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.