Another wild exaggeration from IPCC 1990 – sea level rise touted to be 6cm per decade

The claim of a 6cm per decade rise is from their 1990 Executive Summary.
Note on the graphic 2012_rel4: Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals removed) – from this IPCC compliant Org – the claimed rate from adjusted satellite data is only 3.1mm per year – HALF of IPCC 1990.

But there is more – checkout the new Jo Nova article – Are sea-levels rising? Nils-Axel Mörner documents a decided lack of rising seas. Nils-Axel Mörner says the unadjusted satellite data show negligible trend and in his new pdf paper SEA LEVEL IS NOT RISING – has this stunning graphic.

So the rate of sea level rise is just an artifact of IPCC compliant adjustments.

3 comments to Another wild exaggeration from IPCC 1990 – sea level rise touted to be 6cm per decade

  • Steve Case

    Satellite based sea level is only 2.8 mm/yr
    if you read the “Fine Print” which can be
    found in Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
    section of Colorado U’s Sea level Research
    Group’s website:

    sealevel.colorado.edu/faq#n3113

    You find that when asked:

    “What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA),
    and why do you correct for it?”

    They say:

    “In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a
    proxy for ocean water volume changes. … the GIA
    correction has the effect of increasing previous
    estimates of the global mean sea level rate by 0.3 mm/yr.”

    So in reality the 3.1 mm/yr label on their graph is ocean
    volume not sea level, the level is 0.3 mm/yr less than that.

  • Graeme Inkster

    IPCC science or more generally Global Warming science, reminds me of the case of N-rays. Scientists seeing what they want to see rather than what is actually happening.

    Thus evidence of natural warming was taken as “proof” of man-made warming. When the temperature failed to rise as predicted, it led to changes in the records to try and keep the theory going.

    It all comes to the old statement “your theory has to explain the facts, and extrapolate (predict) from that. If the facts contradict your theory then you must change your theory”.

    Sadly, AGW “SCIENTISTS” think that if the facts contradict the theory, then they must change the facts.

  • Steve Case

    Graeme Inkster wrote:

    Sadly, AGW “SCIENTISTS” think that if the facts
    contradict the theory, then they must change the
    facts.

    The ARGO floats data was certainly changed, and it
    sure looks like Colorado U’s Sea Level Research Group
    has adjusted some numbers. The record of GISS changes
    to temperature without explanation seems to be a regular
    occurrence. I’m rather sure that changes to data regarding
    other issues, such as polar bears, glaciers, ice caps, sea ice,
    ocean acidity, storm counts, etc. are very likely to be found
    compromised if this whole thing ever gets investigated.