![480px-Antarctica_6400px_from_Blue_Marble[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/480px-antarctica_6400px_from_blue_marble1.jpg?quality=83)
Sea level rise increase 1/2 thickness of human fingernail crates media “sea level rise alert” panic
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
During May three new scientific papers appeared addressing results of studies of Antarctica ice loss which sent the alarmist media into a feeding frenzy of ill-informed, exaggerated and erroneous print and broadcast climate reporting panic.
The first two papers were released on May 12 and resulted in ludicrous claims being made by the major news media with the big three anchors including NBC Brian Williams warning that sea level would rise by 13 feet by the year 2100 while ABC’s Diane Sawyer chimed in that Florida would be hit by three or more feet of sea level rise and CBS’s Scott Pelley bemoaning that a large part of Antarctica is melting and can’t be stopped.(1)
These May 13 broadcasts were supposedly based on these two new released studies which addressed research on West Antarctica ice loss involving six specific glaciers.(2)
One of the studies was published in Science and involved use of computer simulations to model behavior of the Thwaites and Haynes glaciers to examine ice loss behavior. The results suggested that early=stage collapse of these long known to be geologically unstable glaciers had begun with sea level rise impacts of 0.25 mm per year likely over the 21 century and that somewhere in the next 200 to 900 years onset of sea level rise increase of 1 mm or more per year could begin.
This study specifically cautions that the simulations used were not coupled to global climate models and as such these simulation results do not constitute a projection of future sea level rise impacts.
The second study was published in Geophysical Research Letters and involved use of satellite radar tracking analysis of ice movement and thickness for the Pine Island, Thwaites, Haynes, Smith, Pope and Kohler glaciers in West Antarctica. The study noted that these glaciers constitute about 1/3 of the West Antarctica ice sheet which is equivalent to about 4 feet of potential sea level rise impact.
This study found that over the last 41 years the ice loss from these six unstable glaciers has increased. The study specifically noted that until numerical ice sheet models with realistic oceanic forcing are able to replicate these observations, projections of the evolution of this sector of West Antarctica should be interpreted with caution.
Neither of these studies made any claims regarding sea level rise projections related to these results and in fact cautioned that such assessments were not part of their efforts. Furthermore neither of these studies made any claims that man made climate change was responsible for these findings.
Notwithstanding the very specific qualifiers and cautions contained in both of these studies including cautions regarding the lack of projections of future sea level rise the print and broadcast media “freaked out” with absurd claims of future sea level rise impacts that were not only completely unsupported by these studies but more importantly they were not even addressed in these two studies.
In addition to the NBC, CBS and ABC news anchor absurdities noted earlier the BBC claimed that sea level would rise by 1.4 meters by 2100 and The Guardian claimed that sea level would rise by 4 meters. Based on the material contained in the two published studies the alarmist claims made by NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, The Guardian and many other news organizations about these West Antarctica studies can only be viewed as ill-informed, exaggerated and erroneous. It seems clear that no one involved with these news organizations made any effort to actually obtain, read and evaluate the information contained in the two studies.(3)
On May 19 another study was published in Geophysical Research Letters which addressed the results of new satellite radar altimetry measurements taken over the entire Antarctica continent during the period 2010 through 2013.(4)
The results showed that the total ice loss across the entire continent during this period was “consistent” with prior measurements taken using different satellite measurement technology. The results also showed that the West Antarctica region was experiencing by far the largest amount of ice loss, about 85% of the total with the ice loss about 31% greater than during the period 2005 -2011, the Antarctica Peninsula being about 13% of the total loss and the vast Eastern Antarctica region being only about 2% of the measured loss.
The study noted that the measurements of ice loss in the Antarctica peninsula and Eastern Antarctica regions were more difficult to determine and that for a variety of technical reasons longer time periods would be needed to improve these measurements. Further and as was the case with the previous two studies discussed this third study makes [no] assertions about man made climate change being responsible for the studies findings.
Based on these results the study performed an assessment of the expected change in sea level rise contribution from these latest continent wide ice loss measurements. The results showed the sea level rise contribution to be 0.45 mm per year versus a prior estimates of 0.19 mm per year. The change of 0.26 mm per year is equivalent to about 1/2 the thickness of a human fingernail.
