Sea Level to Rise by 1.2 Metres by 2300 – So What?

Guest essay by Andi Cockroft

Firstly let me say that I am not one of the most technical writers you will see here. I regard myself pretty much as a layman despite studying Geology, Mathematics and Computer Science at University.

So you won’t find all the references to papers (well not many), nor exact scientific formulae. I simply write what I have logically deduced. For any who disagree, or have value to add, please use the Comments below.

So my stance is “SO WHAT”!

Published recently in Nature here, is a peer-reviewed paper entitled “Committed sea-level rise under the Paris Agreement and the legacy of delayed mitigation action


Sea-level rise is a major consequence of climate change that will continue long after emissions of greenhouse gases have stopped. The 2015 Paris Agreement aims at reducing climate-related risks by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero and limiting global-mean temperature increase. Here we quantify the effect of these constraints on global sea-level rise until 2300, including Antarctic ice-sheet instabilities. We estimate median sea-level rise between 0.7 and 1.2 m, if net-zero greenhouse gas emissions are sustained until 2300, varying with the pathway of emissions during this century. Temperature stabilization below 2 °C is insufficient to hold median sea-level rise until 2300 below 1.5 m. We find that each 5-year delay in near-term peaking of CO2 emissions increases median year 2300 sea-level rise estimates by ca. 0.2 m, and extreme sea-level rise estimates at the 95th percentile by up to 1 m. Our results underline the importance of near-term mitigation action for limiting long-term sea-level rise risks.

I still say “SO WHAT”

And, it seems sea-level rise is selective, perhaps owing to El-Nino events piling up water in the western Pacific:

As a post-war child, growing up in North England, I well remember the days of Rationing (at least the tail-end of it that involved sweeties), spending Farthings and all fine days were outside. I remember being allowed out in the snow for only one day after which it was black with the soot from the satanic mills 30 miles away.

I remember tramping the miles to school through many feet of snow just to get there and find school had been cancelled.

I remember the holidays at the seaside – usually on England’s North West Coast at Blackpool or Morecambe.


I remember riding donkeys on the beach, eating candy-floss (is that cotton-candy?), and paddling in the frigid waters of the Irish Sea. Blackpool Rock, the Fun Fair, the Trams and most spectacularly the Blackpool Illuminations

But even today, I know (so they tell me), that sea-level has risen over 150mm during the past 50 years – but everything remains as I remember it. The tide still comes to the same place in Blackpool. Floods are no better and no worse than they were back then.

When a Nor-Wester comes through, waves can be many metres – wiping out all trace of a meagre 150mm supposed rise.

So In my lifetime, I can’t for the life of me see through personal physical observation that anything has changed.

Again, my memory is working overtime, and for a while during the early 80’s, I worked in Central London on The Embankment in a large multi-storey office-block. Now whoever designed the computer facilities decided that since The Embankment was prone to occasional flooding (esp. 1953), so quite rightly installed the Main-Frame computers on the 3rd floor – very smart indeed.

Sadly they forgot about the power supply. In those days, main-frames required a very stable power supply without spikes or fluctuations. Most had some smoothing applied to them – In this instance, large “Smoothing Inverters” were installed to ensure the energy was clean. And of course in those days smoothing inverters weren’t the modern solid-state devices we have today, rather they were mechanical devices requiring a large motor turning an attached generator. The idea being the motor would handle any spikes and fluctuations and the generator component would create a nice clean energy source. Not very efficient mechanically or electrically but very good at their intended role.

Shame they had been installed in the basement, so when the first minor flooding took place……..


Only a few years later, the Thames barrier would be constructed and the flood protection through the City raised to prevent further inundations. The Thames Barrier has an expected useful life till around 2030 at least. So for now The Embankment is safe.

Now it’s also true that I moved to New Zealand in the late 1980’s, and I have become much more interested in revising my University interest in geology, simply because one’s attention tends to be periodically and dramatically drawn to the fact that GodZone is tectonically very active. The recent quakes that started with a less well remembered Canterbury event in 2010, with the big tragedy in Christchurch almost exactly 7 years ago where 185 people died. This was followed by Seddon in 2013 and then Kaikoura in late 2016 – and it seems Kaikoura “wasn’t the big one”! All these have me wondering if quakes along the main north-south fault aren’t moving in a progressively northerly direction. Is Wellington next?

But concentrating on GodZone for a while, simply because I know it – although similar “local” effects can and should be investigated all over the globe.

Here though, if the major Hikurangi plate subduction zone that stretches almost the full length of the North Island and part way down the South were to rupture, a magnitude 9 is predicted. Tsunamis would be not only significant, but massive.

As it is, the Kaikoura quake lifted the seabed and coastal areas by up to 2 metres. OK, so it seems to me that Kaikoura is safe from 1.2 metres sea-level rise even if no further uplifting occurs!


See from this map post Kaikoura that not only has vertical movement taken place, but significant horizontal displacement as well. GodZone is indeed a restless place!

Now doesn’t this really mean that sea-level rise is purely a localised event and not to be interpreted globally? Seems logical to me.

Around GodZone, places are rising and places are falling – it is generally related to which Tectonic Plate they sit on – Australia to the West – Pacific to the East.

Dotted around GodZone’s capital Wellington, are small plaques embedded in the pavements simply stating “Shoreline 1840”. These make no real sense at first sight since they are hundreds of metres if not kilometres from the nearest seafront.


But in 1855, an 8.2-magnitude earthquake struck the Wellington region. It lifted the Rimutaka ranges to the north by six metres, caused a 4m-high tsunami in Wellington harbour and uplifted the north-western side of Wellington, up to 1.5m in places.

This created much needed new lands. Wellington’s Airport sits on land uplifted in 1855. And the area continues its relentless march to the skies. So will 1.2 metres sea-level rise bother Wellington? Doesn’t look likely to me.


From: R.J. Beavan N.J. Litchfield (2012) Vertical land movement around the New Zealand coastline: implications for sea-level rise. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, Lower Hutt

Then again, some researchers insist that sea level inundation is likely all around GodZone. Following government’s publication of their “New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS)”, all Territorial Authorities were required to carry out a coast hazard assessment out to 100 years.

This led to some Territorial Authorities including their expected inundation areas into District Plans. House prices in these areas were hit hard, with some unable to gain adequate insurance. Overnight hundreds of millions of dollars wiped off residents’ life savings. Applications to build in many of these areas was denied, and prime building land became worthless.


Locally in Wellington and surrounding suburbs, tsunami inundation marks have magically appeared on roads around the Region, It seems one side of the new lines represents danger, but one metre away safety! This is Island Bay on Wellington’s South Coast – flat as a pancake!!!

Moving on from GodZone, I see frequent posts from that eminent contributor Willis Eschenbach regarding many of the Pacific Island groups such as Tuvalu, Kiribati, The Solomon’s, Vanuatu etc. and how these coral islands actually resist sea-level rise and incredibly seem to be increasing in size.

So ardent were the claims being made that then President of the Maldives staged the now infamous underwater cabinet meeting back in 2009:


So are coral atolls to disappear? Well an article in National Geographic here suggests not:

….a growing body of evidence amassed by New Zealand coastal geomorphologist Paul Kench, of the University of Auckland’s School of Environment, and colleagues in Australia and Fiji, who have been studying how reef islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans respond to rising sea levels.

They found that reef islands change shape and move around in response to shifting sediments, and that many of them are growing in size, not shrinking, as sea level inches upward. The implication is that many islands—especially less developed ones with few permanent structures—may cope with rising seas well into the next century.

But for the areas that have been transformed by human development, such as the capitals of Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Maldives, the future is considerably gloomier. That’s largely because their many structures—seawalls, roads, and water and electricity systems—are locked in place.

Their analysis, which now extends to more than 600 coral reef islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, indicates that about 80 percent of the islands have remained stable or increased in size (roughly 40 percent in each category). Only 20 percent have shown the net reduction that’s widely assumed to be a typical island’s fate when sea level rises.

Ironically now, the Maldives’ Velana International Airport is undergoing a massive US$400 million extension programme, yet is a mere 2 metres above mean sea level. Seems as though investors don’t believe in sea-level rise!

Speaking of airports, I was quite enthralled at my first ever trip to Holland (yes I know it’s now the Netherlands) in the mid 70’s landing at Schiphol Airport. Number one surprise was seeing police throughout the airport armed with fully automatic weapons – this was at a time of hijacking after all. But secondly, there was a plaque there commemorating the final naval battle with the Spanish that ended their 80-year war. So Schiphol Airport used to be under more than 4 metres of water.


