New Scare Science: Global Sea Levels Rose A Staggering 3.1 Inches (1.42 mm/yr) During 1958-2014

Antarctica & Greenland Combined Added

0.59 Of An Inch To Sea Levels Since 1958

Graph Source: Grinsted et al., 2009

In a newly published paper, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of ~1.42 mm per year−1 (1.32 to 1.52 mm/yr−1) between 1958 and 2014, a 56-year span that directly coincides with an unprecedented rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Frederiske et al.,2018

“For the first time, it is shown that for most basins the reconstructed sea level trend and acceleration can be explained by the sum of contributors, as well as a large part of the decadal variability. The global-mean sea level reconstruction shows a trend of 1.5 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 over 1958–2014 (1σ), compared to 1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1 for the sum of contributors.”

This rate (which scores between the estimated sum of sea level rise contributors and a reconstruction from tide gauge and satellite measurements) is similar to the reconstructed rate for 1954-2003 (1.45 mm/yr−1) estimated by Dr. Simon Holgate (2007).

Holgate, 2007   

“The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”

Extrapolating the annual rate of rise over the 56-year period (1958-2014), global sea levels rose 7.95 centimeters (cm) in total, or 3.13 inches during the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) era.

Negligible Polar Ice Sheet Melt Contribution To Sea Level Rise Since 1958

Of those 7.95 cm, just 1.17 cm (0.46 of an inch) of meltwater was contributed by Greenland Ice Sheet in 56 years, and the Antarctic ice sheet contributed just 0.37 of a cm (0.13 of an inch).

1958-2014 Sea Level Rise Neither Unusual Or Unprecedented

If 3.1 inches of sea level rise over a 56-year span does not appear to be either alarming or unprecedented, perhaps it’s because they are indeed neither — especially when one considers longer-term contexts.

As Holgate (2007) summarizes above, the ~50-year global rate of sea level rise was substantially higher (2.03 mm/yr−1) during the first half of the 20th century (1904-1953) compared to the post-1950s period (1.45 mm/yr−1 1954-2003).

In other words, since the 1950s, global sea level rise has decelerated.

The 1920 to 1950 period had rates of rise that were either higher or rivaled the rates of the more recent decades (using satellite altimetry modeling [3.4 mm/yr−1 ]). In fact, when the anomalous decadal variability is removed, the fastest rates of sea level rise occurred during the 1920 to 1950 period.

Jevrejeva et al., 2008

The fastest sea level rise, estimated from the time variable trend with decadal variability removed, during the past 300 years was observed between 1920– 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.”

“The fastest sea level rise during the 20th century was between 1920 – 50 and appears to be a combination of peaking of the 60– 65 years cycle with a period of low volcanic activity (Jevrejeva et al., 2006; Church and White, 2006).”

Glacier Melt Contribution To Sea Level Rise Much Greater Before 1950

A graphical reconstruction featured in a new paper (Treat and Jones, 2018) affirms that the glacier melt percentage (and contribution to sea level rise) in the Canadian Arctic was significantly greater during most of the last several thousand years compared to the modern era.

Treat and Jones, 2018

“Rates of permafrost aggradation in peatlands generally increased after 3000 BP and were greatest between 750 and 0 BP, corresponding with neoglacial cooling and the Little Ice Age (LIA), respectively.”

The ice sheet  record for the 20th century also reveals that the glacier melt contribution to sea level rise was significantly greater during the 1920 to 1950 period than it has been since the ice melt contribution began decelerating (after the 1950s).

Gregory et al., 2013

Fernández-Fernández et al., 2017

“The abrupt climatic transition of the early 20th century and the 25-year warm period 1925–1950 triggered the main retreat and volume loss of these glaciers since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’. Meanwhile, cooling during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s altered the trend, with advances of the glacier snouts.”

By 1946, this glacier had retreated almost 90% of the total recorded between the LIA maximum (1868) and 2005. … Just as in the glaciers described above, the retreat of the Eastern Tungnahryggsjökull from its LIA position was more intense during the first half of the 20th century, and in 1946 its snout was only 200 m from its current position.”

4 New Papers: Sea Levels Were Much Higher Than Now In Past Millennia

As the introductory global sea level graph above and several dozen sea level reconstructions published in scientific journals every year (2016 and 2017) demonstrate, global sea levels were about 1 to 3 meters higher than they are now during the Middle Holocene, or when CO2 concentrations were significantly lower (~270 parts per million).

These non-correlations between sea level rise and CO2 concentration would not appear to be consistent with the popular conceptualization that CO2 concentration variations are significant drivers of temperatures, glacier melt, and/or sea level rise.

After all, the 3.1 inches of sea level rise since 1958 does not even fall outside the range of natural variability.

He et al., 2018

Cooper et al., 2018

“With sea level stabilization a few metres above the present around 5.5 ka cal yr BP (Hein et al., 2016), the longshore drift system was reestablished and sediment accumulation in the littoral zone recommenced.”