The news media again went into action and botched the reporting of this third study just as they had done regarding the first two studies. The Guardian and the BBC both wrongly claimed in screaming headlines that the study showed that Antarctica ice loss had doubled since the last measurements. It is hard to explain how they could have managed to make such a dumb mistake other than complete incompetence by the news organizations.(5), (6)
The manner in which these three Antarctica studies were reported and broadcast by the news media can only be characterized as an extraordinary example of what climate alarmism and climate science propaganda looks like.
It is clear from how these alleged news reports were handled that the news organizations involved are pushing political and ideological agendas that have nothing to do with objective climate science reporting.
(1)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/05/13/abc-cbs-and-nbc-freak-
out-over-melting-antarctic-ice-much-south-flori
(2)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/the-media-over-hyped-the-west-antarcti
ca-climate-propaganda-reporting/
(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8387137.stm
(4)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/23/climate-alarmists-make-major-blunder-i
n-reporting-antarctica-ice-loss-results/
(5) http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27465050
(6)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/19/doubling-of-antarctic-ice
-loss-revealed-by-european-satellite
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Report them to local media bodies. It is illegal to lie. If we don’t pull them up and demand they print a retraction then we are supporting their lies… I have personally got retractions printed by 4 Australian news organisations when they print this rubbish.
‘It is clear from how these alleged news reports were handled that the news organizations involved are pushing political and ideological agendas that have nothing to do with objective climate science reporting.’
And bears find woods a good to place to get rid of personal waste ,
Fully hooked into blindly supporting ‘the cause ‘because its somehow become a requirement of being ‘progressive’ which both of this organisation desperately want to be seen has . You actual expect nothing but this type of approach, especially when they can feel the political momentum slipping away form ‘the cause’
As a side line it often thought that the BBC and the Guardian are little more than two cheeks of the same rear end for good reason , in some cases good ‘personal’ reasons. So where one goes the other will follow.
Anthony,
It’s important to realise that the blame does not lie entirely with the journalists. The irresponsible exaggeration starts with the scientists themselves.
For example here is climate scientist Mark Brandon saying that “for all intents and purposes the West Antarctic Ice sheet is doomed”.
And here is Eric Rignot, “Last week saw a ‘holy shit’ moment in climate change science. A landmark report revealed that the collapse of a large part of Antarctica is now unstoppable”.
With climate scientists behaving like this, you can’t really blame the journalists for picking up on the scare story.
Australia’s SBS and ABC reported similar alarmist nonsense.
In the US, the 1st Amendment generally protects lying as freedom of speech. Of course, libel, child pornography, and fraud are not free speech, but the standard of proof in the US courts is pretty high, compared to many other countries.
It is clearly dishonest reporting. Even Gov. Moonbeam got carried away with the lying and exaggerations. He had to have his staff retract his ridiculous “making stuff up” about LAX and SFO getting flooded by the end of the century. Note: Moonbeam didn’t retract it personally.
Steve Goddard just posted: “According to always trustworthy US government, sea level is rising 3.1 mm/year. As tiny as this is, it is exaggerated by more than 400% over the actual data. Of the 148 currently active (readings after 2010) NOAA global tide gauges, 83% are below the official average – with a mean value of 0.73 mm/year. Almost a third of the stations show no sea level rise.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/official-sea-level-vs-the-oceans/
We have been told that the oceans have been meters higher and lower than the level they are at present. Whose SUV caused these rises and falls in the distant past? And why do we have to “adjust” the current reading to manage to get even a tiny sea level rise?
When will the %@ur momisugly#$%^% government funded agencies stop cheating on every @ur momisugly#$@ur momisugly%@ur momisugly% measurement they take?
Shouldn’t there be a “no” before “assertions”?
I believe the media didn’t invent their alarmism, but got it from a NASA/GRU press release. I don’t have its URL–will someone please post it?
The real problem lies with the press releases from universities and govt agencies like NASA, a lot of the hype is just the sexing-up and impact-seeking of their marketing/PR departments. Journalists in the media wouldn’t have time to question a dodgy press release, even if they had the knowledge and inclination to do so, they mostly just copy and paste.
