’s Beach in English). Marinas are built more-or-less at sea level by necessity — Marina Del Rey in the mouth of a river estuary and a small slough or brackish wetland. Then absolutely nothing until one rounds the Palos Verdes peninsula (Green Hills) and comes to San Pedro, the seaport of Los Angeles.
Let’s enlarge that portion of the map:

Pushing the sea level rise viewer slider all the way up to 6 feet gives us some flooding in the sea port — here there are the docks and warehouses, built intentionally just a few feet above MHHW (mean high high water) so that vessels can be unloaded conveniently. Circled in RED is an area of light industrial buildings associated with the docks and shipping industry, located along a sea-level river. The newer Long Beach Harbor area is unscathed.
There is bad news further south-east. Circled in YELLOW are areas of single-family homes built on what were salt marshes and a sandy, brush-covered sand bar, outfitted with canals so more homes could have their own docks on the water. Leisure World, a huge mobile and manufactured home park, also built in a filled salt marsh is entirely flooded out at six feet. Sunset Beach is a Miami-like development of canals and water-front homes built just above mean high high water.
The Naval Weapons Storage facility, built at sea level to accommodate loading munitions onto naval vessels, gets flooded, but not the storage areas themselves. The flood-prone portions make up an associated, not always open-to-the-public, nature preserve. Close-up views show the munitions storage bunkers built on raised-out-of-harms-way leaf-like islands, far from civilian populations.
The area circled in ORANGE is shown as already flooding at King Tides. Let me add that image once more, to keep it in view:

Right on the coast in this section is a State Marine Conservation area, but inland in deep water (at six feet of SLR) are literally thousands of single-family homes, cheek-to-jowl.
Just to the south, one half of Huntington Beach is flooded out. The area now covered with homes was in the 1920s and 1930s part of the great California Oil Boom, and looked like this:

By the 1950’s, the oil boom had moved on, and the low-lying lands were cleared for home-building to accommodate the post-war families cranking out the baby boom. As we can see from the flood map, little attention was paid to elevation or concerns about the sea. Riverbeds connect to the sea and bring the rising tides inland where the land is not protected by bluffs — one can see the bluff in the right hand side of the photo above….but further north (left hand side) the bluff doesn’t exist).
What has happened here?
Let’s try to be very clear about what has been allowed to happen here. Humans have been able to measure relative elevation for at least 150 years, since about 1850 when spirit leveling first came into use.
This means that when land is developed near a body of water, like the Pacific Ocean or its connected estuaries, it can be assumed that it was possible to know the differences between the elevation of the water (sea level) and the elevation of the land. Any time that modern infrastructure — buildings, homes, factories, warehouses — was built, the builders knew (or certainly were obligated to know) the elevation of the land above sea level.
Sea level, worldwide, is understood to have generally risen 8 to 12 inches over the last century. So all of the areas shown as flooding at six feet of SLR have been built on and developed despite their being 5 feet or less above expected levels of the sea on the day construction was started.
Terminal Island (in Long Beach, the port of Los Angeles) has a tidal range of 5.5 feet (1.7 meters), with Mean High High Water being about 2 ½ feet higher than mean sea level. The NOAA Sea Level Viewer adds “sea level rise” to Mean High High Water — which can be considered the same as Spring or King Tide.
Mean High High Water is not to be confused with the tidal datum known as “Maximum — Highest Observed Water Level”. The tide station at Los Angeles, located in San Pedro Bay, has an historical Maximum that is another two and a half feet higher than MHHW, meaning that many of these flooded areas have already been flooded at existing sea levels.
The Bottom Line for Los Angeles:
Most of the megapolis of Los Angeles is protected from any threat from the sea by the bluffs along its coastline, with some minor exceptions at river estuaries, where some incursion could take place if there was to be six feet/two meters of sea level rise.