Hendrick Vroom (ca. 1566-1640), Battle of the Haarlemmermeer

But all that changed when King William I decided in 1837 to reclaim the land. In 1839 the Dutch Parliament agreed. Consequently, a big drainage canal was dug and the excavated material used to build a large dyke. By now, the romantic windmills had given way to steam and three large beam engines were used to empty about 800,000,000 tonnes of water. The new Haarlemmermeer was created.

It seems then that The Netherlands found ways to adapt and even steal land from the sea. London likewise found ways to keep the tides at bay. King Canute would have been proud of both.

Given that the doomsayers are predicting Armageddon in 300 years’ time, just how many of our big city buildings will still be around anyhow?

300 years ago, people generally lived on the land. The Industrial Revolution had not yet begun, although the very earliest steam engines began to make a limited appearance – the Revolution would be decades away though. Newton’s Principia had only recently been published and his Opticks was not to appear till 1703.

The Treaty of Union was enacted to form Great Britain in 1707, and wars still raged across Europe. By now the Dutch were allies of Great Britain and fought together against French and Spanish forces.

The Colonies, most especially the Americas were still to engage in the Revolutionary War when the United States of America would be born. It was to be another 100 years for Canada to become a Dominion and did not gain full independence till 1937.


The Napoleonic Wars and the American Civil War were hundreds of years in the future. It was to be 50 years before Benjamin Franklyn carried out his first tentative research into Electricity and over 100 years for Morse to add to the invention of the Telegraph. Automobiles hadn’t even been thought of and flight was definitely for the birds.


Even the bicycle was over a century later with the Laufmaschine (or Velocipede) and the safety bicycle not until the late 19th Century. Ironically the Wright Brothers ran an early bicycle repair shop!

If you brought a Queen Anne subject into today’s electronic society with airplanes, cars, TV, Radio, Cellphones, GPS and Computers – it would all appear as witchcraft. So what awaits us in 300 years – we cannot even imagine. But unless some other catastrophe overtakes mankind such as Nuclear War or Disease then it seems safe to assume our descendants – if they exist at all – will be well able to cope with a metre or so of water.

So I continue to say – even if the doomsayers are correct – SO WHAT!

Comments please by all means.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 24, 2018 8:46 am

Great article, thanks Andi. I don’t believe any of this sea level nonsense anyway but as you say even if they’re right what the hell does it matter.
Here are a series of photographs of the False Bay coast around Glencairn in False Bay, Cape Town. Nothing has changed at the visual level in over 100 years. I suspect the next 100 years will be much the same.

Patrick W
February 24, 2018 8:49 am

The sea level numbers are just as much fabrication as everything else the doomsayers claim. Average sea level (if it can even be measured) is estimated to have risen 1.5 mm in the last century.

Reply to  Patrick W
February 24, 2018 1:50 pm

When it comes to sea level rise, I always think of the major proponents of AGW and sea level rise etc. and take note of their location on the New York east river. I also note that they are completing a billion dollar upgrade, but not a dock or a helipad or any other provision for sea level rise is evident. Maybe the $USbillion plus did not have a budget or a plan for the lower floors:)

Reply to  rogerthesurf
February 24, 2018 5:37 pm

For a moment, imagine sea levels were rising dramatically.
London, New York and every other coastal or estuary based city would be swamped, eventually.
And frankly, who the hell cares. The idiots invested their money in waterside properties to take advantage of the historic shipping trade that largely no longer exists. Everything on the Thames river front has been turned into expensive office blocks and even more expensive residential areas.
So whose hysterical about sea level rise?
Yep, no one but the wealthy liberal elites. The supposedly ‘intelligent’ wealthy liberal elites who built their homes on a river bank.
Hell mend them. Roll on Global Warming!

Reply to  HotScot
February 25, 2018 1:50 am

HotScott, I understand your attitude. Only trouble is that its us, the normal people taxpayers who will pay for it.

February 24, 2018 8:49 am

Am I the only one that sees a sea level positive “trend” of 10mm/yr…..and sea level negative trends of 10mm/yr….totally absurd
You would end up with this….

Reply to  Latitude
February 24, 2018 11:58 am

The sea is not level.
Here’s a pretty good summary on European sea levels and some forecasts.
So you see there the relative sea level trend and absolute sea level trend, which are very different. It is interesting that the relative sea level is being forecasted, but no current data is available other than tide gauges.
Some points must be given for the non-alarming numbers, and also about the fact how little RCP8.5 would speed up things. RCP2.6 differs only 20cm, which is basically telling that all effort must be put to adaptation.

Reply to  Hugs
February 24, 2018 12:12 pm

I mean, RCP8.5 fantacy means 20cm more by 2100. Of course, the sea level probably continues to rise, but the good thing is Maldives sank already, so there’s no need to adapt to that!
“But the end of the
Maldives and its
200,000 people could
come sooner if drinking
water supplies dry up by
1992, as predicted.”
Yeah yeah, they failed then. So they must be right now? I wonder how they draw investments?

Reply to  Hugs
February 24, 2018 12:49 pm

Hugs….level has nothing to do with it……it’s a trend……They are saying one part is getting increasingly higher (or lower)

Reply to  Hugs
February 24, 2018 1:51 pm

it’s a trend……They are saying one part is getting increasingly higher (or lower)

Basically the most of the pattern of drops and rises is just noise. But not all of it. Some areas actually have a little faster trend than others. As I said, the sea is not level.

Reply to  Hugs
February 24, 2018 1:59 pm

“Hugs February 24, 2018 at 11:58 am
The sea is not level.”
Well, finally a level headed remark!

Reply to  Hugs
February 24, 2018 2:53 pm

The “trend” is over an inch every 3 years….10 inches in 30 years….over a yard a century
….It gaining height…that’s what increasing trend means….that’s stupid
Whether it’s level or not means nothing……the point is they are trying to say it’s been constantly getting higher

Reply to  Hugs
February 24, 2018 4:34 pm

Latitude – you’re saying that slr is 1 inch every 3 years. That’s about 3 X the actual rate. The global warming enthusiasts say the rate recently is about 3 mm per year, or about 1/3 inch per 3 years.
There is considerable disagreement over whether that rate is accelerating. Anyway, 3 mm per year equals about 10 inches by 2100. If the rate goes up to 5mm per year the slr by 2100 will be 16 inches. Hardly an armageddon scenario.

Reply to  Latitude
February 25, 2018 1:24 am

Can I just reassure you, that I know what you are saying.
And yes it’s ludicrous.
If such a purported phenomenon were extrapolated into the future then all the water in the oceans would have piled up in the 10mm/yr regions. And the -10mm/yr regions would be depressions.
So, one can only conclude that this is a measure of an oscillation of some variety.
And that over some other equivalent period we will see the water return from the peaks to the trough.
So, satellite data can tell us something interesting about mid-ocean sea level fluctuations.
It can not, however, tell us whether what is observed is new. Or how it will proceed.
And whilst all this is going on – the coastal trends show ZERO statistically significant long term acceleration.

February 24, 2018 9:00 am

Well said. Common sense doesn’t need a university degree.

Curious George
Reply to  markl
February 24, 2018 9:11 am

Common sense is today incompatible with a university degree.

Reply to  Curious George
February 24, 2018 11:36 am

“climatology” appears to be the place that common sense goes to die.

Tom Halla
February 24, 2018 9:01 am

Sea level rise is a favorite theme of hysterics on climate change, but most of the examples they cite are due to subsidence, as with south Florida or around Chesapeake Bay.
Or they will use a hypothetical melting of much of Antarctica, despite the inconvenient little fact such melting is not happening now. But it looks scary, and allows the use of “illustrations” like the Statue of Libertyhalf submerged.

joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 25, 2018 8:05 am

Not only is Antarctica showing little or no melting,
All the ice cores show that antarctica never melted during any of the prior warming periods even though those periods were much warmer than predicted under RCP 8.5.

A C Osborn
February 24, 2018 9:03 am

300 years, or 3000 months.
1 Cement block/month in vulnerable areas should take care of it.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  A C Osborn
February 26, 2018 9:53 am

More like one concrete block per decade.