Since the money comes from us taxpayers we have a right to demand scientific accuracy and balance, so lets do something about this, maybe even legal action.
Your link to the BBC article (No.3) is wrong as it is from Dec 2009, not May 2014.
You said “the BBC claimed that sea level would rise by 1.4 meters by 2100” referring to the May 2014 fracas and then gave the link no. 3 at the bottom, linking to that 2009 article.
The BBC did do a shrill article on the subject but it ain’t this one.
Scute says:
The BBC did do a shrill article on the subject but it ain’t this one.
****
The BBC’s Antarctica reports, May 2014
Esa’s Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double
19 May 2014
“…The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year…”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27465050
‘Nothing can stop retreat’ of West Antarctic glaciers’
12 May 2014
“…This retreat will have major consequences for sea level rise worldwide. It will raise sea levels by 1.2m, or 4ft, but its retreat will also influence adjacent sectors of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which could triple this contribution to sea level…”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27381010
Is it possible to sue these alarmist ‘news’ agencies in the USA for causing panic and alarm with their clearly erroneous reports? … just thinking because it seems that any one of multitude of enviro-NGO’s is suing the EPA for one thing or another at any given time and that these appear to be not opposed.
And put all this within the context of record levels of Antarctic sea ice = record cold temperatures in that region.
What the media should also look at is any potential off-setting by increased snowfalls on Eastern Antarctica. Below are a few studies on the issue.
I wonder why we don’t here too much about East Antarctica?
I think this is the wrong approach. It’s not illegal to lie and be alarmist, and if the law is changed, the same government bureaucracy that’s promoting alarmism now will be enforcing the law.
If you want to make a difference with some political activism, I think working to end the brainwashing of school children by public schools.
Anthony
“crates” s/b “creates” in opening sentence
With climate scientists behaving like this, you can’t really blame the journalists for picking up on the scare story.
Yes, I can.
While I accept, and agree, that some of the climate scientists are behaving irresponsibly, the entire raison d’etre of the journalism profession is to act as a responsible filter–not to simply parrot whatever anyone wants to says, but to do some homework, and determine whether the claims have some validity.
The journalist have earned a share of the blame.
Hidden heat is lubricating the collapse of East Antarctic ice into the sea, where it will exacerbate the current excess reflection from sea ice into space, which will result in runaway positive feedback resulting in Snowball Earth. It’s inevitable.
Mickey Reno says: May 27, 2014 at 4:48 am
” . . . It’s not illegal to lie and be alarmist. . .”
I understand the overarching point of your full comment and I’m no lawyer; but I believe that knowingly and falsely yelling “Fire!” or “There’s a bomb!” in a theater or other public space was the textbook case where “free speech” is not protected by US law. Let me know if I’m wrong. . . but of course if true, extending this principle to climate alarmism may be difficult to argue convincingly.
Dan
@Jimbo:
Thanks for those links—-
Interesting set of dates. I’ll have to find studies of anomalies for Greenland and the Arctic for those periods. Plus: what was happening in West Antarctica at those times… Could snow accumulation in the East Antarctic be the canary down the mine for global climate trends? Or at least, A canary?
Now of course if the shrill protestations of say Mann or Hansen were believed and someone subsequently comitted suicide leaving a note about climate change, Mann, and Hansen’s predictions and the heat that was going to jump out of the deep oceans and bite everyones heads off, surely that’s grounds to charge someone? Modern climate alarmism is about provoking terror, in my view it’s a form of terrorism.
This is the exact same nonsense that happened in the 1970s with scientists feeding the media about another “ice age” coming. When there is cooling, some scientists overreact. It is human nature to want attention. Nowadays, it is global warming nonsense, and human nature has not changed – scientists and media persons getting attention. There is no conspiracy, but just chicken littlism running rampant. Laugh or become outraged, but you are not going to change the human beast.
“pushing political and ideological agendas that have nothing to do with objective climate science reporting.”
There is unfortunately NO such thing left as objective reporting in the US. No matter what the subject is.
Not precisely on topic, but can anyone lead me to the original on-line source for this graph? The link to it was provided in a comment on this site. I saved the image to my hard drive, but didn’t bookmark the on-line link to it: