3 New Papers: Global Seas Now Rising About 2 Inches Per Century … Claims Of 1 Meter Rise By 2100 ‘Sheer Nonsense’

According to the most highly-cited estimate of recent (1992 – 2011) polar ice sheet melt rates, the land ice on Greenland and Antarctica has been contributing to sea level rise at a rate of 0.59 mm/year in the modern era, which means the equivalent of 5.9 centimeters (2.3 inches) per century of sea level rise might eventually accrue if the polar ice sheets continue melting at current rates for the next 10 decades.

Shepherd et al., 2012

Since 1992 [through 2011], the polar ice sheets [Antarctica and Greenland] have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

Of course, a sea level rise rate contribution from Greenland and Antarctica that amounts to a little more than 2 inches per century is not particularly alarming.  And when observed sea level rise contribution rates from melting ice sheets don’t elicit the headlining attention they deserve, it’s time to promulgate climate modeling catastrophes that might occur at some point in the distant future.

For example, earlier this year Slate‘s resident meteorologist Eric Holthaus excitedly embraced the James Hansen ice-melt catastrophe paper (Hansen et al., 2016) as a welcome tenet of a supposedly authoritative scientific canon: “James Hansen’s Bombshell Warning Is Now Part of the Scientific Canon”.

The paper, which has undergone some wording revisions since the original version appeared in July, 2015, apparently “concludes” that the polar ice sheets will soon melt catastrophically, and that this ice sheet melt contribution will in turn result in sea level rise of “at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years“.

Eric Holthaus, Slate:

“The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are ered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.

Again, the combined Greenland and Antarctica ice sheet melt contribution to sea level rise was 0.59 mm/year during 1992 – 2011 (Shepherd et al., 2012), or about 6 cm (2.3 inches) per century.  To achieve James Hansen’s claimed sea level rise prediction of 10 feet (3.05 meters) within 50 years due to rapidly melting Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets, the current melt rates would have to increase by a factor of 100.  Instead of the polar ice sheet contribution rate of 0.23 of an inch per decade for 1992-2011, the rate in the next 50 years will need to average 23 inches per decade — two orders of magnitude more than presently observed.

And for the record, the observed melt-rate contribution from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets of 0.59 mm/yr for 1992 – 2011 is very likely an overestimate.  For one, NASA has reported that there was an overall ice mass gain for Antarctica during this same period (1992-2008), and thus a reduction in sea level rise equivalent to -0.23 mm/yr (rather than a net positive contribution of +0.19 mm/yr as determined by Shepherd et al., 2011).  Secondly, in current datasets the baseline period for establishing the surface mass balance (SMB) of the Greenland ice sheet is the 1961-1990 tricade.  However, those 30 years were notoriously cold in Greenland, a full 1.5 degrees C colder than the 1920-1940s period, when Greenland was actually as warm or warmer than recent decades.  If the baseline data were not centered on the coldest decades of the century, but instead included the 1920s-1940s warm period, the record of net “loss” for the Greenland ice sheet since the 1990s would be significantly reduced, and there may have been an overall net mass gain relative to the 1920s-’40s for recent decades.  Succinctly, different baseline data would yield an even more negligible Greenland ice sheet contribution to sea level rise for 1992-2011 than reported by Shepherd et al., 2011 (0.4 mm/yr, or 1.6 inches per century).

Considering Paleoclimate Data, Sea Level Rise Projections Of Even 1 Meter Per Century Are ‘Sheer Nonsense’, ‘Demagoguery’

World-renown scientist Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, a sea level expert who has authored hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific publication during his career, has recently weighed in on the preposterousness of claiming sea levels will rise even 1 meter in the next 100 years — let alone over 3 meters in the next 50, as James Hansen claims.  Using past records of sea level rise rates from the earliest decades and centuries of the Holocene (~11,000 years ago), Mörner concludes that it is not possible for modern sea levels to rise at rates of 10 mm/year (1 meter/century) — or faster than they did during a time when much of the Northern Hemisphere was still buried kilometers-deep in ice and temperatures were rising far more rapidly than today.

Mörner,  2016

Sea level is globally varying between ±0.0 and +1.0 mm/yr (0.5 ± 0.5 mm/yr). … At 11,000 BP we had enormous amounts of ice still left in the huge continental ice caps of the Last Ice Age. In Canada, the ice front was in St. Lawrence lowland, and in Scandinavia, the ice margin was at Stockholm. At the warming pulse ending the Pleistocene and starting the Holocene, ice melted at an exceptionally strong forcing. Today, there is neither ice nor climate forcing that in any way can be compared to what happened 11,000 – 10,000 BP. The conclusion is obvious; we can never in present time have any ice melting and sea level rise as strong- and certainly not stronger-than that occurring at the Pleistocene/Holocene transition. Therefore, a rate of sea level rise of +10.0 mm/yr or 1.0 m per century can be held as the absolutely ultimate value of any present day sea level rise. Any present rise in sea level must be far below this value to be realistic in view of past records and the physical factors controlling ice melting. Therefore, we can also dismiss any claim of sea level rise exceeding 1 m in the next century as sheer nonsense and unfounded demagoguery.


Sea Levels Currently Rising Between 0 – 1 mm/yr; Modeled ‘Corrections’ To Sea Level Rise Data Artificially And Erroneously Raise Rates

A year ago, Dr. Mörner detailed his comprehensive critique of the alterations to observed data (euphemistically referred to as “corrections”).  He determined that if the “corrections” (i.e., modeled adjustments that artificially raise sea levels) for the satellite data are removed, sea levels only rose at a rate of 0.45 mm/year (2 inches per century) between 1992-2015, which is about 1/7th of the rate of rise reported by altimetry datasets.

Mörner,  2015

The satellite altimetry records are claimed to be “a proxy for ocean water volume changes”, but behind the curves are unspecified “corrections” hidden, applied by NOAA and CU in order to obtain the product they personally assumed to be the correct “proxy of ocean water volume changes”. There is a major problem, however: their satellite altimetry records differ by 100% to 800% from observed tide gauge measurements. With the removal of GIA corrections … from the satellite altimetry data, we finally obtain agreements among global tide gauge data, costal morphology data and satellite altimetry data; all agreeing on a mean global eustatic sea level factor somewhere within the zone ±0.0 to +1.0 mm/yr.
The mean of 182 sites (excluding a few outliers) scattered all over the globe is 1.6 mm/ yr. Because of long-term subsidence of many river mouth sites and site-specific compaction problems, this value may, in fact, represent a slightly too high value. The key sites here discussed provide values of about 0.0 mm/yr, and the Kattegatt and North Sea records give firm values around 1.0 ± 0.1 mm/yr. This data set is in deep conflict with the high rates proposed by the IPCC and satellite altimetry. The differences in rates can only be understood in terms of errors and mistakes. The true mean global eustatic component is likely to be found in the zone ranging from +2.0 mm/yr to ±0.0 mm/yr, and most probably in the lower half of this zone; i.e. within 1.0 – 0.0 mm/yr. The error was found to be in the satellite altimetry values for reasons of incorrect “corrections”
The only data set which hangs far above the others is the IPCC predictions. Those data, however, refer to assumptions and model out-puts, and are, by no means, anchored in observational facts. … [I]t is high time to abandon the idea of global isostatic adjustment, and to stop all kinds of GIA corrections of records of sea level changes (i.e. satellite altimetry, GRACE, tide gauges, etc.).


The reported rates exceeding 3 mm/year are based on models instead of direct observational measurements.  Echoing a 2015 paper from Beenstock et al., two more new papers (another by Mörner) indicate that observations (i.e., non-modeled, non-adjusted measurements from tide gauges from all over the world) of global sea level rise range somewhere between 0 and 1 mm/yr, or a few inches per century.

