Skip to main content

HUH? There is no scientific consensus on sea levels? Comments

It's common logic that the melting of the Arctic icecaps is all the fault of developed nations that insist on air conditioning and gas-powered vehicles, right? That's what a lot of people in the media are saying. In all actuality. However, a group of scientists from the united Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany say there is NO scientific consensus behind this theory. SAY WHAT? Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 29 Comments

  1. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    WeatherHead, there is no obvious alteration to that long term trend in the rise of (Relative) Sea Levels. None. If the observed trend from the previous 20 years continues then on average the increase would be 20x3mm=60mm~2.5 inches. There seems to be some issue with the satellite data, it is near double observational measure whilst an observed small decrease in the rate of increase has somehow become a large increase. Observation should always be given precedence and the more direct the observational method the greater that precedence should become.
    There is not observed such a 'speed up', the satellite data perhaps should be adjusted so that it remains more consistent with directly observed measures...such was claimed done but obviously the situation of such satellite data has been altered. Attempting to sound 'scientific' about 'data points' then becomes a farcical effort to avoid regard of the potential flaw in that satellite data and as J.Bob has mentioned, greater precision is not necessarily leading to greater accuracy in the satellite data set. Its deviating from observation as have the 'warmists' 'temperature' models.

  2. WeatherHead
    1 year ago

    @J. Bob
    Thank you for being open minded. What I was trying to show was that the rise for the last 20 years, if continued, would result in an increase of about a foot over the 21st century. This would be about double what was measured for the 20th century. This article and the previous one on the same subject, unlike most of the discussion here, question whether the increased rate will continue. It may well be a temporary speed up but it does start to appear that there are too many data points outside of the first deviation on the high side to not consider that the curve may have changed.

  3. J. Bob
    1 year ago

    thank you for the kind comments.

    In rechecking my estimates of 1993-2013 sea level rise, I incorrectly used a 30 yr. period instead of 20 yrs. Using my transparent ruler, & using a 20 yr. period, sea levels went up ~3.5 mm/yr. Using a spreadsheet, & Least sq. the rise was 3.2386....

    And no, I did not use 2 points, but having done this for a few decades, one can get a ball park least sq. estimate as to what is going on. An one of the primary items is that there does not appear any increase in rate do to increased CO2.

    The other point is how accurate is this data? Having 3-4 figures on a result can be meaningless if the accuracy is only good to 1-2 figures.

  4. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    @WeatherHead ... Actually you've demanded a link regarding sea level rise, that is what I've noted, and done so for no reason that I could determine whilst your demands will be ignored. There is been wide spread acceptance that there is been no warming and such a situation is been discussed widely and with interviews made public, you are only avoiding the facts. These are more your style WeatherHead...
    Note (
    "Surface temperatures around the world have not increased on average since the late 1990s, causing some sceptics to suggest that climate change is not happening as quickly as experts predict.
    But in a set of three new reports, the Met Office claims that global warming has been disguised in recent years by the oceans, which have absorbed greater amounts of heat and prevented us from noticing the difference at surface level....""
    Generally these 'warmist' scientists are making excuses for there being still no obvious warming...
    "United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Hans von Storch told Der Spiegel that climate models are having a difficult time replicating the lack of global warming during the past 15 years. "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break," said Storch.
    Storch said the models say the planet should be warming much more than it has. "According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero," Storch told Der Spiegel. "This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year. ..."

    ...whilst there are many more from many sources. Notice that even 'arch warmists' can only mention warming so minute that it is statistically insignificant therefore cannot be directly reported, being "a value very close to zero". Sea level rise has slowed and you need to read back to recent articles here in this webblog for you become only more obviously unaware, you obviously do not understand even the content of links your plastered into this discussion.
    You try to be 'authoritive', obviously confused in an attempt to be taken as 'capable' or 'an authority'. Realise that tidal gauges are those things directly measuring the Oceans behaviour, these gauges are showing what is directly observable. The satellite data (least square AVERAGE aside) 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.

  5. WeatherHead
    1 year ago

    @Peter Anderson
    As I have asked several times would you please provide a link to any respected scientific data that shows warming has stopped. You claim it is "widely that there is been no warming for 15 years" so it should be simple for you to back that up. You also continue to claim that sea level rise has slowed but offer no data. You refer to a difference between absolute and relative sea rise and expect me take your word for it. I would be happy to examine any scientific data you can provide me.

    @J Bob
    Picking 2 points on a graph that most support your claims is not science. I'll go on believing the scientists at the University of Colorado who used the scientifically accepted Least Square Average method to plot an average 3.2 mm/yr sea rise using the same data you refer to (I actually bothered to go read the papers to find out where their numbers came from) rather than the obvious misrepresentations you continue to spout.

  6. J. Bob
    1 year ago

    thank you, glad to help. Since you seem interested in sea level, here is some more info, that indicates there is no increase in sea level rates, in spite of recent increases in CO2.

    Here is my computed ave. per increase of ~2.33 mm/yr, from 1993-2013 , from:

    Looking at longer term data, from some of the longest available, Battery Park NY, I compute a ave. increase of ~4.1 mm/yr, from 1870-2013

  7. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    @WeatherHead ... Firstly, 3mm rise is not at all unnatural and your persistent effort to allude to some anthropogenic event still lacks substance whilst most recent regard of sea level rise is that it is slowing. Some have described the event as 'stagnating', slowing to a near standstill, but as the event is of relative sea level as opposed to satellite effort of 'absolute' sea level there can be two different numbers for the same event. So relative could be measured as 1.8mm (as I've mentioned this then was reported as 1.7mm and now 1.6mm), there is no conflict.
    The Greenland and Antarctic Ice still show no unnatural events, melting is not unusual. The amount of ice lost is not 'highly relevant' as again you attempt to allude to some 'imminent disaster' or 'unnaturalness'. It is indeed agreed widely that there is been no warming for 15 years and anyone intent on discussion also knows that such is mentioned as there being so (statistically) significant warming for 15 years.
    Its hard to not notice such discussions but you've obviously tried hard to avoid such facts. The warming is paused, there is no statistically relevant trend to note, and this would seem to include that pre-existing warming trend which accounts for that pre-existing warming some have attempted 'anthropogenic' allusions toward. Notice that those attempting to cite 'warming' need to not regard that 2008 to 2013 period. Then regard the fluctuations of 'sea ice' and notice how alike all those separate plots, year after year, are whilst displaced by an obviously natural variational effect.
    The entire warming event that AGW proponents point to is ~35 years long but includes ~15 years of 'not warming' whilst CO2 continues to rise ~ +8%. Also realise that for that 300 year long sea level rise to average 1mm to 3mm there will be periods above 3mm and also periods below 1mm, such is the nature of averages. Then realise that the last 30 years of the 20th century saw a much more active Sun, and then whilst the Little Ice Age was a dip then the 'Little Warm Age' (that period in the 20th century) was a little rise.
    What really was involved, what processes produced such effect, need to be the study of Science and not some pandering to a politicknic whose only desire seems to sternly blame humanity as it suits that politicknic's policy desires... and 'global warmism' is not a science but rather a (minority) collective desire to dictate policy and regulation with no regard to either the actual environment or humanities requirements.
    There is nothing obviously unnatural occurring, none that can be pointed to after ~35 years of commentary similar to that which you attempt, there is no anthropogenic effect displayed. Change is always with us, you need to become more accepting of such and perhaps less panic stricken.

  8. WeatherHead
    1 year ago

    @J. Bob
    Thank you for posting the link to Simon Holgate's work. Did you know he recently described himself as a "former oceanographer and recently self-employed"? I'd suggest you check what his former colleagues have published since.
    "Mean sea level has risen at approximately 1.8 mm per year over the last 55 years, according to observations from 177 coastal tide gauges with near global coverage (and correcting for vertical land movements due to the elastic recovery from the last ice age). Since 1992, near-global satellite observations using laser altimetry suggest that global sea level is rising at a rate closer to 3 mm per year."
    I have a feeling that explains why he is no longer employed as an oceanographer. But best of luck to him in his new career in computer programming!

  9. WeatherHead
    1 year ago

    @ Peter Anderson,
    Your reply to me is disingeuous at best.
    "Your claims of polar ice melting are also not really relevant, northern ice is highly variable whilst the Antarctic is reported as growing"
    Followed by a link to a page referencing sea ice ""
    But if had actually read my comment you would have noted I was talking about, and provided links for changes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets which are on land. And losing tens of cubic miles of ice per year which is highly relevant. If you don't understand the difference between sea ice and glacial ice there really isn't a basis for me to try and discuss science with you.
    "There is been no warming for 15 years, this is now generally accepted and this FACT makes a nonsense of your claims regardless of the links you attempt to place."
    Since you provided a link to to defend your irrelevant sea-ice remark I'll use their own material and suggest you go to and check out:
    World Temps (Surface) 1880-2008
    Your own resources are referencing data sets that clearly show warming continues. Again, the only lack of consensus is if the 'rate' of warming is increasing or if warming will continue at the present rate or if we are very, very lucky it will only increase at the previous rate(which would still continue warming). Before you go around yelling 'fact' I would suggest you bother to learn one.

  10. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    @J. Bob ... Thank you for your gracious acknowledgment, and for the information you've provided.

    @Baloo789 ... CO2 is not pollution, and certainly is not 'carbon' whilst CO2 is not observed was warming the planet...temperature is not following CO2 levels, there is acknowledged to be no warming now for 15 years also. There is no valid science to outline how CO2 can do as you claim, hence the effort to 'rejig' the numbers in search of the supposed effect.

    @Jeff Green ... CO2 doesn't hold back that infrared energy whilst that energy (as photons) is not heat whilst what is altered is a colour temperature. CO2 itself is not warmed by those interactions it has either, the 'vibrational state change' so misused in 'global warmism' is a quantum process and is associated with photonic re-release so those photons exiting do not convey any information (via the Theory of Uniform Blackbodies) of kinetic temperature) of CO2.
    That Energy that exists as photons then within the bounds of the atmosphere must interact to induce a kinetic gain and apart from atmospheric water there is what material that can interact within the atmosphere? Not either Nitrogen or Oxygen as those photons are not the product of a 'Blackbody' process. Then also as CO2 is actively cooling (the 'Blackbody' process is passive do realise), converting kinetic gains back into photons, increases in the subpopulation of CO2 strips kinetic energy (i.e. 'heat' measured as Temperature) from the Atmosphere. The atmosphere becomes cooler by brighter.
    All the energy that CO2 can interact with, also comes from cooling process, CO2 cannot warm anything more than it has already cooled whilst CO2 itself actively strip 'heat' from those ~3000 molecules surrounding it. Those are Nitrogen and Oxygen mostly, these molecules able to warm only (due to their actual properties) by contact conduction (i.e. collision) interactions with atmospheric water or the planets surface. It is Nitrogen and Oxygen that warm CO2 which then (actively) cools producing 'heat' back into photons.
    There is no good documentation of the supposed process you cite Jeff Green. Such that does exist confuses the end of the 'vibrational state change' with a 'heat' related process and this greatly exaggerates the temperature of atmospheric CO2. Then realise that you confuse the pre-existing warming trend (the actual global warming) with the nonsense 'science' of AGW. There is been an observable warming trend, it has been noted so over ~300 years, this 'warming' has 'little to nothing' to do with atmospheric CO2 regardless of that CO2's source.
    It is the Sun, has always been the Sun, but government could not be scared into providing $billions of research funding of warming based on the actual natural processes. This is why such are still not well understood whilst charlatans posture over (anthropogenic) CO2. CO2 is not 'carbon', CO2 is food for plants and its low levels within the atmosphere are below 'natural levels' obviously as plants are reacting so strongly to its increase. There is nothing unnatural occurring Jeff Green, no observable 'anthropogenic' effect can be discerned.
    CO2 actively cools the atmosphere whilst the atmosphere's material components passively cool (via process described by the Theory of Uniform Blackbodies). CO2 is food for plants. The Sun warms this planet and influences such warming to a majority extent even though reactions to solar variations are exhibited in a time scale suitable to the Planetary System and not a human Political System. There is Science 'global warmism' needs to involve rather than peddle to fiction you'd only roughly outline.

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 27 Saint of the Day

St. Rupert
March 27: Bishop and missionary, also listed as Robert of Hrodbert. A ... Read More