By Steven Goddard,
The headline reads “NASA Satellites Detect Unexpected Ice Loss in East Antarctica”
ScienceDaily (Nov. 26, 2009) — Using gravity measurement data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission, a team of scientists from the University of Texas at Austin has found that the East Antarctic ice sheet-home to about 90 percent of Earth’s solid fresh water and previously considered stable-may have begun to lose ice.
Better move to higher ground! NASA also reported :
In 2007, NASA generated this map (below) of Antarctica showing just how hot it is getting down there in the land of Penguins.
Now I am really worried! But wait……. There are a few minor problems.
Assume for a minute that we accept the GRACE numbers. The first problem is Antarctica contains a lot of ice : 30 × 10^6 km³. At 100 km³ per year, it will take 300,000 years to melt.
The next problem is with the NASA temperature map. From the NASA article “The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius.” They are claiming precision of better than 0.05°C, with an error more than an order of magnitude larger than their 25 year trend. The error bar is large enough that the same data could just as easily indicate rapid cooling and blue colors. That will get you an F in any high school science class.
And that is exactly what happened. The hot red map above was preceded by a cold blue map which showed Antarctica getting cooler. What motivation could NASA have had to change colors without mathematical justification?
NASA justified their heating up Antarctica with this comment :
This image was first published on April 27, 2006, and it was based on data from 1981-2004. A more recent version was published on November 21, 2007. The new version extended the data range through 2007, and was based on a revised analysis that included better inter-calibration among all the satellite records that are part of the time series.
As I have already pointed out, this is absurd. Their error bar is so large that they could have painted the map any color they wanted. Apparently someone at NASA wanted red.
But why are we looking at temperature trends anyway? The real issue is absolute temperatures. Some of the regions in which GRACE claims ice loss in East Antarctica average colder than -30°C during the summer, and never, ever get above freezing. How can you melt ice at those temperatures?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic_surface_temperature.png
I overlaid the Antarctica summer temperature map on the GRACE “melt” map, below. As you can see, GRACE is showing ice loss in places that stay incredibly cold, all year round.
The problem with GRACE is that it measures gravity, not ice. Changes in gravity can be due to a lot of different things beneath the surface of the ice. Antarctica has active magma chambers. Plate tectonics and isostasy also cause gravity changes.
We should be clever enough not to be blinded by technology. The claims that ice is melting in East Antarctica don’t have a lot of justification.
anna v says:
June 30, 2010 at 10:46 pm
To get an answer for antarctica one would have to sound the ground and get an accurate to mm outline of the ground concurrent in time with the measuring of gravity changes, in my physicist’s opinion. Has this been done? in the one paper I have seen, Velicogna,
GPS has been used for this for some time now, in Scandinavia, N America and the Antarctica, e.g. http://rses.anu.edu.au/geodynamics/gps/antarctic/index.html
“Steven Goddard” makes an argument that Antarctica cannot be losing mass because air temperatures there are too cold to melt ice, or for glaciers to move fast. By making these declarations he reveals that he has not read or understood any of the recent research on the Antarctic ice sheet, or for that matter on Greenland.
Many readers, who likewise have not read or understood the research, post to express their own certainty that Antarctica is not losing mass, and that scientists who say otherwise should be punished.
Eventually some actual Antarctic scientists, and others who have read the research, post to explain that the major mechanism of ice loss there is not melting from the air, but melting underneath by warm water near the terminus, where ice shelves break off, which (along with basal and lateral lubrication/melt) causes faster flows upstream. This is clearly explained with reference to many recent studies using different types of data that all point to similar conclusions, and explain details of the pattern of ice loss seen by GRACE.p
The idea is straightforward, and well known to scientists. “Steve Goddard” appears not to grasp any part of it, but keeps talking about melt, accusing the scientists of lying, and makes further mistakes concerning glacier movements and even glass. Most posters continue to support him, attacking the scientists even while confusing sea ice with ice sheets.
It’s a sad thread.
Excerpt from: Robert on June 30, 2010 at 10:41 am
Doing thesis work, mentioning a lot of ice research and papers, and it is exceedingly difficult these days to get an advanced degree in environment-related fields, as would be with a focus on glaciology, unless you sing the (C)AGW tune. Check.
Someone posting as “Robert” last year at a post about the Antarctic Wilkins Ice Shelf collapse said on April 30, 2009 at 4:42 pm:
Now, this “Robert” said above on June 30, 2010 at 7:34 am:
The 2009 “Robert” cited a loss from the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet “on the order of” only 25 GT a year, also apparently indicated the Eastern Antarctica Ice Sheet has gained mass (“…increased accumulation of precipitation”). The 2010 “Robert” cites one pre-2009 paper that shows the EAIS in balance, a pre-2009 paper showing a slight loss, and a 2009 paper showing a whopping 57 GT a year loss, and concludes there is an extremely negative loss trend since the early 2000’s. Add in the Western Antarctica Ice Sheet losses and that must really be a tremendous yearly mass loss from the Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Indeed, by the 2010 “Robert” it is an alarming loss, could even be unprecedented.
Also interesting, the 2010 “Robert” cites pre-2009 papers showing an EAIS balance and slight loss, while the 2009 “Robert” apparently accepted there was an EAIS gain.
Hope your thesis work is going well, Robert! 🙂
Phil. says:
July 1, 2010 at 6:05 am
Thanks. It says” last updated in 2002″.
It is not clear whether they sent GPS stations to the bottom to reach earth and not ice.
BA
It is unbelievably annoying when commentors (such as yourself) inaccurately represent what I wrote. Why do that? Weird behaviour.
Post Glacial rebound or isostasy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
Notice the new emphasis on horizontal crustal motion.
The arcticle states:
“Mass changes of ice sheets can be monitored by measuring changes in the ice surface height, the deformation of the ground below and the changes in the gravity field over the ice sheet. Thus ICESat, GPS and GRACE satellite mission are useful for such purpose.[19] However, glacial isostatic adjustment of the ice sheets affect ground deformation and the gravity field today. Thus understanding glacial isostatic adjustment is important in monitoring recent global warming”
Response times of an ice stream are not on the order of thousands of years; for one example, see the Rutford Ice Stream, which moves ~400m per year: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061221075130.htm
“The discovery that the spring-neap tidal cycle exerts such a strong influence on an ice stream tens of kilometres away is a total surprise. ”
Surging glaciers are another example of ice with rapid response times. Variegated Glacier is on the order of 10 miles long, but when it periodically surges, the response of ice upstream is on the order of days, draining the upstream reservoir of ice. See Kamd, B. et al. 1986. Glacier surge mechanism: 1982-1983 surge of Variegated Glacier, Alaska. Science 277(4686), 469-479.
“Antarctic ice (particularly at temperatures lower than -30C) is similar to glass, in that it is a very high viscosity liquid which flows slowly. ”
Ice doesn’t just deform – it slides on its bed. The base of the Antarctic ice sheet, in many locations, is warm enough to create a film of water that acts as a lubricant. The ice streams in Antarctica are not moving primarily by deformation, but by sliding, especially in areas where the bed is soft sediment. The same holds true for ice streams in Greenland, like Jakobshavn Isbrae.
Mr. Goddard, I’m sorry that you have had to go through this bashing. I noticed Anthony snipped something of yours and he only does that for certain reasons so I know you must be really frustrated otherwise Anthony would never snip something you have to say.
I too am angry over this kind of nonsense. It’s meant to distract, and diffuse. The other side is quite talented at it. I don’t know if they go through Ad hominym/red herring 101 or if it just comes natural to the ACGW side.
I am in the process of writing a book for the common man to understand this kind of thing. One of the things I have discovered is that it is useless to try and have a routine discussion with certain people. All it becomes is circular arguments with ad hominym’s, red herrings, and logic fallacies. Even the real scientists on the side of ACGW, sink to this tactic.
I have given up trying to talk sense to ACGW people. I have far better responses talking to people about Judeo Christianity and discussion about Jesus.
The ACGW are entrenched in a religious-like dogma which is similar to a jihad like foundation.
Once again Mr. Goddard and Mr. Watts and all the others here who contribute often… I’m sorry for the abuse you have to go through, but wear it with pride because if you were not receiving it, that would mean the other side wasn’t scared of you and the truth and they wouldn’t bother with you.
Not an attempt to get anywhere, I’ve been through similar things on skeptic science blog and global warming man or myth and other ACGW sites and i’m not even half as educated in this area as you guys are.
Chris Noble et al.
All you poeple bashing on Mr. Goddard have seriously missed one MAJOR point and from looking at his study is the major point of his findings.
He is not saying that the ice isn’t melting. He isn’t saying that the ice volume hasn’t shrunk in some areas.
What he is doing and doing it quite well, is saying that this is impossible to lay at the feet of Anthropogenic catastrophic global warming. The Antarctic while there may be some warming periods off and on, as there has been for millennia.
But how can this ice melt be laid at the feet of mankind, and this supposed ACGW, when it is still far, far, far, from being above freezing.
So if it’s above freezing what is causing the melting. That is the question that Steven Goddard asked.
He didn’t say once that the ice is not going away in certain spots. He said two major things.
1. This can’t be ACGW
2. The spots of supposedly “more melting than normal” based on gravity could be numerous issues. You can’t prove from a gravity study that it’s melting. The edge of the ice recedes and grows typically 2-3 times a year primarily winter and summer. There could be a thicker rock formation than normal; there could be some volcanic vents in a bigger concentration than elsewhere. You can’t aim a gravity sensor, from outer space with no other evidence to back it up, and say the ice is melting faster than previously expected because the gravity levels are different.
How can you jump all over Mr. Goddard for saying those two basic things which he used scientific method to back up his comments? If he had used those comments to back up ACGW you would have been patting him on the back and we all know it.
The only un-wise thing that Mr. Goddard did was fall for your Red Herring of glass and waste his time and energy going down that road. But it is so easy to fall to Red Herrings in this arena because they are so frustrating and annoying.
anna v. says: “Now how can one argue that from such a rough terrain ice from the interior drifts to the coast is a mystery .”
Fluid dynamics, surely? When the mountaintops are visible along with the bases of the mountains then what you say could be applicable, I guess.
Brad, what is sad is that when those who have more knowledge than Steve on this issue take their time to explain to him why his conclusions are wrong, and Steve completely ignores the science and data and instead tries to distract with misleading statements, such as continually talking about it’s too cold for the ice to melt, when everyone knows that ice mass loss can happen for many reasons besides surface melting (such as basal melting and ice flow/calving).
Steve — You can still lose ice under those conditions, if the net rate of snowfall is less than the slow but persistent flow of the ice downhill towards the oceans. Or, if the air is dry enough, sublimation can cause a net reduction. Of course, both of these are more related to precipitation rates and relative humidity than they are to temperature per se.
jeff brown,
Actually, you are the one distracting and misleading in your response to Brad.
But maybe it was just an oversight. So you get another bite at the apple. Respond to Brad’s first point:
1. This can’t be ACGW
Ready… Set… GO.
“2. The spots of supposedly “more melting than normal” based on gravity could be numerous issues. You can’t prove from a gravity study that it’s melting. The edge of the ice recedes and grows typically 2-3 times a year primarily winter and summer. There could be a thicker rock formation than normal; there could be some volcanic vents in a bigger concentration than elsewhere. You can’t aim a gravity sensor, from outer space with no other evidence to back it up, and say the ice is melting faster than previously expected because the gravity levels are different.”
Brad, they are looking at mass changes over time. They are looking at, for example, gravity measurement at one location, and how those change over time. They aren’t just looking at a gravity map and saying, “look, there’s less gravity here so the ice is melting”, they are saying, “look, there is a negative trend in mass here, so there is likely some ice mass loss”.
“So if it’s above freezing what is causing the melting. That is the question that Steven Goddard asked.”
Again, 95%+ of the annual ice mass loss in Antarctica is through calving, not melting. Temperature at the surface of the ice sheet is irrelevant to its movement – at the base of a thick ice sheet, it is warm enough to create a film of melt water, which lubricates the ice and allows ice streams to flow primarily via sliding, not deformation.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/antarctic-sea-water-shows-no-sign-of-warming/story-fn3dxity-1225818314421
Nick Davis
There is no way that a recent change in calving at the coast is causing the claimed loss of ice 700km inland. That idea is laughable beyond comprehension, and anyone who has studied glaciers understands it.
There seems to be a lot of argument about the ice flowing/melting/not metlting etc.
I’m sure I don’t know too much about it; but there is one mechanism that nobody here seems to have mentioned so far; and that is the mechanism that is often demonstrated in elementary physics lab experiments, where a wire carrying weights on the ends, cuts its way through a block of ice, but leaves the ice intact.
The argument is that the wire applies a sizeable pressure over a small area of the ice, and pressure lowers the freezing point of ice, so that ice immediately under the wire finds itself abover its freezing point for that pressure, so it melts. Of course the melting allows the water to flow around the wire ; which removes the high pressure, so the water refreezes, since the bulk of the ice IS blow its freezing point.
It is also offered as an explanation for how ice skaters slide on ice; but I have read articles that have suggested that this is not the correct explanation for how ice skates work. I have no idea which is correct.
But following the same principle, the bottom of glaciers, where they contact their rock enclosures is under very high pressure; so arguably the melting point of the ice is lower there so that interfacec ould melt; and allow the solid to slide further down on a liquid interlayer.
I can see all kinds of maybe’s in this too, such as how much does the pressure lower the freezing point, and is it enough to contend with what local ice temperatures might be. I don’t know that any finite pressure can lower the melting point to -30 deg C for example. And I DID say I DON’T KNOW. Maybe it can but It sounds a bit extreme to me. Wish I did know now.
This same mechanism, of course can walk a glacier around a corner in a canyon, since the weight of a forward moving ice massiff, will put high pressure on any rock wall standing in the way on a corner.
I don’t think of ice as “plasically” deforming as does tar for example, so the viscous flow model makes me uncomfortable (but is also in that I don’t know area)
But I have been on a few glaciers in Canada, NZ and the USA; and a more fractured landscape, I can hardly imagine. So glaciers to me; at least near the visible surface, are not a monolithic mass; but are a jumbled pile of fractured solids with crevasses between those massive block of what looks like quite solid crystalline ice. Well heck; it isn’t possible for those crevasses to walk around is it. Is this not like a semiconductor crystal with impurities in it, with electrons moving from place to place; and leaving a “hole” where they just moved out of; so the hole itslef becomes a moving object.
So I can easily envision, those crevasses walking about like holes in Silicon, with the ice blocks rearranging themselves into some presumably lower energy configuration; till strains built up to a level where another crevasse collapses closed, while a big ice blcok shears in two to create a new moved crevasse.
I think part of the problem people are having imagining this mass of ice moving, is that we are seeing it as a single homogeneous chunk of stuff that is more like the ocean; than it is to the bin of ice cubes down the hall in the motel.
Yes they do walk down mountain slopes, and I think you get some clues as to how that happens by looking at the dark lines of black impurities that seem to line up like iron filings in a magnetic field. It isn’t just by accident that those black dopants for quite distinctive “flow lines” on the glacier surface.
As to the ancient Gothic Cathedral glass windows; well I’ve heard more theories of that than I can follow; but I am not convinced of the reality of the gravity viscous flow claims. I’m more inclined to believe the glazier deliberate orientation theory.
Why would I believe that ? Hey those jokers actually built those impossible structures; and without modern construction equipment. And the funny thing is they did not pile those stones up with the thick ones on top of the smaller ones. I think they fully understood the bettwer structural integrity of putting any thick end of the glass downwards where it could support the pressure of a lighter upper region; rather than doing the reverse.
Oh I am sure somebody tried to build an upside down Gothic Cathedral; that would be the one that fell down, and isn’t still standing today.
How quick we are to impugn the skills and crafts of those ancients; whether it was the Egyptians building the pyramids and Sphinx; or the Goths building impossible cathedrals; Hey I don’t know who built them but why else would you call them Gothic.
I’m as puzzled by this ice thinning/melting/ subliming mystery as anyone; these new tools that they have to play with force one to rethink a lot of old ideas. So I’m quite happy to say I dunno !
Excellent post. Here’s a couple of minor elements of the article in question that rub me the wrong way:
The title! “Unexpected ice loss”, eh? It seems to me that I’ve read so many alarmist pieces by these guys over a period of years about “unexpected ice loss” in the East Antarctic that at SOME point the modifier “unexpected” simply cannot be sustained. It pushes credibility for the same “scientists” to continually use this word. What — do they have short term memory loss? Are they forgetting they wrote that this was unexpected 6 months ago, and also a year ago, and also two years ago?
Perhaps what they mean was that it was unexpected that the satellite data could be interpreted as collaborating their earlier alarms about ice loss in the East Antarctic. And well they should be surprised, as I doubt even they believed their earlier claims.
Second, the line “… the East Antarctic ice sheet-home to about 90 percent of Earth’s solid fresh water…” Really??? That tiny peninsula has more ice than Greenland, the Himalayas and the rest of Antarctica combined? I won’t blame this massive boner on the NASA or UTA scientists being cited, but if I was in either group I would be clamoring to have ScienceDaily run a correction; I would not want my name associated with such clear nonsense.
Brad,
What disturbs me is the crew which has suddenly appeared here intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote.
I understand that distortion and outright falsehoods are standard practice on some AGW sites, but it is troubling to see this behaviour finding it’s way over to the #1 science blog.
Smokey and Brad, no where in Steve’s post did he mention GHGs. He simply trying to state that the ice is not melting, so there’s no way there can be negative mass balance.
Let’s look again what Steve said in his article:
1) Assume for a minute that we accept the GRACE numbers. The first problem is Antarctica contains a lot of ice : 30 × 10^6 km³. At 100 km³ per year, it will take 300,000 years to melt.
What on earth does this have to do with the studies he links to? The second sentence does not follow from the first. No one thinks the entire Antarctic ice sheet is going to melt anytime soon. It also implicitly asserts that mass loss is only a result of melting which we all know to be false.
He then goes on to talk about temperature:
2) But why are we looking at temperature trends anyway? The real issue is absolute temperatures. Some of the regions in which GRACE claims ice loss in East Antarctica average colder than -30°C during the summer, and never, ever get above freezing. How can you melt ice at those temperatures?
Yes, why indeed are you looking at temperature trends Steve? Or absolute temperatures for that reason. Neither are relevant to the GRACE study on ice mass balance. People keep explaining that surface melt is not the factor to regions showing current mass loss. Steve was trying to “fool” his followers that surface melt was the factor.
3) I overlaid the Antarctica summer temperature map on the GRACE “melt” map, below. As you can see, GRACE is showing ice loss in places that stay incredibly cold, all year round.
So here he cleverly tries to say GRACE is a “melt” map, when it is not a melt map but a mass balance map. So he’s trying to fool his followers into thinking that GRACE ice loss must be wrong because there is no surface melting.
Smokey, I’m sorry that Steve is so capable of pulling the wool over your eyes. You might want to start thinking for yourself.
“1. This can’t be ACGW”
Of course it could be AGW (if AGW were happening at all).
1) Increased temperatures and increased wind in the interior could increase ablation and sublimation rates.
2) Changing weather patterns could reduce precipitation and frost deposition (although it’s more probable that AGW would do the opposite and increase them) .
3) Increased melting at the sea end of the glaciers could increase their speed.
stevengoddard says:
July 1, 2010 at 11:10 am
Brad,
What disturbs me is the crew which has suddenly appeared here intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote.
Steve, you’ve been misrepresenting what you wrote! This is reminiscent of the ‘CO2 ice’ post, you say things that are wrong and when challenged on them throw a ‘hissy fit’ and insult the poster. You’ve done that already and Anthony has already snipped one of your responses. This behavior earned you a hiatus from posting here before, you really need to accept when you make mistakes and move on.
George E. Smith says:
July 1, 2010 at 11:00 am
jeff brown says:
June 30, 2010 at 7:22 pm
——–
EM Smith: I’m as puzzled by this ice thinning/melting/ subliming mystery as anyone; these new tools that they have to play with force one to rethink a lot of old ideas. So I’m quite happy to say I dunno !
I can almost agree with this sentiment. I’ll be happier when I do understand: Scanning the science news, reading the professional papers, working the toy models, listening to those who are further down the road.
PD Ash,
Who are you trying to kid here? This isn’t the Kool Aid echo chamber RealClimate, climate progress, or tamino, etc.
The first of your links clearly belongs in the 2nd tier on-line version of Science, since it is filled with cherry-picked conjectures and preconceived assumptions, which “…appear to confirm the validity of the types of computer models that are used to project a warmer climate in the future, researchers said.”
That kind of self-serving statement is key to getting published, even if it’s only the on-line version of Science.
The second link doesn’t even claim that climate models are accurate — just that they are not completely worthless. An example of their weasel wording: …there are numerous differences in detail from observations… The results of this study show that, although improvements can be obtained through better representations of flow velocities and more accurate digital elevation models, HYDRA can be a powerful tool for diagnosing simulated terrestrial hydrology and investigations of global climate change.
And of course your third link is by none other than that well known amateur juggler Gavin Schmidt, rendering it incredible. Not that Schmidt is ignorant, but he is bought and paid for, and the truth is not in him.
Same problem for your Hadley link; there is a certain Michael Mann on the interlocking editorial boards, such as the Journal of Climate, which is repeatedly cited. Next time, find some credible links if you can, which use observed raw data. As Steve McIntyre says, adjusted data is always suspect. In the case of GCMs, it’s all been “adjusted.”
I am only part way through The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford, but I defy anyone to read that account of Mann’s shenanigans and not see him as a scoundrel. Then there are the Climategate emails. And Montford’s Caspar and the Jesus Paper.
Money has totally corrupted climate science. And if you actually believe that computer climate models can accurately predict anything beyond seasons, then explain why modelers would waste their time using their models to predict next year’s climate, when instead they could be predicting much smaller model universes like the soybean market, or QQQQ. The answer, of course, is that climate models cannot accurately predict the climate.
GCMs are tools, not reality. They are useful for testing various scenarios. But they can not predict the future.
If models could predict accurately, we wouldn’t be having this debate; there would simply be no argument. QED.
:shaking head ruefully at my error: Oops. My mistake. The last quote in my previous post is also George E Smith, not EM Smith.