7 ms·

The NOAA Sea Level Trends data and visualizations are fascinating: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/ https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/ Sea

The NOAA Sea Level Trends data and visualizations are fascinating: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/ https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/ Sea levels have been monitored for over 100 years... because of commerce. East coast US seems to be going up about 3mm/year, or a foot per century. That's on top of 7 foot tides. West coast US is very steady, barely moving at all. The sea level is dropping in Alaska by 10mm/year. Dropping in Scandinavia also. Some cities show rising sea levels, but really the cities are sinking due to collapsing aquifers; New Orleans and Bangkok. And measurements made on river deltas are always going to be wild due to silt and all. Most notably, I can't find an example in the NOAA data of the rate of sea level rise increasing due to industrialization. Anybody?

arethuza 3y ago
Isn't that relative sea level changes in places like Scandinavia - the sea isn't dropping, the land is rising? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_sea_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_sea_level
- jdontillman 3y ago
  Exactly. Because the sensors are mounted on that very land. So tectonic movement will certainly have an effect. And you can see remnants of earthquakes in some of the data.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    In Scandinavia, isn't it glacial rebound rather than tectonic?
    - bell-cot 3y ago
      > 3. (geology) Of, relating to, or caused by large-scale movements of the Earth's (or a similar planet's) lithosphere - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tectonic https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tectonic
      - LeifCarrotson 3y ago
        I expect the parent is referring to human-caused melting of glaciers as the root cause of that tectonic movement, rather than the expected natural motion of the tectonic plates.
        Scarblac 3y ago
        It's the glaciers melting at the end of the last Ice Age that Scandinavia is still rising from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period#Weichselian_glaciation_(Scandinavia_and_northern_Europe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period#Weichselia... > As a result of melting ice, the land has continued to rise yearly in Scandinavia, mostly in northern Sweden and Finland, where the land is rising at a rate of as much as 8–9 mm per year, or 1 m in 100 years. This is important for archaeologists, since a site that was coastal in the Nordic Stone Age now is inland and can be dated by its relative distance from the present shore.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  Yeah, the sea must be "level" in some sense across the planet. Don't know if local variations in gravity may have a measurable impact?
  - beerandt 3y ago
    The absolute value of gravity is (to oversimplify) the sea-level datum for current generation datums, like the delayed NGS (nominal year) 2022 datums. They've (NGS) been flying absolute gravity measurement equipment in planes with precision GPS and lidar since ~2005 as part of the GRAV-D program. Additionally, slight 'variations' (ie deviations from the expected circular/elliptical) in the orbits of GPS satellites can be used to infer slight variations in the gravity below. Separately, the military likely has had all of this measured and modeled for decades as part of ballistic missile targeting, but remains mostly classified at useful resolutions. The transitions from NGVD27 to NAVD88 to the work-in-progress 22 datum is exactly because the idea of a simple "universal" sea-level doesn't exist in the manor you would expect it to. But even with the GRAV-D based datums, the actual observed water levels will occur at slightly different datum heights in different locations, for various geophysical reasons.
  - CorrectHorseBat 3y ago
    The melting of glaciers themselves can have an impact on gravity, causing water levels to drop around them. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2018/sep/12/greenland-antarctic-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise-science-climate https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2018/...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - cwillu 3y ago
    PDF of gravitational correction factors by geographical region for use in theoretical weighscale calibration (vs calibrating with actual test weights): https://hardyinst.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1588/~/what-is-gravity-correction-and-how-do-i-use-it%3F https://hardyinst.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1588/...
twawaaay 3y ago
There is only one reason the sea can rise currently due to weather and that is glaciers getting melted. Another reason (but not due to weather) is that when land somewhere goes up, it will displace water everywhere else. And so, for example, if the land is still recovering from the ice age we should see ocean levels going up everywhere except for the pieces of land that are recovering from the weight of the glacier that is no longer there. Mind that Arctic is not causing sea level rise. Any ice that is floating on water will not cause any water level change when it melts. (I know this is somewhat unintuitive but it comes directly from Archimedes principle) So we are talking basically Antarctic ice and Greenland because these are by far the largest bodies of frozen water that are supported by land rather than floating on the ocean. I think it should be pretty easy to observe how much of that water melted or slipped into the sea. I also think that currently, coastal erosion is mostly caused by changing weather patterns. Basically this comes down to wind blowing in different directions, speed and variety and these changing patterns mean coasts are eroding in different places than before.
- locopati 3y ago
  Also, warming oceans causes expansion which causes sea level rise. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/learn/project/how-warming-water-causes-sea-level-rise/#:~:text=Thermal%20expansion%20happens%20when%20water,warming%20waters%20and%20thermal%20expansion https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/learn/project/how-warming-water....
  - twawaaay 3y ago
    Not true. First of all, most of the temperature rise only happening close to the surface with average surface temperature rise being only about 1.5F or 1C since 1901. This article says deep ocean water is projected to warm up by only 0.2C during next 50 years: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/deep-ocean-warming-subtropical-north-atlantic/135799/ https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/deep-ocean-warming-subt... Furthermore, at around 4C which is what deep ocean water is close to (everything below 200m is essentially 4C), thermal expansion is almost nil. For colder water thermal expansion is actually negative. 4C is when water is at its densest. It is not an accident that all oceans are 4C, because 4C water sinks to the bottom and anything colder or hotter than 4C floats up. This remarkable property of water is what causes even shallow water to be fantastically stable in temperature -- a lake that has more than couple tens of meters in depth is likely to be 4C at the bottom throughout the year whether it is frosty winter or hot summer above it, unless some kind of powerful event is able to mix the water in the lake. Now, the small temperature differences will definitely have outsize effects on water circulation, ocean currents, life and weather. But I doubt they will cause meaningful sea rise unless somebody can calculate otherwise?
martinpw 3y ago
> Most notably, I can't find an example in the NOAA data of the rate of sea level rise increasing due to industrialization. Anybody? You can look at the graph on the NOAA site here and see the acceleration visually: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... The notes to the left of the table say 1.4mm/yr for much of 20th Century to 3.6mm/yr now. There is also evidence of acceleration of sea level rise just from satellite data, 0.08mm/y^2: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212150739.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212150739.h...
- Trumpi 3y ago
  Back in 2006, our expectations were set when An Inconveient Truth contemplated what would happen if sea levels rose by six meters (in our lifetime). 3.6mm a year seems a bit meh in that context.
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    Something I see a lot is people looking at worst case predictions as if they were presented as the most likely predictions. A lot of the IPCC reports say things like “if we continue to increase emissions, this will happen” (a worst case scenario) and also “if we make moderate improvements, this will happen” (a slightly better scenario). Then people who don’t want to talk about climate change mitigation will highlight the worst case scenario and say “see they were wrong and hysterical!” even when the moderate prediction, which they will ignore, ended up being essentially totally accurate.
    - Trumpi 3y ago
      Well, I'll go a step further and say that 3.6mm/yr is not evidence of a crisis.
      - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
        that's not a problem in the decade timeline but it is problematic over a century or two. it's especially problematic since it's accelerating and has a couple decades of inertia. the CO2 we release today will raise sea levels for the next 50 years or so.
mc32 3y ago
I think the arctic region is affected by glacial rebound: the ground slowly recovers from past glacial compression. Subsidence is a thing in Silicon Valley. San Jose has sunk some feet since the aquifer was drawn, fist for agriculture and now urbanization.
WillPostForFood 3y ago
We shouldn't be calling subsidence sea level rise. They are two distinct, measurable, phenomena that happen to have the same impact.
- timcavel 3y ago
  [dead]
- sp332 3y ago
  I don't think it was possible to measure them separately until we had good satellite data from the last two decades. If we're extending trends back to the beginning of the industrial revolution, they're going to be mixed.
  - revelio 3y ago
    Satellite data isn't that good unfortunately. Tide gauges say 1.5mm/year of rise, satellites say 3mm/yr, and they estimate satellite error to be +/- 0.5mm year, so the error bars are a significant fraction of the size of the overall change. Also that assumes the scientists are completely accurate and don't make any mistakes. As recently as 5 years ago they discovered that the measured rise for almost all of the 90s was wrong and revised it by 3mm/year +- 1.7mm/year - the error was the same amount as the imputed level of rise! This is no knock on the scientists, because measuring the height of a moving ocean from orbit to a level of accuracy that lets you see mm level changes is inevitably going to be very hard. But we should bear in mind that they're heavily biased towards wanting to believe the data is accurate. Their decade long inability to get the measurements correct didn't seem to have any impact on their confidence that they're currently getting it right, and why would it? Those who seize the data, seize the day.
    - stochtastic 3y ago
      > Also that assumes the scientists are completely accurate and don't make any mistakes. As recently as 5 years ago they discovered that the measured rise for almost all of the 90s was wrong and revised it by 3mm/year +- 1.7mm/year - the error was the same amount as the imputed level of rise! Citation for this? There are always improvements to our understanding of past data, but you seem to be implying that the uncertainty exceeds the signal. That's simply not the case [1]. [1] — https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter09.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... pp.1291-1292
amelius 3y ago
What I wonder about is: rising wrt. what? Did they take into the account the possibly vertical movement of tectonic plates?
- revelio 3y ago
  They do take that into account. They calculate that the ocean floor is sinking but then ADD that displacement to their reported measurement of "sea level", which is backwards. When the ocean floor sinks sea level goes down, but they report it as going up instead, using this justification: https://sealevel.colorado.edu/index.php/presentation/what-glacial-isostatic-adjustment-gia-and-why-do-you-correct-it https://sealevel.colorado.edu/index.php/presentation/what-gl... currently some land surfaces are rising and some ocean bottoms are falling relative to the center of the Earth (the center of the reference frame of the satellite altimeter). since the ocean basins are getting larger due to GIA, this will reduce by a very small amount the relative sea level rise that is seen along the coasts. We apply a correction for GIA because we want our sea level time series to reflect purely oceanographic phenomena. In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes. This is what is needed for comparisons to global climate models, for example This is nonsense, of course. Volume isn't measured in millimeters, that's a measurement of distance. GMSL when talking about satellites is defined as the average distance of the surface of the ocean from the center of the Earth, and the reason people care about it is because if it gets too high then things we care about end up flooded. Changing the definition of GMSL half way through from sea level to sea depth is the kind of slippyness that pervades this space.
margalabargala 3y ago
> East coast US seems to be going up about 3mm/year, or a foot per century. That's on top of 7 foot tides. That's the average rise it you average all data going back to the 1950s. Unfortunately, looking back to the 50s is only really useful if interested in how much sea levels have already risen. Otherwise it presents an unrealistically optimistic view, as the rate has accelerated since. Per the article, the east coast (North Carolina) is currently experiencing an increase of about a third of an inch per year, which is an increase of one foot per 36 years, or close to a meter per century. If current trends continue, this will accelerate, not decelerate.
- jessewmc 3y ago
  Your unit mixtures hurt my brain
revelio 3y ago
[flagged]
- magicalist 3y ago
  > Careful man! You're on the verge of becoming a climate denier with research like that! Sea level rise is indeed not due to CO2 or industrialization. Here's a graph of what's claimed to be long term sea levels: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Lev... Not super helpful to post a graph where the era we're talking about is like 7 pixels wide using a line of about the same thickness.
  - revelio 3y ago
    It shows that the claim that sea level rise is caused by CO2 isn't correct, which is relevant.
    - ohdearno 3y ago
      It shows nothing of the sort. It shows that melting glacial ice causes rising sea levels. That is all it shows. We know that. Guess what (eventually) causes glacial ice to melt? CO2.
      - revelio 3y ago
        Here's a graph of sea level rise since 1900 plotted against CO2: https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/image-56.png https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/image-56... No correlation.
        ohdearno 3y ago
        You... really have no idea how to read that graph, do you? Or what a lagging indicator is, I'm guessing. The fact is - we can see the rate of change of the sea levels start changing in the mid-90s, though the graph you're using compresses the Y-axis to minimize how obvious that is (deliberately, I'd say, given the source). Which, given its a lagging indicator of the result of rising CO2, makes sense it would happen after. So, even accounting for the dishonesty of the presentation (and make no mistake, it's VERY dishonest) it actually demonstrates the exact opposite of what you claim.

arethuza 3y ago

Isn't that relative sea level changes in places like Scandinavia - the sea isn't dropping, the land is rising? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_sea_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_sea_level

jdontillman 3y ago
Exactly. Because the sensors are mounted on that very land. So tectonic movement will certainly have an effect. And you can see remnants of earthquakes in some of the data.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  In Scandinavia, isn't it glacial rebound rather than tectonic?
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    > 3. (geology) Of, relating to, or caused by large-scale movements of the Earth's (or a similar planet's) lithosphere - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tectonic https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tectonic
    - LeifCarrotson 3y ago
      I expect the parent is referring to human-caused melting of glaciers as the root cause of that tectonic movement, rather than the expected natural motion of the tectonic plates.
      - Scarblac 3y ago
        It's the glaciers melting at the end of the last Ice Age that Scandinavia is still rising from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period#Weichselian_glaciation_(Scandinavia_and_northern_Europe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period#Weichselia... > As a result of melting ice, the land has continued to rise yearly in Scandinavia, mostly in northern Sweden and Finland, where the land is rising at a rate of as much as 8–9 mm per year, or 1 m in 100 years. This is important for archaeologists, since a site that was coastal in the Nordic Stone Age now is inland and can be dated by its relative distance from the present shore.
BurningFrog 3y ago
Yeah, the sea must be "level" in some sense across the planet. Don't know if local variations in gravity may have a measurable impact?
- beerandt 3y ago
  The absolute value of gravity is (to oversimplify) the sea-level datum for current generation datums, like the delayed NGS (nominal year) 2022 datums. They've (NGS) been flying absolute gravity measurement equipment in planes with precision GPS and lidar since ~2005 as part of the GRAV-D program. Additionally, slight 'variations' (ie deviations from the expected circular/elliptical) in the orbits of GPS satellites can be used to infer slight variations in the gravity below. Separately, the military likely has had all of this measured and modeled for decades as part of ballistic missile targeting, but remains mostly classified at useful resolutions. The transitions from NGVD27 to NAVD88 to the work-in-progress 22 datum is exactly because the idea of a simple "universal" sea-level doesn't exist in the manor you would expect it to. But even with the GRAV-D based datums, the actual observed water levels will occur at slightly different datum heights in different locations, for various geophysical reasons.
- CorrectHorseBat 3y ago
  The melting of glaciers themselves can have an impact on gravity, causing water levels to drop around them. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2018/sep/12/greenland-antarctic-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise-science-climate https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2018/...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cwillu 3y ago
  PDF of gravitational correction factors by geographical region for use in theoretical weighscale calibration (vs calibrating with actual test weights): https://hardyinst.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1588/~/what-is-gravity-correction-and-how-do-i-use-it%3F https://hardyinst.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1588/...

twawaaay 3y ago

There is only one reason the sea can rise currently due to weather and that is glaciers getting melted. Another reason (but not due to weather) is that when land somewhere goes up, it will displace water everywhere else. And so, for example, if the land is still recovering from the ice age we should see ocean levels going up everywhere except for the pieces of land that are recovering from the weight of the glacier that is no longer there. Mind that Arctic is not causing sea level rise. Any ice that is floating on water will not cause any water level change when it melts. (I know this is somewhat unintuitive but it comes directly from Archimedes principle) So we are talking basically Antarctic ice and Greenland because these are by far the largest bodies of frozen water that are supported by land rather than floating on the ocean. I think it should be pretty easy to observe how much of that water melted or slipped into the sea. I also think that currently, coastal erosion is mostly caused by changing weather patterns. Basically this comes down to wind blowing in different directions, speed and variety and these changing patterns mean coasts are eroding in different places than before.

locopati 3y ago
Also, warming oceans causes expansion which causes sea level rise. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/learn/project/how-warming-water-causes-sea-level-rise/#:~:text=Thermal%20expansion%20happens%20when%20water,warming%20waters%20and%20thermal%20expansion https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/learn/project/how-warming-water....
- twawaaay 3y ago
  Not true. First of all, most of the temperature rise only happening close to the surface with average surface temperature rise being only about 1.5F or 1C since 1901. This article says deep ocean water is projected to warm up by only 0.2C during next 50 years: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/deep-ocean-warming-subtropical-north-atlantic/135799/ https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/deep-ocean-warming-subt... Furthermore, at around 4C which is what deep ocean water is close to (everything below 200m is essentially 4C), thermal expansion is almost nil. For colder water thermal expansion is actually negative. 4C is when water is at its densest. It is not an accident that all oceans are 4C, because 4C water sinks to the bottom and anything colder or hotter than 4C floats up. This remarkable property of water is what causes even shallow water to be fantastically stable in temperature -- a lake that has more than couple tens of meters in depth is likely to be 4C at the bottom throughout the year whether it is frosty winter or hot summer above it, unless some kind of powerful event is able to mix the water in the lake. Now, the small temperature differences will definitely have outsize effects on water circulation, ocean currents, life and weather. But I doubt they will cause meaningful sea rise unless somebody can calculate otherwise?

martinpw 3y ago

> Most notably, I can't find an example in the NOAA data of the rate of sea level rise increasing due to industrialization. Anybody? You can look at the graph on the NOAA site here and see the acceleration visually: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... The notes to the left of the table say 1.4mm/yr for much of 20th Century to 3.6mm/yr now. There is also evidence of acceleration of sea level rise just from satellite data, 0.08mm/y^2: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212150739.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212150739.h...

Trumpi 3y ago
Back in 2006, our expectations were set when An Inconveient Truth contemplated what would happen if sea levels rose by six meters (in our lifetime). 3.6mm a year seems a bit meh in that context.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Something I see a lot is people looking at worst case predictions as if they were presented as the most likely predictions. A lot of the IPCC reports say things like “if we continue to increase emissions, this will happen” (a worst case scenario) and also “if we make moderate improvements, this will happen” (a slightly better scenario). Then people who don’t want to talk about climate change mitigation will highlight the worst case scenario and say “see they were wrong and hysterical!” even when the moderate prediction, which they will ignore, ended up being essentially totally accurate.
  - Trumpi 3y ago
    Well, I'll go a step further and say that 3.6mm/yr is not evidence of a crisis.
    - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
      that's not a problem in the decade timeline but it is problematic over a century or two. it's especially problematic since it's accelerating and has a couple decades of inertia. the CO2 we release today will raise sea levels for the next 50 years or so.

mc32 3y ago

I think the arctic region is affected by glacial rebound: the ground slowly recovers from past glacial compression. Subsidence is a thing in Silicon Valley. San Jose has sunk some feet since the aquifer was drawn, fist for agriculture and now urbanization.

WillPostForFood 3y ago

We shouldn't be calling subsidence sea level rise. They are two distinct, measurable, phenomena that happen to have the same impact.

timcavel 3y ago
[dead]
sp332 3y ago
I don't think it was possible to measure them separately until we had good satellite data from the last two decades. If we're extending trends back to the beginning of the industrial revolution, they're going to be mixed.
- revelio 3y ago
  Satellite data isn't that good unfortunately. Tide gauges say 1.5mm/year of rise, satellites say 3mm/yr, and they estimate satellite error to be +/- 0.5mm year, so the error bars are a significant fraction of the size of the overall change. Also that assumes the scientists are completely accurate and don't make any mistakes. As recently as 5 years ago they discovered that the measured rise for almost all of the 90s was wrong and revised it by 3mm/year +- 1.7mm/year - the error was the same amount as the imputed level of rise! This is no knock on the scientists, because measuring the height of a moving ocean from orbit to a level of accuracy that lets you see mm level changes is inevitably going to be very hard. But we should bear in mind that they're heavily biased towards wanting to believe the data is accurate. Their decade long inability to get the measurements correct didn't seem to have any impact on their confidence that they're currently getting it right, and why would it? Those who seize the data, seize the day.
  - stochtastic 3y ago
    > Also that assumes the scientists are completely accurate and don't make any mistakes. As recently as 5 years ago they discovered that the measured rise for almost all of the 90s was wrong and revised it by 3mm/year +- 1.7mm/year - the error was the same amount as the imputed level of rise! Citation for this? There are always improvements to our understanding of past data, but you seem to be implying that the uncertainty exceeds the signal. That's simply not the case [1]. [1] — https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter09.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... pp.1291-1292

amelius 3y ago

What I wonder about is: rising wrt. what? Did they take into the account the possibly vertical movement of tectonic plates?

revelio 3y ago
They do take that into account. They calculate that the ocean floor is sinking but then ADD that displacement to their reported measurement of "sea level", which is backwards. When the ocean floor sinks sea level goes down, but they report it as going up instead, using this justification: https://sealevel.colorado.edu/index.php/presentation/what-glacial-isostatic-adjustment-gia-and-why-do-you-correct-it https://sealevel.colorado.edu/index.php/presentation/what-gl... currently some land surfaces are rising and some ocean bottoms are falling relative to the center of the Earth (the center of the reference frame of the satellite altimeter). since the ocean basins are getting larger due to GIA, this will reduce by a very small amount the relative sea level rise that is seen along the coasts. We apply a correction for GIA because we want our sea level time series to reflect purely oceanographic phenomena. In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes. This is what is needed for comparisons to global climate models, for example This is nonsense, of course. Volume isn't measured in millimeters, that's a measurement of distance. GMSL when talking about satellites is defined as the average distance of the surface of the ocean from the center of the Earth, and the reason people care about it is because if it gets too high then things we care about end up flooded. Changing the definition of GMSL half way through from sea level to sea depth is the kind of slippyness that pervades this space.

margalabargala 3y ago

> East coast US seems to be going up about 3mm/year, or a foot per century. That's on top of 7 foot tides. That's the average rise it you average all data going back to the 1950s. Unfortunately, looking back to the 50s is only really useful if interested in how much sea levels have already risen. Otherwise it presents an unrealistically optimistic view, as the rate has accelerated since. Per the article, the east coast (North Carolina) is currently experiencing an increase of about a third of an inch per year, which is an increase of one foot per 36 years, or close to a meter per century. If current trends continue, this will accelerate, not decelerate.

jessewmc 3y ago
Your unit mixtures hurt my brain

revelio 3y ago

[flagged]

magicalist 3y ago
> Careful man! You're on the verge of becoming a climate denier with research like that! Sea level rise is indeed not due to CO2 or industrialization. Here's a graph of what's claimed to be long term sea levels: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Lev... Not super helpful to post a graph where the era we're talking about is like 7 pixels wide using a line of about the same thickness.
- revelio 3y ago
  It shows that the claim that sea level rise is caused by CO2 isn't correct, which is relevant.
  - ohdearno 3y ago
    It shows nothing of the sort. It shows that melting glacial ice causes rising sea levels. That is all it shows. We know that. Guess what (eventually) causes glacial ice to melt? CO2.
    - revelio 3y ago
      Here's a graph of sea level rise since 1900 plotted against CO2: https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/image-56.png https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/image-56... No correlation.
      - ohdearno 3y ago
        You... really have no idea how to read that graph, do you? Or what a lagging indicator is, I'm guessing. The fact is - we can see the rate of change of the sea levels start changing in the mid-90s, though the graph you're using compresses the Y-axis to minimize how obvious that is (deliberately, I'd say, given the source). Which, given its a lagging indicator of the result of rising CO2, makes sense it would happen after. So, even accounting for the dishonesty of the presentation (and make no mistake, it's VERY dishonest) it actually demonstrates the exact opposite of what you claim.