Experts : “Arctic ice is melting faster than had been predicted”

Experts of the “Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme” say that the Arctic ice is melting faster than had been predicted and that the levels of the world oceans may increase by one and half meters in this century.

The image below shows actual sea level rise in blue measured by Envisat, versus the claimed rate of the experts (green)  (15 mm /year.)

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Experts : “Arctic ice is melting faster than had been predicted”

  1. Tony Duncan says:


    Wow. I read this same info form another source that was actually coherent. This article sates ice ages can last for hundreds of years!

    Somehow I think the members of “AMAP” would consider your graph highly disingenuous. Some might say it is an outright lie, since they do not anywhere state anything resembling what your graph shows. Of course people in the know, such as myself understand your point, so don’t fret about that

  2. Mike Davis says:

    Seeing how the current Ice Age is somewhere close to thirty eight Millions years old and the Glacial periods last tens of thousands of years with Interglacials lasting up to ten thousand years you might want to rethink your claims!
    Now if you are referring to the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1800 which was a short period of reglaciation that the recent warming was a partial recovery from then your false claim of hundreds of years is understandable.

  3. Dan says:

    There is a difference between a statement of total rise in a century and an assumption of a fixed linear rate of rise over the entire century.

  4. Mike Davis says:

    Sea levels could just as easily fall by 4 meters as raise by 1 during the next 90 years.

    • bubbagyro says:

      I think what we should be really preparing for is a stabilization before a drop in sea level, which appears to be occurring. My take on the geological record, is that ice ages happen precipitously, catching creatures off-guard and leading to extinction events.

      One of my reasons, is the mechanism of reflectivity. This is a real tipping point, as we have seen clearly in short term events, where snow cover reduces incoming radiation, causing cold and wet summers, thus causing a long-term climatic event as the snow cover increases. This is exacerbated, or caused, by a weakening solar cycle. I would expect the snow cover increase to proceed logarithmically, if not geometrically.

  5. Scott says:

    So, I’m surprised no one commented on the Arctic Ice being discussed in context of rising sea levels. No, they don’t say that that the rise is due to the loss of sea ice, but the laymen would definitely get that impression. I find it misleading.


  6. Scott Tate says:

    Yes Scott, you are absolutely right. The statement seems to suggest that Arctic ice melt will raise sea levels. Melting Arctic ice cannot raise sea levels at all – regardless of how “much faster” the ice may (or may not) be melting.

  7. Pingback: More Arctic & sea level “worse than we thought” scare stories | Watts Up With That?

  8. Bob Tisdale says:

    Steven: Could you please provide a link to the webpage that’s the source of your global sea level graph and/or the data used in your graph?


  9. Colin Henderson says:

    If Arctic ice melt causes sea levels to rise then shouldn’t the winter freeze up cause sea levels to fall?

  10. Andy Weiss says:

    The hockey stick has not materialized, so OK, we will just predict it again but further out in the future. You could keep this silly game going forever that way and never get a bit of warming.

  11. John A says:


    Can you tell me where you got the Envisat data from?

  12. David Socrates says:

    The serious point that everybody seems to have missed is that the referenced article makes a asssertion without evidence that the sea level might rise by 1.5 metres by the end of the century. Doubtless this is based on a prediction from climate modelling, thus involving the usual flawed circular reasoning.

    We should be investigating, and taking to task, the people who made this claim, not wasting time arguing about exponential v. logarithmic v. linear which in effect diverts attention from the real issue which is that the report is pure speculation (a.k.a. rubbish).

    Making the comparison between the satellite data and a speculation dignifies the latter as somehow being an alternative scientifically valid statement, which it is not.

  13. Ole Heinrich says:

    Users – Tasiilaq supply cancelled, ice too thick –

  14. Bob Tisdale says:

    I came to your defense today, Stephen. Refer to the update at the end of my post:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s