Guest post by Thomas Fuller
It is hard to understand many of those who are convinced that climate change will destroy civilization. Previous ideas about massive sea level rise or tipping points leading to unending temperature increases have been debunked. Conventional theory on climate change points to moderate temperature and sea level rises that can be dealt with using existing technology, although the sooner we start the easier it will be.
But for some, the need to believe (and to preach) about a coming catastrophe is so strong that they are willing to overturn their own theories to take temporary advantage of ephemeral observations that will support their apocalyptic vision of the future.
The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment has been an operational satellite mission since 2002, measuring differences in the Earth’s gravity. Pictures of our planet using GRACE look more like a partially deflated soccer ball than the pristine globe we’re more accustomed to seeing.
As written in Wikipedia:
“GRACE is the first Earth-monitoring mission in the history of space flight whose key measurement is not derived from electromagnetic waves either reflected off, emitted by, or transmitted through Earth’s surface and/or atmosphere. Instead, the mission uses a microwave ranging system to accurately measure changes in the speed and distance between two identical spacecraft flying in a polar orbit about 220 kilometers (137 miles) apart, 500 kilometers (311 miles) above Earth. The ranging system is so sensitive it can detect separation changes as small as 10 microns—about one-tenth the width of a human hair over a distance of 220 kilometers.”
And according to some scientists working with GRACE measurements, Antarctica is losing ice. Not just the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet, which has been predicted to melt and succumb to mechanical pressure since the 1930s, but also the vastly larger ice sheet covering East Antarctica.
And sure enough, the ‘apocaholics’ are all over this, using it to reinforce their unrelenting drumbeat of doom-laden predictions of disastrous sea level rises.
But this is actually quite strange. According to climate change theory, ice should be increasing in Antarctica–the (very slight) increase in temperatures and the natural increase in precipitation should result in more snow over Antarctica which gets compressed into higher levels of ice. The same phenomenon is both predicted and observed in Greenland, by the way.
Instead of using this as proof of global warming, these people should be either wondering about the measurements or re-examining their theories. Because this is observed data working against the principles of their theory… But they cannot pass up the chance for a quick and easy headline that reinforces the ‘all disaster, only disaster, 24 hours a day’ routine.
Certainly all measurements before GRACE showed increasing ice in Antarctica, as they do today.
My guess (I’m not a scientist and do not claim to know) is that there are still a few bugs to work out in how they are doing this. If you recall, when satellites first started being used to measure Earth temperatures, there were a few glitches caused by orbital decay and other mechanical problems.
Certainly their description of how they analyze the data provided by GRACE shows many an opportunity for error to creep in. They use a bit of guess work and inferences from computer models to create base levels for the land that rises and falls under the differing levels of ice. Which is what they have to do at the moment, until they get enough real base data. I’m certainly not blaming the scientists for any of this. They’re proceeding the way they have to proceed. My beef is with those who step in front of the scientists with their interpretations.
So the paper referred to by scare artists like Michael Tobis of Only In It For The Gold says the Eastern Antarctic has lost 57 billion tons a year–plus or minus 52 billion tons. Hmm. I think we need a few more orbits, myself. Having a margin of error as large as the original figure doesn’t inspire confidence.
But to hear some talk, it’s back to the Day After Tomorrow tidal waves drowning New York. You can always tell when they’re trying to scare you–they talk about firm figures for how much ice is melting, without the data needed to put it into perspective. 57 billion tons certainly sounds like a lot of ice. However, as a percentage of the total it is not even an asterisk. Antarctica has 150 million billion tons of ice…
Do you remember that iceberg that calved off Antarctica in March? (Calving is a perfectly normal event, and has nothing to do with climate change.) The one the size of Rhode Island? It was estimated at 860 billion tons.
“A 2008 study estimated that Antarctica loses about 1.6 trillion metric tons of ice each year, but gets nearly that much back as annual snowfall. The icy continent may suffer a net ice loss of about 100-200 billion metric tons per year, but Scambos said the exact figure remains uncertain.” (Live Science, Is Antarctica Falling Apart? March, 2010).
In essence, what we have here is a new satellite using new tools to take measurements. The data recovered is analyzed using guesses and inferences. Their analysis is presented with a margin of error as large as the amount of ice they say is melting from Antarctica. The loss is is less than 1% of the normal annual melt.
Other measurements, consistent with climate theory, have consistently shown the Antarctic gaining, not losing ice.
So obviously we’re all going to drown, right? Well, when I tried to have a discussion with Michael Tobis in the comments section of his weblog, it didn’t go too well. I’ll let one of his allies offer the final word from those trying to scare us all:
“Tom Fuller seems to have missed the point I made yesterday.
Sea levels are going to go way, way, way, way, way up.
Got it now?”
Umm, no. I don’t
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
===========================================
Addendum by Anthony:
Meanwhile, GRACE data is coming under question, and a new technique yields different results:
The melting of the ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica is about twice as slow as previously thought. The study, conducted by TU Delft, SRON and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The scientists published their findings in the September issue of Nature Geoscience.
We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted.’ The average rise in sea levels as a result of the melting ice caps is also lower.
Source below, click on image for original story. Interestingly, the NASA JPL website does not have this announcement on the Global Climate Change section or any other portion of the website that I can find.
WUWT has covered the GRACE issue previously:
GRACE’s warts – new peer reviewed paper suggests errors and adjustments may be large
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly Mr. Fuller:
“But for some, the need to believe (and to preach) about a coming catastrophe is so strong that they are willing to overturn their own theories to take temporary advantage of ephemeral observations that will support their apocalyptic vision of the future.”
What else is new? This has been around since caveman days. And it has always been used for political, religious, and financial purposes ( not a lot of difference in those actually – all 3 are about power ). If I may, I’d suggest reading “Cannibals and Kings: Origins of Cultures”, by Marvin Harris. Pay particular attention to the Mumi.
BBD says: [oops]
September 6, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Steven quietly hits it on the head and sadly is not heard:
Apologies to tty. Please see his informative comment above:
tty says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:09 pm
The problem with gravimetric measurements of ice thickness is the uncertainty in the isostatic adjustments.
Tom Fuller
No problem. I was going to work this up into an article on sea levels one of these days although someone must have already posted an article here on this fragile part of a fragile science.
“We are being bamboozled by science which likes to have a nice graph to explain everything, unfortunately the real world is more complicated than that. Global sea levels are -like global temperatures-a nonsensical artefact dreamt up in a computer laboratory where satellite records are tacked on to manufactured and highly incomplete histroric records from selected tide gauges.. Modern Sea level rises- where happening- are not being seen in context as another of those regular cycles that stretch back much further than the satellite records or tide gauges into the depths of recorded time.
This is the latest IPCC assessment which confirms sea level calculations from 1993 are by satellite.(page 5 onwards)
Link1
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
The sea level calculations rely on an enormous number of variable factors including pressure, location, tides, warmth of oceans, structures, storms, wave heights, surges, stasis, location of the gauge/sensor, slope of the underlying strata etc. The accuracy of measurements is said to be 3cm (10 times the level of the alleged annual rise) but in reality is often vaguer than that because of the inherent difficulties of measuring. Observed real world sea levels generally simply do not show the rate of increase suggested by the IPCC (although this varies enormously from place to place for reasons cited above)
Link 2 The document below was written by many of our old friends including Phil Jones and Mike Hulme-page 19 gives the sea level data
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/images/stories/trends_pdfs/Trends_section1&2.pdf
The information for historic sea levels was ‘extended’ from a paper by one of the scientists at Proudman
Link3
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/products.php
Link 4 This is reconstruction of sea level data from 1700 of three extremely incomplete Northern Hemisphere records from which IPCC extrapolate their figures, take them to be a global figure and splice them on to the satellite records
Link 5 .
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/jevrejeva_etal_1700/
These three are taken to represent global figures since 1700-much data missing and subsequently interpolated.
Amsterdam from 1700 (Van Veen 1945)
Liverpool since 1768 (Woodworth 1999)
Stockholm since 1774 (Ekman 1988)
It says there are differences even in the same ocean basin between tide gauges of up to plus or minus 6cm rendering their use for a global record to be irrelevant
Link 6
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/jevrejeva_etal_1700/2008GL033611.pdf
pdf from 1700 link
6cm margin of error from tide gauges in same ocean basin
Both the following sites give a good description of the satellite process-which is being constantly refined but doesn’t get more extremely accurate as the inherent flaws in measuring capabilities can’t be fully resolved no matter how many satellite passes are made.
Link 7
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_jacobs_et_al.pdf
Link 8
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/dec/abs1635.html
The following sites deals with problems of satellite accuracy and data;
Link 9
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.html
Link 10
This with reliability
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859
Link 11
;http://lightblueline.org/satellite-tracking-sea-levels-set-launch
The UK Environment Agency -where possible like to use physical tide gauges as well when developing flood defence schemes, which are both visually observed or can send data electronically. Best of all is gathering information from local people such as the Harbour master or those who work the fishing boats and who know what is really happening.
The following link leads to a graph produced by the Dutch Govt sea level organisation- and confirm sea levels are stable and are somewhat lower than during the MWP. (This won’t stop them reacting to the IPCC by raising sea defences)
Link 12
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
Link 13
We have much observational evidence of historic sea levels (p162 on-including a map in the following link)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0Nucx3udvnoC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=romans+in+iceland&source=bl&ots=5k8qGn7VK4&sig=s4aeHlT8Tivz8rVwcHFRVFZjDp0&hl=en&ei=38FJSr2pKpe7jAfu2rRi&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
Ancient Greek explorer Pytheas travelled to Iceland and not only discovered the frozen seas lying one days journey beyond, but was the first to quantify the moons action as being responsible for tides, and took physical measurements of heights. Sea level heights are generally said to be lower today than back in the Roman warm period and Mwp.
Sea castles in the UK built in the 11th century are now above the sea level entrances which ships used to re-supply them.
This links leads to a 1913 book on Harlech castle-one such building which is now high and dry-nothing to do with stasis or deposition, but that sea levels are lower now than when it was built 1000 years ago. Suggest readers select the b/w pdf
Link 14
http://www.archive.org/details/merionethshire00morr
Extract
“In 1409 an attack was made upon Harlech, led by Gilbert and John Talbot for
the King; the besiegers comprised one thousand well armed soldiers and a big siege train. The besieged were in the advantageous situation of being able to receive their necessary supplies from the sea, for the waves of
Cardigan Bay at that time washed the base of the rock upon which the castle stands. Greater vigilance on the part of the attacking force stopped this and the castle was surrendered in the spring of the year.
A remarkable feature of the castle is a covered staircase cut out of the rock, defended on the seaward side by a looped parapet, and closed above and below by small gatehouses. This was the water-gate of the fortress,
and opened upon a small quay below.”
Link 15 The following pictures show the current location of the sea.
http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/morfaharlech.jpg
Link 16
Sea in far distance from Harlech castle
http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/harlech.jpg
and this
Link 17
http://www.buildmodelcastles.com/html/castle_history.html
very good item about Harlech
Link 18
http://www.walesdirectory.co.uk/Castles/Harlech_Castle.htm
Sea levels AND temperatures were higher in the MWP and the Roman warm periods and presumably other extended warm periods (the period 1700 to 1740 is looking increasingly comparable to today).
The worlds leading sea level expert Professor Morner has called the IPCC figures ‘a lie.’ Google ‘The greatest lie ever told’
Morner says: “The mean eustatic rise in sea level for the period 1850-1930 was in the order of 1.0-1.1 mm/year,” but that “after 1930-40, this rise seems to have stopped (Pirazzoli et al., 1989; Morner, 1973,2000).” This stasis, in his words, “lasted, at least, up to the mid-60s.” Thereafter, “the record can be divided into three parts: (1) 1993-1996 with a clear trend of stability, (2) 1997-1998 with a high-amplitude rise and fall recording the ENSO event of these years and (3) 1998-2000 with an irregular record of no clear tendency.” Most important of all, in his words, “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.”
He concludes: “When we consider past records, recorded variability, causational processes involved and the last century’s data, our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is +10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm.” See also Morner (1995); INQUA (2000).”
I am inclined to agree with Professor Morner that sea level is not really doing very much generally (with exceptions either way in some places)
Link 19
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
The above link dissects the data and states that a rise by 2100 of 5cm is possible…. plus or minus 15cm!
Morner stresses (as I do) that observational data contradicts the theoretical interpolated and massaged data that is used by the IPCC.
John Daly also had a good handle on all this.
Link 20
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm
The sea level is not rising at the rate suggested-it has stumbled in recent years according to many local gauges (what is global sea level supposed to mean with a million kilometres of coastline?)
To reach a 1 metre increase by 2100 means an average of nearly 11mm a year (only 90 years remaining). There is simply no evidence to show this is happening.
We must stop looking at just a few years of data as ‘proof’ of rising levels , and instead view things in a historic context, whilst retaining a great deal of scepticism at the notion you can create a highly accurate global figure in the first place, or that tacking dubious satellite data on to even more dubious tide gauge data is any way to create a worthwhile measurement .
I had intended to cover historic sea levels as a companion to my ‘arctic ice variation through the ages’ series.
Tonyb
Tom Fuller reasonably asks:
‘Second, the real question is, if Antarctica actually is losing ice, what does that mean for climate change theory, which predicts it should be gaining ice through the first few decades of this century?’
I don’t know either.
“Second, the real question is, if Antarctica actually is losing ice, what does that mean for climate change theory, which predicts it should be gaining ice through the first few decades of this century?”
When observations contradict theory, either the theory or the observation is incorrect.
If Antarctica actually is losing ice, decades ahead of predictions, what does that mean for your belief that we face only “moderate” sea level rises? I notice that you haven’t answered the question of which “conventional theory” exactly you are referring to with that claim.
Tonyb, many thanks for this. Quite educational. I hope you do make this an article or a guest post here. Well done, sir.
DesertYote: “So who cares if the sea levels raise. It is not as if there is anything special about the level they are at now.”
umm… perhaps you haven’t noticed all the ports are at sea level, all that expensive beachside real estate, all those fertile river deltas, etc etc.
If we choose to keep going on the higher temperatures/higher sea level process, there’s gonna need to be a lot of rebuilding going on in the next few centuries as we either retreat to higher ground or build higher and higher sea walls. Not a good legacy for 21st century humans to leave…
We live on a planet in precession (off balance), with a molten core, and acted upon by various gravitational influences. Does the shape and density of the core figure into the gravity anomalies? Or movement of the “core”.
Movement of magma, might be detected, at the level of sensitivity (I assume is) claimed, and possibly an additional use of the data? I.E. Earthquake/volcano research.
That being said, I have looked at the GRACE website, and the number “adjustments” that have already been done to the data, give me pause.
The “Drumbeat of the Doomers,” rolls on regardless of the evidence as seen even here in the comments section of WUWT.
10 microns over a distance of 220 km!? From the space agency that can’t convert Imperial units to metric? Uh, okay.
I’ve got to believe the variable center of mass of the Earth/Moon system due to the mechanics of the solar system would introduce more than a 10 micron uncertainty in objects 220 km apart.
I know NASA astrophysicists are much smarter than I, but I didn’t read “reference frame dragging” in the about article, so I have to wonder.
crazy bill says:
September 6, 2010 at 4:16 pm
“DesertYote: “So who cares if the sea levels raise. It is not as if there is anything special about the level they are at now.”
umm… perhaps you haven’t noticed all the ports are at sea level, all that expensive beachside real estate, all those fertile river deltas, etc etc.
If we choose to keep going on the higher temperatures/higher sea level process, there’s gonna need to be a lot of rebuilding going on in the next few centuries as we either retreat to higher ground or build higher and higher sea walls. Not a good legacy for 21st century humans to leave…”
What? You’re against shovel-ready jobs stretching for years into the future?
The problem isn’t with GRACE. There aren’t a few bugs to work out. The methodology produces solutions that are non-unique. There are an infinite number of solutions to choose from. So constraints are needed. Assumptions need to be made. This is where the danger sets in. Even with a perfect measuring system this problem remains. You can’t measure ice loss from space unless you know exactly what is going on at all depths in the Antarctic. They probably don’t even have an accurate model for isostatic rebound, let alone melting ice, variations in ice density etc.
Thomas Fuller gets my vote for more guest posts.
crazy bill says:
September 6, 2010 at 4:16 pm
DesertYote: “So who cares if the sea levels raise. It is not as if there is anything special about the level they are at now.”
umm… perhaps you haven’t noticed all the ports are at sea level, all that expensive beachside real estate, all those fertile river deltas, etc etc.
If we choose to keep going on the higher temperatures/higher sea level process, there’s gonna need to be a lot of rebuilding going on in the next few centuries as we either retreat to higher ground or build higher and higher sea walls. Not a good legacy for 21st century humans to leave…
Most ports become more serviceable with higher sea levels not less. If you look at most of the coastal construction in the previous century, almost none of it has a planned lifespan of even fifty years and many areas have already been rebuilt more than once. The decline in river deltas is largely unrelated to sea level, but relates to various diversions of river sediments.
So, even if we stipulate to the dubious present record of sea level rise and accept as given a doubling or even tripling of that number, investing massive amounts in schemes which have almost no possibility of affecting whatever may transpire in the future, in regard to sea level or anything else, is economic and social insanity.
tonyb says:
September 6, 2010 at 3:38 pm
===========================
Tony, thank you. I agree with Tom, well done.
Looking forward to your article or post on it.
What an amazing piece of detective work and an education for me and everyone reading it.
Thank you again
RE: richard telford, September 6, 2010 at 9:32 am
“Theory doesn’t make any general pronouncement about which term, accumulation or loss, will dominate”
As science is a deductive process you cannot of course then say that ice loss or ice gain is evidence for global warming.
John F. Hultquist says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Michael J. Dunn says:
September 6, 2010 at 11:15 am
“When it comes to sea level rising, I would like to know what the government of the Netherlands thinks about all this.”
They are happy to tell you. For example:
http://www.safecoast.org/
Thanks, Mr. Hultquist. I went there and rambled about for a short while. They are very consummate bureaucrats, careful not to be alarming, yet not heedless of potential threats. Their attitude seems to be nicely summarized in the following quotation from their synthesis report:
“With respect to the development of climate change there is a reasonable consensus on the average order of magnitude of sea level rise (5 to 6 mm per year, following the IPCC). However, a Safecoast study (Action 1) concluded that the translation from scientific based climate change scenarios in the various countries and the assumptions actually applied in coastal risk management lack consistency and transparency. Moreover, the actual scenario applications are generally limited to sea level rise and do not incorporate assumptions for future changes in storminess or tidal characteristics. The main reasons for that are the lack of scientific knowledge and the complexity of dealing with these different climate change aspects in a long term policy making context.”
Sorry to jump in here so late, but I began reading the comments on this post and I was slammed in the face by this particular one early on. RW, have you lost your marbles? This is absolutely utter and complete BS (and I don’t mean bad science, I mean the kind of BS that comes from the South end of a North bound cow). We have been pummeled ad-nauseum about “tipping points”, “runaway global warming”, absurd comparisons to Venus, Ocean’s boiling away, etc, etc, etc. Your assertion “No-one ever predicted unending temperature increases” is such utter and nonsensical BS it is astounding.
I’m sorry RW, I can’t even get past the rest of what you were saying as you have lost all credibility with me.
I don’t know a lot about GRACE and the techniques employed by this technology. It all sounds quite intriguing, however, this just seems to me yet another xBox-360 that nobody knows how to operate or interpret. I could not put any serious consideration into any data or results at this stage. I have high hopes that this will turn into something grand, but I am not holding my breathe. Personally, I am getting a little worn by the endless proclamations by various groups and new technologies promising “this time we really have it”, only to find later that it is all just another bunch of garbage. Ah, modern technology, isn’t it wonderful?
In the case of the Greenland ice sheet, the findings of GRACE are supported by GPS measurements of crustal uplift and by laser altimetry. The scientists analyzing GRACE data place a strong emphasis on corroboration (hence calibration) by other methods. I don’t think the GRACE scientists are part of the global network of climate scientists who are working in concert to deceive world and usher in a new socialist one-world government that will outlaw fossil fuels. I’m not sure though.
In common speak this is what you call covering all bases. It’s also called covering your ar***
Thank you Dave Wendt, Max Hugoson and TonyB. Comments on posts are even better than the main articles. Mr. Fuller has generated plenty of interest and hus contributions should be encouraged.
Another case of TREW
Theory Right, Evidence Wrong.
Grace had graced us before .
Though one could accept the accuracy of the gravity measurements, how can one believe the assumptions necessary to isolate the gravitational change and attribute it to ice changes is something beyond my comprehension.
In the map shown in the first link, large gravitational changes are shown all over the globe. Presumably they are tectonic and magma and what not movements of the mantle and further below. Why would the antarctic be different? How in the world anybody with a straight face can support such estimates and get peer reviewed is to be wondered at. Self deluding peers?
Anna V
Quite so. Hear hear.
A point I have been trying to make for some time.
It is not that these new tools are not going to become enormously useful: it is just we haven’t learned how to use them yet.
Kindest Regards
Scanned the thread quickly, so this may already have been posted.
Direct link to the Delft paper (PDF) mentioned at the end of the post;
http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/bromwich_nicolas_ngeo_2010.pdf
If anyone has a direct link (PDF) to the Quinn paper;
Ocean Mass Trends (and Sea Level Estimates) from GRACE Reference
Quinn, K.J. and Ponte, R.M. 2010. Uncertainty in ocean mass trends from GRACE. Geophysical Journal International 181: 762-768.
it would be greatly appreciated.