IPPC’s global sea level rise estimates from 30 years ago:

[Hurricanelover]

Pretty accurate I say. Yet you believe that we don't understand the science and can't predict the future? lol

 

[Oddball]

How many trillions in taxes and destroyed liberties will it take to reverse that?

 

[Eman623]

Got a link to this study, or are we expected to take your word for it?

 

[EMH]

Pretty accurate I say. Yet you believe that we don't understand the science and can't predict the future? lol

Surely you can show us a PHOTO, not another FUDGE CHART, of "ocean rise."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pretty accurate I say. Yet you believe that we don't understand the science and can't predict the future? lol

Less than 3 inches in over 30 years?
Scary!
How many trillions should we waste on windmills to make it stop?

Yet you believe that we don't understand the science and can't predict the future?

The prediction was 1-6 inches, give your next prediction more wiggle room.
LOL!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Pretty accurate I say. Yet you believe that we don't understand the science and can't predict the future? lol

NO link and Satellite data lacks the precision which is why land based altimeters are still the gold standard which shows a 50% LESS sea level rise rate.

Surely this chart based on a number of published papers showed far more rapid rise that didn't destroy the world.

Then there is DOGGERLAND which vanished as sea level rose after the glacial sheets melted away.

Why don't you stuff it!

 

[ding]

Pretty accurate I say. Yet you believe that we don't understand the science and can't predict the future? lol

3 to 4 mm per year.

Been doing that for the past 6,000 years. It would have been hard to get it wrong.

 

[EMH]

NO link and Satellite data lacks the precision which is why land based altimeters are still the gold standard which shows a 50% LESS sea level rise rate.

Surely this chart based on a number of published papers showed far more rapid rise that didn't destroy the world.

View attachment 1154612
Then there is DOGGERLAND which vanished as sea level rose after the glacial sheets melted away.

View attachment 1154615

Why don't you stuff it!

Is that "meters" in the vertical column, the "m."

Do you believe Earth ocean levels were 120 meters lower 20k years ago??

 

[EMH]

Less than 3 inches in over 30 years?
Scary!
How many trillions should we waste on windmills to make it stop?

Yet you believe that we don't understand the science and can't predict the future?

The prediction was 1-6 inches, give your next prediction more wiggle room.
LOL!

The "faux skeptic" roars, it is rising, IT IS RISING...

except we're still waiting for a PHOTO documenting that...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The "faux skeptic" roars, it is rising, IT IS RISING...

except we're still waiting for a PHOTO documenting that...

You want a photo to document a 3-inch rise?

Hilarious!

How old were you when you noticed you were being targeted by the Mossad?

 

[BackAgain]

Got a link to this study, or are we expected to take your word for it?

It was linked in a reply to the post:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EF006533

 

[Sunsettommy]

It was linked in a reply to the post:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EF006533

Satellite data is good but the manipulation of it is the problem as these charts reveals:


Tide gauges show no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise, merely the up-and-down that’s been going on for a century and more …

… and the claimed acceleration in satellite-measured sea level is merely an artifact of changing satellites.

 

[Eman623]

It was linked in a reply to the post:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EF006533

I did some groking and found out that the IS92a (which was actually one of six scenarios (IS92a through IS92f) that the IPCC presented in 1992. They did NOT further divide the IS92a scenario into "high", "mid" and "low". They handled that through scenarios b-f. The IS92a scenario was the worst case, "business as usual" one. The IS92b assumed slight reductions in fossil fuels, and the IS92c scenario was the most climate-optimistic (mostly because it assumed the world economy would stagnate which would reduce economic activity, so it's actually the worst of he lot if you're a human trying to live)

I don't know where the people who drew that graph got their "high", "mid" and "low", but that's all made up bullshit.

Interestingly, IS92a predicted the world would consume 708 EJ of energy in 2025. In fact, it's only about 600 EJ. So I guess science doesn't get it right all the time. Not sure how predictions can be trusted for sea level rise but not for energy consumption. It's like astrology - no one ever pays attention to the predictions it gets wrong.

