We’ve all heard the question. We point out there is no evidence that current climate changes, whether man-made or natural, are dangerous or unusual. Then we are asked, but “What about sea level rise? Isn’t that dangerous?” There are many very good technical arguments why the current rate of sea level rise will not threaten humans, New York City, Miami, or Tuvalu. These are urban legends that spawn from silly IPCC models as explained by Ole Humlum in Chapter 10 of our latest book (Crok & May, 2023). How are these myths dismissed quickly in clear language? This is my best attempt in ~600 words. Let me know how I did.
The current rate of global sea level rise is below the accuracy of our current ability to measure it as discussed in Kip Hansen’s Chapter 5 in Crok & May. Figure 1 shows three respected estimated rates. The sea levels are shown as reported and they have different zero points. The Jevrejeva, et al. estimate in blue is 2 mm/year (± ~0.3), the one below that is the Church and White estimate of 1.7 (± ~0.3) mm/year. These estimates are both from tide gauges, although the Jevrejeva estimate does try and include the satellite data from 1993 to 2009. Due to the overlap of the author’s estimates of uncertainty, the two estimates are statistically equivalent.
Figure 1. Three respected estimates of the rate of sea level rise in mm/year. Sources: (Jevrejeva, Moore, Grinsted, Matthews, & Spada, 2014), (Church & White, 2006), and (Beckley, Callahan, Hancock, Mitchum, & Ray, 2017). Jevrejeva, 2014 only discusses their reconstruction through 2009, so they do not include the sudden rise in 2010 shown in their dataset.
The lower estimate, shown in gray, uses all the NASA satellite data since 1993. It shows a rate of 3.3 mm/year (Beckley, Callahan, Hancock, Mitchum, & Ray, 2017). The satellite record is too short to be meaningful, we need at least 60 more years of data before we can derive a meaningful rate from satellites. The satellite data only covers the upward part of a ~60-year cycle or oscillation that began in 1991.
Global mean sea level has been rising for the past 170 years, but the rate is cyclical. The cycle shows up prominently in Figure 1 from about 1930 to 1991 in the Jevrejeva et al. reconstruction. It is also seen, albeit in a more subdued fashion, in the Church and White reconstruction. Thus, any estimate of the rate of rise based on a reconstruction (satellite or tide gauge or combined) that is shorter than 90-120 years is erroneous. Sea level fell during the Little Ice Age until about 1861 when it began to rise.
All the rates (since 1900) are projected to 2100 in the upper left box and show sea level rises between 5 and 10 inches by 2100. These increases are much less than the average daily tidal range of over one meter. Such a small rise in 76 years is unlikely to be noticed. It should be noted here that sea level is not the same in all oceans as one might expect. In Panama, sea level is 20 cm (~8 inches) higher on the Pacific side of the country than on the Atlantic/Caribbean side, this is about the global sea level rise expected between now and 2100. Even more important, the tidal range on the Pacific side is much larger than on the Caribbean side.
Measuring global mean sea level is made extraordinarily difficult by the changes in mean sea level from ocean to ocean and the related changes in the daily tidal range. Jevrejeva points out that tide gauges are confined to continental and island margins and most of them are in the Northern Hemisphere, the tide gauge records don’t all cover the same time period, and they are attached to land that sometimes rises and falls itself. Jevrejeva points out that it is not easy to combine the various records into a single global sea level curve.
In a like fashion, any estimate of acceleration in the rate with any of this data, or any combination of it, is little more than a guess. Polynomial fits to all these series can show some acceleration, but the fit to the polynomials is statistically no different than a linear fit to the same data.
As many of my regular readers know, I often throw ideas out there for comment. I want to know what the best arguments against my ideas are. Or did I miss a better argument? So positive or negative, give me your best shot. Am I right, or wrong? Is there a better argument than what I’ve offered?
Works Cited
Beckley, B. D., Callahan, P. S., Hancock, D. W., Mitchum, G. T., & Ray, R. D. (2017). On the “cal-mode” correction to TOPEX satellite altimetry and its effect on the global mean sea level time series. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 122, 8371–8384. doi:10.1002/2017JC013090
Church, J. A., & White, N. J. (2006). A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33. doi:10.1029/2005GL024826
Crok, M., & May, A. (2023). The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, An Analysis of AR6. Andy May Petrophysicist LLC.
Jevrejeva, Moore, J., Grinsted, A., Matthews, A., & Spada, G. (2014). Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807. Global and Planetary Change, 113, 11-22. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.12.004
The emergence of the Isthmus of Panama, starting around 5Ma, due to uplift of the Caribbean plate was a major event in Earth’s recent climate history. It altered the depth of cyclic glaciation, which resulted in oceans being 138m deeper than the present level 23,000 years ago. This article looks at the cycles that drive the climate trends that create glaciation and interglacials. Chart 1 provides the reconstructed temperature history based on EPICA Dome C and the Spratt 800kyr sea level reconstruction over the past 800kyr.
Chart 1 also shows the top of the atmosphere (ToA) solar electro-magnetic radiation (EMR) for July at 15N (left hand scale). The basic frequency of the solar EMR is 23kyr corresponding to what is termed Earth’s axial precession cycle, which is modulated by eccentricity of the orbit around the sun and axial obliquity, Over the last 1Myr, eccentricity has exhibited a period of 89kyr and obliquity a period of 39kyr.
Fourier Transform of Temperature and Sea level Histories
Fourier transformation of time based data transforms the data from the time domain to the corresponding frequency domain to tease out the significant cyclic components in the data. Chart 2 displays the frequency components inherent in the change in sea level for the sea level shown in Chart 1.
There are three period peaks in the frequency domain. The two shorter periods, 23.3kyr and 39.4kyr align reasonably well with precession and obliquity cycles. The peak at 102.3kyr is a little longer than the period of eccentricity in the present era. It is noted here that the time interval for the sea level data is 1kyr with 512 data points so the resolution for longer periods is quite poor.
Chart 3 provides the frequency domain for the change in temperature for the temperature data displayed in Chart 1.
Again the periods for eccentricity and obliquity are clearly apparent. The longer period merges into a broad spectrum of lower relative amplitude.
It is worth noting here that when a higher frequency signal is being modulated by lower frequencies, the resultant signal will have side bands created by the modulation. Table 1 sets out the sidebands for a carrier of 23kyr being modulated by 39kyr and 89kyr.
The temperature data exhibits sideband periods of lower relative amplitude than the three dominant cycles and close to the expected periods for the sidebands.
Combining both the temperature and sea level data into a scatter plot as in Chart 4 is used to correlate the two variables.
The regression coefficient of 72% for the polynomial fit indicates good correlation. The best fit occurs when sea level lags temperature by 5kyr. This aspect is covered in more detail later. It is noted here that the assessed temperature range covers 14C.
Frequency Domain for Solar EMR Data
Given that orbital cycles are clearly apparent in the historical temperature and sea level records, it should be possible to gain insight into the process of glaciation by examining how ToA solar radiation varies across the Northern Hemisphere. Panel 1 provides a series of frequency domain transforms for the solar signal at nominated latitudes and time of year as well as certain combinations nominated in the chart title. A section of the time domain data is shown overlaying each chart. These charts are based on 1Mkyr of data at 500 year intervals.
The top panel shows the dominance of the precession cycle in solar EMR in July at 15N. Truncating this data as shown in the second panel brings out the lower frequency modulation. Then integrating the truncated data amplifies the lower frequency component as shown in the third chart.
The fourth chart in the panel looks to the frequency components in the solar EMR for December at 65N. Here the obliquity component dominates and the sidebands of the precession cycle are also evident. The bottom panel combines the July 15N and December 65N to produce obliquity and precession components of similar amplitude to those observed in the sea level and temperature histories.
This panel provides guidance on how the solar EMR from various northern latitudes can be combined to resemble the frequency components of historical data for climate change.
Detailed Observation of Termination of Interglacials
Having assessed that Earth’s orbit plays a significant role in glacial cycles it is useful to consider what circumstances applied during the termination of previous interglacials. A question pertinent to the present time.
The above analysis indicates that there is a combination of factors that give rise to glaciation. Further observation revealed that one possible combination is the July solar EMR at 15N being above a certain threshold to provide atmospheric moisture along with sufficient September EMR at 65N to sustain the atmospheric moisture while the land cools below freezing. The latter produces an enabling window as depicted in Chart 5.
The termination window can be envisaged as an essential advection component at high latitude where the July solar EMR at 15N is not sufficient alone to have enough moisture in the atmosphere but has to be supported by high moisture being sustained into September.
Panel 2 looks at eight previous interglacial terminations applying the notion of a termination window as shown in Chart 5 in combination with July solar EMR being above 443W/m^2. Temperature and moisture curves use the left hand scale in (m) and (C ) and the July solar above threshold, the right hand scale in (W/m^2).
In chart A of the panel, the window opens at the same time the solar is higher than the threshold and sea level begins to fall. In chart B, the sea level started to fall in year -696kyr but the window closed and the sea level rose despite the July solar at 15N being well above the threshold; essentially ice accumulation was advection limited. In Panel C, the window opened while the July solar was declining but still above the threshold enabling sea level to fall. Panel D has false starts while the window is open but the July solar is too low. Sea level began to fall as soon as the July solar exceeded the threshold.
In Panel E the July solar is low and similar to the present time but the sea level is almost 12m higher than present as well as the temperature being correspondingly higher. The window is open and there is a false start at -404kyr while the July solar is reducing but the solar does not fall below the threshold enabling the sea level to decline from -400kyr but then levels out until the July solar begins to increase at -395kyr.
The temperature generally remains high until accumulation begins and then drops faster to its minimum than the sea level to its cycle minimum. The temperature remains close to its minimum once the sea level is 40m below the zero datum while sea level descends further at each upswing of the July solar.
Chart 6 presents the same data as the charts in Panel 2 but for the present time with projections based on now rising July solar and the termination window being open. July solar EMR will be above the threshold within 2000 years. There will need to be a substantial increase in land ice extent before the sea level falls at the projected rate. The temperature forecast is based on the sea level correlation from Chart 2 and the sea level projection is based on the rising July solar as correlated to the circumstances after -395kyr in chart E of Panel 2. The termination that began 395ka had a false start soon after the termination window opened but then recovered before a second false start 400ka but sea level did decline to the zero datum before the July solar reached the threshold and the decent accelerated from 395ka. It is likely Greenland was able to increase ice extent over the 5,000 years from 400ka to 395ka despite the July solar being lower than the threshold.
An important observation with regard the end of glacial episodes is that sea level begins ascending when the July solar starts to increase from its minimum. The solar intensity can be well below the solar intensity needed to initiate glaciation. This implies that there is a limiting factor to the amount of ice the land can carry before glacier calving cools the ocean sufficiently to slow the water cycle and the rising sea level accelerates the calving and mobility of large icebergs that were grounded before the sea level started to rise.
Further Observations & Conclusions
In terms of geological time, modern glacial/interglacial cycles are very short but in terms of human lifespan they can be observed as trends. The axial precession cycle that drives the cycle of glaciation is the climate trend setter from human perspective. The changes are detectable over modern human lifespans. For example, 246kyr ago, the sea level increased by 24m in 1000 years or average of 24mm/year according to the sea level reconstruction. This is ten times the current trend. From 17ka to 7ka the sea level rose 101m or average of 10mm/yr for 10,000 years; four times the current trend. At the maximum of the last glacial period, the temperature was 9.8C cooler than the average of the last millennium. 407ka the surface temperate was estimated to be 2.5C above the average for the last millennium.. Over the last 800kyr, the estimated temperature has ranged over 14C.
At the depth of the last glacial period, the sea level was 138m below the present level. Taking the ocean surface area as3.6E14m^2, the amount of ice sitting on land then compared with now was 50,000Gt. The area of land north of 40N is 5.3E13 so a drop of 138m in sea level corresponds to an average increase in elevation of 937m of that land or a difference to sea level of 1075m compared with the present. The linear change in temperature with sea level equates to 72C/km, which is approximately ten times the average lapse rate and consistent with a combination of the ratio of sea level to difference in sea level and average ice level over land north of 40N as well as the obvious fact that it is not possible to get a block of ice much above 0C. At the depth of glaciation, the glacier calving would be having a significant impact on lowering ocean surface temperature and reducing atmospheric moisture.
There is no doubt that Earth’s orbital cycles dominate the climate trends. The combinations of solar EMR with selected months were based on some knowledge of the snow forming process over land, which is energy intensive as well as dependent on autumn and winter advection from ocean to land and lower land latitudes to higher land latitudes. July solar EMR at 15N is the most significant contribution to atmospheric water in the northern hemisphere. At the present time, the solar intensity at 15N is almost constant from May through to August and is more than sufficient to fuel the boreal summer Hadley Cells.
