Reuters: World Meteorological Organization says "This year so far coolest for at least 5 years"

Hi John,
I covered your response on Antarctica, so now I’ll cover Greenland.
Believe you have the links to the 2005 Johannessen et al. study and the 2006 Zwally et al. study. If not, here is another link to Johannessen:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356v1
Johannessen et al. analyzed European remote sensing (ERS) satellite altimeter echoes, taken on a 365-day 24/7 basis from mid-April 1992 to mid-April 2003, to encompass 11 years of continuous measurement of the Greenland ice sheet. These showed significant growth in the higher elevation interior regions (previously assumed to be in balance) and a spatially averaged increase of 54±2 cm over the entire study area for this period when corrected for isostatic uplift. The study covered 1.4 out of the 1.7 million square kilometers of the GIS, since marginal areas along the coast with steep contours could not be accurately measured.
A subsequent study by Zwally et al. took the data used by Johannessen and extended the coverage to include essentially all of the GIS by adding measurements made by the Airborne Topographic Mapper (ATM) laser altimeter method to cover the previously omitted coastal marginal areas.
The authors also converted the altitude readings to a mass balance, concluding that the GIS gained a net 11±3 Gigatons/year over the period. Unfortunately, Zwally truncated a six-month cold season from the Johannessen data (October 2002 to April 2003), a period with heavy snowfall. The seasonal variations are quite large. Adding this period back in with the data reported by Johannessen would result in a net growth of around 23 Gt/year instead of 11 Gt/year, as reported by Zwally.
But ignoring this strange truncation, the authors still report a net mass gain of 11±3 Gt/year for the entire GIS over the 11-year period from April 1992 to October 2002.
This is the same period for which IPCC 2007 SPM states a loss of mass equivalent to an increase in sea level of 0.21±0.07 mm per year, or 71±23 Gt/year.
Since the IPCC claim is clearly contradicted by the Zwally et al. and Johannessen studies, it follows that IPCC ignored (or “rejected”, or “refused to accept as correct”) published data (these studies) that contradicted its claim of net loss in the AIS equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003.
There are many reports out there, such as the many other studies, which you cited, that cover pieces of this time period or other time frames entirely, but none of these cover the entire period of the Johannessen/Zwally reports or the IPCC claim, so are irrelevant to our discussion.
Regards,
Max

In my opinion you are selectively ignoring articles to justify your conclusion. Instead of saying that 11 years from 1993 is relevant, one could argue that what is happening recently is more important. Also, unlike your claim, many of these authors I quoted covered a significant period [four or six years: Chylek et. al 2000-2006, Scott uses Radar altimeters (from 2004), Nerem’s is a review covering 50 years, Lombard A, Garcia D from 2002-2006, etc]. Nerem wrote “The average rate of sea-level change obtained from tide gauges over the last 50 years is +1.8 +/- 0.3 mm yr(-1). In comparison, altimeter measurements from TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 have shown an average rise of +3.1 +/- 0.4 turn yr(-1) since 1993.” So, where exactly is the problem?
Please clarify exactly what you are suggesting: (a) sea level is not rising? (b) Ice sheets are thickening? (c) Oceans not warming? (d) All of the previous three are happening at the same time? (e) There are disagreements in published results?
About Greenland (and also about Antarctica) Shepherd/Wingham study covered a decade, and I quoted what they had to say. I really do not understand how the Wingham study supports your claim, he agrees with the measured sea level rise and then suggesting to look for some other mechanisms to explain that instead of Antartican ice melt. Do you agree with Zwally when he wrote “Thinning at the margins of the Greenland ice sheet and growth at higher elevations is an expected response to increasing temperatures and precipitation in a warming climate”?

Hi John,
You just wrote, “In my opinion you are selectively ignoring articles to justify your conclusion. Instead of saying that 11 years from 1993 is relevant, one could argue that what is happening recently is more important.”
This is a nice statement, John, but it misses the point.
The period 1993-2003 is the time frame during which
1. Wingham showed a net mass gain in the AIS of 27 Gt/year
2. IPCC made a claim of net mass loss in the AIS of 71 Gt/year
You claim that I am “selectively ignoring articles to justify your conclusion”.
“My conclusion” was that IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) published data that directly contradicted its claim of AIS ice mass loss over the period 1993-2003.
Any other studies covering other time frames or other locations are irrelevant to the fact that “my conclusion” is correct, which I will repeat, so there is no confusion:
IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) published data that directly contradicted its claim of AIS ice mass loss over the period 1993-2003.
Regards,
Max

Well, I am not defending IPCC, and I have never read the report and I don’t plan to (since I have better things to do). Even if you are comparing with IPCC, I think they covered themselves well when they used an error estimate that is greater than the mean (I know you pointed it out earlier – but how often do we estimates like 0.21 ± 0.35 for sea level rise from Antartic ice sheets?). I am sure they did not come to this conclusion by just ignoring one paper and cooking up the rest, I am certain they had enough references to come to that error estimate. IPCC also wrote “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance. {10.7}”. I do not see them dismissing anything here. There is no contradiction. But I am more interested in what is actually happening and what will happen (from journals) than what IPCC said will happen.

Hi John,
You stated, “There is no contradiction. But I am more interested in what is actually happening and what will happen (from journals) than what IPCC said will happen.”
The second part of this statement may make sense, but the first part does not.
As I stated at the very beginning there is a contradiction in what IPCC said has happened and what the facts on the ground say has happened to both Greenland and Antarctic sea ice over the period 1993-2003.
It may not be interesting to you, but it should be.
A lot of taxpayer money has gone into the IPCC AR4 report and the IPCC 2007 summary for policymakers.
If these reports are making false claims about melting ice sheets that are in fact not melting over the time period that they cite, then this is misleading and inexcusable.
Even worse, John, if IPCC cannot even get the past record right, how is one to believe that they can forecast what will happen over the next 100 years?
And that was my point.
And there are many other examples of this, as well.
Regards,
Max

Hi John,
You wrote, “I am not sure how this is a contradiction when Johannessen’s conclusion clearly falls within IPCC’s range of 0.21 ± 0.35 mm/year.”
You’ve got it a bit mixed up here, John.
The conclusion of the Johannessen/Zwally studies, which I cited, were for Greenland.
The IPCC range of -0.21 ± 0.35 mm/year is for Antarctica. For Greenland it was -0.21 ± 0.07 mm/year.
Your suggestion that “a small piece of the IPCC projected ranges for the two locations were also in the Johannessen/Zwally or Wingham ranges for these locations, therefore there is no contradiction” is patently absurd, John. Give up on that line of reasoning and face the facts.
You wrote, “Obviously IPCC relied on other works in addition to Johannessen et al, to arrive at this conclusion, otherwise the mean and error would have been different.”
This statement is rather speculative. I never claimed that IPCC ignored ALL studies, but as I pointed out earlier, there were NO other studies for either location that covered the entire time frame 1993-2003 except those studies I cited, which were ignored by IPCC.
These studies showed net mass gain in both locations over this entire time frame, while IPCC claimed net mass loss in both locations over exactly the same time period.
Therefore, it is pretty obvious that IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) studies that contradicted the IPCC claim of net ice mass loss of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
It’s just that simple, John.
Unless you can come up with studies covering exactly this entire time period and showing net ice loss, you will have to admit that my statement is true, no matter how unpleasant it may be for you to acknowledge.
Regards,
Max
PS I will be gone for a couple of days, so will not be able to post. When I return, we can start discussing sea levels, where there is also an IPCC problem, if you are interested.

Hi John,
You wrote: “A contradiction involves “A” and “not-A” being true at the same time, it is not the case here, and my statement is perfectly valid [see any classic book on logic – eg. Methods of Logic, Quine]. At best you can claim some inconsistencies. But even that is not true. IPCC prediction falls within the range of Wingham and others. This estimate of ( 0.21 ± 0.35) could imply 2.1 mm rise or no rise at all or 0.1 mm sea level fall. The probability is the same for each case; as far as I can see, IPCC did not say which is more probable in these error estimates. There is no contradiction, not even any inconsistencies..”
Lots of nice words, John, but lets look at the facts.
IPCC states for Greenland: -0.21 ± 0.07, (i.e. a range of –0.14 to –0.28 mm/year). This is equivalent to a mass loss of –47 to –95 Gt/year.
Johannessen/Zwally measured for Greenland (using Zwally’s numbers that truncated one entire cold 6 months from the Johannessen record): +11 ± 3 Gt/year, which equals a mass gain of +8 to +14 Gt/year.
And you see no contradiction, not even any inconsistencies?
Get serious, John.
Regards,
Max

Hi John,
You are waffling. Do you first want to admit you were dead wrong on Greenland?
Then we can move back to Antarctica, where I will show you that you were wrong there, as well.
Regards,
Max

One more thing, I would stay away from calling the other person to be wrong – no one really knows what is right and what is wrong in these cases, there is so much disagreements, and we do not have all the facts. All we can claim here is whether the known facts justify the claims one make.

Hi John,
We’ve beaten the GIS/AIS ice mass story to death , with the conclusion that you have been unable to disprove my statement that IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) published studies covering the period 1993-2003 with continuous measurements, which concluded that both GIS and AIS gained mass over this period when it made its directly contradictory claim of net ice mass loss over the same period.
So let’s move on to sea level.
IPCC 2007 SPM claims a faster rate in sea level rise in the period 1993-2003 over earlier periods (pp.5,7). “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear.”
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
The actual measured record based on tide gauges shows significant up and down swings in rate of change (from positive to negative), but an overall slowing down instead of an acceleration, with the rise in sea level in the second half of the 20th century significantly lower than the rise in the first half.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
This report concludes: “Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.”
Another 2003 study concludes, “In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillating close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890–1930. Between 1930 and 1950, sea fell. The late 20th century lacks any sign of acceleration.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF0-49C5G0W-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d471cc450145c491b716051f36f61df5
In other words, an acceleration in sea level rise as suggested by IPCC is not supported by the tide gage record.
Prior to 1993 IPCC uses the tide gage record of sea level, which records measurements at several shorelines; in 1993 this was changed to satellite altimetry, which measures the entire ocean. The change in method coincides with an apparent acceleration of sea level rise over previous periods. IPCC throws out the tide gauge record, which shows significant fluctuations but no such acceleration. To compare one set of results using one method covering one scope over one time period (prior to 1993) with another set of results using a different method covering a different scope over another time period (after 1993) and then using this cobbled-together record to claim an acceleration trend between the two time periods is bad science, at best, especially if the record for the latter time period which uses the same method and covers the same scope for both periods and shows no acceleration is ignored.
A more recent study using satellite altimetric data entitled “Decadal Trends in Sea Level Patterns: 1993-2004” concluded that the increase over this period was 1.6 mm/year (or around one-half the rate reported by IPCC and slightly lower than the average for the entire 20th century). It did conclude, however that “systematic errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change” and the [satellite] “database is insufficient to compute sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming”.
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf
Despite the reservations stated above, the impression is given by IPCC that satellite altimetry provides a more accurate methodology for measuring sea level trends than the older tide gages, “These estimates are based on improved satellite and in situ data now available.”
Based on the evaluation of the scientists directly involved in satellite altimetry to measure sea levels, it appears that the above-stated reservations on the accuracy of this method are well founded and the IPCC statement referring to “improved satellite data” is a bit of a stretch.
A report by one of the NOAA scientists directly involved casts serious doubt on the validity of satellite altimetry for measuring sea levels, concluding, ”every few years we learn about mishaps or drifts in the altimeter instruments, errors in the data processing or instabilities in the ancillary data that result in rates of change that easily exceed the formal error estimate, if not the rate estimate itself.” “It seems that the more missions are added to the melting pot, the more uncertain the altimetric sea level change results become.”
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU04/05276/EGU04-J-05276.pdf
All in all, it appears that IPCC is on very weak ground in its claim of accelerated sea level rise in the period 1993-2003 over earlier periods.
A more correct conclusion would have been, “Observations show large oscillations in the rate of sea level rise, with an underlying trend of -1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr over the 20th century and a slight reduction in the rate of rise in the latter 20th century as compared to earlier periods. New satellite altimetry measurements promise another source of data, but this methodology is still in its infancy for sea level measurement, and unable to provide accurate trend data today.”
That would have been a true and honest statement.
Regards,
Max

Max,
Almost every paper in this field has a qualifying statement (as given in starting line of the abstract I am including; this study covers observations for 14 years, longer than Wingham). Given that uncertainty, if you believe that there is a direct contradiction between IPCC estimate of -71 ± 118 Gt/year and Wingham’s observation of 27 ± 29 Gt/year, I really cannot argue much more, other than to say, I wish you all the best in your belief. You seem to indicate that IPCC should have taken only Wingham’s work and nothing else. But there were more than 14 studies based on satellite estimates. We all know that there are correction problems with satellite data. There are other measurements like InSAR mass budget, Gravimetry, etc. If you check Table 1 in Shepherd and Wingham, you will note that the Wingham study you always quote is not the one with the largest spatial coverage, There are other studies that cover the same time range and larger spatial range, and AIS calculations show large variations. The range is -139 to 42 (Mass balance) Gt year-1 as stated by Shepherd (In fact the earlier work by Wingham for the period 1992-1996 has an AIS estimate of -60 ± 76 Gt year-1). You are ignoring Shepherd and Wingham’s work and the one I quote below, and many other publications appeared before IPCC published their findings, and many of which indicate loss of ice mass in Antartic. I am sorry, IPCC’s range is accurate and reasonable, even as shown by recent papers after IPCC report was published. It is so clear that IPCC data does include the possibility of increasing Antartic ice mass. If you do not see that, I cannot go any further. I will see whether there is any point in discussing the Greenland case.
Author(s): Rignot E (Rignot, Eric), Bamber JL (Bamber, Jonathan L.), Van Den Broeke MR (Van Den Broeke, Michiel R.), Davis C (Davis, Curt), Li YH (Li, Yonghong), Van De Berg WJ (Van De Berg, Willem Jan), Van Meijgaard E (Van Meijgaard, Erik) Source: NATURE GEOSCIENCE Volume: 1 Issue: 2 Pages: 106-110 Published: FEB 2008
Abstract: Large uncertainties remain in the current and future contribution to sea level rise from Antarctica. Climate warming may increase snowfall in the continent’s interior(1-3), but enhance glacier discharge at the coast where warmer air and ocean temperatures erode the buttressing ice shelves(4-11). Here, we use satellite interferometric synthetic-aperture radar observations from 1992 to 2006 covering 85% of Antarctica’s coastline to estimate the total mass flux into the ocean. We compare the mass fluxes from large drainage basin units with interior snow accumulation calculated from a regional atmospheric climate model for 1980 to 2004. In East Antarctica, small glacier losses in Wilkes Land and glacier gains at the mouths of the Filchner and Ross ice shelves combine to a near-zero loss of 4 +/- 61 Gt yr(-1). In West Antarctica, widespread losses along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas increased the ice sheet loss by 59% in 10 years to reach 132 +/- 60 Gt yr(-1) in 2006. In the Peninsula, losses increased by 140% to reach 60 +/- 46 Gt yr(-1) in 2006. Losses are concentrated along narrow channels occupied by outlet glaciers and are caused by ongoing and past glacier acceleration. Changes in glacier flow therefore have a significant, if not dominant impact on ice sheet mass balance.

Max,
you said, “We’ve beaten the GIS/AIS ice mass story to death , with the conclusion that you have been unable to disprove my statement that IPCC ignored..”
I am sorry, I disagree with you both on Antartic and Greenland. First of all you have not proved anything for me to disprove. IPCC range includes the ranges identified in the papres you quoted and many others. I am fully convinced that you are picking the data you want to pick and ignoring the rest and then making a case just to get the conclusion that you want to get. Although I enjoyed this discussion, I am afraid we will not reach anywhere by continuing this.