By every method known to man, seas are rising around 1mm a year:
- 1,000 tide gauges
- hundreds of studies of beaches
- satellites measuring sea levels
- satellites measuring beaches.
All anyone needs to know about sea levels is that for the last 50 years sea levels have been rising at 1mm a year as shown by a thousand tide gauges all over the world. There was no acceleration. (Beenstock et al). Some of those gauges were rising, some falling, but when averaged out, it’s almost a wash at 1mm. Nils-Axel Morner took the opposite approach and studied 50 beaches around Scandinavia intensely, figured out which beach was at the centre of the turning crust and calculated that the seas were only rising at 0.9mm a year and for the last 125 years. (Morner, 2014).
Believe it or not, that fits with what the satellites used to say too (Morner 2004). From 1992 – 2000 the satellites recorded a rise of less than 1mm a year, but by 2003 that trend was retrospectively “adjusted” up to 2.3mm/year. As far as Morner can figure out, the satellites were calibrated to one sinking tide gauge in Hong Kong.
It also fits with the 560 odd papers that Nils has written.
Satellites are now tracking every 20m rolling sandspit above the seas — and if seas were rising the beaches would surely be shrinking. Instead of 709 islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans 89% either stayed the same or got bigger. (Duvat, 2018). Not one island large enough to have human inhabitants was getting smaller. Not one.
Rising seas are nearly all done by computers, with “adjustments”. For example:
Annual global mean sea-level changes observed by TOPEX/POSEIDON (NASA/French satellites) in 2000, after technical “corrections” were applied (from Menard, 2000). A slow, long-term rising trend of 1.0 mm/year was identified, but this linear trend may have been largely an artefact of the naturally-occurring El Niño Southern Oscillation event in cycles 175-200.
After “calibration” in 2003. As presented by Aviso (2003), the record suddenly has a new trend representing an inferred sea-level rise of 2.3 ±0.1 mm/year. This means that the original records presented in Figs. 5-6, which showed little or no sea-level rise, must have been tilted to show a rise of as much as 2.3 mm/year.
Theory versus data. If they are in conflict, the data must be wrong. So they adjust the data and call us critics “un-scientific”.
Here is the ABC, the local mouthpiece for the administrative state:
Climate change evacuation planning needs to start now, scientists urge, by Nick Kilvert.
From Bangladesh to the Philippines and the low-lying islands of the South Pacific, the impacts of climate change for many people around the world are going to get much worse, very soon.
Some people will become stateless, and will need to find homes in new countries, while others will need to relocate within their own borders.
Researchers writing in Science today argue that it’s time to begin preparing the retreat of people living in regions that will become uninhabitable due to climate change.
By preparing now we can manage retreat in as equitable a way possible, and minimise paternalism and disruption to culture, according to author AR Siders from the Disaster Research Centre at the University of Delaware.
“People need to think about it right now,” Dr Siders said.
Funny if it weren’t so expensive.
Last word goes to Joanne:
As usual, Nick Kilvert of the ABC doesn’t do any research or ask any hard questions. He’s just a distant part of the Science propaganda unit. The gloom and doom is based on highly adjusted data being fed into junk models and extrapolated beyond the error bars, but don’t expect Nick to report that. Truly terrible science needs truly terrible journalism to live on long enough to get the next grant.