Climate Craziness of the Week – MSM jumps on alarming headline

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)

Iceberg with  reflection

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.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Climate Craziness of the Week, Sea ice. Bookmark the permalink.

206 Responses to Climate Craziness of the Week – MSM jumps on alarming headline

  1. evanmjones says:

    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

  2. Curiousgeorge says:

    Beavis and Butthead never read past the headlines, so I’m sure this will be inscribed on some enviro sandwich board soon.

  3. H.R. says:

    Note to self: in 526 years, send trousers to tailor and have them hemmed up.

  4. PaulH says:

    If “Titanic-sized” refers to James Cameron’s ego, we’re all in trouble.

  5. 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.

  6. manfredkintop says:

    I had better stop procrastinating and get back at building the ark in my driveway. Umm…just how much is a “cubit” anyway?

  7. Paul M.T. says:

    …and now I know how big the tip of an iceberg is….

  8. Don B says:

    Part of their calculation depends on the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice, which is refreezing. They are grasping at hairs.

  9. M White says:

    “because oceans are expected to warm considerably over the course of the 21st century”

    A computer model says so?

  10. Daniel M says:

    Did they remember to subtract the necessary increase in atmospheric H2o? That ought to bump it up a few decades…

  11. DJ Meredith says:

    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?

  12. Just The Facts says:

    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…

  13. Enneagram says:

    MSM=MAIN STREET MADNESS.

  14. Rudolf Kipp says:

    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…)

  15. 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.

  16. snork says:

    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.

  17. Mike M says:

    Well, bacteria along the shoreline will be concerned about this, (has anyone told them?).

  18. Jim Cripwell says:

    “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?

  19. Mike Haseler says:

    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!)

  20. Chris says:

    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?

  21. Henry chance says:

    “”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.

  22. Staffan Lindström says:

    …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…

  23. R. de Haan says:

    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?

  24. gary says:

    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.

  25. John Galt says:

    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.

  26. John Peter says:

    Staffan Lindström wrote: “Många bäckar små blir till en stor å”…[many
    small creeks form a small river...]”
    Actually, the correct translation from Swedish should probably be “many small streams become a large river”.

  27. Robert Morris says:

    “REPLY: Since they are citing “Titantic sized” in the press release, it must then be a British ship of science, they only have lifenoats enough for the upper class. Us steerage are out of luck. -Anthony”

    He’s associated with Leeds University. They don’t do upper class in Leeds. In fact, I’d go so far as to say they don’t do any kind of class in Leeds. Oh and “Lifenoats”! Good to see we all make the odd nallsup occasionally.

    REPLY: b and n are right next to each other on the keyboard. Fat fingers. -A

  28. M White says:

    From the CATLIN ARCTIC TEAM

    Ice Base Ready For Lift-Off

    The Ice Base has now been almost completely dismantled, with the happy campers deciding a last minute dunk in the science sampling hole was in order. Watch the team diving in to the briny darkness in this video.

    http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/

    Any guesses as to the thickness of the ice

  29. John Galt says:

    Just the Facts

    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…

    I’d say they are happening in the Arctic. Otherwise known as springtime in the northern hemisphere.

    8>)

  30. Dell Hunt, Michigan says:

    Well I guess in 526 years the Mile High City, Denver, will have to rename itself the 5279 ft and 11 inch high city.

  31. Looking at this guys list of academic papers at his university’s website over his interest it becomes apparent that he is almost exclusively interested in all sorts of ice melt in polar regions.
    I think that he has made a fantastic discovery! Summer brings snowmelt even in polar regions.

  32. templar knight says:

    Bwahaha! Al Gore’s new beach front home will be under water in 400 years!

    Oh, hell….never mind.

  33. Bruce Cobb says:

    “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.”
    Meaning, of course, they cherry-picked their data, plugged it into a flawed model with the usual AGW assumptions, and came up with 742 km3’s. PNS at its finest. Utter bilge, and not worth the ink or paper it’s printed on. And that’s even before getting to the punch line, that even if it were true, it doesn’t amount to an anthill of beans.

  34. Phil. says:

    Henry chance says:
    April 30, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    “”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.

    Same place it’s always gone, into the ocean, that’s why it’s known as the ‘thermohaline’ circulation.

  35. Jim Steele says:

    If the greatest increase in sea level was due to arctic ice loss, why did the satellite data say that the Arctic Sea level has been DECREASING at over 2mm/year

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5076322.stm?ls

  36. DRE says:

    Okay, now that I’ve managed to stop laughing (I think I might have actually broken a rib). 49 microns/year, really? You know what else you measure in mircrons? That’s the peak in the wavelength of black body radiation at about 130 – 140 Kelvin.

    I guess we should all start to worry now.

  37. old44 says:

    A standard Co-ordinate Measuring Machine used in industry to measure engine components for your car has a volumetric accuracy of about 5-7 microns. I would love to know what they are measuring the oceans with.

  38. Phil. says:

    snork says:
    April 30, 2010 at 12:36 pm
    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,

    Not true it can be either more or less.

  39. Alan Clark says:

    For the uninitiated, 40 microns is the lower limit of visibility for the naked human eye. So the rise in sea level will be completely indistinguishable to anyone. For that matter, do we even have sea level monitoring equipment that could measure a 49 micron rise and if we do, why? Isn’t that about the same size as a large single celled organism”

  40. Michael says:

    526 years is but a blip in Earth’s history.

  41. maz2 says:

    Al’s AGW ?
    …-

    “Heavy Calif. snowpack could boost water deliveries (state’s snowpack .. 143 percent of normal)

    Sacramento, Calif. (AP) — State water managers say a series of late-season storms might allow them to deliver more water than expected to California’s cities and farms.

    The Department of Water Resources released its final snow survey of the season on Friday. The state’s snowpack has grown to 143 percent of normal for this time of year across the 400-mile-long Sierra Nevada.

    The department had estimated that it will be able to deliver water contractors 30 percent of their requests. The department’s director, Mark Cowin, says the latest snowpack measurements could allow the department to increase that allocation.

    (Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com …
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2504107/posts

  42. Gail Combs says:

    old44 says:
    April 30, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    A standard Co-ordinate Measuring Machine used in industry to measure engine components for your car has a volumetric accuracy of about 5-7 microns. I would love to know what they are measuring the oceans with.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Yes and how the heck they are measuring global temperature to tenths of a degree C per century. A L Strata, a former member of NASA does an analysis. If you have not read it, please do. His Conclusion:

    “…The CRU, GISS and NCDC all derive global profiles by making some incredible and unproven assumptions about how a temperature measurement can be extrapolated to represent a city, a region, a country, a hemisphere and the globe. For example, in the CRU data they assume you can create a 500 km ‘grid’ from one or a small number of temperature stations. Even worse, they assume you can create a neighboring 500 km grid that has no stations from nearby grids….

    ….What is clear from these two simple analyses is that any regional (≥ 160 km) or global temperature index is too inaccurate to detect a 0.8°C rise over 100 years. We can’t even get to that level of accuracy when we are really guesstimating 99.9% of the actual temperature from sparse ground sensors.

    And even if there was a 0.8°C rise, is that really significant given the daily ranges temperatures can swing?

    All this proves the AGW theories are mathematically invalid, there claimed results are impossible to achieve with the approach they use.”

  43. rbateman says:

    What else is measured in microns?
    CCD camera pixels, certain short light wavelengths, microprocessor circuit widths.
    Numbers on the order of a few millionths.
    In other words, really tiny things or very minute traces, like CO2 levels.
    Or the area of today’s sunspot’s impact on the TSI level.
    Drowned out like a tree lost in the forest.
    Oh, such things to trouble the minds of children with nightmarish consequences.

  44. Staffan Lindström says:

    John Peter (April 30, 2010 at 12:58 pm)

    …Famous “åar” of the world??: The Amazonas, The Rhine, The Danube, The Volga, The Yellow River…and FROM the “Mississippi man”: Mark Twain : Denial is not just a RIVER in Africa…So John Peter, I should have written “…a big small river” So why is
    it that English does not have different words for different sizes of waterways like the Scandinavian languages?? Etymologists and language historians, where are you when needed??

  45. Bruce Cobb says:

    Oops, it’s actually “Scientists say 1.5million icebergs the size of the one that sank the Titanic melt every year”, not “Titanic-sized icebergs”. So, it’s worse than we thought.
    Oh, wait- nope, still just a hairs breadth per year.
    The S.S. Warmatanic is in the process of lifting straight up in the water, in preparation for its final descent to the bottom of the sea of human folly.

  46. Al Gored says:

    Have they factored in the sea level rise due to the displacement of water caused by the hiding of the Iraqi WMDs in the ocean off Basra?

  47. North of 43 and south of 44 says:

    manfredkintop says:
    April 30, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    I had better stop procrastinating and get back at building the ark in my driveway. Umm…just how much is a “cubit” anyway?

    _________________________________________________________________________

    About 9468 years.

  48. Terry says:

    Hilarious …49 microns increase across the globe, the width of the average human hair. Better start thinking about moving all those at-risk communities near the sea.

  49. P.F. says:

    Is “Titanic-sized” a scientific unit of measure?

  50. davidc says:

    It’s obvious that universities need to be shut. This kind of garbage doesn’t even help the alarmist cause. All it shows is that taxes are being paid to fools who do nothing but proclaim their foolishness. They can’t even lie well.

  51. Gail Combs says:

    it that English does not have different words for different sizes of waterways like the Scandinavian languages?? Etymologists and language historians, where are you when needed??
    _____________________________________________________________________

    English does
    Intermittent and ephemeral streams‎
    drybeds
    brook
    stream
    creek
    river

  52. d_abes says:

    M. White said

    From the CATLIN ARCTIC TEAM:……

    These guys caused quite a stir yesterday, claimed it rained on them. Environment Canada says it has never rained in April where they are:

    “”It’s definitely a shocker the general feeling within the polar community is that rainfall in the high Canadian Arctic in April is a freak event,” Pen Hadow, the team’s expedition director, told Reuters in an interview from London this week.