Where the greed of developers and lack of foresight by city planners (under the assumption that there was anyone doing city planning) has allowed thousands upon thousands of homes to be built in harm’s way in Sunset Beach, Huntington Beach, Seal Beach and other low-lying beach communities at the southern edges of the LA Basin. These homes stand at risk under present sea levels, requiring only King Tides and Storm Surges to inundate them with as little as six feet of extra sea level. As a comparison, Los Angeles has already historically experienced high water half of that in the past. As a reminder, Hurricane/Tropical Storm Sandy recently pushed 13 feet of storm surge into New York Harbor.
How much SLR can we expect?
What can we expect from rising seas? The generally accepted guess is “more of the same” — about 1 foot per century. If the temperatures rise a bit more, as expected by the luke-warmers in Climate Science, this could increase to about 18 inches over the next 100 years.
Los Angeles, though founded in 1781, did not become a mega-metropolis until after the 1920s, about a hundred years ago and may have seen the one foot of SLR over the last 100 years but it will not see 6 feet of SLR in the next few hundred years, so they have plenty of time to adapt and prepare.
The situation in LA’s low-lying, at-risk areas will not get much worse due to actual rising seas within a reasonable time scale. But, with the understanding that some areas are already at risk at current levels, anything other than a sea level drop will make a bad situation worse in those areas.
Neighborhoods built on sea-level canals with only a foot or two of freeboard (the factor of safety, usually expressed in feet above a sea level or MHHW) will probably have to be abandoned over the long term. Building codes will need to be enacted forbidding building on low lying areas prone to sea water inundation. All new homes built in flood-prone areas should be mandated by code to be built on “stilts” or with living spaces raised on eight to ten foot foundations as they are now in some East Coast areas. Existing homes in many areas will have to be raised or when next flooded, abandoned.
Southern Florida has been making these types of changes in building codes and development requirements for the last ten years, along these lines, requiring new homes to be at least a foot above FEMA flood map levels. Sea walls, when newly built or repaired are required to be raised to match expected flood levels. New homes in the Beaufort area of North Carolina (and all throughout the low country as it is called) can be seen going up in compliance with codes requiring living areas to be raised — most often ground level is dedicated to garage and storage space, and the living spaces up one floor. The following image shows (in light blue) how much land would be flooded by 6 feet of SLR or storm surge.

As a personal note, my wife and I sat out Hurricane Irene in August 2011, near Beaufort, NC, in a tiny marina along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, about three miles inland. There we had over 8 feet of storm surge. We watched as the docks and the pilings disappeared under the rising waters. We had our car parked on a hill 10 feet above MSL, it was touch and go through the night whether the hill too would be flooded. (On the map above, Beaufort is just south of the “ville” portion of the city name for Jacksonville.)
The Future
The Low Countries of Europe have long ago developed the engineering skills necessary to deal with and mitigate past errors of building too close to sea level. The rest of the world’s nations and cities each need to carry out an exercise similar to the one above — and as was done in Dade County — much more detailed and exacting on the level of professional civil engineering and develop mitigation plans for their current situation and for the expected continued rise in sea levels over next century — mitigation plans that will correct for past errors and oversights and protect them in both the short term and the long term.
# # # # #
- local relative sea level — the average level of the surface of the sea in relation to the land at any given locality. NOAA says : Tide stations measure Local Sea Level, which refers to the height of the water as measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. Water level measurements at tide stations are referenced to stable vertical points (or bench marks) on the land and a known relationship is established.” (back to essay)
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
I am always eager to read your comments and to try and answer your on-topic questions.
Try not to jump ahead of the series in comments — this essay covers only the existing sea level threat with a single example (added to the examples in my previous sea level essays). I will cover, in future parts of the series: How is sea level measured? Do we know that sea level is really rising? How fast is it rising? Is it accelerating? How do we know? How accurate are sea level measurements anyway? Should I sell my sea front property?
Sea Level Rise is an ongoing Scientific Controversy. This means that great care must be taken in reading and interpreting new studies and especially media coverage of the topic (including this essay) — bias and advocacy are rampant, opposing forces are firing repeated salvos at one another in the journals and in the press and the consensus may well simply be an accurate measure of the prevailing bias in the field. (h/t John Ioannidis)
# # # # #
Miami is sinking! Please use DGPS to assess this.
