I did a double-take when I saw this, and at first I thought this must be coming from a fake Twitter account. So, I checked. And yes, it is from the official Nobel Twitter account:
Unfortunately, it’s all too real. We’ve known for a long time (ever since Al Gore and sex-crazed IPPC Director Rajenda Pachauri got the Nobel Prize jointly in 2007) that the Nobel governing body has become little more than a political tool, but you’d think they’d at least bother to check what they are Tweeting.
The part about Arrhenius is correct, the SIX METER sea level rise, not so much.
Borrowing from their buddy Pauchari and the IPCC, in AR5 they said in Chapter 13:
For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m with a rate during 2081–2100 of 8 to 16 mm yr–1. We have considered the evidence for higher projections and have concluded that there is currently insufficient evidence to evaluate the probability of specific levels above the assessed likely range. Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century.
Even if we take the worst case scenario from the overly-hot favorite son of climate alarmists worldwide, the RCP 8.5 model, of 16mm per year (current rate is about 3.1-3.3mm/year according to satellite measurements) it will take quite a long time to get to six meter of sea level rise:
6 meters = 6000mm ( 19.7 feet)
6000mm ÷ 16mm/year = 375 years
At the [recent] rate of sea level rise, which shows no signs of acceleration, Wikipedia says:
Based on tide gauge data, the rate of global average sea level rise during the 20th century lies in the range 0.8 to 3.3 mm/yr, with an average rate of 1.8 mm/yr.
Satellite: 3.3mm/year
6000mm ÷ 3.3mm/year = 1818 years
Tide gauges: 1.8mm/year
6000mm ÷ 1.8mm/year = 3333 years
In any of the above three scenarios, civilization will have likely moved on to other power sources beyond fossil fuels. So what’s the worry?
The claim of six meters of sea level rise traces back to this Aug. 26, 2015 article from NASA where Josh Willis is quoted:
“A lot of the major uncertainty in future sea level rise is in the Greenland Ice Sheet,” said OMG principal investigator Josh Willis, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. At about 660,000 square miles (1.7 million square kilometers), the ice sheet is three times the size of Texas. It’s about a mile deep on average and contains enough water to raise global sea levels about 20 feet (6 meters), if it were all to melt. “The question is how fast it’s melting,” Willis said.
From “A lot of the major uncertainty in future sea level rise is in the Greenland Ice Sheet” and the ” The question is how fast it’s melting,” we get enough certainty that clueless organizations like the Nobel, retweet it as if it were fact. Yet, even in the worst, worst-case scenario, we’ll never reach six meters of sea-level rise because mankind will have moved to other power sources by then.
The Nobel committee deserves an award for thoughtless alarmism. Maybe a Darwin award.
Sad!
UPDATE: The curious thing about that image purporting to be from NASA showing 6 meters of global sea level rise is that I can only find one original source for it. It’s from the Wikipedia page on sea level rise, but their source isn’t NASA, but a Flickr account.
The reference image in Wikipedia says:
– https://www.flickr.com/photos/11304375@N07/6863515730/ additional source http://www.livescience.com/19212-sea-level-rise-ancient-future.html (Live Science)
And it says it was created: 23 March 2012, but I can find no NASA reference to this image anywhere during that time period. Further, article references in that LiveScience link to that image suggest it was created to demonstrate sea level over 3 million years ago, not the future:
About three million years ago — at a time when climate conditions paralleled those of modern times — sea levels stood about 66 feet (20 meters) higher, indicates new research.
It seems the image isn’t what some people think it is, including Nobel and Wikipedia.
If anybody can find the source of this image, NASA or not, please leave a comment and link to the source.
UPDATE2:
WUWT commenter “Joe” found it on an old, declared defunct NASA web page that is being kept up for archival purposes.
Anthony, I found a similar image (though with 1 meter rise) on nasa.gov:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/tipping_points_hiresmulti.html
The page, note the yellow highlight:
The image at NASA: 
It also explains why I couldn’t find the image, because I was looking for one tagged with 6 meters of SLR, not 1 meter.
Joe adds:
Not sure if this helps you get any closer to the true source, but this NOAA FTP site has the layers to generate the mystery image for 0-6 meters of sea level rise in 1 m increments. ftp://public.sos.noaa.gov/oceans/6m_sea_level_rise/red/
I checked the layers on the FTP page under the “4096” folder, and found them from 1 to 6 meters.
