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
I don’t see the problem! As it gets colder the interior gets less snow. Any dumb farmer knows that the colder it gets the less snow falls. The interior of Antartica is so cold it is a desert where there is no melting only evaporation(sublimation). And a loss of 57 million tons of ice per year,( or maybe not) is a very small drop in a very large barrel.
“REPLY: You make a good case for citations, show yours, I’m sure Fuller will reciprocate. – Anthony”
IPCC AR4 WG1 chapters 10.6.4 & 4.6
Awaiting Fuller’s citations.
REPLY: Sorry, you fail to prove your point, that’s not a specific citation that is point on the issue you raise, there’s lots in those chpaters…not going to let you off that easy. Be specific on points that support your claim. – Anthony
I had an alarm go off if the third line of this article. There seems to be statistically significant correlation between those who claim things have been debunked and those who are ill-informed and self-opinionated. I tend to give low credibility to such texts.
So it did not come as much of a surprise that Mr. Fuller thinks claims of ice loss come from GRACE data.
The big problem here is that the satellite data has to be adjusted for mantel rebound from the last glaciation 12,000 years ago. Guess how this is done ? A computer model of course. Based on fairly naive , simplistic models about viscosity of the underlying rock etc. These models are total speculation since there is no hard evidence against which to calibrate them.
There may or may not be some teething troubles with the satellites but if I wanted to doubt the results of these claims I would look at the models first.
These claims are not made “based on satellite data” they are based on pure speculation from uncalibrated models.
Enneagram (first post), yes I am scared.
Here’s my reply to this piece:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/09/fullerminations.html
squid2112 says: September 6, 2010 at 7:45 pm
RW says: September 6, 2010 at 9:55 am
“No-one ever predicted unending temperature increases.”
I agree with squid here. The whole mechanism of positive feedbacks proposed do imply unending increases, effectively. The model predictions I’ve seen are have temperatures going up strongly int 2100 still. I’m interested in where they actually plateau but as they’ve proposed the Earth’s climate is effectively unstable then it looks as though the sea may have to boil away they get to some equilibrium point.
“REPLY: Sorry, you fail to prove your point, that’s not a specific citation that is point on the issue you raise, there’s lots in those chpaters…not going to let you off that easy. Be specific on points that support your claim. – Anthony”
So I must jump through hoops so Fuller can be spared the embarrassment of either having to admit he made it up or misunderstood the literature?
REPLY: Pretty much yeah…. actually anybody who makes claims should be prepared to cite *in detail*, not just making vague hand wavings at some huge publication. – Mike
squid2112 and peakbear: no climate scientist has ever predicted unending temperature increases. If you think they have, then you should find it easy to just post a link to a relevant journal article. Simply blustering rudely is highly unconvincing.
Thanks Tom
By the way I do enjoy your articles and hope you write more. It is good to have different viewpoints to debate, although we might not agree with them. The evidence for a lot of the things being claimed is very flaky and too many people just accept them at face value.
Tonyb
“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.”
Thomas, the problem here is you talk about “climate change” without adding the awkward “anthropogenic”. Yet, in the very same sentence, you then speak of controlling climate, and doing so immediately. There is nothing moderate about trying to control the earth’s climate, whether by emissions trading, taxes, sulphate pollution or expensive and inefficient energy generation. If you are a regular reader of WUWT, you’d have to understand that we can’t let the statement pass. You really need to expand on what you mean by this, with detail and clarity, before proceeding to anything else. No cute stuff.
The bulk of your article consists of singing to the skeptic choir. Yet that one craftily vague sentence is the venom in an otherwise well-sugared brew. The great danger of “moderate” warmists is that they continue to promote AGW, all the time making noises about reconciliation, communication and the like. While you may be a skeptic-friendly Menshevik, you could be laying a platform for something, and someone, else.
Seen the Greenpeace ad with the angry kid in the hoodie? He’s not you. He’s what comes after you, after the Mensheviks.
Michael Tobis
That is an interesting article you linked to.
Tonyb
There is an UN organization that is tasked with measuring the rate of decay of the orbital time of the earth. They found out a couple of years ago that this decay rate has reduced, not as expected, and the only reason these scientists can put forward to explain this is an increase of ice mass in Antarctica. Rather like a spinning skater lowering their arms and increasing spin rate. This would seem to me to be a more accurate method than a non-corrected satellite system. Iron the bugs out of this Grace system and then let us see the data.
REPLY: Ice mass in Antarctica will not change the decay of the orbital time of the Earth, since the Earth doesn’t orbit itself. It will alter the rotational period of the Earth. – Mike
REPLY: Pretty much yeah…. actually anybody who makes claims should be prepared to cite *in detail*, not just making vague hand wavings at some huge publication. – Mike
IPCC AR4 WG1 section 10.6.4 is a massive three pages long.
