From a University of Leeds press release, comes this scary headline that seems to be picked up by the MSM. A Google search yields 16,400 hits on the title below.
Melting icebergs causing sea level rise
(Note: Be sure to see the reality punch line at the end of the article)

Scientists have discovered that changes in the amount of ice floating in the polar oceans are causing sea levels to rise.
The research, published this week in Geophysical Research Letters, is the first assessment of how quickly floating ice is being lost today.
According to Archimedes’ principle, any floating object displaces its own weight of fluid. For example, an ice cube in a glass of water does not cause the glass to overflow as it melts.
But because sea water is warmer and more salty than floating ice, changes in the amount of this ice are having an effect on global sea levels.
The loss of floating ice is equivalent to 1.5 million Titanic-sized icebergs each year. However, the study shows that spread across the global oceans, recent losses of floating ice amount to a sea level rise of just 49 micrometers per year – about a hair’s breadth.
According to lead author Professor Andrew Shepherd, of the University of Leeds, it would be unwise to discount this signal. “Over recent decades there have been dramatic reductions in the quantity of Earth’s floating ice, including collapses of Antarctic ice shelves and the retreat of Arctic sea ice,” said Prof Shepherd.
“These changes have had major impacts on regional climate and, because oceans are expected to warm considerably over the course of the 21st century, the melting of floating ice should be considered in future assessments of sea level rise.”
Professor Shepherd and his team used a combination of satellite observations and a computer model to make their assessment. They looked at changes in the area and thickness of sea ice and ice shelves, and found that the overall signal amounts to a 742 cubic kilometres per year reduction in the volume of floating.
Because of differences in the density and temperature of ice and sea water, the net effect is to increase sea level by 2.6% of this volume, equivalent to 49 micrometers per year spread across the global oceans.
The greatest losses were due to the rapid retreat of Arctic Sea ice and to the collapse and thinning of ice shelves at the Antarctic Peninsula and in the Amundsen Sea.
For more information
To arrange an interview with Prof Andy Shepherd, contact Hannah Isom in the University of Leeds press office on 0113 343 4031 or email h.isom@leeds.ac.uk
Notes to editors
“Recent loss of floating ice and the consequent sea level contribution” by Andrew Shepherd, Duncan Wingham, David Wallis, Katharine Giles, Seymour Laxon, and Aud Venke Sundal is published this week in Geophysical Research Letters (doi:10.1029/2010GL042496).
ICE SHELVES are thick, floating platforms of ice that form where a glacier or ice sheet flows down to a coastline and onto the ocean surface. Ice shelves are found mainly in Antarctica , and range from about 100 to 1000 metres in thickness.
SEA ICE is formed on the surface of sea water as the ocean freezes, and is typically less than 3 metres in thickness. It is found extensively in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions, and it’s extent varies considerably over the seasons.
This study was funded by the UK National Centre for Earth Observation and the Philip Leverhulme Trust.
==========================================
OK here’s the reality punch line:
Assuming their theory of 49 micrometers per year rise (this conversion equals 0.0019 inch or 0.00016 feet ) due to the differences is salty and fresh water holds true, then we can assess the threat level.
At this rate, to see an inch of sea level rise from melting icebergs we’d need:
1 inch/0.0019 inch/yr = 526 years
Yeah, I’m worried about that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Man the lifeboats.
REPLY: Since they are citing “Titantic sized” in the press release, it must then be a British ship of science, they only have lifeboats enough for the upper class. Us steerage are out of luck. -Anthony
Beavis and Butthead never read past the headlines, so I’m sure this will be inscribed on some enviro sandwich board soon.
Note to self: in 526 years, send trousers to tailor and have them hemmed up.
If “Titanic-sized” refers to James Cameron’s ego, we’re all in trouble.
I read this on Science Daily and dismissed it as more baffle gab. It is foolishness like this that gives science a bad name. While the metric numbers look way bigger then imperial most people know the difference and they can smell a con when they read one. It also speaks volumes about the quality of journalism that reports what is in the press releases with no additional thought given.
I had better stop procrastinating and get back at building the ark in my driveway. Umm…just how much is a “cubit” anyway?
…and now I know how big the tip of an iceberg is….
Part of their calculation depends on the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice, which is refreezing. They are grasping at hairs.
“because oceans are expected to warm considerably over the course of the 21st century”
A computer model says so?
Did they remember to subtract the necessary increase in atmospheric H2o? That ought to bump it up a few decades…
Anthony,
I have to point out that the “reality punch line” could be off by a significant amount. The melting is accelerating at an unprecedented rate, and the 1″ rise in sea level could come as early as 382 years, if calculations performed by the publishers at Sunset Magazine are correct.
I patiently await the inclusion of reports from The Onion in the IPCC 5AR.
The Titanic reference is quite appropriate though. Unanticipated flaws in engineering and manufacture, along with arrogance, and poor assumptions by the helm resulted in a disastrous ending…..Is this fine tradition what CRU is carrying on?
Arctic Sea Ice Extent is average:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is average:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Where are these “dramatic reductions in the quantity of Earth’s floating ice” happening? Every “reporter” (formerly known as journalists) who published this crap should be fired…
MSM=MAIN STREET MADNESS.
The authors themselve estimate that a complete melting of all floating ice worldwide would lead to an extra sea level rise of about 4 cm (1.5 inches). We are all going to die! (anyway…)
We went to the beach over spring break, and sea level rose about two feet overnight! If that trend continues, Hawaii will be completely underwater in just a few years. Yikes!!!
Later in the day, the tide went out. But I think I did notice that sea level had risen a few hundreths of a micrometer, due to melting icebergs.
I’m having a hard time putting my finger on the exact place in my thermo book, but I distinctly recall a thermodynamic principle that when you mix a more concentrated solution and a less concentrated solution, the resultant volume of mixture is always less than the sum of the individual volumes, which means that that 49 micron figure can’t be right; the number has to be negative. All the real-world examples in the thermo book behave this way.
Well, bacteria along the shoreline will be concerned about this, (has anyone told them?).
“and it’s extent (sea ice) varies considerably over the seasons.”
Yes and no. Obviously sea ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. However, the total of Arctic plus Antarctic sea ice extent has remained remarkably stable since 1979. Currently the extent is less than 1 m sq kms from the 1979/2000 mean. Further, the current slow start to the melt season in the Arctic is matched by a slow start to the freeze season in the Antarctic. Can this really be a coincidence? Or is there, maybe, possibly, some unknown mechanism that ensures the total of Arctic plus Antarctic sea ice extent stays approximately constant?
I’m not sure I would know how to measure 49 micrometers of sea level rise even if I had a gauge that didn’t move with the earth’s normal movements. It would be difficult enough with just atmospheric pressure changes, but when you include wind.
No doubt it is a similar magnitude to the problem of changing air pressure caused by a warming atmosphere (double bluff: think carefully before telling me I’m wrong!)
Won’t that actually be +/- 0 micrometers, as the ice gets replenished every year anyway? Or are we taking the view that all Arctic ice gets a one-way ticket to melty-melty land?
“”But because sea water is warmer and more salty than floating ice, changes in the amount of this ice are having an effect on global sea levels.””
When sea water freezes, where do they say the salt goes? I do agree that sea water is warmer than ice. I am sure they had an expnsive study to work out that part.
…Since our summer house at Island of Öland is only some 9 meters ASL, I doubt I’ll have
time to blog here anymore before it becomes like the “Cathédrale engloutie”…9x40x526=189360 years, that means…in some 150000 years we’ll have
a nice beach property for 30000 years…”Många bäckar små blir till en stor å”…[many
small creeks form a small river…] Is there some inofficial competition in the CAGW
camp to find the smallest possible climate threat??? Logic: The smaller the threat, the
bigger the scare…
This kind of remarkable scientific findings will help the case of AGW alarmism tremendously! Please continue, I am thrilled!
Do I see a new Nobel Price Laureate here?
Based on the estimate of 620,000 cubic km of floating sea ice in the world today, the total possible sea level increase if all floating sea ice melted is 1.61 inches.
Yeah, but as icebergs float south, they reflect sunlight back into space. This means an iceberg causes global cooling.
So on one hand, it’s worse than we thought, and no it’s not on the other hand.