Sea Level Rise Rate Along Coast So Far Only About One Seventh Of IPCC Alarmist Projections!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

The time in running out for the purveyors of the “rapidly accelerating sea level rise” scare story.

Especially IPCC alarmist scientists like spreading scare stories about sea level rise, and how it’s accelerating.

So far global CO2 emissions have in fact continued to climb at a rate that is defined as the “business as usual” emissions scenario RCP8.5, which means a sea level rise of up to 97 cm by 2100, according to the most recent IPCC projections:

IPCC AR5 sea level rise for 4 different emissions scenarios. So far CO2 emissions have been on the worst case path.

Could even be 90 by 2060!

And some experts even suggest that sea level rise may occur even far more quickly. For example the Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System (PACIOOS) here wrote. “Recent observations and projections suggest that 3 feet (90 cm) or more of sea level rise could occur earlier than 2100 and even as early as year 2060.”

Meanwhile some time ago alarmist climate site Skeptical Science here wrote: “Overall, the range of projected sea level rise by 2100 is 75 to 190 cm.”

Of course, hysterical sites like Skeptical Science don’t publish anything without first injecting a good dose of hyperbole. So we will put them down for 1200 mm of sea level rise by 2100.

Gap between reality and IPCC about to become glaring

The following chart depicts the IPCC alarmists, like Skeptical Science, projection (1200 mm), the conservative IPCC AR5 business as usual estimate (800 mm), the projected linear trend of the satellite measurements trend (320 mm), and the projected trend of what the tide gauges –  i.e. where people actually live – have been observing (160 mm):

Observed data show no signs that sea levels are rising as quickly as IPCC models have been suggesting. IPCC alarmist scenarios are about 7 times higher than what is observed by tide gauges. Chart: notrickszone.com.

Acceleration not showing up in the observations

Naturally the alarmists always claim that the sea level rise rate will be modest at first, but that it will really begin to take off in a decade or two once the oceans warm and expand, and Greenland and Antarctica start to melt in earnest.

But there’s only one problem: So far there hasn’t been any noteworthy acceleration seen in neither the satellite data or tide gauge data.

Moreover, Greenland and Arctic ice volume have been increasing. And so has Antarctica. Of course we do see a paper from time to time with alarmist scientists statistically waterboarding some rate increase out of the sea level data, but almost always the increase gets traced back to natural variation.

Time is running out – for the alarmists

What’s clear is that we will certainly know what sea level rise is doing in 15 years, ca. 2033. by then the IPCC claimed acceleration should making its debut in earnest.

However, if the tide gauges don’t show some real, major acceleration by then, from 1.6 mm/year to say 4 mm/year, then it will be safe to say that any IPCC of over 70 cm was nothing but wolf-crying.

We’re watching carefully. The days of the sea level scare story are numbered.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

35 responses to “Sea Level Rise Rate Along Coast So Far Only About One Seventh Of IPCC Alarmist Projections!”

  1. spike55

    The HIGH probability of a slight cooling trend because of reduced SOLAR input and the turning of the AMO, would see increased land ice in the NH, and possibly even in the SH.

    This would slow or even cause sea levels to start falling slightly.

    It would be hilarious to watch the antics of the AGW scaremongers if that were to happen 🙂

    1. Yonason

      PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE

      Warmists. You need to come to terms with the fact that your “theory” is aging rapidly. You need to take steps to provide emergency support, if needed. What will you do, for instance, if sea levels or temperatures fall? Isn’t your beloved theory worth protecting a little longer.

      Act now. Forestall the inevitable as long as you can. You’ll be glad you did.

      1. spike55

        We already have one case of severe mental breakdown, as shown by our resident troll.

        Poor little fella is totally unable to back up anything to do with CO2 warming with any actual real science.

        And its really getting to him 🙂

        He keeps mouthing it, but its very obvious that he doesn’t really “believe” any more, otherwise he would make more attempt to actually support it.

        1. Yonason

          It appears that Google has heeded my public service announcement, even before I made it.
          https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/paul-wilson/2018/07/19/google-teams-un-create-climate-change-tracking-platform

          Well, it was a comm-UN sense** suggestion, so no surprise the propagandists among the Leftists, who are dedicated to getting us all to channel their nightmares, thought of something so Orwellian.

          I’m sure the chatbots of the world will be relieved that they will have an easier time pretending there’s a “consensus,” as soon as there’s an anti-Kenneth Richard out there whose work comes with a seal of approval from the foxes guarding the hen house.

          **(…or is that Commie UN-sense?)

  2. spike55

    “So far global CO2 emissions have in fact continued to climb at a rate that is defined as the “business as usual” emissions scenario RCP8.5”

    All this fuss and nonsense, and CO2 emissions have been hardly effected AT ALL.. Still going along merrily, with very little chance of any meaningful reduction for many decades, with Chine funding many coal fired power stations around the world.

    Climate alarmists like to compare “adjusted™” temperatures against RCP4.5, a massive cheat, of course, but even RCP4.5 looks totally sick against actual real temperature data, especially as slight cooling is predicted.

    https://s19.postimg.cc/hz5lgm6hv/biggestfail2.png

  3. Kurt in Switzerland

    no sustained acceleration, period.

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

    Read the abstract.

  4. Steve

    Bondi… highish tide today at 2.44pm and surf flat.
    So this will be good time to check water level. According to a certain T. Flannery ” there will be no sand at Bondi Beach and water will be up to the walkway”

    UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING !! anything to stop it.
    Well, a lot of folks have put solar on their roofs. Some are riding bikes or electric cars. Some are not even buying winter clothes on special.
    Report to follow…this is serious…stay tuned.

    1. spike55

      “and surf flat.”

      Merewether Beach, also on the Pacific Pond 🙂

      Rare to see just a 6″ shore break.

      Sand comes and goes but there has been no obvious SLR in a LONG time.

      Low tide, high tide, out the back of the Merewether pool they are still basically where they have been for ages.

      1. Steve

        ?? change of name to Lake Merry Weather

      2. Steve

        Spike,a good thing about a remotely possible sea level rise would mean that you would not have to walk over the coral at low tide at Tamarin Bay to get to the waves.

  5. Steven Fraser

    And, one might meekly ask… Where is the tropical hotspot, the ‘sine qua non’ of Anthropogenic warming?

  6. SebastianH

    So far global CO2 emissions have in fact continued to climb at a rate that is defined as the “business as usual” emissions scenario RCP8.5

    Wait what? RCP8.5 is not anything like “business as usual”, it’s basically a worst case doomsday scenario that we are definetly not on track of fullfilling.

    Acceleration not showing up in the observations

    Apparently you missed it when scientists published that study. Happened not too long ago … sea level rise is accelerating.

    Moreover, Greenland and Arctic ice volume have been increasing. And so has Antarctica.

    What the?!?!?!
    – Greenland ice mass might have increased a little bit last year, but ignoring the overall average loss per year is just crazy
    – Arctic ice volume variations do not influence the sea level
    – Antarctica is clearly losing mass as well … rapidly.

    Why are you trying to make up these things when they are so obviously wrong?

    1. spike55

      “– Antarctica is clearly losing mass as well … rapidly.”

      WRONG

      https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

      And the Arctic is purely in line with the AMO, which is why the alarmists are getting so desperate.

      There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE of nay human cause of the slight loss of Greenland mass since its peak mass only a couple of hundred years ago.

      There is ZERO-evidence of any sea level rise in tide data. NONE, in fact more likely it is decelerating

      https://s19.postimg.cc/4wrz7pcmb/Sea_leve_slowsPuls_2.jpg

      Changing data sets and adjustments to data are the cause of any Clayton’s acceleration.

      World-wide CO2 emissions are following RCP8.5

      Why are you DENYING that the “agenda” has had basically ZERO effect on slowing CO2 emissions?

      1. SebastianH

        WRONG

        https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

        I am actually glad that you guys keep posting the same old studies that have long been shown to be erroneous. Nope, the ice mass of Antarctica is shrinking. Fast: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y

        There is ZERO-evidence of any sea level rise in tide data. NONE, in fact more likely it is decelerating

        https://s19.postimg.cc/4wrz7pcmb/Sea_leve_slowsPuls_2.jpg

        Since you like NASA links:
        https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating

        World-wide CO2 emissions are following RCP8.5

        Proof it! How sure are you that the world will reach the ~42 Gt CO2 emissions in 2020? How sure are you that Nigeria will be home to 1.5 billion people by 2100?

        Why are you DENYING that the “agenda” has had basically ZERO effect on slowing CO2 emissions?

        Whatever you think the “agenda” is … compare the increase in CO2 emissions per year in this decade to the increases per year in the previous decade.

        1. spike55

          1. West Antarctic melt is ocean and volcanic driven
          NO HUMAN CAUSE

          2. Yes we know that are find ways to adjust the modelling to show acceleration.

          3. Basically ZERO effect in the EU, still increasing, USA reduction from change to gas, China, India increasing, 1000+ new coal fired power station, with 40% global increase in emissions.

          BUSINESS AS USUAL, seb

          Stop your petty DENIAL.

        2. Kenneth Richard

          Nope, the ice mass of Antarctica is shrinking.

          It’s shrinking in West Antarctica and gaining in East Antarctica, which encompasses 3/4ths of the continent. Why is East Antarctica gaining mass, SebastianH?

          Do you find it coincidental that the areas where West Antarctica is losing mass happens to be in areas where there is high geothermal flux? Or do you believe CO2 melts West Antarctic ice but leaves East Antarctica alone? If so, how does that work?

          About 2 dozen supporting papers can be found here:

          Heat Flux From Below Melts Ice Sheets, Drives Temperatures & CO2 Variations

          There is ZERO-evidence of any sea level rise in tide data. NONE, in fact more likely it is decelerating

          Pretty sure he meant sea level rise acceleration in the tide data, hence the use of the relative word “decelerating”.

          And he’s right.

    2. spike55

      There has been basically ZERO curtailment of world wide CO2 emissions, yet the temperatures are most likely to follow at, or below RCP2.6.

      Just like they followed Hanson’s lowest emissions scenario.

      That’s because CO2 has basically zero effect on temperatures.

  7. John F. Hultquist

    I have to agree with Sebastian on this:
    RCP8.5 is not anything like “business as usual”, it’s basically a worst case doomsday scenario

    For more on this, see
    It assumes the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions.
    https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/

    1. Yonason

      And he was calling us “pessimists.” LOL!

      1. SebastianH

        If you continue to use RCP8.5 predictions to determine that they do not match what we are observing, then yes … you are a pessimist. Since obviously, you believe we are in the RCP8.5 scenario.

        P.S.: Can someone finally repair the comment system on this blog? Who else has to retype his/her name and mail address every time they comment?

        1. spike55

          There has zero reduction in world CO2 emissions.

          That is business as usual. RCP8.5

          The world emissions are certainly not at the RCP2.6

          Which the temperatures are BELOW.

  8. John F. Hultquist

    I will add a note about another misunderstanding other than the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). Namely few folks seem to know what the Paris Climate Accord was about.
    Much is made of emissions statements. These are the intended “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs). { My bold.}

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intended_Nationally_Determined_Contributions

    While much has been written about the NDCs, they are not of much use nor indicative of what countries will do.
    In the last year or so clarity has come about the real interest of the Paris Accord, namely, intended wealth transfer.
    Read several reports about the Green Climate Fund to see what the many countries, and the UN, want. Obama agreed. Trump does not.

    1. tom0mason

      Further to what you say John F. Hultquist —

      Even the wannabe world rulers of the UN, are muddled in their thinking. The UN-IPCC says it’s not predictable…

      The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

      However they still assert that –

      This predictive capability is both a valuable test of model performance and a useful contribution in natural resource and economic management.

      In other words they wish to build on to an acknowledged unpredictable system a method by which to control the world’s natural resources and national economic management.

      1. John F. Hultquist

        I agree.
        Because most folks don’t get to this level of understanding about the United Nations they easily join the cult of global warming to save the planet.

  9. Steve

    My crude observations from yesterday clearly show there has been absolutely no sea level rise at Bondi Beach since 2007 and it could be said that it has fallen.

    1. spike55

      Was down at Cronulla for a whole day during summer

      All my old surfing buddies who still frequent the area say the sea level is indistinguishable from the 1970s

      1. SebastianH

        Anecdotal evidence over everything … how very skeptic of you 😉

        1. spike55

          Sydney tide gauge, 0.65mm/year,

          remove sinkage of 0.45mm/year

          leaves 0.2mm per/year…. WOW !!!!

          ACTUAL DATA. seb.. one day you will figure it out

          Speaking of data, have you found any measurements of CO2 causing warming, anywhere, anytime ?

          Or are you just LONELY and desperately seeking attention, as always.

          Or is your headless chook evasion/DENIAL routine still running flat out.

  10. Another Climate Model Fail; Sea Levels – CO2 is Life

    […] Source […]

  11. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #322 | Watts Up With That?
  12. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: July 30, 2018 - Master Resource

    […] US Coastal Sea Level Rise Rate So Far Only About 1/7 Of UN IPCC Projections […]

  13. Richard Treadgold

    You say:

    “So far global CO2 emissions have in fact continued to climb at a rate that is defined as the “business as usual” emissions scenario RCP8.5”

    I object to this description of RCP8.5, as it’s the most extreme scenario that might be imagined. Global coal use rises tenfold, we give up natural gas, population starts rising again (against the general consensus) and the ocean slows its absorption of CO2. It doesn’t match the real world. The business-as-usual scenarios are the lower ones, while 8.5 is a deliberately extreme version for academic comparison.

    I’ve just come across A Chemist in Langley that might interest you.

    1. Yonason

      I’d forgotten about him. Bookmarked. Thanks.

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

Close