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.
David with regard to your comment
“Anthony Watts, this isn’t the first post by “Steven Goddard” displaying a woeful lack of regard for basic research or fact-checking. Continuing to post his “insights” will damage your credibility. Does this concern you?”
Don Easterbrook has posted a comment largely supporting Steve’s post.
I would be interested in hearing your opinion on his knowledge on the subject of glaciology?
Robert says:
June 30, 2010 at 5:19 am
Robert, Steve doesn’t have any evidence countering yours. And I wouldn’t expect him to even attempt to give counter evidence. After reading several of his posts, it seems his tactic is repeatedly to mislead people. I think there are other article authors on this site that are more honest in their reporting, Willis recently did one that was just a basic reporting of the science w/o putting in a bunch of conclusions or inflamatory statements and that was much appreciated, but Steve doesn’t seem capable of doing that.
latitude says: June 29, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I wish these nut jobs would put half this much time, money, and effort into at least trying to do something worth while……………
I completely agree, and so many visitors to this blog say exactly the same thing!
If the total of land-based ice is diminishing then total seawater must be increasing at an increased rate. Is it? And why should humans worry if it is? Globalisation and technological growth is making more of the world’s barren land practically inhabitable and therefore, fuctionally speaking, there is more good earth for humans to flourish on than ever.
Steven Goddard:
Are you not aware that it is possible for the ice to gain mass in one place, while at the same time losing it in another place? The results from GRACE show the net change, which is, as you can see but refuse to believe – negative.
So, the fact that the ice is depleting while snow is being added merely means that the actual loss rate is even greater than the figure derived from GRACE.
The added snow, on the other hand, is yet another sign of warming. Is this confusing? It confused many people on this blog last time the subject came up. Don’t you have some experts on the subject? Climatologists, or something?
PS: Smokey – I believe facts are important. If this means spending time to get things right, then I find the time or remain silent. But if it’s just a matter of reading the referenced source and discovering that it has been misreported, then that’s not hard, is it? Basic scepticism demands that people should check what is being said. When I discover that “Steven Goddard” is not being accurate, then I lose faith in anything he has to say. NASA, on the other hand, have a good track record with discovering and correcting mistakes.
I prefer to get my science from scientists, not anonymous, unpublished bloggers.
Glaciers calve more ice off into the ocean when they are receiving more snow in their interior.
Increased glacial flow is normally a sign of an expanding glacier. Decreased glacial flow is a sign of a retreating glacier. When a glacier disappears, glacial flow drops to zero.
Here is another Nature article which disagrees with the GRACE map about ice loss in the interior of East Antarctica.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080113/full/news.2008.438.html
“Antarctica: gaining weight in the middle, but losing more at the edges.”
Game, set and match to Robert
jeff brown
Your ad hom attacks are getting incredibly annoying.
If you have a specific objection, state it clearly. You appear desperate.
David
Again, this article is about East Antarctica. Please don’t waste my time changing the subject.
Fred windsor
Do you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion? Your crew is completely incapable of staying on topic.
Phil,
What part of this sentence isn’t clear to you?
“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.”
Perhaps I am assuming to much in expecting that commentors have basic map reading skills?
So both Robert & David make excuses for not submitting their own articles, and continue to take their pot shots at Steve Goddard — who steps up to the plate with several new articles a week.
Anyone can be a critic, and that’s what these two are doing: looking for any possible opportunity to criticize — while admitting they don’t personally have what it takes to write an article. At the very least, they could emerge from their mom’s basement long enough to answer anna v’s comments.
Decreasing temperatures at higher elevations of a glacier can also cause reduced flow, because the viscosity of the ice increases at lower temperatures.
Ryan says:
June 30, 2010 at 7:05 am
“… if the ice is reaching the ocean faster, why would the absolute temperature make any real difference? The ocean is significantly warmer then the melting point of the ice and therefore ANY ice at ANY time reaching the ocean will be forced to melt – this is always going to be the case regardless of its absolute temperature. ”
“Secondly, even if the ice in glaciers close to the ocean were to melt entirely the ice further inland will not readily reach the sea since it is effectively locked to the terrain beneath it.”
You are incorrect with your first point. Ice melts quicker in warmer water. If you put an ice cube in a warm glass of water it will melt quicker than in a cold glass of water. Also note that the oceans around Antarctica are in many regions very close to the melting point and might otherwise have become ice if it were not for the currents/salinity and other oceanic reasons. I myself have been there and seen measurements of water which is below 0 on numerous occasions. Also consider that warmer oceans eat away at the bottom of the glacier causing it to thin and subsequently move quicker.
Your second point is absolutely off the mark. Glacier ice inland is very dependent on the outlet glaciers particularly in West Antarctica. The WAIS is for the most part grounded below sea level and sloped towards the interior, meaning that water can penetrate deep inland in West Antarctica in these deep basins and can begin to eat away at the bottom of the ice where it meets land. This process ultimately leads to grounding line retreat and floatation of ice which is above the penetrating water. Grounding line retreat in the Amundsen Sea Embayment is particularly important because the subsequent glacier accelerations have been seen to have propagated far inland. Furthermore, because the deepest parts below sea level of the WAIS are at the center of it, this means that grounding line retreat theoretically wouldn’t stop until it reaches that topographic barrier.
All in all Ryan, I think it is time you start looking up some of the glaciological principles for Antarctica before you make assumptions that you cannot support.
One Final note, unlike mentioned in your statement, precipitation in west antarctica is quite high. And your final comment… there are many factors which determine regional glaciations including precipitation, elevation, temperature, shading and so on… Ice being lost in Antarctica does not mean that ice has to be lost elsewhere. But for the record, the alps have lost ridiculous amounts of ice…
Vincent says:
June 30, 2010 at 7:07 am
“Robert,
you make some interesting technical points. However, I’ve always taken ice extents from cryosphere today, and they show a positive anomaly for the SH. Yet you seem to be claiming the opposite.”
This discussion is not about Sea Ice Extents but rather Land Ice. It’s a common misconception to call all ice the same. For your future knowledge the Arctic Ice Cap is Sea Ice, Greenland Ice Sheet is Land Ice, Antarctica is covered in Land Ice with Sea Ice around it. Land Ice is what significantly contributes to sea level rise. Hopefully this helps to clarify your confusion.
Smokey
I have no objection to criticism. What bugs me is people setting up straw man arguments, and then repeating them over and over again.
No one has made any attempt to justify the GRACE image showing ice loss in the interior of East Antarctica at -30C, which is what I wrote about. They go blathering on endlessly about other regions of Antarctica.
Finn:
The entire trend over the region can be encapsulated by the error bars. There is therefore no ability to statistically suggest one trend over another trend for the whole data set to the degree for which it remains coupled. A set of +/-3°C for .1°C change is more than likely coupled across the whole set: There can be no defensible trendline for this data set.
Now if the data became uncoupled, that is, there is some point at which the error bars of an identifiable set of the data moves outside of the error bars of another set of the data, a trend can be drawn between these points, but you treat both populations as single data points. Also, situations of such small change relative to the amount measured typically do not uncouple without observable events that cause that uncoupling at particular points in the time distribution of the data set, IE, before and after a meteor strike or before and after the resiting of a thermometer or before and after the polar bear ate the tagged penguin.
This trend vs. error is simple hackery.
Smokey says:
June 30, 2010 at 10:24 am
“So both Robert & David make excuses for not submitting their own articles, and continue to take their pot shots at Steve Goddard — who steps up to the plate with several new articles a week.”
“Anyone can be a critic, and that’s what these two are doing: looking for any possible opportunity to criticize — while admitting they don’t personally have what it takes to write an article. At the very least, they could emerge from their mom’s basement long enough to answer anna v’s comments.”
Submitting their own articles where? Like where is this grand mecca of article submission to which you refer? First of all there are plenty of good articles out there so why do I have to submit any. Skeptical Science does a great job with the Antarctic work so do they need someone else to try and do the same? Secondly, I have a full-time job and am working on my own thesis research on the side. I felt like taking time out of my day to help some people get better informed on the state of glaciological research in Antarctica and you jump all over me as if I’m a coward. I think what’s important is that people find out the facts with respect to all this and not that the second one of the guys on your team is disproved, that instead of learning and moving forward in a constructive manner, you sit back and criticize me for having the gall to not want people to leave here misinformed?? With respect to Anna V’s commentary, I haven’t seen it but I will now search her name and try to address it when I get off work in 2 hours.
stevengoddard says:
June 30, 2010 at 10:24 am
Phil,
What part of this sentence isn’t clear to you?
“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.”
Perhaps I am assuming to much in expecting that commentors have basic map reading skills?
More snark from you as expected! Yes you had a couple of sentences about the East Antarctica but your original post was not exclusively confined to that region.
Did your forget this?
In 2007, NASA generated this map (below) of Antarctica showing just how hot it is getting down there in the land of Penguins.
Or this?
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.
Or this?
The hot red map above was preceded by a cold blue map which showed Antarctica getting cooler.
Or this?
NASA justified their heating up Antarctica with this comment :
And this:
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.
Finally:
This article is about East Antarctica, and you are referencing studies and data which include West Antarctica.
As did you, so what the hell are you complaining about, you have no leg to stand on!
David says:
June 30, 2010 at 6:12 am
Dave I know Mr. Goddard can defend himself but perhaps you missed this statement. This is what the entire post was about to me.
“Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002” and that “if all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet).“
As Mr. Goddard, said it will take 300,000 years for this to happen. We all know and I am absolutely sure Mr. Goddard knows all the ways ice can and does melt. This is a grandiose statement for no reason other than to grab attention. NASA should be ashamed.
Further, I wouldn’t use the idea of not knowing the absolute but knowing with precision the change as a defense to a cop in a speed trap. “But officer I know I was within .05 mph some speed close to 65mph.” said Dave.
Mr. Goddard’s post was readable and enjoyable. For that alone I am thankful.
Phil
I wrote exactly four paragraphs about GRACE, quoted below. There is no mention of anything other than East Antarctica. I challenge you to attempt to stay on topic and find anything incorrect that I wrote.
If your “science” depends on promoting BS, it is a waste of your time. Why would you cling to it?
Phil,
And before you embarrass yourself, the “places that stay incredibly cold, all year round” are in East Antarctica.
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/800px-antarctic_surface_temperature.png
stevengoddard says:
June 30, 2010 at 10:34 am
“I have no objection to criticism. What bugs me is people setting up straw man arguments, and then repeating them over and over again.
No one has made any attempt to justify the GRACE image showing ice loss in the interior of East Antarctica at -30C, which is what I wrote about. They go blathering on endlessly about other regions of Antarctica”
Take a look at Figure 1 of this paper (Allison et al. 2009, Ice Sheet Mass Balance and Sea Level) (Antarctic Science 21(5), 413–426 (2009))
Notice anything similar between your ice mass losses at the interior of Antarctica and this figure? Every region of the EAIS that shows loss is also in a region where fast moving ice streams penetrate deep into the EAIS and travel out to the coast at velocities of between 100-500 m per year according to this figure (the figure is older though). If velocities on these ice streams accelerated then that would explain your mass losses. Furthermore, as previously pointed out, Totten and Cook Glaciers (Both in EAIS) saw large thinning which causes glacier accelerations. Both these glaciers are in submarine basins similar to Pine Island Glacier and thus allowing for effects to propagate inland more.
There, now can we get back to the part where you admit your analysis was faulty?
Anna v asked about the hydrologist working on glaciers in the dry valleys. That was Trevor Chin who also spent much of his life analysing the decline of the NZ glaciers.
Off topic but probably interesting
Lake Vanda is unusual in that it has 3 m of ice on top but the bottom of the lake is 25 degrees Celsius. This occurs because during ice ages the summer melt ceases and the lake level drops due to sublimation. This concentrates the salts in the lake to produce a very toxic saturated solution which is very high in calcium choride (some small lakes are still liquid at -60 degrees).
When the climate warms again and the summer melt (which only lasted 6 weeks in 1985) starts, the fresh water layers on top of the concentrated salt solution which prevents thermal mixing of the fresh water with the older salt layers. While there is some mixing , there are two distinct layers the upper one being lower concentration than the lower one. The result of later cold period that was not as long as the main one.
The salt soutions have been analysed by Dr Torre (Japan) but I dont have the data to hand. One of the experiments the hydrologist tried was to determine the sediment being dropped by the ice as the surface ice thinned over summer. they lowered inverted umbrellas on 3mm stainless steel cable to near the bottom. When they pulled the cables up some weeks later some of them had corroded through- pwerful mix down there.
Ignore for a moment that sea surface temperatures are well below normal around Antarctica and that sea ice extent is at a record high for the date.
Let’s play the alarmist game and assume that all ice in regions which get above 0C in summer melts over the next 100 years. That is less than 1% of the Antarctic ice mass.
In other words, it is too cold over 99% of Antarctica’s ice mass to ever see any melt. The Antarctica melting scare is nothing but pure, unadulterated BS.