New Peer-Reviewed Study Obliterates the Climate Cult’s Narrative on Sea Levels

(Substack)—For years, warnings about accelerating sea levels have dominated headlines, fueling calls for sweeping policy changes and massive investments in green energy. But a new peer-reviewed study challenges that narrative head-on, suggesting the rise is far more gradual than previously claimed.

Published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, the research titled “A Global Perspective on Local Sea Level Changes” by Dutch hydraulic engineer Hessel Voortman and researcher Rob de Vos analyzed data from over 150,000 coastal locations worldwide. Their findings indicate that sea levels are rising at a rate of about 1.5 millimeters per year—translating to roughly six inches over the century—mirroring the pace seen in the previous 100 years. This contradicts projections from complex climate models that have forecasted rises of one to three feet by 2100, often based on limited Antarctic observations and assumptions about ocean responses to warming.

Voortman, who initiated the study after discrepancies arose in his flood-protection work for the Netherlands, expressed surprise at the lack of prior scrutiny.

“It is crazy that it had not been done,” he told journalist Michael Shellenberger. “I started doing this research in 2021 by doing the literature review. ‘Who has done the comparison of the projections with the observations?’ And there were none.”

He went on to detail the effort: “I had to do a lot of programming and automate data imports and data management. I organized it by using databases so that I really knew what I was doing. It was very structured because I was dealing with 150,000 locations and, on average, 100 years of data. That made one and a half million lines of data. I found myself for days working on things that I felt, ‘This is more computer science than civil engineering.'”

The study’s abstract underscores the implications for coastal planning: “On average, the rate of rise projected by the IPCC is biased upward with approximately 2 mm per year in comparison with the observed rate.” In 95% of suitable locations examined, there was no statistically significant acceleration, pointing to local factors like land subsidence or tectonic activity for the anomalies in the remaining 5%. As Voortman noted to Shellenberger, “The average rate of sea level rise in 2020 is (only) around 1.5 mm/year (15 cm per century). This is significantly lower than the 3 to 4 mm/year often reported by climate scientists in scientific literature and the media.”

This comes as a stark contrast to earlier predictions, such as the one from Princeton University’s Michael Oppenheimer in 2019, who forecasted sea levels would rise by more than 34 inches by the end of the century. The Dutch researchers’ work, described as the “first-ever global study of sea level rise,” highlights a gap in validation: until now, few had cross-checked model outputs against real-world tide gauge data spanning a century.

Experts outside the study echo these concerns. Sterling Burnett, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, explained, “Overall, this study indicates that in most places, sea levels are not rising unusually quickly. In the relatively few locations where sea levels are rising faster than average, the cause is almost certainly local factors such as land subsidence or ground compaction. Global sea levels are currently rising more slowly than they have for much of the time since the last ice age ended—a period during which seas rose more than 400 feet. Any possible increase in the recent rate of rise compared with the past century is small, within the margin of error, and not outside historical patterns.”

Steve Milloy, a senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, added, “there are a lot of additional factors that can affect tide gauge measurements including geological changes, groundwater withdrawal, and land use. But climate alarmists falsely chalk up all changes to polar ice melting caused by emissions-driven ‘global warming.'”

The timing of this research couldn’t be more relevant, especially as “Climate Week” approaches later this month, where familiar dire warnings are likely to persist despite the evidence. Similar patterns have emerged with other claims: data shows no surge in extreme weather events tied to climate change, and reports of the Great Barrier Reef’s demise have been repeatedly exaggerated.

These overstated threats have driven policies aimed at achieving “net zero” carbon emissions, pushing reliance on intermittent wind and solar power while phasing out fossil fuels. Yet the costs are mounting. In Western Europe, such mandates have stifled economic growth, and in states like New York and New Jersey, energy bills have skyrocketed for consumers. Meanwhile, major emitters like China and India continue expanding coal-fired plants, recognizing the impracticality of abrupt transitions that could hinder development.

Voortman’s motivation stemmed from practical needs: “The construction of coastal infrastructure is costly and it is therefore crucial that sea level information used in design is credible or that possible uncertainties and/or bias are known so that practitioners can appropriately account for them.” By grounding projections in observed data, this study offers a more reliable foundation for decisions that affect billions in infrastructure spending.

As the debate rages on, this research serves as a reminder that not every environmental concern demands panic. Some would even argue that NONE of the concerns are legitimate. With sea levels rising at a predictable, historical rate, the focus should shift to adaptive measures that balance protection with economic reality, rather than chasing apocalyptic scenarios that don’t align with the facts.