For other places, look at 200 to 300+ year old Admiralty charts to see what has really changed because of “SLR”.
Alan ==> The land mass at Miami (city not beach) moves a lot, up and down, but over the last ten or so years is actually generally up a tad. based on NOAA CORS data.
Nicely done. Wouldn’t it be great if all the MSM articles about SLR were as measured, informative and circumspect as this one, instead of the usual hysterical propaganda pieces. But then true education doesn’t always sell newspapers.
…kid ==> Thank you. Said before but worth repeating:
“Sea Level Rise is an ongoing Scientific Controversy. This means that great care must be taken in reading and interpreting new studies and especially media coverage of the topic (including this essay) — bias and advocacy are rampant, opposing forces are firing repeated salvos at one another in the journals and in the press and the consensus may well simply be an accurate measure of the prevailing bias in the field. “
Jose will now strengthen and get closer to the US coast.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=natl×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
ren ==> I like the MIMIC-TPW viewer — very nice. Thanks for the link.
Excellent article Kip. You might have mentioned that the area on the extreme West of your map near the words “Docks and Warehouses” is protected by large berms and is stabilized against subsidence (primarily) caused by petroleum extraction. They pump water into the strata under the area to prevent further subsidence.
I think San Diego — 100 miles to the South might have been an even better example. Unlike LA which built outward from an interior location on the Los Angeles River and developed its port and ocean fronts in the 20th century as an afterthought. San Diego grew around it’s excellent natural harbor. Like many seaports around the world downtown SD is built on a lowland site about 2-3 meters above the ocean. It also has communities — Imperial Beach and Coronado — built on a barrier island. That’s common on the East and Gulf coasts, but a rarity on the West Coast.
An additional point. In California, coastal housing probably not only should be built to Florida construction codes to protect against tropical cyclones, but needs to be built to survive major earthquakes. My impression is that enforces quite different requirements on architectural design
One other factor that is difficult to quantify. Many low lying areas in SoCal are protected from the Pacific waves by wide sandy beaches. The sand migrates North to South over time. Much of it eventually disappears into submarine canyons. All well and good. But upstream flood control efforts are purportedly cutting off the sediment flows that provide new sand to the beaches. Probably not a short term problem, but long term, it could be a problem. While some of Southern California’s sea cliffs are well consolidated sediment, many are pretty much just big dirt piles. Without the protective beaches, major storms will probably erode those cliffs quite severely.
Don K ==> Thanks for the additional information. I haven’t been down to the San Pedro docks since the early 1970s when I was helping refit an old WWII sub-chaser.
I couldn’t locate the berms you speak of on the two-dimensional Google satellite view. Can you tell me exactly where they are?
BTW, I picked Los Angeles as the largest megapolis on the West Coast — then did the SLR research on it. Not really proper to “pick” a “good example” of one’s preconceived conclusion — that’s what Climate Scientists do :-). I just took the data as it came out —
Kip. LAs an OK choice I think. It’s flatter and more vulnerable to SLR than most of the West Coast which mostly rises pretty abruptly out of the Pacific. San Diego is perhaps a bit more vulnerable and possibly more typical of port cities worldwide in having downtown close to the harbor.
I agree the berms aren’t easy to see on Google satellite view. I can sort of make one out on the North side of the Cerritos Channel just West of the oddly named Badger Ave Bridge which is a RR bridge. No clue where Badger Ave is/was. As I recall the berms are/were 3-4 meters high and ran for miles along the Cerritos Channel. It’s possible that they scaled the berms back or backfilled the island and/or mainland with dredged material since the 1950s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford_Bridge
http://www.laporthistory.org/level3/badger.html
http://www.laporthistory.org/level4/Badger/badger_people.html
Has anyone ever attributed SLR to aquifer depletion? I am not too sure on where the human population gets its water, or whether aquifers are even a significant water source. I know it’s an issue in the (former) Great American Desert, or as the Progressives now call it, Fly-Over Country.
