Guest essay by Vijay Jayaraj
It’s all too predictable: A jet-setting celebrity or politician wades ceremoniously into hip-deep surf for a carefully choreographed photo op, while proclaiming that human-driven sea-level rise will soon swallow an island nation. Of course, the water is deeper than the video’s pseudoscience, which is as shallow as the theatrics.
The scientific truth is simple: Sea levels are rising, but the rate of rise has not accelerated. A new peer-reviewed study confirms what many other studies have already shown – that the steady rise of oceans is a centuries-long process, not a runaway crisis triggered by modern emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).
For the past 12,000 years, during our current warm epoch known as the Holocene, sea levels have risen and fallen dramatically.
For instance, during the 600-year Little Ice Age, which ended in the mid-19th century, sea levels dropped quite significantly. The natural warming that began in the late 1600s got to a point around 1800 where loss of glacial ice in the summer began to exceed winter accumulation and glaciers began to shrink and seas to rise. By 1850, full-on glacial retreat was underway.
Thus, the current period of gradual sea-level increase began between 1800-1860, preceding any significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions by many decades. The U.S. Department of Energy’s 2025 critical review on carbon dioxide and climate change confirms this historical perspective.
“There is no good, sufficient or convincing evidence that global sea level rise is accelerating –there is only hypothesis and speculation. Computation is not evidence and unless the results can be practically viewed and measured in the physical world, such results must not be presented as such,” notes Kip Hansen, researcher and former U.S. Coast Guard captain.
New Study Confirms No Crisis
While activists speak of “global sea-level rise,” the ocean’s surface does not behave like water in a bathtub. Regional currents, land movements, and local hydrology all influence relative sea level. This is why local tide gauge data is important. As Hansen warns, “Only actually measured, validated raw data can be trusted. … You have to understand exactly what’s been measured and how.”
In addition, local tide-gauge data cannot be extrapolated to represent global sea level. This is because the geographic coverage of suitable locations for gauges is often poor, with the majority concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere. Latin America and Africa are severely under-represented in the global dataset. Hansen says, “The global tide gauge record is quantitatively problematic, but individual records can be shown as qualitative evidence for a lack of sea-level rise acceleration.”
A new 2025 study provides confirmation. Published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, the study systematically dismantles the narrative of accelerating sea-level rise. It analyzed empirically derived long-term rates from datasets of sufficient length – at least 60 years – and incorporated long-term tide signals from suitable locations.
The startling conclusion: Approximately 95% of monitoring locations show no statistically significant acceleration of sea-level rise. It was found that the steady rate of sea-level rise – averaging around 1 to 2 millimeters per year globally – mirrors patterns observed over the past 150 years.
The study suggests that projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which often predicts rates as high as 3 to 4 millimeters per year by 2100, overestimate the annual rise by approximately 2 millimeters.
This discrepancy is not trivial. It translates into billions of dollars in misguided infrastructure investments and adaptation policies, which assume a far worse scenario than what the data support. Because we now know that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise measured locally.
Rather than pursuing economically destructive initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of questionable projections and erroneous climate science, money and time should be invested in supporting coastal communities with accurate data for practical planning to adapt to local sea level rise.
Successful adaptation strategies have existed for centuries in regions prone to flooding and sea-level variations. The Netherlands is an excellent example of how engineering solutions can protect coastal populations even living below sea level.
Rising seas are real but not a crisis. What we have is a manageable, predictable phenomenon to which societies have adapted for centuries. To inflate it into an existential threat is to mislead, misallocate, and ultimately harm the communities that policymakers claim to protect.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Has there been a huge outcry from the experts for a retraction? Have there been calls to fire the editor?
The Journal is a MDPI pay to play journal. No one will take any notice.
What the paper apparently says is this:
Approximately 95% of monitoring locations show no statistically significant acceleration of sea-level rise. It was found that the steady rate of sea-level rise – averaging around 1 to 2 millimeters per year globally – mirrors patterns observed over the past 150 years.
Is this correct? If so, its rather interesting.
It is correct. Check “The Battery” tide gauge data for NYC at PSMSL.org, subtract the GPS elevation data for the site, also shown, and you will sea a steady absolute sea level rise of about 1.5 millimeters per year for the past 150 years. Larson and a Clark, discussed above, extend this rate back 6,000 years.
It may be correct, but it is insignificant. The data for individual sites is noisy, and it is very hard to find statistically significant acceleration.What is important is acceleration of global sea levels, which are much less noisy, even if calculated by averaging many tide gauges.
