1979 NCAR Forecast : Sea Level May Rise 15-25 Feet Before The Year 2000


About stevengoddard

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

31 Responses to 1979 NCAR Forecast : Sea Level May Rise 15-25 Feet Before The Year 2000

  1. Dave N says:

    The same loon that only a couple of years before was on “In Search Of..” warning us of an oncoming ice-age. But of course, alarmists will tell you he never made such claims.. must have been someone impersonating him.

    I guess that’s why the Palm Beach Post never mentioned it.

  2. Daniel Packman says:

    Seems to summarize nicely the level of uncertainty in 1979.

    • Hansen is still saying the same thing now.

    • pwl says:

      Please Daniel provide a numeric reference for the “level of uncertainty in 1979” to quantify your allegation.

      You have access to the records at NCAR so it shouldn’t be a problem to find the papers and provide us with PDF copies of any and all materials related to Dr. Stephen H. Schneider’s and NCAR’s doomsday claims.

      • GregO says:


        While you are at it, what is the level of uncertainty now? Less? More? About the same? What’s new?

      • glacierman says:

        Greg, the level of uncertainty now is not important, other than it shows that they don’t know so it could be…..much worse than we thought!

  3. Sundance says:

    If only we had spent $30 trillion starting in 1970 we could have prevented all that sea level rise that Schneider used to “paint a dark picture” with in 1970. We are probably going to have to spend $60 trillion now because our inaction over the last 40 years has led to pictures being painted that are even more darker than Schneider’s dark picture painting in 1970.

  4. nofreewind says:

    Schneider is actually conservative compared to Hansen, he was thinking 75ft. Probably was getting a higher salary, more $ = more feet.
    “The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon”


  5. Jimmy Haigh says:

    The warmers were wrong back then and they are still wrong now.

  6. Joe Geshel says:

    I have been telling everybody for some time now that if all the ice in the arctic ice cap ,elts the seas will NOT rise one centimeter. Archimedes Principle clearly shows that the melting of ice in a container of water and ice will not cause any rising of the water level. The whole of the polar ice cap is floating on water. How do I know? U.S. and Russian submarines have been voyaging under the ice cap for decades. Thats how. Therefore, any “scientist” who says otherwise is not a scientist. This is Freshman High School science. Quite elementary. Now you know!

    • Lochness Munster says:

      I bet not one climate scientist has ever thought of that.
      You’re a genius.
      What about the Antarctic Ice Caps though? You know the one everyone else on here is taking about?
      By the way, the Greenland Ice Cap – which is also melting at an increasing rate right now – is on land and WILL conribute further to sea level rises. That is kindergarten level science.
      Now you know.
      You might also like to know that right now as we speak the Arctic Ice Extent is at a new record low for this month. So is volume. Just thought I’d mention that in case you are one of the er….’skeptics’ who like to claim that the Arctic Ice “has made a complete recovery”.
      Too funny.

  7. Daniel Marsh says:

    As much as I enjoy picking on the chicken littles for their silliness, the article does not state that the oceans will rise 15-25 feet by 2000. It says that they will rise 15-25 feet “within a century” of 1979, which means by 2079, and that this rise will start “by the end of this century,” which means by 2000. In other words, the rise will commence by 2000, and will reach 15-25 feet by 2079.

    • Ahh… That is why he said “by the end of the century” in 1979.

      • Karl says:

        Are you joking?

        “(…) its _initiation_ cannot be ruled out by the end of the century” Is there a reason why you don’t highlight the word “initiation”?

        Neither does the article state anywhere that the examined scenario will occur within one century!

    • Jimash says:

      Actually it does speculate that the Western Antarctic Ice could melt “within the next century”, the one we are in now.
      How would that occur ?
      Short of nuking it, of course.

      • Mike Davis says:

        If I claimed some thing would happen within the next century I would be talking about before 2111 not 2200 because that would be 189 years and not a century. A century is one hundred years no matter the start date. The US BI- Centennial was in 1976 not 2000!

      • Jimash says:

        Yes, just so Mike.
        Leaves even less time to nuke that glacier.

  8. Lochness Munster says:

    As usual, when you check out the facts, it turns out that Schneider said absolutely no such thing. Not even close.
    Did any of you even bother to read the article. Obviously the author of the peice didn’t.
    Schneider said that the melting could START by the end of the century.
    Or to spell it out word for word: “..It’s INITIATION cannot be ruled out by the end of the century..”
    It’s there in black and white right in front of you. Duh!

    “If the deniers are so sure of their case, why do they lie all the time?”

  9. Lochness Munster says:

    stevengoddard says:
    May 26, 2011 at 12:09 am
    That explains why sea level has dropped 20 mm over the last 18 months.


    Hilarious that you should reference one of your own posts as ‘evidence’. Especially as it shows a graph that covers 18 months!!! Dear oh dear. What are you so keen to hide that you cherry pick an 18-month period and ignore the last century.
    I suggest you start educating yourself with this paper:
    “Understanding global sea levels: past, present and future” to get a grip of the basics and refrain from insulting my intelligence with a cherry-picked 18 months of noise in future. No wonder even Tony Watts kicked you off his site.

    Here is the rest of the satalite graph you tried to hide – even just going back two decades to 1992 shows an average rise of 3.2mm per year. Tidal gauges confirm it.

    And that’s just the average – they have risen 8mm here off the West coast of Australia in the last decade alone.
    You sound increasingly hysterical these days as your entire house of cards collapses – is the heat getting to you too?

  10. Jimash says:

    “Here is the rest of the satalite graph you tried to hide – even just going back two decades to 1992 shows an average rise of 3.2mm per year. Tidal gauges confirm it.

    And that’s just the average – they have risen 8mm here off the West coast of Australia in the last decade alone.

    Uhhh do you see where your numbers don’t line up there ?
    3.2 x 10 ≠ 8
    And if the rate of sea level rise has fluctuated and declined rather than accelerated as predicted, then that is significant. You haven’t made the case that this has not occurred . Only tried to deflect it.
    You can go back to 1992, 1492, 0092 or any year you like, sea level has been rising since the end of the Ice Age. The last century is piddling . NOW is piddling. Your 8mm is perfectly normal in the light of the past 8,000 years.
    So what was your point again ? Sea level has fallen.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Do Not insult Munster’s Intelligence as IT said. I see nothing to insult and you can not insult it if it does not exist!

      • Jimash says:

        I would invite it to use its intelligence to ascertain the true nature of things before it forms opinions it is told to form and consider that while the world (despite what it may have been told ) has not been climatically static for thousands and thousands of years prior to the invention internal combustion and the industrial age,
        sea level has been rising for all that time and more so the further back you go toward that WurmIII thingy.

        I mean, Munster, Where do you think the Ice came from ?
        Didn’t the other ice melt ? Wasn’t that a good thing ? ( feeling evil here) Why shouldn’t the scattered relics of a past age, continue to disappear as well ?

        1-500 percent of average snow in Colorado and we should worry about 8mm in ten years of perfectly normal sea level rise ?
        Do you understand why your belief is unfounded ?
        It is because you have a child’s view of the world being
        absolutely the same for all of time, even though you know perfectly well that it wasn’t. This is a problem.
        Yet in this case:
        The last century sea level rise was no different than the century before that , and the one before that , and the etc.

        Don’t swallow that bill of goods till you look the pig in the poke in the mouth and decide that you are not a fish in a barrel.

        And hey, didn’t I see Mr Watts in here saying hello just a few days ago ?

  11. Mike Davis says:

    BTW Munster:
    the article credits Schneider with claiming it could happen even sooner.

  12. Michael Snow says:

    Someone should make up a nice little chart of failed dates/predictions like these and put it alongside Harold Camping’s plethora of end of the world dates.

  13. Ha ha, how funny. Not a single one of your commentators noticed that the quote said “initiation cannot be ruled out as a possibility”. Brian noticed, though: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/05/forbes-james-taylor-initiation-means.html

    For a prediction made in 1979, that seems entirely reasonable. Indeed, you could argue (depending on how you read initiation) that it turned out to be correct.

    • Is this the same William M Connolley that co-wrote a peer-reviewed article a few years ago about the “Myth of the Global Cooling Consensus in the 1970s” in which the authors proceeded to demonstrate that there was a consensus on global cooling in the 1970s before there was no consensus on global cooling in the 1970s?

      If he is, I am not surprised at the importance he’s giving to subtle nuance and tucked-away words.

      You see, if you use rhetoric the right way, you will be right even when you will be wrong. Just always make sure your words can be interpreted in multiple ways, so you can pick-and-choose the “right way” post-facto.

      By the way…the “initiation” of (INSERT WHATEVER YOU FANCY, including the birth of flying pigs and a honest reply by a warmist-climatologist to FOI requests) “cannot be ruled out before the end of the century”.

      That is a truism, not science. Why would Schneider waste time saying the equivalent of “red is a reddish color”?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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