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 24, 2018 9:22 am

The steam driven pumps which emptied the Haarlemmermeer are preserved in the museum Cruquius near Heemstede.
They had been made in England where similar static steam engines were used to keep water out of the mines.

Steve Case
February 24, 2018 9:25 am

Sea level rise is the biggest scare the so-called popular press has and the reports are grossly exaggerated. After a very short search I find this headline tagged as 18 hours ago:
Northeast Florida scientists agree: Sea-level rise is here, and it’s dangerous
“…all these marshes are drowning. They’re going to disappear. They’re going to become open bays in the very near future. And that’s because the rate of sea-level rise is increasing.”
The scary sea level news stories have picked up on the recent reports from Colorado University that sea level rise is accelerating. This is based on changing a few lines of 20 year old data coupled with an 82 year extrapolation to claim 65 centimeters of future sea level rise. It amounts to scientific chutzpah.

spangled drongo
Reply to  Steve Case
February 24, 2018 6:35 pm

Yes Steve, if they took particular note of what’s truly happening locally they would see that king tides in tectonically stable countries are lower than they were 70 years ago.
Normal barometric pressure king tides in Moreton Bay, Australia are up to a foot lower than they were between 1946 and 1953 and are about the same as they were around the mid 1970s.
There is good accurate evidence for this but it goes against the “consensus”.

February 24, 2018 9:27 am

The alternative to sea level rise is that ice quits melting because we have entered a cold period. We should fervently hope that the sea keeps rising.

February 24, 2018 9:29 am

Don’t you just love these guys who pretend to know what’s going to happen centuries from now when they can’t predict what’s going to happen next week?

Anders Otte
February 24, 2018 9:41 am

From what I have seen in the AGW discussions quoting scientific studies, sealevel will maximum rise 15 to 37cm if all permafrost thaws. Any further rise would demand thermal expansion, which would demand temperature rise of quite an other nature. All other changes in sealevel is plate tectonics, coral reefs, drift, erosions….

February 24, 2018 9:45 am

You really only have to read a single sentence of the paper to be able to dismiss the whole thing:
“Antarctic ice sheet: We apply a parametrization for Antarctic mass loss38, which incorporates increased sensitivity to global warming through two newly proposed instability mechanisms59.”
“parametrization” is of course climate scientese for “wild guess”. The two “newly proposed” instabilities are hydrofracturing and ice-cliff collapse.
Ice-cliff collapse is of course nothing new. It is the mechanism that prevents ice-caps from moving into deep ocean basins and is well documented and understood. If the height of the ice-cliff above the water-line becomes higher than 50-75 meter it becomes unstable and calves. However this has no practical bearing on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet since the water depths at the grounding line are too small (it must be >10 times the maximum stable ice-cliff height).
“Hydrofracturing” on the other hand doesn’t exist. It is the supposed breakup of glaciers by hydraulic pressure from meltwater draining into the glacier. If it did exist it would be very obvious in the Greenland Icecap which has large rivers and lakes on top in summer. However the meltwater there drains down into the glacier with no such dramatic effects. Part of it re-freezes at depth but most of it drains away through or (mostly) under the ice. Such infraglacial drainage systems are known to exist in Antarctica as well. Under Longyearbraen on Svalbard you can even walk into these subglacial “river tunnels” in winter when they are empty.

February 24, 2018 9:49 am

The LA times recently had an article about the disappearing wetlands in California with proper attribution to silting and building but just had to throw in sea level rise due to CC for good measure. If they had even thought about it for a second they’d realize any sea level rise would increase, not decrease, wetlands.

Reply to  markl
February 24, 2018 9:55 am

Not necessarily increase them, just move them inland/upslope. Those wetlands have been shuttling up and down the continental shelf off California about 100 times during the last 2.6 million years.

Reply to  tty
February 24, 2018 12:00 pm

Small caveat here –
Those wetlands will in many cases, not be able to ‘shuttle up’ the coastal margins any longer, because those margins will have been stabilised and claimed for agriculture or habitation. However, that will be an engineering choice for future generations, dependent upon how much or how little the wetlands are valued. And we’ll be rich enough to choose in favour of the wetlands

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  tty
February 24, 2018 7:18 pm

One man’s “ecologically important wetland” is another man’s malaria swamp.

Lars P.
February 24, 2018 9:55 am

Port Arthur, Tasmania: the mark was first struck back in 1841, 178 years ago
1.2 m?
Call me again when it will come close to the mark “Sir James Clark Ross stated explicitly and
several times in his 1846 book [3] that the mark was placed at MSL (as he estimated it to be)”
comment image

Reply to  Lars P.
February 24, 2018 11:15 pm

History is so inconvenient to a political motif.
Pevesney and Harlech Castles stranded high and dry…
Computer modelling and cute methodology do it so
much better,

February 24, 2018 10:15 am

comment image
0.7-1.2 m by 2300?comment image

Andi Cockroft
Reply to  David Middleton
February 24, 2018 11:34 am

Hi David
Yes thanks, but I only looked at 300 years as that was their timescale for doom and gloom!

Reply to  Andi Cockroft
February 24, 2018 2:05 pm

300 years to adjust to 2-3′ of sea level rise just sounded boring relative to the rest of the Holocene. Sort of a “been there, done that” thing…comment image

February 24, 2018 10:23 am

Nice of them to put the change so far in the future that their predictions can’t be verified and will be long forgotten. Others, like David Dilley, have a much different take. His prediction is that the oceans will not rise after 2018. Yes this year. Now that is a huge prediction. I’m going to be around to see if that one happens. If it doesn’t he is wrong and needs to abandon or modify his theory. If it is correct then we are all in for a cold cold time.

February 24, 2018 10:26 am

Won’t evaporation from ocean boiling counter the rise?

Reply to  Max Photon
February 24, 2018 4:56 pm

Actually, since long cold winters are “consistent” with Global Warming, it will eventually get so hot that the oceans will freeze and end the problem of Sea Level Rise. Stephen Foster had figured this out way back in the mid 1800’s…
“It rained all day the night I left,
The climate it was dry,
The earth so hot I froze to death,
Susanna don’t you cry.”
(H/T to Phantor 48 on the JoNova website)

Alan Tomalty
February 24, 2018 10:42 am

From the report
“By combining climate and sea-level uncertainties, our analysis reveals a persistent risk of high sea-level rise even under pathways in line with the Paris Agreement. ”
It is so easy to pick apart these reports that sometimes I think the “scientists” that write them dont believe the results themselves and are just parroting what the Gods of AGW want to hear but at the same time put in juicy lines like the above to tell us what they really think. If you digest that line phrase by phrase you can only come to the conclusion that even the scientists themselves are saying that the uncertainties are so large as to be meaningless. Stretching out any computer analysis to even 10 years is laughable given the huge error factor never mind stretching it to almost 300 years. But I guess these “scientists” have to eat.

February 24, 2018 10:57 am

Anyone who thinks they can predict 300 years into the future is not worth listening to.

Reply to  arthur4563
February 24, 2018 2:04 pm

what sort of predictions do you want? Eclipses can be predicted 300 years into the future down to the minute. So can tides and the length of the day as can be the fact that summer will be hotter than winter.
Lots of things can be predicted that far in advance. Others can’t like earthquakes or volcanos or whether or
not it will rain on a particular day.
The paper in question does not claim to predict the actual sea level. Rather it calculates a probability
distribution and then states the average of that along with the 95% confidence level. And if you want to
claim that it is wrong then it would appear that you would be making the claim that sea level rises will be more than that predicted.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Germonio
February 24, 2018 2:31 pm

I’d like to see climate models that accurately predict the future — to date there have been none. They are great at hind-casting the past, but are abysmal at predicting the future.

Reply to  Germonio
February 24, 2018 8:12 pm

wrong Reg.
Since the 1930’s they have been pretty skillful, even Hansen 81 was spot on

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Germonio
February 24, 2018 8:25 pm

Eclipses are based on real science as are tides and length of the day. AGW on the other hand not only has no science behind it but No science “ahead” of it either. Weather forecasts 3 to 5 days out are very iffy. They have gotten better over the years but to pretend that a meteorologist understands what makes the weather is to pretend that he has taken a billion measurements around the globe. Climate science is however on a whole lot shakier ground and is in fact in a mess. If the AGW hoax had not come along we might be farther .ahead in understanding climate. No computer general circulation model has ever had any correct prediction,because they are based on a false premise that CO2 causes global warming. Even if they didnt have that flaw programmed into them, forecasting 300 years into the future of climate is so absurd that I am speechless that you can attempt to defend it.

