Sea Level and Temperatures

September 1, 2024 rjdavison

CSS-61 – Sea Level – Temperatures – 1800 to 2024 Download PDF

Previous posts on Sea Level (linked at the end of this post) have shown that the All CO₂, All the Time alarmist narrative does not represent reality. CO₂ just does not correlate to Sea Level changes (apart from short, irrelevant, cherry-picked intervals). Sea Levels were obviously declining in the Jevrejeva et al 2014 dataset before the mid-1850s. That is impossible based on the obviously unsubstantiated IPCC models which are focused almost exclusively on CO₂ emissions. CO₂ concentrations rose only 16 ppm from 1750 to 1900 (an inconsequential volume). Another 16 ppm gets us to 1950. Post-1950, CO₂ concentrations have increased by roughly 110 ppm probably due in large part to humanity’s emissions which were concentrated over that period (86%+). Long-term Sea Level Rise has been linear with some minor with minor fluctuations around that linear trend (consistent with the individual tidal gauge data).

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

Sea Levels were declining because temperatures were declining. And strangely (despite rising CO₂ levels), glaciers were advancing. There are obviously other radiative forcings (primarily solar (directly and indirectly)) acting on our planet, just not in the climate models. That is a mistake that we are all going to pay dearly for.

This post highlights some Sea Level, Temperature and Ice Volume empirical datasets that predate the All CO₂, All the Time alarmist’s preferred Modern Temperature Record period (MTR, 1850 to the present). Not surprisingly, declining Sea Levels and temperatures, and advancing glaciers are not great for the alarmist narrative. Unfortunately for the alarmist community, both empirical and proxy data have always shown that CO₂ is not the primary, let alone an overly significant forcing. My CSS-53 – CO₂’s Moneyball Moment post goes into more detail on CO₂’s minor to negligible influence.

These three parameters (Temperature (the driver), Sea Level and Ice Volume), not surprisingly move in unison (on short and long-term time scales). CO₂ is not moving in unison with any of these parameters on time scales that are relevant to “climate change”.

While the empirical data is available, the data’s presence in the public domain is restricted through a variety of censorship policies and a mass propaganda push by our ideological leadership, their media, academic, and corporate minions and their globalist puppeteers at the UN, WEF, EU, etc. The latest example comes from the UN’s Secretary General, Antonio Guterres (their alarmist -in-chief). He stopped in at a Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga and used the opportunity to throw out these gems.

“A worldwide catastrophe is putting this Pacific paradise in peril,” he said. “The ocean is overflowing.”
Guterres issued yet another climate SOS to the world. This time he said those initials stand for “save our seas.”
“This puts Pacific Island nations in grave danger,” Guterres said.

While they are not quite as image invoking as his “highway to climate HELL”, “the era of global boiling has begun”, or “godfathers of climate chaos” quotes, they are still unscientific, meaningless fear propaganda, totally divorced from reality. He is referring to the elevated Sea Level Rise in Samosa and Tonga. For example, SLR at Pago Pago in American Samosa is currently 17.52 mm/year, significantly higher than the roughly 2 mm/year average rise since the mid 1850s. His statements and many others within the article quoted above, link that SLR to, yes, “climate change” in its many forms. Guterres (as usual) leaves out several key points that provide sorely needed context.

Specific to Pago Pago, The change in SLR is due to a major earthquake in 2009, not CO2. SLR pre-earthquake was at a more typical 2.5 mm/year rate. The land is sinking into the sea, global SLR is not the reason “coastal flooding went from zero to 102 times a year, according to the WMO State of the Climate in the South-West Pacific 2023 report”.
More broadly, Guterres and his alarmist clan ignore the very real empirical data that shows the long-term trend in SLR (both globally and locally) has been liner (i.e.: no measurable acceleration outside natural variation) and that CO₂ concentrations DO NOT correlate with Sea Level Change. Change was used intentionally since Sea Level has always rose and fell and will continue to rise and fall and the future (irrespective of CO₂ concentrations.
While the alarmist mantra has long been the Pacific Islands are sinking into the ocean, reality (empirical data) says otherwise. Even the New York Times (The Maldive Islands have remained stable (39%) or grown (20%)) and the BBC (Of 27 Pacific Islands over the last 60 years, “geologists found that 80% of the islands had either remained the same or got larger”.) have acknowledged this very inconvenient fact.

Gutteres (one of the many puppets of these unelected, unaccountable, totalitarian international organizations like the UN, WEF, EU, etc.) routinely “appear to” lie (directly or through omission). There are no empirical CO₂/Temperature datasets that show CO₂ driving the climate on any statistically significant historical time scale. The climate models used to justify our insane climate policies have been self-acknowledged to “run way too hot” and use unrealistically high emission scenarios. And then there are the “extreme weather event” lies (whether the ‘climate change’ link is made directly or indirectly through attribution studies). The empirical data shows that extreme weather events in general have been statistically flat or trending lower in both numbers and intensity. Given that these points have been made many times by many very qualified individuals and organizations, shows that the alarmist narrative is built on lies and malfeasance (driven by ideology), not built on sound scientific analysis grounded in the Scientific Method.

Society needs to recognize soon that these people do not have our best interests in mind. They are going to continue over-spending our taxpayer money indiscriminately on unnecessary, unscientific green initiatives (through their political puppets). And for what gain? The temperature averted in 2100 would be somewhere between 0.07 and 0.28 °C assuming that we could even get to Net Zero. What is the cost-benefit analysis for spending hundreds of trillions of dollars for a modest, unmeasurable temperature improvement? In my opinion, the costs of Net Zero are astronomically high, the benefits are negligible.