The fantasy of accelerating sea level rise just got hosed

We’ve been told over an over again that global warming would melt the icecaps, and melt Greenland, and that would result in catastrophic sea level rise flooding cities. We’ve also been told that “sea level rise is “accelerating” but in an investigation done here on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach, Putting the Brakes on Acceleration, he noted in 2011 that there seems to be no evidence of it at all, and notes that sea level was rising faster in the first half of the record.


Figure 1. Satellite-measured sea level rise. Errors shown are 95% confidence intervals. Data Source.

The smaller trend of the recent half of the record is statistically different from the larger trend of the first half. Will this reduction continue into the future? Who knows? I’m just talking about the past, and pointing out that we sure haven’t seen any sign of the threatened acceleration in the satellite record. Quite the opposite, in fact.


Pierre Gosselin, of “No Tricks Zone” has this excellent summary of what’s been going on since then. Excerpts below.


Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated like many climate warming scientists warned earlier. The reality is that the rise is far slower than expected, read here and here.

The latest findings glaringly contradict alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise. For example the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) here wrote sea levels would “likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century”, due to global warming.

In 2013 The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) wrote here sea-level rise in this century would likely be 70-120 centimeters by 2100″ (i.e. 7 – 12 mm annually) and that 90 experts in a survey “anticipated a median sea-level rise of 200-300 centimeters by the year 2300” (i.e. on average circa 7 to 10 mm every year).

Using these modelled estimates, the globe should now be seeing a rapid acceleration in sea level rise. Yet no evidence of this can be found so far. In fact the real measured data show the opposite is happening: a deceleration in sea level rise is taking place.

Instead of the 7 – 12 mm annual sea level rise the PIK projected in 2013, a recent study appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters in April 2017 corrected the satellite measured sea level rise downwards from 3.3 mm annually to just 3.0 mm over the past 24 years – or less than half what PIK models projected.

In another newly published paper by Frederiske et al. 2018 just this year, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of only 1.42 mm per year between 1958 and 2014. That figure closely coincides with the results of Dr. Simon Holgate from 2007. According to the Holgate study: “The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”

The Holgate result was confirmed by another 2008 paper authored by Jevrejeva et al, which found the fastest sea level rise during the past 300 years was observed between 1920 – 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.

In other words: global sea level rise has decelerated since the 1950s.

At less than 2 mm annually, sea level is rising at only one sixth of the 12 mm per year rate projected by the PIK in 2013.


Pierre found this hilarious photo of Stephan Rahmstorf, the second alarmist lieutenant to PIK alarmist-in-chief Hans Schellnhuber doing his own version of baptism at sea while trying to make a point about sea level rise that in my opinion is just the wrongest of the wrong kind of optics. In fact, I’d call it cringeworthy.

Stephan seems to have a fascination with photographing himself, as this photo shows. Not a good look for a scientist, and certainly not a good look for somebody who yearns to be taken seriously:

Source: Stephan’s FTP folder at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
245 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kristi Silber
February 4, 2018 2:49 pm

I think the photos are kind of cool. Scientists aren’t a bunch of guys in lab coats with pocket protectors – not all of them, anyway. You are so willing to think the 97% are abominable, you’d say the guy takes himself too seriously if he did. Either way, he’s still considered the enemy.
The photo shows he likes taking pictures of himself? What kind of reasoning is that, Anthony?
Is it really necessary to be insulting about something personal like this? Is it part of the climate debate to make fun of individual scientists, Anthony? Is that in the user’s manual for the propaganda machine? Or is it just giving your readers what they want?
I suppose I should watch my tongue, or I’ll get banned. I’m just so tired of hearing scientists castigated.

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  Kristi Silber
February 4, 2018 4:26 pm

What is this 97% thing you keep mentioning?

lee
Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
February 4, 2018 10:19 pm

EH, probably this one; John Cook et al 2013 –
“We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Michael 2
Reply to  Kristi Silber
February 4, 2018 6:18 pm

He should not have his back to the sea; rogue waves and all.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Kristi Silber
February 4, 2018 7:15 pm

necessary to be insulting
If a researcher has a photo that shows evidence of sea level rise, why not show it and explain,
His grand kids might like to see a picture of him showing him in unidentified water up to his butt . . .
To me it is some sort of stunt that doesn’t work.
Kristi, can you give a good rational for this photo?
The second one appears to be on a wave-cut platform.
His clothing and lack thereof, suggests this is a photo-op, of no significance.
None of this is of concern regarding a link between CO2, global warming, and redesigning modern economic societies — cue Christiana Figueres.