Michael Tobis’s post at http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/09/fullerminations.html also points out Fuller’s faults. Perhaps Fuller will post his citations after reading that.
Normal scientific practice (the real one, rather than the imaginary versions preferred here) would be for the original author to include citations to back up claims, rather than demanding readers provide citations that refute the claims.
REPLY: Both sides are expected to be able to justify their remarks. – Mike
Why on Earth (literally) would you try to measure sea level from space? Its going to cost a huge amount to do and give you more variables to consider other than wave, tide and atmospheric pressure. Any change is going to be slow (unless you are expecting a tidal wave of meltwater from the poles) and will settle as an even distribution. Did tide gauges suggest that there was a changing level? If they did, why wasn’t their output sufficient? If they did not, why was this project approved?
My comment at 2:17 was rhetorical which doesn’t help here. So, for info, a rise of 2mm/year over the last 100 years and with a linear trend. All determined low-tech, reliably and cheaply with original data available!
RW says:
September 7, 2010 at 12:35 am
squid2112 and peakbear: no climate scientist has ever predicted unending temperature increases. If you think they have, then you should find it easy to just post a link to a relevant journal article. Simply blustering rudely is highly unconvincing.
I just went and Googled “temperature rises for 22nd century”
I fail to see where squid2112 and peakbear are wrong. There seems to be no end of people predicting continuous temperature rises.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/49/492004/pdf/ees9_6_492004.pdf
discusses some of them.
How about this absolute corker, which predicts 8° into 2300, and calls it “conservative”:
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1102-llnl.html
RW says: September 7, 2010 at 12:35 am
“If you think they have, then you should find it easy to just post a link to a relevant journal article. Simply blustering rudely is highly unconvincing.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
The A2 scenario.
crazy bill says:
September 6, 2010 at 4:16 pm
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…
It is called hubris. Well, your nickname is appropriately chosen if you really believe that we have a choice and can leave a legacy. Go back and reread Tonyb’s post.
Ask yourself, did our forefathers have choices? Did they leave us a legacy of spreading deltas and receding sealines?
Owen says “I don’t think the GRACE scientists are part of the global network of climate scientists who are working in concert to deceive”…
In a GRACE paper attributing a significant “low” over Northern India to water loss the scientists completely ignored the even larger “high” over Southern India, which would suggest an increase in available water if one believed these anomalies.
Today’s scientists seem to be stuck on describing bad things happening on the Earth such as loss of acquifers, rising sea levels, higher intensity storms etc, rather than trying to describe the Earth more accurately. Why do we only find bad things with our technology? This suggests an underlying political agenda in the approach to these papers.
The answer is simple. I know a bit about GRACE (and her lunar cousin GRAIL) and what you have is people guessing at what the GRAVITY measurements indicate. All GRACE does is measure local gravity levels. This means that GRACE measurements are indicating a loss of mass – not specifically a loss of ice! Given how little we know about the internal dynamics and core of planet, to assume all changes in gravity are due to H2O in some form is a bit presumptuous in my book.
RW says: September 7, 2010 at 12:35 am
“no climate scientist has ever predicted unending temperature increases.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/presentations.shtml
Hansen, mention often ‘Tipping Points’ and ‘Points of No Return’ – ie linked here in ‘Climate Threat to the Planet’. I would say it is fair to summarize Hansen as the planet leading to a Venus like situation, which I guess isn’t increasing in temperature significantly but would be a pretty academic point to us at those temperatures.
“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?”
Gob smacked, I’m guessing a climate scientist’s comment. Trouble is what is the counter argument to get your point across to ‘go way, way, way, way, way up’, I surpose if you want to get in on their level ‘go way, way, way, way, way up by inches over decades’ (Is that simple enough?)
“Sea levels are going to go way, way, way, way, way up.”
When? From all that I’ve seen we (people) have plenty of time. Right?
They go up! They go down! They move, we move. What’s the problem? It’s always been that way; it will always be that way; right? What’s the big deal? If it’s going to get warmer sooner than later, what’s the problem? If the sea level rises 10m so what? If it’s going to get cooler sooner than later, what’s the problem? If it falls 10m so what? What are you worried about?
Life’s a beach! The water goes up and down! It always has, it always will.
Who cares? Really? Who cares?
Remember, we were kicked out of The Garden, We’re on our own!
Sea levels: “They move, we move. What’s the problem?”
We’re not nomadic anymore.
RW says:
September 6, 2010 at 11:10 am
“So who cares if the sea levels raise”
“Maybe people who live close to sea level?”
Even the trees will have time to move. If it turns out that they need to.
What gets me about the sea-level rising panic is the time frame, and the end point. The endpoint if all the ant/arctic ice melts may be several tens of meters – way way way way way up for sure, but the year that happens will be a long long long long long long time from now.
I suspect the earth will be entering the next ice-age before significant melting occurs. Then sea-levels will go down and everyone will be happy.
Right?