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.
In conclusion. It has been shown that Goddard did conduct with due diligence with respect to this analysis as he compared air temperatures in antarctica to mass losses despite having been told numerous times and having been given evidence over and over that Ice losses occur because of ocean warming, glacier termini thinning and glacier accelerations.
It is a shame that Goddard has chose to ignore the real issue that his original comparison was flawed and I believe that a revision is required if he wishes to keep his credibility for future glaciological interpretations.
Ultimately that is his choice in the end but I think it has been proven to him that glaciers in antarctica are thinning, accelerating and causing extensive mass losses across the WAIS and the EAIS. If he wishes to argue against this by pulling out old papers (again) then he can. But we all know that newer papers by the same authors show these losses because of more advanced techniques than low resolution radar altimeters. It should also be noted that there is a plethora of books and papers on these subjects and that if time was taken, more appropriate analysis techniques could be used. I suggest that Goddard either put up the evidence that refutes papers such as the Allison et al. 2009 and Pritchard et al. papers or take down the article until it has been revised to represent a true evaluation of the science. Arguing for the sake of arguing benefits no one.
AC1,
Sea ice and Land ice are not the same thing. Get educated before making statements like “case closed” when you clearly don’t even know the difference between the two. I used it previously and I think it was inappropriate but at least I was presenting an effective argument on this topic. You are showing irrelevant data for a land-ice discussion.
Robert
What complete garbage you just posted at 4:34.
I wrote :
“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?”
There is only one part of Antarctica which has -30C temperatures in the summer, and it is right in the center of East Antarctica at elevation in excess of 10,000 feet.
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/800px-antarctic_surface_temperature.png
You are apparently here to disrupt, not to have an honest conversation. Personally I think you should be banned from posting.
Antarctica “has been losing” 100 km^3 ice a year. So. Antarctica’s area =^= 13,000,000 km^2. That means it’s losing an average of eight millimetres depth a year. If measurements that small can be trusted – especially given caveats like that of anna v. And over what time scale? Anything even remotely like 30 years? Now Earth’s area =^= 510,000,000 km^2, ie 40 times the area of Antarctica. That means sea level rise of 8/40 mm a year or 2 cm a century.
It’s in this context that the misleading alarmist statement “if all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet)” should be made illegal when stated out of context. IMHO.
But the problem with the material here seems to be worse than this. According to Cryosphere Today, Antarctic sea ice is up at almost a record high. So… is this article on GRACE akin to saying “the models predict different to the data… so the real data is not correct… here is your newspeak data… ” OK, now guessing that the time period measured by GRACE is pretty short, perhaps we have two Svensmark-type phenomena at work – (1) with the rest of the earth now cooling on balance, Antarctica is warming again – only fractionally but enough to cause a slight acceleration of glacier movement with most visible loss of mass in coastal areas – but (2) since the rest of the earth is cooling, the oceans included, the sea ice extent is increasing. Haha, but the orthodox don’t want any Svensmark explanations! certainly not two!
Robert,
I have been writing for three years, and you are the first person I have seen intentionally distort and lie.
I understand that is common practice on some other sites, but not at WUWT. You should go back to whatever Internet cesspool you normally hang out at.
“Now, using your estimate of 100-500 meters glacial movement per year towards the coast, it would require between 1,400 and 7,000 years to propagate a response 700 km in the interior.”
Does anyone really take you seriously?
Robert, here are some interesting issues about the Arctic ice loss.
2007 Arctic ice retreat due mostly to wind, currents – source NASA since then September ice has recovered. As for this September we’ll have to wait and see.
NASA says at least 45% melting since 1976 is most probably due to aerosols
In 2009 Polar 5 expedition found Arctic ice thicker than expected
Lets say the Arctic ice continues its alarming melt in September there is stil hope.
