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/
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..
Anthony,
About two pages down: “At the resent rate of sea level rise…” RECENT
fixed thanks
“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!
The Netherlands?
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:
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
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.
I made a significant update (#2) just now, and the puzzle deepens.
Anthony,
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.
Source:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/arrhenius-revisited/#comment-4575
“history says the winner writes the history”
The US won the war, yet history was written by Soviet Union and its sympathizers.
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]
It is not a non-atmosphere condition, it is absent all non-condensing GhG’s.
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.
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.
w.
Their literature committee is pretty bad, and is currently in the midst of a biggish scandal (details forgotten).
Re the Nobel literature committee:
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 .
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 (https://www.cresis.ku.edu/content/research/maps), 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 (ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Risk%20of%20rising%20sea%20level%20EOS.pdf), 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.
Maybe it could be found on the Wayback Machine.
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.
I know why! It’s different because you have to factor in “tipping”, a well known event with smaller Guam- like islands.
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
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?
“(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 …
prize …
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.
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
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.
2) D6 VIRGIN FUEL OIL
3) JET FUEL JP54
4) JET FUEL JPA1
Provide your official email or contact us via email to enable us issue our official soft corporate offer (SCO).Thanks.
BELOW IS OUR CONTACT INFORMATION,
E-mail: neftegazagent@yandex.ru
E: neftegazagent@mail.ru
E: neftegazagent@yahoo.com
Skype: neftegazagent
VLADISLAV YAKOV
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/prize_awarder/committee.html
Names and titles of the Norwegian selection committee. Why Norwegian? Nobody knows.
https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/
“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.