UPDATE: The serial regurgitation has started. See the end of the article.
Somehow, I just can’t get past the picture of the guy in the beret who seems to be saying to the cameraman “Look the island! It is disappearing before our eyes!”. Red underline mine.
Now here’s the interesting part…we’ve apparently seen this sea level rising 3x faster “secret leaked report” before:
Yep, back in 2009, the same claims were made, right about the time of the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Of course it isn’t surprising to see Climate Progress leading the pack with such disinformation, it is what the blogger is paid to do. But. let’s look at the unpaid reality of the data.
From this post by Willis Eschenbach: Putting the Brakes on Acceleration he plots the satellite data up to September of 2010. If anything it looks like the trend is slightly decelerating:
And, as we’ve seen from the latest JASON-1 and JASON-2 data, plotted by RomanM, there does not seem to be any acceleration in sea level rise. In fact it seems quite linear. The data speaks for itself, with a general slight downturn in the JASON1-2 data since late 2009: 
Of course, the fact that this is old news and that when you examine the claims, they just don’t hold up. Nope that won’t stop the “secret leaked report” from being released tomorrow here at http://www.amap.no/ and a serial regurgitation by news media.
h/t to Duncan and CTM
=========================================================
UPDATE: Here we go…
http://www.independentmail.com/news/2011/may/03/new-report-confirms-arctic-melt-accelerating/
Here is the list of stories from Google so far. The best thing our readers can do is visiti these links and place comments if they are allowed, showing that so far, sea level rise has not accelerated at all. – Anthony
Anthony,
Pleeease put a caption on that photo. The guy with the beard looking back at the camera has a look that’s just begging for a classic line… yes, my village used to be at the foot of that hill, or something.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 2, 2011 at 11:41 pm
@ur momisugly Dave N says:
May 2, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Not to mention the fact that sea levels are unaffected by melting ice that floats.. but hey, why let simple high school science dull a good scare story?
—–
REPLY
Heh! You beat me to it, see: http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/experiments/iceoverflow.html
Reply:
I saw a BBC Our World Doco over the weekend where they spent an hour telling us how they finally figured out that the Glacier in Antarctica that they were studying was actually melting from below (sea temp rise) (i.e. floating ice) and that it would cause up to 5m of sea level rise………..
It’s getting so outrageous that it’s actually just plain boring now. This stuff is so easily debunked, yet they are still airing hour long documentaries……. what is with the general public that they will just swallow this stuff without ever actually checking anything?
Aren’t there laws designed to stop this sort of rubbish? Isn’t it tantamount to Yelling FIRE!! in a crowded theatre????
@Keith. Battye says:
May 3, 2011 at 1:10 am
“My house is only 4860 ft AMSL so somebody please let me know when I need to start running away. “
I wouldn’t worry too much until the climate refugees start knocking on your door and asking if you have any rooms for rent. That’s your cue. ;o)
@-Brian S says:
May 3, 2011 at 1:18 am
“The other layman’s objection to “the science” is that ALL of the gigatons of carbon in coal were (before the vegetation sequestered it) up in the atmoshpere as CO2. So why should anyone worry about putting it back there? But I see no discussion of that thought anywhere.”
Probably because it is nonsense.
The Carbon sequestered in fossil fuels was NOT all in the atmosphere before sequestration, the atmospheric carbon was sequestered and replaced with geologically sequestered carbon at a slow rate, about an order of magnitude slower than humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere at present. The resulting sequestred carbon is the result of millenia of conversion from the atmosphere to buried hydrocarbons and certainly does NOT represent just the atmospheric CO2 alone.
” I gather from Viscount Monkton that CO2 levels are known to have been 300000 times higher in the past than their current levels, and evidently growing conditions were then excellent.”
Gathering ‘facts’ from ‘Viscount’ Monkton is a rather romantic notion – with romance in this case meaning the triumph of hope over experience…
CO2 levels have been higher in the past, according to computer models of the carbon cycle, when the Sun was also much cooler and the climate was ideal for reptiles but imimical to mammals.
Let me guess: it’s based on that subsiding Hong Kong sea level guage, without which they “wouldn’t have a trend”?
Data torture should be a capital crime in science.
Typo: “gauge” not “guage”.
The steady stream of lies acually gets boring and is entirely predictable now. It has about the same impact as the noticeboard outside a local church; just a part of the background visual noise and not worthy of serious attention to the passing non-believer.
Dave N
CRS, Dr.P.H.
Brian S
“sea levels are unaffected by melting ice that floats”
In the interests of complete accuracy, the sea level will rise a very small amount. We’ve discussed this before:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/30/climate-craziness-of-the-week-msm-jumps-on-alarming-headline/#comments
“To see an inch of sea level rise from melting icebergs we’d need 526 years”
If you redo the school experiment with pure ice floating in sea water, there is a rise in level when the ice melts:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2dhsbyb.jpg
The Azerbaijan web site hosting this article was completely unknown to me, so with some effort I managed to find the Danish news article being referred:
http://politiken.dk/klima/klimakloden/ECE1269741/havet-stiger-hurtigere-end-ventet/
It talks about a report from the SWIPA project, I think, and interestingly, if you go to the search page on http://www.amap.no/ , almost all search results on SWIPA yield a “file not found”!
But the AMAP site points to the program of the AMAP conference, starting today in Copenhagen, and apparently, the SWIPA report will be presented tomorrow:
http://amap.no/Conferences/Conf2011/programme.pdf
@Keith. Battye:
If your house is located at 4860 ft AMSL, that would be 58,320 in or 148,133 cm or 1,481,328 mm. Assuming a rate of 3 mm/yr you’re good to about 495,787 AD although to be prudent you should start making plans before that.
At 30 cm per 100 years, grab a chair because it’s going to be a long show.
Shouldn’t sea level rise be a lagging indicator of warming? It should be accelerating significantly if the late century warming was real.
These folks aren’t very good at Gaian math. When you’re creating Gaian numbers, they must be VERY LARGE and very scary and very precise.
19 to 59 cm? Too small, sounds too much like you’re guessing.
Should be 19,432,784.31572345098 to 59,759,210,015.31415926535 Gigameters.
Brian S says: May 3, 2011 at 1:18 am
I gather from Viscount Monkton that CO2 levels are known to have been 300000 times higher in the past than their current levels
Not that high, 10-15X the record low rates we are running now.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2582sg6.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/11awzg8.jpg
Al Gored:
“When we reach this sacred urban heat island I will fill my beret with crabs, lobsters and holy shrimp. Pls not to take pictures. Thank you.
@Keith. Battye
“My house is only 4860 ft AMSL so somebody please let me know when I need to start running away.”
Wait, when was that 4860 ft measurement taken. You may already be down to 4859 ft. 11 in. or less!
That means it could be worse than you thought. I would start packing if I were you! Just to be on the safe side.
It’s the ‘leaks’ causing the problem.
The real scientific story needing investigation is how the Arctic Ice Cap is covering a larger area, increasing in mass and yet still melting at the same time.
An amazing new property of water just waiting to be discovered by some Noble hopeful scientist.
But not all the ice in the arctic is floating!
First of all, the article specifically mentions ice on Greenland — that ice is definitely not floating. There are also plenty of Arctic mountain glaciers — also floating. Finally, northern Canada has a whole archipelago of islands in the arctic which are ice-covered year round and which could be losing non-floating ice.
And as jaymam says @ur momisugly May 3, 2011 at 3:41 am, there are other factors involved (like fresh/vs salt water)..
But hey, why let simple facts ruin the fun?
If ‘manmade global warming’ is real why all the secrecy? It should be out in the open and in the headlines warning everyone. The “leak” aspect, the acting like you don’t understand unless you pick up on some subliminal message, tells me that it ISN’T real.
Brian S says:
May 3, 2011 at 1:18 am
Two points for you:
The ice that’s sitting on Greenland and Antarctica isn’t floating in the sea so as that melts it raises sea level.
The Cretaceous had higher levels of CO2 (although no where near 300000 times the amount that you quote, it was about six times pre industrial levels) and during that time there was no polar ice cap.
What I’ve been looking at is real estate prices in the Maldives.
I’ll believe it a crisis when prices collapse. Right now most people couldn’t afford a house there.
Brian S says:
May 3, 2011 at 1:18 am
You should also factor in that most of the sea level rise is not meant to come from the melting of the ice, but the thermal expansion of the body of water due to increased temperatures.
*in a windowless, smoke-filled room at the UN*
Chicken Little #1: “Quick, we have to think of something fast, the people are beginning to see through the lie!”
Chicken Little #2: “But what does the official bureaucratic manual say on how to deal with this situation?”
Chicken Little #3: (thumbing through manual) “Aha. The Obama gambit. When everything we try is failing, we double down and make the problem seem even worse. So, why don’t we state that the sea levels could possibly rise even faster according to our incredibly flawed models?(flips a couple more pages) Oh yeah, if necessary blame Bush for everything. ”
Chicken Little #1: “That could work! Then we pick a date for when we will all no longer be alive so that we won’t be ridiculed for when our alarmism proves to be false. I love it. Make it so Number 2.”
They just won’t give up, will they? /facepalm
Isn’t there a psychological condition, that exhibits itself, as a uncontrollable fascination with one’s own excrement. Surely, we are observing this condition with certain climate researchers. How long must we wait before someone recognizes the condition, and gets these people the help they need? GK
@izen says:
May 3, 2011 at 2:44 am
“according to computer models of the carbon cycle, when the Sun was also much cooler and the climate was ideal for reptiles but imimical to mammals.”
izen, that’s complete model garbage, a cooler sun was ideal for reptiles ???