If ocean levels are rising, why can't we see it?

Compare two photos 130 years apart and it looks as though sea levels haven't moved. In fact, they have. This video closes the gap between photos and actual measurement.

In answer to several questions about why sea level rises at different rates in different parts of the world, it is a complex mix of ocean currents, gravitational pull, atmospheric pressure, Earth's rotation, regional changes in ocean temperature and other factors.
See:
See also: NPR interview, Christopher Piecuch, climate scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, discussing "Why Sea Level Rise Varies Across The World"

CORRECTIONS:
1) The shades of blue on the map at 10:58 denote sea level falling, not rising at the lowest rate..

2) I said glaciers cover around 10% or the Earth -- I should have said 10% of the land surface of the Earth.

3) Two posters pointed out that Reiss's question to Hansen could be taken to mean 'What would the view be like in 40 years' time if CO2 concentration was NOW double?" In other words, Hansen was predicting sea level 40 years AFTER a doubling of CO2."
To be fair to Hansen, that's possible. If so, his prediction will very likely be correct.
But it again stresses the need to have these predictions made in peer-reviewed scientific journals, where such ambiguity is eliminated, rather than books.

TO SUPPORT THE CHARITY AND KEEP MY CHANNEL GOING....
You can see more on how this groundbreaking charity trades heath care for forest care in my video

SOURCES:
255 billion tonnes ice lost per year:
"Return to rapid ice loss in Greenland and recordloss in 2019 detected by the GRACE-FO satellites" Sasgen et al 2019

Sea level rise up to 2008:

"More than half of the predicted rise in future sea level caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect is currently thought to be due to the thermal expansion of the oceans.”
"Thermal expansion in ocean and coupled general circulation models"
Jacket et al. 2000

"Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea level rise"
Domingues et al 2008

Rise now 3.6mm a year:

“A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise”
-- Church and White, Geophysical Research letters, jan 2006

How sea level is measured:

Calculations for thermosteric and ice-melt sea level rise:
"Future sea level rise constrained by observations and long-term commitment"
Mengel et al.

"Transient response of the MOC and climate to potential melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the 21st century"
Hu et al 2009

"Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past 695 warm periods."
Dutton et al 2015

" Evidence of marine ice-cliff instability in Pine Island Bay from iceberg-keel plough marks"
Wise 2017 Nature Communications

"Coralgal reef morphology records punctuated sea-level rise during the last deglaciation"
Khanna 2017

5-19m higher for +3 deg C rise in temp:
"Constraints on global mean sea level during Pleistocene warmth."
Dimitriu, 2019

See also: "The Duplin Formation... was 35 ± 18 m above present."
Dowset and Cronin, cited in "Paleo Constraints on Future Sea-Level Rise"
Kemp 2015

"We project anthropogenic sea level rise of 28–56 cm, 37–77 cm, and 57–131cm cm in
2100 for the greenhouse gas concentration scenarios RCP26, RCP45, and RCP85" RCP45"
"Future sea level rise constrained by observations and long-term commitment"
Mengel et al., 2016

E-mail from Bob Reiss:

Post from James Hansen:

Sea level at time of CO2 doubling:
I couldn't find any studies looking specifically at sea level when CO2 doubles in concentration. So I had to match predictions for when CO2 will double under RCP 4.5 (around 2065) with projections for sea level rise under RCP 4.5 at that time.

[NotJustBikes]

I think what I appreciate most about your channel is the sheer number of crazy nonsense articles you need to sift through to find out what they're (incorrectly) assuming, in order to debunk them. Thank you for all the work you do.

[leftsmith]

My brother is a high school physics teacher and a 'climate skeptic'. He often claims he's been going to the beach for years and never noticed any sea level rise. I have sent him many peer-reviewed articles over many years (often sources from your videos) which he has apparently never found the time to read, so I will send him this video and see of that does anything. Fingers crossed. Thanks for all you do Peter!

[dragons]

So let me get this straight, the Peter Hanson prediction is being misquoted by people attributing the wrong climate model to it, getting the date wrong about when it was for, getting the original location of the prediction wrong, and even _getting the highway he was talking about_ wrong?
Sounds like the blogosphere to me.

[reuteratwork]

DENIER: The data does not show any rise in sea level!!!
SCIENTIST: <presents data showing rise in sea level>
DENIER: Nah, bruh, I don't accept your data lol...

[erikdavis]

I've had to debunk that exact picture, the Gore/Hansen quotes, and graphs so many times in the past. When you explain the time of day/year could be different and wave height could be different you just get "nuh uh." I even had one guy use NOAA/NASA data to say there had been a rise but no increase in rate of rise. The issue was he put a linear trend line from the start to finish, erasing the ability to see changes in rate. No matter how many times I tried to explain that averaging data removes changes in rate he couldn't get it. When I provided an exponential and logarithmic trend line along with the linear trend line, showing the change in rate, he said I faked the data. I asked him to provide how/where I faked the data of even 1 single point, but he couldn't. I then asked him to repeat my experiment by downloading the data and placing the trend line. He refused. In other words, he wasn't willing to actually conduct science and would only accept things he thought supported him.

edit: I see you brought this very thing up. I'm glad I can simply send people here to save me the work since our views/ideas are the same. From a geographer who loves studying climate, great work as usual.

[alchemyphoenix]

I really appreciate your ability to defend a position while still acknowledging some people going ridiculously overboard with dramatic misunderstandings of the same side of the position.

[andrewvoigt]

I always thought "doing your own research" meant reading accredited journals and checking the reputation and accuracy of your sorces

[torylva]

The biggest problem is as I said to a friend
"What you get is a blogpost based on a editorial, based on an article, based on a scientific correspondents distillation of a scientific finding, if at any point along the way any of them have an agenda, it will color all the rest and few people go back all the way to the actual papers to check if it is true. It's a damn telephone game of scientific discourse."
It doesn't even have to be a malicious tampering, just a lack of understanding.

[geraldtoaster]

I enjoy your content potholer, it is informative and well sourced. Thank you for the work you do

[bjarnivalur]

_land -> Ice -> Melt -> Flow -> Fill -> Rise_

Sometimes the simplest explanations are the most eloquent.

[larspetry]

It's always great to see, that you can also critizise the science communication and the journalists, who create misconceptions of climate change and not just the bloggers who didn't get it. Too many don't want to take responsibility for overstepping their competence by making predictions with no scientific support or choosing a political side and thereby creating distrust in the scientific institutions, they represent.

[lucisferre]

It's such a shame that we live in a world in which you're brilliantly thought out and well-sourced presentations will likely never be as popular as the lazy liars are. I appreciate your hard work.

[potholer]

A poster called Skorch Voluntar posted a comment a few days ago which was factually incorrect, referring to something I said at 7:40 in the video. From this flowed a torrent of misunderstanding which was swiftly rebutted by others in the thread. As a result, Skorch Voluntar went back and retroactively changed his post.
Under the channel rules, this is not allowed, because while it may correct the error and make the poster feel less stupid and embarrassed, it renders the responding posts pointless and makes those posters look as though they don't know what they're talking about. Skorch Voluntar refused to restore his original post, so I have had to remove the thread, put his original post back, and repaste the thread here.
Not only is this a reminder to NOT change posts after people have corrected errors, but it's also a good example of how people misunderstand the term "Do your own research."

Skorch Voluntar
At 7:40 [Potholer54] attack people by directly saying "doing your own research" is not science.... you can't do your own research you must blindly accepting what the authority "DON'T, research, study, educate, or use Science on your own" is now what Science and elite are saying. I'm on the side that global warming is happening and sea level are raising but I hate this attack on "do your own research" it's not a good thing. It's you sitting on your high chair and demanding the plebs must obey your royal command.

RoninTF2011
Publicly subscribed to you (2 years)
• 1 day ago
Nice example of willful misunderstanding or not getting the video.
The point is: "Do your own reserach" should mean...checking the available data and models in oder to understand what climate change is or is not....what Heller and CO mean by "do your own research": pick and choose blogs and news articles that suit your pre set narrative

grindupBaker
Publicly subscribed to you (4 years)
• 1 day ago
@RoninTF2011 Yep

NinjaMonkeyPrime • 1 day ago
I'm not sure you watched the video.

Aj Meyers • 1 day ago
@RoninTF2011 - Well said

Skorch Voluntar • 1 day ago
@RoninTF2011 not sure what you've been watching but at 7:40 he attack people by directly saying "doing your own research" is not science. So it's literally you can't do your own research you must blindly accepting what the authority claims. But that's very unhealthy. He should be saying "the method your using or the way you gather the information is incorrect and this is who you do it properly"

Skorch Voluntar • 1 day ago
@Aj Meyers 7:40

NinjaMonkeyPrime • 1 day ago
@Skorch Voluntar I think you're still missing the point. He's describing "do your own research" as what many bloggers do, which is just repeat what you hear on the internet. He's clearly showing you the correct method in this video. Did you miss that?

Skorch Voluntar • 1 day ago
@NinjaMonkeyPrime and your missing the issue with insulting people like that. It heavily implies all forms of research that an individual does is bad and should only listen to the experts. He should be saying "this this how you properly do the research and gathering" so the individual can have more confidence that they are getting the right information and getting the right conclusions. Otherwise it's "We are are right and you need to just accept that. So not try to prove us right or wrong"

Skorch Voluntar • 1 day ago
Do all the people that thinks using "doing your own research" as an insult a good thing for dialog? If so should other people then say "the fake scientist" is good thing too? Both side of just stupid but one attacks all individuals the does a little research on their own even if they end up agreeing with the experts while the other only attacks the experts.both are bad but I say one does far more harm.

potholer54
• 1 day ago
@Skorch Voluntar wrote: "at 7:40 he attack people by directly saying "doing your own research" is not science."
No, I said nothing of the kind. At 7:40 I said: "Well done to whoever managed that [to determine that sea level in one photo is less than half a millimetres higher than sea level in the other photo] but that isn't science."
I understand that English is not your first language, but surely you can distinguish one sentence from a completely different sentence.

"you can't do your own research you must blindly accepting what the authority claims."
This is known as an 'argumentum ad absurdum.' Similar to the argument my kids made when I refused to buy them candy at the supermarket check-out: "Do you want me to die of starvation??"
I didn't say 'doing your own research' is not science, I didn't say you shouldn't do your own research and I didn't say you should blindly accept what the authorities claim. What I actually said is right there in the video. If you had trouble following it, try listening again at a slower speed.

NinjaMonkeyPrime • 1 day ago
@Skorch Voluntar "and your missing the issue with insulting people like that" It's not insulting to point out the lies of a con artist or expose a myth.

"It heavily implies all forms of research that an individual does is bad and should only listen to the experts" Wrong. It does no such thing. You clearly didn't watch or missed the point entirely.

"He should be saying "this this how you properly do the research and gathering" so the individual can have more confidence that they are getting the right information and getting the right conclusions" He did. Again, did you not understand that part or did you not watch?

Nothing you've said matches the video.

RoninTF2011 • 1 day ago
@Skorch Voluntar So you didn't watch the video then did you?

[sbushido]

It's always extremely frustrating when people point to the positive results of steps that have been taken to curb CO2 emissions as evidence that none of the predictions made about the consequences of rising levels if those steps *_weren't_* taken have been accurate...

[Chris.Davies]

Ever since I have been on YouTube, I have always considered you, to be a kinder, gentler, less aggressive Thunderf00t. Your tone is more polite, your speech is less vehement, and you present your videos in such a way as to make them much more accessible to people.

[heavypen]

What's that saying? You can lead a horse to water, but it's the horse's job not to be an ass about it? Nicely done. Just found a new example of what critical thinking looks like.

[Leon_der_Luftige]

Thank you for your service in the fight against stupidity.

[rexx]

I can't imagine how annoyingly frustrating it must be for a scientist to hear so many people claiming they "do their own research" when they have no idea what goes into research or what good research would actually look like. Sitting on your toilet typing biased search terms into your phone to find articles that confirm your opinions isn't research. Potholer has the patience of a zen monk to keep making these videos. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Scientists are my heroes.

[soughnymaugh]

Videos like this are criminally under watched.

[Odood]

No fear mongering, no name calling, just a calm explanation that doesn't alienate those who are wrong.