New Study Finds 90% Of Sea Level Research Relies On Models, Not Real Measurements

[rangerrebew]

New Study Finds 90% Of Sea Level Research Relies On Models, Not Real Measurements
By Admin
March 18, 2026
8:53 pm


Media warn sea levels are worse than thought, but a review finds most studies rely on models.

by Climate Discussion Nexus

This just in: a CNN headline reads, “Scientists find sea levels are already much higher than we thought. That could spell trouble for the future”. How the Dickens, you might reasonably cry, could they be higher than we thought? [some emphasis, links added]

As in “more than 3 feet in some regions”? How could you be wrong about whether the water was up to your ankles or your chest?

The New York Times likewise insists that “Sea Levels Are Already Higher Than Many Scientists Think, New Study Shows—Researchers found that a majority of studies on coastal sea levels underestimated how high water levels are, and hundreds of millions of people are closer to peril than previously thought.”

https://www.climatedepot.com/2026/03/18/new-study-finds-90-of-sea-level-research-relies-on-models-not-real-measurements/

[The_Reader_David]

Why am I not surprised.

As the great statistician George E. Box observed, "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

It has become clear over time that the models climate alarmists rely on are the sort that are wrong and useless.

With advances in AI, I wonder what one could come up with as a model of the earth's climate by requesting that it correctly retrodict regional temperatures, mean global temperature, and  sea level, for the past say 10,000 years, taking as inputs, human energy use (not the same as CO2 output, since some forms of fossil fuels burning also produces soot, while, natural gas does not), cosmic ray flux, solar irradiance, land use patterns (forest, agricultural use, city, suburbs,...).  It would still be wrong, but it might be more useful than what we've been being fed since the alarmists decided warming rather than in impending Ice Age was the excuse for state control of the energy sector.

[Bigun]

G I G O ! ! !

[MeganC]

Sea level catastrophically rises twice a day!!! 

[Cyber Liberty]

So somebody did a study of the studies and discovered exactly what we've been saying all along!  Coolio!

[Free Vulcan]

And then they try to convince us that the model is better than the data and call us unscientific for criticizing it, in very Orwellian fashion.

[Cyber Liberty]

Why am I not surprised.

As the great statistician George E. Box observed, "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

It has become clear over time that the models climate alarmists rely on are the sort that are wrong and useless.

With advances in AI, I wonder what one could come up with as a model of the earth's climate by requesting that it correctly retrodict regional temperatures, mean global temperature, and  sea level, for the past say 10,000 years, taking as inputs, human energy use (not the same as CO2 output, since some forms of fossil fuels burning also produces soot, while, natural gas does not), cosmic ray flux, solar irradiance, land use patterns (forest, agricultural use, city, suburbs,...).  It would still be wrong, but it might be more useful than what we've been being fed since the alarmists decided warming rather than in impending Ice Age was the excuse for state control of the energy sector.

Back in my employed days, I worked in an R & D group that developed computer model parameters for Semiconductors.  These were used by Design Groups to develop the Integrated Circuits containing millions of transistors we modeled, and are found in our electronic devices.

The models were not wrong, and were very useful because we could develop and release new chips in a few months, a process that used to take a team of Engineers years.  I know because I was involved in these teams before and after the advent of computer modeling.  Semiconductors is a brutally competitive business!

The "models" used in Climate research really pissed me off because now modelling has gotten a terrible reputation!

[Bigun]

Back in my employed days, I worked in an R & D group that developed computer model parameters for Semiconductors.  These were used by Design Groups to develop the Integrated Circuits containing millions of transistors we modeled, and are found in our electronic devices.

The models were not wrong, and were very useful because we could develop and release new chips in a few months, a process that used to take a team of Engineers years.  I know because I was involved in these teams before and after the advent of computer modeling.  Semiconductors is a brutally competitive business.

The "models" used in Climate research really pissed me off because now modelling has gotten a terrible reputation!

Please see post #2 on this thread. It has always been true and always will be true.

[Cyber Liberty]

Please see post #2 on this thread. It has always been true and always will be true.

Absolutely!  I took great pride in producing non-garbage data for those model inputs!

[Fishrrman]

So...
You mean...
That... all this time...
You were just making up "the data" ...???

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And I thought 'Science' relies on real data?

Where is Algore to explain what he has been preaching to us *while making lots of $$}?

[Bigun]

Absolutely!  I took great pride in producing non-garbage data for those model inputs!

YOU were after the truth as opposed to promoting an agenda.

[Cyber Liberty]

YOU were after the truth as opposed to promoting an agenda.

Precisely.  In the private sector, consequences come fast and hard when you fudge.

[Smokin Joe]

So...
You mean...
That... all this time...
You were just making up "the data" ...???

Some was certainly fudged ("Adjusted"). Severe low temperatures I was out in which were announced on radio and TV as being from the NWS have been warmed by seven or eight degrees (depends which year and location). There's more than one way to statistically warm the planet, and taking high temperatures higher has its limits, so lows announced at minus 54 degrees Fahrenheit were warmed up (after all who is going to look for fudged 'warming' data in the low temperatures?).

I am of the opinion that unless original, unaltered, data archives can be accessed, no meaningful study can be conducted due to data manipulation.

[Smokin Joe]

YOU were after the truth as opposed to promoting an agenda.

Same here. It is what it is. From there, the question was how to utilize that. No amount of wishing in one hand was going to change what you had or did not.