According to Yale Climate Connections a new study shows one of the first estimates of sea level rise made by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change closely matches what actually happened over the past 30 years.

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report.

According to Dr. Torbjörn Törnqvist "it shows that even 30 years ago, scientists understood the fundamentals of climate change".

Törnqvist: “I find it hard to think of any other form of evidence that is more compelling to demonstrate that this is happening, it has been happening for a long time, and we know why, and we understand it, and we can make credible projections.”

Dr. Törnqvist's research interests include Quaternary geology, Sea-level change, Coastal sustainability, Fluvial and deltaic sedimentology, Sequence stratigraphy, Applied geochronology and Paleoclimatology.

It's easy for denialists to reject the predictions of scientific models but it takes a special kind of mental contortion to ignore scientific evidence.

Its the same climate three-card trick and the same climate fools fall for it each time.

30 years ago takes us back to 1995 and the Second IPCC report (SAR). And what did SAR predict for sea levels through to 2025. Nothing. But don't let that get in the way of the three-card trick.

What they did predict was that sea levels would rise somewhere between 15cm and 95cm by 2100. Its like saying my grandson will grow to be somewhere between really tiny and a giant and then claiming victory when he turns out to be normal height.

So we have this enormous range from which the three-card trickster then picks the scenario that most matches reality and claims that as the real prediction. And even then they have to fiddle the numbers, which is why WTF didn't mention the sources because, even if he understood the fiddle, it would expose the trick.

The hilarity is that the climate true-believers will fall for the three-card trick every time and not even know it.

The truth is that sea level rise predictions has been one of the worst failures for the IPCC, and that's saying something!

If you make enough predictions then one of them is bound to come true.

I remember when they said that the sea will rise by 300 metres.
That was scary indeed.

But then they revised it down to 61 metres.
Great opportunity, so my brother built a nice house 63 metres above sea level, sloping from there down his property.
...and he still waits to have his private beach...

WTF?

Dear oh dear where do I start?

Yuyutsu you say "I remember when they said that the sea will rise by 300 metres. That was scary indeed".
Sadly, I think that was the intention of bad actors - to scare you. Rest assured the IPCC made no such statement.

mhaze, wrong again.

Yes the IPCC did make predictions up to 2100 in its 1995/1996 report but when you say " And what did SAR predict for sea levels through to 2025. Nothing". You are wrong.

Why? because that detail was provided in graphical form not a written statement and this is what Törnqvist did his analysis on.

If fact the recorded 9cm change is not from the "low" CO2 range, not from the "medium" CO2 range but from the "high" CO2 predicted range.

So the 8cm prediction was associated with the highest predicted CO2 concentration in ppmv.

So once again mhaze you are wrong. The predictions were in graphical form.

What is the analysis: Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report.

WTF asserts (ie no actual data)...."If fact the recorded 9cm change is not from the "low" CO2 range, not from the "medium" CO2 range but from the "high" CO2 predicted range."

That's plain wrong. I don't know if WTF just doesn't understand this or just makes it up as he goes but here's what the IPCC said in SAR...

"for Scenario IS92a, sea level is projected to be about 50 cm higher than today by the year 2100, with a range of uncertainty of 20-86 cm;

• for the range of emission scenarios IS92a-f using "best-estimate" model parameters, sea level is projected to be 38-55 cm higher than today by the year 2100;

• the extreme range of projections, taking into account both emission scenarios and model uncertainties, is 13-94 cm;"

So all sorts of estimates with al sorts of scenarios with all sorts of wide ranges. And then, as I said, the trick used to fool the easily fooled is to pick one of those that sorta/kinda matches the actual outcome and then claim that was the only prediction. And as usual WTF fell for it.

The other hilarious part here is that WTF thinks you can eyeball a graph where the only numbers are for 2100 and discern within 1cm what it says about 2025. His source made that assertion and WTF has just swallowed it without thought.

Here's SAR ..... http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf

(go to page 377 for the chapter on sea levels).

If, (a big if, I know) you read it you'll see so many different guesses about sea levels into the future that its child's play to pick out one and assert that its the rooly-trooly prediction. The climate tricksters have been doing this for decades now. I'm surprised WTF hasn't picked up on yet. Still, as George told Jerry...."its not a lie if you believe it".

It's sad when someone is so obsessed with one subject, particularly when most of it is a scam.

In the meantime, the "experts" in AEMO have gazed into their crystal ball and come up with the guess that coal will be needed until until 2049 to stabilise the grid.

Not the popular 2050. 2049.

I get a laugh when these people use precise dates - when they don't really have a clue - to spruik their bullsh.t.

WTF?

Still wrong mhaze,

It doesn't matter how much you drone on about the 2100 predictions (although there are obvious implications that follow on from there) Törnqvist's analysis is for the predictions up to 2025.

He is commenting on how the current (2025) data matches predictions made 30 years ago. He cannot do that for 2100 because... well you know...der... 2100 has not happened yet.

mhaze states: "The other hilarious part here is that WTF thinks you can eyeball a graph where the only numbers are for 2100."

This is the most bizarre of mhaze's mental contortions I have seen. There is this concept called interpreting information from a graph -it's not just about the end point.

You need to realise that the graphs contain predictions for every year from 1995 onwards. That's one of the reasons why information is graphed.

It's obvious to Törnqvist and the four other scientists he did the analysis with and it's obvious to me that there is a predicted sea level rise of 8 cm for 2025.

mhaze if you are going to present information present that information with with fidelity.

You are wrong again mhaze.

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report.

So WTF, you're going to just pretend to NOT see that there were any number of sea level rises predicted for 2100 in SAR ranging from a 15cm rise through to a 95cm rise. You're just going to pretend that none of them exist, even though I directly quoted from SAR about those rises.

You're just going to pretend that the only prediction that exists is the one that tells you what you want to hear. Mind you, I'm not surprised that you are playing pretend with uncooperative data, since that's been the go-to approach for most of the we're-all-gunna-die community for decades. I'm just surprised that you're doing it so blatantly.

So again, if you read the SAR chapter 7 report (and as predicted you obviously haven't) then you'd see these multitude of predictions based on all sorts of what the IPCC have come to quaintly call scenarios.

And almost all of those predictions put the lie to what you and your sources are saying. Just one of these multitude of predictions gives the answer you want and that becomes the only one that you pretend exists.

And this is called science. Go figure.

If playing pretend with the predictions wasn't enough, then you play pretend with the actual data. Again, there are quite a few ways to measure sea level rise. You take one of those that best matches the pretend data you got from SAR, and declare victory.

You say sea levels rose 9 cm from 1995 to 2025. But the NASA Sea Level Change Portal says it was 10.4cm through to 2024. The Copernicus Climate Change Service (EU) says it was 10.8cm. NOAA (which takes Continental Rebound in to account) says it was 10-11cm. Indeed I couldn't find any reputable data set that said it was 9cm. Just another made up assertion?

IF I were you WTF, I'd stop digging.

WTF?

Once again mhaze, this study is about data collected to 2025 and how well they match the 1995 predictions.

Once again 2100 has not happened yet so there is no data from 1995 - 2100.

As you seem to struggle with nuanced scientific evaluation I'll provide you with what Törnqvist calls a "Plain Language Summary".

The ultimate test of climate projections occurs by means of subsequent observations. Three decades of satellite-based measurements of global sea-level change now enable such a comparison and show that early IPCC climate projections were remarkably accurate. Predictions of glacier mass loss and thermal expansion of seawater were comparatively successful, but the ice-sheet contributions were underestimated. Nevertheless, these findings provide confidence in model-based climate projections".

Any number of distractions, deflections and denials will not change the data and its analysis.

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report.

"Once again 2100 has not happened yet so there is no data from 1995 - 2100."

Playing dumb isn't a good look WTF.

The data you rely on went through to 2100. Please have a try at reading the SAR Chapter 7 even if most of it goes over your head.

You are claiming to be able to discern 2025 data from the 2100 graph and that's sorta/kinda correct. But only marginally so and to claim as you do that you can read with precision what the 2025 data was from the graph of 2100 data is bonkers.

Even so I was prepared to go along with that. But what you fail to acknowledge (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in thinking this isn't too hard for you)...what you fail to acknowledge is that there are lots of graphs and data in the SAR report which show all sorts of data through to 2100 and therefore, using you own claims, lots of data about what 2025 would look like. Only one of those many options suits your claims and that's the one you want to pretend is the only one. But it isn't and pretending otherwise as you do is either dishonest or just too complex for you. Which is it?

The same with the actual 2025 (really 2024) sea level readings. None that I can find and none that you have provided actually show what you claim to be the actual rise. Yet you persist in just reiterating what have now been comprehensively debunked assertions. Sad.

So what do we end up with:

1. A claim that SAR predicted an 8cm rise when in fact only one of the dozen or so predictions in SAR comes close to that. Yet you want to pretend otherwise.

2. A claim that actual sea levels rose 9cm when none of the major agencies and data sets show such a number. Yet you want to pretend otherwise.

And you claim to understand the science. Oh dear!

WTF?

mhaze said "The data you rely on went through to 2100".

No the prediction when through to 2100, there is no data for 2100 because 2100 has not happened yet. Neither has 2026, 2027, 2028........ so no data for those years - predictions yes but no data.

The data goes through to 2025 and hence Törnqvist's analysis.

mhaze, you made this statement: "And what did SAR predict for sea levels through to 2025. Nothing".

You later provided a source to add some authoritative weight to that statement only to find that your source predicted an 8cm change and proved your statement to be false.

The claims I'm making here are that Törnqvist's analysis supports the predictions made back in 1995.... oh, and the fact that I can read a figure from a graph myself.

Törnqvist's analysis remains the most recent analysis of the data:

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report

"so no data for those years - predictions yes but no data."

And the predictions were based on data. Just playing semantic games is rather childish.

I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming that all this isn't too hard for you and you are just playing dumb rather than admit you fell for a rubbish report. Not a good look but we see it a lot with those who fall for the latest scare without understanding the facts or lack thereof behind it.

Again, there is no valid data to support the claim about a 9cm rise in sea levels. And the data that you eyeballed to make the 8cm prediction claim is based on one AND ONLY ONE graph-line out of the dozen or so in the SAR Chapter 7 report.

So cherry-pick one claim. Make up another. And claim victory. Funny and sad at the same time.

And he still thinks he understands 'science'.

WTF?

mhaze states: "And the predictions were based on data." Well of course they were - known data at that time and the models available at that time.

The actual future data is unknown - you do get that don't you mhaze?

That's why it called a prediction.

We do not know the actual data until after it was been collected.

And now that data has been collected the scientific analysis is that:

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report.

mhaze you are wrong when you said ""And what did SAR predict for sea levels through to 2025. Nothing". Your own source contradicted you.

mhaze you are wrong when you said "you eyeballed to make the 8cm prediction claim is based on one AND ONLY ONE graph-line."

mhaze you are wrong when you said " A claim that actual sea levels rose 9cm when none of the major agencies and data sets show such a number. Yet you want to pretend otherwise."

Hey, but don't take my word for it.

Dr. Torbjörn Törnqvis and his team analysed the known data and compared it to the IPCC predictions and came to this conclusion:
"Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report."

I think those who doubt sea level rise should buy a home as close to the seashore as possible.
In a few years, they might find the sea lapping at their front gate.
That should make them think.
If they can?

"Hey, but don't take my word for it. Dr. Torbjörn Törnqvis and his team analysed......"

Oh dear. So your entire argument here is that someone else told it it was true and you've decided to believe them without checking.

Well I checked and found that their claims about how much sea levels have risen isn't supported by any major dataset. But you go on outsourcing your checking if that's how you work.

And I checked and found that their claims about what was predicted by SAR was a monumental cherry-pick by carefully selecting one data point out of the dozens available. But you go on outsourcing your checking if that's how you work.

Just asserting I'm wrong because someone else told you fables isn't a good look.

What I find most astonishing here is that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that all the world's major datasets show sea level rises different to what your gurus have told you to believe.

But I see this so much among the climate true believers. A blind faith in their gurus which obviates the need to actually see if they are being truthful or 'scientific'.

I'll bear that in mind if you get around to sticking your head above the parapet again. But in the meantime.... I'm done.

"I think those who doubt sea level rise should buy a home as close to the seashore as possible."

Well no one here is doubting sea level rise.

But just on buying a sea-front house, perhaps you should check what those who claim to fully believe the sea level predictions have done.

Bill Gates famously bought a house in Seattle that is true water front, even though he was, at the time, telling anyone who'd listen that the seas were going to rise by a metre. (Although to be fair, Gates has now seen the light and is no longer a climate fool.)

Then there's Al Gore who made a reported $300 million by telling the world that we were all gunna die if we didn't mend our evil ways. He currently owns 3 waterfront properties in various parts of the US. Somehow he doesn't think the rising sea levels are going to affect him!!

and then there is the lightbringer (aka Obama) who made a career based on climate scares. What did he do upon retirement having spent a decade telling us to mend out evil ways. He bought, and still owns, an absolute water-front property in Martha's Vineyard.

As has been said before, I'll believe the doom-mongers when they start living their lives the way they tell us we have to live ours