Today’s sea-level rise is BELOW normal

Today’s sea-level rise is BELOW normal

This talk of unprecedented sea-level rise is complete nonsense.

Today’s sea-level rise is BELOW normal

By Robert Felix

During the last ice age almost all of Canada, along with parts of Europe and Asia, were buried beneath one to two miles of ice. At the same time, sea levels stood 350 to 400 feet lower than today.

Sea levels were so low that the entire continental shelf, at least in eastern North America, was above water. Many states on the eastern seaboard were twice as big as today. New Jersey’s shoreline, for example, stood 60 to 100 miles east of its present location.

Same in the west.

The land between Alaska and Asia rose out of the sea like a bridge (or rather, the sea dropped away from the land), and the Bering Strait, which today is only 18 stories deep at its deepest point, was above water. Our ancestors could have walked to Siberia. (The word bridge is misleading, because the land connection between Alaska and Siberia was almost as wide as Alaska itself.)

Why were sea levels so low? Because that’s where the water came from to create those huge ice sheets. Literally millions of cubic miles of water had turned to ice.

Then, about 10,000 years ago, the ice began to melt and sea levels began to rise.

Here’s a sea-level graph from Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever.

. . .


. . .

Rising sea levels have been the norm

If you run the numbers (see below), you’ll find that sea levels have been rising an average of .42 to .48 inches (just under half-an-inch) per year for the past 10,000 years.

Rising sea levels have been the norm, in other words, for 10,000 years.

And that brings us to today. What are sea levels doing right now?

Sea levels now rising slower than normal

According to NASA, sea levels are rising 3.4 mm (about 1/8th of an inch) per year. That’s about the thickness of a dime and a nickel stacked on top of each other. Not the diameter of the nickels, but the thickness, In other words, sea levels are rising slower than normal.

Sea levels declined in 2010 and 2011

That doesn’t even take into account the fact that sea levels declined in 2010, in 2011, and yet again in 2016.

Yes, no matter how assiduously the media tries to ignore it, sea levels actually declined in those three years.

Where is the water going?

It’s being locked up on land as snow and ice. That’s how ice ages begin.

If we keep getting record snowfall as we have during the past few years, sea levels will begin falling and won’t begin rising again until the end of the next ice age.

This talk of unprecedented rising sea levels and catastrophic global warming is complete nonsense. It is just simply not true.

It’s not rocket science. Try it yourself. Multiply 400 by 12 and you get 4,800. That’s how many inches in 400 feet (how far sea levels have risen in the past 10,000 years). Now divide 4,800 by 10,000, and you get .48, just under ½ inch.

Just under half-an-inch. That’s how much sea levels have been rising on average per year for the past 10,000 years.

Today, sea levels are rising only 1/8 of an inch per year, LESS than normal.

And we’re supposed to throw billions, if not trillions, of dollars at it?

We’re supposed to destroy our economies over a non-issue?

Robert Felix is author of Not by Fire but by Ice, in which he maintains that the next ice age could begin any day.


10 thoughts on “Today’s sea-level rise is BELOW normal

    • My spidey senses called BS on this theory. I have been turned off by “Scientific American” on an increasing degree over the last few years. Nature owns it and they have the alarmist agenda. I have a subscription for years but will not be renewing it. The editor’s main job it appears it to ensure there is some link to blaming global warming for every article. This one is structured to explain it away to this lake. Lake Eyre, officially known as Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre, contains the lowest natural point in Australia, at approximately 15 m below sea level, and, on the rare occasions that it fills, is the largest lake in Australia covering 9,500 km². It’s man depth is 1.5m. Let’s do the math: let’s assume it gets 100% filled. That’s 9,500×13.5/1000= 128.25km³ of water. If that was released into the ~362,000,000 km² of the earth’s ocean area that’s a depth of 128.25/362×10^6 = 3.54^-7 km or 0.35mm. but it only filled to 75% capacity so that would be 0.26mm. Hmmm now I have to go back and look at the decline in those years.

      • Ya – I though so, the average trend of late is 3mm increase per year but in 2010 the decline was 5mm! Regardless this lake theory is…Busted!

  1. and eyre fills up every now n then and when it does?
    the eastern part of aus gets cooler summers and more rain due to the effect OF the large water body helping form clouds.
    and its NOT that rare an event either dunno exactly but 5 to 10yrly at least.
    a lot also trickles into artesian basins all over aus in good wet yrs.

    our local lake was dry before i moved here 11yrs ago
    now its holding water for the last 2+? summers, last yr we even had fireworks without the fire brigade having to put the lake OUT:-)
    yeah prior it was all dry long grass:-)

    noted in that article the usual panic!! it rose again crap too


    “Lake Eyre is actually comprised of 2 lakes: Lake Eyre North and Lake Eyre South”

    “Together, both lakes are 144km long and 77km wide.”

    “Lake Eyre experiences a small (1.5 m) flood every 3 years, a large (4 m) flood every 10 years and fills an average of only four times each century!”

    “The 2009 Lake Eyre flood peaked at 1.5 m (5 ft) deep in late May, which is a quarter of its maximum recorded depth of 6 m (20 ft).”

    “The total area of the Earth is approximately 510 million square kilometers and the oceans cover about 71 percent of the Earth’s surface, which is about 360 million square kilometers. ”

    So Lake Eyre has a total surface area of 144 km x 77 km = 11088 square kilometres.

    Lake Eyre therefore holds a maximum volume of 11088 x 1000000 x 6 = 66,528,000,000 cubic metres.

    A decline in world oceans of 5 mm gives 360,000,000,000,000 x 0.005 = 1,800,000,000,000 potential cubic metres of water
    – enough water to fill Lake Eyre 27.056 times.

    So the Lake Eyre hypothesis explains where 1/27.056 x 100 or ~4% of the water went if it is uniformly 6 metres deep – which it isn’t !

    If you use the 2009 flood level of 1.5 metres deep then Lake Eyre contained less than 1% of the total water available.

    So Tom Park is correct – “Busted”.

  3. I may be wrong, but I believe it was in this web site i read an article that stated sea levels are changing but for reasons different from Ice growth and melt.

    The axis of the earth has changed a bit. There has been some discussion about the bulge around the glob. As our earth spins the water forms a bulge from centrifugal force. As the axis shifts that bulge also changes. We have all read about some islands the Global warming crowd is using as a wedge issue. These Islands are seeing their shorelines sink below the water. For them it appears sea levels are rising. This may in fact be true. Not because of Ice melt but because the bulge pf water has shifted.

    Just sharing what I read. You decide if it could be accurate.

    • Sounds reasonable – if the bulge shifts those localities where it moves to will have slightly more water whilst other remote localities will have slightly lower levels.

      Anyone ever tried measuring and cutting something to a few millimetres accuracy ?

      I remember using micrometres in University in the dim past – today I can’t even see a few millimetres without my glasses anymore.

      Isn’t it amazing that such precise measurements are possible ?

      Sea level accurate to millimetres – I guess they add up peaks and troughs and calculate away, temperatures to 1/100th of a degree C accuracy, concentration to accuracy of 0.04% of the atmosphere despite the obvious continuous movement of the air ?

      Really – who believes this stuff anyway ? I, for one, don’t !

  4. Robert,
    That chart shows an “average” change in sea level, but also scatter plotted estimates from various locations. I’ve never like the average because it “averages” things in that are likely not part of any legitimate sea level change. If you hunt around on the internet you will find that there is good evidence of early and middle Holocene high stands that may have been a meter and a half or more above the present mean sea level. The “spikes above the average appear to me to correspond to know warmer episodes in the early and middle Holocene. The span between 4,000 and 5,000 BP for example corresponds approximately to a period known once as the “Altithermal” in western US archaeology and paleobotany.

  5. Just did a quick calc using the chart for sea level change over the last 6000 years = about three meters, yielding an average increase of .05 cm (about .02 inches)/year. Looks like, given the data are reasonably reflective, nothing has changed significantly since creation.

  6. British Petroleum projects that oil and gas reserves will be able to sustain current production levels until 2053, after which production will begin falling and / or prices rising as producers have to go after more expensive resources, deeper, more complex formations, etc.

    Nutshell, oil and gas are finite resources, it is imperative that we evolve to other (infinite, or relatively infinite) energy sources – solar, wind, nuclear – before we hit the price / supply crunch with oil and gas.

    This has nothing to do with global warming or climate change or sea levels rising or falling.

    It’s just supply / demand / price.

    Bloomberg projects that the price of solar / wind will fall below oil and gas by 2023, at which point solar / wind will be economically viable without government subsidies, and it is widely ignored that governments (around the world) subsidize the production of fossil fuels directly and indirectly for about $1 trillion per year.

    Toyota, Honda, and GM, are joint venturing to develop hydrogen fueling stations in metro areas, Honda and Toyota have hydrogen fuel cell cars on the market now, GM will soon, they’re betting on the future of hydrogen as the primary ground transportation fuel. Britain just banned the sale of gasoline / diesel fueled motor vehicles after 2040.

    Energy is being driven by economics and the evolution of technology now, and the inevitable decline of fossil fuel production, whether fossil fuels do or don’t cause climate change or global warming or whatever, is a sideshow that means nothing.

    Ice Age Now and Watts Up With That can post a billion gazillion articles proving that burning fossil fuels is not the cause of climate change (true, my opinion), but that will have no effect on the evolution of energy technology away from fossil fuels for other reasons.

Comments are closed.