[continued]

So let’s look at the second part of the phrase, “challenge”.

Only somebody who doesn’t understand, or who wants to mischaracterize, the process of coming to a scientific consensus would claim that Sarker’s claims are somehow a “challenge” in a negative sense.

Science is an iterative process, and when the IPCC next compiles a report Sarker’s work will be evaluated. However, given the denialists’ previous misuse of this material, such as Pielke Jr. in 2009 or one of the commenters at WUWT in 2008 I expect we will see all sorts of use of this latest AFP story with attending claims that the IPCC has made yet another error.

However, the IPCC in this case is simply not in sync with the data coming out of the Bangladesh bureaucracy. In 2013 when the next IPCC report is out the work of Mr. Sarkar will be part of the process.

Furthermore, as we remember from just a few weeks ago, when the news of the disappearing sand bar off the Bangladeshi coast was all the rage, even Mr. Sarkar’s claims may be suspect. While he reports that he has seen an increase in the land at the shore (due to river deposits), as we see with the sand bar any shifting of the ocean can melt those away.

Furthermore, the last IPCC report, when it comes to sea rise, explicitly left out any rise due to the melting of the great ice sheets because the research up through 2006 was indeterminate. As is becoming clearer, the big ice sheets can undergo very quick changes, and it may be that sea level rises by 2100 could be substantial.

And, time doesn’t stop on midnight 1 Jan 2100… what about 2010, or 2020? What is clear is that sea levels are going to go up, and any coast areas will be affected, regardless of river deposits.

Anyway, forewarned is forearmed.