NASA’s updated data appears to suggest the annual rate of global polar ice loss has actually decreased
Greenland’s Riviera – their green southwest. Will another Maunder minimum
grip the region in cages of ice again, or will bells ring in the portside squares,
as they did in the 1300’s before that cooling came, and ships sailed the fiords?
(Source: NASA)
Excerpt:
Washington Post correspondant Juliet Eilperin, in her 12-26-08 report entitled “New climate change estimates more pessimistic,” dutifully surveys the latest bleak findings of the climate change community. Her primary source is a recently released survey comissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program – expanding on the findings of the 2007 4th IPPC Report on Climate Change. Apparently this “new assessment suggests that earlier projections may have underestimated the climatic shifts that could take place by 2100.” One of Eilperin’s primary examples of alarming new data is reported as follows:
“In one of the reports most worrisome findings, the agency estimates that in light of recent ice sheet melting, global sea level rise could be as much as 4 feet by 2100. The IPCC had projected a sea level rise of no more than 1.5 feet by that time, but satellite data over the past two years show the world’s major ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than previously thought. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are now losing an average of 48 cubic miles of ice a year, equivalent to twice the amount of ice that exists in the Alps.”
Three years ago what NASA quantified as an alarming loss of annual ice loss from Greenland was easily demonstrated at that time to be an insignificant loss, and today NASA’s updated data appears to suggest the annual rate of global polar ice loss has actually decreased since then.
http://ecoworld.com/blog/2008/12/26/pessimistic-reporting-optimistic-data/
Adam Gallon,
I would surmise (without too much evidence) that it is the same David. The language he uses is very similar.
Words of advise Graeme, try to use up to date data when stating your case. The graph you used is most likely plucked from some denial site and is the cherry picked graph using the end point during the last strong La Nina. Next time try using up to date data from a reliable source, you obviously don’t do this and are content spewing out the usual garbage your ilk are inclined to do. This is the up to date graph from the same source as your outdated link http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.jpg
Notice anything (apart from the fact it now runs to October instead of February. See how the La Nina effect has now declined and the mean SL is now 1cm higher than your graph.
You mention in your posts a lot of pro AGW scientists nt reading their data ec. You have already shown that the only data you use are from the usual sites, conspiracy theorists etc. Try reading some real science, some recent peer reviewed papers perhaps, then you will see that AGW is real and happening.
To quote David “perhaps you might point me to just one scientific paper that you have published which corrects their work, or even just one scientific paper by an Australian Climate Sceptic on anthropogenic climate change in a peer reviewed journal in the last decade.
Lets change the request to “Point me to just one scientific paper ANYONE has published that corrects their work, or even just one published paper by ANY AGW sceptic in a peer reviewed Journal in the last decade”.
To add to the above post here is the recent graph with the seasonal signal removed, notice how it is still following the trend-line rise despite all the claims that sea level is static or even, as some posters have claimed, falling.
Ooops…the link http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg
tty (15:14:32) :
You hit the nail on its head!
My published letter to the editor of the International Herald Tribune made the same point:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/12/opinion/edletters.php
A self-inflicted problem
In “Climate change: With millions under threat, inaction is unethical” (Views, Sept. 10) the president of the Maldives, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, contends that the Maldives are threatened by climate change, yet he fails to acknowledge that coral islands have survived during a rise in sea levels of 120 meters since the last ice age.
Under natural conditions, coral is perfectly able to grow upwards, keeping pace with any relative rise in sea levels.
If someone has to be blamed for the eventual demise of any of the Pacific or Indian Ocean coral islands, it is the inhabitants themselves. They are the ones who are destroying the natural coral habitat by creating roads and buildings, allowing bad fishing practices and many forms of pollution. With dead coral, these islands have no natural mechanism to keep them above water. The inconvenient truth is that these islands are not sustainable under permanent human inhabitation.
Link to USGS report:
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap3-4/sap3-4-final-report-all.pdf
Please read and comment…
Well,
No response from Ms Blowhard Eilperin – gee, what a surprise!
She’s lucky not to be living in Biblical times. Back then people like her got their tongues cut out for talking such smack.
You’d be lucky to find a person to bet on 1.5 inches in the next five years.
As I said, the bet I posted at the start of this post was sent to Gavin, Schellnhuber and Ramstorf. Not one of them stirred – not even a mouse.
It’s because they are all a bunch of panic-mongering blowhards!!
And anyone that takes them even a fraction serious is a complete idiot.
Regarding Ric Werme (19:33:16) :
Few things will earn a college paper demerits quicker than quoting Wikipedia. Especially in issues regarding Climate Change, Wikipedia is nortoriously unreliable.
Yes, as a shrewd politician, the Governor General of Tuvalu blamed developed countries for his country’s woes. But his blame on global warming has more scientific problems than Obama’s statement about droughts and hurricanes. Politicians will take advantage of impressions created by MSM because our populace is so ill-informed and lacks critical analytical skills.
One thing that might trip up both sides on the Tuvalu sea level issue: La Nina vs. El Nino. When prevailing winds push water away from Tuvalu, its sea levels will fall. When prevailing winds push water toward Tuvalu, its measured sea levels will rise.
david c,
Cavalier is what I’d call Gore’s, Eilperin’s and Ramstorf’s baseless and gross SLR exaggerations.
Not only are they NOT willing to stand behind their own claims, but THEY REFUSE TO BACK UP A EVEN A MERE FRACTION OF WHAT THEY CLAIM. That tells me that all global hot air is coming from their big mouths only, and nowhere else.
But hey, if I lost the bet the winner could use the money to support relocation efforts. WHY DON’T YOU BET ME? Here’s you chance to help.
I’m sure you will have no difficulties in finding people to join my side of the bet. The problem is on your side, where all the hot smelly air is.
crosspatch (22:08:00) :
“Because a volcanic atoll without continued volcanic activity that is only one meter above sea level will erode to under sea level in a relatively short period of time. In other words, it is doomed anyway and isn’t a sustainable place to live. That is why they should move.”
This not correct. The part of a coral atoll that sticks above the water is not made of coral or volcanics that erodes away over time but of coral sand and coral debris. The under water coral reef is constantly being attacked by wave action and certain coral fish that grind coral and spit it out as sand. During storms this coral debris/sand is washed onto the shore of the coral island. So the island is not eroding but continuously fed with new sediments that originates from the reef itself.
On newly formed coral islands bird droppings provide seeds and fertilizer causing the introduction of vegetation which helps the islands become more erosion resistant. Many (geologically) recent examples can be found on the Great Barrier Reef where sand cays (e.g. Green Island, Michaelmas and Upolu Cay) are becoming established islands. If one builds fixed infrastructures on those islands the natural build up of sand is no longer allowed and the natural process of progressive sand addition is halted. Sea level rise will eventually drown permanent structures on these islands. That’s why they are not sustainable in the long run.
“Mary Hinge (04:10:02) :
To add to the above post here is the recent graph with the seasonal signal removed, notice how it is still following the trend-line rise despite all the claims that sea level is static or even, as some posters have claimed, falling.”
Mary,
I want to make sure that I’m looking at the same data you are.
If I look at the graph at the link you posted, it appears to me that since 2006, there is, in fact, a decrease?…and if a rate line were plotted, it looks like the rate would be down, or negative.
That would be just the past 2yrs or so, which I believe is what I’ve read other’s state here, that the past 2yrs, levels have fallen.
Am I missing something?
JimB
Mary Hinge
You are being very offensive.
I will reciprocate by saying that in trying to make sense of the IPCC report and all the accompanying stuff, I have come to the conclusion that climate “science” should always carry quotations because it really is a parody of science as we were taught it and I personally formally practiced it for 35 years before retirement. Peer review for the AGW crowd is a club, backslapping and self congratulatory and with a good corner on the public moneys supply.
Here is a link that has many peer reviewed skeptic references:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
Please do not talk of oil interests with respect to the link, because I will ask you how healthy is your grant money. The AGW money is billions distributed the world over; even if oil has given some millions they are peanuts to the money available to warmers.
Mary Hinge (04:03:02):
Since you seem to be up to date on the sea-level data, do you know why the season-corrected curve for 2008 contains some data-points that are not found in the raw data? Try comparing:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.txt
and
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.txt
Mary Hinge: Perhaps you could point us in the direction of some evidence that demonstrates that, in your words, “AGW is real”.
Graeme Rodaughan (12:26:12) Yes, the graph is the rate of increase, so the sea levels are rising more slowly, not as I said decreasing. This flys in the face of warming oceans and increased liquid water rates from melting.
Mary Hinge (04:03:02) Sorry to perturb your fantasy but I posted that topex graph, with no intent, rather it was the most recent I had on hand. It is facinating that once again data from the past has been changed. How do you folks keep up with it? The x-axis and y-axis are to scale here, and zero matches, but there is little resemblence of anything else on the two graphs with only ten months between:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2aevck.jpg
Mary Hinge (04:03:02)
‘Try reading some real science, some recent peer reviewed papers perhaps, then you will see that AGW is real and happening.’
‘peer reviewed’?
sort of how Wahl and Amman’s the new and improved “Hockey Stick” got peer reviewed? What a scam.
http://bishophill.squareespace.com/bolg/2008/8/11/casper-and-the-jesus-paper.html
And how this
‘Glenn McGregor: Data Archiving not required by the International Journal of Climatology
by Steve McIntyre on December 28th, 2008’
david (all): How about a little perspective in your thinking? Since the last ice age sea levels have risen over 9100cm, think this has had an effect on people? If 50 cm is unbearable how about a 91cm (36″) wave?
One interesting idea would be to hit at an assessment of what NASA would be doing with its resources in 2100 given its own analysis of its methods and the ‘complementary shifts’ ( in place of continental shifts). The photograph is worth a thought though…
Is there a different set than this that was revised?
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
Nothing changed as of this moment.
Yes, there was a decrease in rate… a major step at the beginning of this current decade, still 60,000 km square / year since 1979
Mary Hinge
Could you clarify the accuracy levels of the Jason sea level measurements? It might be helpful to all of us if you would give the published data and the ‘real world’ accuracy figures that those actually using the information will find.
tonyB
The problem is that nothing is happening “globally”. Some areas might be warming, some remaining fairly stagnant, others cooling. Creating an average or mean is really meaningless. It gives the false impression that something is happening globally when in reality some regions are causing the false mean to be higher. Of course we haven’t sampled every point on the planet, so a mean is going to be biased based on the areas which have been measured (and as we’ve seen, those measurements leave a lot to be desired).
Michael S (05:34:19) :
Link to USGS report:
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap3-4/sap3-4-final-report-all.pdf
Please read and comment…
During the last interglacial period (~120 thousand years ago) with similar carbon dioxide levels to pre-industrial values and Arctic summer temperatures up to 4° C warmer than today, sea level was 4-6 meters above present.
Well, although I haven’t read all 400+ pages….yet, I found it interesting that the USGS determined that both the sea level and Artic summer temperatures were higher in the past coupled with lower CO2 levels than now.
Hmmmmmmm…… CO2 does what?
sorry about the link
http://bishophill.square.com/blog/2008/8/11/casper-and-the-jesuspaper.html
how about this link
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/casper-and-the-jesus-paper.html