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.
The thread trolls will do absolutely anything to change the subject and avoid discussing the fact that East Antarctica is too cold to melt.
I couldn’t care less if some prof thinks glass flows more slowly than some other prof does. The point is that it is a highly viscous liquid, like ice.
Mr. Noble and Junior,
Is it your intent as it is for far too many ACGW’rs to come here and sling red herrings about and totally ignore the most important discussion.
Why are you so hyper focused on the point of glass? Everyone knows that glass is no where’s near like ice. Old window glass used to lay on a bed of aluminum which caused pock marks and valleys based on its texture. What’s the big issue, glass is not ice move on.
Not once have you even lifted a finger to refute the fact that this article in question is using a satellite rendering based on gravity. The difference in gravity can be from any number of things that have not yet been pin pointed. That’s Mr. Goddard’s point pure and simple.
Throw all the red herrings you want and the room is going to smell foul but the glaring obviousness of his comments still stand.
Chris Noble
The only mechanism which can cause significant thinning of the glaciers at -30C is flow. We know the velocity which the glacier is flowing at. It is a simple calculation to approximate how long it would take for a change at the terminus to propagate backwards to the source of the glacier. I have done this calculation for you several times. I’m very sorry that you are unable to understand it. If you feel the need for additional help, you will have to seek that out yourself.
Brad
I have some very nice pieces of parchment next to my desk. But I have long since moved on from academia and research to actually accomplishing things in the real world.
In private industry, people are judged by their accomplishments.
“My point is that places where GRACE supposedly shows thinning away from the coast, are probably misinterpretations of the gravity data.”
The only support you have offered for this claim (which coincidentally fits your prejudices) is a further claim that the acceleration from increased calving cannot possibly propagate up the glaciers fast enough for this to occur.
Please do not appeal to your ‘solid understanding of material properties’ which apparently includes the urban myth about old window panes flowing.
Mr. Noble,
Would you care to look at Arctic ice as an example of your big red fallacy painted on the target of your wisdom?
How about glacier bay in Alaska. The majority of that ice started melting in the early 1700’s and has slowed drastically over the last 50 years. Did the ocean rise and Natives lose their lives? Please people. The basic truth of what Mr. Goddard has said is there, it’s true, it’s viable. It has been said by more than one person.
You sling your red herrings as fast as your arms can move but what have you done to prove him wrong? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING – zip.
There is no evidence to show that major calving of ice in either east antarctic or west. There is no real evidence to show that there is any major temperature rise anomaly.
I don’t know what makes me more frustrated the fact that I’ve wasted 40 minutes of my time, or the intentional attempts at subfuscation.
“Have you actually done any non-refutable studies that shows there is 24 cubic miles per year of ice melting from either Eastern or Western Antarcic?”
All papers are refutable if you have actual evidence that contradicts it.
So far nobody here has refuted the study that is being referred to.
Steven Goddard started with a complete red herring by making a big deal of the temperatures being below zero when the study never asserted that the ice loss was occurring through melting.
When it was pointed out that the ice loss was occurring through acceleration of the glaciers Goddard made some completely unsubstantiated claims that this was impossible.
“Smokey” joined in with another bogus claim that Antarctica couldn’t possibly be losing 24 cubic miles of ice a year because there would be a huge sea level rise. All I asked is for him to calculate the sea level rise that would occur from 24 cubic miles of ice.
There is an important distinction between skepticism and inventing bogus reasons to ignore studies with results that you find inconvenient.
Chris Noble
I will give a little help with the fluid flow problem. Consider two cases
1. A substance with nearly infinite viscosity. How long would it take to respond to change at the other end?
2. A substance with nearly zero viscosity. How long would it take to respond?
I’m not going to teach you a class in fluid dynamics, but you can at least be clever enough to observe that the blue spot is isolated – and that if it were the result of changes along the coast there would have to be a continuous region of blue all the way to the sea.
Chris Noble
The only thing bogus here is people who are not bright enough to recognize that ice is not melting at -30C.
The ridiculous stream of straw men, distractions, ad homs, off topic, mindless discussion here is genuinely sickening.
stevengoddard,
I have no real idea about this, but my guesses would be:
1.) Near zero time (although obviously still limited by things like, for instance, the speed of light)
2.) Near infinite time.
However, I would also imagine that it would depend on the forces involved. If there was a substance with low viscosity that was being subjected to great forces, it might very well move faster than a substance with high viscosity that was subject to much smaller forces – again, that is a guess based on not much more than intuition.
Although I just did a little experiment with a ruler, a fruit box and my wallet. As you increase the forces involved (by, for instance, increasing the slope) friction can be overcome. (Again, obvious by intuition, but I wanted to check it).
(Or, indeed, by adding mass behind the fruitbox or wallet)
stevengoddard says:
June 30, 2010 at 8:57 pm
The thread trolls will do absolutely anything to change the subject and avoid discussing the fact that East Antarctica is too cold to melt.
I couldn’t care less if some prof thinks glass flows more slowly than some other prof does. The point is that it is a highly viscous liquid, like ice.
___________________________________________________________
No, glass is NOT a highly viscous liquid at STP.
You are the one who does not understand that basic FACT!
Urban legends indeed!
For the record WUWT is NOT a SCIENCE blog.
And that’s a FACT!
“I will give a little help with the fluid flow problem.”
The only help you could give is to provide some evidence for your claims. Do not pretend to lecture me.
I happen to be a Research Hydraulic Engineer.
With three degrees with the word SCIENCE in them.
Steven Goddard understands viscosity?
I think NOT!
“I couldn’t care less if some prof thinks glass flows more slowly than some other prof does. The point is that it is a highly viscous liquid, like ice.”
You should care what actual measurements on glass indicate. Real measurements on window glass indicate that they do not flow over the time scale of centuries.
You seem to prefer the urban myth.
It isn’t a question of one professors opinion over another. It is a question of evidence.
There is no evidence for your claim that “In Europe you can see windows which have flowed downwards over hundreds of years.”
If you are going to pretend to lecture other people on your “solid understanding of material behaviour” then you should at least try to get it right.
Today, June 30, 2010, 2 hours ago | EFS_Junior
stevengoddard says:
June 30, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Chris Noble
Your grain silo analogy is incorrect for quite a few reasons. The glacial sheet is 700 km wide by 3 km high. It is like a sheet of thin glass residing on a gentle slope. In Europe you can see windows which have flowed downwards over hundreds of years.
_____________________________________________________________
Your analogy with old window glass is incorrect.
Old glass is not what is called today as float glass.
The old glass was never flat to begin with due to the older less accurate glass making processes.
Glass exhibits no viscoelastic properties at STP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Float_glass
I can see you have all your faith in Wikipedia information.
However, Wikipedia left out an important point, glass smiths 400 years ago had strick instructions by the glass guilds to always place the thickest glass at the bottom of the window pane when installing one. You might ask Wikipedia to correct their records. 🙂
“The only thing bogus here is people who are not bright enough to recognize that ice is not melting at -30C.”
Which is a perfect example of a straw man because nobody is arguing that it does.
Glaciers do flow and they do accelerate.
“I have done this calculation for you several times.”
No. The calculation you have done is for how long it takes ice to travel 700 km if its average speed is 100 m per year. This is not the same time that it takes for an increase in the flow rate to propagate up the glacier.
Chris Noble,
Fluid flow is driven by pressure gradients (differences.) Suppose you solve the problem numerically. Let’s say you have a ten metre length of fluid in non-turbulent flow. Break it down into one foot sections.
At steady state, the velocity is constant. (say 1m/sec) Now decrease the downstream pressure slightly. That will cause the speed over the last metre to increase slightly. After almost one second, the fluid at the nine metre mark has moved to the ten metre mark, and the drop in pressure has propagated backwards to the nine metre mark. After almost two seconds, it will propagate back to the eight metre mark, and after almost ten seconds it will propagate back to the other end.
So the time required to adjust to the new pressure gradient is going to be slightly less that the time required for the fluid to travel ten metres under the old pressure regime. If we lowered the pressure at the downstream end by 10%, then the time to propagate the new pressure gradient upstream can be estimated as 90% of the old flow time.
Regardless, it is too cold to melt in East Antarctica and satellite studies show that ice is increasing.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/news050516-10.html
[snip -Steve, no more comments like this – A]
Chris Noble,
You are claiming that the ice at -30C in the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet has increased velocity due ice loss along the coast. Now draw out your imaginary pressure gradient that it is causing it to accelerate to the coast, and present even one shred of evidence that the ice speed has increased out of that region.
However, the grain silo analogy is still bogus…
And 24 km^3 is trivial.
wayne says:
June 30, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Today, June 30, 2010, 2 hours ago | EFS_Junior
stevengoddard says:
June 30, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Chris Noble
Your grain silo analogy is incorrect for quite a few reasons. The glacial sheet is 700 km wide by 3 km high. It is like a sheet of thin glass residing on a gentle slope. In Europe you can see windows which have flowed downwards over hundreds of years.
_____________________________________________________________
Your analogy with old window glass is incorrect.
Old glass is not what is called today as float glass.
The old glass was never flat to begin with due to the older less accurate glass making processes.
Glass exhibits no viscoelastic properties at STP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Float_glass
I can see you have all your faith in Wikipedia information.
However, Wikipedia left out an important point, glass smiths 400 years ago had strick instructions by the glass guilds to always place the thickest glass at the bottom of the window pane when installing one. You might ask Wikipedia to correct their records. 🙂
____________________________________________________________
I posted another link that states exactly what you have stated with respect to glass orientation.
The float glass link discusses current and past glass PROCESSING methodologies.
Some here place more weight on urban legends, that they do the actual science/engineering.
mi^3, still trivial.
“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.”
OK, several genius’ have established that it’s not melting. Most likely, if this measurement is valid, it’s the result of cyclical changes in accumulation and flow. So, it’ll probably take >> for it to all slide off as the rate would fall as the mass falls. Plus, a heck of a lot of it would have to flow uphill to escape basins and mountain ranges, etc. Nothing to lose sleep over. Al Gore can go back to trying to find somebody who’ll let him grope.