The existence of the strong obliquity signal in the data indicates that the solar intensity at high latitudes also plays a role. Snow accumulation is a balance between snowfall and snow melt but the melt also increases with rising July solar EMR. History demonstrates the rising snowfall eventually dominates when sea level is high and most northern land is ice free. It is also likely that the ice accumulates first on high ground and northern slopes then advances downward from the high ground as the average temperature reduces due to the increasing ice coverage. It is noteworthy that the interglacial termination window has been open for 7kyr while the July solar has been above the threshold but melt has continued to dominate apart from minor periods of accumulation in the past millennium. The July solar EMR is now just below the threshold required to initiate glaciation. The oceans of the NH now have a strong warming trend that is producing increased snow extent and new snowfall records are a common occurrence. So far only Greenland is showing an increase in permanent ice cover with some parallels to 395ka.
In terms of interglacial termination windows and July solar, the state of Earth’s climate now is similar to 400ka with Greenland fully covered in ice by then and temperature now similar to then. It is already apparent that Greenland is gaining ice extent per Chart 7 and the summit is gaining elevation. These trends should at least be sustained and will accelerate when the July solar exceeds the threshold.
Other early indicators of the interglacial termination are reduction in depth of permafrost thaw particularly northern slopes near the Arctic Ocean. For example, the thaw depth of permafrost on the northern slope of Mount Marmot in Canada was reducing to 2002 before the site became inactive. Other examples of permafrost thaw depth reducing are Inigok and Awuna, both in Alaska within 150km of the Arctic Ocean.
The last 7kyr has been a relatively benign period in Earth’s climate with minor excursions in sea level and surface temperature compared with what will be observed over the next 2000 years and beyond. There are already early indicators of the changes ahead.
Footnote
This article was prompted by a comment from Tim Gorman on my last article where I mentioned Fourier Analysis. He made the observation that few climate publications use signal analysis tools common in engineering.
Part 2 will be what I term Weather Maker because it will look at shorter term cycles including a proposal from Bob Weber regarding solar variability.
The Author
Richard Willoughby is a retired electrical engineer having worked in the Australian mining and mineral processing industry for 30 years with roles in large scale operations, corporate R&D and mine development. A further ten years was spent in the global insurance industry as an engineering risk consultant where he developed an enduring interest in natural catastrophes and changing climate.
Well, I see that the climate hypemeisters are at it again. Here’s Google News on the subject.
Figure 1. The usual, from the usual suspects.
So I thought I’d take a look at some of the claims. To start with, here’s an overview of the sea level rise around the US coasts.
Figure 2. US relative sea level trends. Red is fastest rising, then orange, yellow, green, and finally blue for areas where relative sea level is falling. SOURCE: NOAA
A few notes of interest. First, look at the east coast / west coast differences in relative sea level rise. This is generally not because sea levels are rising at different rates on the east and west coasts. It’s because the land is generally sinking on the east coast and rising on the west coast. Nothing to do with the ocean.
Next, check out the local differences. At Grand Isle, Louisiana, the big red arrow in the Gulf of Mexico, the relative sea level is rising at 9.2 mm per year … while only a short distance away, the green arrow to the right of Grand Isle shows that Pensacola, Florida has a relative sea level rise less than a third of that, 2.7 mm per year.
Why different sea level rise rates? Again, it has nothing to do with the ocean. It’s because Grand Isle is a silty barrier island in the Mississippi Delta, and like all such islands, it’s slowly sinking into the briny blue.
So … guess which areas of the US the serial sea level doomcasters are focused on?
Well, here’s the Washington Post’s poster child for the “catastrophe” … Dauphin Island, Louisiana.
Figure 3. Dauphin Island, Alabama
And guess what? It’s another slowly sinking barrier island. Here’s what they claim is happening there.
Figure 4. The WaPo’s graph of the horrible, terrible sea level rise at Dauphin Island. Note that it is cut off at about 2022 … SOURCE: Washington Post
However, here’s what NOAA says about the sea level rise there.
Note that the Washington Post has cut off the last part of the data, which shows that Dauphin Island sea level rates are back to historical norms … bad journalists, no cookies …
And in the other Washington Post article, they go on about how terrible things are because of the recent rate of sea level rise in Charleston, South Carolina. Here’s the NOAA data for that tidal station.
Yes, there has been a recent increase in sea level rates in Charleston. But is it historically unusual? Well … in a word, no. I downloaded the data to take an accurate look at the rates of rise.
Figure 7. Comparison of recent and historical sea level rise rates, using the NOAA Charleston data linked above.
[CODA] And after writing the above, as Michael Corleone said, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!” …
I closed the page on this post and resumed wandering the web, and then I have the misfortune to see the Boston Globe is up in arms about sea levels. They say (emphasis mine):
Last year, sea levels along the Boston coastline were, on average, higher than at any other point in recorded history: about 14 inches above levels in 1921, when records began.
“This hasn’t stopped or slowed down yet,” said Rob DeConto, a climate scientist who studies ice sheets in a warming climate and a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
The record-breaking sea level is yet another data point showcasing a decades-long trend that is accelerating at a startling pace. As climate change worsens, the shoreline along much of the city will need new flood protections, such as berms, sea walls, and restored marshlands, as early as 2030, the latest available data provided by Boston plainly show.
As 2030 approaches, climate resilience experts told the Globe, the rapidly accelerating pace of sea level rise necessitates action.
Hmmm, sez I … not seeing the dreaded “rapidly accelerating pace of sea level rise”there. So I downloaded the data and analyzed it for acceleration. Here’s the result. Each point shows the acceleration over the thirty years previous to that date.
As you can see, the acceleration of Boston sea level rise over the last 30 years has been … well … not to put too fine a point on it … basically zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
You can also see the alternating acceleration and deceleration of sea level rise over time, which is visible in all the sea level records around the world. And so we can be sure that at some time in the future, sea levels in Boston will actually begin to accelerate again.
And when that happens, be prepared for the climatastrophist hype to hit new highs.
Forewarned is forearmed …
TL;DR Version: The sea level rates are doing what they’ve always done. There’s been no unusual “acceleration” in the tide gauge measurements. The east coast land is still sinking, the west coast land is still rising, acceleration is still alternating with deceleration, and just like always, silty barrier islands in river deltas are slowly returning to the ocean …
… and when Bill Gates, Obama, and the rest of the pluted bloatocrats stop buying million-dollar beachfront estates, you might start thinking about sea levels.