So here’s what it looks like at 1 meter (combining base map and the 1 meter layer), which is still very high, but withing the realm of plausibility in the next century if model projections are to be believed.
Doesn’t look all that scary, does it?
Here’s the same base map with the 6 meter layer from the FTP folder applied: (4K images, click to enlarge)
The image shown by Wikipedia, and NASA:
They still don’t match. Go figure. People are welcome to check my work using overlays at the FTP site: ftp://public.sos.noaa.gov/oceans/6m_sea_level_rise/red/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They have to chart some big sea level rise, or else it would not be visible on the map. Has to be with red and scary.
I’m hoping (probably futile hope) that people will stop paying so much attention to the virtual reality on their phone screens, and look around at the actual world around them.
I know – I’m reaching for the stars.
Joel, I think that is sure to happen sometime after the socialist despots establish global control. The reality shock will be devastating to the indoctrinated when the spell is broken and they realize that socialism has been hijacked again.
Scoundrels, those who would cheapen the name of Alfred Nobel and his philanthropic life’swork.
Yes, dynamite, thanks for that. The philanthropic work was only at the end when he realised what a wave of death he had unleashed.
Wrong map.
That one shows a 6m rise in communism.
And even with a make-believe 1 m of instant sea level rise, they had to artificially inflate the thickness of the line so much just so that you can see it, that the thickness of the line itself is far more than the actual inundated coastline of this comic book scenario.
Just look at the SW coast of South America. Those islands are 1,000+ meters tall and many are even permanently glaciated, yet they depict them as being submerged.
The mountains and fjords of Norway also seem awfully susceptible to a six metre (or is it one) sea level rise.
The BBC latest news is that the Thwaites Glacier may, might,could possibly melt and raise sea levels by 3 metres, so scientists are going to investigate. Nice work, although the weather isn’t very good there at the moment.
Apparently a large section of the ice shelf at the end of the glacier has broken off, but as I understand it melting icebergs don’t raise sea level.
Also, is the Thwaites Glacier running over a volcanic region?
I like how Greenland is still white on their map. Shouldn’t it be err.. Green. (With all that new land for farming!)
When you’ve stolen a graphic to use for a purpose other than it was created for, you just have to put up with inconvenient conflicts of context against your missive..
6000mm ÷ 3.3mm/year = 3333 years.
Needs to be changed to 1.8mm/ year
Fixed, thanks. Typo, but math was right.
No biggie, I can type the wrong math perfectly. Trade ya.
Right. But that 1.8 mm/yr is inflated by the addition of 0.3 mm/yr “GIA,” which is Prof. Richard Peltier’s estimate of the amount by which sinking of the ocean floor reduces measured sea-level rise. The actual average rate of coastal sea-level rise is only about 1.5 mm/year (about six inches per century).
Adding model-derived GIA to the global sea-level trend is useful for some purposes, but the sum is not “sea-level rise.” Rather, it is an estimate of what the rate of sea-level rise would be were it not for post-glacial sinking of the ocean floor.
In the words of Greg Goodman:
Like a commenter over on Dr. Curry’s blog, I would call SLR+GIA “Fake SLR.” Frederikse distinguishes the two more tactfully, by calling real SLR “geocentric sea level rise” and fake SLR “barystatic sea level rise.”
Real… er, “geocentric”… global sea-level rise is so slow that in many places it is dwarfed by vertical land motion, and/or coastal processes, like erosion and sedimentation.
In fact, the Nobel Committee meets at two such places: Oslo and Stockholm. At both of those locations sea-level is falling, rather than rising.
https://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Oslo&boxcar=1&boxwidth=3
http://sealevel.info/040-321_Oslo_1885-2015_vs_CO2.png
https://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Stockholm&boxcar=1&boxwidth=3
http://sealevel.info/050-141_Stockholm_Sweden_1889-2015_smoothed_vs_CO2.png
Unfortunately for the Scandinavians, the rate of decline is not decreasing. So they have to keep dredging, to keep the harbors open.
At Skagway sea-level is falling >17 mm/year. Without the tiny reduction caused by global sea-level rise it would be slightly worse.
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Skagway
http://www.sealevel.info/9452400_Skagway_2016-11.png
And at Kushiro sea-level is rising 9 mm/year. Global sea-level rise is less than 20% of that.
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Kushiro
http://www.sealevel.info/641-021_Kushiro_2016.png
Of course, both of those locations show zero acceleration, hence zero influence from anthropogenic carbon emissions — just like everywhere else.
The Nobel peace prize committee gave an award to Henry Kissinger, the North Vietnamese foreign minister, JImmy Carter, and Barack Obama. QED.
And Yasser Arafat, for a discovery that terrorism works.
Yeah that’s when the Nobel “peace prize” lost ALL credibility for me – when they awarded it to the man who cranked up the “peace negotiations” every time the “Palestinians” were losing in their war on Israel, so he could stockpile more weapons and start again.
Kissinger at least got Nixon to open relations with Red China. And Carter deserved his award for brokering the Begin/Sadat peace treaty.
But Obama hadn’t even been sworn in when he got the award. That and always-wrong Paul Krugman’s award, also for nothing, discredited the award in my eyes.
Perhaps it’s time for the skeptical science community to establish a new award, to further take away news focus from the Nobels, just as the DragonCon awards have (for some of us) replaced the Hugos.
Perhaps: The Noble Fiction Prize of ….
Wow, there are so many potential nominees.
Any suggestions on why Arafat got one other than to annoy the Israelis
Presumably Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize For Not Being George W. Bush.
Chris
Don’t forget Sharon, who threw grenades and explosives into houses where women and kids hid
When did Ariel Sharon win the Peace Prize? I can’t find him on the list.
Nigel – I think he’s referring to my wife. She’s a pretty tough cookie.
The throat-slitting psychopath Arik Sharon, who was actually born in Palestine, didn’t ever win a Nobel peace prize. Hallelujah!
Yizhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Yasser Arafat did win the peace prize in 1994, presumably because they had all been willing to participate in symbolic gestures toward establishing a peaceful resolution:
Hallelujah!
Yitzhak Rabin once ordered soldiers to break the bones of Palestinians:
But after receiving the peace prize, Rabin the reformist made positive steps towards peace, only to be terminated in his tracks by a fundamentalist Jewish fanatic who resorted to violence, like Rabin once did, to achieve his political goal (the very definition of “terrorist”, btw) of ending the peace process.
Obama boasted of his drone killing fetish after he received the peace prize.
People with double standards always complain about the prize going to Arafat. (boo, hiss!)
Obama then went on to drone brown people in the middle east with his peace prize
Rigoberta Menchu for being the “author” of an “as told to” book. Which was mostly made up by the ghost who was a French Communist.
And, it seems are either publishing their own fake news or are being duped into publishing it. Either way it’s fake.
In 97% of Antarctica the temperature NEVER reaches 0C and in 10 of the 13 stations no warming has occurred in last 60 years. The other 3 are on the NW Antarctica peninsula (which actually is an island) and that has volcanic ridges under it. So how do the alarmists think that Antarctica will ever melt? Greenland has been shown to be melting inderneath from volcanic ridges. Greenland is not melting from on top. If all 200000 glaciers of the world were to melt the total sea level rise would be 400mm. If the Arctic sea ice was to completely melt the se level would not rise because that ice is laready sitting on top of the water. So what is the problem? The problem is that CAGW is a religion that cant be fought with facts. Greenies dont respond to logic.
I think even if just that NW peninsula melted, it would result in significant sea rise.
PS (I don’t understand how North or West have any meaning on a polar continent. All [coastal] areas are North, and West, well it’s just a big circle.)
[Your observation is noted, but the global geography community has established the conventions for both north and south polar areas that all now living must accept. Once you are away from the first few meters directly over (under ?) the pole itself, the rest of the continent falls into hemispheres according to the equatorial conventions. .mod]
Alan,
Also, the center of Greenland is a bowl, and it is problematic if all of the ice should melt that the water would even find its way out into the ocean.
The Nobel Prize organization seems to be without principles.
Been so for some time now.
Oh, don’t kid yourself- they have principles. The same way Karl Marx had principles. Almost exactly the same, as a matter of fact.
Science or Fiction,
Or without a clue.
…so now we can say they haven’t predicted anything right in 122 years
The Thwaites glacier, apparently, can do it all on its own:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/04/30/antarctic-glacier-size-britain-threatens-flood-coastal-towns/
All the usual media suspects in UK are awash with this rubbish. Harrabin has had a breathless piece on BBC primetime news.
Peter
Thank you. I was searching for reference to that on WUWT before I posted it myself. Also available on good old Auntie, as you say http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43936372
What intrigues me about this is that if the threatened ice is in water (as illustrated by the Beeb) then it’s sea ice, so it makes no difference whatsoever to sea level rise.
Perhaps it’s resting on the sea bed, according to the BBC’s illustration. Frankly, big deal, this is a tiny, tiny event within the Antarctic’s annual, decadal or millennial life cycle. It’s utterly inconsequential.
Is it a signal? Considering the BBC’s comparison of the event discussed being equal to the size of the UK, then the mass of Antartica looks like it’s similar to the entire N. American continent, and more. It might be a signal, but it’s a pretty poor one unless similar signals can be found everywhere else on the Antarctic continent. I understand the UK can fit into a single Canadian Great Lake. Is that also a signal?
It’s an event as far as I can see, not a signal.
But I’m not a scientist. I do however, grasp a vote in my sweaty mitt, and it will be used to oppose this science/mediababble propaganda.
For all the bedwetters because of Thwaites glacier melting: look at this study
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811630491X
The Thwaites glacier has been around for at least 5 million years and has melted many times in the past. How do we know this? Ice core samples only go back 68000 years in this region. Why? Because the glacier melted from underneath due to undersea volcanic ridges. Of course the above article nods to the usual global warming crap but it gives enough clues that tell you what the scientists really think. Of course every study concludes with the obligatory WE JUST DONT HAVE ENOUGH INFO SO SEND US MORE MONEY FOR ANOTHER STUDY. The bedwetters who seem to have a direct line to the printing presses of the world’s country governments are always eager to comply.
For decades in Florida everyone blamed beach erosion on sea level rise. I heard lecture after lecture. Then we had a symposium about beaches and erosion, etc. The keynote speaker was just retiring from academia where he had worked closely with the Corps of Army Engineers. I had heard him several years previous preaching the orthodoxy that beach erosion was all sea level rise. This time however, he clearly showed that most, if not all of the beach erosion was caused by poorly planned beach construction, poor inlet management/ maintenance (including the construction of new inlets) and the general interruption of sand transport along the beach. While he didn’t say he had lied before when someone asked about sea level rise and it being all the problem he basically said, “well, I changed my mind.” Interestingly, while he said he couldn’t prove it beyond a doubt, that the “tar” one gets on their feet walking SE Florida beaches in the summer was crude from WWII, from tankers sank in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. After the war sand had actually built up on the beach covering the crude as the beach eroded it was exposed. If you have never researched it, look into how many tankers the Germans sank and how much petroleum was spilled in the Gulf and Caribbean, most in the first years of the war.
Very interesting Edwin, I was always curious about the tar on the beach.
There are also natural seeps in the Gulf and along the Atlantic coast.
Didn’t Al Gore get snippy with some mayor of an island in Florida who turned up and stated that the erosion of the island was NOT caused by Globull Warming/Sea Level Rise or was it Chesapeake?
Tangier Island is in the middle of Chesapeake Bay, and the gentleman you’re thinking of is a crabber named James Eskridge, who also happens to be the mayor of Tangier Island.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/03/tangier-mayor-disputes-cause-islands-land-loss-cnns-al-gore-town-hall/535327001/
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/08/01/al-gore-climate-crisis-town-hall-tangier-island-trump-sot.cnn
Tangier island is very slowly eroding, and probably also slowly sinking (like most of that region), though there’s no tide gauge there to measure it. There’s a seawall protecting parts of the island from erosion. It needs a seawall to protect the rest of the island.
Curbing CO2 emissions won’t do Tangier Island any good. Reducing CO2 emissions might even hurt matters a little bit.
I would not have seen it at Wiki leaks, since I do not go there for climate or weather.
The National Science Foundation also has that image, and also claims NASA as the source! https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=123545
It has popped up lots of places (including, interestingly, WUWT: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/03/inconvenient-stanford-study-sea-levels-may-not-rise-as-high-as-assumed/ ), and if it cites a source it’s always a simple statement of “NASA”
Yes, we used it too.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/991044365438148608
https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/991044365438148608
Please tell the Nobel Prize twitter that Arrhenius said that global warming and coal combustion are good for mankind.
“Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree.” (p61)
By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” (p63)
From “Worlds in the Making” (1908) by Arrhenius
Thank you for that, Dr. S!
I’ve tweeted as you requested:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/991693895615635458
https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/991693895615635458
Here’s the Google Books scan of Arrhenius, Worlds in the Making, 1908, p.63 (English translation):
https://books.google.com/books?id=1t45AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false
Still no reply from the Nobel Committee. So I tried again:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/991704820057862144
https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/991704820057862144
Nobel so irrelevant these days, they have to appeal to the church of AGW for likes.
Who knew the Nobel committee were dopamine addicts
Reminds me of the fiasco with the Mainau Declaration for Climate Protection 2015.
Where only 36 of the 65 attending Nobel laureates signed the declaration.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/03/oddly-nobel-prize-winner-michael-mann-was-not-invited-to-sign-the-mainau-declaration-for-climate-protection/
Anthony, I found a similar image (though with 1 meter rise) on nasa.gov:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/tipping_points_hiresmulti.html
Not sure if this helps you get any closer to the true source, but this NOAA FTP site has the layers to generate the mystery image for 0-6 meters of sea level rise in 1 m increments. ftp://public.sos.noaa.gov/oceans/6m_sea_level_rise/red/
“For the greatest benefit to mankind” – fossil fuels.
Ironic that an inanimate substance is the greatest philanthropist of history.
Hate to break it to them but, Svante Arrhenius is probably rolling in his grave right now, at what has been done to science, in his name.
Here is a copy of the sea level rise picture with Copyright NOAA on it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3791484/What-does-instantaneous-REALLY-mean-According-mathematician-comes-point-view.html
Our National Museum in NZ has a virtual display for the attendees to try, showing what the environs of Wellington would look like with sea level rise of different degrees.
A 3m rise and a 6m rise is part of the scenarios presented and the news report was about the school children being able to see what this would look like.
It would seem the propaganda efforts of the powers that be, aren’t convinced that the ‘real’ dangers are less even, than that presented by the IPCC scenarios. I wonder why? (No need to answer THAT one!!!)
But this is serious in real term, as one local member of government is pushing this agenda(along with our new government) to allow the spending of billions in new sea barriers for the city .
Sigh…..!!!
And why I shake my head when optimistic people spout that ‘we’ have won the battle…….NO we have not, not by a long margin.
I don’t know if Western ‘governments’ are ever going to row back on this. They are so invested in the lie that it would be pretty much impossible to do anything now other than double down. All we can do is press on and hope enough people wake up to vote these lunatics out.
Anthony, I suspect it is actually this NASA map of a ONE metre sea level rise …
w.
No, that’s six. See my pending update2 in a few minutes.
So the Nobel committee has the research skills of a C average middle school student? Now it makes sense.
Woods Holes uses a portion of the map…and credits it to University of Arizona..Weiss and Overpeck
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/7_44476.jpg
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83341&tid=3622&cid=13366
Also…
http://natureontheedgenyc.blogspot.com/2012/11/sea-level-is-rising-60-faster-than.html
Somehow, I don’t think that Arrhenius would appreciate his name being used today to push the Warmunist ideology. In any case, he was wrong about the actual influence of CO2 on climate. He even corrected himself later on. Furthermore, they are being disingenuous. Arrhenius thought that the influence of CO2 would be beneficial, helping to warm the climate, which he knew would benefit mankind. In no way was he predicting “global warming” in the way that Warmunists mean it. The liars.
Yes, he favored warming and the benefits higher CO2 would bring. Do you have a specific reference with regard to the statement he “even corrected himself later on”?
See this exchange of comments, @ur momisugly Aphan — about a dozen, disagreeing with each other.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/23/most-of-the-recent-warming-could-be-natural/#comment-2588975
Arrhenius was criticised a lot by Mach who pointed out errors in his calculations. He opposed the criticisms and published other versions of the work, (I think 1908-1915) eventually lowering the ECS by more than half. One might notice that those citing his 1895/6 work is where alarming ‘early’ predictions emerge. I have not once been referred to his later, corrected, lower estimate papers. Yet there they are. Catastrophe averted.
Mach was apparently better at math and physics. Interesting: Mach 2 is faster than Mach 1, while Arrhenius 1 is hotter than Arrhenius 2.
Soon the world’s oceans will be under water.
Max,
+1 You made me smile.
Max You are priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NASA has a SLR time machine applet on this link:
https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine
One can select any level of SLR between 0 to 6 meters on a particular stretch of coastline. It also has the text that states:
So 6 meters comes not from a model projection, but merely the gross application of a highly unlikely scenario where Greenland completely melts during the Holocene (or anything close to it).