New Paper: Extreme Sea Level Rise Is A ‘Non-Existent Threat’ Based On ‘Never Validated’ Models

Extreme sea level rise warnings based on predictions by never validated models, or speculations, that are defocusing coastal management from every other relevant situation, should be discharged.” — Parker, 2018


Parker, 2018

Sea level oscillations in Japan and China since the start of

the 20th century and consequences for coastal management

“Regionally, the sea levels in the PRD [Pearl River Delta, China] region and Japan show no significant acceleration from 1900 to present, but only oscillations. This result is consistent with the other coastal area of the world where long-term tide gauges are located. Policy making, and management, should therefore focus on adaptive measures linked to the monitoring by tide gauges and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) of relative sea level rise and land subsidence. Extreme sea level rise warnings based on predictions by never validated models, or speculations, that are defocusing coastal management from every other relevant situation, should be discharged.”
[T]he long-term tide gauges of the world show no significant sign of sea level acceleration since the start of the 20th century.”
“Ocean and coastal management in the area should be based on the accurate monitoring of the relative sea level rise and the subsidence of the land by coupled tide gauge and Global Navigation Satellite System measurements, rather than models’ predictions and speculations defocusing coastal management from more relevant situations than the non-existent threat of extreme sea level rise.”

53 responses to “New Paper: Extreme Sea Level Rise Is A ‘Non-Existent Threat’ Based On ‘Never Validated’ Models”

  1. Timo Soren

    I do like the quote “…should be discharged.”

    Each subject area has its diction but I think
    this line sounds like the discharging of effluent.

    Seems so appropriate.

  2. SebastianH

    IPCC SR15 chapter 3.4.4.8:

    Mean sea level is increasing (Section 3.3.9) with substantial impacts already being felt by coastal ecosystems and communities (high agreement, robust evidence).

    And in regards to the future from the summary:

    By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). Sea level will continue to rise well beyond 2100 (high confidence), and the magnitude and rate of this rise depends on future emission pathways.

    The paper is paywalled and I can’t find it anywhere else so no chance to actually read the paper, but:

    “[T]he long-term tide gauges of the world show no significant sign of sea level acceleration since the start of the 20th century.”

    So the author is saying that the current acceleration or rise in sea level is no different than at the start of the 20th century, right?

    Hmm: https://imgur.com/a/yySyvp2

    And http://www.climatedata.info/impacts/sea-levels/

    Well, it is. He should have used the short 1940 or 1950s periods as a comparison. Current rise rate seems to be similar to those times, but not the start of the 20th century.

  3. Penelope

    Timo, yes, it’s a lovely understated phrase that lends itself to sweet interpretations. For me, it summoned visions of the discharging of the corrupt ones who knowingly support such effluent.

    Ahh, one can dream.

  4. Penelope

    I suppose if people are going to quote IPCC as an authority one might indicate at least one of the reasons for its lack of credibility:

    Bernie Lewin has written SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL: the early history of the IPCC. It has largely been forgotten how great was the scientific furore against the greenhouse gas warming theory at IPCC’s inception.

    Judith Curry here writes an overly-long & detailed book report https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/

    Among much other she quotes Frederick Seitz WSJ editorial of June 12, 1996:

    “This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be—it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the NAS and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

    Seitz goes on to cite statements sceptical of any human attribution which were changed or deleted. A few of his examples of the deleted passages:

    ‘None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.’
    ‘No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [manmade] causes.’
    ‘Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.’

  5. Yonason

    Looks like the author is cognizant of the fact that we should not divert our precious limited resources to dealing with imaginary problems conjured up in the demented greenie imagination, thereby preventing real problems from being solved.

    It’s the same strategy the Democrats are using, demanding investigations into the imaginary crimes of their opponents, thereby preventing their own very real crimes from being investigated and ultimately punished.

    1. Yonason

      CASE IN POINT

      “Only government intervention in the free market will enable Britain to meet its carbon emissions reductions obligations”
      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/10/11/delingpole-meet-the-green-wonk-who-is-ready-to-ruin-britain/

      Putting a contrived obligation to meet an imaginary threat ahead of reality is the real threat to freedom and prosperity.

      1. SebastianH

        Nope, that is the difference between European thinking and US thinking. We try to prevent stuff from happening by doing the shit-preventing stuff before we do something. The US has a different principle, you guys let people do all kinds of things and once shit happens they have to be ready to clean up after them …

        Those not living in your bubble are not ready to let shit hit the fan on the off chance that it might slip through the blades unharmed because we were completely wrong about the physics of everything and should have listened to blog experts before implementing such “costly” countermeasures and changes to our power supply.

    2. SebastianH

      Looks like the author is cognizant of the fact that we should not divert our precious limited resources to dealing with imaginary problems conjured up in the demented greenie imagination, thereby preventing real problems from being solved.

      That was a real good one. It’s you guys who make up dealing with climate change the center of your attention ignoring all the other problems. You imagine up that those who you argue against are out to de-industrialize the world and send us back to live in huts. One world government level of craziness. And that the precious power grid in Germany would get destroyed by all the unreliable renewables (ignoring that France experiences blackouts 4 times as long as Germany per customer and you don’t even want to get started about the US, where blackouts get actually measured in hours). And so on …

      If you just would focus on the real problems. Like healtcare, enough care workers (is that the right word?), preventing poverty in retirement, a good education for everyone and so on. But no, climate change policies by foreign countries freak you out enough to make it the center of your attention 😉

      It’s the same strategy the Democrats are using, demanding investigations into the imaginary crimes of their opponents, thereby preventing their own very real crimes from being investigated and ultimately punished.

      Is that a reference to the Nancy Pelosi video spike55 posted a while ago? Still think she was talking about what she does herself? *sigh*

      You seem to be a black and white thinking Republican then. Is that correct?

      And why do you mention crimes? Do you think climate scientists are criminal and need to go to jail or punished otherwise? For what? I am asking rethorically, you probably think everyone needs to be punished for the scam/hoax they are in on, right? If so, why are you simultanously posting podcasts about totalitarian science? You are trying to suppress everything that doesn’t conform to your weird opinion. Have you ever entertained the thought that you could be wrong? And then what? Do we need to punish you too for all the stuff you expressed to be real but aren’t?

      You are really weird, Yonason.

      1. Kurt in Switzerland

        Whole lotta projection goin’ on here, methinks.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle

    Sea level also has a clear signal due to the ~60 year cycle.

    This graph of the AMO and PDO shows where we are in the cycle and what to expect in the near future. I’ve scaled the PDO data to be on a similar basis to the AMO – they use different metrics for their indices.

    As you can see the PDO is not quite in synch with the AMO cycle, but has started to turn down. The AMO is still at its plateaux. When they both are in their down cycles I expect sea level rise will stop and quite possibly reverse.

    1. Yonason

      So, CO2 is what’s causing the AMO? Who knew! //SARC//

  7. SebastianH

    When they both are in their down cycles I expect sea level rise will stop and quite possibly reverse.

    You expect this to change into a downward slope?
    http://www.climatedata.info/impacts/sea-levels/files/stacks-image-4fdf1c4.gif

    Even though thermal expansion due to rising temperatures and heat content is clearly not a cyclical thing?

    But ok, we’ll see I guess. In what timeframe do you expect us seeing sea level to stop rising? 10 year? 20 years? 30 years? Willing to do a longbet on this prediction?

  8. Kurt in Switzerland

    Keith,

    You should be nominated for sainthood.
    Your friend Seb gave up a promising career in dancing – specialty: the sidestep.

    Big picture: there exists no detectable ‘human signal’ in the sea level rise rate.

    Exhortations of an ever-increasing sea level rise rate (the definition of sustained acceleration) do not help it materialize. Data (and only data) should be consulted to determine whether what Climate Scientists have been predicting for the past three decades is actually transpiring.

    Funny thing: the data have failed to cooperate.

    This, Seb, is why rational individuals (with a modicum of scientific acumen, but without a vested interest in the climate scare) doubt the dire IPCC SPM proclamations as well as the proscribed recipe for freeing ourselves from Climate Armageddon: the droning drumbeat about our need to “decarbonize”.

    It is a reality-challenged religion. And you appear to be not only a “Believer”, but more importantly, a “missionary”.

    One day, hopefully, you will realize that you have been duped. For your sake, I do hope this comes before your 40th birthday.

    1. Yonason

      “Funny thing: the data have failed to cooperate.” – Kurt in Switzerland

      Very simply explained, Kurt. Reality is not supported by the “data” (adjusted, model generated, cherry picked, etc).

    2. SebastianH

      How old are you Kurt? Can we meet up in 30 years and laugh about past times and how silly those skeptic bubble websites were who believed in strange things without a scientific basis for the sake of being against the establishment or something like that?

      The next decades will hopefully finally put an end to the so called skeptic thing. They’ll pivot to something else, but at some point, even you guys can not explain away what is happening. Waiting for that moment seems to be the only way to “convince” you.

      1. John Brown

        We should all try never to lose our skepticism.
        That should include you SebH, you who are claiming that your are the true skeptic here. But you are asking to lose the skeptic thing!

        Is that your true color?

        Why would we give up the basis of scientific endeavor and in favor of what? Scientific baloney of the willingly uneducated?
        Never!

        1. SebastianH

          We should all try never to lose our skepticism.

          I am not advocating that anyone should do that. Since you guys want to be called skeptics, I am calling you guys skeptics even though I know that your skepticism is very one-sided and based on falsehoods or misunderstandings. Thus “put an end to the so called skeptic thing” doesn’t mean one should stop being skeptical.

          The rest of your comment is based on that misunderstanding, so I won’t reply to that.

          1. John Brown

            SebH,

            so let me get this straight, you know most here are wrong and hence their skepticism is not a “true” one, but one-sided and not based on facts?

            Would this mean you are in a position to judge wrong from right then? You know the only truth and can make decisions of what is wrong?

            Would you agree that the skepticism should start with ones own ability? And would you not better start with some self-reflection of your own abilities?
            In the wide fields of climate science, physics, mathematics, statistic, energy industry, energy markets, sustainability and environmental questions would you:
            a) think there is someone with the ability to be an expert in all these at the same time
            b) think you are an expert in and have the necessary knowledge and qualifications to have something more than just your personal opinion?

            It looks like at least we agree that one should stay skeptical.

            And my personal opinion is that there is not enough evidence out there, that humans have a vast impact on the Earth climata, nor any telling signs that CO2 is a main driver for climate changes.

  9. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #331 | Watts Up With That?

Leave a Reply

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