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.
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.
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”.
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.
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 !
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.
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
Seems to me that in the last few decades there has been a catastrophic decline in the quality of climate science.
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)?
That sound? ‘Tis Newton, spinning in his grave!
In 5.7 million years I’m going to have to move!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s a misprint…. they meant MEGAmeters!
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%…
I have a horrible feeling that “UK National Centre for Earth Observation” disburses my taxes… I want the research money back!
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?
“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.
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
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.
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.
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…
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?