This was posted on Facebook:

Kim Rogalin

·

A Netherlands’ Wageningen University study, published in the journal Nature, found that that: "actual sea levels are on average about 30 cm higher globally than estimates produced by the usual scientific models, with differences emerging particularly in SE Asia and Oceania. In those regions, the ocean is 1 to 1.5 meters higher on some coastlines than most impact assessments have assumed.” The study does not show that seas are rising faster than they have historically. Thus, planning should begin from where coastlines actually are. The problems the climate-crisis industry anticipates under future sea levels should already be evidenced, but they aren’t. Sea levels are already where the coastal planning estimates they project will be decades in the future. If these problems don’t exist now, the planning is wrong from the start about possible impacts.

Anders Levermann, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who said: "eventually we will see a sea level rise of 3 to 4 meters,” admits average sea level has only risen about 20 cm over the past century. "Eventually” could be technically right, though in this case eventually could mean 1,000 to 2,000 years from now. That’s not an immediate catastrophe and a time interval over which no model, set of models, or estimates by so-called experts should be trusted or used to shape policies affecting people today and for the next several centuries.

In fact, there is significant scientific doubt that sea level rise is accelerating at all. Another Dutch peer-reviewed study, published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, examined sea level measurements from more than 200 tide gauge stations worldwide(1). They found that the average global rate of sea level rise has been about 15 cm per century. The authors acknowledge that sea level rise projections by groups like the ipcc are biased upwards by 2mm per year compared to accurate measurements recorded by tide gauges. The authors, Hessel Voortman and Rob de Vos, did a literature review in advance of their study and were surprised to find that no 1 else had done 1 like it. Voortman explained that sea levels have fluctuated over time, and that if you start your trend in the early 90s, there is a supposed acceleration, but drawing back in time reveals that it is likely only temporary. He explained that while: "both measurements and projections are important sources of information,” 1 needs to be careful in understanding the difference between the 2, not be overly reliant on model projections(1).

The acceleration of the rate of sea level rise asserted by the IPCC and other climate alarmist groups, does not appear in the tide gauge readings. The actual rate of rise is much lower. This, and the 20 cm rate, are both lower rates than experienced over much of the past 15,000 years. At either of these rates, coastal communities have centuries to adapt to rising seas or mitigate them by hardening infrastructure, or even by moving communities inland, if that is deemed necessary. Most if not all of the tide gauges that show accelerating sea level rise are sited where severe land subsidence is occurring. That can be due in part to human activity, aquifer withdrawals for instance, but it can also be a natural geologic phenomenon

Similarly, other recent studies looking at the contributions of Antarctic ice melt, and ice sheet models in general, have found that many climate scientists rely too heavily on models rather than data. As a result, they are likely overstating how much sea level rise could occur in the future by melting ice at the north and south poles, or even if ice sheet decline will consistently continue in the future.

If sea levels along the world’s coastlines are consistently at or near the heights coastal community planners estimated in the future would mean disaster, then it is good news. That’s because those communities aren’t experiencing the disasters the planners were concerned about. As a result, it does not follow that people should be even more concerned now about future rise, especially sea levels 1,000 to 2,000 years in the future, by which time the climate could have shifted again and the Earth headed back to a new glacial cycle. We just don’t know.

1. In the abstract of the paper itself, A Global Perspective on Local Sea Level Changes, the authors explain: [A]pproximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations. On average, the rate of rise projected by the IPCC is biased upward with approximately 2 mm per year in comparison with the observed rate."

Different but related:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/05/it_was_never_about_the_climate.html

Hide Comments | Add Comment