Sea Levels Rising 20 Times SLOWER Than Media Claim
Image: United Nations University
The prominent, progressive magazine The Nation published an article today claiming the current trajectory for sea-level rise is 20-or-more feet during the next 100 to 200 years.
Unfortunately for The Nation, but fortunately for objective truth and climate realism, the current trajectory for sea-level rise is merely one foot per century.
Google News this morning is promoting The Nation’s article among its top results under the search term “climate crisis.”
The Nation article, titled “How Warming Oceans Are Accelerating the Climate Crisis,” claims, “Humans have locked in at least 20 feet of sea-level rise.”
The article also claims, “If seas rise 20 feet or more over the next 100 to 200 years – which is our current trajectory – the outlook is grim. In that scenario, there could be two feet of sea-level rise by 2040, three feet by 2050, and much more to come.”
According to NASA and NOAA satellite instruments, sea level is rising at a mere 3 millimeters per year, which is a pace of just under one foot per century.
(Note, the NASA/NOAA-reported 3.3 mm/year rise in Global Mean Sea Level includes a 0.3 mm “adjustment” that accounts for land rising as glaciers melt. The sea-level rise in relation to coastal shorelines is therefore 3.0 mm/year.)
Moreover, the satellite measurements show no significant acceleration during recent decades in the pace of sea-level rise.
Given that seas are rising at a pace of merely one foot per century, which is little if any faster than the pace of sea-level rise throughout the global warming of the 1800s and 1900s, it is almost certain that seas will not rise 20 feet during the next 100 to 200 years. It is also almost certain that seas will not rise two feet during the next 20 years.
Climate activists that are simply making stuff up, with the media then reporting on the made-up B.S. as if it is settled science, is par for the course these days in the media’s coverage of the climate debate.
However, when judging the relative credibility of climate activists versus climate realists, The Nation article provides an objective measuring stick by which people can assess the credibility and so-called “settled science.”
If sea level rises two feet or more between now and 2040, climate activists are vindicated and have earned credibility.
If sea level does not rise two feet or more between now and 2040, climate realists are vindicated and climate activists have lost any asserted credibility.
Climate activists and your lackey media, do you agree to accept such a challenge or would you like to retract your ridiculous sea-level claims?
See more here: climatechangedispatch.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Barry
| #
Al Gore has already been proven wrong on this if you go back to his so called documentary. He stated that the arctic would be ice free by now WRONG he stated downtown Manhatten would be under two feet of water in 2020 WRONG. And many more the problem is no one cares if it is right or wrong just keep telling another lie after the last prediction fail. There is no consequence for lying to the public but the rewards are huge.
Reply
Cris
| #
The articles here, on global warming are incredible and really help you reflect on the environmental issue which to me is the fact that so much of the global land is getting privatised and ecosystems are destroyed, species become extinct… all hidden under a savage global warming…
But having discussed climate change with more of my passionate peers I do now notice that they do not bring much evidence to sustain their claim but rather a set of predictions based on ideas of temperature rises and change of seasons and how CO2 emission must be stopped in order to reduce these. I did not know how to respond to these other with the fact that arguments that begin with “if” are not grounded in reality but are speculative which often means political. This has been for so long with repercussions on our food quality, freedom of movement, water quality, affordable housing. But thanks to your articles I am able to argue my point strongly and what I get in return is “I cannot believe you deny global warming” which I find hilarious at times. I wish people would worry more about the tyrannical society that we allow to take over and leave it as testament to the future generations. We are at the top of the food chain and we should live in dignity with access to clean food and water regardless of the area, as I’m sure it will make a theoretical future heatwave feel like a breeze when basic needs are met organically.
Thank you for all your work and research and it helps bring a different and grounded perspective in the mainstream pool of ideas that I some times take part in.
Reply
Barry
| #
Hi Chris sounds like you may be a bit younger than I but you have figured it out. The very reason they claim co2 heats the earth and not the sun is political and always has been. The idea is to stop the western world in its tracks and have the UN run the world under one govt for all. In other words rape the productive west to give to the poor third world who remain poor mostly due to corrupt leaders and corrupt western govt intervening in their affairs. It’s sad to think with all we have in NA that many people around the world go to bed more often than not. This is not for lack of food it’s from lack of want. Pollution is what we should be concerned about,we have oceans filling with micro plastics and no one cares or even mention because as I’m sure you know this is mostly an Asian problem not a western world problem not to say we are perfect but by comparison do quite a good job. If we spent half as much on pollution as we do trying to rid the world of plant food we could solve a lot of these problems. But instead we are building solar panels at a huge cost to the environment for no return.
Have a great day
Barry
Reply
Cris
| #
Thank you Barry. I guess I am a millennial and this topic is still resurfacing as the problem that we need to solve for future generation. Which I find irrational as there are hundreds more problems that need immediate attention, for which I do agree with you, pollution is a killer and over consumption as it seems keeps turns everyone into slaves or addicts or complacent minds, myself included and regardless of area as you are mentioning Asia to be a big consumer too. I am perhaps lucky to have the communist experience and memory of my parents and grandparents which keeps me grounded at times, in my choices, and having seen how food can be naturally grown has made me worried about the future as I fear that we will go through a lot of suffering much sooner from all the farming being taken over etc than what global warming promises us.
Reply
Andy
| #
Tony Heller has debunked these fraudulent sea-level claims numerous imes, but the alarmists keep pumping them out.
Reply
Ross
| #
Even 3.0mm per year is an exaggeration.
It’s more like 1.48mm per year, and possibly trending down.
Reply
Jan Ulsteen
| #
What would cause the sea level to rise?
If it is global warming, it would cause the seawater to get heated up, which in turn would cause more evaporation into the athmosphere.
If it is melting of glaciers and ice that is not already floating in the oceans, the additional water added to the oceans would cause the area of the oceans surface to increase exponential to the sea levels increase, due to low lying land and flat beaches throughout the world. This added surface would increase the evaporation of the (presumably heated) water in the oceans.
With all this additional evaporations, there would be more clouds and more precipitation on earth, giving a cooling effect from the athmosphere. A new ice age?
I think nature has a balance of power that we humans can do nothing about. We can keep the planet clean and healthy for our own pleasure, but we cannot alter the climate!
Jan (a hydrodynamicist)
Reply
John Nicol
| #
The heating of the oceans during an interglacial is inevitable because the sunlight penetrates to a depth of about 200 m. At the top of the water, radiation and evaporation cool the warmed water maintaining a constant fairly temperature to a depth from which the heat can escape. At lower depths, the greater heating of the layers from say about 20 metres to 200 metres, from which there is little escape upwards, the heat is driven down into the water every day. Thus overall, the sea MUST heat up, and hence expand at about the rate measured by the satellites. There is nothing there to do with this silly “climate change” at all. The known average temperature of the globe of 299 K is simply because of the atmosphere warming to that temperature on the side of the daylight, but NOT cooling very much on the night side on which the air (an inert gas) simply retains its heat. Radiation from the earth is made up from direct radiation at wavelengths for which there is no absorption band in a greenhouse gas, and from the greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere which are heated at ground level and rise, or are heated by energy from the inert air in those upper layers. Carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming as will eventually be found to be the case. John Nicol (physicist)
Reply
Barry
| #
Thank you for that John, nice to see someone that’s educated that can see what a joke this all is. Maybe one day all this will come to pass we can only hope it’s before we do to much damage to our selves. Was just reading an article from a supposed phd who claimed that a planet with enough layering could become warmer that the sun due to back radiation. Unbelievable!
Reply
Artelia
| #
The East coast of the UK is always falling into the sea, the cliffs fall down and the sea comes up. The South coast gets higher and lower depending on the tides and the time of year and on the moon phases. Just after a full or new moon near in time to the equinoxes, one gets the big spring and autumn tides where the high tides are EXTRA high and the low tides extra low. On the quarter moon, in between the full and new moons, one gets moderately higher and lower tides.
Reply