Beenstock et al., 2015

Using recently developed methods for nonstationary time series, we find that sea levels rose in 7 % of tide gauge locations and fell in 4 %. The global mean increase is 0.39–1.03 mm/year.

Mörner,  2016

Observational facts recorded and controllable in the field tell a quite different story of actual sea-level rise than the ones based on model simulations, especially all those who try to endorse a preconceived scenario of disastrous flooding to come. “Poster sites” like Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Kiribati in the Pacific have tide gauge stations indicating stable sea-level conditions over the last 20–30 years. The Maldives, Goa, Bangladesh, and several additional sites in the Indian Ocean provide firm field evidence of stable sea-level conditions over the last 40–50 years. Northeast Europe provides excellent opportunities to test regional eustasy, now firmly being set at +1.0 ± 0.1 mm/year. Other test areas like Venice, Guyana–Surinam, Qatar, and Perth provide a eustatic factor of ±0.0 mm/year. We now have a congruent picture of actual global sea-level changes, i.e., between ±0.0 to +1.0 mm/year. This implies little or no threat for future sea-level problems.

Parker and Ollier, 2016

Tide gauges provide the most reliable measurements, and best data to assess the rate of change. We show as the naïve averaging of all the tide gauges included in the PSMSL surveys show “relative” rates of rise about +1.04 mm/year (570 tide gauges of any length). If we consider only 100 tide gauges with more than 80 years of recording the rise is only +0.25 mm/year. This naïve averaging has been stable and shows that the sea levels are slowly rising but not accelerating. …The satellite altimetry returns a noisy signal so that a +3.2 mm/year trend is only achieved by arbitrary “corrections”.
We conclude that if the sea levels are only oscillating about constant trends everywhere as suggested by the tide gauges, then the effects of climate change are negligible, and the local patterns may be used for local coastal planning without any need of purely speculative global trends based on emission scenarios.

61 responses to “3 New Papers: Global Seas Now Rising About 2 Inches Per Century … Claims Of 1 Meter Rise By 2100 ‘Sheer Nonsense’”

  1. Dr Tim Ball-Climatologist

    My latest book, ‘Human Caused Global Warming, the Biggest Deception in History’.
    Available on Amazon and Indigo/Chapters.
    My SLAPP lawsuit to silence me comes to trial on Feb 20, 2017,
    Dr Michael Mann vs Dr Tim Ball.

    1. David Appell

      Tim Ball is not a climate science expert, and this has been admitted in a court of law.

      After the Calgary Herald published an op-ed by Ball on April 19, 2006, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, they published a letter on April 23, 2006 from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, who pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball’s credentials were being seriously overstated. Ball later threatened Johnson and the Herald and ultimately sued for defamation.

      In their Statement of Defense filed in Court, the Calgary Herald submitted the following:

      1. “…that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.

      2. “The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

      3. “The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

      4. “The Plaintiff’s credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

      5. “The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

      Ball dropped his lawsuit.

      Source: The Calgary Herald, Statement of Defense – paragraph 50, Dr Tim Ball v The Calgary Herald, In the Court of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary, Dec 7, 2006 (http://is.gd/brO4uO).

      1. Mindert Eiting

        Behavioral statistics of Appell’s visit on 6 December at time AM. Article 3 New Papers: 3.43, 3,52, 3.59, 4.00, 4.01. Always check the former article when he comes by, or Trump’s Election: 4.08, 4.17, 4.20, 4.22, 4.23, 4.24, 4.26. The comment to Ball must have taken 4.01 – 4.00 or less than one minute.

        1. David Appell

          Can’t refute what I wrong. Just as I suspected.

      2. AndyG55

        1.. That’s why he is trustworthy. He sees the scam.

        2.. That’s because all the warming comes from natural causes. How do you expect him to publish papers on something that doesn’t exist, unless he runs falsified models, of course.