Reply to  Germonio
February 25, 2018 3:41 am

I find that the Precautionary Principle encapsulated the sensible approach to risks of this magnitude.
My question to those who doubt the science is:
how much do you understand of physics, chemistry and ecology?
how well do you understand the potential impacts of the ecotoxicological impacts of sea level rise?
If you were sure that your house is located in an areas likely to be affected by Sea Level Rise, would you not want to understand the probability of the risk, the attendant hazards and the geospatial extent of the threat better?
And, even if there were only a 60:40 probability, would we want to take the risk (see my other post, explaining the Ecotoxicology of Sea level Rise.

Reply to  Germonio
February 25, 2018 7:16 am

ann, what are the odds of any house of today, still being around to worry about in 300 years?
Beyond that, the precautionary principle only makes sense if 1) we can do something about it and 2) the cure costs less than the disease.
The ocean rise is mainly the result of the world warming up after the little ice age. This can be shown by the fact that the oceans have risen steadily since then, there has been no acceleration of this rise in recent decades.
Even if there was a small acceleration that was being caused by CO2, spending trillions of dollars per year in order to save a few ocean side cottages makes no sense.

Reply to  Germonio
February 25, 2018 11:53 pm

MarkW said: “Even if there was a small acceleration that was being caused by CO2, spending trillions of dollars per year in order to save a few ocean side cottages makes no sense.”
100M people live within 1M elevation from the high tide mark, which is a lot more than “a few cottages”. What is your source for your figure of trillions per year?

Reply to  Germonio
February 26, 2018 8:49 am

Most of those who live that close to the high tide mark are poor people who live in shanties.
As to the cost, take the trillions that are already being spent on this boondoggle and increase them by a couple of hundred.

February 24, 2018 11:00 am

you would appear to have missed the point of the paper. It is claiming that in a scenario where
GHG emissions cease after 2050 then sea level rise will probably only be 1.2 metre. So rather than
“so what” the paper shows that the Paris accord will stop dangerous levels of sea level rise.

Reply to  Germonio
February 24, 2018 1:34 pm

1.2meters in 200 years is not dangerous.

Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2018 1:58 pm

I think Germonio said 1.2 metre is not dangerous. It is just that RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 have less than 30cm difference in 100 years, so most of the sea level rise is going to happen anyway, so we’d better start adapting to that.
Germonio of course mistakenly believes Paris accord has an effect at all. It doesn’t.

Reply to  Germonio
February 25, 2018 3:42 am

Sadly not… the Paris accord will only ensure that we slam the brakes on and avoid far worse SLR than is already certain.

Reply to  anntchristie
February 25, 2018 7:17 am

Accept it is by no means certain.
Beyond that, it’s trivial to adapt to a meter over 3 centuries.

February 24, 2018 11:02 am

Can you imagine our ancestors 300 years ago arguing about saving the planet for us, in our time? How absurd would that have been? It is equally absurd for us to presume to have a single clue about how the world will look in 300 years, and equally absurd to think we could have a predictable impact. Barring a disease/nuclear/meteor caused dark ages, people 300 years from now will view us as primitive dolts without a clue.

Reply to  rh
February 24, 2018 11:28 am

Hmm . . perhaps ~ *Barring a disease/nuclear/meteor caused dark ages, or the CAGWarts saving us, people 300 years from now will view us as primitive dolts without a clue.*

Jim Heath
February 24, 2018 11:05 am

To sum up, life has it’s ups and downs, and the insignificant Sun still contains 99.9% of the mass of the Solar System.

February 24, 2018 11:53 am

Andi ==> How right you are. The only only only Sea Level of importance to local and regional planners is the Local Relative Sea Level (and its change) of the particular locality under consideration.
The area of New Zealand you highlight has had the good luck to rise up ahead of the sea.
Jakarta, on the other hand, is losing the dice roll — “Coastal districts, like Muara Baru, near the Blessed Bodega, have sunk as much as 14 feet in recent years.
New York City? Not so much, subsiding a mere 1.3 mm/yr.
The magnitude of Vertical Land Movement along matches or exceeds Absolute Sea Level Rise almost everywhere — and can be a positive where land is rising (Alaska) or a negative where land is sinking (Norfolk/Plymouth Virgin

Reply to  Kip Hansen
February 24, 2018 11:54 am

oddly truncated: (Norfolk/Plymouth Virginia)

Reply to  Kip Hansen
February 25, 2018 12:18 am

Right o Kip,
Corrected “Norfolk-Portsmouth Virginia”.
I live here and there has been a noticeable change in land level sink (which is what it really is).
1. Glacio-isostatic adjustment from the last Glaciation, where coastal Virginia is in the forebulge region where the Earth’s crust is rebounding after the last ice cap melted over northern North America, therefore, areas to the south of where this ice cap used to weigh down the Earth’s crust, are now sinking.
2. We sit on the edge of a 50 mile wide 2 mile deep 35 million year old Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater, one of the largest meteor impact craters on Earth.
3. Land use and aquifer depletion, not to mention sitting on deep coastal sediments with river mouths and estuaries doing their dirty work.
The land level sink part of this does not even address localized “sea level rises” that occur in the Atlantic Ocean due to shifts in the Gulf Stream and multidecadal oceanic cycles such as the AMO.
So, the sea level alarmists love to point at Virginia (very near DC too) and say that the world is drowning .
We’re still here…and as this brilliant post points out…..”So what?”
Chris, Norfolk, VA, USA

Reply to  Chris
February 25, 2018 3:26 pm

Chris ==> Of course, none of that makes the problem any;less sever for the folks over on Hospital Point.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
February 25, 2018 2:09 am

What is all the fuss about? Rising sea levels? So what? If it happens, it’s no big deal. Think of the employment opportunities.
You see, the central level of Chicago was raised a couple of yards in the 1850s and 1860.s using some hydraulics and screw jacks to lift the buildings. If that could be done then, during the pick, shovel and wheelbarrow and horse and cart era, then think, think!, about how little of a challenge it would be now with modern hydraulic cylinders and diesel-engined machinery using them?
Sea level rise? So what? With modern machinery and human will, a Piece Of Cake.
So let’s stop all this hand wringing and crocodile tears, and loud cries of Oy vay about what a great tragedy this would be. That’s what we train engineers for. That’s one of the reasons we make such neat lifting equipment.
I dunno … they’re all idjits those warmist wallahs.

Reply to  sophocles
February 25, 2018 3:35 am

To all who comment without having spent more than a couple of minutes actually THINKING about the processes that would operate around this phenomenon:
Now, look at a stove-top Mocha Express cafetière, as a model:
It comprises of:
a compartment for the water, at the bottom (Think of this as the sea)
a perforated funnel for the ground coffee, that reaches into the water container (The aforementioned voids)
a top container with a vertical spout, whence the coffee bubbles up (The surface of the land)
To make coffee you put the pot on the flame until the water boils and bubbles up through the funnel, through the coffee and leaches the soluble fraction of the coffee and some finer, suspended solids, forcing the coffee up the spout and into the top container.
The process is called “percolation” and it PERFECTLY models the process of Sea Level Rise through land.
You see, “land” is not made-up of a single, massive, impermeable body of solid rock, on the contrary, it is full of cracks, channels, holes, voids and ‘pipes’, like lava tubes, left by the geological processes that formed the rock, as well as porous rocks, unconsolidated shales, aggregates, and permeable soils. Otherwise every time it rains the ground would flood.
When the seas start coming up it will take up with it the soluble part of putrefying bodies in the cemeteries, and the wastes buried in landfills, the fractions and suspended solids from old mine shafts, if there have been any outbreaks of contagious animal disease – like Foot & Mouth, Swine Fever, Avian Flu etc.. there may also be vast carcass pits, where the animals that had to be culled were buried.
Now consider the Longshore Drift, the current that washes onto the coastline, creating eddies that progress along it, lifting and redepositing soluble substances and suspendable solids, re-depositing them along the shore, until it washes out to sea, in great plumes…
As the seas and oceans are not compartmentalised, they all form one huge body of water, so, when the land-locked ice flows into them, sea level rise will be a GLOBAL event that could decimate ALL LIFE along every affected coast.
Marine life is wholly dependent on reefs, nurseries of the seas… where reefs collapse, marine ecosystems follow.
I invested years of my life in studying to become and Environmental Scientist.
I wonder how much time YOU spent giving this any amount of thought or consideration?