Miguel et al., 2018

Hallman et al., 2018

56 responses to “New Scare Science: Global Sea Levels Rose A Staggering 3.1 Inches (1.42 mm/yr) During 1958-2014”

  1. SebastianH

    These non-correlations between sea level rise and CO2 concentration would not appear to be consistent with the popular conceptualization that CO2 concentration variations are significant drivers of temperatures, glacier melt, and/or sea level rise.

    You have all this data available and yet you come to this strange conclusion? Since when does sea level correlate with CO2? It correlates with temperature (land ice melt and thermal expansion) and different things can cause temperature changes. One thing being an increase in greenhouse gases. They are decreasing the outgoing energy transfer until a new balance with higher surface temperatures is achieved. And that is basically the explanation why temperature won’t correlate 1:1 with CO2 concentration either. Even if the concentration could be fixed on 400 ppm for the next 100 years, it would still cause increasing temperatures. I have a feeling you still don’t quite understand that mechanism and that’s why you come up with these silly arguments. Right or wrong?

    1. AndyG55

      “Even if the concentration could be fixed on 400 ppm for the next 100 years, it would still cause increasing temperatures. I have a feeling you still don’t quite understand that mechanism and that’s why you come up with these silly arguments.”

      What a total load of imaginary twaddle and mindless balderdash

      Poor seb, STILL doesn’t understand that his so-called mechanism is a load of anti-science tosh.

      … and he STILL can’t produce any actual empirical science to prove CO2 causes warming of our atmosphere or of our oceans what-so-ever.

      Poor little child-mind lives in a la-la-land of non-science, brain-washed fairy-tales.

      1. SebastianH

        Aren’t you getting tired of this rants/tantrums of yours? But I give you a thumbs up for your creative language, it’s always a joy to read your replies 😉

        1. AndyG55


          Empty As always.. Poor seb.

          Where’s some of this actual SCIENCE you always rant about having?

          So far…. missing in non-action. !!

          You STILL haven’t produced any actual empirical science to prove CO2 causes warming of our atmosphere or of our oceans.

          Off you go, back to la-la-fantasy land.

          1. SebastianH

            I am not the one ranting here, AndyG55 😉

            It’s not my job to produce anything for you, I am just a commentator on a strange blog. It’s your job to not blend out the evidence that is out there and come out of your bubble (or la-la-fantasy land if you prefer that term) …

          2. AndyG55

            Still NOTHING from seb.

            No science, no facts, ZERO content

            You have presented ZERO EVIDENCE.

            It is beyond your capability.

            Just the usual EMPTY fantasy non-science we have all come to expect.

          3. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Yes, SebH, we are getting VERY tired of your telling us there is evidence, but refusing to show it; and of your telling us there is a mechanism, but never telling us what you think it is.Your preaching is getting tiresome, which is probably your primary intent.

            Now for the umpteenth time, please have the courtesy to tell us what you think it is. If you can’t, then you have no grounds to complain about being treated with the same contempt you show to us.

          4. SebastianH

            So why is it that AndyG55 has to “provide sources” to support what he writes, but you don’t have to support what you claim when you write?

            I should provide a source for this?
            “Aren’t you getting tired of this rants/tantrums of yours? But I give you a thumbs up for your creative language, it’s always a joy to read your replies”

            O-k … weird, but I guess since I said this, I am the source.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            I should provide a source for this?

            Is it possible you didn’t realize that you are asked to provide a source for claims like the following…?

            The Alarmism of SebastianH

            SebastianH: “Regarding extinction of species, why do you think 30,000 species lost per year is a big number? We are already at or over that rate.”

            SebastianH: “They [marine species] might be able to adapt, but not at the speed acidification is happening.”

            Desertification. roflmao…. satellites show the opposite happening [greening].

            SebastianH: “[C]an you please point to the satellite data that shows what you claim is true? I can only find data for increasing desertification.”

          6. AndyG55

            “the evidence that is out there “

            WHAT EVIDENCE.?????

            You are avoiding posting any. !!

            You have NONE. !

          7. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Glad to help the chatbot by providing the link I posted in response to his desertification claim.

            It took longer to post the response than it did to find it online, which shows that SebH (AS USUAL) didn’t even try.

  2. Bitter&twisted

    Pleased to see you back, Seb.
    Your contributions always give me a good laugh.
    PS what did you think of President Trump’s SOTU speech?
    I particularly liked his emphasis on the dangers of climate change 😉

    1. SebastianH

      I’d hate if my comments made you cry, so I guess that’s a good thing.

      As I am not a U.S. citizen I haven’t watched this or any other state of the union speech. I’ve read about it and the fact checking sites got something to do again … and I’ve seen that Trump claims that it was the biggest (TV) audience in history ever or something like that, also not true at all.

      So what did he say about climate change? Nothing or perhaps something like this:

      This guy is clueless and he shows it every time he opens his mouth and not reads from a teleprompter or writes something on Twitter 😉

      1. AndyG55

        Poor Seb

        SOUR, BITTER and LOSING. !!

        And yes, you ARE clueless.

        And you are proud of it, displaying your cluelessness with every post.

        Trump has actual real scientists to guide him around the leftist climate-change propaganda.

        There is about as much evidence for AGW, as you have produced.

        ie… NOTHING, NADA… EMPTY

        1. SebastianH

          I had real trouble keeping the coffee in my mouth reading that comment of yours … hilarious reply! You are getting better with every comment.