It’s like, if you are testing a coin for bias, you toss it and it comes up heads. Statistically insigificant. But ten heads togenter are significant.
Ten heads together still fits on the bell-shaped curve of natural distribution.
And HTTHHTHHHT is totally normal.
I rolled Yahtzee twice in a roll once. It could have been influenced by CO2.
Data is noisy and difficult to use. That’s why proper climate alarmists rely only on models to tell them what is happening in the world.
There is no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise.
PERIOD
New Research Finds ‘No Statistically Significant Acceleration’ In Global Sea Level Rise
Your stupid analogies have no standing. !!
But averaging many assumption-based model outputs to project global sea level rise to the end of this century is somehow statistically significant?
Sea level gauges can measure not only ocean level, but also land subsidence or gain. Averaging does not correct the fact that inaccurate measurements can be at play,
How can averaging sites with no acceleration translate into a global acceleration?
And you are comparing a random selection to a deterministic process to prove your point?
sheesh. You can do better.
He’s probably using the Mannian filter. The one that is guaranteed to find a hockey stick as long as one of the input sets contains a hockey stick.
Special filters, that mine for the signal you are looking for.
Same with the paleo reconstructions – Gergis / pages 2k shows a hockey stick for the 0-30s and the 30-60s latitude band, but only one or two individual proxies have a hockey stick
Your last assertion is provably false.
You need to review your statistics. 10 heads in a row is not significant to determine bias. The Law of Large Numbers doesn’t allow that conclusion. Pure randomness can result in a large sequence of similar results.
Hence, we can observe warming for 1000 years and come to the wrong long term conclusion. It’s there in the ice records, 1000 yrs of a reverse trend in a long term opposite trend.
Good thing this study didn’t look at just one site.
Sometimes I think NS’s comments make great points. This is not one of those times. I’m thinking this sentence must have been composed in a hurry while someone stood behind him complaining the trash needed t be emptied, now!!
“What is important is acceleration of global sea levels, which are much less noisy, even if calculated by averaging many tide gauges.”
Please state the reason why having ten heads turn up successively in a series of coin tosses has ANY “meaningful” physical significance.
True, such might be statistically interesting if it occurred in, say, a series of ten to twenty coin tosses, but would be boring in a series of say one million consecutive coin tosses.
As a separate but related example, look up the surprising instances of numerical sequences in the value for pi as calculated to one million decimal places. One well-known example: the sequence identified as the “Feynman Point,” a string of six 9s (999999) that starts at the 762nd decimal place of pi. What’s the “significance” of that?
Finally, when looking at resolutions of, say, +/-0.1 mm/year in both tide gage and satellite date, despite them being averaged over many locations and many separate time intervals (satellite example at https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise , as I posted in a separate comment above), they remain absolutely “noisy”, while still not revealing any objective evidence of “acceleration”.
Noisy is a mathematician’s description of a high variance. It doesn’t mean there is extraneous information being measured that is not the signal. Mathematicians want to see a simple curve with zero variance. THAT is, no noise.
Noise to an EE is extraneous signal(s) that appear as the signal (same bandwidth) and interfere with extracting the expected signal regardless of the signals variance..
“ANY “meaningful” physical significance”
As I said, the test is whether the coin is biased. Distribution of weight or whatever. And if it keeps coming up heads, there has to come a time when you decide that it probably is.
It is hard to bias a coin, so think of loaded dice or whatever. The point is that an individual throw is insignificant, but the average of many throws may prove it.
Nick, in typical fashion:
1) you have left “many throws” undefined and thus ambiguous
2) when you caveat any statement with the word “may”, there is also a probability of “may not” being equally true.
Absolutely nothing to do with tide gauges.
No remotely stable tide gauges shows any meaningful acceleration. !
Your coin analogy is totally bogus. !!
Acceleration from 2020 only?
Wow, that’s me convinced! (not)
You missed the earlier curve fit showing “acceleration”.
If I throw 100 ones in a row you might have reason to believe that a die is biased. If I throw 100 sixes in a row you might have reason to believe that a die is biased. The average of these 200 throws is…wait for it…3.5. A result that looks completely random and unbiased. Averages hide an awful lot of information, a lot of it often inconvenient to the averager.
The Law of Large Numbers says that as samples are accumulated the probability of each discrete event will approach it’s probability. The Law does not say the results will occur in any given order.
100 ones and 200 twos is no different than 50 ones, 100 twos, 50 ones, and 100 twos.
An assembly of noisy data from all over the world with no acceleration signal becomes a less noisy dataset with an acceleration signal. Got it.
Nick, please stop with this (pseudo)- scientific BS and try to act just once in your life like a human being.
Look at any coastline you want, any island you want.
They look the same or bigger – ALL AROUND THE WORLD .
You are probably and older dude, living in a country surrounded by a 1000 miles of coastline – and what you have noticed throughout all the decades that there is nothing to notice.
The sea level rise is almost as low as your IQ and would it be lower than it’d be a decline.
Worrying about it is as nonsensical as worrying about the distance the moon is moving away from earth – and the moon is moving 30 times fast away than sea levels are rising.
Isn’t Nick the guy who keeps telling us that when it comes to the temperature record, averaging noisy data can improve the quality of the data.
It doesn’t improve the quality of the data. It reduces the uncertainty of the average, which allows inferences to be made. Just as with drug testing, opinion polli ng etc. Large samples are better than small.
Wrong! Measuring things at different places and times DOES NOT reduce the uncertainty in the average. !
Tide gauges DO NOT meet the requirements for using the “Law of large samples”
Large samples OF THE SAME TEST are better than small. Large samples of data from thousands of instruments gathering different waters all over the World are not. Each tide gauge is a different test.
You make a false analogy with drug testing, whose point is to detect rare adverse events, not global trends. Here, the larger the sample, the likelier a rare event will be detected. This is utterly unlike tide gauges.
The SEM (σ/√n) allows one to infer the interval where the mean itself may lay. It is not a measure of the uncertainty interval where the values obtained from measurements lay, i.e., the measurement uncertainty.
Remember, the standard deviation of the mean as measurement uncertainty is only useful with many measurements OF THE SAME EXACT THING.
What us happening in the open ocean, or along uninhibited coastlines like the Skeleton Coast of Africa, is relatively unimportant. It might be of academic interest, but from a practical point of view, what is important is the relative change at coastal locations that long ago had tide gauges put in precisely because it was important at ports for shipping. Areas that are not experiencing sea level rise are also not experiencing subsidence. Subsidence is often much greater than thermosteric or dynamic increases and is unlikely to be related to warming in general, let alone anthropogenic warming.
Speaking of noise.
I believe that Willis Eschenbach has already explained how the spurious acceleration signal is introduced by splicing together the four data sets from four satellite records.
If it were 97 % instead of 95% monitoring location we may turn it into a forced consensus and attack anyone who believe in sea level rise 🙂
That’s how modern climate science works iirc.
Anyway – AGW has the same negative impacts on sea levels as it has on food production = 0.
It can barely exist outside of climate models and without massive propaganda.
And massive funding.
It doesn’t matter if it is true or not. It was printed in a journal that doesn’t meet Nick’s standards, so it must be ignored.
As always, Stokes is unable to discredit the paper so he smears the journal instead. Had the findings been to his liking he would now be trumpeting them in our faces.
It has far more scientific credibility than “Nature: Climate” ever had. !
It does not align with the narrative, so no one will take any notice is more the case.
Funny how the only argument you have is an ad hominem against the publisher and the authors.
How about addressing the data and veracity of the conclusions?
As opposed to the mainstream journals that Nick prefers, that only print stuff that meets the approval of the loudest climate activists.
Of course it meets approval. It is written by and distributed to media by some of the most dedicated activists on the planet.
You did! Are you a nobody?
The same is true of weather stations.
True, but there are significantly more weather stations.
True, but still sparse before the early 1900s
Doesn’t matter. Averaging them together is meaningless.
Agreed
This is not true for the series of satellites designed and used to accurately measuring global SLR: the TOPEX, Jason and S6MF satellites used over the period of 1993 to present. These satellites had/have orbital inclinations of 66 degrees, providing coverage equally over the Northern hemisphere to +66 degrees latitude and over the Southern hemispheres to -66 degrees latitude.
You might want to review the accuracy of those satellite proxies and compare them to 1 mm/yr.
Those are not satellite “proxies”, they are measurements of changes in global sea level over some 32 years using radar altimetry measurements calibrated against ground targets and using very accurately determined spacecraft ephemeris.
