Skip to main content

Mainstream group of scientists now say no consensus on sea-level rise Comments

Scientists from Germany, Netherlands, and the UK, have published a paper stating there is no scientific consensus that sea levels are rising. The paper was published in the journal Nature Geoscience. Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 15 Comments

  1. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    There is another point that the 'climate activist' does overlook WeatherHead when attempting to regard Sea Level data. That is that such direct observational data as is obtained from tidal gauges is used by shipping activities so as to know the water depth around Port and coastal regions. It isn't an esoteric effort made for political support or lobby use. It's clear that the effort to produce the satellite data set presenting of a supposed Sea Level behaviour isn't accurate.
    It is clear that the effort to present that inaccurate satellite data set of Sea Level is made with the same attitude that's been used to present data set of Temperature and then other supposed 'scientific data' collections appearing more inline with a Politicknic's lobby needs than being observationally accurate. Again then do notice the difference tween precision and accuracy, for the former is overplayed in 'climate warmism' whilst the latter is avoided.

  2. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    WeatherHead, if you look back in this very weblog you'd notice many references within comments (there are not that many) citing data and presentations of long term collections of such. You have lobbed here attempting to pose as 'authoritive'. Your narrowed view of looking at 'satellite' only defeats your claims.
    You've not been called 'names', you hid behind a label anyway whilst even your phrasing (e.g. 'scientific data'...) belies an 'ability' derived from too long being in 'warmist' places. The satellite data was not calibrated to match the longer term tidal gauge data, obviously so is this and that whilst its presentation is of a rise that is not observed and accelerations that are not either observable.
    You do need to look through this... "Are the satellites lying about poor, drowning Kiribati?" (
    ...and then ( Having sat through years of 'warmist activists' attempting the ploys you do, its all rather boresome. You've no observational facts to support your (political) position|opinion.

  3. WeatherHead
    1 year ago

    @Peter Anderson
    I can't very well compare the data sets if you won't tell me where you are getting yours. I'm perfectly willing to look at data that contradicts my views, and and if warranted to change them. And calling me names isn't going to make me more likely to believe you without actual scientific data.

  4. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    @WeatherHead ... Realise that tidal gauges are those things directly measuring the Oceans behaviour, these gauges are showing what is directly observable. The satellite data are obviously regarding something else and the two methods are proffering different sets of data. In the end the tidal gauges show the fact whilst satellite data remains requiring interpretation and calibration. You continue to attempt to discuss two sets of data as if such are the same, such are not and satellite data seems to begin around 1994. You seems fixated on producing a point to argue against (sea levels are static) which was not ever mentioned here previously. Your suggestion is worthless, in that same period direct measure has seen Relative Sea Level rise decrease from 1.8mm to now 1.6mm.
    You need to notice it all WeatherHead, and your behaviour is of the Politicknic, your mind obviously closed with little understanding of Science and facts. You seem unable to even regard two different sets of data understanding there are two different data sources!

  5. WeatherHead
    1 year ago

    @Peter Anderson
    If you follow the link I provided You will see that since 1992 there was indeed a short period (2008-2011) where sea level rise slowed to about zero. However, it has since increased to an even higher rate. I would suggest that the idea that sea level rise has slowed may have been true a few years ago but appears to have been one of those short term variations. If we only look at the last 2 years sea level rise has been almost 10 mm per year but I would suggest that the 3.2 mm 20 year average is probably (hopefully) more indicative of what we will continue to see. This 3.2 mm rate of rise would indicate a total rise over the next 100 years of about a foot as the article states. As you said 'notice it all'. If I wanted to be a 'politicknic' as you called me I would only look at 2011-2013. And I asked you to provide links because I do indeed have an open mind about this as long as we are using science and facts.

  6. J. Bob
    1 year ago

    first of all a PhD, does not always indicate someone is correct.

    And while note recent data, you did not note long term trends, where one has to rely on tidal data, & estimate geological factors.

  7. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    @WeatherHead... "Please provide links to reputable scientific sources that show the rate of sea level rise has not increased."
    Now you attempt to demand what? As I've mentioned the previous average I'd noted was ~2.6mm whilst ~3.2mm is not significantly large if you'd consider that the century long average sits tween 1mm to 3mm. Thus at some time there would need to be a rise measuring above 3mm and then also below 1mm. As its also noted that the average measured was from satellites, tidal gauges show a relative measure recently quoted at 1.6mm (and in a series where such rise is slowing). You seem to decide not to notice data unsuitable to your 'cause' and that is not how Science is done, but indeed what a politicknic would attempt. You notice 'it all' or you play politics, which would you do?

  8. WeatherHead
    1 year ago

    @Peter Anderson
    Please provide links to reputable scientific sources that show the rate of sea level rise has not increased. Because according to scientists with actual PhD's at the University of Colorado, from the end of 1992 through the beginning of 2013 the rate of sea level increase has been ~3.2 mm/year. About twice the historical rate.

  9. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    The links I've noted are conveniently presenting the information otherwise found elsewhere also. There is no confusion, you've only made allusion supposing of some. The nonsense of 'oil industry' funding seems to be mentioned whenever information inconvenient to warmists is seen...such nonsensical claims have been attempted even of myself! The long term rise of sea levels is been tween 1mm and 3mm for centuries. The last decade is no different. This is observable whilst the average of ~1.6mm now was previously 1.7mm and before that 1.8mm ...the rise is slowing but is not outside of the observed range I've previously noted and have been noting for over a decade of conversations on this topic. You are not correct in your assertions WeatherHead, there is no evidence of anthropogenic effect observationally.

  10. WeatherHead
    1 year ago

    @Daniel B
    Where is the water coming from? Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005. These are not negligible amounts. There is also the matter of thermal expansion (water, like the mercury in a thermometer, expands when warmed) caused by the warming of the oceans. The top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean show warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969, and this is also accelerating.

    @Peter Anderson
    I understand your confusion when I see you get all your information from which is well known to receive the vast bulk of it's funding from the oil industry. The actual scientific facts here are that global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century. What scientists lack concensus on is if that increased rate will continue to increase, rising faster and faster.

Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Saint of the Day

March 2 Saint of the Day

Bl. Charles the Good
March 2: In 1086, St. Canute, King of Denmark and father of Blessed ... Read More