From a University of Leeds press release, comes this scary headline that seems to be picked up by the MSM. A Google search yields 16,400 hits on the title below.
Melting icebergs causing sea level rise
(Note: Be sure to see the reality punch line at the end of the article)
Scientists have discovered that changes in the amount of ice floating in the polar oceans are causing sea levels to rise.
The research, published this week in Geophysical Research Letters, is the first assessment of how quickly floating ice is being lost today.
According to Archimedes’ principle, any floating object displaces its own weight of fluid. For example, an ice cube in a glass of water does not cause the glass to overflow as it melts.
But because sea water is warmer and more salty than floating ice, changes in the amount of this ice are having an effect on global sea levels.
The loss of floating ice is equivalent to 1.5 million Titanic-sized icebergs each year. However, the study shows that spread across the global oceans, recent losses of floating ice amount to a sea level rise of just 49 micrometers per year – about a hair’s breadth.
According to lead author Professor Andrew Shepherd, of the University of Leeds, it would be unwise to discount this signal. “Over recent decades there have been dramatic reductions in the quantity of Earth’s floating ice, including collapses of Antarctic ice shelves and the retreat of Arctic sea ice,” said Prof Shepherd.
“These changes have had major impacts on regional climate and, because oceans are expected to warm considerably over the course of the 21st century, the melting of floating ice should be considered in future assessments of sea level rise.”
Professor Shepherd and his team used a combination of satellite observations and a computer model to make their assessment. They looked at changes in the area and thickness of sea ice and ice shelves, and found that the overall signal amounts to a 742 cubic kilometres per year reduction in the volume of floating.
Because of differences in the density and temperature of ice and sea water, the net effect is to increase sea level by 2.6% of this volume, equivalent to 49 micrometers per year spread across the global oceans.
The greatest losses were due to the rapid retreat of Arctic Sea ice and to the collapse and thinning of ice shelves at the Antarctic Peninsula and in the Amundsen Sea.
For more information
To arrange an interview with Prof Andy Shepherd, contact Hannah Isom in the University of Leeds press office on 0113 343 4031 or email h.isom@leeds.ac.uk
Notes to editors
“Recent loss of floating ice and the consequent sea level contribution” by Andrew Shepherd, Duncan Wingham, David Wallis, Katharine Giles, Seymour Laxon, and Aud Venke Sundal is published this week in Geophysical Research Letters (doi:10.1029/2010GL042496).
ICE SHELVES are thick, floating platforms of ice that form where a glacier or ice sheet flows down to a coastline and onto the ocean surface. Ice shelves are found mainly in Antarctica , and range from about 100 to 1000 metres in thickness.
SEA ICE is formed on the surface of sea water as the ocean freezes, and is typically less than 3 metres in thickness. It is found extensively in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions, and it’s extent varies considerably over the seasons.
This study was funded by the UK National Centre for Earth Observation and the Philip Leverhulme Trust.
==========================================
OK here’s the reality punch line:
Assuming their theory of 49 micrometers per year rise (this conversion equals 0.0019 inch or 0.00016 feet ) due to the differences is salty and fresh water holds true, then we can assess the threat level.
At this rate, to see an inch of sea level rise from melting icebergs we’d need:
1 inch/0.0019 inch/yr = 526 years
Yeah, I’m worried about that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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”.
“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
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
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>)
Well I guess in 526 years the Mile High City, Denver, will have to rename itself the 5279 ft and 11 inch high city.
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.
Bwahaha! Al Gore’s new beach front home will be under water in 400 years!
Oh, hell….never mind.
“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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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”
526 years is but a blip in Earth’s history.
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
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.”
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.
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??
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.
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?
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.
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.
Is “Titanic-sized” a scientific unit of measure?
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.