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/
david (13:14:08) :
Did you read what I wrote about coral islands? They are not sustainable(!!!) for permanent inhabitation since their survival depends on natural build up of coral debris/sand deposited on a reef substrate. Buildings and roads will eventually submerge since humans don’t allow the natural processes of sedimentation to take place.
Besides, the inhabitants (fishing) and the tourists are destroying the reefs so that the natural upward growth of corals (a process that normally could easily keep pace with natural or indirect human induced sea level rise) is less viable.
The primitive inhabitants hundreds of years ago moved along with the natural build up of the island since their houses were just huts which they could rebuild after each storm or flood or they moved temporarily to other islands less affected by the latest floods. And they left the corals in better shape too.
Does anyone know why Cryosphere has shifted method to show snowcover just when snowcover was very big?
They did so between 24 dec and 25 dec.
Now comparison with older snowcovers looks as though snow today is less abundant….
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=24&fy=2008&sm=12&sd=25&sy=2008
Mary Hinge
You write:
“There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers showing it is happening. ”
All your “peer reviewed” papers that uses GISS data you must count as useless.
Giss data them selves uses methods and results not peer reviewet, not even made puplic. Therefore all your papers building their conclusions using temperature data from GISS are useless.
This “scientific” approach of GISS leads to their extremely bad reputation, and is an embarresment for NASA. NASA name will have a sad sound in many years after this scandal.
Reason to demand full glasnost from GISS NOW!!! :
Mary, The warming trend in the 20´th century was around 0,6 K.
Around 0,3K of this warming took place after second world war.
The adjustmenst made puplic for USA in around 2005 showed that 0,25 degrees K was indeed adjustments.
When such a HUGE part of the whole global warming appears to be human made corrections, it is a SCANDAL that we are not allowed to validate how such big adjustments occurs.
Many uses the rising temperatures after second world war to argument against the sun as the driver of temperature.
The central argument is: The GISS temperature curve rises more than sun activity.
So we are all supposed to dismiss solar theory because it does not match HUMAN CORRECTIONS.
No, Mary, there are NO excuse for hiding such central material from the puplic 28 years after GLASNOST came around in soviet. THIS STINKS, and i thinkits on time you wake up Mary.
David,
not sure where you are getting your ludicrous sea level numbers. The IPCC has been referencing about 3mm/yr since about 1993 and about 1.5mm previous.
Here is that satellite record that appears to be accepted by the IPCC and modellers:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
You should go to their detailed pages and take a look at how much the level can vary sesson to season and year to year. You might get a hint about 7mm and other ludicrous ideas. You might also see that for the last couple of years the 3mm rate has not held up.
You really need to get a life.
By the way, I am starting an insurance fund for when our sun expands and engulfs the earth or goes nova. Would you please contribute? This WILL HAPPEN and we need to start planning NOW!!!! It WILL affect everyone on the earth at that time!!!
Smokey, look at the most recent graph before putting up a smikey screen! The University of Colorado is the most up to date at present…just checkthe end date points. The reason for the very recent decrease (now of course increasing) in sea level is the recent strong La Nina.
Don’t worry, you are not alone! There HAD been a decline due to the recent La Nina. This caused massive cooling along the equatorial Pacific. The sheer size of the Pacific (covering nearly a half of the Earth’s surface) means that any cooling will show a reduction in Global Sea Level. The changes intemperature during a La Nina are nicely shown here http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml Notice how the cooling starts at NINA 1 and spreads through to NINO 4. A good lay mans explanation of a La Nina is here http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/lanina.shtml
“Your opinion isn’t very healthy I’m afraid. Climate science uses good scientific principles, we have the evidence, the models, experiments from virtually all the scientific fields to back up the case for AGW.”
As you are not a scientist I can understand your misunderstanding of the scientific process. You have to undertand the complexity of AGW and the particularly wide range of scientific disciplines that come under this umbrella term. It is still a relatively young science but the equipment at our disposal means that great progress is being made. As with any study the more you know the more questions you have and the more you need to know. Sceptics have the easy job, they can just nit pick, argue complete nonsense or deliberately mislead to fulfil whatever agenda they are on. You can see above the complete lack of peer reviewed work on this subject, read the majority of posts and you see that the sceptic prefers using sarcasm to real science.
I’m afraid I am not rewriting the rules but still making sure people understand that real science is based on the peer review system for very good reasons, it helps keep poor science out. It is not perfect but has served us well for a very long time.
Dear dear Frank, please don’t confuse data with peer reviewed papers. Your whole argument is frankly a shambles. Temperature data from any source is scrutinised and any errors should be corrected. I’m assuming you are referring to the October GISS records from Siberia which were corrected very quickly. If you think that all temperature data is useless because of this mistake then you have no right to discuss this subject further. All scientific data gathering, from any field will always contain errors at some point. It’s the human/mechanical/software factor….its life. Thats why in an ideal world you have multiple data sources.
Mary Hinge:
I’m afraid I am not rewriting the rules but still making sure people understand that real science is based on the peer review system for very good reasons, it helps keep poor science out. It is not perfect but has served us well for a very long time.
Unfortunately Mary, AGW is actually not real science, but pseudo-science, which the peer review system simply self-reinforces. Yes indeed, there is a great deal of money, as well as careers at stake in keeping the AGW bandwagon rolling along.
Mary Hinge:
ah, I get it now. If it disproves some facet of AGW, its la Nina.
How elegant. How simple. How incorrect.
Sea levels have been flat, or falling, since late 2005, according to the U of C.
la Nina has not been around for over 3 years, Mary. But, according to Argo, sea temps have flat for that much, and longer.
Do you think the lack of thermal expansion has anything to do with the flattening ocean rise?
So Mary Hinge, not a word on how the CC Paper got “peer reviewed”? Why not?
‘ Meanwhile the second, longer paper (“the CC paper”) had started its long road to publication at the journal Climatic Change. This article purported to be a replication of the hockey stick and confirmation of its scientific correctness. However, in a surprising turn of events, the journal’s editor, prominent global warming catastrophist Steven Schneider, mischievously asked none other than Steve McIntyre to be one of the paper’s anonymous peer reviewers. ‘
‘McIntyre’s first action as a peer reviewer was therefore to request from Wahl and Amman the verification statistics for their replication of the stick. Confirmation that the R2 was close to zero would strike a serious blow at Wahl and Amman’s work.
Wahl and Amman’s response was to refuse any access to the verification numbers, a clear flouting of the journal’s rules.’
http://bishophill.squarespase.com/blog/2008/8/11/casper-and-the-jesus-paper.html
Peer review process was and still a scandal.
I did it again. sorry about the link.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
Mary Hinges,
I have just started reading this site. In general I find the discussion scientifically motivated and fair-minded. If it has a certain flavor, at least everyone is polite. Almost everyone.
From you:
“As you are not a scientist I can understand your misunderstanding of the scientific process. You have to undertand the complexity of AGW and the particularly wide range of scientific disciplines that come under this umbrella term. It is still a relatively young science but the equipment at our disposal means that great progress is being made. As with any study the more you know the more questions you have and the more you need to know. Sceptics have the easy job, they can just nit pick, argue complete nonsense or deliberately mislead to fulfil whatever agenda they are on. You can see above the complete lack of peer reviewed work on this subject, read the majority of posts and you see that the sceptic prefers using sarcasm to real science.”
When I lived in Madison, there was a newspaper editorial written by a psychology professor concerning the then relatively new “science” of recovered memories. The message to the skeptics was basically leave us alone and don’t criticize us for 10 years because we are a new science. Your comments reminded me of that editorial. Or, shorter version, what you are saying is “…sit down and listen to your betters.”
And as for this.
“If you think that all temperature data is useless because of this mistake then you have no right to discuss this subject further.”
This sums up the problem with the AGW crowd. You have to understand that you do not get to decide who has rights. Science is about questioning and skepticism. If you can’t take the questions, you don’t have the stuff. Let’s discuss the science and leave alone the question of who has rights.
To Karl Heuer:
What I calculated was not the increase in global ocean water volume by 5cm rise, but the _additional_ increase that comes with the earth’s “oblateness” (is that the right word for it?).
It means that the volume rise will actually be greater than what you calculated (quote:)
“4*pi*6378.137*6378.137(surface area)*.00005(5cm) = 25560.39 km^3”
Consider the that there will be additional square kilometers resulting from the 5cm increase:
4*pi*(6378.137 PLUS 5cm)*(6378.137 PLUS 5cm)
There is now an additional 5.67 square km of ocean surface. Then I took the average and multiplied it with .00005(5cm) to get to the additional volume.
Very well said Mark. How many people ended up in prison or worse because of the relatively young science of “recovered memories”? When any relatively young science, that has lots of equipment and money at its disposal, begins to tell any free American that he or she does not have the RIGHT to discuss any subject further, we have an extremely serious problem. The science must be the servant of the people, not vice versa.
No matter how stupid you think I am, I deserve an answer to my questions. I am a taxpayer and I am part of the working class that paid for all that equipment at your disposal. Give me answers. Give me the data and the methods of the climate studies. Don’t adjust, homogenize and massage the data until I know why you are doing it and if it makes any sense. I deserve and yes I have the RIGHT to receive full disclosure of anything and everything I ask for.
The climate scientists who do not want to comply can only keep up this charade for so long… I am tired of begging for crumbs of the cake, it is time for the taxpayer to eat steak.
Mary Hinge (04:03:02) :
Graeme posted the chart with “Inverse barometer not applied” and “Seasonal signals removed.” The current version of that chart is at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg.
I haven’t quite figured out which inverse barometer plot I prefer. I think I understand what they’re trying to do – higher air pressure pushes down on the sea level, but winds, viscosity, and momentum may muddy the adjustment.
Curiously, it looks like the data and smoothed curve are quite different over the last couple of years. Sigh, is this another change the data without telling anyone situation? http://sealevel.colorado.edu/documents.php describes the older graph, 2008_rel4 isn’t documented.
To tty:
My calculation was only little physics exercise to show that even if all coastlines were made of perfectly vertical cliffs, there would actually be more water volume needed for every additional cm rise of global sea level.
But why not go ahead and make a wild guess about the total coastline & its average angle. Considering there is so much more ocean out there, I would be surprised if it would be very significant for slowing global rise for a certain constant influx of cubic km’s or miles of water.
Let’s estimate total coastline at 200,000 km. Let’s say all this coastline would get inundated 2 km inland for a 5 cm rise of global sea level. Let’s say the incline is linear:
200,000 * (2/2) * 0.00005
Al this added ocean surface would only get you an additional 10 cubic kilometers.
I admit, that’s way more than the earth oblateness adds, but still insignificant if you compare it to the 200km^3 that you calculated for a yearly 0.05 cm rise (0.49mm).
To Mark_0454 (18:13:36) :
Well-stated, sir. The level of commentary on this blog is refreshingly elevated, mostly.
For the benefit of the Americans reading here (I‘m from Missouri), I must point out that a person identified as Mary Hinge is either a rude fabrication, or a most unfortunate victim of parental name-choosing. “Mary Hinge” is one of the ugly stepsisters in the dyslexic comedy routine “The Story of Rindercella”. Rindercella’s other sister is named “Betty Swollocks.” Mary Hinge is off-color UK vulgarism for a more hirsute female escutcheon.
Ms. Hinge, if this is your name, I extend my sympathy.
Steve Keohane (09:01:00) :
No, the graph must be the sea leavl, not rate of change. The Y axis is labeled “δ MSL (mm)” (Will that delta work?) meaning the “change in sea level relative some benchmark level.” In millimeters. The black line is described as 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm/yr. Not mm/year^2 as it would be looking at the rate of change of a rate.
Note the black line goes from aout -20 mm to +20 between 1995 and 2007. That’s a 40 mm change in 12 years, 40/12 == 3.3 mm/year. The whole line is about 2 inches in 16 years, fairly significant, but not to IPCC or Hanson levels. A foot a century, less than 0.5 m/century – if the rate before the pre-PDO flip continued.
Which is a perfect entry point for me to quote from the Frank Tipler (the distinguished mathematical physicist at Tulane University) letter being quoted around the web today:
Dr Tipler ends with a quotation from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his famous farewell address as president:
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.“
WARMING, OR HOT AIR?
Pamela Gray (11:55:32) :
That period is just the record from the Topex/Poseidon and Jason satellites.
I think it’s easier to pick the signal from sea level rise than it is to measure global temps.
Mary Hinge:
So La Nina is, in effect, an overall cooling of the worlds oceans, rather than just a SST anomaly which displaces the warmer water elsewhere?
If it were the latter then the total volume of water wouldn’t change and so neither would the sea level.
Also, if this were the case, where did all the heat go?
Similarly, with El Nino events, where does all the extra heat come from?
Re Mary Hinge (15:44:58)
The October debacle is far from the only thing wrong with GISStemp. Read here for example:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2033
It describes the positively insane algorithm used by GISStemp to join different scribal versions of a record which practically guarantees serious distortion of the temperature record before the join.
Having read most of this post I can only conclude that empirical data of over 100 years (tide gauges) cannot match the arrogance of these so called scientist from this young science. They prefer, with the help of the right algorisms, and a blind eye, turning fact into fiction. It helps, presumably, to avoid redundancy.
Why don’t you actually provide some real arguments instead of using the usual denier trick of trying to convince everyone, even yourself, that it is not real science. the same tricks are used by Evolution denialists now and whgere used by the sceptics of plate tectonics.
Talking about GLOBAL sealevel rise when assessing the impact at a certain location (Tuvalu for example) is pointless considering that the TOPEX/Poseidon measurements have revealed that there is a nonuniform geographical distribution of sea level change, with some regions exhibiting trends about 10 times the global mean. Some places even experience a eustatic sea level drop: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib.pdf