        3. Irrelevant. He still knows far more that most of the “climate scientists™” who’s only claim is failed models.

        4. Absolutely irrelevant!… and also a big plus for his honesty. They only attack those they can’t argue against.. its the far-left way.

        5. Viewed by whom? Irrelevant again.

        Seem all you have is your usual irrelevant garbage..

      3. AndyG55

        And the “opinion” of the Calgary Herald… roflmao.

        .. so funny to see Appell’s absolute desperation.

        ZERO proof as always.

      4. yonason

        I’ve heard him speak, and I’ve read the crap you write.

        I’ll take what he says over your garbage any day of the week.

        1. David Appell

          yonason: Your agreement with Ball says nothing about his credentials, as they were submitted to court of law.

          Tim Ball is a climate nobody, and was throughout his career.

      5. Mindert Eiting

        My comment of 7.04 AM is still in moderation, Pierre, whereas it is factual only. In addition I should remark that mister A. usually works from bottom to top during his visits here. If you would pay a visit to Amsterdam you may wonder why in many corners of buildings there is a skewed aluminum plate fixed at a height of one meter. That’s not for decoration but an effective device making that if males urinate there, the result flows against their legs and into their shoes. Try to get a digital version for your site.

  2. Stephen Wilde

    Good luck, Tim.

    As a lawyer myself I know how nerve shredding it can be having to rely on judges.

    In the end they usually get it right but that doesn’t make the process any easier 🙂

  3. tom0mason

    Good luck Dr Ball.

    On sea level changes I have pointed out to AGW advocate who bluster on about this nonsense, if sea level are truly rising at an accelerating rate sure all harbors, quays, ports, piers, jetties etc would show evidence of this. People with beach-front businesses and property would have noticed it in the last 30 years or so.
    Also of note is that every navy in the world would be demanding funding to refit and modernize with protective structures their shipyard, etc.
    No. None of this is happening because seaman around the world do not see any acceleration in sea level rise.

    “Two of the longest continuous Australian tide gauge records are from Fremantle in Western Australia (92 years) and Fort Denison in New South Wales (83 years) indicate that the observed rate of sea-level rise relative to the land has been 1.38 mm/yr and 0.86 mm/yr respectively (see DPIWE 2004).”

    1. David Appell

      tom0mason wrote:
      “On sea level changes I have pointed out to AGW advocate who bluster on about this nonsense, if sea level are truly rising at an accelerating rate sure all harbors, quays, ports, piers, jetties etc would show evidence of this.”

      False. For God’s sake, false.

      Why would you expect all locales to show the same SLR, when they don’t all show the same tidal changes now??

      1. AndyG55

        NO, you are LYING through your pips again rotten-appell

        There is ZERO evidence of any sea level rise acceleration.

  4. John F. Hultquist

    The easiest ice to melt has already melted. The remaining ice will be more difficult to melt. Further, the rim of the bowl being filled is flared compared to the shape of the ocean basin during the last glacial advance. Thus, greater melt volume is needed to get the same elevation rise.

    Some folks just make stuff up. It’s called fiction.

    1. David Appell

      John F. Hultquist wrote:
      “The easiest ice to melt has already melted. The remaining ice will be more difficult to melt.”

      Why? Why right now, and now 5 yrs ago or 5 years from now?

  5. Paul Krupin

    I’ve got some coastal property for sale in Florida. Anyone interested?

    1. AndyG55

      Call Di Craprio.. he likes coastal property.

      Needs to be only 3-4″ about high tide level though.

    2. David Appell

      Paul Krupin wrote:
      “I’ve got some coastal property for sale in Florida. Anyone interested?”

      Increasingly, no.

      “Perils of Climate Change Could Swamp Real Estate,” NY Times, 11/24/16.

      1. AndyG55

        Even raising yourself to quote “science” from the NYT.

        roflmao !!

      2. AndyG55



        Big upgrade from your granny’s cellar.

    3. yonason

      I’m not in the least bit worried about sea level rise.

      And, even if sea level were to fall, living next to a potential hurricane landing strip would not appeal to me.

  6. P Gosselin

    Thanks Kenneth. I didn’t realize that there were so many new papers out there showing that the man-made global warming theory is flakey, as we always suspected it was. Your hard work over the past months is really opening some eyes.

  7. Tony Price

    Easy to check on what Mörner claims – download a few PSMSL series and plot them yourself. Any with current data will do, except Scandinavia and the Baltic, where GIA is raising the land. See if what you get agrees with his claims.

  8. John F. Hultquist

    I live at ~675 m. elevation and 100 miles east of the Pacific Ocean in Washington State so my property is safe. The nearest sea level is in the Puget Sound area. Tectonic forces are resulting in “the Puget Lowland being compressed and warped like an accordion.”

    See the last image on the page. Therefore, sea level data is hard to interpret and is not worrying. We do worry about a massive earthquake (9+) and an immediately following tsunami.

  9. David Appell

    You have overlooked that sea level rise is now accelerating.

    acc(Aviso) = 0.052 mm/yr2
    acc(CSU) = 0.034 mm/yr2

    And these accelerations are themselves increasing.

    Linear fits no longer suffice.

    1. AndyG55


      Oh really.. Appell.. now you are just getting STUPID.

      Those acceleration rates use the satellite series tacked onto the end of the tide series.

      A big no-no when they obviously have no correlation.

      Is your maths really that ABYSMAL that you accept that little piece of statistical farce ???????

      Oh.. we have seen your maths in action… so yes it is that ABYSMAL. !!

    2. tom0mason

      David Appell,

      These model may indeed be very accurate and may even be useful, given what they are asked to do. However what question do they answer?
      They patently do not give the answer that the very real observed data, observations that indicate sea-level rise is not accelerating as seen on this planet.

      In science it is usual for models to have methods validated (against mathematically reduced real physics, chemistry, etc.), and data verified against observations.
      Thus when a disparity between them is noted the observations are rechecked and when found to be OK, the model is determined to be at fault.

      If a thousand models come up with the same wrong answer it indicate that there are a thousand wrong models and not that observed reality is wrong. The models require more work as they are in error.

      Reality is the standard in real science, not the models.

  10. David Appell

    Pierre: How many times do you need to be proven wrong?

    Give me a number….

    1. P Gosselin

      The same as anyone else. And it takes only one person, and not a “consensus”.

      1. yonason

        As often as David Appell has been proven wrong, it’s really sad to see him challenging Pierre the way he does.
        RE David Appell’s claims of dramatic sea level rise.

        “As new data, MODELS and corrections (i.e., ADJUSTMENTS) become available, we continuously revise these estimates…” – U of Colorado (one of main perps in use of modeled “adjustments)

        What they do is model what they think should be happening, and adjust the data accordingly to give a fictitious rise in sea level.

        See also here for LOTS of info on why David Appell is more than just wrong.

    2. AndyG55

      From you that is hilarious, appell-worm.

      You are perpetually WRONG.

      It is your meme.

      It is who you are.

  11. tom0mason

    As always ChiefIO has looked at some of this before. Here the link, there are some stunning pictures in the comments.

  12. 3 New Papers: Global Seas Rising About 2 Inches Per Century - Principia Scientific International

    […] – See more at: notrickszone.com […]

  13. sod

    lowest arctic sea ice for tow months.


    But why look at facts, when you can simply keep quoting papers that support your believes?

  14. Brett Keane

    So, I take it that Appell is back on the green payroll, if he was ever off it?

  15. David Appell

    Why are you only looking at Greenland and Antarctica for sea level rise???

    It’s this kind of cherry picking that time and again shows your reality denier are fundamentally dishonest.