Extreme Hiatus
February 4, 2018 3:19 pm
Kristi Silber
Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
February 4, 2018 4:02 pm

Interesting argument that there has been no increase in sea level after doing research in Fiji. Those Fijians must be really stupid to build their villages where there is regular flooding from king tides.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
February 4, 2018 8:21 pm

Darwin believed in 1842 that Fiji was affected by subsidence. Scientists have been writing about the problem ever since. They’ve had that sinking feeling for a long, long time, well before the IPCC was a gleam in anybody’s eyes.

lee
Reply to  Kristi Silber
February 4, 2018 10:31 pm

““We started noticing the effects of climate change in our village a long time ago; back in 1956”
http://fijisun.com.fj/2014/08/20/vunidogoloa-relocation-mooted-in-the-50s/
That far back?

hunter
Reply to  Kristi Silber
February 5, 2018 7:39 am

Your attempt at implying a drowning village proves CO2 apocalypse is real is historically uninformed.
Check the archaeology if drowned and flooded sites.
Additionally, blaming climate for geological subsidence is clise to magical thinking.

Editor
Reply to  Reference
February 4, 2018 6:31 pm

reference ==> The second of those two papers. “Acceleration in European Mean Sea Level? A New Insight Using Improved Tools” by Phil J. Watson, states “Key findings are that at the 95% confidence level, no consistent or compelling evidence (yet) exists that recent rates of rise are higher or abnormal in the context of the historical records available across Europe, nor is there any evidence that geocentric rates of rise are above the global average. It is likely a further 20 years of data will distinguish whether recent increases are evidence of the onset of climate change–induced acceleration.” published in the Journal of Coastal Research.

michael hart
February 4, 2018 4:45 pm

Looks like Stephan Rahmstorf managed to find a lake with a slope on it.
The ability of climate scientists is clearly not something that should be taken lightly.

Peter Wilson
February 4, 2018 6:23 pm

as a novice on th e matter of sea level- its a complicated picture – water ceases to expand at 4C and is at its maximum expansion at 0C – for the purposes of climate since water has a high heat capacity, the surface matters – but for the volume of water temperature- the kilometres deep seas aren’t climate dependent, and likely have a wide range of temperatures globally which change regularly, making the rise, fall fluctuations impossible to trace..
Other than that -certain moorings, like those in Istanbul bays, and here in London the Tower – show the same level today
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tower+of+london+picture&client=opera&hs=DTE&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipouOV243ZAhUiD8AKHXldBOwQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=970#imgrc=i6e4Q0Msu7fKfM:
as from it’s early ancestry
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tower+of+london+early+picture&client=opera&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CelOq0L55_1raIjjPgP3YD3SV1-8nwSXgJJa3tM8pPTq_1ejYpDoSel14VHpU7hFJ6GJdS2rIHCmyfsz50Wtd2y7vN7ioSCc-A_1dgPdJXXEbIYa4uerK4fKhIJ7yfBJeAklrcRwTQ_1oOxTWuoqEgm0zyk9Or96NhF_1oQDl1x8Q9SoSCSkOhJ6XXhUeEb11E6NenoXBKhIJlTuEUnoYl1IR6aPaBaFTV8cqEgnasgcKbJ-zPhEuU47tCXSqUSoSCXRa13bLu83uEQ0Z8K6fKTm-&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjryuDe243ZAhWSHsAKHQXMBU4Q9C8IHw&biw=1920&bih=970&dpr=1#imgrc=7yfBJeAklrdZkM:

Michael Carter
February 4, 2018 8:26 pm

Some basics of geology:
Oceanic crust (mostly basalt) is denser and thinner than continental crust (granite , schist e.t.c). Therefore, continental crust is more “buoyant”
Secondly: Continental shelves are mostly sedimentary basins. These gradually subside to provide accommodation for incoming terrestrial sediments. Without this process there would be no hydrocarbons. They require burial of 2-4 km to mature. Some basins are 10’s of KM thick in sediments. Fine sediments also reach well beyond continental shelf
Hypothesizing on “sinking seabeds” is a venture into a minefield. It is extremely complex and (I am sure) has never been measured
Regards
M

RoHa
February 4, 2018 9:58 pm

The Warmists made a prediction, and it failed? Unthinkable!

Toneb
Reply to  RoHa
February 5, 2018 8:53 am

“The Warmists made a prediction, and it failed? Unthinkable!”
They did …. trouble is it isn’t projected to happen yet…..
Again (from above).
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/262263718_fig4_Global-average-projections-of-sea-level-rise-relative-to-1990-based-on-the-IPCC-AR4comment image
From the above graph the amount of rise projected by the IPCC from 1990 to 2020 is ~10cm.
At the current rate of SLR (~3mm/yr) we would get 9cm rise
So the IPCC has barely projected an acceleration of SLR at present based on it’s AR4 report.
Like I said the IPCC has not projected an acceleration in SLR (one that could be gleaned via data anyway) in this current time-frame.
Which is why the likes of Zwally do not contradict the IPCC in that SLR lies in the future, one when the rate of lower lying melt in Greenland and Antarctica exceeds the accumulation of snow in the interior due the increase of WV as the world warms.

February 5, 2018 5:21 am

1.5 mm/yrcomment image

hunter
February 5, 2018 7:32 am

The sad truth is that data, the scientific method, honesty and integrity have little bearing on many of the climate faithful.
They have their faith in the CO2 climate apocalyose and the fire that faith generates in their hearts.
Data based studies that conflict with this faith are ignored or rejected. Skeptics, despite their proven track record, are vilified.

Frederik Michiels
February 5, 2018 7:48 am

to me the sea level rise acceleration debate can be reduced in a following analogy:
it’s often looked as a bathtub gilled with water that is slowly warmed up and where glacier melt is the tap that is dripping in it. the more melt the more the tap drips the faster the tub level rises.
however i don’t see oceans as a static tub: discharges of sediments, under water volcanoes, coral reef growths, tectonic movements are constantly “changing the shape and volume of the tub”
imho there are a lot of forces operating when you talk about MSLR we can’t even pinpoint what exactly contributes to the current rise all i read are estimates based on the theory. (pro CAGW or not i leave that topic deliberately out of sight)
pure fact is: when your tub changes form and volume you can’t say how much rise the dripping tap is causing as your level would rise and fall even without a dripping tap. it all comes to how your tub is “changing”
that’s the only thing i see as “error” (better sais mistake of judgment): we make a trend out of an ever changing dynamic system and think of it as balanced but as everything is variable (sun, earth’s crust, weather systems,…) why do we “pretend” to say “this is normal, and that isn’t normal?”
sea levels will rise and will fall. the rate of rise and fall will NEVER be constant it will always be variable. Same with temperature, same with glaciers,… In the end we only can adapt to what nature serves us….

Luke of the D
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
February 5, 2018 8:28 am

Well said! I have always laughed the idea that there is any sort of “normal” for any climatic or geologic condition! As a geologist, the concept of scale is always on my mind. The Earth orbits an incredibly hot fusion reactor in the sky. The Earth is a ridiculously huge planet that has existed for a ridiculously long time. Humans occupy an incredibly small portion of said planet. Humans have existed for a hilariously short time frame on said planet. And yet we control the temperature and climate? Yeah. Sure. Ok.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Luke of the D
February 5, 2018 12:50 pm

+1,000

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
February 5, 2018 12:52 pm

As L of the D says, “well said.”
I’m tempted to throw in a great movie line that sums it all up – from Godzilla (2014):
“The arrogance of man is assuming that man is in control of nature, and not the other way around.”

Gareth
February 5, 2018 8:55 am

I would like to thank all you gentlemen (and ladies) for your comments. I’ve read all the comments down to the bottom and, as a layman, return to the conclusion that there is, no “settled” in science, and if there was, it is not science. Hooboy, this has been some mother load of mental gymnastics, but I remain grateful that you argue the toss. As a ‘lurker’ I revel in the debate, but lean distinctly to being a ‘skeptic’ of the BS being fostered on us by the CAGW crowd. If they are right, then let them argue it on the merits, the weeds is where I lurk. Show me the money! Even NickS, if I’m not wrong, (and I follow Nick’s comments with enthusiasm) suggested that it’s up in the air, which is no small admission. He’s coming around. Come on Nick, you can admit it, you’re among friends here. Big hugs. We understand your need for an intervention, it’s why you’re here, right?

Steve Zell
February 5, 2018 9:10 am

It would be interesting if the author of the graph with the “Polynomial Fit” (with r^2=0.94) showed the equation of the polynomial. If this was a second-order (quadratic) equation and the X^2 coefficient was negative, this would prove a decelerating trend.
As for the tilted photo of Stephan Rahmstorf wading up to his waist fully clothed, the water only has very small waves, and the background shows a forested hill behind him. This is more typical of an inland lake than the ocean, so there probably aren’t even tides, much less sea level rise, in that location!

February 5, 2018 10:37 am

The rise of sea that matters most
Is that which happens at the coast
On oceans far to west or east
Those millimeters matter least

Mike
February 5, 2018 1:39 pm

Wow! that was/is quite a duel… I guess we know what happened to Atlantis now… did anyone take account of all that mud being dumped into the oceans by Ole Miss, the Amazon, Niger, Ganges et al? ..and I thought Muddy Waters was a Jazz musician not the cause of Sea Level Rise.
Cheers
Bahamamike

John Trumpian
February 7, 2018 6:58 am

The proper link to Stephan’s annotated portrait photos is http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/stefan_rahmstorf_foto_portraits.html What a laugh, well worth a look! Especially that Financial Times magazine cover!!

O Svensson
Reply to  John Trumpian
February 8, 2018 12:10 am

As a photographer I have to admit they are good photos by classy photographers, though. Mark Steinmetz for National Geographic! Benno Kraehahn for Vanity Fair! And Rax – a famous Arctic photographer. These are the kind of people that get an assignment by a magazine and approach the job with a clear concept of what the photo will look like – the person photographed doesn’t get much of a say in this. You really should acknowledge these photographers and pay them their regular publication fee. It is tough nowadays to feed a family as a photographer, with media using more and more cheap stock photos. (I know, I gave up on being a pro photographer.)