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.
“REPLY: b and n are right next to each other on the keyboard. Fat fingers. -A”
There you go, yet another sign of AGW Anthony? Can I get a grant?
I have to agree with DocWat. Prof Shepherd was paid to find out how much sea level rise melting ice would cause. He has done just that.
Since he can’t come out and say “Bugger All” as that would be against the consensus, he simply did the figures and published the work. If the AGW crowd want to run with it and look like idiots, that’s not his problem.
The question was “How much dangerous sea level rise will melting sea ice cause?” His answer was “None”.
Here’s what I don’t get. I checked the math on the 2.6% and that appears accurate based on densities listed in wiki of water, ice, and sea ice. I came up with 2.52%.
Anthony said:
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
But Anthony, your 4 times too long. According to my calculations you would run out of sea-ice in about 140 years! 😉
If ever single bit of floating ice today melted, I come up with a scary total of 6.9 mm assuming the 3m average sea-ice thickness cited in the article. That is based on 15 million sq-km for arctic and 18 for antarctica.
What, are these “scientists” just wanting to get their silly little millimeters in IPCC’s black kettle? How much did that research cost? (With a physics calculator and wiki it took less than an hour. Will post my calcs if someone wants to check the math. I double checked and 7 mm seem correct. less than the width of a pencil for all of the sea-ice in this whole world!)
Seems I recall that maybe much more important than melting ice is the volumetric expansion from warming. Since most of the ocean area is deep (averaging ~12,000 ft) and the much smaller continental shelf areas only average about 325 ft, volumetric expansion from a temperature change should cause a much greater spill over/height increase onto the continental shelf and adjacent land areas. Of course the melting ice would act as a correction helping to cool any warming water by latent heat.
Based on this I would think that differences in measured seal level changes might be a better indicator of average ocean temperature than thermometers.
A simple analysis is given here:
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/10/31/sea-level-rise-due-to-thermal-expansion/
Do these folks ever read their own work? One has to wonder?
So much for getting cheap ocean front property in my lifetime!
Just have too worry about wild waves and hurricanes.
What complete and utter nonsense.
With scary headlines like that, then the actual reality of the 49 µm per annum, LOL, it is telling…and a wonder our species has advanced as far at as it has.
You just want to ask the question to the nimrods that make these headlines ( they are the same ilk that create the Associated Press stories and Al Gore scares), but you just want to ask the question:
“How ****ing stupid do you think we are???”
Thanks for the good laugh, though. It is nice to have comedy relief, even when it comes from a university.
Chris
Norfolk Virginia USA
OkieSkeptic says:
April 30, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Seems I recall that maybe much more important than melting ice is the volumetric expansion from warming.
—
I agree that if the oceans get warmer they will rise slightly vertically from expansion but don’t you consider that the land would also be warmer and it would rise vertically from expansion in the same manner and much the same amount? I never seem to hear anyone question the land’s rise, well, that’s not never scary is it? (Hey, I’m an OKie too 😉 )
wayne says:
April 30, 2010 at 9:36 p
If ever single bit of floating ice today melted, I come up with a scary total of 6.9 mm assuming the 3m average sea-ice thickness cited in the article. That is based on 15 million sq-km for arctic and 18 for antarctica.
The 15 and 18 Mkm2 numbers are annual maximums that don’t occur at the same time. According to CT’s charts maximum combined sea ice is between 22 and 24Mkm2
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Curiousgeorge says:
April 30, 2010 at 4:19 pm
They probably would have [warned about a 49,000 nm rise in sea level], but I suspect that someone may have told them that nm can also be interpreted as Nautical Miles . Which would be really scary! 🙂
—
Nice observation, C-george. I guess I could have used mµ (millimicron), but that use is archaic. I suppose they went with 49 micrometers because it is a much larger number than 0.0019 (inches) and most Americans don’t know what a micrometer is or how many fit in an inch.
Dave Wendt says:
April 30, 2010 at 10:10 pm
“The 15 and 18 Mkm2 numbers are annual maximums that don’t occur at the same time. According to CT’s charts maximum combined sea ice is between 22 and 24Mkm2
”
Thanks for the clarification. That’s right, I did that just to say if all ice instantly melted, what would the rise be we are talk of, so in reality knock the 6.9mm way, way down. Besides, that’s a bit comical number, all of the ice, both poles, is never going to melt simultaneously unless the sun has a major hand in it and that’s something we can pray never happens.
Bilderberger Nark (for fun).
http://www.bryancore.org/pdf/encore3.pdf
I am worried too! With education like this, I am worried that my descendants won’t have then intelligence to find their own mouths in order to maintain nutritional sustainability, let alone find and produce the nutrition itself.
Way, way OT
Al Gored:
Since neither of us had a direct response from the mods, here is what I have about grizzly bears (there are many references, but these below are taken from the manuscripts. Note: It is my belief that the grizzly of the barrens is a direct descendant of the extinct plains grizzly):
“A few days after our arrival [December 1787, near Calgary AB] , the death cry was given and the men all started out of the tents, and our old tent mate with his gun in his hand. The cry was from a young man who held his bow and arrows and showed one of his thighs torn by a grizled bear, and which had killed two of his companions. The old man called for his powder horn and shot bag, and seeing the priming of his gun in good order, he set off with the young man for the bear, which was at a short distance. They found him devouring one of the dead. The moment he saw them, he sat up on his hind legs, showing them his teeth and long clawed paws. In this, his usual position to defend his prey, his head is a bad mark but his breast offers a direct mark to the heart, through which the old man sent his ball and killed him.
“The two young men who were destroyed by the bear had each two iron shod arrows and, the camp being near, they attacked the bear for his skin and claws. But unfortunately their arrows struck the bones of the ribs and only one irritated him. He sprung on the first and with one of his dreadful fore paws tore out his bowels and three of his ribs; the second he seized in his paws and almost crushed him to death, threw him down and when the third Indian hearing the cries came to their assistance, [he] sent an arrow, which only wounded him in the neck, for which the bear chased him and slightly tore one of his thighs. The first poor fellow was still alive and knew his parents, in whose arms he expired. The bear, for the mischief he had done, was condemned to be burnt to ashes. The claws of his fore paws, very sharp and long, the young man wanted for a collar but it was not granted; those that burned the bear watched until nothing but ashes remained.
“The two young men were each wrapped up separately in bison robes, laid side by side on the ground and covered with logs of wood and stones, in which we assisted. The bear is, as the Indians express it, “See Pee ne” (strong of life). However mortally wounded, except thro’ the head or heart, he has life enough to do mischief.” (Chapter 10, Return to the Trading Houses)
[Below are excepts written to describe the time he was travelling on the plains, at Fort Augustus ,and at Fort George c. 1797-99 and 1800-01]
“The grizled bear (Ursus horribus), by far the largest of all the species, cares for neither Man or horse and will attack either. Every year, two or three Indians are destroyed by these bears, but as soon as he sees a man on horseback (which is a combination of skill, courage and swiftness) he runs away, and when wounded tries to get away. Such is his dread of a man on horseback, but alone he cares nothing for him. The large black bears with red noses often chase the grizled bear and appear to have no fear of him.
“The grizled bear (something of an iron grey) is a very powerful animal. I have known him trail on the bare ground a bison bull killed by a hunter above two hundred yards. A grizled bear killed by LeDuc had on each side of him something covered with earth which he was guarding. Upon opening them, one was half an antelope, and the other, half a young black bear. How such a clumsy animal could catch such a swift animal as the antelope, none could tell.
“The claws on the fore feet are five to six inches in length on the curve. I traded many of the latter, which I gave away, except two, which I have still by me. They are much valued by the Indians and a necklace of them is the value of a good common horse. All other bears find or make dens to shelter themselves during winter, but the grizled bears only looks for shelter in bad weather and when the weather is fine, prowls about the whole winter. Fortunately, they are not numerous and confine themselves to the east foot of the mountains.
“An Indian, who had been running the bisons and killed three of them, saw a grizled bear. Depending on his swift horse, he soon came up with him and with an arrow, mortally wounded him. On this, the bear suddenly turned on them, the mare was too tired to wheel quick enough from the bear. With one of his fore paws, he struck the mare behind the shoulder and tore the ribs away. She fell dead and the Indian, partly under her, lay quiet. The bear went a few yards, laid down and died, which allowed the Indian to extricate himself. He had the skin of the bear; a poor recompense for his fine mare.
“Apistawawshish, a Nahathaway Indian, was hunting for food at the foot of the Woody Hill, (north of the Saskatchewan about 30 miles) and had killed a moose. According to custom, he had embowelled it and separated the large joints to prevent the meat spoiling, and placing bits of the skin with his gun case in a few small piles to scare the wolves, left it for the night and returned to his tent. Next morning, attended by his son, a lad of about ten years old, he went off on foot to cut up the moose ready to be carried away by two horses led by two women who were coming behind. On approaching the place where the moose lay, the lad ran ahead and came quite close to it without perceiving a large grizled bear was in possession of the deer. The bear instantly sprang upon the lad who from fear fell down and the bear put his foot on him to devour him. The screams of the boy brought the father to his assistance who sprang forward and aimed his gun close to the heart of the bear. It missed fire, upon which in agony of mind he threw down his gun and seized the enormous savage bear by the two ears. In an instant the bear tossed him to the ground and seizing him by the calves of his legs, tore a great part of his flesh from them. In this dreadful extremity the Indian lost neither his courage nor his presence of mind, but drew his keen two-edged dagger and plunging it into the side of the bear’s belly, cut him with all his force downwards a great gash, out of which the bowels fell. The bear gave a hideous growl and quitted him. The lad had received no other injury than the squeeze of the bear’s paws, and had got loose and ran away on his father’s seizing the bear, and he informed the women who were now near of the disaster. The Indian as soon as the bear quitted him hastily bound up his lacerated wounds, and made a shift to walk a little way, and being perceived by the women was borne away to his tent, when his life was for a long time despaired of. He, however, recovered and regained the use of his legs, tho’ very much disfigured.” (Chapter 21, Animals of the Plains)
“A few days after, as two of them were hunting (they always went by two) they met a coloured bear , which one of them wounded. The bear sprung on him, and standing on his hind feet, seized the Iroquois, hugging him with his fore legs and paws, which broke the bones of both arms above the elbow, and with its teeth tore the skin of the head from the crown to the forehead, for the poor fellow had drawn his knife to defend himself, but could not use it. Fortunately his comrade was near, and putting his gun close to the bear shot him dead. The poor fellow was a sad figure. None of us were surgeons, but we did the best we could, but for want of proper bandaging his arms were three months in getting well. These accidents happening only to the Iroquois made them superstitious and they concluded that some of the Algonquins had thrown bad medicine on them, and a quarrel would probably taken place had we not been with them. ” (Chapter 36, Migration of the Iroquois)
Hope this helps.
S
On a more serious, the following website shows that the extreme rises in ocean levels (which obviously affect the average figure) are restricted to the western Pacific, east of the Philippines, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/index.html
This is part of the so called ‘ring of fire’, an area of strong volcanic activity; it suggests much of the current sea level rise – a subject much beloved by alarmists – is caused by tectonic activity creating upward movements in the Earth’s crust and mantle.
50 atoms deep is atomic!
So, Prof Andy Shepherd’s study was funded by the UK National Centre for Earth Observation and the Philip Leverhulme Trust.
The Trust’s home page says “Philip Leverhulme Prizes are awarded to outstanding scholars or practitioners (normally under the age of 36) who have made a substantial and recognised contribution to their particular field of study, recognised at an international level, and whose future contributions are held to be of correspondingly high promise.”
Wow.
S’funny, I’d already figured this out by watching the ice melt in my gin and tonic. (Needs real patience this experiment – the temptation is always to start drinking before the ice has gome.)
wayne says:
April 30, 2010 at 11:06 pm
“Thanks for the clarification. That’s right, I did that just to say if all ice instantly melted, what would the rise be we are talk of, so in reality knock the 6.9mm way, way down. Besides, that’s a bit comical number, all of the ice, both poles, is never going to melt simultaneously unless the sun has a major hand in it and that’s something we can pray never happens.”
Actually if you examine the charts at CT you’ll see that between the Arctic and Antarctic the planet has managed to lose and recreate an amount of sea ice slightly larger than the yearly maximum every year since we started measuring with the satellites and in all probability for a long time before that. For some perspective on the scale of this, the amount of sea ice that has come and gone and come again every year is about 3 times the area of the lower 48 states of the US and if the Arctic ever did become ice free in some future summer it would only be a 20% increase in the regular flux globally. It’s something to keep in mind when another scare story about an iceberg half the size of Rhode Island pops up. No matter how big the berg is, it’s still a drop in the bucket of the constant annual loss.
They are completely wrong u no. About more than half the rain coming down over the oceans [I calculated that from the area of the oceans and the land and u no there is plenty of rain over here where I live and not considering the deserts because there are no deserts on the ocean] which is what lets the sea levels rise u no.
I’ve just done a quick calculation on the assumption that the 742 km3 of sea ice are melted by cooling the the water of the oceans (reasonable since they are mainly below sea level). This causes the oceans to contract and reduce in level. It seems to me that causes a much larger fall in sea level than the rise quoted in the paper.
Woulds some one who studied physics more recently than me like to do their own calulation and see what they come with.
Off subject, but it seems that Mann started a trend and the new strategy of climate ‘scientists’ is to threaten to sue whoever and wherever possible. The discovery process in this one could be interesting:
http://www.stockwatch.com/newsit/newsit_newsit.aspx?bid=Z-C:CGS-1714918&symbol=CGS&news_region=C
I doubt if Canada’s National Post is going to be intimidated by this.
Dear Mod,
I’m not sure if this is the correct place, but since the adoption of your ‘new look’, when I enter a comment, it just (albeit momentarily) vanishes into cyberspace, unlike the ‘old look’ where there was a somewhat comforting ‘your comment is in a queue waiting’ or some such.
It makes me nervous, and I have to add extra ice to my martini.
Oh, and as for rising sea levels, what’s a few naughts here and there between friends.
Well, Czech power plant Prunéřov also contributes just a few microns of sea level rise per century – and it was almost enough for its upgrade plans to be abandoned, because of Greenpeace and Micronesia claims that it will sink the islands.
It was a real threat before the new environment minister – a technically educated woman – canceled the climate department of the environment ministry and gave green light to the coal plant’s plans. 😉
At any rate, microns of sea level rise *can* sometimes have a big impact (if there is a sufficient number of green, mouldy brains around).
Oh dear, another money grubbing group of climate scientists who don’t understand basic physics!
The enthalpy of fusion of ice melt is endothermic, meaning that the system absorbs energy on going from solid to liquid at 334j/g. As around 90% of floating ice is below the water level, the bulk of the heat energy to melt it has to be come from the sea.
Sea water has a positive temperature coefficient of expansion down to the freezing point, so as the ice cools the see the water will shrink and the level will reduce.
Ice also contains air pockets which decreases it’s density. This too will reduce the volume as it melts.
Empirical evidence shows that that Arctic sea levels have reduced by around 2mm per year as sea ice declined, which seems to support the above reasoning. Article here:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5076322.stm?ls
Man’s gullibility seems to rise in tandem with the rise in general literacy.