Sea Level Sophistry; Junk Science Masquerading as the Basis for UnSound Public Policy


The more scientifically illiterate you are, the more convincing the Climate Alarmists’ arguments become. Climate Alarmists know that and that is why they usually only provide half the story at best, and as we all know, “half the truth is often twice the lie.” No matter if it is Coral Reefs, Sea Ice, Global Temperatures or other claims, the Alarmists’ arguments simply don’t hold up under even the most simple of analysis.

Evidence of an accelerating sea level rate of increase is crucial to the man-made CO2  climate change theory. It is a smoking gun piece of evidence and would be extremely important in bolstering the case of the Alarmists. The theory goes man-made CO2 is increasing at an increasing rate, Atmospheric CO2 has reached levels not seen over the entire ice core record spanning 800k years, the rapidly increasing CO2 had been absorbing outgoing IR radiation at an increasing rate, this increasing rate of absorbing outgoing IR Radiation has CAUSED global temperatures to increase at an increasing rate, global temperatures increasing at an increasing rate would CAUSE glaciers to melt at an increasing rate, the increasing glacier melt rate would CAUSE the sea levels to increase at an increasing rate. The “increasing rate” is critical to proving the man-made CO2 driven warming theory. Warming isn’t enough, what is needed is an “increasing rate,” for calculus fans, this is a second derivative model.


The problem for the Climate Alarmists is that the rate of change in the sea-level hasn’t  been increasing. In fact, just the opposite has happened. The rate of change in the sea-level has been DECREASING.

The models are predicated on the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which have risen explosively since about 1950, are the drivers of modern sea level rise…Tide gauges indicate there has been a substantial overall reduction in the rate of sea level rise since about 1950 rather than the expected substantial acceleration.

If a rapidly increasing sea-level is something to be feared, then increasing CO2 may be the way to prevent it. Data shows that CO2 and the rate of change in sea-level are INVERSELY correlated, the exact opposite of what the climate alarmists claim. Having the data prove just the opposite of what the hypothesis predicts is usually game over in most real sciences, but climate “science” isn’t a real science.


How does climate “science” deal with such a devastating blow? Do they admit defeat? Do they reformulate the hypothesis? Do they look for other explanations like maybe solar irradiance? Nope, they go looking for that needle in a haystack data set, the outlier that will prove their point. Climate alarmists have found the perfect data set to make their case down in Perth Australia. They have found a tidal gauge showing a rate of increase of 20cm over the past 100 years.


Global sea-level increase is around 2mm/yr, so 20 cm over 100 years is the expected increase. How do the Climate Alarmists present this data? Just what do the climate computer models predict? A full 2 m increase in sea level by 2100, or 22 mm/yr. That is 11x the current actual rate.


I’m not sure how a real science would predict an 11x increase in sea-level given the data showing the CO2 and sea-level are inversely correlated, but I can guess how Climate “Science” does it. Freemantle/Perth’s sea-level is increasing at 2mm/yr, but Sidney on the other side of Australia has a sea-level that is only increasing at 6.5 cm per 100 years, or only 0.65mm/year, less than 1/3 that of Perth’s. Most importantly, Perth is sinking, not due to CO2, but due to water usage. Much, if not all of the sea-level increase in Perth is in fact due to man, but not man-made CO2. So much like the Climate Alarmists exploiting the Urban Heat Island Effect to unjustly and unscientifically incriminate man-made CO2, they do the same with water usage. Simply put, man-made CO2 doesn’t cause the Urban Heat Island Effect, nor does it deplete water tables, nor does it melt glaciers from below, nor does it expose coral reefs to the bleaching sun, ect etc etc. What people need to ask is “do we really want to spend astronomical fortunes on computer models based on junk science and made up/corrupted data when there are infinitely better uses for that money?

the tide gauge is sinking 2 – 4mm each year (20 -40cm a century).
PARTS of Perth are sinking because too much water is being extracted from the Perth Basin, making those areas more vulnerable to sea level rises.

Professor Will Featherstone said the gauge was sinking at about 2-4mm a year due to groundwater being extracted at a faster rate than it can be replenished, causing the land to subside.

h/t to JoNova and No Trick Zone for the inspiration and graphics

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.


12 thoughts on “Sea Level Sophistry; Junk Science Masquerading as the Basis for UnSound Public Policy”

  1. Reblogged this on Tallbloke’s Talkshop and commented:
    CO2 theory says warming should be increasing at an increasing rate, but everyone knows – or ought to know – it isn’t, and that’s been the case for around 20 years now. Yet still the alarm bells are sounded by the usual sources, as if the failed forecasts of the climate models had been true.


    1. “CO2 theory says warming should be increasing at an increasing rate”
      As the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration is logarithmic, shouldn’t that be “warming should be increasing at an DEcreasing rate” as concentration rises?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Warning: This Message Contains Blocked Content
    Your message couldn’t be sent because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. A sign of the alarmist incognition is that they expect an acceleration in sea level rise which should be, rationally, counter-intuitive.
    Where did all the water come from? Obviously the melting of the great ice sheets the remnants of which remain at higher latitudes and lower temperatures and need, consequently an acceleration of the rate of heat flow to achieve even a linear rate of melting. But as CO2 forcing is logarithmic it requires an accelerating rate of rise even to produce a linear increase in global temperature. It follows the rate of ice melt cannot accelerate beyond the historic levels as illustrated above.
    The other source of sea level rise is thermal expansion.
    90% of the sea lies below the thermocline at 4 C and cannot warm except by geothermal sources. This is a basic property of water, it expands and becomes less dense below 4 C. Therefore only the top 10% can warm and expand. Given the small amount of warming the data shows, the possible rise from this effect is negligible.
    You have produced an admirably succinct demonstration showing that the predicted
    effect is not happening. By the same methods you can show that it cannot happen.


  4. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “CO2 theory says warming should be increasing at an increasing rate, but everyone knows – or ought to know – it isn’t, and that’s been the case for around 20 years now. Yet still the alarm bells are sounded by the usual sources, as if the failed forecasts of the climate models had been true.” (“Old Brew” – Tallbloke’s Talkshop)


  5. My partner and I stumbled over here different page and thought I might as well check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to looking over your web page yet again.|


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s