As for “reviewing the accuracy” of those satellite measurements, I’ve been there/done that. Here is what NOAA has to say on that subject at their website (documented at https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise ) that presents and discusses this data (with my bold emphasis added):
“Satellite altimeter radar measurements can be combined with precisely known spacecraft orbits to measure sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. A reference series of satellite missions that started with TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) in 1992 and continued with Jason-1 (2001–2013), Jason-2 (2008–2019), Jason-3 (2016–present), and Sentinel-6MF (2020–present) estimate global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3–4 mm.“
From the graphed satellite data covering 1993 up to mid-2025, one can see the absolute change in global sea level has been about 100 mm . . . so yeah, an uncertainty of 3.5 mm would be equivalent to about 3.5% uncertainty . . . pretty darn good for “mean measurements” from data sets obtained over 66 North latitude to 66 South latitude of Earth, year after year.
You might also benefit from checking the links to:
— “Radar Altimeter Database System”. and
— “Sea level budget assessment”
that are available on the left side of the above URL page and which provide much more detail (and numerous references to scientific articles) on how these satellites are calibrated in-situ and monitored for variations such as instrument drift.
FYI, one cannot compare an absolute point measurement accuracy (say, altitude in mm) to a calculated rate of change (say, 1 mm/yr) as you suggest.
But nevertheless, on the face of NOAA’s graph of “Global mean sea level from the reference series of altimeter missions”, they clearly state “trend: 3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/year”. So there you have it.
The biggest problem with measuring sea levels from orbit is that oceans are not flat.
Also not all waves are the same. They have very different shapes and different profiles. With the differing profiles, the apparent sea level can vary greatly, completely independent from the actual sea level.
Plus try measuring the sea level of the ocean around a typhoon or hurricane or any low pressure system to 3.2 +/- .04mm. Or even a large high pressure system will depress the water. Large swells from a storm will travel thousands of miles across the surface of the ocean.
If you have ever been out on the open ocean in a sailboat you know what you are trying to measure to a millimeter is a fools errand.
The degree of +/- variations in a series of instantaneous measurements has no bearing whatsoever on establishing the mean of that series of measurements.
Example: the roll of a fair pair of dice can vary from the value 2 up to the value of 12; but perform a hundred consecutive dice rolls and the mean of that series is almost certain to round off to 7. QED.
This doesn’t even make sense from a metrology standpoint. First, you are assuming the arithmetic mean is an appropriate statistical parameter for a distribution. That has the assumption that the distribution is symmetrical, something you haven’t shown.
Second, all measurements are estimates. The +/- variation is an essential part of categorizing a measurement. Without a variance/standard deviation you have no idea about the spread of the measurements attributed to the stated value.
Oh, please . . .
No, I am not assuming that . . . I specifically referenced the fact that NOAA uses the term “mean” on the face of their graph of satellite-derived global SLR measurements obtained from 1993 through mid-2025 (available at https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise ). Here, for your edification, I’ll even once again give the title of that graph: “Global mean sea level from the reference series of altimeter missions”.
You are definitely in the minority that would make such an (absurd) statement. Here is what Google’s “AI summary” has to say about your statement:
“No, measurements and estimates are not the same; an estimate is an educated guess or an approximation, while a measurement is an observed numerical value determined by comparison to a standard unit using a tool or device.”
But maybe you will find the video at this link is more helpful to you in understanding the difference between a measurement and an estimate:
Really? You need to learn about metrology dude and I suspect Google AI gave you an answer to a stupid question.
From Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers, Coleman & Steele.
From JCGM 100:2008
An introduction to Error Analysis, Dr. John Taylor
From Data Reduction and Error Analysis, Bevington & Robinson
It is obvious that Google AI is not an expert in metrology. It is also obvious that you are not knowledgeable of metrology or you wouldn’t need to refer to an AI and instead would use references such as the JCGM documents that have international agreement.
Why don’t you do some research and show us a metrology reference that says measurements are not estimates.
Thanks for asking . . . here you go:
Several standard metrology reference texts differentiate measurements from estimates by defining measurements as values experimentally obtained, whereas estimates are approximations or predictions. The DEFINITIVE REFERENCE that codifies this and other core metrology concepts is the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM), specifically the third edition, JCGM 200:2012.
Developed by the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM),—yes the same as you referenced—the VIM is the INTERNATIONAL STANDARD for metrological terms, and is asserted to be the most authoritative text on the science of measurement and its application.
Measurement: The VIM defines measurement as the “process of experimentally obtaining one or more quantity values that can reasonably be attributed to a quantity”. This means a measurement relies on an actual physical process involving an instrument to collect data. (Hey, that sounds like what Google’s AI stated!)
Estimate: The VIM and its accompanying Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) discuss how a measured value is an estimate of the true value of a quantity. However, the measured value is a specific type of estimate derived from an experimental process, not an approximation based on judgment alone. An estimate in the broader sense is an appraisal or approximation, which lacks the rigor and traceability of a formal measurement.
I think that very last sentence is what you asked for.
Also, the book Fundamentals of Dimensional Metrology by Connie L. Dotson, now in its fifth edition, clearly states that measurement is a process, one that that is distinctly different from estimation, which includes that act of simple guessing, even if classified as a WAG or a SWAG. Hah!
Bottom line: Measurements require the use of a reference standard, a tool or an instrument to obtain a value (even values such as “less than”, “equal to”, or “greater than” and albeit with some stated or unstated uncertainty). Estimates simply DO NOT require the use of a reference standard, a tool or an instrument to obtain a value.
You are playing wordsmith with no deep understanding of what you are trying to prove. Using the difference between a pure guess (estimate) and a measurement (process) doesn’t address whether a measurement is an estimate. Since you like quoting AI’s rather using your own knowledge, here is what CoPilot says, with references.
Q: Does a measurement process provide an estimated value, show references
Unfortunately for you, the phrase that you quoted and commented on comes from VIM (JCGM 200:2012), not from me. Please convey your message and knowledge to them, where I’m sure they will receive all the attention they deserve.
Also, the real question you should have asked CoPilot is simply:
“Are all measurements estimates?”,
what YOU asserted to be true in your post above dated September 25, 2025 10:48 am. Your question as presented to CoPilot is substantially different and biased since it includes the phrase ” . . . provide an estimated value”.
However, waxing philosophically in an attempt to agree with you at some point, I do have to admit that (a) perfect knowledge is not given to man and (b) Heisenberg raised his Uncertainty Principle which appears to have been experimentally established to be true (hmmm, begs the question as to what estimated uncertainties have been assigned to values obtained when verifying the Uncertainty Principle) . . . so, yes, EVERYTHING in reality—even “deep understanding” and “proofs”—are basically just estimates. So there.
Here is my original statement that you took issue with.
You are attempting to separate measurements and pure guesses. Word salads don’t work to prove anything
Here is your question posed to CoPilot.
Q: Are all measurements estimates?
I believe that to be one of the main reasons that NOAA uses the term “mean” when referring to their plotted data.
Nothing of interest happens beyond ~|66| degrees latitude anyway, other than auroras, stratospheric ozone depletion, circumpolar vortexes interrupting the Brewer-Dobson Circulation resulting in anomalously high tropical ozone outside the vortex, coldest temperatures on Earth, ~ six-months of no sunlight, frequent marine fog in the Summer, and rapidly increasing specular reflectance that reaches 100% at glancing angles of incidence. No big deal.
Check back on the comment to which I responded about NOAA satellites providing equal coverage north and south of Earth’s equator, between 66N and 66S. . . it was in response to Redge’s claim that “Latin America and Africa are severely under-represented in the global dataset” of tidal gauges, and had nothing at all to do with Earth’s polar zones.
Geography 101.
I’ll let you present to the WUWT audience of readers of article comments the importance of having either tide gauges or satellite coverage to accurately establish SLR in Earth’s polar zones (the areas from 66.5 to 90 degrees North and 66.5 to 90 degrees South).
A link to the same paper on NTZ the other day..
New Research Finds ‘No Statistically Significant Acceleration’ In Global Sea Level Rise
Without comment:
Evaluated together, or separately? Lots of tree variability. Forest, nope.
No statistically significant acceleration at tide gauges around the globe..
Why are alarmists scared of 2mm/year sea level rise. ???
No sane person would be. !
NOAA’s Tides & Currents page says
“…average global sea level rise rate [is] 1.7-1.8 mm/yr”.
Not sure of your point? That’s a rate of rise. bnice2000 said there was “no statistically significant acceleration…”
? ? ? What that graph shows is that 89% of those 67 tide gauges exhibit an acceleration of 0.00 to 0.02 mm/y²
That’s what it looked like to me also. Next thoughts were “Should it be that way?” and “Why?”. In order for there to be “no ice” and “all ice” in reasonable historic reconstructions, the rates have to change. Is the rate changing by a little usually, or is the rate changing by a lot but only sometimes? Here I wish science hadn’t been so partisan so I could trust someone else’s research.
That’s the real danger of AI bots – people like me running around looking for a trusty data source without doing any work. The ultimate truth in the universe might be coded by a tubby deviant in spandex tights living in granny’s basement.
The tide gauges aren’t even capable of such measurements.
Accuracy v precision. The gauges might be off by 1 million meters, but if they’re stable enough then fine. I’m hoping that the chart maker didn’t invent decimal places beyond the precision that the data recorder hopefully implied by the way they recorded data.
Further evidence of steady sea level rise was provided many years ago by USGS researchers Larsen and Clark. In “A search for scale in sea level studies” they concluding,based on coastal peat bog and river sediments, that sea levels have been rising at an average of 1 to 2 millimeters per year for the past 6,000 years.
Do we really want Glacier Bay like it was in 1760 ?
And most of that ice had disappeared by 1900, when CO2 concentrations were still at “safe” levels.
The severity of a “global crisis” is inversely proportional to the theatrics required to “communicate” said crisis.
Cobb’s theorem has a nice ring to it.
“In the search for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution(Aerosols during Ice Age Scare,//Co2 that was falsely rebranded a pollutant just as Ivermectin a horse dewormer to protect the GOF virus from humans – by a 97% co2nsensus I guess )global warming,water shortages , famine and the like would fit the bill ”
The Club of Rome 1991(they still haven’t paid a dime to Alan Moore for stealing this idea)
But, but, but “tipping point!”
sheesh.
Only Guam .
I see what you did there. 🙂
Guam is a flip flop island.
And if you’d smoke half the weed Hank did before the hearing you’d have said the same thing or even worse things – that Co2 will cause a runaway effect.
On Guam, CO2 caused a runway effect. Not new, but improved. 🙂
Great quote. Very applicable to climate science.
You need to emend your post and put “climate science” in quotations.
It doesn’t warrant double quotes. Single quotes are sufficient to draw attention without unduly elevating the importance of what some say isn’t real science. /sarc
Proof of change is not proof of cause.
Nor is it proof of:
If one is an alarmist, proof of change is proof of expectations. After all, expectations are what they set out to prove (aka pseudo science).
Where I learned to swim at school swimming classes in the 1950s. Called Wylie’s Baths after a famous swimmer of the time, who constructed the baths below the high water mark in 1907. Located just south of Coogee Beach, Sydney, it has lasted 117 years of catastrophic sea level rise through some freak of nature. So have numerous other tidal baths in Sydney and throughout the State of NSW.
Not Coogee, but Bondi stilling pool water
As very scare 1mm/year average sea level……. less for high tide.
oh dear… the red thumber still doesn’t like facts and data. So sad. ! 😉
Obviously, the area is experiencing isostatic rebound that just counter-balances the rise in sea level. The rebound is a result of the loss of mass from the extinction of the dinosaurs. 🙂
Actually, a GPS/survey study done a few years ago showed that Fort Denison is actually sinking at a very small rate.. yet Fort Denison 9below) matches Bondi very closely..
Australia is also moving north at some small mm per year (can’t remember the actual number)
“Thus, the current period of gradual sea-level increase began between 1800-1860, preceding any significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions by many decades.”
Decades is an eye blink on the scale of actual climate change. I don’t understand how Sagan’s “billions and billions” crowd got roped into worrying about mm per year.
From the second paragraph of the above article:
“The scientific truth is simple: Sea levels are rising, but the rate of rise has not accelerated. A new peer-reviewed study confirms what many other studies have already shown – that the steady rise of oceans is a centuries-long process, not a runaway crisis triggered by modern emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).”
Amen.
Furthermore, one can discount almost all ground-based tide gage measurements of SLR because so few of them are corrected for subsidence or uplift of the local ground they are connected to.
The most-accurate, satellite-determined linear rate of global sea-level rise (as displayed in the attached graph and discussed at https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise ) is entirely consistent, even at decadal resolution, with the combination of (a) calculated thermal expansion of ocean water volume (down to about 100 m depth) as Earth’s average surface temperature has risen since 1992 —Earth being in the Holocene interglacial warming period since about 13,000 years ago—and (b) the estimated amount of melting of Arctic sea ice and land glacial ice since 1992, also due to interglacial warming.
Vijay,
If like me you lived in Australia, you would feel focus of the stupidity of politicisation of false sea level forecasts of harm to Pacific islands.
Broadly, Communist China is keen to get more close to these islands, especially for military/observation/exploitation and is willing to spend big money. The islanders are convinced that they need money to combat rising seas.
The several studies that show island areas increasing, shore lines extending seaward, land level changes from underground water extraction and so on are largely ignored.
The left-leaning Australian government is handing out money too, but claims it is clean “humanitarian” money to combat rising seas from climate change. This is clearly political dishonesty.
Geoff S
Very nice Vijay.
Stupid people who don’t remember 7th grade science.