Oh, and lastly none of the IS92 predictions included sea level rise! They predicted CO2 forcing which was then used to make different assumptions about CO2 increasing the temperature, causing glaciers and ice cap melt and in turn sea level rise.

 

[EMH]

You want a photo to document a 3-inch rise?

Hilarious!

How old were you when you noticed you were being targeted by the Mossad?

There is no rise.

Only Mossad sponsored "faux skeptics" concede a "rise" that does not exist.

 

[EMH]

Satellite data is good but the manipulation of it is the problem as these charts reveals:


Tide gauges show no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise, merely the up-and-down that’s been going on for a century and more …

… and the claimed acceleration in satellite-measured sea level is merely an artifact of changing satellites.

Is the fudge from the 2014 satellite homO launched???

Tide gauges show no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise, merely the up-and-down that’s been going on for a century and more

and that's what the actual photos show too, no rise at all... validating Surface Air Pressure that Earth is experiencing precisely ZERO net ice melt.

 

[fncceo]

the science and can't predict the future?

Science can predict your future...

 

[BackAgain]

I did some groking and found out that the IS92a (which was actually one of six scenarios (IS92a through IS92f) that the IPCC presented in 1992. They did NOT further divide the IS92a scenario into "high", "mid" and "low". They handled that through scenarios b-f. The IS92a scenario was the worst case, "business as usual" one. The IS92b assumed slight reductions in fossil fuels, and the IS92c scenario was the most climate-optimistic (mostly because it assumed the world economy would stagnate which would reduce economic activity, so it's actually the worst of he lot if you're a human trying to live)

I don't know where the people who drew that graph got their "high", "mid" and "low", but that's all made up bullshit.

Interestingly, IS92a predicted the world would consume 708 EJ of energy in 2025. In fact, it's only about 600 EJ. So I guess science doesn't get it right all the time. Not sure how predictions can be trusted for sea level rise but not for energy consumption. It's like astrology - no one ever pays attention to the predictions it gets wrong.

Oh, and lastly none of the IS92 predictions included sea level rise! They predicted CO2 forcing which was then used to make different assumptions about CO2 increasing the temperature, causing glaciers and ice cap melt and in turn sea level rise.

Color me surprised.

Just to be clear: By providing the link to the actual study referenced in the OP, I certainly wasn’t remotely agreeing with the silly OP. I just figured that if others wished to peruse it, I could make that a bit simpler.

Since I am not a scientist, I don’t claim to grasp all of the technical issues. But I am curious to see where the underlying (alleged” “data” may have been fudged.

Posts like yours I find helpful.

 

[Eman623]

Color me surprised.

Just to be clear: By providing the link to the actual study referenced in the OP, I certainly wasn’t remotely agreeing with the silly OP. I just figured that if others wished to peruse it, I could make that a bit simpler.

Since I am not a scientist, I don’t claim to grasp all of the technical issues. But I am curious to see where the underlying (alleged” “data” may have been fudged.

Posts like yours I find helpful.

I know you didn't agree with it but thanks for pointing me to the right place anyway.

It's been my experience that most of these "predictions" that turn out to be true are either carefully cherry picked or just plain flat-out spin. This one did not disappoint.

But if it holds true, then the IS92a "mid" sea level rise by 2100 will be about 50 cm, or 19 inches. I think we'll be okay.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no rise.

Only Mossad sponsored "faux skeptics" concede a "rise" that does not exist.

I don't care about a 3-inch rise over 30 years.

How old were you when you noticed you were being targeted by the Mossad?

 

[EMH]

I don't care about a 3-inch rise over 30 years.

How old were you when you noticed you were being targeted by the Mossad?

That was the late 1990s.

A strange thing happened. The BBC was one of the first to have a climate message board. When I joined, almost 80% of Brits believed CO2 FRAUD. A year and a half later, that number dropped to the 40s, and all of a sudden the BBC message board was

404 page not found

because some "entity" figured out WHY the Brits were becoming more "skeptical."

The Acura I drove back then had two bullet marks on the front windshield, fired from the Hillcrest area of San Diego. Long range shots too, very accurate, but did not penetrate the windshield fully. Had they, I was doing 60 mph on a crowded highway, proving how little Mossad cares about "collateral damage."