Sea Level to Rise 50 Feet by 2300… Oh noes!!!

Guest commentary by David Middleton

Global Sea Level Could Rise 50 Feet by 2300, Study Says

Characterizing what’s known and what’s uncertain is key to managing coastal risk

October 6, 2018

Global average sea-level could rise by nearly 8 feet by 2100 and 50 feet by 2300 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high and humanity proves unlucky, according to a review of sea-level change and projections by Rutgers and other scientists.

Since the start of the century, global average sea-level has risen by about 0.2 feet. Under moderate emissions, central estimates of global average sea-level from different analyses range from 1.4 to 2.8 more feet by 2100, 2.8 to 5.4 more feet by 2150 and 6 to 14 feet by 2300, according to the study, published in Annual Review of Environment and Resources.


Rutgers Today

“Global average sea-level could rise by nearly 8 feet by 2100 and 50 feet by 2300 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high and humanity proves unlucky…”

No fracking way!  Global sea level can’t even rise by 3 feet by 2100…

RCP8.5 fraud alert!

The study, published in Annual Review of Environment and Resources hasn’t actually been published yet and it appears that it will be pay-walled. The abstract is unusually abstract…

Future sea-level rise generates hazards for coastal populations, economies, infrastructure, and ecosystems around the world. The projection of future sea-level rise relies on an accurate understanding of the mechanisms driving its complex spatio-temporal evolution, which must be founded on an understanding of its history. We review the current methodologies and data sources used to reconstruct the history of sea-level change over geological (Pliocene, Last Interglacial, and Holocene) and instrumental (tide-gauge and satellite alimetry) eras, and the tools used to project the future spatial and temporal evolution of sea level. We summarize the understanding of the future evolution of sea level over the near (through 2050), medium (2100), and long (post-2100) terms. Using case studies from Singapore and New Jersey, we illustrate the ways in which current methodologies and historical data sources can constrain future projections, and how accurate projections can motivate the development of new sea-level research questions across relevant timescales.

Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Environment and Resources Volume 43 is October 17, 2018. Please see for revised estimates.

50 feet of sea level rise by 2300 is worse than bad science fiction.  The same lead author had 50 feet (15.2 meters) of sea level rise by 2300 as beyond the upper range of RCP8.5 (bad science fiction) in 2014.

50 feet is off the top of the RCP8.5 high-end. Horton et al, 2014



Horton, B. P., Rahmstorf, S., Engelhart, S. E., and Kemp, A. C.: Expert assessment of sea-level rise by AD 2100 and AD 2300, Quaternary Science Reviews, 84, 1–6, 2014.

Horton, Benjamin P., Robert E. Kopp, Andra J. Garner, Carling C. Hay, Nicole S. Khan, Keven Roy, Timothy A. Shaw. Mapping Sea-Level Change in Time, Space, and Probability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2018 43:1

Featured Image vs Reality

Lady Liberty has nothing to fear from the Adjustocene Sea. What’s that? You can’t see the sea level trend? It’s right down there at sea level… between the water and the base of Liberty Island. (National Geographic’s Junk Science: How long will it take for sea level rise to reach midway up the Statue of Liberty?, Anthony Watts)
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 9, 2018 12:07 pm

How can anyone with a brain can think that insignificant short term trends will continue forever when we know with absolute certainty that the climate system has many periodic and quasi-periodic influences affecting it including diurnal and seasonal solar variability, changes in the Earth’s axis and orbit, the various periodic behaviors of the Sun (11-year sunspot cycle, Maunder cycle, etc.) and the demonstrable chaotic variability around the planet’s mean behavior (ENSO, PDO, AMO and others, both known and unknown).

What idiots applied peer review this tripe?

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 9, 2018 2:52 pm

I’m sitting here watching the evening swarm of squirrels, as they come get the nuts that we put out for them, and it occurred to me that we are seeing young ones showing up. Mating season wasn’t that long ago, so I became curious about how fast they grow. So I looked up a website ( that had some data. At 1 weeks, they weigh 20 grams, at 2 weeks 40 grams, and so on until 10 weeks they get to 600 grams. The curve fit, via Excel (actually Libre Calc), is Weight = 16.202*EXP(-0.323747*Weeks), with R^2 of 0.94876 ( so it’s REALLY accurate).

Now I’m worried. A year from now, we’ll be looking at 900 tonne squirrels!

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
October 9, 2018 3:04 pm

That exponent was positive, not negative. Damn!

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
October 9, 2018 3:21 pm

That would make a great horror movie. On the other hand as the General said “nuts”.

Steve R
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
October 9, 2018 4:36 pm

We raised some baby squirrels. Dont worry, by 12 weeks they’re rate of growth will slow tremendously and by 15 weeks they will be practically adult size.

Jim Hovater
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 9, 2018 3:29 pm

Hear! Hear! 👏

Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 9, 2018 10:25 pm

Projections should play no part in science. Hence this study is unscientific – but we all know that.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 10, 2018 7:39 am

With what we currently know about the Earth’s climate and considering the success rate of their previous predictions (sorry, “projections”) I wouldn’t bet money on either +5 ft. or -5 ft. by 2300 much less +50 ft.. They’ve screwed up the data to the point where it will probably take real scientists another 30 to 60 years just to figure out what has happened so far.

October 9, 2018 12:07 pm

My in laws thought they were doing something nice for me by getting a Nat Geo subscription for me.
My wife wonders every month why I groan when I open the package.

Wallaby Geoff
Reply to  Matthew W
October 9, 2018 12:54 pm

I cancelled my subscription long ago. Anyone know how long ago they took this left turn? I bet they are scratching their heads trying to figure out why circulation is dropping.
Like the lefty ABC in Australia wondering why a lot less viewers are watching their news and current affairs.

Steve Keohane
Reply to  Wallaby Geoff
October 9, 2018 1:50 pm

I gave up in the early 90s when they started editorializing instead of reporting observations.

Reply to  Steve Keohane
October 9, 2018 3:16 pm

I also gave up on NG long ago, when I realized that all their articles were the same:

You shoulda been here last year when it was beautiful but it’s all ruined now

Bill Powers
Reply to  Wallaby Geoff
October 9, 2018 1:50 pm

I believe they began their turn to the left, away from an apolitical position around the time we transitioned from H.W. to Clinton.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bill Powers
October 14, 2018 6:44 pm

IMO it was earlier.

I recall an article extolling the Nicaraguan revolution, claiming that the communists had been fairly elected.

I can’t recall if it were NG or Scientific American which extolled the virtues of the North Korean regime.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Wallaby Geoff
October 9, 2018 2:15 pm

These networks assume that they have a fixed number of viewers, and that they can use their platform to influence these viewers. The reality is that people only enjoy being preached to for a short time, then they tune out and watch Game of Thrones.

Reply to  Wallaby Geoff
October 9, 2018 3:51 pm

If I wouldn’t think that my in laws would have been insulted, I would have asked for a refund (also Smithsonian).

steve case
Reply to  Matthew W
October 9, 2018 1:22 pm

Same thing with “Scientific American”

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  steve case
October 9, 2018 1:53 pm

steve case
October 9, 2018 at 1:22 pm

Yes, as someone cleverly commented here recently (sorry, can’t remember who)…this rag is no longer “Scientific” nor “American”!

Remo Williams
Reply to  steve case
October 9, 2018 9:14 pm

Scientific American went full retard way back in the late ’90s. I distinctly remember several articles from around that time which left me thinking that I had somehow woken up in the twilight zone. One of them was (believe it or not) a featured, multi-page, entirely laudatory discussion of Enron’s weather futures trading scheme. It was just bizarre. Sadly, I have not read that once enjoyable magazine in nearly 20 years.

Pamele Matlack-Klein
October 9, 2018 12:09 pm

In their dreams! There would have to be catastrophic subsidence of all land masses in order to get this kind of SLR and that is highly unlikely. There simply is not enough water tied up in ice to raise the sea by 50 feet, let along 30. These people are clearly delusional.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Pamele Matlack-Klein
October 9, 2018 1:31 pm

A rough calculation shows that this would be an average of 37 faster than at present, assuming 1.5mm per year. Wow, that is a bit worrying, I should really pay a lot more in tax to avoid this.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
October 9, 2018 3:45 pm

And that doesn’t take into account glacial isostatic adjustment.