Wu Nee ==> Yes, there is a lot of talk about aquifer pumping out adding to the surface water budget and thus to rising seas — but, as I will eventually discuss later in this series of essays, the sea level data set doesn’t show this — or really any (much) modern contribution of this, or glacier melt, or Greenland ice sheet melt, or anything else. It has been mostly just “business as usual” for the long spookily steady rise in absolute sea level for as long as we have records.
Wu – The IPCC has looked at contributions from aquifers. They say the numbers are hazy, the amount is fairly small compared to other source of SLR — which i dominated by thermal expansion of the oceans as they slowly warm.. And to date it’s probably largely offset by the sequester of water on land in new reservoirs.
Still not sure I buy the 12 inch sea level rise, per century. Having looked at cliff undercuts all over the Med, they appear to be on the present sea level (no tides to worry about in the Med). And judging by the thickness of the stalactites, the cliff faces are over 500 years old. And while I was in the Philipines last year, I noted large undercuts on the low-tide sea level there too.
http://s14.postimg.org/jci3z4z5t/undercut_med_cl.jpg
It would appear that sea level will either go up or down as temperatures only go up or down. There is no stable level only the appearance within a persons lifetime. Either way the the shore line will be somewhere else in future. Looking at all climate data there are NO horizontal lines unless time scales are reduced sufficiently to reduce detail.
As a layman I thank you for injecting some solid science, reality, and common sense into the hysteria that comes from the mainstream media and alarmists.
Sea rise early in the interglacial period drowned HUNDREDS of cities, river basins,roads,mines yet we continue to hug the ocean shores today.
Drowned Cities
” Gradually rising seas
For 4,000 years, the world’s sea level has been inching up.
This has been caused by
(a) the melting of the post-Flood ice and
(b) the gradual evaporation or outflow of inland basins to the sea.
The gradual rise of the oceans is thus another clear relic of the Deluge. Flood waters left behind on the land, in the form of ice or inland lakes, have been gradually returning to the oceans. The result has been not only a drying out of the land, but a corresponding rise in sea level.
The Hadji Ahmed map of 1559, whose original source dates back thousands of years, shows a landbridge between Siberia and Alaska, which existed when the original map was drawn. If the ocean between these two land masses were lowered 100 feet today, there would be a dry-land path between them.
According to some oceanographers and geologists, the ocean level may have been as much as 500 feet lower than today.
Ireland was connected with England; the North Sea was a great plain; Italy was joined to Africa, and exposed land cut the Mediterranean into two lakes.
Since then, the rising seas have engulfed coastal land and islands, turning isthmuses into straits and large islands into underwater plateaus.
Along many of the world’s shorelines are lost islands, now deep below the sea, with remains of cities, palaces and temples.”
a lot more here:
http://www.beforeus.com/drowned.html
At a talk at SIO some years ago, an avowed AGW alarmist warned the public about the imminent dangers of SLR. At its conclusion, I commented to the effect that I won’t begin to act on it until the UC real-estate division–who have masterfully acquired large acreages of prime coastal property throughout the state–would announce the sale of the lower SIO campus at 10 cents to the La Jolla dollar. I’m still waiting…
Kip Hansen, I would greatly like to fully understand how sea level rise is measure/calculated, as you stated you would be writing an article about that topic soon. How do I get a copy of that article?
Dale ==> How we measure Sea Level and SLR will be the main topic of Part 2 or 3 of this series. You can just leave a comment to the one you want …. or email me at my first name at the domain i4 decimal net when the time comes. Be glad to send you a .pdf of the essay once it is written.
This year, the mass of ice in Greenland increased.
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png
Clic.
Harson sez:
“Given that the average rise of the seas over the last century or so (the total length of our dependable instrumental record) has been about 8 to 12 inches …”
6 inches, not 8 to 12 inches !
HOW CAN WE TRUST ANYTHING ELSE YOU WRITE
if you can’t get the most basic fact about sea level rise correct?
I’ve got an article on the subject you need to read: Sea Level 101:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
Richard ==> You are welcome to comment — but not to troll. This means abiding by the WUWT policy on commenting and its generalized requirement that participants here engage in civil conversation.
There is no single correct number for the amount of sea level rise over the last 100-150 years. Scientific opinions on the magnitude of Sea Level Rise since the late 1800, about the start of the measurement records, vary from 6 inches to 15 inches, with the most common range given as 8 to 12 inches, in many cases simply “about a foot”.
Harson
Do you character attack anyone who disagrees with you as “trolling”?
In a prior comment, you said you hadn’t heard from me, so thought I might have died.
Talk about rude!
I use my real name.
I posted the quote in your article that I disagreed with.
I posted the right (conservative) answer of a 6″ sea level rise in past century.
A century is 100 years — not “100-150 years” as you wrote in your latest comment.
Your 8″ to 12″ is on the high end of the estimates, for no good reason.
You should have used 4″ to 12′ as a range.
The warmunists have been pushing up the range in recent years, using arbitrary adjustments, and questionable satellite measurements ( questionable because they show so much more sea level rise than the tide gages that were used for most of the past 100 years).
I provided a link to my article on sea level rise posted on my climate blog today, which includes some comments on why satellite data may overstate sea level rise.
Richard ==> My patience is limited, and you have just lost the right to receive replies from me. To earn that privilege back, you must only engage in civil and constructive comments here.
Harson,
Your “patience is limited” to people who agree with you !
Your patience with disagreements is near zero.
I challenge you to name any current scientific consensus’ you agree with.
Based on your articles here, you believe every scientific consensus is wrong.
And there is always some recent contradictory study that you think is definitive, and proves the consensus is wrong. That pattern is so consistent I recognize it as your bias.
You should post as Kip “the consensus is always wrong” Harson,
so people understand your bias before they start reading anything you write
Gentlemen: the difference between your estimates is a mere two inches in a century, or 0.5 mm/yr. Is that really worth getting hot and bothered over?
What’s more 60% (0.3 mm/yr) of the difference between 6″/century and the often claimed 8″/century rate is due to the addition, in the larger estimates, of Peltier’s 0.3 mm/yr estimate of the effect of the ongoing sinking of the ocean floor, in response to loading from meltwater from the last deglaciation. Most alarmist climate scientists add that adjustment, which slightly inflates their reported rates of sea-level rise.
(I don’t agree with that. Adding the adjustment makes sense if you’re trying to calculate water mass changes, but it is not correct for coastal planning, the sum isn’t actually “sea-level rise.” When that adjustment is added to a measured sea-level trend the sum is really an estimate of what the sea-level trend would be, were it not for the sinking of the ocean floor.)
When Peltier’s 0.3 mm/yr adjustment is taken into account, it leaves just 0.2 mm/yr (0.8″ per century) true difference between Richard’s number and the low end of Kip’s range. Can’t we all agree that’s not enough to fret about?
In fact, Richard’s blog article says, “The precise rates of change are an open question,” which sounds agreement with what Kip wrote, above: “There is no single correct number for the amount of sea level rise over the last 100-150 years.”
As it happens, I agree with Richard’s estimate (6″ per century) of the “global average,” but, truly, y’all are not that far apart.
Most places are not “average,” anyhow. At about 1/3 of the world’s tide gauges, vertical land motion has a greater effect on the local sea-level trend than does global sea-level rise.
The main practical use of sea-level trend analyses is for coastal planning. What difference does it make to, for example, Vaasa, Finland, whether “global mean sea-level rise” is 1 mm/yr, 2 mm/yr, or 3 mm/yr? Since sea-level rise has been approximately linear for nine decades, and has not been noticeably affected by GHG emissions and global warming, the best prediction for sea level in the future is simply a linear projection of the history of sea level at the same location in the past.
http://sealevel.info/060-051_Vassa_2016-12_vs_CO2.png
Soon, another hurricane threaten the Caribbean to.