It seems that yet another climate disaster we’ve been warned about may not hold up under scrutiny: global sea levels are not rising faster than they did in the first century.
This doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real, nor does it suggest that some areas aren’t facing serious challenges related to rising sea levels. It just implies that, perhaps, we won’t encounter a total catastrophe unless we take significant global action.
For decades, climate change models have pointed to an alarming increase in global sea levels, claiming more than double the historical rates. However, it appears they hadn’t been matched against actual data until recently.
Dutch engineer Hessel Boatman and researcher Rob de Voss finally took a closer look. Their studies, published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, indicate that previous models were fundamentally flawed.
They analyzed data from about 150,000 observations and found that coastal areas are projected to see a rise of around 6 inches this century, which aligns with the last century’s numbers.
The previous models seem to have relied predominantly on observations from Antarctica, making some assumptions about how oceans react to warming temperatures—predicting sea level increases between 1 to 3 feet by the year 2100.
In fact, predictions from Princeton University’s Michael Oppenheimer back in 2019 suggested sea levels could increase by over 34 inches by century’s end.
This recent study from the Netherlands brings into question why no one else has undertaken such an examination of sea level predictions.
As of 2020, the increase is closer to about 1.5 mm per year, a far cry from the 3 to 4 mm that has often been reported in scientific literature and media.
Two years ago, Voortman began checking actual data in the Netherlands and found discrepancies with global forecasts. His background as a hydraulic engineer—working on flood defenses and intercoastal adaptation—prompted a personal investigation.
Surprised that weren’t more checks on the model’s accuracy, he decided to embark on global research at his own expense.
But don’t expect immediate shifts in how these discussions are approached. Climate Week is coming up, and the same old dire warnings are likely to be reiterated.
Advocates still claim that extreme weather events are a direct result of climate change. Is that entirely accurate? Perhaps not.
They’re also claiming the demise of the Great Barrier Reef, which seems exaggerated.
These assumptions often fuel the push for drastic measures aimed at achieving “net-zero” carbon emissions and cutting back on fossil fuel use in favor of renewable sources like wind and solar energy.
However, implementing such energy policies can be quite costly. Countries like India and especially China continue to build coal power plants, despite nodding to the need for change.
The pursuit of “Net Zero” has reportedly stunted growth in parts of Western Europe and across states like New York and New Jersey.
The notion that human progress is damaging the planet seems to strike a chord on the left, and mainstream media and academia often amplify apocalyptic predictions.
The argument for significant governmental intervention to avert catastrophe primarily benefits insiders and bolsters an array of bureaucratic roles—an appealing entry for those inclined to join the “Sky is Falling” club.
This situation also often seems to bring rewards under the guise of environmental protection.
Voortman and de Vos are uncovering major inaccuracies about “devastating human-centered climate change” claims. Yet, pushing against such narratives might not lead to accolades like the Nobel Prize; they might instead face backlash.