Reply to  Pamele Matlack-Klein
October 10, 2018 3:23 am

They are also banking on thermal expansion. Given that it is so warm thermal expansion since 2001 has caused the SLR to expand by 1.5 meters…….. by 2008? by 2013? by 2018? 2300????

IF you live in la la land…. what kind of drugs are these people on?

October 9, 2018 12:11 pm

No problems has the earth it going to be eaten by a giant space goat in 2220 , and I have a ‘model ‘ that proves it so no need for questions .

Reply to  knr
October 9, 2018 2:31 pm

I think you meant to say:

I have a model that shows a 95% chance earth will be eaten by a giant space goat in 2220, but more research and funding is needed. Please send $$.

Reply to  knr
October 9, 2018 3:25 pm

How good looking is your model?

Reply to  knr
October 9, 2018 3:49 pm

So, we need to build that ‘B’ Ark quickly then.

Mutant Space Goats you say? But is CO2 involved? If not, forget it. No grant opportunities without it.

Reply to  Bill Sticker
October 9, 2018 4:04 pm

Presumably those goats emit a significant amount of another greenhouse gas.

Walt D.
October 9, 2018 12:16 pm

Self fulfilling prophesy.
The amount of Global Warming Drivel is doubling every year.
Like the grains of wheat on the chess board, 1 on 1st square, 2 on the next, 4 on the next etc,
starting with 1 liter, there will be 2^65 – 1 liters of drivel after 64 years.

Eventually, the Earth will term into a new class of plant – a lobal warming drivel giant.

October 9, 2018 12:18 pm

Frankly, even were it true, who actually gives a flying feck?

Oh yes! I forgot. All those that have beachside and riverbank properties, commercial or otherwise.

I think between now and 2300 they will have plenty of time to stand the loss of their properties as sea rise swamps them, eventually.

I mean, these properties have made their owners multiple $£Millions/Billions so far. Along the rivers Thames, Clyde and Mersey for example, what used to be multiple shipping ports have now been turned into business centres with glass and steel skyscrapers owned by various banks. They are surrounded by converted Victorian warehouses and modest family homes, into mega expensive apartments and homes for the well heeled.

The ports served their purpose over hundreds of years and have moved into the 21st Century. So where’s the catastrophe if business owners and residents are forced to gradually abandon buildings over nearly 300 years? Byb that time the oldest of them will be nearly 600 years old! The banks won’t care, they’ll just build another office block elsewhere with some spare change.

The landscape will change and our children’s, children’s, children’s grand children won’t even bother to look back at our iPhone photographs of the grotty, cramped conditions many people live in now.

Change will stimulate new constructions, new employment and new technology. Man thrives on change especially climate change. If it weren’t for climate change we would all be living in exactly the same place our ancient ancestors were. There would be no migration, no changing crops, no need to trade, no need to socialise, no need to travel. We are a nomadic race, it’s only stable agriculture that’s forced humankind to settle down in the same place for any length of time.

In fact, I really hope this guy’s right. I really don’t like the thought of my descendants taking the same route to work, using the same elevator every day for a lifetime before retiring to a 600 year old home stinking of piss saturated walls, with their descendants facing the same fate.

Climate change?

Bring it on!

Reply to  HotScot
October 9, 2018 12:27 pm

Do you think anyone will be concerned when development starts to occur on what used to be ocean as the planet cools and ocean levels drop? Anyone who denies that the world will eventually enter a new ice age sometime in the future doesn’t understand that a periodic past predicts a periodic future and no amount of CO2 or any GHG for that matter can turn periodic behavior into monotonic behavior.

Pamele Matlack-Klein
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 9, 2018 12:32 pm

That these educated people can be so ignorant of the past history of our planet is baffling. When there was talk of another ice age back in the ’70s, those folks were actually much closer to the truth of what can happen.

Gary Pearse
October 9, 2018 12:22 pm

Good news, they kerp moving significant SLR forward. The 8.5 million citizens of prosperous “Garden of Eden Earth ^тм” (under the “Grest Greening of the Planet ^тм” will turn this minor nuisance into a plus in 2300, although the just as likely cooling off should be consideted.

