Guest “catching them lying through their teeth” by David Middleton
Unprecedented and Worrying Rise in Sea Levels Poses Serious Threat to Coastal Cities
TOPICS:Climate Change, Environment, Oceanography, Simon Fraser University
By SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY JANUARY 1, 2020A new study led by Simon Fraser University’s Dean of Science, Prof. Paul Kench, has discovered new evidence of sea-level variability in the central Indian Ocean.
[…]
Underscoring the serious threat posed to coastal cities and communities in the region, the ongoing study, which began in 2017, further suggests that if such acceleration continues over the next century, sea levels in the Indian Ocean will have risen to their highest level ever in recorded history.
The research paper authored by Kench and others, and entitled, “Climate-forced sea-level lowstands in the Indian Ocean during the last two millennia” was published December 16, 2019, in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.
[…]
An alarmist headline regarding a paper by Paul Kench just didn’t pass the “smell test”. This is the abstract of Kench’s paper:
Sea-level reconstructions over the past two millennia provide a pre-industrial context to assess whether the magnitude and rate of modern sea-level change is unprecedented. Sea-level records from the Indian Ocean over the past 2,000 years are sparse, while records from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans show variations less than 0.25 m and no significant negative excursions. Here, we present evidence of two low sea-level phases in the Maldives, Indian Ocean, based on fossil coral microatolls. Microatoll growth is constrained by low water levels and, consequently, they are robust recorders of past sea level. U–Th dating of the Maldivian corals identified lowstands at ad 234–605 and ad 1481–1807 when sea level fell to maximum depths of −0.88 m and −0.89 m respectively. These lowstands are synchronous with reductions in radiative forcing and sea surface temperature associated with the Late Antiquity Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age. Our results provide high-fidelity observations of lower sea levels during these cool periods and show rates of change of up to 4.24 mm yr−1. Our data also confirm the acceleration of relative sea-level rise over the past two centuries and suggest that the current magnitude and rate of sea-level rise is not unprecedented. Two intervals of distinctly lower Indian Ocean sea level during the last two millennia occurred during times of relatively low incoming solar radiation, according to an analysis of U–Th dated coral microatolls in the Maldives.
In case you missed it:
Our data also confirm the acceleration of relative sea-level rise over the past two centuries and suggest that the current magnitude and rate of sea-level rise is not unprecedented.
The acceleration of sea level rise over the past 200 years is due to the fact that it was falling and then static during the Little Ice Age lowstand before it started rising. It’s not a recent feature. It began in the early 1800’s.
Furthermore, neither the rate nor the magnitude of recent sea level rise is unprecedented. The SciTech Daily headline is a baldfaced lie.
The basis of this bit of alarmism:
Underscoring the serious threat posed to coastal cities and communities in the region, the ongoing study, which began in 2017, further suggests that if such acceleration continues over the next century, sea levels in the Indian Ocean will have risen to their highest level ever in recorded history.
Is the last sentence in the paper:
Collectively, our coral evidence suggests that rates of recent sea-level change are not unprecedented over the past two millennia. However, these rates of rise set a sea-level trajectory that will exceed the elevation of the late Holocene high-stand in the Indo-Pacific in the next century.
(1) Climate-forced sea-level lowstands in the Indian Ocean during the last two millennia | Request PDF. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337953634_Climate-forced_sea-level_lowstands_in_the_Indian_Ocean_during_the_last_two_millennia [accessed Jan 02 2020].
The full text of the paper is available to Researchgate members. Their data indicate that sea level was 0.5 m higher than it is today during the late Holocene high-stand. The “serious threat” alleged by SciTech Daily is that Indo-Pacific sea levels will rise by a bit more than 20 inches over the next 200 years.
Reference
Kench, Paul, Roger McLean, Susan Owen, Emma Ryan, Kyle Morgan, Lin Ke, Xianfeng Wang & Keven Roy. (2019). “Climate-forced sea-level lowstands in the Indian Ocean during the last two millennia”. Nature Geoscience. 1-4. 10.1038/s41561-019-0503-7.
Sea level rise together with endangered polar bears may be the most vulnerable areas of the modelling for the “settled science”.
Their projections are just implausible.
Andrew Neil of the BBC recently destroyed on air a representative of Extinction Rebellion who believes that 5-6 metres of sea level rise by 2100 is in prospect .
He pointed out that the average prediction by the IPCC under its various scenarios was half a metre by century end.
The Maldives were predicted to be underwater within 30 years by the Canberra Times in September 1988.
Another failed prediction.
Will some “scientist” please explain how a 5 degrees rise in temps will melt the Continent of Antarctica, where the average DAILY TEMPERATURE IS A chilly 59 DEGREES BELOW ZERO F? As a person who grew up around Buffalo, NY something about this idea doesn’t make any sense. DUH!
The Antarctic is protected by circumpolar atmospheric and ocean currents. The alarmists are coming to terms with the fact that Antarctica isn’t going to melt any time soon.
Their current theory –
They admit that sea level rise isn’t going to be nearly as much as previously predicted. They then go on to try to make it sound like it will be a disaster anyway. IMHO, we can adapt to three feet in a hundred years and it will probably be closer to one foot anyway.
It would struggle to be 500mm even if you use Climate Sciences own numbers we have 27 years of data and they measure 95mm increase in that period.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Even if you say it is accelerating you will struggle to get to 400mm when you consider how much ice you need to melt for that rise.
The LdB above link to climate.nasa etc satellite chart shows the average rate of increase as 3.3mm per year. Why does the companion land gauge chart not show the average rate of increase – is that because it is only 1.6mm per year, half the satellite rate. How can they be different rates? Why has it become habit now for warmists to quote only the higher satellite rate in their publicity?
Appreciate what you had to say here, you know what bothers me, these theory’s are being debunked as time goes on but honest Scientist are paying the price professionally, there is a world renown Poloar Bear Scientist out of a BC University whose study showed the Polar Bears are thriving, she lost her standing with the University because her study did not fit the narrative, I am sorry I don’t recall her name, Danielle Smith of 770 AM of Calgary Interviewed her. They took away her career because she wanted to reassure people. This is not a unique story. There was a recent story in AB about a billboard done by a University study showing climate warming will be positive for the barley crops, that person was fired for telling the truth, my gosh where are we going?
Dr. Susan Crockford
Ellen, Professor Peter Ridd also lost his job at a University in Australia, for speaking the truth. He had been working on The Great Barrier Reef for more than three decades. He has not given up and is receiving incredible support. You would have seen his name pop up on this site.
I feel that there is a momentum building, once these scientists have lost their jobs they have nothing to lose and we need to support them in any way we can. There is a growing list of these scientists, the truth will prevail.
Megs–besides Ridd and Crockford–who else? we need the list–oh and Willie soon, but he didn’t actually get canned did he?
Shelly, see ALLAN MACRAE’S post below January 3, 2020 at 4:02 am
Honorable mention – harassed by their universities/employers:
David Legates, U of Delaware, former State Climatologist
Bob Balling , Arizona State University
David Deming, U of Oklahoma
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/08/peter-ridd-hits-back-at-jcu-james-cook-university-hard/comment-page-1/#comment-2738308
Freedom of speech is under attack by criminal thugs who belong in jail.
Here is a list of those forced from their institutions by global warming thugs:
George Taylor – Oregon State Climatologist
Sallie Baliunas – Harvard University
Pat Michaels – University of Virginia
Murry Salby – Macquarie University, Australia
Caleb Rossiter – Institute for Policy Studies
Nickolas Drapela, PhD – Oregon State University
Henrik Møller – Aalborg University, Denmark
Bob Carter, James Cook University, Australia
Peter Ridd, James Cook University, Australia
Regards, Allan
These are people of immense courage and integrity. The number of academics who know CAGW is a fraud but who have been intimidated into silence must be in the thousands.
An in-the-cloud university should be incorporated and accredited in which these academicians actually carry on their academic duties: conduct and publish their research; award degrees to their on-line graduates; etc.
Sorry Allen and Meg–Allen’s post was right there! Thank you for the list
Of course I should add to this list of the victims of CAGW thugs:
Susan Crockford, University of Victoria
Honorable mention:
Willie Soon, Harvard University – according to a mutual friend, “Harvard let Greenpeace take Willie’s computer”.