Until then?
Chill.
And here in Northern California, where we were supposed to be in a permanent drought … it’s raining again. The view from here …
While that’s great for the forest, and the grass loves it, that also means I’m gonna have to mow our two-acre clearing again … my gorgeous ex-fiancee sez I should hire someone to do it, but I figure, why should illegal immigrants have all the fun?
Best to all, stay well,
w.
PS: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing, to avoid misunderstandings. And if you want to show that Willis is wrong, here’s how to do it.
The sea level rise experienced in recent decades was supposed to lead to shrinking shorelines and inundated coasts. Instead, satellite observations reveal the globe’s island coasts expanded seaward (net) by 402 km² since 2000.
In a new study, over 13,000 islands were assessed for coastal change over the last three decades (1990-2020). Only 12% of these islands experienced significant shoreline change during this period. Thus, approximately 88% of the islands had stable coasts − neither substantial erosion or accretion.
About 6% of these 13,000+ islands experienced coastline expansion (accretion), while 7.5% lost coastal land area (erosion). The scientists point out that, for the islands experiencing coastal erosion in recent decades, sea level rise was not a primary or predominant causal factor. This is “contrary to initial assumptions.”
“Moreover, the data results suggest that sea-level rise has not been a widespread cause of erosion for island shorelines in the studied region. Presently, it is considered one of the contributing factors to shoreline erosion but not the predominant one.”
“Contrary to initial assumptions, our empirical data does not conclusively link the widespread erosion of island shorelines primarily to historical sea-level rise, suggesting that human activities might mask the effects of sea-level rise.”
Somewhat consistent with the alarming sea level rise narrative propagated by anthropogenic global warming (AGW) activists, there was indeed a net loss (-259.33 km²) of coastal land area for the 13,000+ islands studied in the decade spanning 1990 to 2000. But then, “in the subsequent decades, the trend reversed, with net increases of 369.67 km² from 2000 to 2010 and 32.67 km² from 2010 to 2020.”
Added together, in the last two decades the globe’s island coasts net grew seaward by 402.33 km² from 2000-2020, and coasts grew by a net 157.21 km² for the entire 30-year period (1990-2020).
“Over the past three decades, the entire region experienced a cumulative increase in land area of 157.21 km² across more than 13,000 islands.”
“…over the past 30 years, fewer islands experienced landward erosion compared to those undergoing seaward accretion.”
Sea level rise thus cannot be an explanation for the contradictory three decades of net coastal seaward expansion observations.
But if the recent decades of sea level rise trends cannot even be considered a primary or predominant factor contributing to coastal erosion either, then the alarmist sea level rise narrative necessarily disintegrates under the weight of the evidence.
This reportis written for people wishing to form their own opinion on issues relating to climate. Its focus is on publicly available observational datasets, and not on the output of numerical models, although there are a few exceptions, such as Figure 42. References and data sources are listed at the end.
The observational data presented here reveal a vast number of natural variations, some of which appear in more than one series. The existence of such natural climatic variations is not always fully acknowledged, and therefore generally not considered in contemporary climate conversations. The drivers of most of these climatic variations are not yet fully understood, but should represent an important focus for climatic research in future.
In this report, meteorological and climatic observations are described according to the following overall structure: atmosphere, oceans, sea level, sea ice, snow cover, precipitation, and storms. Finally, in the last section (below), the observational evidence as at 2023 is briefly summarised.
Ten facts about the year 2023
1. Air temperatures in 2023 were the highest on record (since 1850/1880/1979, according to the particular data series). Recent warming is not symmetrical, but is mainly seen in the Northern Hemisphere (Figures 1 and 13).
Figure 1: 2023 surface air temperatures compared to the average for the previous 10 years. Green-yellow-red colours indicate areas with higher temperature than the average, while blue colours indicate lower than average temperatures. Data source: Remote Sensed Surface Temperature Anomaly, AIRS/Aqua L3 Monthly Standard Physical Retrieval 1-degree x 1-degree V006 (https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/), obtained from the GISS data portal (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/).Figure 13: Zonal air temperatures. Global monthly average lower troposphere temperature since 1979 for the tropics and the northern and southern extratropics, according to University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. Thin lines: monthly value; thick lines: 3-year running mean.
2. Arctic air temperatures have increased during the satellite era (since 1979), but Antarctic temperatures remain essentially stable (Figure 14).
Figure 14: Polar temperatures Global monthly average lower troposphere temperature since 1979 for the North and South Pole regions, according to University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), USA. Thick lines are the simple running 37-month average.
3. Since 2004, globally, the upper 1900m of the oceans has seen net warming of about 0.037°C. The greatest warming (of about 0.2°C) is in the uppermost 100m, and mainly in regions near the Equator, where the greatest amount of solar radiation is received (Figure 28).
Figure 28: Temperature changes 0–1900m Global ocean net temperature change since 2004 from surface to 1900m depth, using Argo-data. Source: Global Marine Argo Atlas.
4. Since 2004, the northern oceans (55–65°N) have, on average, experienced a marked cooling down to 1400m depth, and slight warming below that (Figure 29). Over the same period, the southern oceans (55–65°S) have, on average, seen some warming at most depths (above 1900m), but mainly near the surface.
Figure 29: Temperature changes 0–1900m Global ocean net temperature change since 2004 from surface to 1900m depth. Source: Global Marine Argo Atlas
5. Sea level globally is increasing at about 3.4 mm per year or more according to satellites, but only at 1-2 mm per year according to coastal tide gauges (Figures 39 and 41). Local and regional sea-level changes usually deviate significantly from such global averages.
Figure 39: Global sea level change since December 1992 The two lower panels show the annual sea level change, calculated for 1- and 10-year time windows, respectively. These values are plotted at the end of the interval considered. Source: Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at University of Colorado at Boulder. The blue dots are the individual observations (with calculated GIA e”ect removed), and the purple line represents the running 121-month (ca. 10-year) average.Figure 41: Holgate-9 monthly tide gauge data from PSMSL Data Explorer The Holgate-9 are a series of tide gauges located in geologically stable sites. The two lower panels show the annual sea level change, calculated for 1- and 10-year time windows, respectively. These values are plotted at the end of the interval considered. Source: Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at University of Colorado at Boulder. The blue dots are the individual observations, and the purple line represents the running 121-month (ca. 10-year) average.
6. Global sea-ice extent remains well below the average for the satellite era (since 1979). Since 2018, however, it has remained quasistable, perhaps even exhibiting a small increase (Figure 43).
Figure 43: Global and hemispheric sea ice extent since 1979 12-month running means. The October 1979 value represents the monthly average of November 1978–October 1979, the November 1979 value represents the average of December 1978–November 1979, etc. The stippled lines represent a 61-month (ca. 5 years) average. The last month included in the 12-month calculations is shown to the right in the diagram. Data source: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
7. Global snow cover has remained essentially stable throughout the satellite era (Figure 47), although with important regional and seasonal variations.
Figure 47: Northern hemisphere weekly snow cover since 2000(a) Since January 2000 and (b) Since 1972. Source: Rutgers University Global Snow Laboratory. The thin blue line is the weekly data, and the thick blue line is the running 53-week average (approximately 1 year). The horizontal red line is the 1972–2022 average.
8. Global precipitation varies from more than 3000mm per year in humid regions to almost nothing in deserts. Global average precipitation exhibits variations from one year to the next, and from decade to decade, but since 1901 there has been no clear overall trend (Figure 50).
Figure 50: Global precipitation anomalies. Variation of annual anomalies in relation to the global average precipitation from 1901 to 2021 based on rainfall and snowfall measurements from land-based weather stations worldwide. Data source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
9. Storms and hurricanes display variable frequency over time, but without any clear global trend towards higher or lower values (Figure 51).
Figure 51: Annual global accumulated cyclone energy Source: Ryan Maue.
10. Observations confirm the continuing long-term variability of average meteorological and oceanographic conditions, but do not support the notion of an ongoing climate crisis.
Summing up
The global climate system is multifaceted, involving sun, planets, atmosphere, oceans, land, geological processes, biological life, and complex interactions between them. Many components and their mutual coupling are still not fully understood or perhaps not even recognised.
Believing that one minor constituent of the atmosphere (CO2)controls nearly all aspects of climate is naïve and entirely unrealistic.
The global climate has remained in a quasi-stable condition within certain limits for millions of years, although with important variations playing out over periods ranging from years to centuries or more, but the global climate has never been in a fully stable state without change.
Modern observations show that this behaviour continues today; there is no evidence of a global climate crisis.
Relative sea level change over the Holocene documents a much warmer past than today.
Because it was so much warmer during the Early to Middle Holocene (~8000 to ~4000 years ago), there was significantly less water locked up on land (Greenland, Antarctica) in the form of ice sheets and glaciers. Instead, this water occupied ocean basins, explaining the meters-higher-than-present relative sea levels (RSL).
Indeed, the reason sea levels were 2-3 m higher than today (and the shoreline tens of kilometers further inland relative to today) along the Persian Gulf ~6000 years ago was “almost wholly the consequence of the water-load term” (Lambeck, 1996).
Now another new study (Ballian et al, 2024) reveals sea levels were 2-5 m higher than present 4000-7000 years ago in the tropics (Thailand) before they gradually fell to present levels over the last millennia. These higher sea levels are evidenced by beach ridges dated to 3500 years at 4 m elevations found 6 km inland from current shorelines.
A similar study for this region was published a few years ago (Oliver and Terry, 2019) revealing oyster fossil remains are encrusted into shoreline rock meters above the current water level, providing evidence sea surface temperatures were 2.6°C warmer than today and sea levels were “between 3.8 m ±0.1 m and 2.5 ±0.1 m above present day” along the coasts of Thailand during the Mid-Holocene.
Such beach decorations exhibit the fervent belief of activists that sea levels are rising fast and will flood the coastlines if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. As we will see below there is a concerted effort to promote this notion empowered with slick imaging tools to frighten the gullible. Of course there are frequent media releases sounding the alarms. For example some examples already in 2024:
How rising sea levels will affect our coastal cities and towns Phys.org
Sea-level rise is here to stay and gathering pace, but the rate of future increase remains uncertain. It largely depends on what happens in Antarctica over the coming decades. This in turn depends on land and sea temperatures around the southern continent, which are directly linked to our efforts to limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement. With over 250 million people now living on land less than 2 m above sea level, most in Asia, it is imperative we do everything we can to limit future sea-level rise.
Sea level rise could cost Europe billions in economic losses, study finds CBS News
Some regions of Europe could see “devastating” economic losses in the coming decades due to the rising oceans, researchers say. A new study found that under the worst-case scenario for emissions and sea level rise, the European Union and United Kingdom could lose 872 billion Euros (about $950 billion) by the end of this century, with many regions within them suffering GDP losses between 10% and 21%.
The study, published Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports, analyzed the economic impacts of sea level rise for 271 European regions. Researchers conducted their analysis based on estimates of high greenhouse gas emissions, which drive global temperature increases, a process that causes sea levels to rise.
Climate scientists project sea levels around New York City will rise by 1ft in 2030s alongside tropical storms and hotter temperatures Daily Mail
The New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) released sea level projections that annual precipitation could increase by up to 10 percent over the years and warming would rise between two and 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit. The projection is part of a final report set to be released this spring. The estimates are based on carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions that cause ice caps to melt and increases precipitation, which leads to rising sea levels.
The rest of this post provides a tour of seven US cities demonstrating how the sea level scare machine promotes fear among people living or invested in coastal properties. In each case there are warnings published in legacy print and tv media, visual simulations powered by computers and desktop publishing, and a comparison of imaginary vs. observed sea level trends, updated with 2023 tidal gauge reports.
[Note: Some readers may be confused by the imagined sea level projections shown in red. These come from models that include IPCC suppositions in estimating sea level rise in various localities. For example, from the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists):
A high scenario that assumes a continued rise in global carbon emissions and an increasing loss of land ice; global average sea level is projected to rise about 2 feet by 2045 and about 6.5 feet by 2100.
An intermediate scenario that assumes global carbon emissions rise through the middle of the century then begin to decline, and ice sheets melt at rates in line with historical observations; global average sea level is projected to rise about 1 foot by 2035 and about 4 feet by 2100.
A low scenario that assumes nations successfully limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (the goal set by the Paris Climate Agreement) and ice loss is limited; global average sea level is projected to rise about 1.6 feet by 2100.
The charts below also reflect sea level forecasts by state agencies like the California Coastal Commission]
Bath, the 8,500-resident “City of Ships,” is among the places in Maine facing the greatest risks from increased coastal flooding because so much of it is low-lying. The rising sea level in Bath threatens businesses along Commercial and Washington streets and other parts of the downtown, according to an analysis by Climate Central, a nonprofit science and journalism organization.
Water levels reached their highest in the city during a record-breaking storm in 1978 at a little more than 4 feet over pre-2000 average high tides, and Climate Central’s sea level team found there’s a 1-in-4 chance of a 5-foot flood within 30 years. That level could submerge homes and three miles of road, cutting off communities that live on peninsulas, and inundate sites that manage wastewater and hazardous waste along with several museums.
As global temperatures rise, so does the sea level. Experts predict it could rise as much as 20 inches by 2050, putting coastal communities, including those in Connecticut, in jeopardy.
One possible solution is a retreat from the shoreline, in which coastal homes are removed to take them out of imminent danger. This solution comes with many complications, including reductions in tax revenue for towns and potentially diminished real estate values for surrounding properties. Additionally, it can be difficult to get people to volunteer to relocate their homes.
Computer Simulations of the Future
Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)
Could it be the end of the Blue Line as we know it? The Blue Line, which features a mile-long tunnel that travels underwater, and connects the North Shore with Boston’s downtown, is at risk as sea levels rise along Boston’s coast. To understand the threat sea-level rise poses to the Blue Line, and what that means for the rest of the city, we’re joined by WBUR reporter Simón Ríos and Julie Wormser, Deputy Director at the Mystic River Watershed Association.
As sea levels continue to rise, the Blue Line and the whole MBTA system face an existential threat. The MBTA is also facing a serious financial crunch, still reeling from the pandemic, as we attempt to fully reopen the city and the region. Joining us to discuss is MBTA General Manager Steve Poftak.
Computer Simulations of the Future
Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)
Right now, of every US city, New York City has the highest population living inside a floodplain. By 2100, seas could rise around around the city by as much as six feet. Extreme rainfall is also predicted to rise, with roughly 1½ times more major precipitation events per year by the 2080s, according to a 2015 report by a group of scientists known as the New York City Panel on Climate Change.
But a two-degree warming scenario, which the world is on track to hit, could lock in dramatic sea level rise—possibly as much as 15 feet.
Computer Simulations of the Future
Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)
NBC10 is looking at data and reading studies on climate change to showcase the impact. There are studies that show if the sea levels continue to rise at this rate, parts of Amtrak and Philadelphia International Airport could be underwater in 100 years.
Computer Simulations of the Future
Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)
One 2018 Department of Transportation study has already found that a two-foot rise, expected by mid-century, would imperil a little more than five percent — 250-plus miles — of the state’s most high-traffic highways. That may not sound like a lot, but protecting those highways alone could easily cost several billion dollars. A Cat 5 hurricane could be far worse, with a fifth of the system vulnerable to flooding. The impact to seaports, airports and railroads — likely to also be significant and expensive — is only now under analysis.
Investigators are just beginning to try to unravel what caused the Champlain Towers South to collapse into a heap of rubble, leaving at least 159 people missing as of Friday. Experts on sea-level rise and climate change caution that it is too soon to speculate whether rising seas helped destabilize the oceanfront structure. The 40-year-old building was relatively new compared with others on its stretch of beach in the town of Surfside.
But it is already clear that South Florida has been on the front lines of sea-level rise and that the effects of climate change on the infrastructure of the region — from septic systems to aquifers to shoreline erosion — will be a management problem for years.
Computer Simulations of the Future
Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)
As the sea rises, the land is also sinking: In the last century, the Texas coast sank about 2 feet into the sea, partly due to excessive groundwater pumping. Computer models now suggest that climate change will further lift sea levels somewhere between 1 and 6 feet over the next 50 years. Meanwhile, the Texas coastal population is projected to climb from 7 to 9 million people by 2050.
Protecting Galveston Bay is no simple task. The bay is sheltered from the open ocean by two low, sandy strips of land — Galveston Island and Bolivar Peninsula — separated by the narrow passage of Bolivar Roads. When a sufficiently big storm approaches, water begins to rush through that gap and over the island and peninsula, surging into the bay.
Computer Simulations of the Future
Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)
Sea level rise is fueled by higher global temperatures that trigger two forces: Warmer water expands oceans while the increased temperatures hasten the melting of glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland and add yet more water to the oceans.
The California Ocean Protection Council, a branch of state government, forecasts a 1-in-7 chance that the average daily tides in the bay will rise 2 or more feet by 2070. This would cause portions of the marshes and bay trail in Hayward to be underwater during high tides. Add another 2 feet, on the higher end of the council’s projections for 2100 and they’d be permanently submerged. Highway 92 would flood during major storms. So would the streets leading into the power plant.
Along San Francisco’s Mission Creek, sea level rise unsettles the waters. Each section of this narrow channel must be tailored differently to meet an uncertain future. Do nothing, and the combination of heavy storms with less than a foot of sea level rise could send Mission Creek spilling over its banks in a half-dozen places, putting nearby housing in peril and closing the two bridges that cross the channel.
Whatever the response, we won’t know for decades if the city’s efforts can keep pace with the impact of global climatic forces that no local government can control.
Though Mission Creek is unique, the larger dilemma is one that affects all nine Bay Area counties.
Computer Simulations of the Future
Imaginary vs. Observed Sea Level Trends (2023 Update)
Summary: This is a relentless, high-tech communications machine to raise all kinds of scary future possibilities, based upon climate model projections, and the unfounded theory of CO2-driven global warming/climate change. The graphs above are centered on the year 2000, so that the 21st century added sea level rise is projected from that year forward. In addition, we now have observations at tidal gauges for the first 23 years, nearly 1/4 of the total expected. The gauges in each city are the ones with the longest continuous service record, and wherever possible the locations shown in the simulations are not far from the tidal gauge. For example, NYC best gauge is at the Battery, and Fulton St. is also near the Manhattan southern tip.
Already the imaginary rises are diverging greatly from observations, yet the chorus of alarm goes on. In fact, the added rise to 2100 from tidal gauges ranges from 6 to 9.5 inches, except for Galveston projecting 20.6 inches. Meanwhile models imagined rises from 69 to 108 inches. Clearly coastal settlements must adapt to evolving conditions, but also need reasonable rather than fearful forecasts for planning purposes.
The main thrust of the paper is that actually checking the underlying science to see whether climate claims are verifiable or falsifiable is sooo last week … so they’ve built a custom Artificial Intelligence large-language-model to save them from having to, you know … actually think.