October 9, 2018 12:22 pm

“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989

“European cities will be plunged beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020.” -Paul Harris, UK Ecojournalist, 2004

“[in thirty years (2018)] the West Side Highway [and thus much of Manhattan] will be under water.” -James Hansen, 1988, NASA

reality… there’s been essentially NO rise:

Reply to  Eric Simpson
October 9, 2018 1:00 pm

Well, the relative sea-level at The Battery has actually risen by about 5 inches since 1988:

Admittedly at that rate it will likely take a little while before you can go swimming on the West Side Highway.

Dale S
Reply to  tty
October 9, 2018 1:18 pm

Even if the sea level were noticeably rising, I wouldn’t expect Manhattan to just sit around and wait for the waves to engulf the city. They’d build a wall.

Reply to  tty
October 9, 2018 1:30 pm

@TTY — Individual anomalies aside, from my linked JoNova article:

Nils-Axel Mörner is here to point out that the raw satellite data shows barely any rise, and furthermore, the observations from places all over, like the Maldives, Suriname, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, Venice, and Germany show not much either. It’s close enough to zero to call it “nothing.”

But that’s only spots from The Atlantic, The Pacific and The Indian… there are other oceans. 😉

As we graphed before with Frank Lansner, most of the current “rise” is due to man-made adjustments, not man-made emissions. According to Mörner, it’s not that the sea levels are rising less than expected, it’s more like they aren’t rising much at all, and haven’t been for years . — Jo

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  tty
October 9, 2018 1:56 pm

October 9, 2018 at 1:00 pm

But we should not attribute all this to global warming…NY has been sinking ever since the ice melted due to continental warping and continues to do so.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
October 10, 2018 1:23 am

Of course. That is why I said relative sea level.

Incidentally all the eastern seabord south of Maine is sinking. Easy to see from the coastal morphology.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
October 10, 2018 9:36 am

I don’t see how the continental warping is relevant. The lower part of Manhattan was a sea-level swamp when it was settled. That was a long time ago. It is more above sea level now than it was two centuries ago because of human ingenuity.

Will ingenuity cease because of global warming?

Chris Hanley
Reply to  tty
October 9, 2018 3:12 pm

New York (USA) monthly tide gauge data from PSMSL Data Explorer:

Reply to  tty
October 9, 2018 6:04 pm

Wow the height of two bricks in 30 years they must be terrified at the slow moving tsunami.

Reply to  LdB
October 10, 2018 1:24 am

Very small bricks!

tegiri nenashi
October 9, 2018 12:31 pm

282 years into the future. Let’s compare what happened that far away in the past:
– 110 years ago – mass produced model T
– 142 years ago – invention of combustion engine
– 203 years ago – Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo
– 280 years ago – John Wesley experiences a spiritual rebirth at a Moravian Church meeting in Aldersgate, in the City of London, essentially launching the Methodist movement; the day is celebrated annually by Methodists as Aldersgate Day (his younger brother Charles had a similar experience three days earlier).

The last entry hints how this day would be remembered 280 years in the future. With obvious substitution of one belief to the other.

Bruce Cobb
October 9, 2018 12:38 pm

“There’s much that’s known about past and future sea-level change…”
No- no- no! Bad pseudoscientist! {whaps firmly on nose with rolled-up “study”}.
Unless you have a time machine, you know nothing about future sea-level change. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Capiche?

October 9, 2018 12:53 pm

Fifty feet. That is:

All ice on Greenland (about 3000 meters thick) = 23 feet of sea-level
All ice in West Antarctica (about 2000 meters thick) = 11 feet of sea level
About 10% of all ice in East Antarctica (about 4000 meters thick) = 16 feet of sea level

And all in 280 years. The Greenland icecap will need to melt by about 11 meters per year, starting immediately.

As a comparison at the end of the ice age, with fully interglacial climate and when temperatures in the area were actually warmer than today it took about 2,000 years for the Scandinavian icecap to melt. The Laurentide icecap took 3,000 years under similar circumstances.

October 9, 2018 1:18 pm

“Could” is not a useful word in science, as it predicts very little.
Sea level by 2100 could also rise by less than 6 inches.

steve case
October 9, 2018 1:26 pm

50 feet by 2300 comes to 54 mm/yr every year for the next 282 years starting right now.
How anyone can believe such crap is a mystery.

October 9, 2018 1:27 pm

50 feet of SLR by 2300 AD would take the ‘Fountains of the Deep’ to be opened up. And there is no credible evidence that there are any fountains of the deep. Certainly Greenland and Antartica can’t melt that much in a hurry, since the vast majority of those ice sheets are at least 2-3 Km thick, or thicker with 6 months of freezing darkness. And temps barely get above freezing in summer at 10,000 ft altitude.

It took at least several thousands years for the pre-beginning of the Holocene to melt the Last Glacial Maximum. That took at least 7000-8000 years from start to finish and led to about 120 meters SLR. Or about 370 feet. I think this myth that SLR of 50 feet by 2300 is totally busted. And anyway, we will have Star Trek technology by then, and will be able to deal with most anything by then. Let’s just clean up our act and the good Earth will take care of herself. And get our global politics in order. Those two tasks will take care of a lot of the current problems we do have. CO2 is not the problem, because humans and life itself is all carbon and CO2 based. Those two cannot really be separated that much, no matter what happens, except some sort of human purge like that of Pol Pot on some grand scale. Let’s make sure these Marxist’s preaching their non stop climate doom that it is almost too late unless we act now don’t brainwash a whole generation that CO2 is a pollutant. That is evil.

steve case
October 9, 2018 1:39 pm

By the Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group
has been down for weeks now.

Considering the B.S. they put out last January, one has to wonder what is it is that they are up to.

Richard M
Reply to  steve case
October 9, 2018 6:41 pm

Someone reported there was an error in GRACE altimetry programming. I suspect that is the reason for this delay.

Robert W Turner
October 9, 2018 1:40 pm

You forgot to calculate the Unlucky factor and carry the infiniti.

October 9, 2018 1:51 pm

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!


Dr Francis Manns
October 9, 2018 1:51 pm

Hollywood has already predicted this.

Jeff in Calgary
October 9, 2018 1:57 pm

On instagram I saw a video with water around her face, and tour boats milling around. I made a truth based argument about how that is impossible, and took a lot of flack. I continued to prove my point, until finally the guy who created the image (@nessgraphics) posted “my dude, this was just a fun apocalyptic piece of art I made, doesn’t have to take it personally”. He then admitted it was satire.

October 9, 2018 2:17 pm

Well at least they’ve learned from Gore, Flannery and others that prophecy fulfillment dates should not be within the seers potential lifespan.

E J Zuiderwijk
October 9, 2018 2:20 pm

They really go off on a tangent, don’t they.

Steve O
October 9, 2018 2:30 pm

It’s quite a clever game. Apocalyptic predictions lacking good scientific grounding can be spread through the media without comment or criticism. When the predictions are shown to be false, or are later proven to be wrong as history is written, is the theory supporting CAGW falsified?

No. “That was just Chicken Little being dramatic. WE didn’t make those predictions. Those aren’t the real scientific predictions. We have those here. We’ve just been quiet this whole time.”

October 9, 2018 2:37 pm

What would the Green movement do without words such as “Could, maybe, possibly etc”

Why do the politicians appear to take such nonsense so seriously ?, or do they. It suits them to have something to frighten us with.


Bruce Cobb
October 9, 2018 2:38 pm

By 2300, all kinds of things could happen. We could be slammed back into another glacial period by then. No one knows, though the Climatists pretend to. And therein lies the problem. The pretense of knowing, based on false knowledge is dangerous. It is just one more way of lying in the Warmunists arsenal.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 9, 2018 6:07 pm

The cities themselves will have been rebuilt several times as very few structures are built to last 300 years which is why that sort of timeframe is stupid except in the crazy pseudoscience of climate change.

October 9, 2018 3:01 pm

Even the abstract deserves (well, maybe not, but …) some scrutiny:

“Future sea-level rise generates hazards for coastal populations, economies, infrastructure, and ecosystems around the world.”

Notice the avoidance of future tense in the verb, “generates”, as if the future is occuring in the present, or as if somebody in the future is making a statement in the future about this future that does not even exist yet, but which the speaker treats as though it does. The sentence should start, “Future sea-level rise WILL generate hazards … ”

“The projection of future sea-level rise relies on an accurate understanding of the mechanisms driving its complex spatio-temporal evolution, which must be founded on an understanding of its history.”

“… accurate understanding …” ? — really? “… understanding of its history”? — again, really?

“We review the current methodologies and data sources used to reconstruct the history of sea-level change over geological (Pliocene, Last Interglacial, and Holocene) and instrumental (tide-gauge and satellite alimetry) eras, and the tools used to project the future spatial and temporal evolution of sea level.”

Did you review it CORRECTLY ? Would those TOOLS USED happen to be Earth System Models tortuously teased with Regional Models using abracadabra statistical transformation to spew out some scary scenario based on hidden false assumptions?

“We summarize the understanding of the future evolution of sea level over the near (through 2050), medium (2100), and long (post-2100) terms.”

I get the feeling that you are summarizing the plot of a science fiction short story.

“Using case studies from Singapore and New Jersey, we illustrate the ways in which current methodologies and historical data sources can constrain future projections, and how accurate projections can motivate the development of new sea-level research questions across relevant timescales.”

What I think you mean to say is, “… we illustrate the ways in which current MYTHologies entertain scary future projections, and how projections that we have no way in hell of knowing are accurate or not (since the future that would enable this determination of accuracy is NOT HERE YET) can motivate the development of newly funded sea-level, fear-mongering research questions across arbitrary timescales of our own cherry picking.”

FINAL COMMENT: Well, I might not have done it proper justice, but this is a constructive start, I guess.

Tom Gelsthorpe
October 9, 2018 3:21 pm

If you wanna scare everyone, why stop at 50? Go for a hunnert. Hunnert-fifty!

October 9, 2018 3:30 pm

There should be precaution limits to people making absurd precautionary claims.

As is their “humanity proves unlucky” absurd claim.

If a massive meteor hits Earth, then some to many humans will be unlucky.

The oceans have been higher in the past, minimally affecting life. Land creatures just move inland. Humans can build sea walls.

Just more alarmism for the gullible.

john york
October 9, 2018 3:36 pm

What does science say about how high sea levels would rise if ALL the polar ice and glaciers melted? Can anyone point me to studies? Thanks

Reply to  David Middleton
October 10, 2018 2:01 am

The figure for West Antarctica above is completely unrealistic and ignores that most of the WAIS is below sea-level and will only fill out the same volume (but at 10% greater density) after melting. A realistic figure is about 3-4 meters.
The same also applies to some extent (but much less) to Greenland and East Antarctica.

The total potential sea-level rise is probably about 230 feet, for complete melting which definitely hasn’t happened since the Early Eocene, and is doubtful even then. Inland Antarctica may never have been ice-free since it arrived at the pole. Recent studies of IRD (ice-rafted debris) strongly indicate that there were tidewater glaciers even during the Eocene, probably somewhat similar to conditions in southern Alaska today.

October 9, 2018 3:42 pm

I will believe there is sea level rise when the UN moves shop.



High Treason
October 9, 2018 3:58 pm

The narrative of scary rises by 2100 look like they are unlikely to come true, so the goalposts have been moved yet again. The year 2300 is well beyond the lifetime of anyone alive today. The badly wrong predictions of the past have proved to be totally wrong and the doomsayers may well regret their stupidity of actually living to see their own rubbish being shoved back in their faces. They had arrogantly anticipated a victory for their propaganda.

The words of uncertainty – “could” are scaremongering. The moving of the goalposts right out of the park may be a fatal mistake. Most people live for today and 280 years in to the future is of no concern. If humanity is even still in existence then,or the history airbrushed, I will bet anything that the predictions will be shown to be wildly wrong by a factor of over 10. Lefties will jump up and down and claim it was out by only one decimal point.

October 9, 2018 4:01 pm

“Since the start of the century, global average sea-level has risen by about 0.2 feet. ”

Not on this planet. Closer to a tenth of that.

Reply to  MarkW
October 10, 2018 2:56 pm

0.2 feet in 18 years would be 0.2 ft × 12 in/ft × 25.4 mm/in ÷ 18 years = 3.4 mm/year

That’s satellite altimetry, not coastal sea-level. The average rate of coastal sea-level rise, measured with tide gauges, at tectonically stable sites with little or no vertical land motion is less than 1.5 mm/year.