From NASA:
“So in addition to changing sea ice, we can kind of guess that something must be happening in the atmosphere over the Arctic, too.” Clouds are bright, too, and an increase in clouds could cancel out the impact of melting snow and ice on polar albedo.”
source
“Although sea ice and snow cover had noticeably declined in the Arctic from 2000 to 2004, there had been no detectable change in the albedo measured at the top of the atmosphere: the proportion of light the Arctic reflected hadn’t changed. In other words, the ice albedo feedback that most climate models predict will ultimately amplify global warming apparently hadn’t yet kicked in.”
“According to the MODIS observations, cloud fraction had increased at a rate of 0.65 percent per year between 2000 and 2004. If the trend continues, it will amount to a relative increase of about 6.5 percent per decade. At least during this short time period, says Kato, increased cloudiness in the Arctic appears to have offset the expected decline in albedo from melting sea ice and snow.” source
All this melting has been seen again and again and again and again in the past. This is why I’m not alarmed by even complete September ice loss or ice loss at the fringes of Antarctica.
Robert says at 11:48 am:
“Case closed.”
Sorry, Robert, it’s not ‘case closed’ until everyone agrees.
Now then, this statement of yours is especially silly:
“When you see accelerated mass losses like in Antarctica, it is due to increases in glacier velocity without subsequent increases in input ice.”
Your glacier conjecture doesn’t answer a central question: why is the sea level not reflecting all this increasing glacier ‘velocity’? Antarctica is a continent. If it is losing such a large volume of ice that isn’t being replenished, then the sea level rise should be accelerating. It’s not.
Try limiting yourself to real world observations, Robert. Why? Because your models suck. And they’re leading you down the wrong path. Observations, me boy, that’s science. Models are only conjectures.
From AC1s’ short comment how do you know AC1 does not know the difference? I’ll not accuse you of being a mind reader but I am baffled as to how you came to that conclusion.
In the interest of unbiased research, does NASA ever report on a cooling trend?
Smokey says:
June 30, 2010 at 5:09 pm
” Sorry, Robert, it’s not ‘case closed’ until everyone agrees. ”
Truth isn’t based on consensus. Regardless, I could provide an absolutely pivotal evidence that proves my point (like I have) but it wouldn’t change your minds. When your mind is made up, it is made up, regardless if facts get in the way…
There were portions of the sea level rise which were unaccounted for. In the IPCC AR4 they had estimates that Antarctica was gaining and then had some sea level rise left unaccounted for (look it up!). The ice losses are just increasing our knowledge on what is causing sea level rise. Personally, I think that Because oceans aren’t currently warming at the rate they were over the last 20 years that the amount of sea level rise due to thermal expansion may be reducing whereas the glacier losses are increasing… Pure speculation afterall. I’d have to take a little time to read the literature on the topic but due note that we’re talking only a contribution of around 0.5 mm per year but that rate is accelerating so that is the importance of it. Finally, all the papers I cited are not models, they are measurements using different techniques. Is a laser measuring the distance between the sensor and the ground over the course of a few years a model? (Pritchard et al. 2009). Lets get real on this subject. Those modeling accusations may have some validity for other fields but measurements and real evidence support the Glaciological interpretations by glaciologists. If you don’t believe it then try it for yourself. For the record I’m working on a paper about overestimation of ice losses because of statistical problems with some elevation models used for alpine glaciers, really the mark of an AGW fanatic who is bending the truth isn’t it? Most glaciologists just do their job and stay out of the political side of things so lets stay away from conjecture on whether we do real world observations… If a glaciologist were claiming Antarctica were gaining mass you would give him a microphone and call him credible. Yet all the papers and researchers I presented are referred to as theoretical modelers away from real world observations. I made no attempt to call losses because of AGW and yet look at the fight I received? Open minded appraisal of the literature is important for all, skeptic or proponent.
This is what Robert calls “close to the coast.”
About the same distance (700 km) between Los Angeles and, or Tucson, Arizona. Perhaps he should purchase some beach front property in Tucson?
He also claims that changes in glaciers would quickly perturb other parts of the glaciers 700 km away, which indicates that he does not understand glacial movement – at all.
Conclusion – he is probably a government glacier expert.
Robert also believes that it makes sense for sea ice to be expanding at warmer lower latitudes and elevations, while glacial ice is disappearing a colder higher latitudes and elevations.
More evidence that he is probably a government expert.
Chris Noble
I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you made it past 3rd grade, and know how to divide 700km/100 (meters/year) = 7000 years
AC1 I think you got Robert running scared there with your short but powerfull link and observation. Dismissing your point like that is a sign of “no useful rebuttal”. :o)
I see perfect examples of confirmation bias from Robert and others. They see a paper that supports their view and quote it without a second thought. However, a paper that doesn’t match their bias is considered “old”. It’s absolutely hilarious to watch.
In less than 10 years we will see all of these papers discarded as short term observations because … that’s exactly what there are. Now, anyone who would consider these anything else says a lot about them.
Tell that to the IPCC and the folks at Real Climate. ;o)
“He also claims that changes in glaciers would quickly perturb other parts of the glaciers 700 km away, which indicates that he does not understand glacial movement – at all.”
For someone with such a patronising attitude you must have quite a lot of expertise in this area!
Have you actually asked a glaciologist about this? Or are you just relying on your ‘common sense’?
Don’t forget to sprinkle your paper liberally with Co2 induced warming comments if you want it to get past peer review or you wish to apply for any (future?) funding. :o)
Robert is claiming there has been an unexplained sea level rise. Like most of what Robert says, that is wrong. The sea level is rising in response to the planet’s natural warming since the LIA.
However, the rise in the global sea level has been moderating recently, contradicting Robert’s conjecture about those high velocity glaciers coming out of Antarctica.
Also, ocean heat is declining, not rising as would be expected with AGW. The IPCC’s models show ocean warming, while real world observations show cooling.
Robert likes to claim he’s won the debate [“it is certainly clear that the evidence supports my conclusions,” and: “case closed.”], but when observed facts are compared with his ‘evidence,’ it is clear that his evidence is based on computer models, which are only conjectures.
And since observations trump models every time, when Robert gets back from his fishing expedition I’m going to want first-hand observations of those 45-lb stripers he’s going to tell us he caught.☺
stevengoddard says:
June 30, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Robert also believes that it makes sense for sea ice to be expanding at warmer lower latitudes and elevations, while glacial ice is disappearing a colder higher latitudes and elevations.
More evidence that he is probably a government expert.
—————————————
Guess you still don’t understand what is driving the increase in sea ice. Seems you are too quick to jump on winds being the cause in the Arctic but completely ignore the winds in the Antarctic. I know you understand factors for glacial ice thinning, yet you completely choose to ignore them in this absolutely inane article.
Chris Noble
I have a geology degree and worked many years as a geologist. I have studied glaciers for many years. I also have an engineering degree and have a good solid understanding of material behaviour.
If ice thinned at the terminus of a glacier, it would be hundreds or thousands of years before that would have any effect on other parts of the glacier 700 km away – particularly at the very cold temperatures found at higher elevations of East Antarctica.
“I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you made it past 3rd grade, and know how to divide 700km/100 (meters/year) = 7000 years”
The figure you are citing is the time for ice 700km from the coast to make the complete journey to the sea. This is not the same time taken for the effects to propagate up the glacier. If you open the outlet at the bottom of a grain silo it does not take hours before the grain at the top starts moving down.
Your combination of arrogance and ignorance is astounding.
Can you find a single qualified expert who agrees with your claims? A single paper? If you are going to contradict 100% of working glaciologists you should produce something other than your ‘common sense’ to support your claims.
Genesis 9:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
Does anyone find it strange that there is enough water in Antarctic to generate a 60m sea level rise? Not to mention that the ‘springs of the great deep bursting forth’ sound much like the active magma chambers and plate tectonics mentioned at the end of this article?
Sorry for the religious reference. I’m just sayin’.
“Your glacier conjecture doesn’t answer a central question: why is the sea level not reflecting all this increasing glacier ‘velocity’?”
Have you actually calculated how much 24 cubic miles per year would raise sea levels by?