They’ve even given it a cute name, the “CLIMINATOR”, in all caps just like that. I kept waiting for it to say “I’ll be back!” in an Austrian accent … but I digress.
First they fed it all of the standard mainstream sources, like, you know, James Hansen, Michael Mann et al. ad nauseum. Then they added in the IPCC and the “NIPCC”, the Non-Governmental IPCC, established by Fred Singer in 2004 to provide an alternative to the IPCC.
Here’s what first caught my eye … they unleashed the Climinator on the following NIPCC statement:
There has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of drought in the modern era. Rising CO2 lets plants use water more efficiently, helping them overcome stressful conditions imposed by drought.source: NIPCC, Climate Change Reconsidered
Here’s Climinator’s conclusion:
The final assessment is that the claim about drought frequency and intensity is [[incorrect]], as authoritative sources indicate an increase in drought severity and intensity due to climate change.
This one made me laugh out loud. Why? Because Table 12.12 of the IPCC AR6 WG1 says that no detectable trend has emerged in the following weather extremes.
White squares indicate weather extremes where no trend has been detected, or is projected to emerge in the future. See the part in there about drought? I mean the five parts? The IPCC says to date there is no detected trend in hydrological drought (runoff, streamflow, reservoir storage), aridity (prolonged lack of rain), mean precipitation (average amount of rain), ecological/agriculturaldrought (plant stress from evaporation plus low soil moisture), or fire weather (hot, dry, and windy).
No. Detected. Trend.
Not only that, but under the most extreme future climate scenario, the impossible SSP5-8.5, none of them are expected to show a trend in the next 75 years except average rain … and that’s supposed to go up in some areas and down in some areas.
So as is common with many AI systems, their whiz-bang Climinator is simply making things up.
Next, I searched for the reference to my name that had triggered the Google Alert, and I found this:
Note that as a cross-check on the CLIMINATOR opinion, they include a judgment on my work from the site Climate Feedback. Here’s the Climate Feedback page.
The first thing that struck me was that CLIMINATOR folks couldn’t even get the date of my post right, despite the fact that it’s right there in the Climate Feedback claims. Nor did they provide a link to it so folks could check it out themselves.
First, I didn’t discuss possible global acceleration in sea level rise. I didn’t use the term “global” at all in my post.
Next, although they’ve quoted my words, they are misrepresenting the fact that I analyzed fifteen of the longest-term datasets, and found no acceleration in any of them. They quoted my claim, viz:
CLAIM: The long-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement that there is no acceleration
However, they imply that my statement refers toallthe long-term tide-gauge datasets. But in context, when I said that the “long-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement”, it was clear that my claim only referred to the long datasets that I analyzed. So the claim is misrepresented.
Next, my statement is 100% true—none of the long-term tide gauge datasets I analyzed showed any acceleration.
However, they say that what I said is “Factually Inaccurate” because they claim that global datasets “clearly demonstrate that sea level rise has accelerated”.
Steve McIntyre says you have to watch the pea under the walnut shells. Note that they have totally changed the context of my claim, which only covered the fifteen datasets I analyzed, and which was demonstrably true. Instead, they’re pretending I made claims about global datasets, and then they say they’ve convincingly demolished that impressive straw man.
They go on to say my work “misrepresents a complex reality” because I looked at individual datasets, but results from the satellites “have demonstrated that sea level rise has, in fact, accelerated in recent decades.”
My initial response was that when someone says “in fact”, it often means they’re not certain that it’s a fact, or they wouldn’t mention it.
Next, they’re saying that it’s wrong to look at the parts of a complex system to try to understand how the whole system works. Say what?
In any case, regarding the satellite data they refer to, it was fascinating reading my old post because when it was written, I hadn’t yet quite grasped the nettle concerning how they artificially created the claimed “acceleration” in the satellite data. At that time, I could only say “The changes in trend seem to be associated with the splices.”
I discovered how they did it about a year later, and discussed this in a post entitled Munging The Sea Level Data. Here’s the money graph from that article:
Note that the two earlier satellites have a trend of about 2.6 mm/year, which is about the same as the tide gauges. But the two later satellites show a large change, with the trend lines intersecting in ~ 2011, where it goes up to a 50% higher rate of rise … say what?
Rather than being honest about that obvious problem with the satellite data, the folks keeping the sea level records merely spliced all four of the satellite records together, hid the discrepancy, and voila! 50% SEA LEVEL ACCELERATION, EVERYONE PANIC!
Here’s what it looks like after the bogus splicing.
Note the claimed acceleration.
So. My conclusions from all of this?
• Trying to use Artificial Ignorance to analyze scientific papers is a non-starter. Long-term study by actual humans is how science progresses.
• Picking one single analysis to test, whether mine or anyone else’s, is lazy and deceptive. If they’d had the CLIMINATOR read all of my posts regarding sea level rise, it would at least have had my entire body of work regarding the subject to consider.
• AI is bound to fall into the trap of consensus science. It can’t avoid it. It is operating under the deeply flawed assumption that science is decided by the preponderance of opinion. But as Michael Chrichton said,
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right. In science consensus is irrelevant.Michael Crichton
AI of this type is guaranteed to be unable to pick out the one diamond from among the dross. If it were applied in the past, it would undoubtedly have said that Wegener’s theory of Continental Drift was wrong, simply because it is not investigating the underlying science—it is simply checking the consensus of what other scientists have said.
Einstein would no doubt have been assessed by the CLIMINATOR as being wrong because at the time nobody agreed with him. But all scientific advances come from an individual who breaks with the consensus. And because of that, using AI in this manner means that science will never progress—the CLIMINATOR assumes that the past ideas are all correct, and if you don’t agree, you’re wrong, wrong, wrong.
• I was going to send a note to the Corresponding Author … but the paper doesn’t list one.
• I find it hilarious that their cross-check on their results is the deeply alarmist website Climate Feedback. That’s like asking your barber if you need a haircut … what do you think he’s going to say?
My best to all on an overcast but warm winter day here in the redwood forest, with a tiny triangle of the Pacific visible in the far distance between the hills. Two days ago, an awesome bobcat wandered out of the forest and sat in our meadow for a bit. Ah, the hidden strength in its elegant movements … what a glorious world.
w.
Further Reading: You might also be interested in my post Inside The Acceleration Factory, where I discuss the alarmists’ pernicious habit of tacking the bogus spliced satellite data onto the end of the tide gauge data and using that chimera to claim global acceleration … bad scientists, no cookies.
And regarding the reality of the acceleration and deceleration of the rate of sea level rise, I discuss that in my post The Uneasy Sea.
My More Controversial Thoughts: For those, I have my own blog entitled “Skating Under The Ice: A Journal of Diagonal Parking In A Parallel Universe”, and I’m on Twitter/X as @weschenbach. C’mon down!
Same As Always: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are referring to. Avoids heaps of misunderstandings.
Update (Eric Worrall): The factual unreliability of LLMs (Large Language Models) as used by CLIMINATOR are a well known problem. From IBM’s description of LLMs:
This tendency of AI language engines to present incorrect or totally imaginary “facts” has already landed professionals in serious trouble. In June 2023, lawyers in an injury case inadvertently presented fake precedents to a judge, precedents hallucinated by ChatGPT, another LLM engine.
… Steven Schwartz—the lawyer who used ChatGPT and represented Mata before the case moved to a court where he isn’t licensed to practice—signed an affidavit admitting he used the AI chatbot but saying he had no intent to deceive the court and didn’t act in bad faith, arguing that he shouldn’t be sanctioned.
So I open my electronic window onto the world this morning, and I find lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth about a projected sea level rise in the US state of Maine. Seems there’s something called the “Maine Climate Council”, which has un-named “scientists” advising it. Here, per the Portland [Maine] Press Herald, is an interactive map that you can use to scare yourself silly by choosing a given sea level rise and seeing who goes underwater. To give you an idea of how high they want you to dial up the alarmism, the article says (emphasis mine):
For reference, Maine sea levels are projected to rise between 1.1 and 3.2 feet by 2050 and between 3 and 9.3 feet by 2100, depending on how successful and quick we are at curbing global emissions rates, according to the scientists who advise the Maine Climate Council.
Now, folks who follow my work know that I’ve done a lot of analyses of sea level claims. And this one set my bad number detector ringing louder than Representative Bowman’s fire alarm.
And sadly, the hype runs deep in the study of the sea level. For example, in my post Munging The Sea Level Data, I demonstrated that the claims of modern acceleration in sea level rise come entirely from a totally invalid splicing of two sets of satellite-measured sea levels. Here’s the money graph from that post.
Figure 1. The four satellite records that are combined to claim acceleration.
Note that the earlier two satellites show a sea level rise of about 2.6 mm/year, which is in line with tide station data. But the latest two satellites show a rise that’s about 50% higher. And the unethical “scientists” using this satellite data fraudulently splice them all together, spread peanut butter over the splice so it can’t be seen, and scream “MASSIVE 50% ACCELERATION IN SEA LEVEL RISE!! EVERYONE PANIC!”. The fraud is shown below.
Figure 2. The artificial claimed “sea level acceleration”.
Grrr … the amount of flat-out lying by climate alarmists knows no bounds … but I digress.
Returning to Maine, NOAA has records from five tide gauges on the Maine coast. A couple of them are around a century long. And guess what?
Despite our total lack of success at “curbing global emissions rates” over the last century, not one of them shows the slightest sign of any acceleration in sea level rise.
Figure 3. Maine sea level records.
So I thought I’d project those records out to 2050, and compare them with the “scientists” claim that by 2050 the sea level in Maine would rise by 1.1 to 3.2 feet (335 to 975 mm, or 13 to 38 inches). Here’s the result. The “whisker bars” show the uncertainty in the projected rise.
Figure 4. Projected sea level rise to 2050, using the historical trends of the five cities, and also showing the rise that is projected by the “scientists who advise the Maine Climate Council”.
Yeah, that’s totally legit … not much else to say about that, except that when you hear someone talking about “climate change” and “sea level rise”, hang on to your wallet, because you’re being had.
Here, it’s a gloriously raining Sunday morning, with the football playoffs on TV (not the round ball kind) and our daughter, son-in-law, and two young grandkids whom my gorgeous ex-fiancée and I live with laughing and running around this big old house I built with my own hands … truly, dear friends, I’m the luckiest man in the world.
The global average sea level has risen over 7 inches in the past 100 years. A few inches may not seem like much, but every inch of sea level rise covers 50-100 inches of beach. If the ice keeps melting, global sea level could rise more than 20 feet. That would put a lot of coastlines under water. Whole islands could disappear!”
Now, please, imagine that you are a 4th grader – 9 or 10 years old — living in Miami. You are told explicitly that if things keep going as they have been going, you, you family, your friends, your school and your entire city are going to die by being submerged under 20 feet of water.
“This issue includes all types of abuse and neglect of a child under the age of 18 by a parent, caregiver, or another person in a custodial role (such as a religious leader, a coach, a teacher) that results in harm, the potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child.”
For a Miami Beach school district teacher in a 4th grade class to teach 9 and 10 year-olds that they are under a death sentence from climate change due to present rate of sea level rise:
1. Is a lie. The question is “What if it keeps rising this fast?” The true answer is “In 100 more years, the sea level will rise another 7 inches.” The more correct answer, according to our present understanding of global sea level rise, is about 8-12 inches in the next century.
2. It is also a lie to imply that the answer to the question is “the sea could rise more than 20 feet” and submerge Miami.
3. It is not just a lie – not just Climate Crisis propaganda – it is by definitionchild abuse.
I would correct this page as follows:
The corrected text reads:
“The global average sea level has risen over 7 inches in the past 100 years. Depending on the slope of a beach, one inch of sea level rise can cover more than an inch of beach. If sea level keeps rising this fast – 7 or 8 inches per century then in another 100 years, sea level will rise another 7 or 8 inches. For low lying areas, this can cause problems. To reach the level shown in red in the map below, it would take 34 centuries or 3,400 years.”
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
Absolutely appalling. It is this type of thing, which has been ongoing for years, that leads to the emotionally anxious and dysfunctional children who have grown up and now attend universities around the world. Some of these dysfunctional children now teach in those universities and our public schools. This is the opposite of education, it is dumbification – making our children less educated and less well-informed.
If you are a reader of James Lee Burke’s novels, imagine him describing how I feel about people who would do such a thing as write and publish that sea level page for grade school kids. Now, I’m a peaceful man, but they really got to me with the above.
And yes, I have written to Heather Doyle, the Program Manager responsible, and expressed my displeasure. You can write to her too at climatekids@jpl.nasa.gov .
Thanks for reading.
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
