Romm Reports That Sea Level Is Rising 6-12 Inches Per Decade

Loss of beaches worldwide is certainly not the worst of the impacts humans will face from unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions (see “JPL bombshell: Polar ice sheet mass loss is speeding up, on pace for 1 foot sea level rise by 2050“).  But it will be a poignant and costly loss nonetheless for future generations.  And don’t count on creating artificial beaches — they will be awfully hard to sustain when sea levels are rising 6 to 12 inches a decade!  CAP’s Kiley Kroh has more.

Meanwhile back in the real world – Europe’s Envisat satellite reports plummeting sea level over the last 18 months, with the current level being the lowest  in their eight years of data.

We are going to spend the next few days at the non-existent beaches of California.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Romm Reports That Sea Level Is Rising 6-12 Inches Per Decade

  1. Latitude says:

    But they predicted this, right?????

    • Mike Davis says:

      Whatever happens they can find or create a past prediction to match! 🙂

      • Mike Davis says:

        You really misunderstood their original prognostication as they were using the esoteric meaning of the words that they just now made up!

  2. A K Haart says:

    Don’t push him too hard with that graph – he’ll say the seas are evaporating.

    • Mike Davis says:

      BUT1 BUT! BUT! THEY ARE, DONCHAKNOW! Any day now the atmosphere will hold more H2O than the oceans! It is what the models predicted. The oceans are drying up!!!!!

  3. BarryW says:

    6-12 inches a decade? Romm either believes in the BIG LIE or needs a refresher in basic math. 3.25 millimeters a year (what they show as the long term rate) is 3.25 cm a decade or about 1.5 inches a decade or just over a foot a century . And as you show, the rate has decelerated .

    • Mike Davis says:

      Post Normal Math is the answer!

    • Jimbo says:

      Note that they want to emphasize the future. The trend is a deceleration, yet they blather on about a possible future acceleration. The problem is that the future never comes. 😉

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Of course, the actual quote Steve uses does NOT say, as he puts in the title “Sea Level Is Rising 6-12 Inches Per Decade”. Another minor lie from Steve, that is, of course, unimportant if sea level does not start increasing exponentially in the next decade or so, and certainly if sea level keeps decreasing as Steve keeps showing.
      Still why doe Steve have to lie about what people actually say, especially since he posts the contradiction right beneath the title, when he can just as easily ridicule what the person actually says?

      • Latitude says:

        Tony, it’s just to mess with you…
        ….the rest of us get it

      • Mike Davis says:

        Did you fail to red the entire paragraph Steven quoted:
        And don’t count on creating artificial beaches — they will be awfully hard to sustain when sea levels are rising 6 to 12 inches a decade! CAP’s Kiley Kroh has more.
        Joe Romm contradicts himself in one paragraph.
        Why do you have to lie about what is quoted by Steven?

      • Tony Duncan says:


        Exactly, Steve’s blog post says “Romm Reports That Sea Level IS Rising 6-12 Per Decade ”
        and Romm ACTUALLY says “Polar ice sheet mass loss is speeding up, on pace for 1 foot sea level rise BY 2050,, and then later states “WHEN sea levels are rising 6 to 12 inches a decade!” giving no indication of when that would be.

        of course it depends on the meaning of “is” ” doesn’t it? But I guess you are one of those hold-outs that think Clinton didn’t lie about Lewinsky

      • Tony Duncan says:


        Of COURSE it is just to mess with me. That is why i keep coming back to this site.

      • Latitude says:

        Tony, it’s the very first paragraph on Romm’s blog. Romm reported it, on Romm’s blog.
        No one said that Romm said or predicted it. Steve said Romm reported it.
        That’s true, Romm reported it.

        No More Jersey Shore: Leaving Our Children a World Without Beaches — Thanks to Warming-Driven Sea Level Rise

        By Joe Romm on Jun 8, 2011 at 3:19 pm

      • Mike Davis says:

        Did you have sex with that woman?
        Yes, but it was not real sex!
        Do you agree the temperature has not risen since 1995?
        Yes, but it is not statistically significant!
        It will rise by one foot by 2050 but do not think about repairing the beaches as the sea level will be rising at 6 to 12 inches a decade.
        It has nothing to do with the meaning of “IS”! In my neck of the woods it is a contradictory claim unless he gives a time frame for the 6 to 12 inch per decade sea level rise! You take a lot on faith of what he meant to say!

      • Mike Davis says:

        Did you have to take some sort of preventative medication to visit that site? You are a braver man than I! 😉

      • Tony Duncan says:


        What is Romm’s blog? there is no link to it, And is it the most recent one? I will check and if Romm says on his blog that “Sea level is rising 6-12″ per decade”. I will retract my accusation.

      • Latitude says:

        Tony, did you really just accuse Steve of lying, and now you say you didn’t even look at Romm’s blog and you don’t even know where his blog is? and what does it matter if it’s Romm’s most recent one?

        Here’s the link, Romm reports that sea level is rising 6-12 inches a decade, he reported what someone else said, that’s still reporting it……………..

        All you have to do is google the title that I gave you. It will take you right to it………..

      • Tony Duncan says:


        there is nothing different on Romms blog than what Steve put on this one. this blog says “Romm Reports That Sea Level – IS – Rising 6-12 Inches Per Decade”. I cannot find that anywhere on Romm’s blog where he says that or reports that someone else says that. He very clearly references a ONE foot rise by 2050. that is about 3 INCHES a decade until 2050. He gives NO indication of when the ONE FOOT /decade increase would occur. Obviously it would occur sometime AFTER 2050. There is nothing in the blog or the links to give any indication that it is happening now or would happen BEFORE 2050.

        MIKE as you point out Romm says “and don’t count on creating artificial beaches — they WILL BE awfully hard to sustain WHEN sea levels are rising 6 to 12 inches a decade! Again, there is NO contradiction. Romm does NOT say when this would occur, and you are free to ridicule him for that, but it obviously would occur AFTER 2050. If he had said “SINCE Sea levels are rising 6-12 inches/ decade you would have him dead to rights!

        So I am not actually ACCUSING Steve of lying in this case. Since the information is all very neatly contained, I am POINTING OUT that he is lying about what Romm reported.

        But Latitude, thank you for supplying the link so that I could confirm that fact.

      • Mike Davis says:

        I took the claim related to artificial beaches as present tense. Artificial beaches are what most people now visit.
        Then you are claiming to have read his mind and he meant some mysterious time in the distant future that the rise would happen.
        And do not count on creating artificial beaches. That seems to be a present tense comment or in the near future. Why would Romm be talking to someone that does not exist yet.
        I forget it is Joe Romm talking and he talks about imaginary things to imaginary people all the time.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        Are you serious? Read my comment again, look at yours and see which one makes any sense with modern (post Shakespeare) english usage.

      • Mike Davis says:

        I am not going to continue arguing a Romm quotation with a Romm apologist! I still take the statement as present tense.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        Show me any time I have been a Romm apologist. Where have I ever said he was right about something? All I am doing is pointing out an obvious lie about him. One could point out an obvious lie about anyone and that doesn’t make one an apologist for them. asserting that is just propaganda

        and your attempt to make his sentence present tense is a laudable herculean effort to support Steve when he is lying about what someone says again. Since Romm used the FUTURE tense in the earlier part of the sentence and WHEN is only colloquially used as present tense, it is more than a stretch, especially when he had very specifically said a ONE foot sea level rise by 2050. You even write in one of your above comments “WILL BE rising” . You are the one taking your position on faith, and it is another indefensible position, as was Phil’s bizarre obfuscation with me earlier about palin’s Quote, and of course the one that can’t be named that keep’s coming up.

        I do think it funny that Andy is the only regular here that is willing to question Steve and suffer the wrath of the non-questioning faithful.

      • suyts says:

        Did Romm say, or write, “they will be awfully hard to sustain when sea levels are rising 6 to 12 inches a decade!”
        It isn’t a lie to quote this. It is a lie to say that’s not what he stated. If, it is taken out of context, that’s fine. It’s open to interpretation. Lie? WTF? Quoting someone is a lie? Horse shit.
        Unless you have a link to something else, Romm’s tripe is worse. WTF? Really? You’re going to defend a foot/yr …….I don’t give a damn how far in the future or is you want to interpret the word “are” as future tense, its horse shit. If you don’t like exaggerations or hyperbole, go talk to Romm. Fire with fire has been an accepted practice for many years. You want to get bogged down with semantics? Go to Romm first. He’s the one that used the present tense verb. You think that was unintentional? I don’t.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        Steve did not quote Romm, he CHANGED what Romm said or reported.
        My contention is that no one could conceivably take the the sentence as being in the present tense in that blog post. the fact that it is AFTER he gives a rate of one foot by 2050, makes it ludicrous to suggest it is present tense, and there is NOTHING else in the article that supports that view.
        the quote is “They WILL BE” are you contending that THIS is a present tense? And that is coupled with “WHEN sea levels are rising 6 to 12 inches a decade!”. There can be no question that this is referring to a future event. ESPECIALLY since he makes a clear statement about sea level rise by 2050 of ONLY one foot. This is NOT a contradiction, it is a logical follow up.
        if I said “There will be a devastating solar reaction, when the planets are falling into the sun”, would you accuse me of saying the planets were falling into the sun NOW? With your reasoning you would be totally justified in that interpretation, EVEn if I said before hand. “Planetary orbits are thought to be stable for the next 3 billion years. Would you then accuse me of contradicting myself?

        This is pure hogwash and you know it.

        I do not defend ANY of the specifics that Romm is asserting. I am pointing out that STEVE changed the meaning of the quote from Romm. “Romm Reports That Sea Level Is Rising 6-12 Inches Per Decade”that is unambiguously a present tense, and that is not what Romm wrote. That is LYING. something that is CLEARLY a future event changed to to something that is present about a fact that IN THE PRESENT Is absolutely ludicrous. NO ONE, ROMM, HANSEN or anyone else is saying sea levels are rising by ONE FOOT a decade NOW. To twist his words by distorting the quote and substituting usage as a colloquialism instead of the actual accepted usage is just ridiculous and is pure fantasy. ESPECIALLY when he gives specifics IN the article that are completely incompatible with the twisted interpretation.

        The title of this blog post is a flat out lie. THAT is the truth. So again i ask, WHY lie about something so inconsequential , when there is plenty to ridicule in the article that ARE his actual words? Why lie when the fact of the lie is right in the post itself.

      • suyts says:

        Tony, that was beautiful. And, for the most part, I agree. I know what Romm said, and I know why he worded the things he stated as such. Personally, I’m sick of it. To make a point……and I pray you take it as I intend.

        Tony said, “Steve did not quote Romm, he CHANGED what Romm said or reported.”
        Tony, Show it.

        Words mean things. The way people word things mean things. Context and grammatically correct ….. yeh, I’m all about it. I’ll quit defending Steve as soon as Romm quits using the words “are” and “is” in the context of the future. Those are definitive words and it isn’t definitive in the context that he’s using. Screw him and his misleading ways. You want to chide Steve…… Go chide Romm first….it will hold more weight with me if you would. I look forward to reading all about it.

      • Jimash says:

        “and Romm ACTUALLY says “Polar ice sheet mass loss is speeding up, on pace for 1 foot sea level rise BY 2050,, and then later states “WHEN sea levels are rising 6 to 12 inches a decade!” giving no indication of when that would be.”

        Can you not see that Mr. Romm is making a reckless prediction ? Doesn’t matter ( nor is it stated), whether this will start next week, next year or next decade. Wouldn’t you like some more specificity ?
        And further confusing the issue with the facile implication that “polar Ice” will contribute to sea level rise , while not making any distinction between poles or sea v. landed ices ?
        It is simple fear mongering. Mocking is all it deserves.

  4. Curt says:

    The meme they are pushing now is “doubling time” for melt rates, which is exponential extrapolation. Others are slightly more same, pushing parabolic extrapolation. But both take data that purports to show an increase in melt rate over a few years (however dodgy it is), and then with non-physical assumptions, extrapolate it out to ridiculous values.

    Hansen has been pushing the idea of a doubling time for melt rates of 10 years or so, and presents as plausible a scenario where sea levels will rise 2 meters in the last 7 years of the 21st century (280mm/year, 11in/year) – and presumably twice that in the first 7 years of the 22nd century. If you look how much power that would take, you can’t get there without the sun going nova…

    • Paul H says:

      It’s jolly convenient though, Curt.

      By the end of the century he will be dead so he won’t have to explain why he was wrong.

      • Jimbo says:

        Don’t you mean by the middle of this century. His name will go down in history as a scientific crackpot. A quack if you like.

  5. Mike Davis says:

    They have been listening to stock promoters claims of Investing “X” dollars at “X” rate of return and it will double every “X”number of years. Works in theory but with corrections being experienced not in practice.
    Expotential Extrapolation sounds like garbage rejected by the land fill companies or Really Wild A$$ Guesses!

  6. Robert Austin says:

    The sea level drop shown by Envisat is obviously caused by weather, not climate change. /sarc off

  7. Lance says:

    That graph will be adjusted.
    It is completely out of line with models.

  8. John Silver says:

    Here’s a funny cartoon:

  9. Sleepalot says:

    “Loss of beaches”? Romm is a young-Earth creationist: he thinks beaches have always been where they are now. But 15,000 years ago sea-level was 120 metres lower, and so were the beaches.

  10. Dave N says:

    Maybe it’s consistent with AGW

  11. Andy WeissDC says:

    It’s much, much worse than we thought! We are all going to die!

  12. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Baghdad Romm

  13. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    The world doesn’t need to be saved from global warming. The world needs to be saved from global warming believers.

    • suyts says:

      Spot on! I’ve never once seen a proof to where a warmer world would be less beneficial than today……….EVER!!!!!

      Mankind thrives better in warmer climates. This isn’t supposition, it is historically factual. That isn’t something they can wave away like the MWP or the LIA…… It’s all of our recorded history. From Egypt, to Mesopotamia to Greece, to Rome and yes, even our Vikings….. but also China, Mongolia, the Mayans, the Aztecs, and, last but not least, the INCAS!……. all of it comes from a warmer climate. And many of their demise…..if not all, come from a cooler climate.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      Look at that, you made a strong argument and you didn’t have to LIE about anything in Romm’s blog. See how easy it is?

  14. suyts says:

    While we’re congratulating ourselves, you didn’t have to throw any errant perceptions around to mislead any one! High five!

    Lie…… I find that ironic coming from an alarmist. Tony, come to the light side, you can sleep better over here. If you were such a believer in Truth, you couldn’t possibly defend the lies told to the masses. And, I know, you know they do. It is wrong. You know it is wrong. And, I know you know it is wrong. We sleep better over here.

    • suyts says:

      We should endeavor to find if aerosols have actually decreased since that last scare.

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

      High five? This high five things is getting out of control. Why, I saw a grocery bagger get high fived by a customer for putting crushables on top.


  15. Jimash says:

    6-12 inches PER DEACDE ?
    It isn’t just absurd, it is self destructive. The scientific equivalent of betting the mortgage on 36-White at the roulette table.

  16. wainbee says:

    People, people… please simmer down with the rhetoric and take my suggestion:

    1. Take a drinking glass and put two or three icebergs (sorry, I meant ICE CUBES) in the bottom.

    2. Now fill the glass to the the beach (sorry, I meant the RIM) with gin and tonic or rye and ginger or similar.

    3. Now, sit back and relax and watch the glass as the icebergs melt and flood over the beaches. Or in other words, wait until the ice melts and overflows the rim.

    4. While you’re waiting, try to remember Archimedes principle that states ‘a body immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid’. This is how the polar ice floats. But Archimedes mentioned nothing about volume which, of course, remains nearly constant as the ice melts.

    5. You can stop waiting and watching the glass now… it won’t overflow when the ice melts. Please enjoy the drink and tell me your concerns about losing the beaches in California from global warming. LOL

  17. Earthling says:

    I think this Romm person, whoever he is, must have missed the maths class in metric to Imperial measure conversion.

    • Paul H says:

      Andy W was right. We should all use metric!

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

      No, he got the math class. But it was political maths 101. That’s in the global warming inhumanities curriculum. They tell you how to ‘disappear the Medieval Warm Period’ in the 201 course. ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ is in the 202. They offer a Ph.D. in how to manipulate solar data so it doesn’t show an increase in activity from 1975 to 2000.

      Oddly, you won’t find any ‘no statistically significant warming for going on 17 years’ course in the line up.

  18. rw says:

    Just went over to look at the site of all the controversy. Wow! Romm really is on fire, isn’t he, even if little else is. It’s true that he doesn’t say that sea levels are rising 6-12 inches just yet, but I think it’s a tad disingenuous to be defending this sort of breathless reportage with the implication that it is in any way balanced and rational.

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 )

Connecting to %s