https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_sea_level

Because the sensors are mounted on that very land.

So tectonic movement will certainly have an effect. And you can see remnants of earthquakes in some of the data.

- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tectonic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period#Weichselia...

> As a result of melting ice, the land has continued to rise yearly in Scandinavia, mostly in northern Sweden and Finland, where the land is rising at a rate of as much as 8–9 mm per year, or 1 m in 100 years. This is important for archaeologists, since a site that was coastal in the Nordic Stone Age now is inland and can be dated by its relative distance from the present shore.

Don't know if local variations in gravity may have a measurable impact?

They've (NGS) been flying absolute gravity measurement equipment in planes with precision GPS and lidar since ~2005 as part of the GRAV-D program.

Additionally, slight 'variations' (ie deviations from the expected circular/elliptical) in the orbits of GPS satellites can be used to infer slight variations in the gravity below.

Separately, the military likely has had all of this measured and modeled for decades as part of ballistic missile targeting, but remains mostly classified at useful resolutions.

The transitions from NGVD27 to NAVD88 to the work-in-progress 22 datum is exactly because the idea of a simple "universal" sea-level doesn't exist in the manor you would expect it to.

But even with the GRAV-D based datums, the actual observed water levels will occur at slightly different datum heights in different locations, for various geophysical reasons.

Another reason (but not due to weather) is that when land somewhere goes up, it will displace water everywhere else. And so, for example, if the land is still recovering from the ice age we should see ocean levels going up everywhere except for the pieces of land that are recovering from the weight of the glacier that is no longer there.

Mind that Arctic is not causing sea level rise. Any ice that is floating on water will not cause any water level change when it melts. (I know this is somewhat unintuitive but it comes directly from Archimedes principle)

So we are talking basically Antarctic ice and Greenland because these are by far the largest bodies of frozen water that are supported by land rather than floating on the ocean.

I think it should be pretty easy to observe how much of that water melted or slipped into the sea.

I also think that currently, coastal erosion is mostly caused by changing weather patterns. Basically this comes down to wind blowing in different directions, speed and variety and these changing patterns mean coasts are eroding in different places than before.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/learn/project/how-warming-water....

First of all, most of the temperature rise only happening close to the surface with average surface temperature rise being only about 1.5F or 1C since 1901.

This article says deep ocean water is projected to warm up by only 0.2C during next 50 years: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/deep-ocean-warming-subt...

Furthermore, at around 4C which is what deep ocean water is close to (everything below 200m is essentially 4C), thermal expansion is almost nil. For colder water thermal expansion is actually negative.

4C is when water is at its densest. It is not an accident that all oceans are 4C, because 4C water sinks to the bottom and anything colder or hotter than 4C floats up. This remarkable property of water is what causes even shallow water to be fantastically stable in temperature -- a lake that has more than couple tens of meters in depth is likely to be 4C at the bottom throughout the year whether it is frosty winter or hot summer above it, unless some kind of powerful event is able to mix the water in the lake.

Now, the small temperature differences will definitely have outsize effects on water circulation, ocean currents, life and weather. But I doubt they will cause meaningful sea rise unless somebody can calculate otherwise?

Plenty of people have, in fact, calculated otherwise.

Roughly half of the current, ongoing sea level rise is from expansion of water. The effect is small, but there is a lot of water that is expanding.

The important thing to remember is even a 1 part in 1,000 decrease in density * 2km of depth = 2m of expansion. Ballpark estimates aren’t enough you really need fairly detailed simulations to get any significant accuracy. Actually doing such simulations shows meaningful sea level rise from thermal expansion at ~0.07 inches per year or roughly half the current rate of increase. This might not sound like much, but consider that volume of sand you need to replace to maintain beaches etc etc.

No, that is mostly inaccurate. Thermal expansion is small, but there is an awful lot of water. As you point out yourself, thermal expansion contributes about half the sea level rise. Oceans absorb energy just like the atmosphere does and this effect has been known for quite a while (e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/330127a0 ).

Thermal expansion of surface water is not negligible.

Not to rant but this is one of those threads again. The majority of comments contain misinformation.

You can fill a glass of ice-water right up to the brim, and it won't spill over as the ice melts. But only if the ice is floating in the water. It's because the ice's mass pushes down on the liquid water, displacing a fixed amount relative to the weight of the ice.

Ice is about 91% the density of water. If you have water at 0 height, and you put in water equivalent to +1 unit of height. If it's in liquid form, obviously height goes up by +1. If it's in ice form, there is +1.09 height worth of ice (because it expands when it freezes), but it only displaces water up to +1 unit of height in order to support its weight through buoyancy. The overall change in height is +1 unit regardless of whether it's liquid or ice

You can look at the graph on the NOAA site here and see the acceleration visually: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

The notes to the left of the table say 1.4mm/yr for much of 20th Century to 3.6mm/yr now.

There is also evidence of acceleration of sea level rise just from satellite data, 0.08mm/y^2:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212150739.h...

So after roughly 100 years, we can look forward to the terrible catastrophe of sea levels (in some places only, not in others) rising by.. just over a foot. A problem for many really flat coastal areas, sure, but hardly the picture of global coastal flooding much of the alarmism has put forward. And if that one-foot rise happens across a full century, there will be many measures that can be taken to counter it even if the rise itself is unstoppable.

I'm not arguing against human-caused climate change, but some of the hyperbole i've seen said with deep certainty goes well beyond the scope of known evidence, realized events or even many scientific assessments.

With such things, it's not hard to see why some people find good reasons for being skeptical of yet another worst-case prediction.

Subsidence is a thing in Silicon Valley. San Jose has sunk some feet since the aquifer was drawn, fist for agriculture and now urbanization.

Also that assumes the scientists are completely accurate and don't make any mistakes. As recently as 5 years ago they discovered that the measured rise for almost all of the 90s was wrong and revised it by 3mm/year +- 1.7mm/year - the error was the same amount as the imputed level of rise!

This is no knock on the scientists, because measuring the height of a moving ocean from orbit to a level of accuracy that lets you see mm level changes is inevitably going to be very hard. But we should bear in mind that they're heavily biased towards wanting to believe the data is accurate. Their decade long inability to get the measurements correct didn't seem to have any impact on their confidence that they're currently getting it right, and why would it? Those who seize the data, seize the day.

Citation for this? There are always improvements to our understanding of past data, but you seem to be implying that the uncertainty exceeds the signal. That's simply not the case [1].

[1] — https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... pp.1291-1292

They have shown that there was a drift in the GMSL record over the period 1993-1998. This drift is caused by an erroneous on-board calibration correction on TOPEX altimeter side-A (noted TOPEX-A). TOPEX-A was operated from launch in October 1992 to the end of January 1999. Then TOPEX side-B altimeter (noted TOPEX-B) took over in February 1999 (Beckley et al., 2017). The impact on the GMSL changes is -1.0 mm/yr between January 1993 and July 1995, 120 and +3.0 mm/yr between August 1995 and February 1999, with an uncertainty of ±1.7 mm/yr (within a 90%CL, (Ablain, 2017)).

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/11/1189/2019/essd-11-11...

Yes they did. From the paper I just cited:

The six main groups that provide satellite-altimetry-based GMSL estimates (AVISO/CNES, SL_cci/ESA, University of Colorado, CSIRO, NASA/GSFC, NOAA) use 1 Hz altimetry measurements from the T/P, Jason-1, Jason-2 and Jason-3 missions from 1993 to 2018 (1993–2015 for SL_cci/ESA). The differences among the GMSL estimates from several groups arise from data editing, from differences in the geophysical corrections and from differences in the used method to spatially average individual measurements during the orbital cycles

The apparently independent time series are actually computed from the same raw data sources, as there isn't an abundance of redundant satellites measuring sea level.

But isn't this goalpost shifting? At first you said I was wrong that uncertainty has been the same size as the measurements in the past, citing the IPCC as proof which of course doesn't mention any of this, saying only that they have high confidence in these numbers (the IPCC is not trustworthy). Then it became that the error isn't big enough for you, and nobody relied on a single satellite. Now I show that they did indeed rely on a single satellite.

The core issue here remains the same: how do they know they're getting it right now? A calibration error so large it invalidated their entire time-series lasted for the entire lifetime of the TOPEX-1 mission, and it then took 20 years for the problem to actually be detected and corrected for. They've only been measuring sea level with satellites for 30 years, and the discrepancy between tide gauges and satellites has never been properly reconciled even though they theoretically measure the same thing.

As you quoted from the paper:

> The six main groups that provide satellite-altimetry-based GMSL estimates ...

1) You're restricting your attention to groups producing satellite-derived estimates.

2) Several of those groups, e.g. CSIRO, are using data assimilation to combine satellite estimates with gauges [1].

3) There are multiple satellites, often overlapping in time, often of totally different design/orbit/etc... [2]

4) Up to the most recent IPCC report (AR6), assessments were based on tide gauges alone [3]. For many of the reasons that you bring up. Hence "Nobody relies on estimates from a single satellite alone." Reconstruction of historical sea level is a huge scientific discipline and you would benefit from doing some more reading before beating a dead horse. The estimated uncertainty is large for a reason, but it does not encapsulate any scenarios where the observed change has been insignificant. If you think otherwise, I'd be happy to take your money for 2100 options on coastal real estate in about 90% of the world's coastline.

[1] — https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/measuremen... and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1

[2] — https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/measuremen...

[3] — https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... p.1287

- Uncertainty exceeding signal in satellite data is "simply not the case"

to

- OK maybe it was the case but it doesn't matter and nobody relies on one satellite anyway

to

- OK maybe some groups relied on one satellite but this is flogging a dead horse everyone already knows about

That's a big distance in a short thread! Also, note that you said "nobody relies" and now you're arguing "not everyone relies", which is different.

I won't be alive in 2100 but if you've got some nice seafront property you'd like to sell me below market price I'd definitely consider it. Maybe in Tuvalu? (see other post).

Not sure I can help someone who willfully misreads my comments! Give chapter 9 of the AR6 a read and then we can talk.

https://sealevel.colorado.edu/index.php/presentation/what-gl...

currently some land surfaces are rising and some ocean bottoms are falling relative to the center of the Earth (the center of the reference frame of the satellite altimeter).

since the ocean basins are getting larger due to GIA, this will reduce by a very small amount the relative sea level rise that is seen along the coasts.

We apply a correction for GIA because we want our sea level time series to reflect purely oceanographic phenomena. In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes. This is what is needed for comparisons to global climate models, for example

This is nonsense, of course. Volume isn't measured in millimeters, that's a measurement of distance. GMSL when talking about satellites is defined as the average distance of the surface of the ocean from the center of the Earth, and the reason people care about it is because if it gets too high then things we care about end up flooded. Changing the definition of GMSL half way through from sea level to sea depth is the kind of slippyness that pervades this space.

That's the average rise it you average all data going back to the 1950s.

Unfortunately, looking back to the 50s is only really useful if interested in how much sea levels have already risen. Otherwise it presents an unrealistically optimistic view, as the rate has accelerated since.

Per the article, the east coast (North Carolina) is currently experiencing an increase of about a third of an inch per year, which is an increase of one foot per 36 years, or close to a meter per century.

If current trends continue, this will accelerate, not decelerate.

Careful man! You're on the verge of becoming a climate denier with research like that! Sea level rise is indeed not due to CO2 or industrialization. Here's a graph of what's claimed to be long term sea levels:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Lev...

Rising at the same rate for thousands of years.

But watch out. Like so many other claims about the climate, sea levels are subject to game playing and pseudo-science. Sometimes they say that sea level rise has accelerated from 1.5mm/years to 3mm/year, even though this acceleration cannot be seen in neither the tide gauges nor satellite data. How is this possible, well, the two sources disagree about the rate of change, so they splice them together and then claim this is a real effect:

https://realclimatescience.com/accelerating-sea-level-fraud-...

Sea levels are also subject to the same database rewriting that they do with temperatures. Old documents give graphs for sea level change that no longer agree with modern documents, even though they are theoretically plotting the same data taken from the same instruments. Climatologists regularly publish heavily edited data that's been adjusted via algorithm, and advertise it as raw measurements.

What's next? The "millimetre sea-level imbalance catastrophe"?

I'm over it. I've lost my respect for climate science, and the field has done that to itself. It needs to take full responsibility for its repeating cycle of "alarmism -> failed prediction -> u-turn" that caused me to.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

It starts by saying:

"Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration"

but then just two sentences later:

"Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%) [in the past 40 years], despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls"

Tuvalu got bigger! It goes on to explain that Tuvalu has grown due to other factors that were not previously considered. Yet the field is so corrupt that a paper literally reporting that Pacific islands are getting bigger has to start by repeating the claim that those very same islands will be "inundated" and "rendered uninhabitable". It goes on to argue that maybe the biggest problems the islands face is not climate change per se but rather "the historic imprint of colonial agendas and entrenched land tenure systems".

That was in 2018. It had no effect on the narrative whatsoever. In 2019 the Guardian wrote a huge story telling its readers that Tuvalu is going to be drowned by climate change and how angry they are at Donald Trump because in future they'll have to evacuate their homes:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/16/o...

“Tuvalu is sinking” is the local catch-all phrase for the effects of climate change on this tiny island archipelago on the frontline of global warming.

The entire story is misinformation, but you'd never know that if you didn't double check these things and the Guardian not only never will but actively tells its readers that people who do double check are evil.

The science never really said that. Bad PopSci reporting did. The science said that was a worst case possibility. Kind of "if we do the worst things possible as much as possible, then this is the worst case scenario".

Then you read hacks--and paid disinformation spreaders, which we have documentation of various oil companies in particular doing I might add--reporting that as if it was a sure thing. Because clickbait isn't a new concept.

Also - we actually DID change what we did. We did things like ban CFCs, etc. It made a significant difference to models! Hooray us for doing the bare minimum.

We're not quibbling over millimeters, not unless you're completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting the topic anyhow. We're pointing out the rate of change is increasing and we haven't even seen the worst case effects yet (like CO2 release from the oceans, Greenland melting, etc).

The global temperature is going up, rapidly, and we're at the point were these effects are already starting to be seen. That's... a tipping point.

James Hansen is perhaps the most famous climatologist, he works at NASA and testified to Congress about global warming at the end of the 1980s. Back then he was telling people that by ~2010 highways in New York would be underwater, there'd be tape on the windows due to high winds and that crime would have increased due to the heat.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110202162233/https://www.salon...

Not that it might happen, or there was a worst case possibility that it would happen. That it would definitely happen.

None of that occurred (and in fact crime in New York went down a lot) but he didn't learn anything. Here he is in 2008. "Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years the Arctic will be free of ice in the summer".

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=...

It's now 35 years after his first prediction and 15 years after his second. New York isn't under water and the Arctic isn't ice free in the summer.

When people claim that scientists never get it wrong, that when people remember bad predictions it actually never happened and if it did it was all the journalist's fault, then they are making the problem worse because it gives scientists a license to exaggerate or lie. A license which they are happy to abuse, as the Hansen story shows.

That said, you did exactly what I described originally: took bad reporting of statements and presented them as factual. Thanks for demonstrating it so well.

Firstly, his 1980s testimony talked about worst case scenarios. That was one of them. As I said previously. His 1988 speech and report to congress says no such thing about New York, neither does your linked article. What it says is that, in conversation with another person, he discussed that as a possible outcome (or perhaps a likely one, if we didn't change course somewhat... which we did). 3rd hand reporting of his words without ANY context. But you took it as fact and repeated it as such.

Secondly, that newspaper article doesn't quote him for your statement about the arctic sea ice, it simply alludes to it being something he said. With no quote and context we can't know what he actually was talking about, just how the journalist took it and decided to summarize it. Again, see the previous post for where I talked about this.

However, it is worth noting that, since satellites first began monitoring the Arctic in 1979, the average area covered by sea ice has shrunk by at least 40%. The past 15 years have seen the 15 lowest summer sea ice minimums on record. It's entirely likely he was, again, talking about worst case (or simply just bad) scenarios. It's also possible he was talking about point-of-no-return (which some believe we may have reached with arctic ice, as it's almost all 'young' ice now).

We can't know, it's not reported. What we do know thought is that what you said is false.

Again, thanks for perfectly demonstrating my point. I urge you to actually look into the sources rather than reading PopSci reporting. It will help you to not make these mistakes again.

We didn't. CO2 has continuously risen and the rise accelerated with time. Hansen's predictions should therefore have absolutely come true if he was right, but they didn't. Or do you think the graph of CO2 I showed you in the other post is misleading as well?

W.R.T. the quotes, now you're getting really desperate. Sure, sure, those poor innocent scientists keep getting ascribed word-for-word predictions they never made and they're all just too polite to complain about having words put in their mouth like that. Come on, wake up! He wasn't being misquoted. Here he is in another 2008 article written by himself in which he makes exactly the same prediction:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/23/climatec...

"As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer."

Lots more CO2 was added, 15 years passed, the Arctic is not ice free. Nor are ice levels falling. Here's the data from Hanen's own former employer showing that summer ice sea levels stabilized around 2010, which should not have been possible according to these people:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

The point being made, that many people have been largely misinformed about the science and what it predicts by media that misrepresented those things, still stands. The good news though is that even if James Hansen did run around telling everyone wild theories (and some argue that many of his predictions have held up remarkably well https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...) we don't have to depend on anyone's comments to the press, there is actual research being reviewed, modeled, and reassessed constantly that just doesn't get the attention alarmist news stories or interviews by authors trying to cash in on climate fear will generate.

That isn't to say that scientists don't get things wrong. Some scientists are just plain bad at their job, some scientists get paid to falsify data and bury results unfavorable to the person signing their paychecks, and some just make mistakes, and those are all things we should be working to minimize, but I'd be shocked if our best understanding of the impacts of our changing climate hadn't changed several times over the last 35 years.

Scientists getting things wrong isn't some gotcha that proves science is broken, it shows that science is working. Getting things wrongs is just one step of the process. All science does is provide the tools to give us the best understanding of something we can get with the information we have at the time. The more we learn, the more data we have, the more our understanding will change and evolve. People don't like uncertainty and some might wish science was all about dictating indisputable truths that cannot be wrong or questioned, but that's never been what science does or what it's for.

See this is the attitude that causes people to give up in disgust:

If scientists make correct predictions, that's science working!

If scientists make wrong predictions, that's also science working!

Literally no matter what they do or what happens, they cannot lose.

>> People don't like uncertainty

People are fine with scientific understanding being uncertain. They are not fine with being told by scientists that The Science is so certain it's undisputable, that the only people who disagree are paid to do so, that the world should undergo massive changes on the back of this 100% certain science and then when their predictions are all invalidated it's "hey, being wrong is all just part of the process, if you don't understand that you don't understand science!".

If scientists make a confident prediction and then turn out to have been woefully misjudging their own competence, it is correct and right that their reputations are trashed and they should get defunded. But that doesn't happen. Instead we get the Believe Science brigade who insist that all those bad predictions never happened, if they did happen it wasn't a problem and anyone saying otherwise needs to be suppressed.

And BTW both quotes come with literally an entire article of context, and Hansen wrote a whole article for the Guardian in which he makes the same predictions about Arctic ice. So please don't try to claim he never said these things. He's on record as doing so, many times in many contexts.

Well... yeah, because either way we learn something! When predictions work out, it strengths a theory, but getting some new piece of data that shatters a current theory and changes how we look at something forever is way more exciting. Science just isn't about winners and losers.

> They are not fine with being told by scientists that The Science is so certain it's undisputable,

No scientist ever says this. In fact, they're more likely to say "Please prove me wrong!"

> that the only people who disagree are paid to do so

They don't say that either, but let's face it, people getting paid to lie and spread misinformation is a big problem. Scientists disagree with each other all the time and that's totally fine! It's desirable even! Here's the catch though, if you want dispute science and be taken seriously, you have to be able to back that up with evidence. Blindly questioning or disagreeing for no reason or for purely emotional or ideological reasons is worthless. You can always fight science with science, but somebody has to be able to check your math, review your methods, and reproduce your results. If your data or your work is weaker, it's not going change many minds.

> that the world should undergo massive changes on the back of this 100% certain science

Again, science isn't going to be 100% certain about anything, but realistically, based on what information we have, it can still be pretty damn sure about things. It's only logical to take advantage of the best understanding we have and to let it guide our choices and our policy. "Ignore what we know is most likely correct" is just a bad strategy.

> If scientists make a confident prediction and then turn out to have been woefully misjudging their own competence, it is correct and right that their reputations are trashed and they should get defunded.

If a scientist continuously makes careless mistakes, then I'd say it should tarnish their reputation and that funding should to go to better qualified researchers, but predictions can turn out to be wrong without there being any mistakes at all and without misjudgements about competence too. Testing our understanding of how we think things work is a critical part of the process, and by necessity sometimes those tests fail and those failures further shape and refine our understanding leading to new tests.

Getting something wrong doesn't make a scientist a failure, and we're supposed to have guardrails in place to help prevent and catch avoidable errors. We should have people performing meaningful peer-review, and there should be many eyes on important research, with many people replicating studies to confirm results, and others trying to poke holes in those theories wherever they can.

Right now, we absolutely aren't doing enough of that. There's a lot of problems with how science is being done and how it's funded, but again, if something has become widely accepted and you want to dispute it, you'd better come with facts and be ready to accept that disproving someone isn't going to turn into a witch hunt. Even if you are successful at proving that a popular theory is wrong, people are just going to adjust their models, update the text books, and use it as an example of science working as intended, because that's literally a case of science working as intended.

I wish real scientists behaved in the way you imagine they do. The world would be a better place for it. Unfortunately, real scientists do all these things and more. They call themselves scientists, but don't live up to the role. Here's the same article I cited elsewhere in the thread (beyond a now flagged/killed post), by James Hansen in 2008. A famous scientist indeed but just one example of many possible examples.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/23/climatec...

- "Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99%."

- "fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming."

Impossible to get clearer than that: exactly the kinds of statements I was complaining about.

And what of checking their data, reviewing their methods, reproducing their results? In short, why not fight science with science? Again, sadly you're describing imaginary scientists, the sort of people we would hope do climatology. Actual climatologists do NOT allow their science to be fought with science and actively go out of their way to prevent people checking their maths, reviewing their methods and reproducing their results.

Here's an old story that sums up what happens when someone - an invited IPCC reviewer no less - actually tries to do that kind of review

https://climateaudit.org/2007/03/28/accessing-hegerl-data/

One of the most important IPCC representations is the supposedly tremendous quality control of its review process. I’ve mentioned in passing on a number of occasions that, when I sought to obtain supporting data for then unpublished articles, IPCC threatened to expel me as a reviewer.

[...]

Osborn immediately replied, calling the request that the data be archived an abuse of my position as an IPCC peer reviewer. Rosanne D’Arrigo (CG2-2590) wrote to Osborn and Briffa, advocating that I be “fired” as an IPCC reviewer. D’Arrigo urged the Climategaters to be “very cautious about our emails as Lord V will stop at nothing”

Universities don't care if their professors are engaged in pseudo-science so these stories never have happy endings. The bad apples always win, are never fired and media/politics repeats their bogus claims ad nauseum.

Or is it the solar cycle - how much impact does the primary core driver of earths climate moods have on earths climate? Look that up.

Or is it a mix of these and other possible causes, some potentially those identified by so-far very unreliable dogmatic climate science?

You can't solve problems with science if you are so mired in the current "correct" way of thinking you can't think objectively continuously, and especially during those times it seems like everyones got it "figured out".

(And even more especially when those same people can be demonstrated to have been consistently wrong for decades.)

> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Lev...

Not super helpful to post a graph where the era we're talking about is like 7 pixels wide using a line of about the same thickness.

Guess what (eventually) causes glacial ice to melt? CO2.

https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/image-56...

No correlation.

The fact is - we can see the rate of change of the sea levels start changing in the mid-90s, though the graph you're using compresses the Y-axis to minimize how obvious that is (deliberately, I'd say, given the source).

Which, given its a lagging indicator of the result of rising CO2, makes sense it would happen after.

So, even accounting for the dishonesty of the presentation (and make no mistake, it's VERY dishonest) it actually demonstrates the exact opposite of what you claim.

Your belief that sea level rise accelerated in the 90s comes from splicing of two divergent datasets. Up until the 90s sea levels were tracked with tide gauges which say ~1.5mm a year on average although it varies depending on measurement point. At the start of the 90s TOPEX-1 started tracking sea levels from space, but the rate of rise measured by satellites was 2x the rate as measured from the ground. Rather than resolve this disagreement they simply cut to the satellite data from the tide gauge data and pronounced the discontinuity an "acceleration".