back to article Climate change made sea levels fall in 2010 and 2011

Global warming and climate change are usually thought to mean that world sea levels will rise, perhaps disastrously. But according to US government boffins, in recent times (2010 and 2011, to be precise) phenomena driven by human carbon emissions have actually caused world sea levels to fall. The seas have, of course, been …


This topic is closed for new posts.


  1. Volker Hett


    so this must be Australia here at the north sea where the recently rebuilt dykes barely helped against last years floods.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's kind of funny, because a changing climate has been, and is, the norm. We arrogant humans think we can keep the weather static to fit our cities, which is clearly crazy.

    Well, at least now, maybe the climate alarmists might acknowledge how little we know about what happens and the underlying causes.

    1. Seanie Ryan
      Black Helicopters

      plus 10000

      couldnt agree more.

      The planet is being.... shock ..... A PLANET

      evolving, adapting.

      unfortunately, the alarmists will not acknowledge anything as they are so blinkered and arrogant that they would not even CONSIDER that there might be more to it,

      plus if they give up their cause, who will give them the Grants to perform another study on a select 5 years of the few billion the planet has been here, and think they have an accurate result.

      its all nonsense.

      1. lost

        Re: plus 10000

        You do know that the Sahara was caused by global warming right?

      2. NomNomNom

        Re: plus 10000

        Yeah sure, nothing to see here

    2. Leslie Graham

      There is absolutely nothing 'normal' about the global climate changing 100 times faster than at any time in Earth's history outside of a meteor hit.

      And just so as you know - the icredible floodsin Australia (I was there) that led to the appearance of an 'inland sea' have now drained back into the oceans and the rise is now back above trend at 3.17mm per year while the level itself is at an all time high - and rising.

      This is old news anyway - this story broke well over a year ago.

  3. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. SoaG

      Re: I'm sure that there'l be a variety of amusing commentary here ...

      "66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW...0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."

      The most surprising part of that survey of papers was that, (despite all the vitriol, fraud and grandstanding on both sides) a majority of 66.7% are still possibly interested in science rather than one political agenda or another.

      1. Leslie Graham

        Re: I'm sure that there'l be a variety of amusing commentary here ...

        Yes - 66% of people writing about gravity wouldn't say they believe gravity exists either.

        What's your point?

        Almost every paper that did express a view concurred with the consensus though.

        The denial industry might have one or two memes that sound convincing but on this issue they just sound desperate - insane almost.

        There is a near unanimous consensus of evidence ( not opinions you'll notice) that the Earth is warming and that the 40% increase in the atmospheric concentrations of a known greenhouse gas is the primary cause.

        That is a simple proven fact.

        Get used to it.

        1. Matthew 3

          Re: I'm sure that there'l be a variety of amusing commentary here ...

          "near unanimous" sounds a bit unequivocal if you're going to use that as your justification for the words "simple proven fact".

          1. BoldMan

            Re: I'm sure that there'l be a variety of amusing commentary here ...

            Do I need to say this again? Science isn't a democracy or a popularity contest! Science is about understanding reality and if reality doesn't match your theories, it doesn't matter HOW many say black is white, black will still be black!

        2. Pat 4

          Re: I'm sure that there'l be a variety of amusing commentary here ...

          "That is a simple proven fact."

          No, it's not.

          And not one single scientist on the planet will call it "a fact".

          It is a theory, supported by a very large body of circumstantial evidence.

          You can scream, cry and cll people names until you are blue in the face. But calling it "fact" makes you either ignorant or a liar.

        3. Tom 13

          @Leslie Graham

          The appeal to authority has never been the method of science. As I recall it was the method of a major world religion that put a few well known scientists on the rack.

    2. Leslie Graham

      Re: I'm sure that there'l be a variety of amusing commentary here ...

      There have been FIVE major studies and surveys of the literature in the last decade and every sinlg eone of them shows the same figure of around 97% to 99%.

      No sane person pretends there is no consensus. In fact no-one ever did until the carbon corporations were advised to "always attack the consensus" by Frank Luntz - the top spin doctor in the world at the time.

      Incidentily, Frank Luntz now says he deeply regrets helping the denial industry and accepts what the science is showing us.

  4. nsld


    This man made climate change which is making our oceans rise and means we will all be underwater shortly is also responsible for making the ocean levels fall meaning we wont be under water as rapidly as the doom mongers suggest?

    The hippies are not going to like that, its enough to put them off there organic soya milk decaff latte's.

    Whichever way it goes I am sure the government of the day will find a way of taxing us to help solve the problem.

    1. Shane 4

      Re: So

      But you would have to be an even bigger fool to think that humanity is not having an impact, All you need to do is look at a satellite image(night time shot even better) of our impact on this planet! Not much habitat left for anything else but us.

      Also while some of you laugh and snigger at people who at least raise a concern, You or someone you know will get cancer at some point in life from all that shit we put into atmosphere, All the chemicals we dump into water and all the artificial stuff we put into food, Along with sedentary lifestyles.

      There is absolutely no question we are having an impact, I think most scientists now agree on that part, The only question is how much are we responsible for, Is it substantial or is it insignificant.

      EVERYTHING is linked in some way, Humanity is not separate, Some may like to think we are the all singing and all dancing crap of the world but when the Earth sneezes we all know about it. ;)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So

        3 things: 1 cancer is not new, been around as long as life has been. 2 the climate scientist have no clue what is going on and 3 the planet has been warming since the last ice age and as more time goes by the planet will warm faster.

        1. Philip Lewis

          Re: So

          "3 the planet has been warming since the last ice age and as more time goes by the planet will warm faster."

          Unless of course the suns goes quiet for long enough to kick start the next ice age. We seem to be due one about now.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: So

          Until the circumpolar antarctic current is disrupted and/or the north polar ocean opened we'll keep seeing ice ages.

          We're in an interglacial right now, but there will be ice over europe and north america again. It's just a matter of when.

          In past interglacials, antarctica and greenland have nearly completely thawed out. The unusual thing at the moment is the CO2 spike and that things are progressing faster than "usual". Overall it's not too much of a problem, other than that a substantial rise in ocean levels will inundate the low-laying areas where 90+% of the human population and cities are.. It's happened before and it will happen again.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So

        Most people prefer not to consider that flooding has been going on since forever. Doggerland sank what, 7000 years ago?

        If the objective is to reduce the sea levels to prevent us all from drowning why not sponsor a massive scale building program of desalination plants to drive an irrigation program across africia? It's technologically possible, and more useful than trading carbon credits.

        If the objective is to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then why not start dumping money into artificial photosynthesis development and use instead of offering taxpayers money up to convert coal plants to burn wood? (yeah, I mean, that's doing a lot to help reduce emissions, but it's renewable!)

        One could easily conclude that climate change is more about politics than actually addressing changes in the environment.

    2. Belardi

      Re: So

      Er... no.

      Most scientist, who knows FAR more than you - all say the same thing based on research. Its science that allows the computer you just used to type your message.

      The only scientist who say "there is no climate change" are in the back pockets of Koch Brothers and other oil companies. So please, for your position, please share us the GOOD things about pollution.

      - What taxes do you think are going to be effected?

      - Do you know your taxes pays for the very things YOU / WE use? Next time you drive your car on a public road, that was paid for by TAXES. Any time you called 911... that is paid for by TAXES. When Soldiers get paid for their service as well as their medical bills from combat... that is from TAXES.

      The yearly cost of Air-Conditioning in Iraq for US Troop's a few years ago was much much more than what NASA gets... which is almost nothing.

      Back in the GOOD OLD DAYS - until the 70s, companies DID WHAT THEY wanted. They dumped their trash, their toxic waste into OUR drinking water. People got sick, some died. It was traced to companies dumping their shit into other people's back yards. So laws were made to STOP THAT. That they had to be responsible for their trash. Especially when WE, the tax payers have to PAY for it.

      By all means, we NEED OIL today.

      But there is a limited supply of OIL and COAL... they WILL run out. In 10 years, the cost of gas in the USA will be $10+ per gallon. And if the majority of autos are still running on gas in 20 years - then it'll be over $30+ per gallon as crude oil is depleted. Airliner fuel will also skyrocket... meaning higher ticket costs.

      The fuel we save today, we'll have tomorrow. The billionaires will continue to make their money and take govt. handouts.

      Oil, gas and coal is NOT free. Its not cheap and its NOT limitless.

      But do you know what is free? Power from the SUN. Wind that blows. The tides from the ocean.

      And solar tech is getting better every year. Enough light falls on the Earth in one hour to power everyone for a year... we are not there... yet.

      1. Denarius Silver badge

        Re: So

        >>But do you know what is free? Power from the SUN. Wind that blows. The tides from the ocean.

        >> And solar tech is getting better every year. Enough light falls on the Earth in one hour to power everyone for a year... we are not there... yet.


        uh, no. It costs a LOT of money to capture some of that energy as it is very diffuse. That's why it is subsidised so much by cost effective energy. Just ask the krauts Solar cell efficiencies hit economic limits of efficiencies a decade ago. Work arounds are very prototypical. Only production costs have fallen. Already warnings of climate change caused by catching too much wind and questions of what large scale solar trapping may do to energy balances. And we wont even start on reliability of supply.

        Annoyingly, a source of CO2 free energy is being avoided, just as several technologies make it nearly waste free. Lastly, only in some hell holes is the environment being trashed. In the remnants of the West, the environment is cleaner than it has been for 150 years around population centers. See PJ O'Rouke in Give War a Chance comparing "natural" Bangladesh and artificial Silicon Valley. Only wealthy countries can afford nature reserves. The greenie obsession with reversion of society to peasant subsistence farming is bad news for everything, especially the environment.

        Anyway, I liked the rain 2 years ago, but it was not historically unusual. Events like 2010 happen around every 32 years. At least one in 19th century created flood levels 5 meters above 2010 in my corner of rural Oz. Even so, the local old timers reckoned the winter rain was as they remembered it in their youth. The amount of surface water was a problem during the cross country soaring season.. Found swamps where there used to be good thermal sources :-)

      2. Antipodes

        Re: So

        Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Except for solar energy, using wind or tidal energy actually slows the Earth. Minutely of course! Indirectly, wind is "solar" (no heat from the sun, no pressure difference, no wind).

        The whole inter-reaction of heating/cooling is fascinating. Anthropogenic warming is a legacy our grandchildren will fall heir to. All we can do is mitigate it - the effects are now in place and are inevitable. Mud and ice cores indicate that in 1400 (i.e., prior to industrialisation), the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 280ppm; the latest readings (2012) show 400ppm. Not all of that is created by the burning of fossil fuels (Krakatoa et al contributed), but this "legacy" CO2 is predominantly human generated. It is not that the Earth has not had higher levels, or lesser but that by burning fossil fuels we have released the stored energy created in those fuels.

        Consider the physical law of the conservation of energy (energy is neither created nor destroyed). To make "x" units of electricity eight tonnes of air has to be consumed to burn one tonne of coal. The residue in ash, nitrogen (not burnt but returned to the atmosphere) is therefore nine tonnes, the oxygen, hydrogen and other combustible gasses are converted to CO2 CH4 etc and released. The carbon came from the coal, stored there millions of years before.

        ALL living things transpire or respire CO2 and CH4. Everything living is part of the "carbon cycle", from the largest creature to the least microbe. But, and this is the central issue - living things do not ADD to the carbon load regardless of how many there are. They (we) are part of a loop, every unit of energy that makes us is cyclical. So if living things in and of themselves do not add to the increase in atmospheric CO2, and there have been few cataclysmic volcanic eruptions (e.g., Taupo, Yellowstone Toba), it is logical to see the energy release from fossil fuels as the driving force.

        The Earth has been here before - it will survive - but there is no guarantee that the human organism will not become extinct.

    3. Leslie Graham

      Re: So

      Are you really taht confused or are you just being deliberately obtuse.

      The sea level fell temporarily because the flooding on Australia (and South America) was so enormous that it actualy lowered ocean content.

      That was one of the many extreme weather events of that year.

      It is yet more evidence that the extreme weather events are increasing as the Earth warms.

      It's simply common sense apart from anything else that as the Earth warms the atmoshere will hold more water (it is already up 4% on 30 years ago) and that water will have to fall somewhere.

      Now that climate change is simply obvious the denial has become desperate - just silly even.

  5. Anomalous Cowshed

    Australians, cheeky buggers

    They began by nicking a loaf of bread here and there - and the lucky buggers got a free trip to Australia.

    Now they're nicking rain - lots of it apparently. Where are they going to take them next? The moon? Concerned taxpayers want to know.

    1. Charles Manning

      Re: Australians, cheeky buggers

      Great to see the spirit of Ned Kelly lives on!

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is Dr. Fasullo one of the scientists with the right opinion or one of the scientists with the wrong opinion?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Climate models...

    Garbage in garbage out.

    They can't even model clouds yet :)

    Given that weather is chaotic the climate will also be and chaotic systems are extremely hard to model with any precision. Even with a monitor in every cubic metre of the earths atmosphere or weather models still couldn't model more than a couple of days.

    So we get the mantra that global warming raises sea-level oops doesn't work let's call it climate change so we are right what ever the answer :o

    1. itzman

      Re: Climate models...

      .....let's call it climate change so we are right what ever the answer.. er no.

      It might stay EXACTLY the same. That would confound them.

  8. GaryDMN

    Climate Change = climate speculation

    So called Climate Scientists and actually social activists. Climate science is a social science designed to new create taxes, fund social activists and re-distribute wealth.

    1. Shane 4

      Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

      Say that to some of the pacific islanders who have had to leave their homelands behind because their islands are going underwater! lol

      1. Katie Saucey

        Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

        pacific islanders who have had to leave their homelands behind because their islands are going underwater! lol

        As has been happening since the end of the last ice age, you would think some of the islanders would have picked up on this by now.

      2. lost

        Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

        Pacific islands going under water has nothing to do with climate change. That has been happening since there was liquid water on this planet.

      3. Diogenes

        Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

        Which ones ?

        Warming actually makes the atolls grow.

        If you are referring to the Maldives they are sinking because they are on the Indian Plate (Stop Man Made Continental Drift !)

        If you are referring to to Kiribati, there are social rather than climate forces at work

        And of course Bikini Atoll (see icon)

        1. Christo

          Re: Climate Change = climate speculation @Diogenes

          I'm going to start printing my posters for the protest right now. Stop Man Made Continental Drift!! ROFL

          You, sir, deserve this beer.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

          Warming makes atolls grow by depositing coral on top faster than the seamount sinks, but it never grows above the waterline. Living on an atoll comes with its own unique sets of risks (such as being washed out to see when a 30 foot storm surge washes through (this happened to the entire population of one of the Cook Island group in the 1990s. Thankfully most were rescued)

          All volcanic islands start sinking when the volcano goes extinct. The only question is how fast it happens. Many inhabited islands are so critically low that a minor change in sea level is an issue - in the past a population would simply change islands, but in most cases that option is no longer open to them.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

        Name one.

      5. Death Boffin

        Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

        Even if there were not change in sea level, most pacific islanders would be underwater eventually. The technical term for it is isostasy; the tendency of geological formations to find their own level. The Hawaiian islands are currently sinking at a rate of 2mm per year. About the same sea level rise as attributed to global climate change. For the final result, look up the term guyot.

      6. Denarius Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

        swamped Pacific islanders :B*S* Which ones, names please. Only one atoll has had population moved. Because, as Charlie hypothesised 150 years ago , the underlying mountain is sinking. Sea level change in last 100 years is estimated at a few cm, not meters. I am surprised no-one has quoted Torres, who in 1600s recorded lots of islands in the straits now bearing his name north of Oz, south of PNG. When I was there a few years ago there were some islands and lots of reefs. Melt water from post maunder minimum ? who knows. Just think of the extra FUD being missed.

  9. mememine69

    It’s not big oil that feeds deniers, it’s the scientists themselves who refuse to say a crisis will happen, only might happen so science can end this costly debate today and save their own children as well just by saying their 28 year old deadly crisis is inevitable not just “likely” and “possible” and………………………

    1. Belardi

      Either way, there is ONLY one planet for us and our children to live on.... this one.

      The actions we do today, DOES effect their lives and their children's lives... or death.

      Okay, lets go over the GOOD things about pollution? About increase health problems?

      A small animal or bug bite can KILL YOU.... so yes, something small DOES effect the planet.

  10. Bizlaw


    In other words, we really don't know why sea levels dropped, but other things in the world happened, so that must be why, and of course man is responsible, but we really can't say how.

    Wow, that was helpful!

  11. frank ly Silver badge

    Will that water stay in Australia?

    I assume much of that rain soaked into the ground or topped up lakes and reservoirs, if it is still resulting in a reduction in sea-level. Will it stay in the ground and maybe benefit farming or will it evaporate eventually?

    1. itzman

      Re: Will that water stay in Australia?

      Will it stay in the ground and maybe benefit farming or will it evaporate eventually?

      Yes, definitely.

    2. Marketing Hack Silver badge

      Re: Will that water stay in Australia?

      Or get made into Fosters?

      1. Alan Newbury

        Re: Will that water stay in Australia?

        "Or get made into Fosters"

        Nope - we're not going to export it (no-one in Australia drinks Fosters - unless they're European backpackers).

        1. g dot assasin

          Re: Will that water stay in Australia?

          Its true, Aussies hate Fosters!

          To be fair Tooheys New is pretty much the best beer I've ever tasted so I don't blame them!

  12. Jim O'Reilly

    And the polar ice caps growing didn't help?

    The two polar ice caps have shown strong growth, reversing recent trends, especially in the Arctic.

    We may indeed be tipping over into a Little Ice Age, and this could account for the reversal of sea-level rise.

    Blame it on the Sun, which is running cool!

  13. Frankee Llonnygog

    Lewis Page reports on man-made effects on climate ...

    ... without rubbishing the scientists' conclusions.

    I'm in shock

  14. Dogbyte

    Is this the start of...

    Global Drying?


This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019