No Reporting of Slowing Greenland Glaciers: Shame on the MSM

SUCH has been the fear of Greenland’s melting glaciers that well known Australian science journalist Robyn Williams has claimed sea levels could rise by 100 metres within the next 100 years. [1]   Mr Williams, and other journalists, have been quick to report on what has become known as the “Greenland Ice Armageddon”. 

Last Friday there was an article in one of the most read science journals, Science, entitled “Galloping Glaciers of Greenland have Reined Themselves In” by Richard A. Kerr.  

Yes, as the title suggests, the article explains that a wide-ranging survey of glacier conditions across south eastern Greenland, indicates that glacier melt has slowed significantly and that it would be wrong to attribute the higher rates of melt prior to 2005 to global warming or to extrapolate the higher melt rates of a few years ago into the future.  [2]

Mr Kerr was reporting on a presentation by glaciologist Tavi Murray at the American Geophysical Union Conference in San Francisco last December. [3]   The paper by Dr Murray was co-authored by many other members of the group at Swansea University in the UK, a team often quoted by Al Gore and others.

When I read the article last Friday I wondered how Robyn “100 metres” Williams and other journalists in the mainstream media (MSM) might report the story.    To my amazement they have simply ignored it.  [4]

It seems that the mainstream media is a shameless exaggerator of global warming, and unable to report anything really significant that contradicts the established storyline.

Perhaps I should not be surprised, as a lecturer in journalism explained to me some time ago: journalists only add to narratives, as one might add to a large tapestry. [5]  Yep, so, the mainstream media’s news has to all fit together like a picture.  What is reported tomorrow is expected to accord with what was reported yesterday.   But the real world is so much more complicated.


Notes and Links

1. Andrew Bolt quoting Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they’ve noticed in Greenland and the amount that we’ve seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge.

2. Richard A. Kerr, Galloping Glaciers of Greenland Have Reined Themselves In,  Science 23 January 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5913, p. 458

3. Murray, T. 2008, Has dynamic thinning switched off in south-east Greenland,Eos Trans. AGU, 89 (53), Fall Meeting. Suppl.

4. I’ve scanned my rss feeds from the BBC News Science/Nature, and ABC Environment Online for the period September 22, 2009 to September 28, 2009, and not found any mention of the report in Science.   

5. Why You Should Support Independent Media (Part 1, For Koalas), November 8, 2008.

Photograph of the Shuksan Horn, NOT in Greenland, from Don Easterbrook,


44 Responses to No Reporting of Slowing Greenland Glaciers: Shame on the MSM

  1. david January 29, 2009 at 6:58 pm #

    Hardly seems newsworthy in the context of the record high sea levels which were record in the last 6 months –

  2. Dennis Webb January 29, 2009 at 7:24 pm #

    David, If the Greenland glaciers have slowed, but sealevels are now rising, isn’t that even more reason for open discussion and debate, particularly on the Science Show? I note Mr Williams had something on his show last Saturday about laptops.

  3. Michael January 29, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    Maybe it’s not all that new JM?

    Here’s some more detail on Murrays research on Greenland,

  4. John January 29, 2009 at 7:41 pm #

    David is just trying to divert attention away from Greenland. He doesn’t seem to realise that 50% of the Earth’s surface is between 30N and 30S latitude and that the Pacific Ocean accounts for a large chunk of that, which means that the ENSO influences global average sea levels. (And never mind that Topex/Posiedon sea level monitoring was “calibrated” against data for various Pacific Islands that don’t seem to appear in the PSML database from Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool, UK. I can’t seem to find any independent audit of the Topoex-Posideon data either and the original T/P data from 1992-2000 showed no sign of any sustained rise.)

    But to the point at hand … Jennifer I really didn’t expect mainstream media to report something that contradicts what mainstream media has been parroting for a few years. Alarmism attracts readers and to say that the alarmism was entirely misplaced would only alienate and lose readers.

    We can talk of climate scientists with clear vested interests in sustaining the hypothesis of man-made warming – justifying their research and expensive computers, other financial interest (including jobs), reputations etc. – but running second to them are the media hacks. I mean who would listen to Robin Williams if he was categorically proven wrong (… okay, probably few people listen to his rants now). The same goes for Reuters news service, AP, and APF, Andy Revkin of the New York Times, and of course The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, both of which stand on a house of cards that they’ve built for themselves.

    Where would any of these be if they said “We were wrong”?

    These media streams won’t change their opinion until the next Ice Age and ice is reaching the outskirts of major cities. maybe even then they’ll try to claim that the ice is temporary and warming will resume “some time soon”.

  5. Luke January 29, 2009 at 7:56 pm #

    Ah come on – it’s old news – lots of talk of slowing during 2008. AND WHAT’s THIS – an article in the popular science press – oh dear… Jan 2008 – what’s this – mainstream media – ho hum ….

  6. Ian Mott January 29, 2009 at 8:07 pm #

    Does anyone with a brain still listen to “their” ABC?

    I guess one could conclude that some listeners are born to endure flesh crawling planet pimps, some people achieve the rantings of flesh crawling planet pimps, while most of us go to considerable lengths to avoid having flesh crawling planet pimps thrust upon us.

    I just wish I could find an ABC listener with waterfront property. I could take their little sea level problem off their hands for a discount so they can finally put a deposit down on that bridge they have always wanted.

    Q. How can you tell when Robin Williams farted?

    A. You can’t, hypocrisy always smells that way.

  7. gavin January 29, 2009 at 8:44 pm #

    Lots of silly comments abound in these threads still.

    BTW you half frozen NH plodders; there is heat comming off continent Australia now to melt the whole bloody lot of you up there.

    As hundreds of electric trains fail down south (grid and track meltdown) I sit dripping over my pc for the third day in a row, 31C inside and the outside air is stagnant in the high 30’s even in the dark.

  8. Chuck January 29, 2009 at 9:10 pm #

    Hey Luke,
    I just read the article in new science you cited, now it has been a while since i studied geology, but i was under the impression a glacier retreats when it warms and not flow further down the valley??
    If my memory serves me right the land form resulting is a “terminal moraine”

    so i would have thought that ice breaking off into the sea would be a sign of ice growth, have i got this wrong?

  9. gavin January 29, 2009 at 9:27 pm #

    Hey Chuck; its just more hot water, a sign of the times!

  10. Jan Pompe January 29, 2009 at 9:31 pm #

    Gavin the temperature doesn’t sound at all unusual for the greater part of Australia for this time of year.

  11. gavin January 29, 2009 at 9:59 pm #

    Jan, I reckon its highly likely a few places will rack up records this month for extra hot days

  12. Luke January 29, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    Chuck – glaciers break off in oceans coz that’s what they do…. so calving chunks of ice is normal process.

    However in Western Antarctica some glaciers have sped dramatically in glacier terms …. and the reason appears to be greater snowpack at the head of the glacier field and faster erosion of the floating frontal buttress of the glacier by warmer waters. So speed ups occur. In Greenland there was (is) substantial debate as to whether speed ups an slow downs were “normal”.

  13. Pete January 29, 2009 at 10:09 pm #

    Two yers ago, I posted on this site a summary of a conversation that I had with the owner of the only decent hotel in Greenland. I had asked him if he was aware of the controversy surrounding reports of rapid melting of the Greenland glaciers.

    His reply was “Hell yes” all of the scientists who were engaged in field studies of the glaciers and the ice shelf stayed in his hotel.

    He said that the reason that the glaciers were flowing so quickly was that the sea temperature had suddenly increased by 2ºC, causing sea ice in the bays to melt, and there were therefore no barriers to stop the glaciers from flowing.

    He also remarked that the local Innuit people were not concerned, they had seen it all before.

    So why all of the excitement? What is new?

  14. gavin January 29, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    Jan; also its much more than simple max min analysis.

    In these heatwave conditions we must consider other impacts. For me its the sliding differentials hour by hour. ACT forcast for Friday is 18/37-38 depending on location. Thats a 20C fall and rise again, similar to yesterday.

    I can’t get the inside temp down to less than 23 overnight by natural or assisted draft, because the only time the outside is below 20 is a brief period around dawn.

  15. Jeremy C January 29, 2009 at 11:20 pm #


    Is this, ‘get Robyn Williams week’?

    Or are you trying to divert people’s attentions over the the rather embarrassing case of…..’who-stole-the-missing-adjunct-professor’s-body-from-Bond-University’. Cue dramatic organ music, detective enters stage left wearing a Fedora.

    Who do you think should take the part of the detective? Marc Morano or Barry Brook, and of course the Butler, Robyn, did it.

  16. wes george January 30, 2009 at 7:52 am #

    The hypocrisy of people like Gavin (and the ABC) is so brazen that it almost defies the imagination. In the states every sweltering summer heat wave, every tornado or tropical storm is an opportunity for the media to ponder whether hot weather is causal evidence for AGW. Quick find a friendly expert for an alarming sound bite!

    Yet in the midst of some of the worst winter storms in N America in decades not a single media story or comment on the implications today’s big freeze has for the AGW hypothesis.

    After all, we all know that short term weather events can’t be linked directly to climate!!!!

    BTW, the max T on my front porch in New England (NSW) yesterday was 27c with a cool sea breeze. Perfect margarita and barbie weather. Although, a bit chilly this morning : 12.5c.

    I wonder if the climate is cooling? What do ya think, Gavin?

  17. Louis Hissink January 30, 2009 at 8:39 am #

    David: “Hardly seems newsworthy in the context of the record high sea levels which were record in the last 6 months –”

    A graph does not support such a statement, but when climate sceptics point to a 10 year apparent cooling of the global mean temperature they are excoriated for using a too short a period of time but this is irrelevant when it’s a warmist making a point and 6 months is considered a statistically relevant period of time.

    Hypocrisy of a grand order.

    Actually it would be rather interesting to see how the satellite data are manipulated to allow micrometer levels of accuracy – but I would suggest that sea level is indeed rising but not from thermal efffects associated with increasing CO2 but from many other facts, the principal one being from the removal of ground water by humanity.

    The theory of ground water being replenished by rainfall is flawed, and hence so the deduction that it is therefore a constant factor in the hydrological cycle and can be ignored.

  18. Louis Hissink January 30, 2009 at 8:45 am #

    Ian Mott: ” Does anyone with a brain still listen to “their” ABC? ”

    I have a confession to make – I don’t listen or watch the ABC at all, unless I am a guest in a friend’s home and then I automatically tune out.

    Little wonder, then, I have not embraced global warming litturgy.

  19. Louis Hissink January 30, 2009 at 8:54 am #


    Judging by Luke’s lame reply, where he notes that increased glacial calving is the result of increased snow fall in the glacier source regions implies a general global warming of surface temperature.

    Now that is an interesting statement for it raises the previously proposed idea by one Hugh Auchincloss-Brown who proposed that as the polar ice caps grow, then there is a point at which rotational instability occurs and the Earth careens to a new axis of spin to restore rotatioanlly equilibrium. It’s a sort of tipping point, and it ends up with the polar ice masses being at the equator where they rapidly melt. Brown thought this happened during the Pleistocene and that the careening of the earth caused the mass extinction of some of the large mammals, mammoths, mastadons etc.

    It’s an interesting hypothesis, and seems to operate as a feed back system when life proliferates, thereby causing heat, which raises equatorial temperatures that causes increased evaporation, and hence a slow buildup of the polar ice masses.

    I’m not sure how one would go about proving it happened in the past, if at all of course.

  20. Tony Hansen January 30, 2009 at 8:57 am #

    “..theory of ground water being replenished by rainfall is flawed”.
    I do often wonder about how it does, or is supposed to happen. We put men on the moon 40 years ago but struggle with finding undergound water (regardless of quality).
    Just what is the current theory?
    Were there previous theories?

  21. wes george January 30, 2009 at 9:12 am #

    Chuck says:

    “…i was under the impression a glacier retreats when it warms and not flow further down the valley??
    If my memory serves me right the land form resulting is a “terminal moraine”…so i would have thought that ice breaking off into the sea would be a sign of ice growth, have i got this wrong?”

    You’re right on, Chuck. But you could be forgiven for thinking it the other way around if you watch the ABC news…. melting glaciers don’t calve into the ocean, they shrink back from the sea leaving a very rubbly beach head.

    When the ABC shows the obligatory video clip of a glacier calving dramatically into the sea to emotionally charge their latest report on the dire state of ice upon this planet, it’s a brazen lie.

    It’s also hilariously pathetic because you know the pious news reader and the techies putting the news clips together really believe that glacial calving is a sign of the end times and man’s destruction of nature.

    But it’s also a calculated lie, because surely glaciologists must have complained to the editors. And it’s not just a little white lie, because it spreads ignorance about natural phenomena in brazen violation of the public’s trust and the ABC’s charter as well.

    Powerful images of growing (calving) glaciers used to dramatize stories about exactly the opposite is evidence that the ABC cynically values a particular agenda above fidelity to the truth. What other less obvious manipulation of facts go on at the ABC?

    Imagine an advertiser for a commercial product using a similar slay of hand. We have truth in advertising laws. We should have truth in straight news broadcasting laws for our national broadcaster.

  22. cohenite January 30, 2009 at 9:14 am #

    Gavin; the temp chart for your AGW weather is no doubt interesting;

    But is it atypical? And why are sea-levels falling recently?

  23. Formerly January 30, 2009 at 9:30 am #

    Jennifer – check your footnotes – there is a typo with the dates in number 4 (September 2009) which would ensure that you wouldn’t find any relevant articles!

  24. Ian Mott January 30, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    Now lets see now. Some time ago I posted a calculation of the time it would take, at the then excellerated rate of about 125km3 a year, for the Greenland Ice Sheet to completely melt. I seem to recall that it came to about 14,000 years, give or take a meteoric impact or two.

    That left us with an absolute shit load of ice for at least the next 7,000 years during which the much alarmed “tipping point” would not take place because the ice surface will still be at a high altitude and therefore be much cooler than sea level.

    So do you mean to tell me that I got it wrong? Do you mean it will now take 19,000 years, if ever, to go away? Do you mean we will still have a shit load of ice for at least the next 9,500 years?

    Now lets see. A total sea level rise from a complete melt is 6.5 metres, divided by 19 millenia makes it 0.342 metres per millenium, 3.42 centimetres per century or 3.42 millimetres per decade.

    Hhmmn. I recon my children’s grandchildren, provided they don’t rot their brains from ABC broadcasting abuse, might be able to handle that problem, or at least build a 6.8 centimetre sea wall to postpone the problem for another century.


  25. Malcolm Hill January 30, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    Slightly off topic but at least it is yet another example of how the MSM doesnt present the full story.

    This is apropos Wenny Pong, who is only a lawyer after all, stating that the current warmth is an example of AGW and shows that the scientists are correct.

    Well even if all that is true, how is she, as politician going to handle this, if it was replicated in Australia, and I reckon we would be very close.

    Bjorn Lomborg has been vindicated yet again

  26. wes george January 30, 2009 at 2:58 pm #

    Ian, Ian, Ian, you denialists always diss the alarm that we are all entitled to feel.

    It’s just typical. That sea wall will have to be at least 10.35cm high to account for the increase in storm surge on TOP of sea level rises as scenarioized in R. Garnaut’s White Paper down to the less nanometer in the year 2121, June 14 th.

    And, of course, a handrail will have to be installed so the local drunks don’t trip over the sea wall and sue councils. The costs will be a huge burden on our economy, so it would be more sensible just to tax ourselves into negative growth until we reach 1950 levels of GNP by 2020, or as Bob Brown sagely warns, we shall “lose the planet.” And I for one don’t want to spend all of Sept 2051 shopping around for a bloody new planet!

    Why wait until it’s too late?

  27. Louis Hissink January 30, 2009 at 5:24 pm #

    Tony Hansen: ““..theory of ground water being replenished by rainfall is flawed”.
    I do often wonder about how it does, or is supposed to happen. We put men on the moon 40 years ago but struggle with finding undergound water (regardless of quality).
    Just what is the current theory?

    Were there previous theories?”

    The best summary of the theories pertaining to ground water has been summarised by Lance Endersbee in his recent book “A voyage of Discovery”.

    Enderbee is a civil engineer, formerly of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, etc, and what prompted his book was having to sit through a scientific presentation about the physics and hydrology of the Great Artesian Basin, (GAB) in Australia – put very concisely the model for replenishment of the ground water for this water resource, is from rainfall in the highlands around the GAB. This is physically impossible for a variety of engineering and hydrological reasons.

    What worried Enderbee more was that the professionals involved with it believed it, and article of faith and defended their position by reference to world practice, and authority.

    Endersbee noticed, in his professional capacity, a world-wide decline in ground water with most of the world’s water wells running dry.

    Commensurate with ground water depletion is land subsidence, with some spectacular subsidence in the San Joachim Valley in California, USA.

    So the current theory then is to search in sedimentary basins, and certainly not in crystalline basement – the granitic and gnessic terranes.

    So where does the water come from? My guess, for the moment, is the mantle and the granitic rocks that have milky quartz – the milkiness of the quartz being simply water in the SiO2 lattice. How did granite incorporate water into its composition?

    There seems to be an abundance of water deep down under the crystalline basement if the Kola peninsula deep hole is any indication. Tommy Gold also, I think Endersbee quotes him, also suspects its a product of a deep hot biosphere under our feet.

    But it’s easier getting a hold of Endersbee’s book rather than reproduce it here.

    Summary: we “believe” ground water is recirculated rainwater and that it is restricted to sedimentary basins, or sedimentary rocks that have not been subject to thermal stress.

    If water is primarily magmatic, then we are certainly looking for it in the wrong places, as we are also doing for oil which seems to have some association with this water.

    This raises the issue of Abiotic oil and will cause even more apoplectic reactions from the usual suspects here, SJT, Luke, NT, the list, thank God, is not endless.

    But if the recharging rainfall theory is wrong for ground water, then it cannot be ignored in any modelling of the hydrological cycle – and really makes the present day deductions that its CO2 causing ocean volume increase rather bizarre.

  28. Louis Hissink January 30, 2009 at 5:35 pm #

    Tony Hansen,

    further thinking about it suggests that the only way rain could possibly replenish ground water is via open fracture systems that conceivably could then feed into the acquifers, but the physics goes against, so while a little water gets into the ground, most of it flows back into the oceans.

    The quickest way of getting water is to convert sea water, but extracting it from subsurface only depletes it with subsequent land subsidence.

    I would not be surprised at all if humanity’s extraction of groundwater, the related subsidence and the “rise” in sea level would explain most of the recent increases.

  29. Tony Hansen January 30, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    Thankyou. I will chase up the book

  30. Mike Thornhill January 31, 2009 at 2:52 am #

    Thanks for this Jennifer. Useful in a continuing complaint discussion I am having with BBC. You may be interested to know that, while NOT reporting this story, the BBC did carry one from the SAME conference, “Changes ‘amplify’ Arctic warming”.

    A fruitless task no doubt, but I am complaining about bias – mainly by omission – in both BBC reporting and programming.

  31. Sam January 31, 2009 at 4:56 am #

    Wes George and Chuck,

    You are not entirely accurate about melting glaciers and calving. A glacier will calf once it is over open water and has lost support from the ice below. This occurs regardless of whether the glacier is advancing or retreating simply due to gravity. Obviously, once a glacier has retreated far enough it will bring about the terminal moraine or rocky beach you mention; but as long as it is still over water it will calf.

    I watched this process occur in both Glacier Bay and College Fiords in Alaska; interestingly areas in which glaciers are simultaneously advancing and retreating. Obviously, a great deal more is in play here than simply temperature changes. I have read that the largest determining factor as to ice mass change in glaciers is precipitation rather than temperature.

  32. wes george January 31, 2009 at 9:47 am #

    “A glacier will calf once it is over open water and has lost support from the ice below.”

    Sam, true. However, the question is how did a glacier, many of which are over 25,000 years old, just happen to find itself extended over open water and calf at the exact moment a modern Homo Sapiens film crew was pointing their camera at said glacier if it wasn’t growing and calving a common phenomena? After all a dying glacier would quickly calve itself back to solid beach and then calve no more.

    Geological time and the Holocene within are a big places. It’d be a bit like winning at Lotto to witness that last calve of a glacier before it begins it final retreat until the next ice age. Although a pair of Melbourne boys recently managed to get calved upon during a visit to New Zealand. And that particular glacier (the Fox) is growing but not over water, it’s terminal face weakened by growth overhangs and summer rain.

    The glaciers that I have seen that once extended themselves over water didn’t have a terminal moraine because during the last ice age they extended well down the fiord to the open sea. Under water there must be fan of glacial marine sediments, erractics, ablation and basal till but nothing like the terminal moraines that occur in alpine valleys where glaciers end without reaching the sea.

    Although, some of the great North American ice sheets (the Wisconsinian?) did leave behind terminal lobes well out to sea. I remember being told this is how Marthas Vineyard and Natucket Island came to be.

  33. lynda January 31, 2009 at 11:28 am #

    Okay…I’m a layperson with maybe about 2 brain cells functioning for the ‘science’ category’….But, I have been very skeptical about this global warming alarmism…

    From what little I have read in debates, this is my understanding…So far as we can tell…Man may have something to do with this ‘increasing of climate temps.’….but not enough to really ‘change’ anything about it…

    Is this correct?…

    Also…what do you all think of the ‘realclimate’ site…I get sent there if I ask questions to the local ‘climate alarmist’ people…

  34. C3H Editor January 31, 2009 at 1:48 pm #

    The press is absolutely worthless when it comes to the “con” side of their news agenda. It’s a tragedy; but out of bad, comes good. Here in the U.S., the mainstream media is in a business death spiral towards collapse – readers continue to reject the lack of press objectivity by reporters. This has provided opportunities for alternative sources of information, such as your own blog – and that’s good! (It’s great being able to hear and read viewpoints from across the world, which our mainstream press did not provide.)

    Likewise, it provides individuals like me to gather information and share it with others across the world. Our latest effort was to compile a bunch of quotes from global warming skeptics (oh..right…”sceptics”) that the mainstream press would never compile, let alone publish.

    Here’s the list of quotes, and I’m sure most of those quoted would share your feelings about the lack of coverage about the glaciers:

    C3H editor

  35. Rhyl January 31, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    Re the rail lines buckling in the heat.

    Once line segments were about 10m long but they found it was cheaper to lay 100m sections. Lines always expanded in hot weather but the joins (the clackety-clack) allowed for it. Making the sections longer leaves less room for expansion and they buckle.

    Amazing what knowledge gets overlooked.

  36. Louis Hissink January 31, 2009 at 6:41 pm #


    This happens when the bean counters usurp the role of the engineers.

    I also was told about an embarassing NSW underground rail tunnel project – apparently the public servant in charge designed it without referring an engineer and after the tunnel was built, it was discovered that he had not factored in the length of the railway carriages in the design. That said, I cannot vouch for its accuracy but based on experience, it probably happened, especially in NSW.

  37. Louis Hissink January 31, 2009 at 8:29 pm #


    Your assessment is accurate – but as an highly educated flea, I have yet to work out how I can affect the progress of the elaphantine like Earth by my metabolism on its metaphorical tail.

    I have difficulty with the idea that, on one hand, we affect climate, and on the other, not. Commonsense suggests we have to cope with climate change rather than to subject ourselves to the new religion based on our ability to change it by penance.

  38. Louis Hissink January 31, 2009 at 8:44 pm #

    C3H editor

    Good work -keep it up.

    AGW arguments concerning glacier dynamics, however, might be somewhat glacial in appearance here. Stupidity does take some time to express itself.

  39. Louis Hissink February 1, 2009 at 11:01 am #

    During the review of the CSIRO latest publication “Regolith Science” I came across some interesting statistics in chapter 10, regolith and water.

    The earth’s total mass of water , 1.5 x 10^14 M tonnes, 97% is in the oceans, 2% locked in ice caps and glaciers, and the remainder, 1% in or on the landmasses.

    If that 2% melted how much would the oceans increase in volume and hence sea level rise?

    All one needs is the surface area of the Earth, to do a first order computation to get a ball park sea level rise.

  40. Ian Mott February 2, 2009 at 9:25 am #

    Easy, Louis. The average depth of the worlds oceans is 4000 metres so 2/97ths of 4000 is 82.47 metres, assuming it all flows into oceans and none remains in lakes in situ or other non-oceanic lakes like the Aral and Caspian seas, and none of it flows into sub-sea level depressions like the Qattara Depression in Egypt, the one on the Algerian border with Tunisia, the Dead Sea and our own Lake Eyre. Add the expansion coefficient for the upper 500 metres, over a century or two and poor old Robin Williams (with his moronic 100m sea level rise) is exposed as promoting an outcome that is completely beyond the possible.

    The other variable that has been ignored by the warmist mafia is the fact that as sea levels rise and expand into new areas of land the total volume of water in evaporative circulation will also increase. And last time I looked there was a $hit load of potential for additional evaproative circulation in the Sahara, Middle Eastern and Australian Deserts, all of which will retard the rate of sea level rise.

    If the ice mass is 2% of all water and the atmosphere and land surface has 1% of it then a modest 40% increase in the latter will reduce the maximum sea level rise by 20% to 61 metres.

    In any event, the exposed surface of most of the worlds ice is above 2000 metres ADH where it remains more than 20 C cooler than at sea level. So no need to lose any sleep for quite a few millenia yet.

  41. KuhnKat February 2, 2009 at 1:58 pm #


    not surprising that an alarmist will use the most massaged data to make a point. Why didn’t you use:

    Oh yeah, it shows the average sea level hasn’t risen for about 2 years!!

    You also need to explain how the current sea level, whether rising or static, is higher than it was during previous inter-glacials!!

  42. Smokey February 17, 2009 at 2:18 pm #

    The sea level graph posted by David was the “adjusted” sea level.

    See here for a blink comparison of the adjusted vs unadjusted [raw] data:

    [Have patience, it takes a few seconds to load.]

  43. FrankTrades February 2, 2010 at 2:11 am #

    Ya know what? If the ice isn’t meltin’, the ice isn’t meltin’.

    English, it’s a tough language ain’t it?


  1. Qohel » Blog Archive » Cool Reception for Glacial News - January 30, 2009

    […] is hard not to share Jennifer Marohasy’s frustration at at the mainstream media’s failure to report […]

Website by 46digital