Reply to  sophocles
February 25, 2018 7:18 am

ann, if you truly have spent years of your life studying, then from your comments above, it has been time wasted.

Reply to  sophocles
February 25, 2018 7:45 am

Yes, you really ought to get your money back on that enviro-sciency degree thingy, you got ripped off. All is not lost, though; you may have a bright future writing cheap B-grade sci-fi horror flicks.

Reply to  sophocles
February 25, 2018 9:21 am

“anntchristie” is preaching we are all doomed and bound to go to hell.
Makes sense.

Reply to  sophocles
February 25, 2018 6:55 pm

Thank you for making my day. When I see the thought process employed by Ann and others like her, it only reinforces my skepticism. Where do they get these people?

Lars P.
Reply to  sophocles
February 26, 2018 2:11 am

anntchristie says:
February 25, 2018 at 3:35 am
“I invested years of my life in studying to become and Environmental Scientist.”
Whoa. You spent years to come to this knowledge? You think the danger comes from cemeteries and rotten corpses? Animal landfills?
Oh dear, the Earth is a living planet. Did you not understood that in your environmental studies? The atoms are not ‘wasted’ but recycled. Each carbon atom may have been used by a troglodyte hundreds of million of years ago, became CaCO3 or some other, was recycled by a volcano, then by an algae, fish, then dinosaur, methane, bacteria, then plant, then… so on, and is now CO2, will be soon plant again, to be eaten by an animal or even an environmental scientist…
More CO2 -> more plants. Have you missed that part in your years of studies? What environmental studies are those?
“When the seas start coming up…”
Missed the last 14 k Years in your study? When did the seas start coming up?
New York – the Battery – same old same old:
Time to panic:
uhm? Is Holland (Netherlands) something you heard about? It is mentioned in the post, have you read it? You know the level of those bathtubs is by minus something? Those toilets in some 1/3 of the Netherlands? And still water does not go up the tube….
Keep cool, think, don’t panic, those 3 mm per year are not real – it is a calculated figure that includes expanding seas and so on. The tide gauges give an overview of the sea level at one location, depending also of the sinking/raising land. We keep an eye on it and build a dike where it is necessary. Truly we can do that, we have the machines and the technology needed, if the Hollanders did it three hundred years ago, we can manage it.
(Well, I hope, but with such degrees in science I start to worry..)

John Reistroffer
February 24, 2018 11:54 am

Sea level has been rising and falling throughout the earth’s history. During periods of Icehouse conditions, cyclically melting of the icecaps and reforming the icecaps due to a number of conditions among them the orbital perturbations of the earth, created rising and falling sea level. During ice house conditions, the amount of water added and removed from the system, by freezing and melting of the polar regions was on the order of up to 100’s of meters. While during greenhouse conditions, lack of ice in the polar regions reduced the amount of water removed from the system and sea level fluctuations were on the order of 10’s of meters.
Here is a movie of a shoreline in eastern venezuela (created by Dr. Chris Kendall) showing the effect of the rising and falling of seal level, and the changing coastal conditions in the Oligocene Late Rupelian. This was a time which ushered in Icehouse conditions during the Paleogene, with sea levels rising and falling on the order of 50 meters over a periodicity of 100,000 years probably related to eccentricity cycles in the earth’s orbit around the sun.
In the movie link below, a strike cross-section of the Rupelian aged La Pascua Formation shows fluvial and shoreface sands in yellow and marine shales in green. The sea level chart is on the right, where the arrow shows the location of the paleogeography during the position of the rising or falling seal level.
Rising and falling seal level is something that has been proven, and is a useful tool for stratigraphers to predict lithology distribution and paleo-environments.
Link to Movie:

Leo Smith
Reply to  John Reistroffer
February 24, 2018 8:29 pm

“Rising and falling seal level is something that has been proven”

The classic antidote to rising seal levels is of course the Canadian Club, on the rocks..

February 24, 2018 12:04 pm

… I was quite enthralled at my first ever trip to Holland (yes I know it’s now the Netherlands) …
That ain’t the half of it.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Mike McMillan
February 24, 2018 7:31 pm

Thanks. I was going to try to explain that. Btw Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is 3m under sea lewvel. The Dutch have a saying: “God created the earth, but the Dutch created the Netherlands”.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 25, 2018 7:02 am

Double trouble: subsidence and CO2 respiration due to 1,000 years of Dutch coastal peatlands cultivation
Not ‘man made’ but ‘Dutch made’ global warming.

James Griffin
February 24, 2018 12:47 pm

In an Ice Age, sea ice increases but sea levels decrease. In an inter-glacial Holocene the opposite is the case.
It is not exactly rocket science.
If you look at Northern Hemisphere sea ice it loses 75% of area during the melting season and you do not even notice it. The same can be said about Southern Hemisphere.
What we are seeing is the beginning of the end of AGW.
With President Trump already ignoring the climate brigade expect legal action at some stage.

John in Oz
Reply to  James Griffin
February 24, 2018 2:18 pm

The melting/freezing of the Arctic each year and its affect on sea levels does not appear to be mentioned in any of these discussions about sea level change. Al and Co are vociferous about how disastrous it would be if the Arctic becomes ice free.
If the loss of Arctic sea ice is such a worry, why do we not see any annual flooding caused by the 75% of same that melts each year?

erik the red
Reply to  John in Oz
February 24, 2018 9:21 pm

The melting / freeing of sea ice has no effect on sea level. It is only the melting of glaciers on land that can increase sea level.

Maggy Wassilieff
February 24, 2018 1:54 pm

I shifted from Island Bay (one street back from the Tsunami Line pic) a couple of years before the Kaikoura Quake to a hill above Kaiti Beach, Gisborne. We are 83m asl. I trust that is high enough to escape the first effects of a tsunami when the Hikurangi Trench blows. However, if there is a major rupture during the height of summer, there will be carnage, as the coast is full of freedom campers.
Some researchers reckon there is a 70-73 yr interval between tsunami-inducing earthquakes in the Gisborne region. The last one here was 1947… so I’ll keep you posted.

February 24, 2018 2:06 pm

“So I continue to say – even if the doomsayers are correct – SO WHAT!”
So wrote the author, and I strongly disagree!
The doomsayers have been wrong for over 30 years
— 40 years if you count the coming ice age idiots
in the 1970s.
of assuming they could be right, for the
simple reason that they have no idea what
controls the climate = meaning they have
no idea what they are talking about when
making predictions.
The leftists liars have no idea what the future
climate or sea level will be, and their claim
that CO2 controls the climate is nonsense,
as demonstrated by the inaccurate “climate model”
predictions assuming CO2 does control the climate.
The leftists also have bad character,
using the worst temperature measurements
(surface) because the best methodology
(satellites) shows less warming.
Of course they think satellites are ‘wonderful’ for sea level,
because they show faster SLR than tide gages!
No one knows what the sea level will be in 2023,
much less 2300.
No one should care about predictions.
How many wrong predictions so far?
The coming climate catastrophe,
that will never come,
is nothing more than a scary prediction,
made every year, by smarmy leftist
government bureaucrats, who happen
to have science degrees, but would not know
real science if it sat on them.
These government bureaucrats waste
the taxpayers’ money, and have only one
skill: The ability to make scary predictions
year after year without bursting into laughter!
The climate blog that keeps it simple,
and has monthly climate centerfolds:

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 25, 2018 4:26 am

I have seldom read anything so transparently:
a) misinformed
b) ignorant
c) specious
d) blatantly written by a TROLL, financed by the Fossil Fuel lobby

Reply to  anntchristie
February 25, 2018 7:22 am

I love the way climate alarmist trolls assume that anything they disagree with must be wrong and is probably paid for by the fossil fuel industry.
Reading your previous posts, I have been seriously underwhelmed by both you knowledge and your ability to form clear coherent thoughts.
With this latest post you have completely shredded any reason why others should take anything you write seriously.

Reply to  anntchristie
February 25, 2018 9:39 am

With d) you show yourself a conspiracy theorist.
So you obviously not just read misinformed / ignorant / specious stuff. You believe and spread them

Andi Cockroft
Reply to  anntchristie
February 26, 2018 3:13 pm

Hi antchristie
Could I have some of that money please? Living on a pension without Fossil Fuel Income is very hard.

February 24, 2018 2:43 pm

How is it possible that the climate alarmists can rely on the satellite observations claiming to be able to measure the sea level with a radar from an altitude of a thousand kms with an accuracy of less than one millimeter (!!!), when we know that the sea conditions may change in the same place from mirror flatness to huge waves tens of meters high. This is beyond my understanding.
We have the available datas of many tide gauges throughout the world some among them are offering 2 centuries old bookings. Those that are installed on stable grounds with no perceptible vertical changes are displaying a slow and steady rise of the sea level about 1,7 mm per year since at least 100 years.
The satellites datas we have since 30 years are claiming twice this number : 3,4 mm/year. Why such a discrepancy?
The main concern for the warmists is that the tides don’t show any rise surge in the recent years, thus blatantly contradicting their claims regarding the consequences of the ACGW and their dramatic predictions of a one meter and more SLR by the end of this century.

Reply to  Jack
February 25, 2018 4:39 am

Just because your limited intellect cannot understand the science, it doesn’t mean that it is not possible.
I would encourage you to think “humility”, but there is a well-known phenomenon called “The Arrogance of Ignorance”. because only the truly ignorant cannot possibly imagine how much they do not know!

Reply to  anntchristie
February 25, 2018 7:21 am

Right back at you, Auntychristie. Your rantings above @ 3:35 show exactly how ignorant and hysterical you really are. Get back to us when the “Rotting corpses” start shooting out of your shower head. Right now you need to take a pill and go to bed.

Reply to  anntchristie
February 25, 2018 7:23 am

Given your complete inability to understand the arguments of anyone who doesn’t already buy into your religion, your whining that others don’t understand the science fall flat.

Tom in Florida
February 24, 2018 2:44 pm

1500 years ago everybody knew the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago I found out I don’t care about the year 2300.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 24, 2018 3:34 pm

“In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may find”

Sorry Tom, but something you said just made me want to bust out in song.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 25, 2018 4:40 am

HAHAHA! You will, when the youth of tomorrow drag you out and start flaying the flesh from your bones, as you scream your last hours away… THEY aret he ones your ignorance is robbing of a future. YOU advocate against THEIR having one at all…

Reply to  anntchristie
February 25, 2018 7:25 am

As always, the alarmist troll dreams of being able to kill all those who disagree with their religion.
Even the IPCC (the Bible of your religion) has given up trying to claim that CO2 will be anything worse than, on net harmful.
Yet the trolls keep talking about how CO2 is going to kill us all. And to think, you actually believe you can lecture the rest of us on the science.

Reply to  anntchristie
February 25, 2018 9:47 am

Actually, don’t even have the nuts to “dream of being able to kill all those who disagree with their religion.”
Only dream of others doing the deed. Notice that it must “youth”, for some reason.

Lars P.
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 26, 2018 1:39 am

“500 years ago, everybody knew the earth was flat”
Columbus wanted to get to India to buy pepper and make money from it. He knew the Earth is round, the way through the Mediterranean Sea was blocked by the Arabs, the way around Africa was long, so he took the other way to the west to arrive there…
This is why he named the locals ‘Indians’, he thought he got there, (but he found no pepper, but the time I guess he understood his mistake).
He got his math wrong (must have been common core math), everybody else told him the way around takes three years, he thought it will take only three month….
I think the flat earthers are as numerous now as 500 years ago…

February 24, 2018 4:11 pm

I am also from the north west of England and I do remember the tail end of rationing. I also remember walking two miles to school when I was five, uphill through the snow. walking home was uphill as well. which just shows that memory can be a bit selective 🙂
but Andis point is correct. I visited a town called sandwich a few years ago. Sandwich is a delightful town in the south east of England. Near an old bridge is a town ordnance from 1905. Its a list of toll charges for the bridge.
Chariots drawn by 6 horses or other beasts..2 shillings and six pence
dray drawn by less than 4 oxen ….1 shilling
and so on.
that’s just over a hundred years ago. Anyone who claims to see a hundred years into the future , and base current policy on that, is an imbecile.

Reply to  EternalOptimist
February 24, 2018 6:23 pm

“Anyone who claims to see a hundred years into the future , and base current policy on that, is an imbecile.”
I beg to differ. Anyone who doesn’t take heed of the warnings being offered by those who study this stuff for a living, is beyond stupid.
A 1.2 metre rise would pose serious problems for hundreds of millions of people. Bangladesh has 150 million people. Much of their fertile land sits at near sea level. These people are at the mercy of a rising sea. They will have two options, starve or move. But where to? India also has significant areas that are not far above sea level that are productive. They will not want refugees from over the border, particularly when their land is shrinking and they may well be struggling to feed their own. Conflict and starvation are real possibilities, some would say certainties. And scenarios like this will play out across the planet, and the higher the sea level rise the worse it will be.
So, while people here may like to sit back and quote their memory for why the sea is not rising and justify an attitude of “who cares,” I prefer to listen to those who have better arguments than “I had a donkey ride on a beach that is still there.” I mean, seriously? And so what if Wellington rose a few metres during an earthquake, how does that contribute in any meaningful way to assessing the dangers that lie ahead? Frankly, I’m embarrassed a kiwi would write such simplistic nonsense.

Reply to  Simon
February 24, 2018 7:13 pm

Bangladesh population in 1960 was under 50m it is now 163m.
And your point is what exactly?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Simon
February 24, 2018 7:43 pm

Bangladesh has 150 million people. They will have two options, starve or move.”
Or build sea walls and drain ocean bottom, just like the Dutch in the Netherlands.
The real problem is that Bangladesh has a population far beyond its economic powers. They might want to consider a one child policy like China. They might also focus on industrialization.
Any way you cut it, Bangladesh is a disaster zone. And the only people who can solver their problems are them. Imposing a deindustrialization policy on the US so that maybe Bangladesh can hang on at the Malthusian edge for a few mores years is just plain crazy.

Andi Cockroft
Reply to  Simon
February 24, 2018 9:48 pm

Simplistic nonsense?
Well of course it is. As is the postulation that anyone can project 1.2 metres sea-level rise in 300 years. My point of “SO WHAT” is that society (of whatever nature) has and will continue to adapt – it must adapt.
You should really be asking the question – “What if the Doomsayers are wrong?”. What will happen if a mini-ice-age suddenly hits and we have decommissioned all our abundant sources of energy in favour of as yet flaky “renewables”. Ask South Australians about unreliable energy!

Reply to  Simon
February 25, 2018 4:42 am

You are speaking to little more than monkeys, my friend., not even great apes, like the rest of humanity, no sign of intellect here… They cannot raise their minuscule brains to the task of studying science, and so they cannot and will not accept it.. far rather believe in myths, legends, religious cults and fantasy.
(Your snotty attitude and insults are quickly wearing out your welcome here, advise you stop it, debate the topic instead) MOD

Reply to  Simon
February 25, 2018 7:26 am

The troll assumes that anyone who disagrees with her, just doesn’t understand the science.
All the while demonstrating that her understanding of science doesn’t get above kindergarten level.

Reply to  Simon
February 25, 2018 12:33 pm

anntchristie February 25, 2018 at 4:42 am
MOD – Plus lots. Thanks.
Trolls, now, seem to be more mono-maniacal than most of the Jehovah’s Witnesses I have debated with.

Reply to  Simon
February 26, 2018 8:53 am

I’ve never met a Jehovah’s Witness who wanted to kill those who didn’t believe as they did.
They undoubtedly concerned about what will happen to your soul after you die, but they have no desire to have you find out for yourself any sooner.
On the other hand, I’ve heard of people who have wanted to kill the JW’s, just to get them to go away.

Reply to  EternalOptimist
February 24, 2018 7:15 pm

They have almost 300 years to adapt. That’s assuming the worst case scenarios for once, play out.
Assuming 30 years per generation, that’s 10 generations to figure out a solution using technology we can’t even imagine and paid for by a much wealthier society. Unless we keep trying to power the planet using unreliable power, in which case all bets are off.

February 24, 2018 4:13 pm

I honestly have to admit my ignorance: I really don’t get “global sea level rise”. How can some spots seemingly in the middle of an ocean seem to rise, while many other spots around it do not show rising?
What really is being measured? Do most people know what they are really worried about?

Bart Tali
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 24, 2018 4:38 pm

This youtube video will explain everything:

Reply to  Bart Tali
February 25, 2018 11:33 am

Thanks for confirming my ignorance even further, Bart T. (^_^)
“Sea level” seems like a pliable concept, subject to creative manipulation.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 24, 2018 6:20 pm

Maybe high spots in the ocean are caused in the main by atmospheric conditions allowing extra absorption of solar energy into an area of the ocean.

Retired Kit P
February 24, 2018 4:19 pm

What is the root cause of 20k deaths in Japan in 2011?
We spend a lot of time where there is a tsunami evacuation route, so I would like to know. However, I have a theory.
Government puts up signs telling us we are safe. We stop to watch the wave rather than be skeptical and keep running.
While I not too worried about slow changes it is hard to adapt to sudden change like flash floods and explosions.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
February 24, 2018 6:26 pm

The root cause of those 20k deaths is that man seldom remembers the past. There are markers in the hills behind the coast line which mark the height of past tsunamis. Some of the markers date back 6 centuries. Forewarned is twice warned.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  goldminor
February 25, 2018 10:34 am

You would be wrong and dead. The 2011 event was a thousand year event so basing it on a 600 year event would still fail.
There is no rule of nature that says that something can only happen if it has happened before.
The point is that increasing your margin of safety when practical could save your life if the model is wrong.
I am also big on questioning authority. There is 15 miles of road that is lower than where we park our motorhome. I it likely that events that would trigger a major tsunami would make the only road impassable for evacuation.
Assuming the road is passable after a M8.0 (or greater) earthquake
on the Cascadia subduction zone, there is 30 minutes to get to safety.
Knowing the risk and accepting it, is assumed risk.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
February 25, 2018 2:48 pm

My point was that most people waited until it was too late to react. Instead of reacting immediately to the potential of a dangerous tsunami as there was the history of tsunamis following large quakes. Then again, many people react poorly in crisis situations.

Bob Burban
February 24, 2018 4:57 pm

The oceans cover some 70% of the Earth’s surface and have an average depth of roughly 4 km. Where did this water come from and when did it start arriving? Has if finished this ‘arrival process’ or is this process still ongoing?

Reply to  Bob Burban
February 25, 2018 10:12 am

wikipedia Meteoroid : “An estimated 15,000 tonnes of meteoroids, micrometeoroids and different forms of space dust enter Earth’s atmosphere each year”
Still ongoing, but insignificantly so

Walter Sobchak
February 24, 2018 7:56 pm

The entire rising seas meme is ridiculous. If the seas rise, people who live near the rising seas will either move or they will build sea walls and other engineering works to protect their investments. London, New York, and Miami will build sea walls because they are rich and have enormous investments to protect. Resorts on the Carolina coast will move inland because the houses will be blown away and the beach will be eroded by hurricanes. I dealt with the absurdist corner case of Bangladesh above. Whatever happens, it not a problem that is worth worrying about this far in advance.

February 24, 2018 8:35 pm

I have the same reaction to high carbon taxes
So what.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 25, 2018 3:38 am

so pay up

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 25, 2018 3:53 am

What is the source of the Carbon in Carbon Based Life Forms?

Reply to  Thomas Homer
February 25, 2018 7:29 am

Socialists believe that government is able to spend money better than individuals can. So by taking money away from individuals and giving it to government, the results are always better.
In those instances where it didn’t turn out better, that’s because the capitalists in government interfered with the socialists plans. The solution is of course to make sure that only socialists are permitted to have anything to do with decision making.

Reply to  Thomas Homer
February 25, 2018 11:37 am

What was the dumb blond’s solution to alternative energy? — Since humans are carbon based, and there are so many humans, burn humans as fuel.

John Pickens
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 25, 2018 4:50 am

By impoverishing society, lowering living standards, and reducing available inexpensive energy sources, you reduce the capacity to deal with changes in climate and sea level. So the tax on carbon will have exactly the opposite of it’s intended purpose.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 25, 2018 7:27 am

As always, the socialists have no problem raising other people’s taxes.

Patrick MJD
February 24, 2018 9:11 pm

Good story Andi. Hadn’t realised you mirated only a 5 or 6 years before I did. Shame about your current PM.

February 24, 2018 10:45 pm

A tsunami is a slow, low, relentless surge of water that comes sometimes many miles inland. Only 7% of NZ is above the waves. That’s why it will never get a tsunami. An earthquake registering >7.5mag is needed, and Kaikoura recently had a 7.8mag shake and no sign of tsunami. The shallow seas surrounding NZ prevent a large amount of water from becoming available to constantly feed it.
A kingtide is not a tsunami, the super kingtide happens about twice a year. That’s what causes a flood, because river water banks up and cannot get away. The geologists have decided, in retrospect, that the past great floods of NZ have been tsunamis. But from them there been zero loss of life, after 2 million recorded earthquakes over 200 years of settlement.
But maintaining a tsunami scare enables more taxation, increased insurance premiums and higher rates going to councils. In short, the fear of one is a financial godsend. Tsunami is a Japanese word that was unheard of when I was growing up in NZ, until 2004 and the Asian event. Now, every earthquake is a potential tsunami.
The safest place in a violent earthquake is not in the hills, which may open up, but on the beach where it is safe for children to run around.

Reply to  kenring657210303
February 25, 2018 1:14 am

You are kidding me (us) surely???
An earthquake will get you – if it wants – no matter where you are – mountain or shore.
A tsunami, likewise, will get you, if its located in the appropriate ‘wrong place’, and the Kaikoura quake occurred in a location not suitable to create the tsunami conditions, but DID lift areas of the sea floor some 2m vertically – and that, if located further off shore, would likely have resulted in a tsunami – of some degree or another.
Conflating luck, and evidence or lack there of, doesn’t make NZ safe from future events
We, as you know well Ken, have had many deadly earthquakes in both European and Maori historical time frames.
And how the hell can you say there was no loss of life from all those historic tsunamis – just asking is all???
Anyway Ken, I’d prefer you were correct, but alas, maybe we won’t be so lucky when the big one does happen.
The ChCh quake lasted 45 seconds and did the damage it did – but the main alpine fault is expected to last for 7 to 8 minutes – with the corresponding outcome (destruction) being that much greater.
Or is it that I am just tired, and needed to vent some spleen before going to bed???

Reply to  D B H
February 25, 2018 1:21 am

Oh – and while I am in agreement with Andi, the one burning issue for why it does matter is that living in the real world means that planning policy based upon some misplaced ideology of CAGW means that approx 160,000 houses throughout NZ, will see real world difficulties with insuring their homes.
Many, if they can even get insurance (and thats becoming increasingly problematic) will/may be faced with a $10,000 excess clause before the insurance companies will write a policy, in those ‘affected’ areas.
Local authorities are now being required to take into consideration the potential future impacts upon the region going out 100 years.
Hell, going out 270 years to the year 2300, I’d just hate to think what onerous policy impacts would be dreamed up, if that ever happened.

February 25, 2018 12:35 am

300 years far exceeds the expected lifetime of even modern construction. As moderns buildings are individually demolished they will be replaced with structures built to future standards with a mush larger database of past performances and a far longer list of expectations. There is a ‘natural selection’ that will drive the evolution of architecture to adapt to REAL changes – one building at a time.

February 25, 2018 4:24 am

There is a preamble that I forgot to include in my post explaining the Ecotoxicology of Sea Level Rise: the Time-Lag factor.
Let me explain it with another simile, and you can actually do this at home:
please a large sponge (or a number of sponges, at the bottom of a tub then start trickling water into the tub.
You will find that only a small amount of water sloshes around the tub, as the sponges absorb the rest.. UNTIL THEY ARE SATURATED.
Then, suddenly the waer will begin to rise as fas as it pours in.
This models the TIME-LAG between SLR and its manifestation.
Consider the make-up of the Earth’s crust. As I explain in my other post, “land” and “rock” are not solid, monolithic and impermeable, on the contrary, they represent a broad continuum of permeability.
They are also full of natural voids, like some of the huge caverns that make up, that will take a very long time to fill-up, once seawater levels reaches those hitherto inaccessible to the sea.
So, you see, just because we haven’t SEEN the sea levels rise, it doesn’t mean the volume of sea water is not increasing, only that the ‘absorption potential’

F. Leghorn
Reply to  anntchristie
February 25, 2018 4:52 am

So, without any available evidence you are thoroughly convinced the ocean is rising. Got it.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  F. Leghorn
February 25, 2018 4:55 am

Catastrophically that is.
(Her unnaproved 6:17 am reply was an ugly personal attack on you) MOD

Reply to  F. Leghorn
February 25, 2018 6:17 am

(Your comment is filled with personal attacks, it is no longer published. If you don’t learn to debate without the insults, you will be removed from commenting, people are quickly getting unhappy with your ugly replies) MOD

F. Leghorn
Reply to  anntchristie
February 25, 2018 6:58 am

And yet my spelling and grammar (not to mention my civility) are light-years beyond yours. Strange.

Reply to  F. Leghorn
February 25, 2018 7:36 am

The models say it must be rising, so it is. It’s up to the faithful to invent ever more fanciful reasons to explain away the fact that the real world isn’t behaving as the models say they should.
Notice how the troll gets offended that we dare to disagree with her sacred pronouncements.
Notice also the assumption that because she believes correctly, she is superior to those who don’t. This also explains why she has no trouble imagining those of us lesser mortals being killed for the sins of not worshiping correctly.

Andi Cockroft
Reply to  F. Leghorn
February 26, 2018 3:57 pm

You suggest a simile of sponges in a bath. So you propose some form of capillary action will cause waters to suddenly rise?
Shame about the physics behind capillary action. Any water that is already rising by capillary action will be at its maximum extent (i.e. height) already. So adding 1.2 metres of additional available water to the oceans can only add an additional 1.2 metres on top of current capillary rise.
i.e. even if 1.2 metres sea-level rise were to take place, your capillary rise would be likewise constrained to 1.2 metres.
I have to wonder as to whether your “Ecotoxology” studies actually included any real science. If not, I have to wonder how you can judge whether CAGW and rising sea-levels is a true or pseudo-science?

Reply to  anntchristie
February 25, 2018 7:33 am

ann is quite clearly someone who has been educated way, way, beyond her intelligence.
1) The number of caves is very small compared to the surface of the earth, and most of these are nowhere close to the ocean.
2) The amount of water that sand and soil can hold is limited, near the oceans pretty much already saturated, and only takes a few minutes to fill.
3) SLR is the manifestation. What other follow on affects is your fevered mind coming up with?

Reply to  anntchristie
February 25, 2018 10:30 am

“Let me explain it with another simile, and you can actually do this at home”
Well, we are grown-up adult, you know. we can stand a REAL explanation, complete with figures, if you had any. But you don’t. You are the child here. You live in a fantasy land of sponge, flat, immutable, unmoving Earth, land and sea, as just another creationist
Sea level as experienced up and down forever, as every coastal city perfectly know. Some even died out, never because of sea rise, always because land rise killed their main asset: the harbor.
Whatever happens, you’ll have to adapt. You’ll have to LIVE. You better start now, instead of sticking to your zombie world of “Ecotoxicology” (which obviously forgot the very first teaching of toxicology “Alle Dinge sind Gift, und nichts ist ohne Gift, allein die Dosis macht dass ein Ding kein Gift ist”)

February 25, 2018 5:01 am

For millions of years there are billions of km³ of water (from rains, rivers & rivers) that have poured into the seas & oceans … WITHOUT WHERE THEY DO NOT UP !!! That’s it! Quite simply because water continuously seeps into the ocean and sea floors to the magma where this poisonous soup (the fish shit in the sea!) Is heated / boiled and goes up (as in a coffee maker) to the sources (hot or cold depending on the altitude) and to the water tables that it fills WITHOUT SALT or chemicals !!!! That’s it!

February 25, 2018 5:31 am

Has anyone considered/studied how much water gets displaced by undersea volcanic/techtonic activity?
It seems that the creation of new mountains/trenches do displace a lot of water, and the ocean depths are woefully unexplored…
That and dry land subsidence etc could makt it appear in places that sea level rises/drops.

February 25, 2018 8:08 am

Since the coming LIA may well drop sea levels by 1 and 1/2 meters this sounds about right, by 2300 we should be back to current levels. The problem will be all the idiots rushing to the new sea shores and building crap, which will be flooded by the return to “normal” sea level, and they will screech&wail and gnash their teeth about how globall warmining is destroying the Earth. Your standard rinse&repeat of human stupidity.

February 25, 2018 9:04 am

Ugh! I just put another 2.5 tons of class 2 stone (by hand) on our seawall last weekend (repair job). Now I gotta get even more before 2300?

Reply to  DNA
February 26, 2018 4:36 pm

Its cool! I think you got a bit-O-time!

Reply to  DNA
February 27, 2018 4:34 am

At least you have lots of time to wait for a sale on stone…

February 25, 2018 10:00 am

We know, thanks to many tide gauge throughout the world that the sea level is rising at an average rate of 1,7 mm/year since the end of the Little Ice Age by mid 19th century. It doesn’t matter if the satellites are detecting twice this rate in the middle of the Atlantic or the Pacific oceans since the people who should worry about the rise are living near the shores, not on 4000 meters high steel towers anchored on the sea floor in the middle of the oceans.
1,7mm per year means an average rise of 17 cm by the end of the 21st century. We have no data showing that this rate is accelerating nor that Greenland is dramatically thawing while the antarctic inlandsis looks to get a net increase in ice volume. Therefore the coastal populations can keep sleeping quietly.

February 25, 2018 10:02 am

It takes only 1 super volcano to erupt and throw the whole world into an ice age, freezing water into ice and dramaticly lowering ocean levels

February 25, 2018 11:46 am

I saw an alarmist article who noted that if the Antarctic melted in 3000 years then sea level would rise X meters (a big scary number). 3000 years. We should be so lucky to still be around.

Reply to  ccscientist
February 25, 2018 12:52 pm

Compare the level of technology available 3000 years ago.
Note that the rate of technological advancement is continuing to accelerate.
Now, try to imagine what kind of technologies will be available to those who are living 3000 years from now.

February 25, 2018 6:34 pm

I see your 1.2 Metres, and raise you 3 meters. 4.2 meter sea level rise in 2300.
I learned decades ago, if you are going to make up a number, make up a big one.
And yet . . . my prediction is of the exact same value as theirs.

February 26, 2018 1:16 pm

Similar to what I’ve said all along. And not just about sea levels. Even if the worst happens, it’s going to take a hundred years. Look at how far mankind has advanced in the LAST hundred years. It is preposterous to think out technology will stagnate over the entirety of the next hundred years (unless, of course, we deprive ourselves of the benefits of fossil fuels). It is difficult for me to imagine a global-warming consequence that we cannot overcome given a hundred years to prepare for it.

February 28, 2018 1:58 pm

The issue to me with all this is that:
No matter what nature’s response is and no matter what we do there will be significant rise, i.e. 1-2 feet. People will have to raise houses, find places to put in barriers and maybe even move. If we do everything and global warming were to stop today seas would still rise as they have been for hundreds of years.
This is the same as other problems claimed by global warming. We continue to work on our food supply, building standards improve. Our warning systems and everything we do to respond to disasters gets better and better NOT because of Global warming because that is what people do and what we will do naturally anyway.
We are talking 200 years. Man has been sentient for about 100 years in my estimation. This means we have been able to respond technologically and to have history and learn from history for about 120 years or so. 200 years is an incredibly long time. Most buildings aren’t 100 years old. Most buildings are torn down or major retrofit every 40-80 years. The idea that global warming is the only thing affecting our infrastructure is ridiculous.
This is the most ridiculous overrated worry ever created and we still don’t know if anything will transpire. After 70 years of pouring massively into the atmosphere CO2 there are no documented negative impacts. There has been no increase in storms, diseases. Islands aren’t sinking. They are rising. The arctic is not melting even though it makes no difference because it is sea ice not land ice. The Antarctic is growing. No creatures have died. A lot of allegations, very little things one can point to and even suggest might be related to warming. There is lots of doubt about the amount of warming we will get and the consequences of the warming are even more suspect.
The fact is we will deal with all these issues and will have to even if we spent trillions and erased any further warming. Seas will still rise. Storms will still happen and people will have to adjust. Global warming makes no difference.

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
February 28, 2018 5:01 pm

Seriously? You really believe this crap? And you seriously believe people can’t figure out how to deal with,,,well,,,anything? That is just sad, and predictable. Let me hip you to the deal, Hillary is NEVER going to be President of the United States. EVER. Get over it.

Verified by MonsterInsights