So they’re off by a little more than a factor of two (which is bad enough), rather than a factor of ten.

Steve R
October 9, 2018 4:49 pm

I am not sure why everyone should be concerned about what might or might not happen by AD 2300. Im sure if the founder of NYC or Seattle were told that by 2300 his city would be under water they could not have cared less.

Robert from oz
October 9, 2018 8:19 pm

Might be a stupid question but if they can tell the exact level of sea rise and weather in 2300 can they give me tonight’s tattslotto numbers or just the winner of the Melbourne cup .

Ian MacCulloch
October 9, 2018 8:50 pm

R W Bainbridge in 1960 mapped 7 advances and retreats from 20,000 yr BP to 6,000 yr BP. (The start time could be moved closer to 18,000 yr BP?) In that time sea levels from from -110 metres ASL to + 2.00 metres ASL. I have sampled out to sea 2 of the 7 advances and retreats and the heavy minerals associated with the +2 metre position on back beach locations on opposite sides of Australia. Now all of this disruptive sea level changes took place before mankind got around to burning coal in huge amounts.
The +2 metre sample sites are clear evidence that the current sea levels have a way to go to get back to what is close to the historic maxima.
It seems odd that most commenters have not understood the basic significance of a continuous ice core record. A continuous ice core for 800,000 years means no ice movement and no melting. Drilling and recovering core to +3,000 m is no mean feat and it also means the drill site is actually quiet stable.
Finally the oldest recorded ice is the recently reported blue ice intercepts at 2.3 million years ago at Allen Hills at a level of close to 2,000m ASL.
Quite fascinating

Reply to  Ian MacCulloch
October 10, 2018 2:08 am

“A continuous ice core for 800,000 years means no ice movement and no melting.”

Yes, which is why drilling must be on the ice-divides inland where there is almost no motion and temperature never rises above zero. And why such old ice can’t be found on Greenland. There the ice-divide apparently have moved a bit over time, so no really old ice is preserved. Also why definition is bad in these old ice-cores. Accumulation is extremely slow in central East Antarctica.

October 9, 2018 9:39 pm

As Niklas Morner has pointed out in this papers in the Elsevier book ‘Evidence-based Climate Change’ the maximum rate of sea level rise that occurred when 10,000 ft + ice sheets that covered huge areas in the Northern Hemisphere melted catastrophically at rates of 20 degrees per century, sea level rose at only 3’/century. Today with no such huge ice sheets to melt and nowhere near warming rates of 20 degrees per century, where is the water supposed to come from to raise sea level by these large amounts?

Not to mention that ice cores have proven that CO2 rise ALWAYS lags global warming so couldn’t possibly have been the cause of the warming.

David A Smith
October 10, 2018 4:16 am

At the rate modern cities are torn down and rebuilt they will simply “walk” out of the way.

Gary Ashe
October 10, 2018 5:35 am

Oh schit, that means i will be 56ft under.

October 10, 2018 9:05 am

By 2300 Earth’s 100B unimaginably wealthy people will have terraformed Antarctica and Greenland and be using the resulting water for irrigating massive layered farms extending deep into the crust.

October 10, 2018 10:06 am

Here’s a graph of sea-level at Honolulu (which has a very typical sea-level trend) with +50 feet of sea-level projected in pink, linearly, to 2300 (at a constant rate of 54.202 mm/year):

Measured sea-level is in blue, +50 feet is in pink.

Here it is with constant acceleration, starting at the current rate (1.48 mm/yr), and culminating in a rate of 106.924 mm/yr, to reach 50 feet by 2300 (a projected 7124% acceleration in rate of sea-level rise):

Note that the average rate of sea-level rise during the last deglaciation, as the great Laurentide ice sheet receded, 14.8K to 7.5K yrs ago, is thought to have been about 14 mm/year.

The thing that puzzles me the most is that Horton, Kopp, Garner, Hay, Khan, Roy & Shaw (the authors) all appear to reside in jurisdictions where cannabis is illegal. But how else could a paper like this be explained?

October 14, 2018 6:31 pm

I recommend everybody states in there will to be buried on high ground

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights