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
What is amazing is the brazen disingenuity of the article. As you read down it, it starts with “sea levels ARE rising faster than expected” … which becomes “sea levels are FEARED to be rising faster than expected” …. and finally we get to the actual inflated truth which states that “sea level rises are NOW ESTIMATED to be between x and y BY 2100” … ie an updated bloody model of some unproven future state.
The complete and utter lack of journalistic integrity is mind boggling. All the ACTUAL DATA shows exactly the bloody opposite. And yet they write this CRAP.
A recent article in GRL says maybe 25% of sea level rise is contributed by aquifer depletion. IPCC’s position is overpumping of groundwater has been entirely offset by new impoundment construction. I think their tendency is to try to keep it simple. Just ice melting and water warming. I think aquifer depletion has been a major contributor in recent years. The Russians even dried up Lake Aral, once the 4th largest lake in the world, along with the water table that was part of it.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044571.shtml
At least they are keeping it “green” and recycling….
Lest we forget…
“Sea level rise is one problem. Carbon dioxide amounts of 400 ppm (parts per million), expect in 2016 with current emissions, will cause an eventual sea level rise of about 25 metres.”
Dr. Jim Hansen, NASA GISS, 2011.
Twenty percent of the Netherlands are below sea level and protected by dykes. They must have measurements of sea level rise going back quite a ways. Does anyone know what their measurements indicate?
They leaked a report predicting more than expected sea level rise by 2100. How brave and predictable. By 2100 no one will remember this leaked report nor will they see it as true.
“…due to rapidly melting Artic ice sheets…” — wow, they can’t even spell Arctic. What loon wrote the news piece? Sea levels aren’t rising due to Arctic ice — it freezes over every winter.
SteveE: “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.”
Hmmm. Looks like that isn’t working out too well either . . .
I wonder what effect the record North American snow pack has had on sea level?
http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=record+snowpack
@-Sun Spot says:
May 3, 2011 at 6:41 am
“izen, that’s complete model garbage, a cooler sun was ideal for reptiles ???”
I do not know that the GEOCARB III model of the carbon cycle is ‘garbage’, certainly the Rothman figures derived from strontium isotope proxies indicate much lower CO2 levels in the past than are derived from the GEOCARB model. Around double present levels in the crfetatious for instance.
However the Triassic/Jurrasic era had CO2 at 3-4 times present levels and a lower solar output. The total result was a hotter globe with little or no polar ice and large dry deserts on most internal continental regions.
Okay, I admit I was being a little provocative in labelling such conditions as ideal for reptiles and not for mammals. The real situation was reptiles evolved to optimize for the prevailing climate excluding mammals from most ecological niches. The species adapted to the conditions, and it wasn’t until the Yucatan meteorite eliminated most of the large reptiles that mammals got the chance to evolve into all the newly vacant ecological roles. The lower CO2 and temperature did favour mammals though because of their superior temperature regulation, especially in cold ambient conditions.
Eric Anderson says:
May 3, 2011 at 7:30 am
————
It’s working out fine – sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century.
Figure 3a:
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf
“The “leak” aspect,…, tells me that it ISN’T real.
Great point. Why is ALL climate data not in the public domain if global warming is real? Why did anyone have to leak anything ala ClimateGate? There should have been nothing to leak.
This really is the most important message about global warming. If the science is settled and global warming is real, why is there any secrecy?
Why not simply publish the raw data and methods on the internet? Why does it take a FOI request to get this information?
Surely it is much cheaper to simply post the information to a public server that for people to answer FOI requests. Internet storage has become so cheap that many sites simply give space away for free. You can store data for years on the internet for what it costs to answer a single FOI request.
The fact that climate scientists continue to hide data at great expense behind FOI requests, rather than take the less expensive approach and simply post it to the public domain is evidence that they are purposely and knowingly hiding something.
This is what ClimateGate exposed. Not that the science of global warming was wrong. Rather that there was something to hide. The average person on the street may not understand thermodynamics and TSI. They do however understand secrecy.
@izen who said “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 [sic] to mammals.”
Gee, when I got my doctorate, I learned that mammals and dinosaurs co-existed, but the mammals were necessarily small in order to stay out of harm’s way. For that matter, they still co-exist with “reptiles.” As for the CO2 content of the atmosphere, it has been falling since the late Jurassic 150+ million years ago, but global temperature rose dramatically during the Cretaceous. http://tinyurl.com/3scv637
Just what was it that about climate that caused the mammals to fare poorly? And where do you get these strange “facts?”
@-Paul says:
May 3, 2011 at 7:03 am
“Twenty percent of the Netherlands are below sea level and protected by dykes. They must have measurements of sea level rise going back quite a ways. Does anyone know what their measurements indicate?”
A continual steady rise in sea levewl over the length of available records.
However this is not as definitive a conformation of global sea level rise as might be desired.
The Netherlands are subject to isostatic rebound from the loss of the North Eurasian ice-cap at the end of the last glacial period so it is sinking relative to sea level.
Meanwhile the measurements are often taken at harbours and bridges newly built on reclaimed/drained land which also subsides as water is lost and sediment build-up weighs down the surface.
Eclipse records indicate very little possible variation in sea level for the last 6000 years certainly nothing of the magnitude of millimeters a year seen over the last century. Archeological evidence supports that. The recent rise is probably unprecedented since the end of the last glacial period and the A1 melt pulse during the Holocene optimum.
Wait! You still have to add all the feedbacks!
&izen: excuse me, but what were the “eclipse records” you refer to? Solar? Lunar? What was recorded and how does this serve to determine historic sea levels (other than them all being during spring high tides of course)?
@izen says: May 3, 2011 at 8:36 am
“A continual steady rise in sea levewl (sic) over the length of available records.”
Yeah, around 2-3mm per year. Like most places.
But being an anonymous troll, of course you didn’t mention that.
Another release about “The Acceleration”
http://www.independentmail.com/news/2011/may/03/new-report-confirms-arctic-melt-accelerating/
It now appears that the only thing falling faster than sea level is the support for carbon taxes.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/voters-abandon-julia-gillards-carbon-pricing-plan/story-fn59niix-1226049447761
In yesterday’s Canadian elections Cap and trade supporter David Ignatieff leader of the labor party even lost his own seat.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110503-710768.html
George Soros must be beginning to wonder how efffective Joe Rom is in rallying the AGW faithful.
izen says:
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.
I’m confused now – I thought higher CO2 meant WARMER climates, and that the sun was not a major contributor to the climate compared to CO2.
Sorry – forgot to check “notify me…”
Eric Anderson said on May 3, 2011 at 7:30 am:
“It’s working out fine – sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century.
Figure 3a:
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf”
Actually, Figure 3a says precisely the opposite and Figure 3b makes it even more clear. The sea level rise in the past 20,000 years (200 centuries, not the past century) is attributable to the end of the last ice age. Figure 3b makes quite clear that little if any rise and no acceleration has occurred in the last three centuries. The same trends are true of satellite measurements in the last 30+ years.
Oh dear, I guess I am replying to a post that you deleted.
The San Francisco Chronicle has the story on the front page of their SF Gate site as well.
I hate to break it to everybody here, but they are absolutely right. In fact, I will be just as correct in stating that the sea rise is twenty times as great as previously estimated. You see, three times zero (the actual sea rise) is just the same as twenty times zero… Scary and true. /sarc
Izen, you say that it was warmer in the past when the CO2 levels were higher. You are totally discounting the different continental configurations. Climate change drastically when the straights of Panama were closed. THAT caused a massive change in oceanic currents including the establishment of the circumpolar current around Antarctica. NOT CO2