A few quotes by Lenin will shed further light on this process:
https://www.azquotes.com/author/8716-Vladimir_Lenin
Truth is the most precious thing. That’s why we should ration it.
[aka “Lie, lie, lie!”]
We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.
[There are many such examples in the global warming/climate change scam – for example, climate scammers call climate skeptics “deniers” and refuse to debate the bogus CAGW “settled science”.]
There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.
Free speech is a bourgeois prejudice.
The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.
People always have been and they always will be stupid victims of deceit and self-deception in politics.
It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain.
**************************
Of course I should add to this list of the victims of CAGW thugs:
Susan Crockford, University of Victoria
Honorable mention:
Willie Soon, Harvard University – according to a mutual friend, “Harvard let Greenpeace take Willie’s computer”.
**************************
Last evening I was watching A&E and a commercial from WWF came on asking for donations to save the poor polar bears. Of course there was a video with it showing mama bear and two cubs all of whom looked chubby and healthy. I couldnt help but think that what they were saying was nothing short of fraudulent since Dr. Crockford has shown that the polar bear population is doing just fine. Any thoughts?
Hi William,
Susan Crockford is highly credible and she was fired for challenging a popular component of the false narrative that is the global warming/climate change (CAGW ) extreme-left scam.
The CAGW scam was never about the climate – it always was a false front for a takeover of western democracies by Marxists – the Vladimir Lenin quotes below are remarkably similar to what you see the extreme-left doing today – that is their game plan.
Some thoughts, excerpted from my recent post at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/01/subsidizing-the-epocalypse/#comment-2884065
Why do the warmists frequently spread their false propaganda? Because that is what they do; that is their policy – Lie, lie, lie!
A few quotes by Lenin will shed further light on this process:
https://www.azquotes.com/author/8716-Vladimir_Lenin
Truth is the most precious thing. That’s why we should ration it.
[aka “Lie, lie, lie!”]
We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.
[There are many such examples in the global warming/climate change scam – for example, climate scammers call climate skeptics “deniers” and refuse to debate the bogus CAGW “settled science”.]
There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.
Free speech is a bourgeois prejudice.
The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.
People always have been and they always will be stupid victims of deceit and self-deception in politics.
It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain.
Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
The goal of socialism is communism.
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
Trust is good, but control is better.
As an ultimate objective, “peace” simply means communist world control.
One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers Communist and the disarming of the bourgeoisie the middle class.
[aka “We must get rid of the Second Amendment and disarm the populace.”]
One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
[Is that four years of public school or four years of university, or both? Why are so many teachers doctrinaire leftists?]
Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.
**************************
Everybody,
The politics of the Left is only one side of the issue; ordinary people are caught in the pincer movement of an unholy alliance. That alliance is between, on one side, the politics of the Left plus Green or pseudo-Green policies and, on the Right side, the rent-seekers or crony capitalists who provide the expensive technology (e.g. bird/bat/insect chomping wind turbines) to satisfy the demands of the Left+(pseudo-)Greens.
The Right side of this pincer movement is described in [Refs. 1 and 2] where Endress [Ref. 1] says the energy sector is second only to the health care sector in vulnerability to capture by rent-seekers in their especially potent form, called the Iron Triangle. Academic and energy economist Dieter Helm makes similar points in his book [Ref. 2].
The result of this pincer movement is unsurprising: ever larger energy bills for consumers and large subsidies flow from the public purse into the ever-open pockets of the rent-seekers.
For modern expositions on propaganda (and how it is may used to subvert democracy such that people will vote for policies which are NOT in their interest) see the two books [Refs. 3 and 4] by Stanley, especially the later one which is more concise.
References
1. Arsenio Balisacan et al. (editors), “Sustainable Economic Development: resources, environment and institutions”, Academic Press, 2014, especially section 3.4.2 by Lee H. Endress, ‘Public policy: prosustainability or not?’, pages 57 -58.
2. D. Helm, “The Carbon Crunch”, Yale, 2012 (revised & updated, 2015).
3. J. Stanley, “How Propaganda Works”, Princeton University Press, 2015.
4. J. Stanley, “How Fascism Works – the politics of us and them”, Random House, 2018.
Regards,
John Cullen.
−0.89 m during the Little Ice Age!? I never would have guessed it could be so much. Well, perhaps if the LIA were a global event….
I’ve wondered how it would be possible to have a local ice age!
Josh’s cartoon is doubly appropriate because Simon Frazer University is in British California, home of hockey Canada’s left coast.
It is relative sea level rise, and the paper appears to be good work by Kench et al. The reporter’s published interpretation is a different story….
Mr Robert, of Ottawa:
I wish I could find Josh’s alleged cartoon so I could see what you are talking about, since I live less than an hour from Simon Fraser University.
Sea level rise and fall have little to do with CO2.
Yes but if the doomsters have hitched their star to it then their failed predictions need to be illuminated but more importantly it’s the one true historical temperature proxy to rule all their fanciful contrivances.
CO2 linked prediction:
Time’s up!!!
The Dutch started building these amazing things called dikes about a thousand years ago.
Mysteriously effective. Apparently they’re made of a high tech material called dirt.
There are a couple of ways to parse that. One approach is to ask how long people have been recording sea levels.
On the other hand, there are estimates that the sea level was as much as 5 m higher about 6000 years ago. link Of course we can quibble about whether people were recording history back then.
If we take a narrowly defined version of the history of sea levels, they could be telling the truth.
Yes, a special kind of truth that only works for warmunists and their stooges in the media.
Two metres higher is believable, on the evidence.
Sure would be terrible if sea levels got as high as their previous late-Holocene high. That would still be far below sea levels during the earlier Holocene climate optimum but we don’t want nothing to do with no climate optimum. Want to stay as far from that Schiff as possible.
I expect Paul Kench will be irate at this level of misrepresentation of his team’s work. No doubt this PR piece was written when he was away on holiday leave (probably back in NZ) and he had no input.
Actually, David quotes from the paper itself.
The quotes from the Kench paper were decidedly not alarmist. The alarmist lies were in the SciTech Daily article about Kench’s paper.
The way that seems to be referenced, I took it to be a direct quote from the paper. Was I wrong?
In a word yes, but it wasn’t your fault. That was a word-for-word quote from the SciTechDaily article. Hence the “The basis of this bit of alarmism:” that preceded the quote. The misattribution of that quote to Kench was what confused you. The Bit from Kench is the quote that followed “Is the last sentence in the paper:”
Wrong citation… Will fix.
Kench is no warmunista !
“sea levels will rise by a bit more than 20 inches over the next 200 years.”…..
or about 1 inch a decade….exactly where we are right now
…and exactly where we have been for the past 200 years
Same as it ever was…
https://genius.com/Talking-heads-once-in-a-lifetime-lyrics
I just love this site David! It makes me smile 😀
Thank you!!!
The lies are getting more desperate and bald-faced all across the board.
Isn’t it amazing!?
They can’t get a prediction right over a ten year span, but they have no problem predicting 80 years – 200 years out.
The lead author is at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, adjacent to Vancouver, BC, Canada.
A short ride downhill from the Burnaby mountain campus to the waterfront NOAA tides and currents tidal gauge 822-071 gives a sea level rise of +0.53 mm/year.
With Apologies to Chaswarnertoo
who’s comment set this off in my head
— Easily remembered by any alarmist.
Sea Level rise
and Sea Level fall
have little to do
with CO2
“If this trend continues…”
This phrase does not belong in any scientific literature about climate and Earth systems. It is almost impossible for any trend to continue in this chaotic, non-linear world we live in. Whatever someone says after “if this trend continues…’ is meaningless, because linearity for any lenght of time is very rare in nature.
You nailed it right there.
Professor Kench’s university is in metropolitan Vancouver, so he can walk down to Burrard Inlet and check the sea levels directly. The measured Sea Level in Vancouver is rising at about 9cm per century with no sign of acceleration. This slow sea level rise has apparently been continuing for the last 6000 years (K. Fleming, P. Johnston et al, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 163 (1998) pages 327–342) as the final vestiges of the most recent Glacial Maximum.
However the quoted abstract indicates that Dr. Kench has measured the mean sea level naturally rising and falling over the past two “little ice ages,” which occurred without any CO2 forcing. So his paper is apparently suggesting that there are forces at work that have nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2.
He’s on our side, folks.
[as an aside: Prof Kench has also shown himself to be an astute experimental designer, by situating his research in the glorious Maldives. I hope he got an excellent tan.]
Paul and I are connected on researchgate. Over the years he has been a staunch and refreshing stand against the “climate change is killing the corals hysteria”. A real researcher looking for truth the science way out there in the islands literally digging for data with his phd students.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Kench
+1 The Kench is a mensch !
Will some “scientist” please explain how a 5 degrees rise in temps will melt the Continent of Antarctica, where the average DAILY TEMPERATURE IS A chilly 59 DEGREES BELOW ZERO F? As a person who grew up around Buffalo, NY something about this idea doesn’t make any sense. DUH!
How does one even measure sea level rise? Is it the average, the maximum, or the the minimum as measured against a stick? (Tide gauges) How do you remove the “noise” of waves which could vary by feet depending on nearby storms.
The “sea level” would be the height of totally undisturbed still water as compared to a totally undisturbed shoreline, plus the added height of any currents (which change), plus the height added by wave action (wind), plus the height added by pressure (a low pressure system would allow for a higher water bulge), plus the action of the Moon’s gravity… Did I get them all?
The “undisturbed land” would need to be basement rock, not sinking due to the extraction of resources (including water), not changing due to sand moving around, and not changing due to tectonic forces, or receding glaciers, or any other large weights on it that disappear. I assume the Moon’s gravity could have some effect – but maybe too small to measure for this thought experiment.
So…I am willing to bet no one is doing all of this, and that “sea level” is some rough approximation using assumptions, precision and accuracy (of data) not up to the precision and accuracy the models pretend to produce. In other words, the sea level *might* rise 2 inches (+2/-4) inches over the next 200 years – but then again is *might not*.
In reply to your question, Robert: TOPEX-Poseidon satellites bounce microwave pulses off the ocean and then use algorithms to remove confounding factors such as the ones you list.
Interestingly the TOPEX-Poseidon satellites did not (for a long time) show any rise in sea level. However, if the data does not match the models, you fix the data, as summarized in Nature News 2017 (https://www.nature.com/news/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades-1.22312):
“The numbers didn’t add up. Even as Earth grew warmer and glaciers and ice sheets thawed, decades of satellite data seemed to show that the rate of sea-level rise was holding steady — or even declining.
“Now, after puzzling over this discrepancy for years, scientists have identified its source: a problem with the calibration of a sensor on the first of several satellites launched to measure the height of the sea surface using radar. Adjusting the data to remove that error suggests that sea levels are indeed rising at faster rates each year.”
Yes, I fished in the Westernport Bay, Victoria Australia, back in the 1960’s and the high/low tides back then were exactly the same as now (I live on the shore of the bay at Hastings) based on where I see the high and low tides falling on the beach, and against the piles holding up the jetty… there is no noticeable difference at all…
spangled drongo December 12, 2019 at 1:35 am:
It’s more than slowed, it’s reversed, over the last century.
Have you seen the latest Australian Bureau of Met sea levels for a stilling pond adjacent to the broadest piece of ocean in the world?
The latest mean sea level at Ft Denison tide gauge is 6 inches LOWER than the first reading taken in 1914:
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml
If there is no sea level rise in the Pacific over the last century, there is no net land ice melt and no sea level rise to worry about anywhere.
The increase in Pacific atoll areas supports this, too.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/11/greenland-ice-losses-rising-faster-than-expected/
The power of industrial economies don’t measure up with the power of nature in terms of interglacial SLR phenomena.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/21/eemian/
Or in terms of ocean acidification.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/10/28/petm/
If one gets on a roller coaster ride and takes note of the rate of rise for the first 100 feet out of the starting position and then extrapolates that rate of rise over the next couple of hours, I could see how they might be afraid that they are going to die from hypothermia and lack of oxygen. Oh, by the way, Forbes just published an article by Roger Pielke Jr “How Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/02/how-billionaires-tom-steyer-and-michael-bloomberg-corrupted-climate-science/
And Pielke Jr. still would vote for Steyer or Bloomberg, or any other Democrat.
If psychology were a real “science,” it may have classified the act of voting for modern democrats as a form of psychosis by now.
Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group hasn’t updated their web page
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
for nearly two years. Their current acceleration claim is 0.084 mm/yr². Can we expect them to substantially increase that with their over due 2020 opus? I’m guessing that’s in the works.
They have been quiet because Jason 3 isn’t playing the CAGW game. You know they will be back in the game when they work out a reason to adjust the Jason 3 data.
They have already. They now use a model, no longer use observational data directly, that predicts how much sea level WOULD rise if the increased weight of seawater didn’t deform the crust (sort of the opposite of post-glacial rebound). So rather than sea LEVEL, they produce data on sea VOLUME but publish it as if it is sea level data.
In any other field I would be sure you are joking but this field does my head in.
I’m wondering, do they tack the volume trend onto the end of the genuine level trend à la Mann’s hockey stick?
I laugh every time I am reminded of this ‘adjustment’.
“The sea level is rising dramatically but the extra weight of the water is causing the sea floor to sink so the net ‘rise’ at the shore is close to zero.”
This all sounds very alarming until you stop to wonder why, if the net rise is close to zero, we should care.
The crust of the earth (both land and ocean) all float on a molten core. How their relative levels are thereby compensated, and how the tidal effects of the moon keep them within equilibrium should be researched.
The “serious threat” alleged by SciTech Daily is that Indo-Pacific sea levels will rise by a bit more than 20 inches over the next 200 years. – article
Well, gee whiz, golly gee. Isn’t it convenient that none of us will be around in 200 years to recall this forecast and show that, like other similar Doomsday Dumps, it was wrong?
Nor will any of those on the disappearing islands but they demand we keep their bit of paradise unchanged for 200 years and it is your responsibility 🙂
If you really want to start off 2020 with a good rolling-the-floor laugh your ass off, just go read the bios at SciTechDaily’s Editorial Board. It’s a hoot.
https://scitechdaily.com/editorial-board/
Then go read their “About Us,” here:
https://scitechdaily.com/about-us/
Once you read the bios and About-Us, You’ll realize SciTech Daily simply lives for web-clicks for revenue.
No doubt, the more ridiculous and alarmism-concocted the headline, probably the more clicks they get.
“Please pass the gravy bowl,” is probably a popular refrain at your family Christmas dinners and at SciTech Daily no doubt.
David, Happy New Year and thank you for another interesting article. Has anyone considered the possibility that hoaxers like Steyer, Bloomberg, Mann, et.al., have been conspiring to defraud the U.S. government, as well as violating the civil rights of academics who disagree with their propaganda. A class action lawsuit against them by the beleaguered citizens of Commifornia might help balance their kharmic debt. I’d even let them off without jail time as long as they paid everyone back for lost earnings and higher costs brought about by their criminal conspiracy, NOT!
Measuring sea level rise in a place like the Maldives; how brilliant. Did anyone doing this check the geology of the Maldives?–
“The geology of the Maldives formed beginning 68 million years ago as a hotspot which produced the Deccan Traps in India. As India moved northward, the hotspot generated an island chain in the Indian Ocean, which includes Mauritius and Réunion. The Réunion hotspot trail was offset by the Central Indian Ridge 35 million years ago. The hotspot theory is supported by the fact that the basement basalts underlying the atolls of the Maldives are younger in the south, toward Réunion.” (From Wiki)
Let me give a hint–can you measure sea level rise on Surtsey, which was below sea level when I was in high-school grade 10? How about at the SE end of Hawaii, at the Kapoho tide pools, which were below sea level at this time last year? Krakatoa?
I invite everyone to try a simple exercise–try to draw a sphere representing this planet on an 8-1/2 X 11 sheet of paper, drawing the solidified crust to scale. Unless you kept your 00 and 000 Rapidograph drafting pens from before the computer era, you will find that you don’t have anything that can draw a line thin enough for it to be to scale.
And some PhD wants to measure (and project) seal level trends on a pimple sitting on oceanic crust that is sliding off a mantle hot-spot?? If you would like to short-circuit all the endless babble about what will happen ‘if this trend continues’–check the sea mounts northwest of the Hawaiian Volcanic Chain.
The simple question is–‘sea level’…with respect to what?
Good paper, good data. It most strongly suggests that sea level changes in the last two thousand years are mainly due to changes in overall ocean temperatures. No signal yet from the catastrophically collapsing ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. Perhaps they are not catastrophically collapsing!
The disconnect between the content of the paper and the news article is clear evidence that the media are only interested in scare stories and can’t be bothered to actually read scientific literature.
Settled science is so amazing.
From No Tricks Zone: ocean heat content
“According to a new paper, the Earth’s ocean heat content time derivative (OHCTD) has been decreasing (-0.26 W/m²/decade) since 2000, coinciding with a similar deficit in the Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI). The authors acknowledge such trends are “surprising” considering greenhouse gas emissions have risen. “
CAGW’s dire SLR prediction failed miserably, as have all its other dire predictions: global temps, ocean pH, methane concentrations, drought, rainfall, hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones, tornadoes, snowfall, polar bears, air pollution, mass extinctions, crop yields, flooding, Arctic ice, etc., etc., etc.,…
CAGW has become a joke..
Free markets have just made the last decade the most prosperous in human history with more people rising out of poverty and the fastest growth in living standards and technological and medical advancements evaaaa.
Yet Leftists try to convince their useful-idiot followers it was the worst decade in human history and there are only 12 more years before the world becomes uninhabitable because of…..CAGW….
Yeah, right…got it…
A general rule of thumb: Immediately question any statement that uses a comparative (bigger, smaller, hotter, etc.) and no precise figures. ” Sea levels are increasing” is a comparative. “The rate of sea level increase is increasing” is a double comparative ( sea levels are getting higher and getting higher faster). These statements are (I assume) true. Now go out on the ‘net and start reading articles that speak of increasing sea levels, and you quickly notice that very few of them have a figure for the annual increase in global sea levels. In 2018 it was something like an eighth of an inch. No reasonable person is going to say, an eighth of an inch increase in a year is an existential threat, which of course is why the earnest articles citing the threat of increasing sea levels scrupulously avoid mentioning that particular datum.
This is why I have so much scorn for climate change Chicken Littles: They haven’t got even enough integrity to lie honestly. They say things that are technically true (the rate of sea level increase is increasing) which are meant to make people believe that London will be under water, and pretty damn soon. So they weren’t really lying, and if you happened to be deceived into being alarmed that sea level increase was a serious problem, that’s on you.
Climate change alarmism depends on getting people smart enough to write newspaper copy but dumb enough not to understand common sophistry to be alarmed, and then set out to alarm similarly handicapped people. And they call us doubters the dummies, who don’t understand the Science. (Which is simple, by the way. Only dummies like us could fail to understand it.) This offends my vanity.
The Maldives have just built 11? new airports. I suppose it’s to help with the evacuation!
In the cartoon, that hockeystick is attached to wrong body part.
Didn’t Nils Axel Morner show that Maldive sea levels fell 30 cm in the 1970s and have stayed there ever since? The Maldives need Paris Agreement money to build another airport for tourists.
From memory, Prof. Morner referenced a lone tree on the coral flat that had been there for many years … rumour has it that a couple of Australian academic research $warmunista$ promptly went there are removed the tree !
Anything for a headline
I reckon that they search the Web for documents containing the words “sea-level”, “rise” and “unprecedented” and then assume, without reading, that the research is predicting oncoming disaster by water
Let’s suppose sea level rise will become threathening for coastal areas ,
wouldn’t it make more sense to invest in dikes and other protective works then waste all those billions for a hypothetical lowering temperature a few hundreds of a degree caused by hypothetical
manmade climate change.
But i’m using logic here , that doesn’t work for a religious cult driven by an agenda.
The entire premise of “sea-level rise” being of any danger is itself a bald-faced lie, other than a tsunami.
I have oft times wondered what would happen to sea levels if everything west of the San Andreas fault broke off and slid into the ocean.
It would make a big splash… But San Andreas is a strike-slip fault system. As entertaining as the scene was, everything west of the fault system is moving north, not west.
My my what an echo-chamber. If reassurance is what you’re after you would be better off acknowledging that climate change is a real thing and working to combat it rather than just patting yourselves on the back for a flimsy string of pop-science claims. I would say the same thing to alarmists as well, don’t worry.
If you think that human pollution will have no negative impact on the Earth’s ecosystems, then please do go try inhaling exhaust fumes for a while and see where it gets you. I warn you though, it’s not good for your health – does this count as alarmism too?