    “Scientists would tell us that we can expect increasingly to experience these sorts of outcomes as the climate warms.””

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/100429/canada/canada_north_north_pole_rainfall

    Of course no video of it.

  53. Archonix says:

    @Staffan Lindström

    We do, it’s just that they aren’t so commonly used. River is the generic, but you can have creeks, brooks, runs, runnels, rivulets, rills, becks, courses and streams. A brook is smaller than a creek, which is smaller than a stream, which is then smaller than a river and a rivulet is smaller than them all. Runs tend to be anything that you wouldn’t normally call a brook or a creek or a stream. Rills and becks are originally dialectal names for small rivers but they tend to be used for particular sized watercourses as well; and to make things interesting, any of the above can and often will be applied to any river smaller than the Thames.

  54. kwik says:

    Eureka!

  55. John from CA says:

    OT – Just ran across the amazing ice charts on the Environment Canada site which include year to year old ice and depth. I stumbled across a chart showing the Northwest Passage open in 1998. It turns out that October 1, 1998 was the sea ice minimum for Canada.
    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/Ice_Can/Arctic/MINYRNCW_MAP.gif
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=10&fd=01&fy=1998&sm=10&sd=01&sy=2007

    Environment Canada
    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPageDsp.cfm?ID=1&Lang=eng

  56. Zorro says:

    OMG soon the world will be bald ‘an we’re all gonna drown.

    Will hair restorer bring the ice back?

  57. Peter Miller says:

    The real question is: “Who’s going to tell Prince Charles about this?”

  58. P.F. says:

    I’m surprised they didn’t warn about a 49,000 nm rise in sea level. That is a scarier number. Do you remember what the IPCC did following their first report? The graph of sea level rise based on six predictive computer models showed a worst-case sea level rise of 0.64 m. The graph was wider than is was tall (200-year time axis longer than sea level axis). The graphs produced for public consumption and in subsequent IPCC publications had squeezed the 200-year time axis so the image was taller than wide (increasing the apparent scope of the line) and showed a worst-case rise of 64 cm. Obviously, 64 is a bigger number than 0.64.

  59. Stephan says:

    Very big story
    http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/top-stories/1595100/ So Nature has decided it better save face while it can of course with this data it has to now….
    How the hell will RC get out of this one…..

  60. Ric Werme says:

    I thought competition for journal space was fierce. Surely they could have held of for a “mm” of sea level rise to let the authors collect more data.

    Some other papers accepted look interesting, e.g. Wang, L., and W. Chen (2010), Downward Arctic Oscillation signal associated with moderate weak stratospheric polar vortex and the cold December 2009 and Huss, M., R. Hock, A. Bauder, and M. Funk (2010), The 100-year glacier mass changes in the Swiss Alps linked to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

    I wonder what paper got rejected in favor of this one.

  61. BrianMcL says:

    It’s not all doom though. I expect that post ice age land rise might offset the odd micron here or there. Add in sedimentary deposits in river basins and coral build and there’s always the possibility that some of areas around 2″ above sea level might be safe for maybe as much as 527 years.

    That should leave about 150 years for anyone living less that 0.5″ above sea level to enjoy better weather. We can then spend the next 400 years to adding an average of 0.5″ per century to their sea level defences.

    It might not be worse than we thought but it sure is funnier.

    And a lot less expensive.

  62. RonPE says:

    I call this ‘National Enquirer’ journalism.
    All the crazy made up stories take place in far away places that are impossible for the reading population to fact check.
    Examples:
    ‘Alien Baby Boy Born in Katmandu, Nepal!’
    ‘Calamitous Ice Melting at the North Pole Sure to Kill Millions! – Wasteful Auto Driving by Caucasian Christian Hetero Conservative Males to Blame’

  63. Stephen Skinner says:

    This has to be an example of ‘False Precision’.

  64. Ulric Lyons says:

    Oh come on, its 518.36734647330279092193218774357 years.

  65. BrianMcL says:

    At the risk of being practical for a second, can we ask the world’s hairdressers to take all of their cuttings to the seaside one year?

    I know it might only buy us another millenium or so but, as they say, every little helps.

  66. Max Hugoson says:

    Yes, I’ve finally figured it out.

    There IS a slight increase in the volume of the sea, when you add “fresh water”, to whit – – –

    Buoyancy
    When floating ice melts, does water level rise?

    When floating ice melts, does the water level rise?
    Seed Expert Claude Baudoin writes:

    Water expands when it freezes, so you might think that when it melts and reduces in size, the water level will go down. Alternatively, because part of the ice floats the water, you might think that when it melts, the water level will rise.

    Neither is true, as explained by Archimedes principles.

    When an ice cube (or an iceberg, which is a big ice cube) floats in water, then by definition the weight of the ice cube is exactly equal to the buoyancy force, which is equal to the weight of the displaced water.

    When the ice cube melts, its volume changes, but its weight is conserved (law of the conservation of mass). So the melted water from the ice cube has exactly the same weight as the water that was displaced by the ice cube when it was frozen — therefore the volume of melted water fits exactly in the previously displaced volume — and the water level stays the same.

    Note that this argument applies only if the ice cube is made of the same water as the water that it is floating in. This is true, for example, with the Arctic ice pack, which is made of frozen sea water. However, it is not true for Antarctic icebergs, which are blocks of fresh-water ice from the continent that are floating in salt-water sea. In this case, we must take into account that the salt water is denser than the fresh water. The fresh-water iceberg still weighs as much as the weight of the displaced salt water, but because of the difference in density, the volume of melted fresh water will be slightly greater than the displaced volume of salt water — so when the iceberg melts, the water level will rise, although the difference is very small.

    BUT this means one has to TOTALLY IGNORE THE PROCESSES WHICH ARE CONTINUOUSLY ADDING TO THE SOLUTES IN THE OCEAN. Which of course, may make the claim by the authors moot, due to a lack of “due diligence”. (I’m going to hedge on this, having NOT SEEN the actual article, and being too cheap and financially unable to afford such papers as a matter of priority right now.)

    This, aside from the ludicrous nature of the minuscule effect that the authors DO point out.

  67. Bryan says:

    Nobody seems to have noticed that as the temperature rises people sweat more.
    My team of researchers have a sophisticated model running on a supercomputer and have calculated that this sweat will add 3 nanometres to the sea level by 2050.
    Can I have a Nobel Prize?

  68. Mike says:

    I looked up paper http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2010GL042496-pip.pdf .

    They say that the effect they studied contributed 1.6% to the measured sea level rise to date. I don’t see the scientists exaggerating their findings. How it gets reported in the media is another matter.

    It is worth noting that if the melt rate accelerates the 1 inch mark would come before Anthony’s 500 years. Also, sea level rise is not uniform. In the Arctic the rise would likely be higher. Still the effect is small. A better headline would be: “Melting sea ice contributes slightly to sea level rise.”

    I only got 5500 hits with Google. I’m not sure why the difference.

  69. u.k.(us) says:

    “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……..
    ===============
    “Major impacts” on the regional climate, would surely have been touted by the MSM, but are curiously unreported of late.
    Not too worry, the sun is ascending in the Northern Hemishere.

  70. Johnathan Birks says:

    DAVID C SEZ:
    It’s obvious that universities need to be shut. This kind of garbage doesn’t even help the alarmist cause. All it shows is that taxes are being paid to fools who do nothing but proclaim their foolishness. They can’t even lie well.
    ———————–
    Universities, and the politicians who enable them, lie just fine. Problem is most folks just don’t think (especially add) good.

    The recent silence from messrs. Pachauri and Gore has been deafening.

  71. Adrian Smits says:

    I’m rather puzzled by the extent of Arctic sea ice this year. And the fact that it continues to seem to be warming up in the Arctic. With El Niño conditions in the Pacific about to come to an end and the Arctic sea ice extent at normal levels would this not mean that we are in for a much colder than normal summer.After all the reflectivity of the ice in the Arctic is probably at the highest level it’s being in over a decade. Especially now that China is starting to clean up its smokestacks and reduce the amount of soot it puts into the atmosphere.

  72. Dave Wendt says:

    “Professor Shepherd and his team used a combination of satellite observations and a computer model to make their assessment. ”

    Last time I checked the TOPEX/ JASON satellites that they use to measure sea level orbit at an altitude of about 1335 km. That’s 1,335.000,000 mm. The sat. instruments measure altitude by sending a signal to the ocean surface and calculating the distance from the time of reflectance. In another life I spent a fair number of years working in the surveying field with instruments that operate on very similar, though not identical principles. It’s been nearly 20 years since I was actively involved, but even today a topline survey instrument’s standard error is 2mm
    +/- 2ppm. That’s from an instrument setup on a solid tripod, well leveled, with proper atmospheric corrections entered, reading from a block of precision retroprisms similarly situated at something less than 2.5 miles. Reading from a natural surface loses 1-3 or more orders of magnitude of precision. The time required for each reading is usually over a minute.

    The sat. instruments are reading an ocean surface that is constantly variable in elevation and reflectance, both systemically and chaotically. They are scanning swaths of ocean that are hundreds of kilometers across, which brings correction for the curvature of the Earth into play. Measurement times are a second or two. At the altitude at which they orbit deviations from orthogonality to the center of the Earth which are within the range of any instrument’s ability to detect introduce significant error. The newer JASON satellites have improvements which greatly enhance atmospheric corrections and orbit precision, but orbit error is still only claimed to be less than 10cm.

    Given all that, even if the satellites could somehow match the survey instrument’s best performance, the error per measurement would be +/-2.7 meters. I would suspect, if they’re only doing an order of magnitude worse than that, it would be a minor miracle. If you take a million measurements in which the range for the standard error for each measurement is a close match of the range of variability of the distances measured it won’t be surprising if the distance derived when you attempt to analyze the numbers resolves to a very precise degree. That won’t mean that you know the distance that precisely, but only that the variability is concealing the error.

    I haven’t been able to access anything that describes in any detail the exact methodology by which the satellite sea level numbers are derived and it is possible that modern science has somehow been able to resolve these seeming contradictions. I am willing to be convinced if anyone wants to argue the point. But, unless or until I can be shown something pretty miraculous, I will continue to consider the the notion that sat. measurements can derive values for mean sea level, a concept which is in itself more meaningless than even global average temperature, accurate to a tenth of a millimeter to be essentially laughable.

  73. D. King says:

    You know what this means!
    That’s right… time to send in S.W.A.T.

  74. Xi Chin says:

    “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.”

    Well, I’m worried for my descendents. At this rate, the whole planet will be completely covered in water by the time my great^100 grand children are born. I won’t sleep tonight knowing this. Will write to my government and ask them for a new tax to stop the ice melting.

  75. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ P.F. says:
    April 30, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    I’m surprised they didn’t warn about a 49,000 nm rise in sea level. That is a scarier number.

    They probably would have, but I suspect that someone may have told them that nm can also be interpreted as Nautical Miles . Which would be really scary! :)

  76. David Segesta says:

    49 micrometers per year? Well let’s see, that amount to about 2 thousandths of an inch per year. So in 100 years sea levels will rise .2 inches. Oh NO!!!! We’re all gonna drown!

    Seriously these scientists need to get a life.

  77. Lawrie Ayres says:

    Does it really matter if the sea rises as the ice bergs melt? Does it really matter if the ice bergs melt? Just last Thursday good old aunty (Aus ABC) on Catalyst showed that Antarctic ice sheets are melting faster than anyone expected. So what? No where have I seen the proof that all this research is supposedly illuminating, that is mans contribution via fossil fuels and cattle. These scientists are, we assume, reporting what they see. No harm there. The harm comes when they or the the press try and connect their observations to the hypothesis of AGW.

    The question to be asked is not how they measure such microscopic chsnges but rather why they are doing it. If the purpose is to show the dangers of AGW then they need to show that first man is a big player in the increased CO2 and that the increased CO2 is actually causing the warming oceans or the changes in currents that lead to ice melting. It seems to this uneducated pleb that they “assume ” far too much. Assume- making an “ass” out of “u” and “me”.

  78. What a waste of UK taxpayers’ money to be funding this nonsense. What a state academia is in when it is reduced to producing drivel like this.

  79. Ozzie John says:

    This is akin to taking a measurement, then peeing in the ocean and then taking another measurement. Perhaps in the cold Arctic night you will notice a difference !

  80. Gary Pearse says:

    Well until all the ice is gone, the melting ice leaves a fresh water layer on the surface of the ocean that you can actually drink. I would think that the arctic ocean surface is therefore comparatively low in salt and the refreeze is that of perhaps brackish to fresh water. So, unless I’m far off the mark here, sealevel will save up most of this rise perhaps for several centuries and then it will go rise up 1.0″, probably stretching the the time scale out to 600-700yrs.

  81. morgo says:

    all you have to do to counter the sea level rising is to get everbody on earth to start drinking sea water now ,my computer model results are a reduction of around 4 inches in the sea level per year. ps will I recieve a grant of around $ 1.4 million

  82. Gordon Ford says:

    Seems to me that in the last few decades there has been a catastrophic decline in the quality of climate science.

  83. Sean Peake says:

    Mike says:
    April 30, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    I looked up paper http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2010GL042496-pip.pdf .

    They say that the effect they studied contributed 1.6% to the measured sea level rise to date. I don’t see the scientists exaggerating their findings. How it gets reported in the media is another matter.

    So, Sir, what exactly has been the measured sea level rise to date (and provide actual peer-reviewed data, please)?

  84. Cold Englishman says:

    That sound? ‘Tis Newton, spinning in his grave!

  85. Steve in SC says:

    In 5.7 million years I’m going to have to move!

  86. Al Gored says:

    Sean Peake – Completely off topic, but did you look at all of Thompson’s journals in the Archives of Ontario? If so, I have a question for you.

    Thanks.

  87. Cold Englishman says:

    Dave Wendt says:
    April 30, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    As a retired Land Surveyor with over 50 years of experience, I absolutely confirm Dave’s analysis. The entire story is BS from start to finish.

  88. Benjamin says:

    Anthony’s Reality punchline: “1 inch/0.0019 inch/yr = 526 years. Yeah, I’m worried about _that_.”

    Yes, but you know that they’ll use that figure to back up their models that say we’ll run out of water by 20XX, due to population bombs. We can only have catastrophic global warming or resource depletion. We cannot _ever_ be fine and have little to worry about.

  89. Gil Dewart says:

    An iceberg is not just ice. It may be carrying a considerable load of rock debris from the glacier from which it “calved”. Captain Cook surmised that there was land to the south (Antarctica) because of the rock embedded in the icebergs. The effect of this relatively high density “ballast” would also have to be factored in.

  90. Sean Peake says:

    Al Gored says:
    April 30, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    Sean Peake – Completely off topic, but did you look at all of Thompson’s journals in the Archives of Ontario? If so, I have a question for you.

    Yes, and I transcribed them all from 1789 to 1812, and a few in between and from 1849 to 1851. I used them for my upcoming version of “The Travels of David Thompson” (2 volumes) that includes his weather observations for that period.

  91. Joe Konu says:

    It’s a misprint…. they meant MEGAmeters!

  92. Al Gored says:

    Stephan says:
    April 30, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    Very big story
    http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/top-stories/1595100/ So Nature has decided it better save face while it can of course with this data it has to now….
    How the hell will RC get out of this one…..

    —–

    Indeed. Good question. Although I did see that it was a “soon to be published” paper so I guess they still have time to have the dog eat it, or something.

    In any case, since Nature has been firmly in the camp, and thus held up as one of their great ‘peer reviewed’ authorities, this is highly inconvenient to the gang.

    And I somehow doubt that CO2 even accounts for the 5 to 10%…

  93. timheyes says:

    I have a horrible feeling that “UK National Centre for Earth Observation” disburses my taxes… I want the research money back!

  94. Robert of Ottawa says:

    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

    Sir! As an expat Brit, I must take exception, Sir! What is your choice of weapon? Thermometers at 30 paces? We will meet for this duel at the South Pole when it is ice-free … which is apparently within a couple of years.

    I think this POS was also taken up by the Australian BC. I want to say I don’t understand why educated, literate people continue propagating this nonsense … but then I answer my own question. These people may be educated and literate, but that don’t make them rational nor intelligent; they are too dependant upon government funding to provide anything other than their paymasters require.

    Lysenko anyone?

  95. Ulric Lyons says:

    “Gordon Ford says:
    April 30, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Seems to me that in the last few decades there has been a catastrophic decline in the quality of climate science.”

    Seems to me that in the last few years, the increase in number of people who look at this properly, is inversely proportional to finding any real evidence of an AGW signal.

  96. twawki says:

    So if all these titanic sized icebergs raise the ocean level by a hairs breadth then it says all their previous alarmism about the melting ice would only raise the oceans a couple of hairs breadth. The MSM does itself no favours

  97. jaymam says:

    There are now 20,000 Google hits for “Melting icebergs causing sea level rise”. I cannot find a single page other than WUWT where the story is being discussed.
    Where are all the real scientists?
    1. A rise of two thousandths of an inch in sea level in a year is not measurable.
    2. When the ice froze in seawater in the first place that would cause a decrease in sea level.
    3. The Arctic ice is back to its usual amount, so there is no change in sea level from the freezing and melting of sea ice.

  98. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Sean Peake says:
    April 30, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    They say that the effect they studied contributed 1.6% to the measured sea level rise to date. I don’t see the scientists exaggerating their findings.

    They are not exaggerating their findings. They are being deluded by the false accuracy fallacy. The level of sea rise is heavily disputed; in fact, one should talk of sea volume increase, rather than a sea level rise.

    But, even so, to what accuracy is this hypothetical seal level rise known? For this 1.6% number to be acceptable, we must know the actual sea level “rise” to an accuracy greater than 1.6%.

    I’m sorry, the state’s “scientists” are not the only people in the world who understand math, uncertainty and the politics of nature.

  99. Douglas DC says:

    Ah I wentto the Catlin site-and there is indeed no video of the “Rain” now here is my own experience in colder than freezing temps. The big factor is, when air is supercooled the moisture does not necessarily freeze until it comes in contact with oh say an airplane, ski lift, Catlin explorer, you can have freezing rain as low as the mid 20F. range,
    for some reason I do not see their “polar rain” as any big deal…

  100. Ed Caryl says:

    Then factor in Post Glacier Rebound, plate tectonics, earthquakes, subsidence, uplift, sedimentation, earth tides, the hydrological cycle, land reclamation, and probably several other things I haven’t thought of, and “measurements” like this are well lost in the noise. What is their point?

  101. robr says:

    Anthony,
    I have been looking at this for a few days because some paper said if all the sea ice melted the Oceans would rise by four inches or so. Sea ice is formed by freezing the ocean water. The salts are removed from the water by a process of brine rejection, thereby increasing the density of the adjacent water, which sinks. To say that when that same ice melts it raises the level of the Oceans is absolutely ludicrous.

    As to melting ice bergs raising the Oceans, some one would have to prove that the net Greenland and/or Antarctic ice shelves were shrinking of which I have seen no proof.

  102. KimW says:

    In my physics class, one of the lessons dealt with “Trivial Considerations” such as applying E=MC2 to chemical reactions, or using General Relativity in calculations of travel times for a car or plane from one point to another. The point was to show that while you could calculate an effect, the effects were utterly trivial and down in the tenth decimal place and included a statement from the lecturer that if you wanted to show this in a exam answer, fine, but no marks.

    The “Floating sea ice” paper is thus a worthy candidate for utterly trivial considerations.

  103. rbateman says:

    Stephan says:

    So Nature sees its credibility on the line and decides to jump neutral.
    Better late than never.
    Not so certain politicians, who will not get the memo until thoroughly rejected as voters dump them.
    Survival of the fittest I suppose.

  104. Tom in Florida says:

    I wonder how much water is taken out for desalinization world wide.

  105. Al Gored says:

    Sean Peake – That is very thorough research. I look forward to your book(s)! Great idea to do that. Needed to be done.

    In the meantime, I am in the midst of a discussion with some people and I am wondering if you recall if he actually saw any bears that he identified as grizzly bears in any of them? I have Belyea’s book of his Rockies travels so I know those journals (and his journal to the Manda villages) but I am wondering about out on the plains. Or any bears on the plains that might have been grizzlies?

    (Have his Narrative (Glover) but, well, its just a narrative, though post-1789 mostly reliable).

    I would like to contact you directly on this but I am a little paranoid about publishing my email address on websites…

    P.S. Anthony or moderator – Sorry for being so far off topic!!!

  106. JER0ME says:

    You got the date wrong – it is the 1st of May today*, not the first of April, surely?

    [*At least it is here, where we get days nice and fresh, not like the tired old used-up days we leave for the rest of the world ;-]

  107. R. Craigen says:

    This article provides endless amusement!

    I take it “titanic sized” is a variant on “humungous sized”. What exactly is 1.5 million of those? But the winning bit of scientific illiteracy in the article, for me, is this piece of dimensional confusion:

    …the net effect is to increase sea level by 2.6% of this volume…

    Come again? A LINEAR measurement is increased by 2.6% of a VOLUME???

    Finally, considering that, each year the global area of sea ice varies by over 25% from maximum to minimum, even if ALL sea ice vanished completely it would affect sea level by less than 4 times what is experienced EVERY YEAR because of seasonal variations.

  108. tarpon says:

    Sea level has been 100 meters higher and 100 meters lower. A small amout of perspective may be in order. And who is it that deems everything that is, will always be, as is, are going to be in for some huge surprises.

    Change is how the universe has worked for billions of years.

    And then a volcano goes off, or a meteor comes crashing the party.

  109. R. Craigen says:

    Just to reinforce my point about sea ice extent, if we reached your 526 years at the current rate of melting we would have some centuries worth of NEGATIVE sea ice extent. I would sincerely like to see someone draw that for me on a globe.

  110. Patrick Davis says:

    *spitting my breakfast cuppa’tea all over the screen* 49 microns? How on Earth did they measure that!

    Election years do tend to produce oddities.

  111. JohnD says:

    Micron… it’s the new meter.

  112. hunter says:

    And if the ice is made *from* sea water, it would then offset any trivial increase by a similar amount.
    And since floating sea ice worldwide is actually slightly higher than average’ they are actually showing a mechanism for decreasing rates of sea level increases.
    And oh, by the way: The writers of this paper are jerks.
    John Maddox, publisher emeritus of ‘Nature’ magazine, would have tossed this sort of trash right into the round file where it belongs.
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday_pr.html
    His most excellent book, ‘The Doomsday Syndrome’ is easily available on line:

    I think it should be returned to publication. It is long past time for grownups to take science back from the loonies.

  113. Just The Facts says:

    John Galt says: April 30, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    “I’d say they are happening in the Arctic. Otherwise known as springtime in the northern hemisphere.”

    :) That’s very alarming…

    Actually, Arctic Sea Ice hasn’t done much melting in the last couple days;
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    and Earth’s Sea Ice Area is currently catastrophically average:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    What’s alarming is this many MSM media outlets don’t do basic research to verify the truthfulness of the content that they publish. As a result many MSM outlets are no longer trustworthy sources of the facts…

  114. Northern Exposure says:

    *yawns loudly*

    … someone wake me up when some real science hits the floor running…

  115. DocWat says:

    You guys have lost it!!

    Prof. Shepherd has written a spoof trivializing the AGW bugga boos, melting ice and rising sea, and you have all been sucked into his joke, along with some news editors who had problems in converting metric to english measurements.

  116. AusieDan says:

    We should take this very seriously, but NOT in the way it was intended.

    I refer back to the comment about the Australian ABC Catalyst TV program on much the same topic.
    It took up the whole half hour which is most unusual for them.
    They sent 2 reporters to the opposite ends of Anarticia to do the program.
    That requires money and real planning, and for the Bureaucratic ABC, quite some elapsed time.

    This is just the latest of a well orchestrated series of global scare campaigns, trying to claw back their dwindling number of true believers.

    It smells of big money, and a very competent PR machine.
    These types of coincident alarmist reports from opposite ends of the globe do not just happen.

  117. Sean Peake says:

    Al Gored says:
    April 30, 2010 at 6:44 pm
    P.S. Anthony or moderator – Sorry for being so far off topic!!!

    Anthony or Mods. you have my permission to release my email address to Al Gored

    Sean Peake

  118. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    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

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Ya, but what if you lived on the coastline? One day you’ll be walking too close to the water, and bam! You get your shoes wet!

  119. Smokey says:

    DocWat,

    I think Prof Shepherd is at least pretending to be serious. From the article:

    This study was funded by the UK National Centre for Earth Observation and the Philip Leverhulme Trust.

    If those august bodies see fit to pay for climate alarmism, who is Prof Shepherd to turn down their generous funding?

    Who pays the piper calls the tune, and the tune is CAGW. Whether Shepherd believes it or not, he is saying what he is being paid to say, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

  120. Henry Pool says:

    We really have to start building another ark. BTW, how did Noah figure out that time that there was going to be a big flood?

  121. Kent Gatewood says:

    When do the microns of enhanced sea level encounter the next ice age if the CO2 doesn’t prevent the big freeze?

  122. Alvin says:

    They should have put a smiley at the end of the title :)

  123. Al Gored says:

    Hey Sean – Thanks! Didn’t know you could do that or I would have said the same thing. Problem is, I still don’t know what that means. What I am supposed to do now?

  124. Smokey says:

    May have been posted before, but well worth posting again:

    http://www.blip.tv/file/3539174

  125. Alvin says:

    Please, someone find out how much grant money was spent on this study.

  126. Pete H says:

    “REPLY: b and n are right next to each other on the keyboard. Fat fingers. -A”

    There you go, yet another sign of AGW Anthony? Can I get a grant?

  127. JohnB says:

    I have to agree with DocWat. Prof Shepherd was paid to find out how much sea level rise melting ice would cause. He has done just that.

    Since he can’t come out and say “Bugger All” as that would be against the consensus, he simply did the figures and published the work. If the AGW crowd want to run with it and look like idiots, that’s not his problem.

    The question was “How much dangerous sea level rise will melting sea ice cause?” His answer was “None”.

  128. wayne says:

    Here’s what I don’t get. I checked the math on the 2.6% and that appears accurate based on densities listed in wiki of water, ice, and sea ice. I came up with 2.52%.

    Anthony said:
    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

    But Anthony, your 4 times too long. According to my calculations you would run out of sea-ice in about 140 years! ;-)

    If ever single bit of floating ice today melted, I come up with a scary total of 6.9 mm assuming the 3m average sea-ice thickness cited in the article. That is based on 15 million sq-km for arctic and 18 for antarctica.

    What, are these “scientists” just wanting to get their silly little millimeters in IPCC’s black kettle? How much did that research cost? (With a physics calculator and wiki it took less than an hour. Will post my calcs if someone wants to check the math. I double checked and 7 mm seem correct. less than the width of a pencil for all of the sea-ice in this whole world!)

  129. OkieSkeptic says:

    Seems I recall that maybe much more important than melting ice is the volumetric expansion from warming. Since most of the ocean area is deep (averaging ~12,000 ft) and the much smaller continental shelf areas only average about 325 ft, volumetric expansion from a temperature change should cause a much greater spill over/height increase onto the continental shelf and adjacent land areas. Of course the melting ice would act as a correction helping to cool any warming water by latent heat.
    Based on this I would think that differences in measured seal level changes might be a better indicator of average ocean temperature than thermometers.
    A simple analysis is given here:
    http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/10/31/sea-level-rise-due-to-thermal-expansion/

  130. John Galt II says:

    Do these folks ever read their own work? One has to wonder?

    So much for getting cheap ocean front property in my lifetime!

    Just have too worry about wild waves and hurricanes.

  131. savethesharks says:

    What complete and utter nonsense.

    With scary headlines like that, then the actual reality of the 49 µm per annum, LOL, it is telling…and a wonder our species has advanced as far at as it has.

    You just want to ask the question to the nimrods that make these headlines ( they are the same ilk that create the Associated Press stories and Al Gore scares), but you just want to ask the question:

    “How ****ing stupid do you think we are???”

    Thanks for the good laugh, though. It is nice to have comedy relief, even when it comes from a university.

    Chris
    Norfolk Virginia USA

  132. wayne says:

    OkieSkeptic says:
    April 30, 2010 at 9:37 pm
    Seems I recall that maybe much more important than melting ice is the volumetric expansion from warming.

    I agree that if the oceans get warmer they will rise slightly vertically from expansion but don’t you consider that the land would also be warmer and it would rise vertically from expansion in the same manner and much the same amount? I never seem to hear anyone question the land’s rise, well, that’s not never scary is it? (Hey, I’m an OKie too ;-) )

  133. Dave Wendt says:

    wayne says:
    April 30, 2010 at 9:36 p
    If ever single bit of floating ice today melted, I come up with a scary total of 6.9 mm assuming the 3m average sea-ice thickness cited in the article. That is based on 15 million sq-km for arctic and 18 for antarctica.

    The 15 and 18 Mkm2 numbers are annual maximums that don’t occur at the same time. According to CT’s charts maximum combined sea ice is between 22 and 24Mkm2
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

  134. P.F. says:

    Curiousgeorge says:
    April 30, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    They probably would have [warned about a 49,000 nm rise in sea level], but I suspect that someone may have told them that nm can also be interpreted as Nautical Miles . Which would be really scary! :)

    Nice observation, C-george. I guess I could have used mµ (millimicron), but that use is archaic. I suppose they went with 49 micrometers because it is a much larger number than 0.0019 (inches) and most Americans don’t know what a micrometer is or how many fit in an inch.

  135. wayne says:

    Dave Wendt says:
    April 30, 2010 at 10:10 pm
    “The 15 and 18 Mkm2 numbers are annual maximums that don’t occur at the same time. According to CT’s charts maximum combined sea ice is between 22 and 24Mkm2

    Thanks for the clarification. That’s right, I did that just to say if all ice instantly melted, what would the rise be we are talk of, so in reality knock the 6.9mm way, way down. Besides, that’s a bit comical number, all of the ice, both poles, is never going to melt simultaneously unless the sun has a major hand in it and that’s something we can pray never happens.

  136. Perry says:

    Bilderberger Nark (for fun).

    http://www.bryancore.org/pdf/encore3.pdf

  137. Squidly says:

    Xi Chin says:
    April 30, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Well, I’m worried for my descendents. …

    I am worried too! With education like this, I am worried that my descendants won’t have then intelligence to find their own mouths in order to maintain nutritional sustainability, let alone find and produce the nutrition itself.

  138. Sean Peake says:

    Way, way OT
    Al Gored:
    Since neither of us had a direct response from the mods, here is what I have about grizzly bears (there are many references, but these below are taken from the manuscripts. Note: It is my belief that the grizzly of the barrens is a direct descendant of the extinct plains grizzly):

    “A few days after our arrival [December 1787, near Calgary AB] , the death cry was given and the men all started out of the tents, and our old tent mate with his gun in his hand. The cry was from a young man who held his bow and arrows and showed one of his thighs torn by a grizled bear, and which had killed two of his companions. The old man called for his powder horn and shot bag, and seeing the priming of his gun in good order, he set off with the young man for the bear, which was at a short distance. They found him devouring one of the dead. The moment he saw them, he sat up on his hind legs, showing them his teeth and long clawed paws. In this, his usual position to defend his prey, his head is a bad mark but his breast offers a direct mark to the heart, through which the old man sent his ball and killed him.
    “The two young men who were destroyed by the bear had each two iron shod arrows and, the camp being near, they attacked the bear for his skin and claws. But unfortunately their arrows struck the bones of the ribs and only one irritated him. He sprung on the first and with one of his dreadful fore paws tore out his bowels and three of his ribs; the second he seized in his paws and almost crushed him to death, threw him down and when the third Indian hearing the cries came to their assistance, [he] sent an arrow, which only wounded him in the neck, for which the bear chased him and slightly tore one of his thighs. The first poor fellow was still alive and knew his parents, in whose arms he expired. The bear, for the mischief he had done, was condemned to be burnt to ashes. The claws of his fore paws, very sharp and long, the young man wanted for a collar but it was not granted; those that burned the bear watched until nothing but ashes remained.
    “The two young men were each wrapped up separately in bison robes, laid side by side on the ground and covered with logs of wood and stones, in which we assisted. The bear is, as the Indians express it, “See Pee ne” (strong of life). However mortally wounded, except thro’ the head or heart, he has life enough to do mischief.” (Chapter 10, Return to the Trading Houses)

    [Below are excepts written to describe the time he was travelling on the plains, at Fort Augustus ,and at Fort George c. 1797-99 and 1800-01]
    “The grizled bear (Ursus horribus), by far the largest of all the species, cares for neither Man or horse and will attack either. Every year, two or three Indians are destroyed by these bears, but as soon as he sees a man on horseback (which is a combination of skill, courage and swiftness) he runs away, and when wounded tries to get away. Such is his dread of a man on horseback, but alone he cares nothing for him. The large black bears with red noses often chase the grizled bear and appear to have no fear of him.
    “The grizled bear (something of an iron grey) is a very powerful animal. I have known him trail on the bare ground a bison bull killed by a hunter above two hundred yards. A grizled bear killed by LeDuc had on each side of him something covered with earth which he was guarding. Upon opening them, one was half an antelope, and the other, half a young black bear. How such a clumsy animal could catch such a swift animal as the antelope, none could tell.
    “The claws on the fore feet are five to six inches in length on the curve. I traded many of the latter, which I gave away, except two, which I have still by me. They are much valued by the Indians and a necklace of them is the value of a good common horse. All other bears find or make dens to shelter themselves during winter, but the grizled bears only looks for shelter in bad weather and when the weather is fine, prowls about the whole winter. Fortunately, they are not numerous and confine themselves to the east foot of the mountains.
    “An Indian, who had been running the bisons and killed three of them, saw a grizled bear. Depending on his swift horse, he soon came up with him and with an arrow, mortally wounded him. On this, the bear suddenly turned on them, the mare was too tired to wheel quick enough from the bear. With one of his fore paws, he struck the mare behind the shoulder and tore the ribs away. She fell dead and the Indian, partly under her, lay quiet. The bear went a few yards, laid down and died, which allowed the Indian to extricate himself. He had the skin of the bear; a poor recompense for his fine mare.
    “Apistawawshish, a Nahathaway Indian, was hunting for food at the foot of the Woody Hill, (north of the Saskatchewan about 30 miles) and had killed a moose. According to custom, he had embowelled it and separated the large joints to prevent the meat spoiling, and placing bits of the skin with his gun case in a few small piles to scare the wolves, left it for the night and returned to his tent. Next morning, attended by his son, a lad of about ten years old, he went off on foot to cut up the moose ready to be carried away by two horses led by two women who were coming behind. On approaching the place where the moose lay, the lad ran ahead and came quite close to it without perceiving a large grizled bear was in possession of the deer. The bear instantly sprang upon the lad who from fear fell down and the bear put his foot on him to devour him. The screams of the boy brought the father to his assistance who sprang forward and aimed his gun close to the heart of the bear. It missed fire, upon which in agony of mind he threw down his gun and seized the enormous savage bear by the two ears. In an instant the bear tossed him to the ground and seizing him by the calves of his legs, tore a great part of his flesh from them. In this dreadful extremity the Indian lost neither his courage nor his presence of mind, but drew his keen two-edged dagger and plunging it into the side of the bear’s belly, cut him with all his force downwards a great gash, out of which the bowels fell. The bear gave a hideous growl and quitted him. The lad had received no other injury than the squeeze of the bear’s paws, and had got loose and ran away on his father’s seizing the bear, and he informed the women who were now near of the disaster. The Indian as soon as the bear quitted him hastily bound up his lacerated wounds, and made a shift to walk a little way, and being perceived by the women was borne away to his tent, when his life was for a long time despaired of. He, however, recovered and regained the use of his legs, tho’ very much disfigured.” (Chapter 21, Animals of the Plains)

    “A few days after, as two of them were hunting (they always went by two) they met a coloured bear , which one of them wounded. The bear sprung on him, and standing on his hind feet, seized the Iroquois, hugging him with his fore legs and paws, which broke the bones of both arms above the elbow, and with its teeth tore the skin of the head from the crown to the forehead, for the poor fellow had drawn his knife to defend himself, but could not use it. Fortunately his comrade was near, and putting his gun close to the bear shot him dead. The poor fellow was a sad figure. None of us were surgeons, but we did the best we could, but for want of proper bandaging his arms were three months in getting well. These accidents happening only to the Iroquois made them superstitious and they concluded that some of the Algonquins had thrown bad medicine on them, and a quarrel would probably taken place had we not been with them. ” (Chapter 36, Migration of the Iroquois)

    Hope this helps.

    S

  139. Peter Miller says:

    On a more serious, the following website shows that the extreme rises in ocean levels (which obviously affect the average figure) are restricted to the western Pacific, east of the Philippines, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.

    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/index.html

    This is part of the so called ‘ring of fire’, an area of strong volcanic activity; it suggests much of the current sea level rise – a subject much beloved by alarmists – is caused by tectonic activity creating upward movements in the Earth’s crust and mantle.

  140. Dave McK says:

    50 atoms deep is atomic!

  141. GeeJam says:

    So, Prof Andy Shepherd’s study was funded by the UK National Centre for Earth Observation and the Philip Leverhulme Trust.

    The Trust’s home page says “Philip Leverhulme Prizes are awarded to outstanding scholars or practitioners (normally under the age of 36) who have made a substantial and recognised contribution to their particular field of study, recognised at an international level, and whose future contributions are held to be of correspondingly high promise.”

    Wow.

  142. Mike Redman says:

    S’funny, I’d already figured this out by watching the ice melt in my gin and tonic. (Needs real patience this experiment – the temptation is always to start drinking before the ice has gome.)

  143. Dave Wendt says:

    wayne says:
    April 30, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    “Thanks for the clarification. That’s right, I did that just to say if all ice instantly melted, what would the rise be we are talk of, so in reality knock the 6.9mm way, way down. Besides, that’s a bit comical number, all of the ice, both poles, is never going to melt simultaneously unless the sun has a major hand in it and that’s something we can pray never happens.”

    Actually if you examine the charts at CT you’ll see that between the Arctic and Antarctic the planet has managed to lose and recreate an amount of sea ice slightly larger than the yearly maximum every year since we started measuring with the satellites and in all probability for a long time before that. For some perspective on the scale of this, the amount of sea ice that has come and gone and come again every year is about 3 times the area of the lower 48 states of the US and if the Arctic ever did become ice free in some future summer it would only be a 20% increase in the regular flux globally. It’s something to keep in mind when another scare story about an iceberg half the size of Rhode Island pops up. No matter how big the berg is, it’s still a drop in the bucket of the constant annual loss.

  144. Rabe says:

    They are completely wrong u no. About more than half the rain coming down over the oceans [I calculated that from the area of the oceans and the land and u no there is plenty of rain over here where I live and not considering the deserts because there are no deserts on the ocean] which is what lets the sea levels rise u no.

  145. Ron says:

    I’ve just done a quick calculation on the assumption that the 742 km3 of sea ice are melted by cooling the the water of the oceans (reasonable since they are mainly below sea level). This causes the oceans to contract and reduce in level. It seems to me that causes a much larger fall in sea level than the rise quoted in the paper.

    Woulds some one who studied physics more recently than me like to do their own calulation and see what they come with.

  146. Peter Miller says:

    Off subject, but it seems that Mann started a trend and the new strategy of climate ‘scientists’ is to threaten to sue whoever and wherever possible. The discovery process in this one could be interesting:

    http://www.stockwatch.com/newsit/newsit_newsit.aspx?bid=Z-C:CGS-1714918&symbol=CGS&news_region=C

    I doubt if Canada’s National Post is going to be intimidated by this.

  147. kate. r. says:

    Dear Mod,
    I’m not sure if this is the correct place, but since the adoption of your ‘new look’, when I enter a comment, it just (albeit momentarily) vanishes into cyberspace, unlike the ‘old look’ where there was a somewhat comforting ‘your comment is in a queue waiting’ or some such.
    It makes me nervous, and I have to add extra ice to my martini.

    Oh, and as for rising sea levels, what’s a few naughts here and there between friends.

  148. Luboš Motl says:

    Well, Czech power plant Prunéřov also contributes just a few microns of sea level rise per century – and it was almost enough for its upgrade plans to be abandoned, because of Greenpeace and Micronesia claims that it will sink the islands.

    It was a real threat before the new environment minister – a technically educated woman – canceled the climate department of the environment ministry and gave green light to the coal plant’s plans. ;-)

    At any rate, microns of sea level rise *can* sometimes have a big impact (if there is a sufficient number of green, mouldy brains around).

  149. Tenuc says:

    Oh dear, another money grubbing group of climate scientists who don’t understand basic physics!

    The enthalpy of fusion of ice melt is endothermic, meaning that the system absorbs energy on going from solid to liquid at 334j/g. As around 90% of floating ice is below the water level, the bulk of the heat energy to melt it has to be come from the sea.

    Sea water has a positive temperature coefficient of expansion down to the freezing point, so as the ice cools the see the water will shrink and the level will reduce.

    Ice also contains air pockets which decreases it’s density. This too will reduce the volume as it melts.

    Empirical evidence shows that that Arctic sea levels have reduced by around 2mm per year as sea ice declined, which seems to support the above reasoning. Article here:-

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5076322.stm?ls

  150. Alexander says:

    Man’s gullibility seems to rise in tandem with the rise in general literacy.

  151. Pingo says:

    Nice to see our local university getting the headlines. I occasionally walk through their grounds on a shortcut. Maybe I should pay this department a visit to see when they are going to do some real work?

  152. Blueridge says:

    Floating ice will not raise sea level one iota if it melts.

  153. Rob uk says:

    How do they get funding for such rubbish.

  154. Allan M says:

    This amounts to 1342.465753 Angstrom units per day. This is scary stuff!
    Or a waste of calculator batteries.

  155. wayne says:

    Even though Professor Shepherd comments were tainted to the alarmist side, we need to thank him for one, being accurate, I checked the 2.6% effect and that is correct, even though I never, never would have believed it yesterday. Archimedes did only claim it was the mass displaced, not necessary the volume. Beacause of some of it’s bizarre properties, that’s another weird thing that water does do. :-)

    Two, it’s not his fault that MSM went bonkers over an article that makes CAGW alarmists look totally foolish if they place any weight on this particular subject.

    Three, this has bolstered the skeptical view of this on-going discussion around the world, remember, most of the world is metric and they do get the correct gist.

    Thank you Professor Shepherd even though your 49 µm/year is not going to happen any time soon, the global sea-ice is increasing and your effect does, in fact, also work in reverse. The sea level is now dropping some N µm per year from your effect. I honestly learned some real physics from you today!

  156. Dartmoor Resident says:

    Somewhat OT, but can someone help me, please, with figures for polar bear numbers. After publishing a brief “sceptic” view in a local magazine a response has just been published saying polar bear numbers are “not only dropping, but they are dropping faster”. This was apparently on the basis of a 2009 survey of 19 sub-populations (with 2005 numbers in brackets) saying: increasing 1(2), stable 3(5), decreasing 8(5).

    I am sure I have seen figures somewhere recently showing that at least as many sub-populations are increasing as decreasing. Can anyone point me at relevant figures or articles, please.

  157. Bengt Abelsson says:

    We are to be saved!
    The combined dredging operations worldwide are lowering the sealevel.
    Suppose they dredge 5 kubic km per year – 102.000.000 m3 at Jurong II as an example and thats only one project.
    5 km3 equals 0,015 mm of sea level change.

  158. maz2 says:

    Al Gore’s Weather (AGW) : Free m and m.

    More “mangled” more “moribund”.

    C’monna to mah Tower of Babel.

    It’s a dialogue, the “Petersberg Climate Dialogue”, “More than three dozen environment ministers” = +36. A dialogue?

    AGW’s Tower Of Babel.
    …-

    “Environment ministers gather in Bonn to save climate talks”

    “More than three dozen environment ministers are to meet near Bonn this weekend in a bid to revive global climate talks left mangled and moribund after the UN summit in Copenhagen.”

    It will be the highest-level political meeting on climate since the much-criticised December conference fell spectacularly short of delivering the binding treaty that nearly all nations say is needed to spare the planet from the worst ravages of global warming.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, host to the next UN conference in Cancun at year’s end, will kick things off late Sunday, setting the tone for the two-and-a-half-day closed-door brainstorming session.

    “It is the return of the ministers, who are there to give political guidance to (technical) negotiators,” said Brice Lalonde, France’s climate ambassador. “What counts at this point is political initiative.”

    One avowed aim of the Petersberg Climate Dialogue – named for the castle where it is to be held – is confidence building.”
    http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20100430-26903.html

  159. pgosselin says:

    So Al Gore’s new home in Cal is safe! Whew!

  160. Steve Keohane says:

    Tom in Florida says:
    April 30, 2010 at 6:33 pm
    I wonder how much water is taken out for desalinization world wide.

    I don’t know, but another comparison is the amount of irrigation water pumped from the earth is a volume equal to 2mm/yr sea level rise, or about 2/3rds of the total 3.2mm/yr current rate. This may be totally off as I used UN guesstimates, but is an interesting perspective, IMHO.

  161. JER0ME says:

    I’m getting 21,000 hits.

    This one is going strong!

  162. ShrNfr says:

    Err, solid H2O is of greater volume than liquid H2O. Melting an iceberg lowers, not raises the sea level. Of course since the amount of ice in the Arctic is increasing we should in general thus see a sea level decrease from ice, rather than the reverse. In either case, the effect is horrifically small.

  163. Gail Combs says:

    Dartmoor Resident says:
    May 1, 2010 at 5:06 am

    Somewhat OT, but can someone help me, please, with figures for polar bear numbers.
    __________________________________________________________________
    Try this article: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/12/oh-no-not-this-rubbish-again-recent-projections-suggest-polar-bears-could-be-extinct-within-70-years/

    You can do a search using the search feature in the top right corner. Willis Eschenbach may have some answers for you if you can get his attention. (ask the question on his most recent article )

  164. Steve Keohane says:

    While we are on climate craziness, some time back I did a pixel count of the images CT uses when they added snow coverage to their image in late 2004. It appeared the snow impinged on the shoreline, reducing the sea area some .5 X 10^6 Km^2, coincidentally equal to the step function in their anomaly graph at 2005 on. This year they have expanded the diameter of the earth, but managed to shrink the arctic sea even more on a bigger earth. This is getting just too silly.
    http://i44.tinypic.com/2vrwuae.jpg
    In the above image, I created a two pixel wide shoreline on the 1979 image, no it isn’t perfect, but plenty close for examining gov’t work. I then transferred the same shoreline to the 2010 image, scaling it to the larger diameter of the recent image. The image speaks for itself.

  165. Charles Higley says:

    I do not care if seawater is saltier than the ice.

    Floating ice already displaces water. Melting of this ice does nothing. In fact, melting the entire Arctic ice cap would do NOTHING!

    In fact, sea ice has been unchanging, totaling Arctic and Antarctic, over the years and has been increasing lately as the Arctic has been rebounding nicely – currently at perfectly average area. for the last month.

    The laws of physics still apply, but since it has been politicized, it appears that the politicians’ lacky scientists can write it to be anything they desire.

  166. Stephen Skinner says:

    “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.”
    What? This doesn’t make any sense. The ice will displace it’s own weight, and what is this ‘ effect’?

    “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”.
    This is an absurd level of precision considering the scale of what is being measured, unless this is a big joke.

    “These changes have had major impacts on regional climate …”
    What are the major impacts?

    “Professor Shepherd and his team used a combination of satellite observations and a computer model to make their assessment”.
    So we have satellites that can measure in single microns? I thought GPS, for example, can achieve at best an accuracy or around 1.5 meters. If a computer model is giving this accuracy then what are the real world inputs and to what accuracy?

    “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”.
    Again. The ice will displace it’s own weight so it doesn’t matter if temperature or density changes as this will be reflected in how much ice sticks up above sea level, which will change accordingly.

  167. Ron says:

    Ref: Dartmoor resident 21 May 5.06

    I haven’t seen, but would like to, the 2009 polar bear figures. The 2005 figures showed that increase/decrease was largely linked to hunting.

    http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/polarbears.html

  168. Stephen Skinner says:

    The Atlantic is expanding do that the US and Europe move away from each other at around 4cm per year or around 30/40 meters in the last thousand years. This is a lot of extra ocean that must have an effect on weather, temps etc., and the wedge of Atlantic that cuts into the Arctic is only getting bigger.
    4cm is a bigger number than 49microns.

  169. Gail Combs says:

    Steve Keohane says:
    May 1, 2010 at 6:47 am

    While we are on climate craziness, some time back I did a pixel count of the images….
    ________________________

    Thank you Steve, I was wondering about that when I noticed the inlets on the coastlines had changed. Now we know the satellite ice data has “problems” SIGHhhhh….

    Arethere any data collections Not compromised by this politically motivated scientists???

  170. Kevin G says:

    Precipitation probably adds more to sea level rise than 1 micron. Better include that! Oh, and maybe there could be a super-saturated air mass with like 101% RH, better include the condensation of water vapor into the ocean until equilibrium is reached – that nanometer/decade rise is really important for long term projections and planning!

  171. Michael Damiani says:

    49 micrometers per yrear an 526 years to get a reduction of one inch? My….the horror….the horror…

  172. Tenuc says:

    Steve Keohane says:
    May 1, 2010 at 6:47 am
    “… This is getting just too silly.
    http://i44.tinypic.com/2vrwuae.jpg
    In the above image, I created a two pixel wide shoreline on the 1979 image, no it isn’t perfect, but plenty close for examining gov’t work. I then transferred the same shoreline to the 2010 image, scaling it to the larger diameter of the recent image. The image speaks for itself.”

    Well, the had to do something to hide the increase! Well spotted Steve, another landmark event in climate pseudo-science.

  173. Indiana Bones says:

    At this rate of sea level rise a vulnerable city like Miami will be completely under water in 69,432 years. No laughing matter.

  174. maz2 says:

    Al Gore’s Weather (AGW): Ah always shower after Ah have a record low “cold snap”.

    ““In more than 30 years of harvesting I haven’t seen anything like it,”.

    “Thursday’s high in Seoul, 7.8 degrees Celsius (46 degrees Fahrenheit), was a record low for that date. The previous record for a cold day in April was 10.1 degrees in 1962.”

    …-

    “S. Korea: Cold snap wilts crops, inflates market prices

    JoongAng Daily

    Baby, it’s cold outside. And that’s why you’re spending more at the fruit, vegetable and fish markets.

    Although the temperature yesterday was up a bit, Thursday’s high in Seoul, 7.8 degrees Celsius (46 degrees Fahrenheit), was a record low for that date. The previous record for a cold day in April was 10.1 degrees in 1962.

    It even snowed in Gangwon yesterday.

    The Korea Meteorological Administration said the recent temperature drop was largely due to cold air (below 30 degrees Celsius) blowing in from Siberia, and that temperatures will likely return to normal levels by this weekend.

    “In more than 30 years of harvesting I haven’t seen anything like it, and we’ve been through numerous natural disasters like storms and hail,” said Kim Joong-bong, 51, a persimmon and pear farmer who represents the farming community in Sangju, North Gyeongsang. According to the Korea Advanced Farmers Federation, North Gyeonsgang is the area most affected by the recent cold snap.

    “Some of the pear farms have suffered tremendously,” said Kim, “with more than 90 percent of their trees dying.”

    According to the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, damage to onion and Korean black raspberry crops in March totaled 2.6 billion won ($2.3 million). More damage estimates will be made in May.

    “It’s hard to tell how much of the agricultural goods have been affected by the recent temperature drop since we need to wait until the flowers blossom,” said an official with the agriculture ministry, requesting anonymity. “But one thing for sure is that the damage will be enormous compared to previous years.” Farmers have been having trouble with bad weather and lack of sunshine since last December.”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2504539/posts

  175. Dan says:

    Could it be they are telling us “Don’t worry about ice melting, you won’t even notice it” in a way that doesn’t take away all their grants for being anti-AGW?

  176. wayne says:

    Stephen Skinner says: May 1, 2010 at 7:02 am

    “Again. The ice will displace it’s own weight so it doesn’t matter if temperature or density changes as this will be reflected in how much ice sticks up above sea level, which will change accordingly.”

    You know, when I first read this article this morning I was saying the same thing you are saying. Archimedes wrong in this case, poppy cock! But I love physics and I just had to test this out. These are the weird things that make physics enjoyable and fascinating.
    So I went to wiki and got the densities of ice, water, and sea-water. Set up a thought experiment with 10x10x10 cm cube beaker (1000 ml) with a 500 cm3 (or ml) cube of ice in it and then fill it to the brim with sea-water. Get that in your mind. The ice sticks ~10% above the rim of the beaker of coarse.
    The rest is rather easy to calculate, but I will be darned, he is correct. The volume of the melted ice, even though it sticks out of the beaker will be larger than the “hole” that the floating ice creates and occupies in the sea water. Amazing. I spent a good bit of today checking and double checking the calculations. I kept coming up with 2.5%, not 2.6% difference. Close enough.
    Now that’s interesting to me. If he’s right (and now me), and it appears it is so, and it’s proper physics, then he deserves at least a nod for his honesty and foresight. Here is some unexpected science. We have seen so many things coming out of the AGW camp that are blatantly distorted, manufactured, and manipulated in science and physics that is hard to believe that any thing coming out from that side is true. But this one does appear so.
    But put it in perspective, I also calculated base on that 2.5-2.6% difference and the effect is TINY. As I stated above, ALL of sea ice in the entire world if melted at once would only raise the oceans 7 millimeters, not centimeters. That’s about the width of a pencil or the diameter of a pea. If you were standing at sea level the rise would barely cover the soles of your shoes. Now that’s comical! How do you make a scare story from that?
    But if your interested in a quirk about Archimedes principle, here are the three densities to compute it yourself, 0.9167 for ice, 1.0 for water, and 1.025 for sea water all in g/ml (same as g/cm3). The key is the volumes, not the mass that does this since water expands when frozen and salt water is ~2.5% denser than water, so Archimedes was still right all along, he was only measuring mass.

  177. Ron Manley says:

    Since no one has taken up my challenge to look at physics I’ll have to do it myself.
    We can assume that the ice would melt by cooling the sea water

    To melt ice requires 334 kJ/kg. According to the paper 742 km3 of ice are melting each year. This therefore requires
    334 kJ/kg * 742 km3 * 10^12 kg/km3 = 2.48 * E17 kJ.

    The volume of the ocean is 1.37 E6 so its temperature would drop by:
    2.48 E17 kJ / ( 4.186 kJ/C/kg * 1.37 E6 km3 * 1 E12 kg/km3 ) = 0.0435 C.

    The coefficient of thermal expansion of water is 207 E-6. So the volume of the ocean would reduce by:
    0.0435 C * 207 E-6 /C * 1.36 E6 km3 = 12.3 km3.

    The surface area of the ocean is 316 E6 km2. So the fall (note fall not rise) in ocean level would be:
    12.3 km3 / 316 E6 km2 *1E9 mm/km = 38.8 mm. (this is per year)

    Which is almost three orders of magnitude larger than the 49 micrometers due to different densities.

    It seems a big difference so can someone please check.

  178. HaroldW says:

    @Steve Keohane (May 1, 2010 at 6:47 am)
    The side-by-side pictures at http://i44.tinypic.com/2vrwuae.jpg are at slightly different scales, so transferring a template from one image to another must be done with allowance for this change. If you compare the number of pixels between the top or bottom of the image, and the edge of the earth, it’s clear that there is less margin area in the later (2010) image.

    A likely cause of this effect would be a reduction in satellite altitude between the image capture times. Other things being equal, at a lower altitude the earth will subtend more pixels in the image.

  179. VicV says:

    Smokey says:
    April 30, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    May have been posted before, but well worth posting again:

    http://www.blip.tv/file/3539174

    Thanks, Smokey. I’ll be sending this link along to people I know.

    For those who haven’t checked it out, it’s segments by Pat Michaels and Joe D’Aleo in a congressional briefing on Climategate that occurred 2 weeks ago. D’Aleo’s a little hard to follow, but if you stick with it, it’s worth it.

    FWIW, I emailed Hannah Isom in the University of Leeds press office asking if the “Recent loss of floating ice and the consequent sea level contribution” report is some kind of farce published to show how silly some research can get. An auto-reply says she’s out of the office until Tuesday. I suspect I’ll get no reply from Hannah herself, but if I do and it still seems relevant, I’ll post it in Tips and Notes.

  180. skinneejay says:

    I’m reminded of a joke:
    “Earth and Venus may collide in 5 billion years. We must act NOW!!!!”

    I remember how they say religion only makes people afraid. Science should not go that away. The article sounds more like a satire.

  181. Grumpy Old Man says:

    Microns or whatever; as a famous tennis player once said ‘You cannot be serious’.

  182. Alan Clark says:

    The obvious fix for sea-level rise is to call Exxon-Mobil and Shell to the rescue. A few waterflood projects where they take water from the ocean to pump into oil formations will be good for oil production and keep those nasty waves at bay. There! Problem solved.

  183. Spector says:

    RE: Climate Craziness —
    I see that a notorious Wikipedia censor has just written a number of articles critical of Dr. Judith Curry and her effort to bridge the gap between both sides on the AGW issue.

  184. Richard M says:

    Nice set of graphics Steve Keohane. I had came to the same conclusion just based on eyeballing the side-by-side pictures awhile ago, however, your work shows the changes much better.

    Any idea how much this affects the total ice area?

  185. wayne says:

    Ron Manley says:
    May 1, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Your right, it is off by exactly 3 orders, in the bottom equation mm/km is 1e6, not 1e9.

  186. Al Gored says:

    Sean Peake says:
    May 1, 2010 at 12:55 am
    Way, way OT

    Hi Sean – Thanks very much for that! I am familar with some of that but some I’ve never seen before. But we really do need to get in direct contact as I may be able to clarify some things about them which you would probably like to know before going to print.

    Did you see anything in his daily journals?

    In the meantime I’m going to think of some kind of Thompson-related code for getting you my email address. For starters, I have a yahoo.com adress for net related things. It has a seven character prefix. Now to figure out how to communicate that part.

    And thanks in advance to Anthony or mod for allowing this way, way OT chat.

  187. Al Gored says:

    Gail Combs says:
    May 1, 2010 at 6:47 am
    Dartmoor Resident says:
    May 1, 2010 at 5:06 am

    Somewhat OT, but can someone help me, please, with figures for polar bear numbers.
    __________________________________________________________________
    Try this article: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/12/oh-no-not-this-rubbish-again-recent-projections-suggest-polar-bears-could-be-extinct-within-70-years/

    ———–

    Had not seen this article before. Sums things up very well!

  188. Al Gored says:

    Sean Peake – Do you have Glover 1962 handy?

  189. Pete says:

    Insane that funding would be available for such nonsense. I had to come here to find sanity after trying to bring some empirical truths to the comment section of an AL Gore article in the HUff Post. They stopped posting my comments after a while even though I violated no terms of service. I guess it’s bad form to provide facts. They couldn’t dismiss me as a right wing wacko.

  190. Al Gored says:

    Pete – I guess that means you didn’t earn your little ‘Community Moderator’ badge for deleting your quota of inconvenient/heretical comments there? I looked at that site recently and couldn’t believe that set up. Chairman Mao’s block snitches – or is it ‘ideological peer review’ – on the net! And I noticed that even some of the regulars there (judging by their other little badges) were disgusted by that new Orwellian approach. Its a sick joke… unless you are a big fan of groupthink. But I guess that group will soon have that place all to themselves, and can then claim that ‘the consensus agrees that [whatever]”

    No loss really. The level of discourse there is, well, … hmmm… how to say it nicely… oh, never mind.

  191. DirkH says:

    Increased evaporation in a warmer world could offset the 49 micrometers. If not, we could carry battery-operated hairdryers with us to dry our way to safety should we get trapped by a 49 micrometer flooding. Charged with wind power generated electricity; better safe than sorry.

  192. James of Oz says:

    NSIDC shows we are heading for the great sea ice barrier again. Maybe in early May we will be above the ’79-’00 average for sea ice extent.

    Did anybody else notice last months summary – NSIDC says a “cold snap” caused the late peak in sea ice extent but when i looked at temps above 80 degrees north it looked warmer in 2010 than it did in 2009 when ice peaked?

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    I would have thought atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns are the factor that has a biggest year to year impact on sea ice extent. It is well below freezing temperature in the arctic every year. What is NSIDC on about in the March summary?

  193. JER0ME says:

    A lot of people are claiming that since any floating object will displace it’s own weight of the medium it is floating in, if ice melts it will make no difference. That has been known for a while.

    That is true if ice is floating in pure water, since the mass of water displaced will be the exact same volume as the water it becomes. If the ice is floating in a heavier medium, such as salt water, the volume of water it melts into is more than the volume of sea water it displaced as ice.

    So the water will rise. The point being made here is not that, however, but that the rise is almost impossible to measure, and laughably insignificant.

    Apols if this has been pointed out already.

  194. jaymam says:

    Charles Higley, surely you don’t believe that Professor Andrew Shepherd would write an article with such an error of basic physics. He would be a laughing stock if he did so and his PhD would be ripped off him.
    No, I believe the Professor is right, except for the scary headline. The headline should read “Melting icebergs causing infinitesimal sea level rise, then they refreeze”.
    But why are we arguing about theory? Let’s do some real science and do an experiment. I hope to show the results of my experiment in a day or so.

  195. jaymam says:

    A slight problem with my experiment:- I wanted to freeze salt water to get the expected mostly-water ice cube, but the salt water has all frozen rather nicely. The level has stayed the same before and after the freezing and after the thawing.
    The experiment has already been done here:
    http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html

    but I wanted to see the level before the ice cube was formed.
    Problems with that experiment: – the scale is upside down and zero is not at the bottom and the photos were taken from different angles.

  196. If “small comets” contribution to the earth;s ecosystem is true, the science not being settled yet, then there is nothing that can stop a sea level rise.

    I can imagine that, considering the implications, the the “science” will never be settled.

  197. Steve Keohane says:

    HaroldW says:May 1, 2010 at 8:35 am@Steve Keohane (May 1, 2010 at 6:47 am)
    The side-by-side pictures at http://i44.tinypic.com/2vrwuae.jpg are at slightly different scales, so transferring a template from one image to another must be done with allowance for this change.
    Precisely, as I noted I scaled the outline from the first image to the diameter of the second.
    A likely cause of this effect would be a reduction in satellite altitude between the image capture times. Other things being equal, at a lower altitude the earth will subtend more pixels in the image. A reduction in altitude would increase the relative size of the center of the image, the arctic, rather than reduce the arctic relative to the overall diameter as we see here.

    Richard M says:May 1, 2010 at 10:32 am Nice set of graphics Steve Keohane. I had came to the same conclusion just based on eyeballing the side-by-side pictures awhile ago, however, your work shows the changes much better.
    Any idea how much this affects the total ice area?
    Without spending a few hours separating colors and getting a pixel count, my guess is it is on the order of ((.5-1.0) x 10^6) Km^2. I have no idea what they are trying to do fiddling with their representation.
    If they are trying to make it visually clearer, why make the earth bigger with a smaller arctic, the inverse would be more pragmatic. While I do not understand the intent, there has to be a reason for the format changes in 2004 and 2010. I could see in 2004 where a better discernment between ice and snow could have led to a reduction in sea area counted. However, if true, then the past measurements were too high, and the current bar for mean/normal ice is too high, and the past measurements should have been reduced. The distribution of ice anomalies for the arctic is not a ‘normal’ distribution. It is much more difficult to get positive anomalies because the sea is basically landlocked.

  198. Sean Peake says:

    Al Gored says:
    May 1, 2010 at 1:07 pm
    Sean Peake – Do you have Glover 1962 handy?

    Not at the moment. Why?

  199. Dartmoor Resident says:

    Thank you to those who gave me some leads on polar bear numbers (see comment above). I have now found that the 2009 figures for declining sub-populations are given in the press release of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group meeting prior to Copenhagen last year. I note that this is the group that barred Dr Mitchell Taylor (who said all but 2 of the 19 sub-populations of polar bears were increasing or at optimum numbers) because his views “running counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”!

    This is something that IMHO should NEVER happen whoever is correct about the numbers.

  200. Sean Peake says:

    Al Gored, try to reach me thru LinkedIn or FB. I’m in Toronto

  201. Mike Ozanne says:

    OK I confess, not done real physics for , well many years. but if i’ve got x megatons of ice floating in the oggin they’ll displace x megatons of water, when it melts to x megatons of water and stops displacing the same mass shouldn’t it even out? In fact as the density of water is highest at 4C shouldn’t it fall in volume until it warms significantly above that point?

  202. David K says:

    Of course, “recent” “floating ice” is only “recent” “floating ice.” Not the totality of floating ice. And not the much larger amount of ice sitting on top of land that, if melted, would increase sea level by meters.

    So either the blogger is completely ignorant or is intentionally trying to misrepresent the information.

    Or, of course, both.

  203. Stephen Skinner says:

    wayne says:
    May 1, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Ron Manley says:
    May 1, 2010 at 8:31 am

    jaymam says:
    May 1, 2010 at 5:42 pm
    “Charles Higley, surely you don’t believe that Professor Andrew Shepherd would write an article with such an error of basic physics”.
    “That is true if ice is floating in pure water, since the mass of water displaced will be the exact same volume as the water it becomes. If the ice is floating in a heavier medium, such as salt water, the volume of water it melts into is more than the volume of sea water it displaced as ice”.

    Yes, in an experiment where we have fresh water ice floating in salt water done in isolation to what actually takes place. All sea ice began as frozen salt water and over time loses the salt to become fresh water. To suggest that when this same frozen water is melted we have a rise in sea level means somehow we end up with more water than we started with.
    One should run this experiment over several cycles of freezing and melting and using a single source of salt water.

  204. josh says:

    I wonder how much all the sediment from rivers
    & other sources raise sea level?

  205. Stephen Skinner says:

    Stephen Skinner says:
    May 3, 2010 at 2:48 pm
    wayne says:
    May 1, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Ron Manley says:
    May 1, 2010 at 8:31 am

    jaymam says:
    May 1, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    I concede that if all the sea ice melted there would be a rise in sea level. I was looking at it from a starting point of unfrozen sea water and of course in the case of the Arctic it is never completely unfrozen. However Jaymen’s point that any such rise is negligable should be stated which I suppose it is with “49 micrometers per year”. I still find this level of accuracy interesting though. Why not make it a round 50 micrometers?

  206. jaymam says:

    I’ve done the experiment with a test tube containing salt water with an equal volume of pure ice floating in it. When the ice melts the level rises about 2.5% (by 11 pixels over 441 pixels).

    http://i43.tinypic.com/2dhsbyb.jpg

    I was going to do it again more carefully but I think this is good enough for me.

    The final conclusion should be:- if lots of sea ice melts, there will be a global sea level rise of a few thousandths of an inch. When new sea ice is created each year the sea level will drop again.

Comments are closed.