          Keep up the effort to make skeptics look bad 😉

          1. AndyG55

            Empty seb.

            ZERO EVIDENCE.!!

            You make 3 toed sloth look good. !

        2. yonason (from my cell phone)

          Note, Andy, how the chatbot just, ahem, “borrows” our conclusions about him, and uses them against us without any accompanying proof. It’s a leftist technique to try to make their critics look bad: mere evidence-free assertions. Typical leftist distracting from his own deficiencies by accusing others of those same deficiencies. Tiresome, boorish, overgrown petulant children.

          His only “proof” that we are wrong is that we don’t agree with him or his activist heroes. He keeps blathering about “the science,” with narry an example, and of “mechanism,” when referring to a concept that would make Rube Goldberg blush. “Science” my foot! I can’t help be reminded of that oft-used meme…

  3. tom0mason

    Oh dear the cAGW alarmist argument fall apart again when the evidence is properly looked at instead of just believing some sort of computer modeled planet.

    1. AndyG55

      When you build a whole anti-scientific religion on the quicksand foundation of CO2 warming, no amount of slush-funding, data-bending and brain-wash propaganda can stop it collapsing eventually.

      1. tom0mason

        Hi AndyG55,

        I think you would enjoy seeing this graphic from R Clutz bogpost…

        Puts the whole idea of the planet overheating into perspective wouldn’t you say?
        more at —

        1. AndyG55

          Yep, the oceans are cooling as the transient of the El Nino and N. Atlantic blob subsides.

          You can see the La Nina tongue quite clearly.


          UAH has a NEGATIVE anomaly for the Tropics for January 2018. (-0.12ºC)

          Only place with any of the El Nino warm anomaly left is the Arctic, in mid winter. !

    2. SebastianH

      If only you guys would be able to properly look at anything instead of only re-enforcing what you already are convinced to be the truth.

      1. AndyG55

        If only you could support ANYTHING you said with even the slightest bit of real science. !!

        But you CAN’T.

        You remain an EMPTY sad sack.

      2. yonason (from my cell phone)

        We’ll be happy to consider anything that the data support.

        So the ball is in your court. SHOW US THE DATA!

        I.e., PUT UP, OR SHUT UP! The

  4. AndyG55
    1. AndyG55

      This makes Jan 2018 the 10th warmest January in the UAH data.

      For the tropics, January 2018 is the =20th warmest January (out of 40)

      SH: Jan 2018 is in 17th place

      NH: the Arctic warm from the El Nino is still yet to fully subside. January 2018 is in 5th place.

      1. SebastianH

        It was the sixth warmest Januar in Germany since 1881. Maybe this month P Gosselin won’t post something from Mr. Kowatsch as his “it’s getting colder” theme doesn’t work anymore 😉

        1. AndyG55

          Go live in Siberia if you don’t like the warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

          You really are getting DESPERATE, aren’t you, seb.

          zero steps forward.. 10 steps back.. the story of your time here.


          1. SebastianH

            Classy reply …

          2. tom0mason

            That Ok AndyG55, in the next couple of weeks people in Europe will be hoping for some evidence of global warming.

          3. yonason (from my cell phone)

            I’ve got the chatbot’s “science” right here…

            ” Back in 2009, a conference of British “eco-psychologists” argued that “climate change denial” should be classified as a form of “mental disorder” — a notion cheered on by American progressives.

            In 2012, a professor of sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon addressed a major international science conference in London with a message that any “resistance” to the man-made climate change theory “must be recognized and treated.”

            In 2014 Psychology Today published an article by a “therapist turned advocate” who listed symptoms of climate-change denial to help identify this “disorder,” and thought that her job was to induce climate-change-related terror and anxiety in her patients who didn’t already exhibit these conditions, openly bragging about breaking the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm.” “

        2. AndyG55

          “Classy reply …”

          Fits the person aimed at.

          seb, the big empty.

  5. jackson

    I note at the PSMSL site they have just one paper about sea level- the Church and White that ‘found’ the acceleration and more importantly confirmed the climate model.
    I know there are many papers that say different— no acceleration.
    But there is the one cherry that got picked and it’s the only one paper that’s mentioned at the government site.
    If one wanted to make the case the ‘science’ is being run by propagandists instead of scientists at the moment, I would suggest that would one of a number of ‘smoking guns’.

  6. Steve

    I don’t care if sea levels go up or down by 29 meters either way.

  7. Bewildered Scientists…A Global Warming Crisis Fails To Appear: Sea Level Rise Grinds To A Crawl | Newsfeed - Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated like many climate warming scientists warned earlier. The reality is that the rise is far slower than expected, read here and here. […]

  8. Casey

    What amuses me about all of these stories is that when you point out something counter to the GW Myth they yell “Correlation does not mean causation”

    Yet they never say it to themselves and hate it when you do to their blathering.

  9. Do Politicians ever listen? | windfarmaction

    […] The current average rate of sea level rise is thought to be about six inches per century, with negligible rate change in recent times as man-made CO2 emissions have risen, and with this renowned expert saying the […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy