Climate Craziness of the Week: The @NobelPrize spews moronic climate propaganda

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.


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:

NASA – additional source (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.


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

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.

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:


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 30, 2018 12:07 pm

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.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Adrian Roman
April 30, 2018 12:18 pm

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Joel Snider
April 30, 2018 1:50 pm

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Adrian Roman
April 30, 2018 1:23 pm

Scoundrels, those who would cheapen the name of Alfred Nobel and his philanthropic life’swork.

Hokey Schtick
Reply to  Pop Piasa
May 1, 2018 12:24 am

Yes, dynamite, thanks for that. The philanthropic work was only at the end when he realised what a wave of death he had unleashed.

Reply to  Adrian Roman
April 30, 2018 1:46 pm

Wrong map.
That one shows a 6m rise in communism.

Reply to  Adrian Roman
April 30, 2018 1:55 pm

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.

Reply to  RWturner
April 30, 2018 11:27 pm

The mountains and fjords of Norway also seem awfully susceptible to a six metre (or is it one) sea level rise.

Reply to  Adrian Roman
May 1, 2018 12:02 am

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?

April 30, 2018 12:12 pm

I like how Greenland is still white on their map. Shouldn’t it be err.. Green. (With all that new land for farming!)

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Jay Willis
April 30, 2018 1:29 pm

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..

April 30, 2018 12:20 pm

6000mm ÷ 3.3mm/year = 3333 years.
Needs to be changed to 1.8mm/ year

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 30, 2018 1:38 pm

No biggie, I can type the wrong math perfectly. Trade ya.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 30, 2018 1:39 pm

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:

“it… means their “mean sea level” is now floating, phantom like, above the waves.”

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.
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.
And at Kushiro sea-level is rising 9 mm/year. Global sea-level rise is less than 20% of that.
Of course, both of those locations show zero acceleration, hence zero influence from anthropogenic carbon emissions — just like everywhere else.

April 30, 2018 12:20 pm

The Nobel peace prize committee gave an award to Henry Kissinger, the North Vietnamese foreign minister, JImmy Carter, and Barack Obama. QED.

Curious George
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 30, 2018 12:25 pm

And Yasser Arafat, for a discovery that terrorism works.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Curious George
May 1, 2018 4:06 am

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.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 30, 2018 12:53 pm

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.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  jdgalt
April 30, 2018 3:39 pm

Perhaps: The Noble Fiction Prize of ….
Wow, there are so many potential nominees.

Chris Lynch
Reply to  jdgalt
April 30, 2018 4:16 pm

Any suggestions on why Arafat got one other than to annoy the Israelis

Chris Wright
Reply to  jdgalt
May 1, 2018 2:20 am

Presumably Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize For Not Being George W. Bush.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 30, 2018 1:05 pm

Don’t forget Sharon, who threw grenades and explosives into houses where women and kids hid

Nigel S
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
April 30, 2018 2:45 pm

When did Ariel Sharon win the Peace Prize? I can’t find him on the list.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
April 30, 2018 4:46 pm

Nigel – I think he’s referring to my wife. She’s a pretty tough cookie.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 1, 2018 5:53 am

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:comment image
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!)

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 30, 2018 1:48 pm

Obama then went on to drone brown people in the middle east with his peace prize

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 30, 2018 4:57 pm

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.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 30, 2018 6:34 pm

And, it seems are either publishing their own fake news or are being duped into publishing it. Either way it’s fake.

Alan Tomalty
April 30, 2018 12:22 pm

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.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
April 30, 2018 1:56 pm

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]

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
April 30, 2018 1:58 pm

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.

Science or Fiction
April 30, 2018 12:32 pm

The Nobel Prize organization seems to be without principles.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
April 30, 2018 12:49 pm

Been so for some time now.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Science or Fiction
April 30, 2018 1:17 pm

Oh, don’t kid yourself- they have principles. The same way Karl Marx had principles. Almost exactly the same, as a matter of fact.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Science or Fiction
April 30, 2018 1:59 pm

Science or Fiction,
Or without a clue.

April 30, 2018 12:42 pm

…so now we can say they haven’t predicted anything right in 122 years

Peter Plail
April 30, 2018 12:45 pm

The Thwaites glacier, apparently, can do it all on its own:
All the usual media suspects in UK are awash with this rubbish. Harrabin has had a breathless piece on BBC primetime news.

Reply to  Peter Plail
April 30, 2018 1:44 pm

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
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.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Peter Plail
April 30, 2018 2:16 pm

For all the bedwetters because of Thwaites glacier melting: look at this study
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.

April 30, 2018 12:48 pm

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.

Reply to  Edwin
April 30, 2018 1:52 pm

Very interesting Edwin, I was always curious about the tar on the beach.

Reply to  Edwin
April 30, 2018 2:17 pm

There are also natural seeps in the Gulf and along the Atlantic coast.

Chris Lynch
Reply to  Edwin
April 30, 2018 4:22 pm

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?

Reply to  Chris Lynch
April 30, 2018 4:37 pm

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.
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.

Gerald Machnee
April 30, 2018 12:54 pm

I would not have seen it at Wiki leaks, since I do not go there for climate or weather.

Randy Bork
April 30, 2018 12:59 pm

The National Science Foundation also has that image, and also claims NASA as the source!

Reply to  Randy Bork
April 30, 2018 1:16 pm

It has popped up lots of places (including, interestingly, WUWT: ), and if it cites a source it’s always a simple statement of “NASA”

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  daveburton
May 1, 2018 2:43 am

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

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
May 2, 2018 8:08 am

Here’s the Google Books scan of Arrhenius, Worlds in the Making, 1908, p.63 (English translation):

Mark - Helsinki
April 30, 2018 1:07 pm

Nobel so irrelevant these days, they have to appeal to the church of AGW for likes.
Who knew the Nobel committee were dopamine addicts

Science or Fiction
April 30, 2018 1:19 pm

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.

April 30, 2018 1:20 pm

Anthony, I found a similar image (though with 1 meter rise) on

Reply to  Joe
April 30, 2018 1:32 pm

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.

April 30, 2018 1:26 pm

“For the greatest benefit to mankind” – fossil fuels.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Jamie Spry
April 30, 2018 3:21 pm

Ironic that an inanimate substance is the greatest philanthropist of history.

Bruce Cobb
April 30, 2018 1:27 pm

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.

April 30, 2018 1:29 pm
April 30, 2018 1:30 pm

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 .
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.

Reply to  D B H
May 1, 2018 5:30 am

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.

April 30, 2018 1:31 pm

Anthony, I suspect it is actually this NASA map of a ONE metre sea level rise …comment image

April 30, 2018 1:32 pm

So the Nobel committee has the research skills of a C average middle school student? Now it makes sense.

April 30, 2018 1:40 pm
Bruce Cobb
April 30, 2018 1:47 pm

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.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 30, 2018 4:32 pm

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”?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 30, 2018 10:25 pm

See this exchange of comments, @ Aphan — about a dozen, disagreeing with each other.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in London
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 1, 2018 3:14 am

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.

April 30, 2018 1:48 pm

Soon the world’s oceans will be under water.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Max Photon
April 30, 2018 2:03 pm

+1 You made me smile.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 30, 2018 2:26 pm

Max You are priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joel O'Bryan
April 30, 2018 1:54 pm

NASA has a SLR time machine applet on this link:
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:

“A partial melting of this ice sheet would cause a 1-meter (3-foot) rise. If melted completely, the Greenland ice sheet contains enough water to raise sea level by 5-7 meters (16-23 feet).
This visualization shows the effect on coastal regions for each meter of sea level rise, up to 6 meters (19.7 feet). Land that would be covered in water is shaded red.”

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).

April 30, 2018 2:05 pm

Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational that supports the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels and the cause of warming during the Eemian could not possible have been mankind’s use if fossil fuels. There is reason to believe that the current interglacial period is gradually ending but it may be thousands of years more for the next ice age to really start to take hold. So we can expect that sea levels will continue to gradually change and there is nothing that we can do to change it. The next ice age will bring with it lower sea levels but also expanded polar ice caps and continental ice sheets. The colder oceans will absorb more CO2 but hopefully CO2 levels will not get as low as they did during the last ice age. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels has helped to replenish the CO2 in the atmosphere that plants need but we may have to also try to reverse the sequestering of carbon in carbonate rocks..

Clyde Spencer
April 30, 2018 2:05 pm

About two pages down: “At the resent rate of sea level rise…” RECENT

Steve Zell
April 30, 2018 2:06 pm

“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.”
But of course Al Gore used it for his “Inconvenient [un]Truth” film. Never mind that it would take about 3,000 years to happen at current sea-level rise rates, and we might have another global-cooling episode before then (like the ones after the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, twice in 2,000 years).
Has anyone ever wondered whether it would be possible to build a 6-meter (20 feet) high seawall around major coastal cities in 3,000 years? It just might be, because after the disastrous hurricane in Galveston in 1900, it only took five years to build a 25 foot seawall there!

Reply to  Steve Zell
April 30, 2018 3:07 pm

The Netherlands?

Joel O'Bryan
April 30, 2018 2:11 pm

As for this: “Al Gore and sex-crazed IPPC Director Rajenda Pachauri got the Nobel Prize jointly in 2007)” statment—
They got the Nobel Peace Prize, and not a Nobel Prize like for physics or medicine or chemistry or literature or economics. Those are real prizes that are coveted in those fields. It is an important distinction since the Peace Prize comes out a completely separate committee based in Oslo, Norway.
And the world was shown in 2009 that absolutely nothing had to actually be accomplished in order to “win” a Peace Prize. The Peace Prize Committee awarded that year’s prize to President Barack Obama having done nothing other than offering hope his “diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”
In other words, they applauded the destruction of US exceptionalism as a shining beacon of opportunity that had made the US a destination where immigrants wanted to go to flee from tyranny, oppression, and lack of economic opportunity in their own homelands. The applauded Obama’s push to make the US like the majority of the world, that as Donald Trump crudely put it, are [pruned] holes and/or individual liberties are repressed.
You can read the citation here:

Terry C
April 30, 2018 2:14 pm

Arrhenius was also well known for appointing friends onto the Nobel committee, and awarding his friends Nobel Awards, and corruption in general.
Also he was hugely influential in eugenics.

Gunnar Strandell
April 30, 2018 2:32 pm

let’s just observe that the Nobel Twitter writer does not know that Arrhenius around 1906 made new calculations that gave considerable lower temperature rise for a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere. His 1896 prediction had been criticized by Jonas Ångström. The final result for a doubling of CO2 was 1,2 C and with water vapor feed back 2,1 C.
Sadly this is the way history is told today and history says the winner writes the history. I hope this is not the truth for climate since it is a matter of rewriting history in an Orwellian way.

Reply to  Gunnar Strandell
April 30, 2018 9:56 pm

“history says the winner writes the history”
The US won the war, yet history was written by Soviet Union and its sympathizers.

Alan Tomalty
April 30, 2018 2:38 pm

I made a colossal mistake in my heat capacity calculations of the atmosphere and now calculate that the doubling of CO2 sensitivity is 0.4K or 0.4C This is way below the IPCC lower limit of 1.5 and my calculations are based on a 255K without atmosphere and a 7 % forcing of the H2O for every 1C rise in temperature (Clausius and Clapeyron. NCAR give a non atmosphere temp of 253.7 but that would only increase the sensitivity a tiny bit. Does anybody disagree about the 255K non atmosphere number? For the complete calculations email me at [pruned] in any case CAGW is one big [also pruned].
[1. Thank you for correction. Peer-review, self-review works.
2. The mods STRONGLY recommend NOT providing a specific email link in public one any website at this time. There are too many immoral people using the internet to assume every reader is honest and ethical. Links are best to another website read by that writer and editor.
3. Yes, that is also pruned. Not helpful nor allowed by site policy. .mod]

Crispin in Waterloo but really in London
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
May 1, 2018 6:43 am

It is not a non-atmosphere condition, it is absent all non-condensing GhG’s.

April 30, 2018 3:10 pm

For as long as I have been aware of Nobel Prizes (50 years or so), I have thought the various Nobel Committees were more concerned with geopolitics than they were any real-world happenings such as science.

Reply to  thomasjk
April 30, 2018 5:11 pm

The science committees are generally great. The Peace Prize committee is totally separate, and is composed of politicians who from all evidence are idiots … but I repeat myself.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 30, 2018 10:02 pm

Their literature committee is pretty bad, and is currently in the midst of a biggish scandal (details forgotten).

Roger Knights
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 1, 2018 6:17 am

Re the Nobel literature committee:

When one reflects that the Nobel Prize was given to such third-raters as Benavente, Heidenstam, Gjellerup and Spitteler, with Conrad passed over, one begins to grasp the depth and density of the ignorance prevailing in the world, even among the relatively enlightened. One “Lord Jim,” as human document and as work of art, is worth all the works produced by all the Benaventes and Gjellerups since the time of Rameses II. Nor is “Lord Jim” a chance masterpiece, an isolated peak. On the contrary, it is but one unit in a long series of extraordinary and almost incomparable works—a series sprung suddenly and overwhelmingly into full dignity with “Almayer’s Folly.”
—H.L. Mencken

April 30, 2018 3:49 pm

Regarding the image are we forgetting who effectively controlled the contents of Wikipedia in any area to do with climate change and how extreme their dedication was to ‘the cause ‘
Given that its lack of scientific merit is hardly a surprise , that the Noble people did not even check out its validity is not a real shock either . Its a PR job sent out be low level jobsworth who probable not only lacked the ability to check it , but also any will to do so .

April 30, 2018 4:19 pm

I suspect that the image somehow originates with CReSIS, which as a NASA-funded project would explain why NASA was cited as the source. The CReSIS website includes tools for visualizing seal level rise at 1 m intervals (, although in their current form these visualizations look quite a bit different than the various images Anthony has presented. A paper describing this visualization was published in 2007 (, and describes how inundation was determined separately for two different elevation datasets of differing resolution (possibly explaining the differences between the NOAA-derived images Anthony made and the “NASA/Wikipedia” image). It also describes a number of products available for download, including layers for applying to different maps, but the link in the paper is dead. My best guess is that the NOAA images and the NASA/Wikipedia image are derived from slightly different products that were originally available from the now-dead link.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Joe
April 30, 2018 10:05 pm

Maybe it could be found on the Wayback Machine.

Gary Pearse
April 30, 2018 4:26 pm

Most who comment on the harm to science done by the quality of work on Global Warming fail to consider the massive ‘unlearning’ that has occurred in geology, biology, chemistry and certainly history. Moreover, this state of affairs came to be because of the massive decline in morality in western society that made cheating and dishonesty acceptable if the end being served was deemed of value.
An example of learning loss: the 6m SLR map shows the drowning of major deltas and probably (scale of image) coral islands. Pupils of Darwin knew that coral grew to keep pace with SLR and drilling of the Bikini Atoll was the empirical proof. Geologists have known since the 19th Century that deltas do the same (I’ve explained why here a dozen times).
Personal experience brought me amazing info on the subject of eroding knowledge. I hired a geology graduate student for a mining exploration project who finally confided in me she had not taken the mineralogy OPTION!! Another, a friend with a degree in English literature said she didn’t take the Shakespeare OPTION. The institutions of learning need an impossible remake.

Pamela Gray
April 30, 2018 6:48 pm

I know why! It’s different because you have to factor in “tipping”, a well known event with smaller Guam- like islands.

April 30, 2018 7:53 pm

Meanwhile, since the several years of massive Geoengineering with aluminum, barium, and other chemicals ruining the biosphere… not a word from the alarmists, except the many bringing awareness to those who cannot clearly see the smeared up skies.
aircrap dot org and geoengineering watch dot com and a host of other sites/ with gov patents and evidence

April 30, 2018 8:36 pm

As a child, I couldn’t wrap my head around the almost beatification of one scientist (or one team) on each discipline every year. What makes that group of experts able to divine the most worthy scientific discovery? How do you even compare between fields in one discipline?

April 30, 2018 10:42 pm

(ever since Al Gore and sex-crazed IPPC Director Rajenda Pachauri got the Nobel Prize jointly in 2007)
No, it was the Nobel Peace Price they recieved. They should know that in Stockholm …

Reply to  SasjaL
April 30, 2018 10:44 pm

prize …

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 1, 2018 1:16 am

The rise in sealevel in the North Sea, a body of water in open connection to the North Atlantic, has been a steady 1.9 mm/yr over the past 140 years. These figures are taken from the Dutch institute Rijkswaterstaat, an organisation run by engineers, not politicians. The Dutch have a rather pressing interest to measure such things accurately. This suggests to me that also the satellite measurements are biased by ‘adjustments’ and overestimate the global rise.

James Bull
May 1, 2018 6:31 am

The Telegraph here in the UK had an opinion piece saying that Donald Trump should get the peace prize this year for actually doing something to help bring about a more peaceful world but the writer didn’t think the reds on the comity would be able to stomach doing it.
James Bull

May 1, 2018 9:15 am

We are please to inform your esteem buying company the petroleum products you are looking for is available in our storage tanks and reservoir for immediate delivery. Such as:
1) D2 DIESEL GAS OIL L-0.2-62 GOST 305-82.
Provide your official email or contact us via email to enable us issue our official soft corporate offer (SCO).Thanks.
Skype: neftegazagent

May 1, 2018 9:13 pm
Names and titles of the Norwegian selection committee. Why Norwegian? Nobody knows.
“and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
I nominate Bob Dylan.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights