Sea Level Alarm

By Rud Istvan

Reading headlines this evening (2/15), NYT, NPR, and CNN are sounding climate alarms again. This time about disastrous sea level rise by 2050.

NYT: “Coastal sea levels in US to rise a foot by 2050, study confirms

CNN: “US sea level will rise rapidly in the next 30 years, new report shows

NPR: “Sea level rise between 6-18 inches [depending where] over next 30 years

I wondered how this could be, since dGPS vertical land motion corrected long record tide gauges show 2.2mm/year with NO acceleration. And since, as also previously posted, 2.2mm/year closes with the sum of Greenland plus Antarctic ice loss plus ARGO thermosteric rise.

Heck, even the really bad NASA satellite altimetry SLR (not fit for purpose per three previous posts on Jason 3 and Sentinel-6) says about 3.2-3.4mm/year, under 4 inches over the next 3 decades. NOT a foot!

The loud media alarm stems from the new US interagency ‘2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report’ led by NOAA. It is readily available at oceanservices.noaa.gov. Key takeaway #1 (in bold): As much rise in the next 30 years as in the past 100!!!

That explains the blaring media headlines. Hardly an accident. Deliberate alarm.

How in the world could US government agencies reach such a conclusion while ignoring their own data? NOAA runs tide gauges. NASA runs satalt.

Turns out it is NOT their conclusion. It is an echo. The 2022 report opens with:

“Greater confidence than the last 2017 report because of advances in sea level science since 2017 AS CAPTURED IN IPCC AR6”. There have been no advances in sea level observational science. So it isn’t ‘science’ at all. Its just ‘new and improved’ IPCC AR6 models.

“Models of future sea level rise closely match one another over the next 30 years.” So what? Those AR6 models do not remotely resemble US interagency observational reality. Something that this new US interagency nowhere mentions.

Read it and weep.

US government’s climate alarmists are really scraping the bottom of the IPCC barrel, and richly deserve more ridicule than this post can muster.

5 43 votes
Article Rating
87 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RobR
February 15, 2022 6:14 pm

It’s all about eyeballs and clicks, as Stephen Koonin is fond of saying. To this we must add, the relentless pursuit of research grants.

Rob_Dawg
February 15, 2022 6:26 pm

The picture of La Jolla Cove from the 1890s appearing near identical to today is the one refutation that that invalidates the proposal.

tommyboy
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
February 15, 2022 9:11 pm

Lots of century old Statue of Liberty pictures with no visible sea level change too.

February 15, 2022 6:30 pm

 4 inches is about right …. How come I know this, but Climate Scientists don’t??

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  JON P PETERSON
February 15, 2022 6:38 pm

I’m sure they do

But we are talking Scientologists here, completely different beast.

And it needs to be put down

John Larson
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
February 16, 2022 4:20 pm

(“But we are talking Scientologists here, completely different beast.”

I certainly agree with the spirit of your lingo-tweak, but that particular terminological variant is already taken . . by a completely different beast ; )

I suggest what we are really talking about is a form of mimicry, intended to sound like science. So, I suggest employing a new term, that sounds like science; Siants. (Always capitalized to accentuate the pretentious nature of this beast.)

From which all the familiar sounding terminology can be derived; Siantists, Siantific research, the Siantific community, the Siantific method, and so on.)

Reply to  John Larson
February 17, 2022 4:13 am

Cargo cult Science

Steve Case
Reply to  JON P PETERSON
February 15, 2022 7:58 pm

4 inches is about right

That comes to 3.4 mm/year. Elsewhere on NOAA’s pages they say the average global sea level rise rate is 1.7-1.8 mm/yr. LINK  When is this magic doubling of the rate going to begin to happen?

Bindidon
Reply to  Steve Case
February 16, 2022 9:39 am

Steve Case

When is this magic doubling of the rate going to begin to happen?

*
How is it possible still to ignore in 2022 that while 3.4 mm/year are related to the satellite period, i.e.1993-today, the 1.7-1.8 mm/year are the average trend of tide gauges for their respective entire lifetime ?

*
The following is based on the PSMSL data

https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip

valid till December 2020 (I didn’t download it since then).

*
Let us take as first example the PSMSL tide gauge

70; 56.105278;  15.589444; KUNGSHOLMSFORT

in Sweden, which was active from 1883 till end of the observed period (Dec 2020), i.e. over a period of 134 years.

Sea level trends (in the following always without vertical land movement correction)

  • for the gauge’s entire lifetime: 0.1 mm / year
  • for 1993-2020: 2.4 mm / year

*
Another example is the PSMSL tide gauge

12; 40.700000; -74.013333; NEW YORK (THE BATTERY)

which was active from 1856 till end of the observed period (Dec 2020), i.e. over a period of 165 years.

Sea level trends

  • for the gauge’s entire lifetime: 3.1 mm / year
  • for 1993-2020: 4.2 mm / year

*
Taking now all available RLR gauges out of PSMSL, I obtain

  • for the gauges’ entire lifetime: 2.1 mm / year, from 1498 gauges
  • for 1993-2020: 3.2 mm / year, from 311 gauges

After elimination of gauges with a lifetime less than 30 years and some showing excessive discontinuity:

  • for the gauges’ entire lifetime: 2.0 mm / year, from 850 gauges
  • for 1993-2020: 3.2 mm / year, from 281 gauges

But… some could argue that the difference is due more to the dominance of historical data than to the younger period itself.

The best answer here is to extract the 281 gauges out of the entire set, and to recompute the average trend:

  • for the gauges’ entire lifetime: 1.8 mm / year, from 281 gauges

*
Finally, assuming – just for fun – that corrections for vertical land movement provided by GPS devices are valid for all gauges’ lifetime AND for a region of 20 km around the device, we would then obtain the following:

  • for the gauges’ entire lifetime: 2.8 mm / year, from 213 gauges
  • for 1993-2020: 3.9 mm / year, from 213 gauges

*
You don’t believe me? Fine!
Then… do the job yourself.

Last edited 4 months ago by Bindidon
ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Bindidon
February 16, 2022 10:50 am

Yes, but you will also find rates higher than the long term average in other 30 year periods earlier in the recrod. So if your point is to prove acceleration because the period 1993-2020 is higher than the long term average for the tide gauges you are mistaken. There is a clear periodic component with period about 60 years in the global tide gauge data. We are currently in one of the higher rate 30 year periods. This point was even (probably by mistake!) made in AR5 where they showed the moving slope of sea level rise.

See AR5 Technical Summary p48 TFE2 Figure 1

AR5_SeaLevelRate.jpg
Rud Istvan
Reply to  Bindidon
February 16, 2022 1:20 pm

You made an error discussed in my linked post on acceleration and closure. Because of the 18 year lunar cycle and the about 60 year AMO/PDO cycles, the sea level experts (like Moerner) say you need at least 60 and preferably 65 years to compute a valid SLR trend. Not just the most recent 27 years in your examples corresponding to sat alt. And, none of your 1993-2020 tide gauge examples close with estimated 2000-2015 ice loss plus thermosteric rise, which is 2.3mm/year for the period or just 2.2mm/yr just using ARGO for thermosteric rise.

DD More
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 16, 2022 4:05 pm

Ivan, the Dutch found it to be an 18.6 year cycle. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236019217_The_Effect_of_the_186-Year_Lunar_Nodal_Cycle_on_Regional_Sea-Level_Rise_Estimates
CONCLUSIONS
 Coastal management requires estimates of the rate of sea level rise. The trends found locally for the Dutch coast are the same as have been found in the past 50 years (Deltacommissie, 1960; Dillingh et al., 1993). Even though including the nodal cycle made it more likely that the high-level scenarios would become apparent in the observations, no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise was found. The higher, recent rise (van den Hurk et al., 2007) coincides with the up phase of the nodal cycle. For the period 2005 through 2011, the Dutch mean sea-level is expected to drop because the lunar cycle is in the down phase. This shows the importance of including the 18.6-year cycle in regional sea-level estimates. Not doing so on a regional or local scale for decadal length projections leads to inaccuracies.

And Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner in an interview with Gregory Murphy for EIR – Made this point.

There’s another way of checking it (Sea Level Rise), because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themselves. So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year

Time of Day latest – There has never been a negative leap second in international timekeeping(Atomic Clock data), but 2020 raised the possibility that one might be needed. That year, Earth’s rotation sped up, breaking the previous record for shortest day, set in 2005, 28 times. The shortest day in 2020 occurred on July 19, when the planet completed its rotation 1.4602 milliseconds faster than the average of 86,400 seconds. 

Now, according to Time and Date, Earth’s spin has simmered down. The first half of 2021 was still speedy, with the average length of a day clocking in at 0.39 milliseconds less than in 2020. But from July 1 to Sept. 30, the days lengthened to 0.05 milliseconds more, on average, than in 2020.

What that means, according to Time and Date, is that Earth is no longer accelerating its rotation. But it is still spinning at a quicker rate than average. Based on the current rate of rotation, a negative leap second might be required in about 10 years.

Nils-Axel would say levels must have been dropping since 2020.

Bindidon
Reply to  Bindidon
February 16, 2022 5:25 pm

Thank you very much ThinkingScientist and Rud Istvan for your convenient replies.

I fully understand your critique.

But you two should REALLY manage to download that PSMSL data, process it in form of departures wrt to a mean shared with that for satellite altimetry data, and compare your result with what professional teams or single, scientifically much more educated persons have made.

Because then you probably would have a slightly different view on the stuff.

*
1) ThinkingScientist writes:

So if your point is to prove acceleration because the period 1993-2020 is higher than the long term average for the tide gauges you are mistaken. There is a clear periodic component with period about 60 years in the global tide gauge data.

Aha. Yes, I have heard about it. But neither my little layman’s work, nor that of a group of scientists around Sönke Dangendorf, nor that of Grant Foster do confirm it.

Let us have a look at two graphs showing PMSL data.

1.1) A sequence of time series, from a single gauge at the end of the Bothnian Gulf up to the average of Northeast America and Northwestern Europe:

comment image

1.2) A comparison of the average of all available PMSL gauges (Dangendorf & al., Foster, Bindidon’s layman work) with NOAA’s sat data:

comment image

{ Of course: neither Grant Foster’s quick shot, let alone my unprofessional evaluation could ever compete with the hard work made by the Dangendorf team. But the similarity is interesting, to say the least. }

Please show me where you see this clear periodic component in the two graphs above.

*

2) Rud Istvan writes:

” … the sea level experts (like Moerner) say you need at least 60 and preferably 65 years to compute a valid SLR trend. Not just the most recent 27 years in your examples corresponding to sat alt.

I heard about that too.

2.1) But if we now compute, out of the data shown in graph (1.2), consecutive trends distant by 5 years, starting with 1903-2015 and ending with 1993-2015 (Dangendorf’s data period being 1900-2015), we obtain the following picture:

comment image

Am I really the only person here who interprets the trend similarity of the satellite data to that of the tide gauges as a continuation of what started decades ago, and not as a singular, exceptional event?

Can three so completely different evaluations of PMSL data be all wrong?

Hmmmh.

One final remark: though it seems to be evident when looking at the third graph, I’m not primarily interested in discussing acceleration patterns in the data.

It is a bit late now at GMT+1. Bonne nuit…

Last edited 4 months ago by Bindidon
TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Bindidon
February 18, 2022 6:07 am

Please show me where you see this clear periodic component in the two graphs above.

That looks like a very similar rate in about the 1930s to me.

Bindidon
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
February 18, 2022 4:16 pm

Wow!

And that is your reply in puncto ‘clear periodic component‘ ???

Gives no sense to me.
Maybe you can explain that a bit more exactly?

Last edited 4 months ago by Bindidon
Rick C
Reply to  Bindidon
February 17, 2022 6:46 pm

In order to reach the claimed 12″ SLR in 30 years starting at 3 mm/y, it will require an acceleration of 7% per year every year starting now. Given that there has been no significant acceleration over the last several decades, it seems unrealistic to expect a sudden start to such an acceleration. And every year going forward that doesn’t show an accelerating rate of SLR means an even more extreme acceleration will have to suddenly materialize for this prediction to come true. Not gonna happen.

Bindidon
Reply to  Rick C
February 18, 2022 4:35 pm

” In order to reach the claimed 12″ SLR in 30 years… ”

Where did you see me claiming that? I did no more than answering to (1) Steve Case, and (2) ThinkingScientist / Rud Istvan.

Your reply is off topic to me: I don’t see the SLR reaching that globally in 30 years.

*
But when you write

” Given that there has been no significant acceleration over the last several decades, it seems unrealistic to expect a sudden start to such an acceleration. ”

it seems to me that you did not understand this graph:

comment image

Means, when printing the consecutive trends of e.g. Dangendorf’s plot:

1903(-2015): 1.41 ± 0.01 mm/yr
1908: 1.42 ± 0.01
1913: 1.44 ± 0.01
1918: 1.45 ± 0.01
1923: 1.47 ± 0.01
1928: 1.47 ± 0.01
1933: 1.47 ± 0.01
1938: 1.47 ± 0.01
1943: 1.50 ± 0.01
1948: 1.55 ± 0.02
1953: 1.64 ± 0.02
1958: 1.77 ± 0.02
1963: 1.91 ± 0.02
1968: 2.05 ± 0.02
1973: 2.19 ± 0.02
1978: 2.32 ± 0.02
1983: 2.48 ± 0.02
1988: 2.66 ± 0.02
1993: 2.80 ± 0.02
1998: 3.02 ± 0.03

Feel free to compute where we will be in 2050, if nothing changes, by loading the trend sequence above into a spreadsheet calc, and letting it compute its quadratic factor.

Steve Case
Reply to  Bindidon
February 21, 2022 8:21 am

You don’t believe me? Fine!
Then… do the job yourself.
_________________________

Sorry to be so late on this, I didn’t revisit this page until today.

comment image

As you can see, the rate over the very short 27 year period varies all over the place. What the government funded scientists imply is that the 3 mm/yr is a new phenomenon and then they project that rate out to 2100. And the news media never calls them on it.

I don’t know how much verification the average investigative and science reporters are supposed to do, but that little graph took maybe 15 minutes to put together.

Let’s see if the WUWT mods allow this to post when I click on the [Post Comment] button.

Last edited 4 months ago by Steve Case
ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Steve Case
February 16, 2022 10:28 am

Er…the NOAA headline rate linked in the post is 0.25 – 0.30 m (250 – 300 mm) in 30 years!

That’s 8.3 to 10.0 mm per year rate. Way more than doubling current observations. To get to that from where we are now would require an extraordinary acceleration. Easy to test, should be easily visible in sea level data by, what, 2025?

Spetzer86
February 15, 2022 6:37 pm

Somebody better tell O about all this sea level stuff because he’s gone and bought a house on the beach in Hawaii to go with the one on Martha’s Vineyard! For a man who believes so strongly in Climate Change, he does seem to buy a lot of houses near coastal areas….

TEWS_Pilot
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 15, 2022 7:48 pm

Not to worry, he is having a sea wall built that engineers are saying will cause massive erosion of the beach in front of his neighbors.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 16, 2022 1:10 am

Hmmm.. didn’t I read somewhere that on paper, he hadn’t made enough money to buy the Martha’s Vineyard property? And now he’s buying another multi-million dollar property? Hmmm..

spangled drongo
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 16, 2022 2:42 am

Maybe he checked the biggest thermometer in the world [the Pacific Ocean] at its best best stilling pond gauge [Fort Denison] and noticed that in the last 107 years the mean sea level has actually dropped 2 inches:

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

Peter W
Reply to  spangled drongo
February 16, 2022 5:57 am

Confirming that we are entering the next ice age?!?!?!

garboard
February 15, 2022 6:40 pm

feature story on npr evening news tonite . they ( noaa)
know no one will remember this in ten years , let alone 30 . it’s sad how little fact checking is done by what is supposed to be high quality news orgs . five minutes googling tide gauges would show this to be ridiculous .

Nicholas Harding
Reply to  garboard
February 17, 2022 7:01 am

People should watch ALgore’s movie…..Westside Highway under 6 feet of water by 2018….no more snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro by 2020..Once those things happened I was convinced. .I have been sailing out of Mystic Harbor since 1980, am still waiting to see notable sea level rise.

February 15, 2022 6:42 pm

My eyes have seen the glory
Of the rising of the seas
But the rise was insufficient
So I fell upon my knees
I knew not what to do
The oceans did not budge
But I had an inspiration:
Use the MODELS and then fudge!
And suddenly CALAMITY
In only 30 years
So easy to produce
Scenarios of flood and death
Predictions using fictions
Computer manufactured
And no one checks the math…

Brad-DXT
February 15, 2022 6:47 pm

Someone must want to bring the price of waterfront property down. Someone trying to keep up with the Obamas but doesn’t quite have enough cash on hand?

AndyHce
Reply to  Brad-DXT
February 15, 2022 7:57 pm

Or to generate an excuse to chase the riffraff off the beaches, to preserve them for exclusive use of the chosen?

Pillage Idiot
February 15, 2022 6:57 pm

King Canute would like to have a word with Ozymandias about making inaccurate long-range predictions.

Len Werner
February 15, 2022 7:28 pm

I’ve just started reading Steve Koonin’s book Unsettled, and by his wording in describing temperature anomaly graphs I suddenly realized the fatal flaw of climate alarmism.  Not only that, there is a serious potential for a successful fraud case against alarmist climate scientists, and the entire IPCC.
Koonin described in detail how temperature anomaly graphs are determined and presented, and his use of one word–‘expected’–triggered this realization, in that he stated that the temperature anomaly is the recorded value compared to the ‘expected value’.  Well–what should that ‘expected’ value for any year be?
In all temperature anomaly graphs the zero flat-line of a constant temperature is assumed to be the expected value–well, in the simple and brilliant question that a commenter made in response to someone else’s statement under a recent WUWT article–‘1. Who told you that? and 2. Why did you believe it?’
I have stated this in other terms many times, in the simple question of ‘If we are recovering from the last ice age, which year would logically be the ‘hottest year ever’?–the answer is ‘this year’.  Well, if we are to determine an ‘expected value’ against which to plot temperature anomalies, this expected value for any year should be a projection into the future of the average temperature trend from the coldest period of the Fraser (Wisconsinan) glaciation to today’s average temperature;  or, in a more expanded scale, from the coldest of the Pleistocene to today.  
This will be a line with a distinct positive slope on a temperature/time graph, and I expect that most if not all actual temperatures will plot well below that sloped line.  If scales are manipulated so that the expected-value line is horizontal, all actual temperatures in our historical record will plot as negative temperature anomaly points and any warming crisis vanishes.
To relate this to a visualization, consider this graph–

I have asked climate-alarmist people two questions about this one–‘After staring at this graph for a while, point out to me where in that record is the precedent for thinking that climate today should be constant.  And should you still think that climate today should not change, where do you see the precedent for declaring that it should flat-line from the extreme right hand end of that graph where it is now?  Please explain the logic process that leads you to either or both of those conclusions’.
My simple realization from Koonin’s explanation is that the ‘expected temperature’ for a temperature anomaly graph should NOT be a flat line at constant temperature at all, but a projection of the trend displayed at the extreme right hand end of the above graph.
Now the fraud part:  I believe that a charge of fraud can be made against any alarmist climate scientist on the basis that they ‘knew or should have known’ the obvious truth of what I presented above, and that statements of anthropogenic crisis and resultant catastrophe are fraudulent.  They also ‘knew or should have known’ that life was far more lush, varied and vibrant during warm periods with respect to cold periods during the planet’s history, and that warm periods were coincident with higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, unequivocally indicating that more CO2 than today is better for life, not worse.
This is all common grade-school-level scientific knowledge, not knowledge held only among geologists;  we have tried to tell everybody.  If someone with a PhD in climatology has become so narrow-focussed in their knowledge that they no longer understand what they should have known before graduating from high school, I think it is time to cancel their qualifications and send them back to the particular grade in high (or elementary) school where such things are taught for the first time;  they will be allowed to proceed again only when and if they can demonstrate that they have grasped and retained such basic geologic concepts.  
They have truly specialty-educated themselves into a state of general ignorance that has made them become a danger to society.  Or–they are knowingly perpetrating a serious and costly fraud for their own personal benefit and should be prosecuted for damages incurred by the rest of us.  I think the second is more likely, and the direction in which we should proceed.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Len Werner
February 16, 2022 2:56 am

all I know is that it’s been a good old fashioned frigid winter so far in New England and this is my 72nd winter so I know the subject well- yet, read any of the regional/local newspapers or watch any regional TV station and all you’ll see is how the planet is burning up and the seas gonna flood the cities like Boston any day – I think this can best be explained by mass schizoprenia- perhaps its a virus going around that infects people wearing face masks :-}

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Len Werner
February 16, 2022 5:41 am

The real propaganda comes from plotting and emphasizing anomalies. Graphs should be in absolute temps with a range of perhaps 13 to 17 degrees. When you see this year is 15.1 degree and last year was 15.0, it really gives you the correct perspective. It like photographers do with a camera, closer things look bigger. Anomaly growth looks like Armageddon is close at hand. Real temperature growth, ho hum.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  Len Werner
February 16, 2022 5:59 am

Hi there,

about that fraud case, I would be interested if any lawyer can chip in here!
Also, who exactly is committing this fraud?

As Rud is pointing out there seems to be a group of NOAA real world data scientist with their results being suppressed in favor of some GISS simulators, whose data is adapted into this NOAA report.
So would you say

  • the authors of the report committed fraud, by neglecting real world data
  • the real world data people for staying away from this report
  • the GISS people for not properly taking care of model bias

All of them, some of them?
It might be hard to pin it down, the authors put the model results at their face value, the modelers probably have a disclaimer somewhere in a publication side note 30 years ago and the real world data people say they did nothing (wrong).

Len Werner
Reply to  Len Werner
February 16, 2022 6:16 am
marlene
February 15, 2022 7:30 pm

Control the narrative, control the people.

Len Werner
February 15, 2022 7:31 pm

Sorry, the graph didn’t paste–it was the Smithsonian graph of temperature for the last 500 million years, the one showing ‘earth with ice caps’ vs ‘earth with no ice caps’.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Len Werner
February 16, 2022 4:53 am

This one?
Hmmm…Doesn’t seem to want to paste for some reason.

Last edited 4 months ago by Bruce Cobb
February 15, 2022 7:34 pm

Climate alarmists may be scraping the bottom of the IPCC barrel, but there is still a sizeable proportion of the population that will uncritically believe whatever government tells them. They will only change when the pain coming from their wallet becomes so intense that they look into the matter for its cause and discover the fraud.

February 15, 2022 7:34 pm

Climate alarmists may be scraping the bottom of the IPCC barrel, but there is still a sizeable proportion of the population that will uncritically believe whatever government tells them. They will only change when the pain coming from their wallet becomes so intense that they look into the matter for its cause and discover the fraud.

rah
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
February 15, 2022 11:10 pm

How many of those that have sea side property will sell it due to this “reporting”?
They won’t, nor is it likely that anyone that wants to buy seaside property will change their mind due to this report. It is all lip service.

Anon
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
February 16, 2022 7:34 am

“uncritically believe” 

I found this interesting as it adds a twist to the ‘uncritical belief’ supposition:

NAOMI WOLF:

The rest of the world, at least on the progressive side in the United States, became increasingly cult-like and insular in its thinking, since March of 2020. As the months passed, friends and colleagues of mine who were highly educated, and who had been lifelong critical thinkers, journalists, editors, researchers, doctors, philanthropists, teachers, psychologists — all began to repeat only talking points from MSNBC and CNN, and soon overtly refused to look at any sources – even peer-reviewed sources in medical journals — even CDC data — that contradicted those talking points. These people literally said to me, “I don’t want to see that; don’t show it to me.” It became clear soon enough that if they absorbed information contradictory to “the narrative” that was consolidating, they risked losing social status, maybe even jobs; doors would close, opportunities would be lost. One well-educated woman told me she did not want to see any unsanctioned information because she was afraid of being disinvited from her bridge group. Hence the refrain: “I don’t want to see that; don’t show it to me.”

Friends and colleagues of mine who had been skeptical their whole adult lives of Big Agriculture — who only shopped at Whole Foods, who would never let their kids eat sugar or processed meat, or ingest a hint of Red Dye No 2 in candy, or eat candy itself for that matter in some cases…

https://l-hora.org/en/is-it-time-for-intellectuals-to-talk-about-god-naomi-wolf-01-10-2022/

I believe there are essentially two major motivations for going into science/medicine: the first is for adventure and discovery to “go where ever the data takes you” (eg Richard Feynman) and the second is to get an MD or PhD after your name.

And this creates a real problem when you discover data that goes against the prevailing political narrative. If your motivation for getting into science was prestige and social status, are you really going to risk all of that hard work by presenting data that erodes the very reason you went into science and medicine in the first place?

More on that here:

Persuasion and the Prestige Paradox: Are High Status People More Likely to Lie?

Many have discovered an argument hack. They don’t need to argue that something is false. They just need to show that it’s associated with low status. The converse is also true: You don’t need to argue that something is true. You just need to show that it’s associated with high status.

https://quillette.com/2021/04/03/persuasion-and-the-prestige-paradox-are-high-status-people-more-likely-to-lie/

For what it is worth…

Last edited 4 months ago by Anon
Reply to  Anon
February 16, 2022 11:00 am

thanks for depressing me

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 15, 2022 7:36 pm

US government’s climate alarmists are really scraping the bottom of the IPCC barrel, and richly deserve more ridicule than this post can muster.

O/T, but J. O’Rourke died today. The world has lost one brilliant source of much-needed ridicule.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 15, 2022 8:05 pm

From Wikipedia: In September 2008, Patrick Jake O’Rourke announced that he had been diagnosed with treatable anal cancer, from which he expected “a 95% chance of survival.”
O’Rourke died from lung cancer at his home in Sharon, New Hampshire, on February 15, 2022, at the age of 74.

Rough years, may he rest in peace.

TEWS_Pilot
February 15, 2022 7:45 pm

Meanwhile, in Germany…

+++ Breaking +++

German TV interviewer pushes for sooner enforcement of generel vax mandate, then collapses live on air due to climate change.

(watch the video)
.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1493566363054583808

Derg
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
February 15, 2022 8:06 pm

Wow

Chris Hanley
February 15, 2022 7:50 pm

Governments warning citizens of potential threats to life and property is fair enough, individuals can decide for themselves whether to believe them and what action to take if any, in this case buying or selling beachfront properties.
Similar warnings in the past don’t seem to have affected decisions of the great and the good in choosing to maintain beachfront properties I guess they can easily afford the higher flood insurance.
Living far from the coast for the vast majority of US residents curbing their emissions will reduce living standards greatly but won’t make the slightest difference to the rate of future sea level change one way or another.

Peter W
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 16, 2022 6:08 am

Our property in Florida was purposely selected to be in CENTRAL Florida in order to avoid the worst effects of the periodic hurricanes which pass through the state.

William Holder
February 15, 2022 7:58 pm

There used to be a graphic online that illustrated positive and negative sea level rise around the world in mm with little arrows. Is that still up somewhere and can someone point me to it please.

Tedz
Reply to  William Holder
February 15, 2022 9:05 pm
William Holder
Reply to  Tedz
February 16, 2022 5:32 am

Thank you – that’s similar but the one I’m thinking of was from a US Government website – maybe NOAA. It was a more precise and you could also see graphs with the historical trend for more locations – Miami for example. Lost my bookmarks awhile back – likely taken down since it didn’t fit the right narrative.

William Holder
Reply to  William Holder
February 16, 2022 5:36 am

Ignore – I’m not focused, just woke up. LexingtonGreen has pointed it out.

Bindidon
Reply to  William Holder
February 16, 2022 10:31 am

Maybe you rather mean this one?

comment image

The SONEL chart gives us only those gauges having in the near a GPS station for vertical land movement correction.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Bindidon
February 16, 2022 4:52 pm

Good chart. The problem with it is that only long record tide gauges can give a reliable trend. That is, as referenced in the original post, about half. They all show SLR is rising, but not accelerating. And the estimated 2.2mm/yr is no different than during the Eemian.

Bindidon
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 20, 2022 5:05 pm

Late reply: I didn’t think anybody would have an opinion to that NOAA gauge chart.

1) ” Good chart. ”

Sorry, no: it’s not a good chart, because unlike the SONEL graph posted by Tedz, the NOAA graph shows raw trends, i.e. including the gauges’ own vertical movements (glacial isostatic rebound or subsidence).

Zoom into the end of the Bothnian Gulf between Sweden and Finland, and you will see a gauge named Furuögrund, with about -8 mm/yr for 1917-now, exactly what I obtain when processing its raw data.

But the gauge moves up by 10 mm/yr according to SONEL’s GPS data.

2) ” The problem with it is that only long record tide gauges can give a reliable trend. ”

How do you know that?

What I know is what I generated out of the PSMSL gauge data, together with SONEL’s GPS data.

You see a double comparison of 446 stations having GPS data, with 61 of them having more than 100 years of activity; the blue plot pair without, the green one with correction of vertical land movement:

comment image

3) ” They all show SLR is rising, but not accelerating. ”

Look at this graphs comparing successive trends, from 1903-2015 till 1993-2015:

comment image

You see that the blue plot, though being less regular than the green one (all 446 stations), nonetheless shows an acceleration (otherwise we would see a flat line).

4) ” And the estimated 2.2mm/yr is no different than during the Eemian. ”

Oh… that looks like if you were pasting arguments out of a Middleton post.

But… at that time (about 130,000-115,000 years ago), there were less than a million Homo Sapiens, without any tiny bit of the fragile social / technical infrastructure near any coast as we have today nearly everywhere on Earth.

We are now approaching the 8 billion bar.

Perhaps you have any idea how much laughter such Eem remarks might evoke, e.g. for those Munich Re employees responsible for calculating tariffs for reinsurance from damage cost assessments for the next five decades 🙂

LexingtonGreen
February 15, 2022 8:21 pm

Well, I am going with 1.7 MM per year so 2 inches. Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents

Steve Case
February 15, 2022 8:22 pm

NOAA runs tide gauges. NASA runs satalt.
___________________________________

There are 1500 tide gauges listed in the PSMSL I doubt that NOAA runs any of them. NOAA does collect the data from the PSMSL. So far the tide gauge data that NOAA publishes hasn’t been adulterated like the satellite data over the last 30 years.

NOAA says the average global sea level rise rate is 1.7-1.8 mm/yr LINK

From NOAA’s 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report:

The Next 30 Years
Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 – 12 inches (0.25 – 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 – 2050),

That comes to 10 MM/yr. When this miraculous over five fold increase in the rate begins to happen, will we hear trumpets?

stinkerp
February 15, 2022 8:26 pm

Funny how alarmist “studies” use models and model predictions instead of observational data. Gee, I wonder why. Because they’re zealots with their heads buried so far up their dogma that they can’t be bothered to pull them out and take a look at the beautiful, real world. They live in a special hell of their own making and want the rest of us to join in their dreary apocalyptic delusion. Misery loves company.

For the wide eyed and curious who want to see the real world as it is:

NOAA Sea Level Trends

University of Colorado Global Sea Level Trends

Last edited 4 months ago by stinkerp
Bindidon
Reply to  stinkerp
February 16, 2022 9:53 am

4u2:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/15/sea-level-alarm/#comment-3455197

You are comparing the incomparable:

  • trends of tide gauges over their entire lifetime (some work siónce about 1800)
  • trend of sat altimetry since… 1993

If you compare sat altimetry with the tide gauges’s data since 1993, you obtain something different 🙂

Ian Coleman
February 15, 2022 8:28 pm

Once again, God slacks off. Time was, you could inundate the whole world with 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Now this. No wonder sinful people aren’t too worried.

Chris Hanley
February 15, 2022 8:41 pm

As Rud Istvan noted above tide gauge data shows no acceleration in the rate of sea level so far (2021-22).
It is interesting how the graphic presentation has changed in the IPCC reports:
# Sea level projections in AR3 (2001).
# Sea level projections in AR6 (2021).
It is fascinating how the point of departure or ‘liftoff’ has shifted along the ‘X’ axis: in 2001 it was immediate whereas curbing their past enthusiasm in AR6 they show it well down the track around 2035.
The spread of future possibility is approximately the same but the ‘Y’ axis has stretched in 2021 to obfuscate direct comparisons.

toorightmate
February 15, 2022 9:27 pm

No visible sea level increase at Pinchgut in Sydney Harbour for 150 years.

Clyde Spencer
February 15, 2022 9:34 pm

And then there is the bad news that there may not be as much water locked up in glaciers as is usually assumed for calculating SL rise.

https://scitechdaily.com/new-calculations-of-worldwide-glacial-flows-and-volumes-from-over-800000-pairs-of-satellite-images/

February 15, 2022 9:59 pm

Good one, Rud. Clear and simple.

That the AR6 models are way too hot is well documented and well known. NASA’s Gavin denounced them in ScienceMag. That makes this NOAA/NASA hype a deliberate deception.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  David Wojick
February 16, 2022 4:54 pm

Thanks DW. I continue to try, and am now shifting focus from complicated sciency stuff to simple critiques—Just like at Judith’s before she retired from GT.

Geoff Sherrington
February 16, 2022 12:54 am

Rud,
It is, sadly, so easy to share your frustration at the concelament of proper data and the advertising of manipulated data. Not even mathematically-manipulated, they are down to imagination-manipulated.
We have the same problem here in our lovely Australia.
The question is, who needs to see the correct data, to be able to do something about it?
Since many who should see, do not want to see, we have to encourage them to look.
The same problem, I think, was faced by the Canadian truckers.
Our quest might be to design and manage a form of protest that requires those who should look, to look.
That is, there are lessons from the truckers’ approach.
We need to learn from them and discuss and plan and execute. Geoff S

Lasse
February 16, 2022 12:59 am

Acceleration is easy to get in a cyclical curve.
Just choose starting point!
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?plot=50yr&id=8518750
1970: 2,18 mm/y for the 50 years period
1985: 2,86 mm/y
1995: 3,63 mm/y

(But 1950:3,86 mm/y)

Bindidon
Reply to  Lasse
February 16, 2022 11:14 am

You are right.

But… to derive such an assumption from one single gauge: isn’t that a bit too simple?

Here is a graph showing, for the data elaborated out of hundreds of PMSL tide gauges by Dangendorf & alii

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-019-0531-8/MediaObjects/41558_2019_531_MOESM2_ESM.txt

the consecutive, 5-year distant trends :

comment image

The trends, each till 2015

1903: 1.41 ± 0.01
1908: 1.42 ± 0.01
1913: 1.44 ± 0.01
1918: 1.45 ± 0.01
1923: 1.47 ± 0.01
1928: 1.47 ± 0.01
1933: 1.47 ± 0.01
1938: 1.47 ± 0.01
1943: 1.50 ± 0.01
1948: 1.55 ± 0.02
1953: 1.64 ± 0.02
1958: 1.77 ± 0.02
1963: 1.91 ± 0.02
1968: 2.05 ± 0.02
1973: 2.19 ± 0.02
1978: 2.32 ± 0.02
1983: 2.48 ± 0.02
1988: 2.66 ± 0.02
1993: 2.80 ± 0.02
1998: 3.02 ± 0.03

Their paper

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ilhh3ov20tfb03P5ZKDHTzZuJ9rD4P8/view

richard
February 16, 2022 1:33 am

https://notrickszone.com/2019/09/09/new-study-of-53-long-term-tide-gauges-on-north-americas-east-west-coasts-24-have-negative-accelerations/

———-

The real problems around the world have been coral mining and beach mining for sand-

https://www.widecast.org/conservation/threats-and-solutions/beach-sand-mining/
Beach mining – http://www.ndmo.gov.fj/images/Hazards/coastal_erosion.pdf

“Paper 5: Status of Coral Mining in the Maldives: Impacts and Management Options – By Abdulla Naseer, Marine Research Section, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture Malé, Republic of Maldives” – https://www.fao.org/3/x5623e/x5623e0o.htm
————

Regarding beaches- “An analysis of satellite-derived shoreline data indicates that 24% of the world’s sandy beaches are eroding at rates exceeding 0.5 m/yr, but 28% are accreting and 48% are stable”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24630-6

———–
“AbstractThe absolute and relative rates of rise of the sea level are computed for the New York City area by coupling global positioning system records of the position of fixed domes nearby tide gauges, with the tide gauges’ records. Two tide gauges are considered, one long-term trend, more reliable, The Battery, in lower Manhattan, and one shorter, less reliable, Sandy Hook, in New Jersey. The relative rates of rise of the sea level are +2.851 and +4.076 mm/yr. The subsidence rates are -2.151 and -3.076 mm/yr. The absolute rates of rise of the sea level are +0.7 and +1.0 mm/yr. The relative sea-level acceleration, reliable only in The Battery, is about +0.008 mm/yr². This acceleration is about the same as the world average long-term trend tide gauge, as well as the average long-term trend tide gauge of the East Coast of North America. The absolute rate of rise of the sea level by 2050 in the lower Manhattan area will be likely less than 30 mm, and the absolute rate of rise of the sea level by 2100 likely less than 80 mm. The relative rate of rise of the sea level by 2050 in the Manhattan area will be likely 85 mm, and the relative rate of rise of the sea level by 2100 likely 228 mm, because of the overwhelming subsidence contribution”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468013320300474

Joseph Zorzin
February 16, 2022 3:28 am

The Bah-stin Globe has this story in today’s paper so I posted a link to this this WUWT article. Of course it’ll probably be deleted since the paper says it’ll not tolerate any climate skepticism since “the science is settled”.

Mark BLR
February 16, 2022 4:27 am

Its just ‘new and improved’ IPCC AR6 models.

Not quite.

My first “quick skim” of the report had me pausing on page 10, in the “Box 2.1: Uncertainties” section :

Uncertainties in this Report

In this report, emissions uncertainty and process uncertainty are combined to generate five sea level scenarios with GMSL target values in 2100: Low (0.3 m), Intermediate-Low (0.5 m), Intermediate (1 m), Intermediate-High (1.5 m), and High (2 m). These sea level scenarios are related to but distinct from the emissions pathway scenarios in the IPCC AR6.

To get two (!) metres by 2100 they took SSP5-8.5 … and then added even more made-up “accelerating sea-level rise” to it …

Backtrack to 2050 and “Voila !”, (relative) SLR around US coastlines “will” rise by 52cm in 30 years time (Table 2.1, page 15).

Note also that the “Present trajectory” lines in Figure 2.2, on page 14, look distinctly curved to me. They appear to be using exponential extrapolations, rather than linear extrapolations, throughout the report.

Josephine
February 16, 2022 5:37 am

Such news makes me really sad. I know that climate is changing, but I can’t believe that catastrophe can be real

ResourceGuy
February 16, 2022 5:39 am

It’s amazing to watch the joint media-administration con job in action during the build up for a land war in Europe. This would be a great time to delve into American discourse ignoring events in 1930s Europe.

Carlo, Monte
February 16, 2022 6:32 am

Last night ABC radio was hyping sea level fear-pr0n as their lead story—nothing about the very recent spygate scandal revelations, of course.

Duane
February 16, 2022 8:05 am

It’s always “over the next 30 years”, or “over the next 78 years (to 2100)” or “over the next 100 years”.

It’s always over some future timeframe that can never be fact checked/measured in real time except as measured actual sea level rise, looking backwards.

Therefore these projections, for all practical purposes, are unfalsifiable. As most of the warmunism is also unfalsifiable (“global warming causes global cooling”).

Pat Frank
February 16, 2022 8:06 am

Yeah, and Models of future air temperature rise closely match one another over the next 30 years. So what? yet again.

NOAA extends standard IPCC/EPA bushwah. Model agreement = accuracy. They make a freshman failure of scientific reasoning.

I’ve looked at the EPA CO2 endangerment finding. Like the sea level rise scare, it’s just a rubber stamp impression of IPCC models uber alles anti-reason.

At least all these organizations hew to a common standard — the rule of false precision. Pseudoscience when the offense is deliberate, which IMO it is.

Doug
February 16, 2022 1:02 pm

So glad I kept my Iowa ocean side property

[please fix the misspelling of your email cached in your browser so you will stop being flagged for moderation-cr]

Geoff Sherrington
February 16, 2022 2:30 pm

Sea level change calculated on a global scale seems persistently different to estimates from detailed local examinations.
Here are 2 examples:
Trends in sea level at Cooktown, Great Barrier Reef | http://www.BomWatch.com.au
Trends in sea level at Townsville, Great Barrier Reef | http://www.BomWatch.com.au

Here is the first main point from the first link.

  • “There is no evidence that melting glaciers, increasing levels of atmospheric CO2­­ or expansion of the oceans due to rising temperatures has caused sea levels to increase at Cooktown. Consequently, the likelihood that sea level will rise by 26 to 29 cm by 2030 as suggested by the IPCC is far-fetched.”

These detailed studies are by colleague Dr Bill Johnston, who is experienced and qualified to comment.
Geoff S

Bindidon
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
February 17, 2022 2:09 pm

Geoff Sherrington

Cooktown exists in PSMSL, but provides no RLR data.

Townsville however is present, and shows since January 1959 a mild raw trend of 2.2 mm/year, even damped down to 1.4 by a subsidence factor of 0.77 mm / year, friendly recorded by the TOW2 GPS device.

But… there are many more stations in the PSMSL directory… and most of them show over the years not only a positive, but also an increasing trend.

No doubt: Dr Bill Johnston is experienced and qualified to comment.

But… did he ever analyze the entire PSMSL data?

comment image

peter dimopoulos
February 16, 2022 3:29 pm

Dudes…now I’m really Alarmed….Scared…. and Frightened….what should I do about my beach house?

Rich T.
February 16, 2022 4:38 pm

Obummer proves the truth of CC. He bought the old “Magnum P.I.” “Robin’sNest”. Razed the place and is starting new construction. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/02/an_obama_photograph_proves_the_lies_of_climate_change_and_covid.html . Rules for thee but not for me.

Mark BLR
February 17, 2022 9:21 am

I’ve always been a fan of the “plot all of the data on one graph and just look at it” approach to get an initial “feel” for a problem.

Note that AR6 called their two highest emissions pathways, SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0, “counterfactual” (section 1.6.1.4, page 1-110), with the one closest to an “in the absence of additional climate policies” option being SSP2-4.5.

This report has an “Intermediate” option that is above AR6’s “BOX 9.4: High-end storyline of 21st century sea-level rise” (pages 9-122 to 9-124) fairy tale, AKA their “low-likelihood, high-impact (LLHI) storyline”, AKA the “SSP5-8.5 Low Confidence” columns in Tables 9.9 (page 9.116) and 9.10 (page 9-119).

Is it just me, or is the graph below “hysterical” in both senses of the word ?

SLR-hysteria_1.png
5 dancing shlomos
February 17, 2022 5:41 pm

As long as the rising sea covers skyscrapers, I’m happy.
With heads under water, Bill Hates and Klog Schlob should be giddy even orgasmic.

Andrew Kerber
February 18, 2022 9:24 am

There is one interesting point about this prediction. For it to happen, the rate of sea level rise must triple beginning immediately. This is testable in just a few months. Lets follow up in 6 months and see if the rate of sea level rise has tripled.

%d bloggers like this: