Sea Level Rising 43 mm Per Year

The latest adjusted data from Aviso shows sea level rising at 43 mm/year. Look for Manhattan to drown very soon.


About stevengoddard

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

19 Responses to Sea Level Rising 43 mm Per Year

  1. jimash1 says:

    That is about twenty times reality right ?
    Ambitious !

  2. Jason Calley says:

    That rise is obviously the effect of the water pulse pouring off of a melting Greenland. Anyone can see that! In another year we will be — Oh, wait. Sorry, Nurse Ratched says I have to go take my medicine now.

  3. You have been outing so many outrageous climate data manipulations, it suddenly occurred to me your site reminds me of Ripley’s Believe It Or Not.

  4. Rosco says:

    That is so ridiculous I am simply amazed anyone reporting crap like that keeps their job !!

  5. chris y says:

    This can’t be right! I am compiling all of the climate achievements of The Dear Leader to help with his re-election and a second Nobel Peace Prize. I already checked some older AVISO data and found that Gore made the sea level rise 3.3 mm per year. The big oil shill George W. Bush slowed the sea level rise to 2.7 mm per year. The Dear Leader has slowed the sea level rise even more, down to 1.8 mm per year.

    It is inconceivable that sea level rise has now increased this much so close to the election.
    Two possibilities:
    1. Big Fossil has hacked the AVISO database and is purposely adjusting the data to make The Dear Leader look bad.
    2. Big Climate has decided that scaring the crap out of the public with bogus data is more important than re-electing The Dear Leader.

    • Me says:

      Or, 😆 The Dear Leader’s re-electiion is slipping from his reach and he can’t focus on healing the planet and keeping sea levels down anymore!

  6. slimething says:

    Wasn’t this done right after it was found the satellite was failing?

  7. Eric Simpson says:

    For 40 years I’ve been going to this distinctive rocky Big Sur beach. Take my word for it, there has been no sea level rise. None. Others, reporting from other beaches all over the world, say exactly the same thing. No sea rise at all. Also, the photographic record, replete with then and now beach shots, confirms our point.
    If there had been the massive ice melt the the warmist msm propaganda claims, we should have had massive sea level rise. But we have nothing. Nada. But the absence of sea level rise is just a secondary point. The two main points I make are that 1) contrary to previous ipcc claims, there is no evidence of -any- kind of causal relationship between CO2 & temperatures (this is consistent with theoretical models that have CO2’s greenhouse effect petering out well below 200ppm), and 2) current temperatures are not unusual (because the hockey stick has been debunked). The weather is fine. There is nothing wrong with the climate. Go outside and see for yourself. You can feel it. It’s all normal, and we’re not on the eve of doomsday.
    A sidenote about the hockey stick. M Mann eliminated the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Now we are recovering from the Little Ice Age, but another egregious thing Mann did was, through all kinds of shenanigans, to make this period of moderate natural warming look like some kind of crazy unprecedented runaway warming. A good comment on this from qduck in the UK’s telegraph. Here’s an excerpt:

    In the global instrumental temperature record that began in 1850 there have been three periods of [moderate] warming, all at identical rates, 1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1975-1998. The third of these periods is the only one that humans could have influenced, even in theory, and yet the warming rate during that period is identical to the warming rates in the two earlier periods, which humans could not have influenced. There is, therefore, NO anthropogenic signal in the global temperature record whatsoever.

    • sod says:

      so you can see mm of sea level rise with your eyes? Fantastic!

      sea ice melt doesn t increase the sea level.

      the rest of your comment is also mostly false.

      • Otter says:

        43 MM is well on the way to two inches, moron. And where do you see the claim that it is sea ice?

      • rw says:

        I can’t put my finger on the reference, but Joe Romm has mentioned a sea level rise of 7 in. for California in the past century – and I’m sure I’ve seen that figure elsewhere. If this is the case, there has to be an inundated beach somewhere along the coast.

  8. RiverChewer says:

    I guess my new 16′ industrial pontoon raft (for hauling 4-wheelers and argo’s) wasn’t as big a waste as my wife tells me:)

  9. RobertvdL says:

    photographic record (so you can see mm of sea level rise with your eyes?)

    Eric does not talk about sea ice “If there had been the massive ice melt “( sea ice melt doesn t increase the sea level)

    “mostly false” ? where false where not false ?


  10. Sleepalot says:

    That data source makes no reference to metres or years. If you argue that the metre is the SI unit of length, then the second is the SI unit of time.

  11. Don Sutherland says:

    The longer-term rate of increase is 3.1 mm per year.

    • The satellites started monitoring sea levels in 1993, just after, as Church & White point out,

      However, the reconstruction indicates there was little net change in sea level from 1990 to 1993, most likely as a result of the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

      In other words, they start at an abnormally low point. (Now where have we heard that before!)
      More relevantly, over the last 30 years, the sea level rise has been 1.93mm pa, according to Church & White, pretty much the same as most of the 20thC.

      And as Bruce Douglas points out

      It is well established that sea level trends obtained from tide gauge records shorter than about 50-60 years are corrupted by interdecadal sea level variation

      • Don Sutherland says:


        The longer-term rate of increase would be modestly slower if one assumed the same rate of increase for 1990-93 as had been taking place for a similar period afterward. My point was that the data do not indicate a 43 mm rise per year. One can’t extrapolate for a very short number of data points when describing the long-term trend.

      • Don Sutherland says:


        One can’t extrapolate from a very small number of data points when describing the long-term trend.

  12. “Look for Manhattan to drown very soon.”

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s