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.
Tom Fuller said: “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?”
Unfortunately, Tom, like sea level changes, we can’t measure the amount of ice in Antarctica accurately enough to know what is happening. The model predictions are flawed because the make the assumption that global temperature will increase, while the reality of the situation is that temperature oscillates up and down. We are now at the threshold of the cool phase of the 200y (ish) solar quasi-cycle, so if the historic pattern continues, expect global temperatures to start falling any time now!
1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)-(Sporer minimum)
1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)
crazy bill says:
September 6, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Hi Bill,
I just want to say that cities, towns, civilizations even, have all morphed over time because of a whole range of stimuli. If the waters rise most folk will be able to move even faster and they will minimize any financial losses that may happen.
Our kids will live in their world, not ours. Yes we may have some effect over their enjoyment of Earth but not in the ways we think. A lot like our parents did to us, only different.
I don’t think that possible changing sea levels are of any immediate concern to anyone quite frankly because in all truth we can adapt faster than they can change. The oceans are really, really big and change ever so slowly and hey, we may have discovered something else to worry about before they come and steal all of our land.
What is so funny is that when the trolls come out to play they boost WUWT’s Blog Stats and that, unlike the AGW crowd, WUWT tolerates debate.
Mr. Telford, I apologise for not replying earlier to your request for citations. IPCC AR4, Summary for Policymakers: “Current global model studies project that the AntarcticIce Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surfacemelting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”
Is that sufficient for now? There are many others available, but I am a bit pressed for time.
AJStrata says on September 7, 2010 at 4:35 am
Oh, no, no, no. I am sure you have that wrong. After all, the science is settled, isn’t it?
richard telford says:
September 7, 2010 at 2:16 am
….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.
___________________________________________________________
ROTFLMAO, You were joking weren’t you???
Evidence given at the Science and Technology Committee inquiry:
“… the Institute of Physics said: “Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.
The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.’
Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled the CRU had broken Freedom of Information rules by refusing to hand over raw data.
But yesterday Professor Jones – in his first public appearance since the scandal broke – denied manipulating the figures.
Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told MPs: ‘I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.’
He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.
And he claimed it was not ‘standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.” source
Now WHICH “Normal scientific practice” are you talking about that of the climate scientists or that of honorable scientists???
Bart Verheggen says:
September 7, 2010 at 6:36 am
“We’re not nomadic anymore.”
I was born in Chicago, raised in Arizona, lived for 10 years in the Peoples Republic of California, and now reside in Oregon. Everyone I work with is from somewhere else. So what are you talking about?
Richard,
The science is only settled if you talk to people who avoid or ‘adjust’ the raw data.
@Tom Fuller
“Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and gain mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.”
Funny you’d choose not include the next sentance which seems to support what Mr. Telford was saying.
Tom Fuller says:
September 7, 2010 at 7:40 am
Mr. Telford, I apologise for not replying earlier to your request for citations. IPCC AR4, Summary for Policymakers: “Current global model studies project that the AntarcticIce Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surfacemelting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”
Is that sufficient for now? There are many others available, but I am a bit pressed for time.
———————–
Clearly you were too short of time to read the next sentence in the SPM:
However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.
“I fail to see where squid2112 and peakbear are wrong. There seems to be no end of people predicting continuous temperature rises.”
“Continuous” does not mean the same thing as “unending”.
“The A2 scenario.”
… does not result in an unending temperature rise. It only takes a moment to check these things.
The whole subject of disasterous sea level rises always reminds me of the Invader Zim episode “Walk for Your Lives” wherein Zim creates an absolutely devastating explosion. Except that the explosion happens so slowly that it’s not really that devastating. Zim is able to walk away from it, think about it, and return to see its progress. May be a bad analogy, but Invader Zim rulz.
Mr. Telford, I did read that. What of it? It could occur? What relevance does that have to discussing past accumulation of ice? We have been discussing history, not futurology.
Tom Fuller says:
What relevance does that have to discussing past accumulation of ice? We have been discussing history, not futurology.
——
Let me remind you of what you claimed yesterday
ice should be increasing in Antarctica
For which you cite the first sentence of Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.
This does not refer to “past accumulation of ice”, this is a model projection. If you wish to dismiss the second part of the quote as futurology, you must also ignore the first. In which case you have not, by your own rules, provided an adequate citation for what is expected by “climate change theory”
The same phenomenon is both predicted and observed in Greenland, by the way.
Are you having problems finding a relevant citation for this? Please provide one or retract the claim.
Dave Wendt wrote:
“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.”
Exactly.
Even with relatively unchanging sea levels, many other factors come into play that require rebuilding port structures. Vessel size changes, traffic changes, river delta changes, changes in sedimentation accretion, changes in laws related to protecting species, changes in container types, age-related rebuilding, bridge relocation due to freeway construction, contaminants, competition, storms of all types, rogue waves, normal erosion from water and wind, and a host of other reasons.
The mistake people seem to make is picturing things as static, when any builder in shoreline areas can tell you that’s way, way, way (if I may) off the mark.
rustneversleeps says:
September 6, 2010 at 9:41 am
‘Amongst many other mistakes you are making in this post, you are repeating this error in your understanding of basic statistics and confidence intervals – which was clearly explained to you over at “Only In it for the Gold”.’
I looked in on that. You really have no experience with estimation and evaluation of real world data, do you Rusty? Statistical methods are not iron-clad, cut and dried. They are based on models of how data behave in an idealized world. But, if the modeled statistic has an uncertainty nearly as large as the value it is supposed to be estimating, the likelihood is strong that you have little insight into what is going on in the real world.
More to the point, if the statistic is 57 +/- 52 within a confidence interval of X%, it is really stupid to say you know with X% confidence that the true value is greater than 5.
Thomas, I do not know how you kept your cool in that forum with all those jabbering monkeys flinging their feces at you, but it is to your credit. To any objective observer, I am confident you won the debate hands down.
If Antarctica is losing ice, then why do stations near the South Pole keep getting buried and have to be replaced with new ones? It got so bad, the British were planning a station built on skiis, so it could be moved around and kept on top of the ever increasing surface.
Have we, as a species, become so arrogant that we believe that we are able to control the climate of an entire planet? Even if it were possible, what climate would it be? Would it be one for the whole planet or several micro-climates. Warmer in Siberia, rainier in the Gobi, cooler and more rain in the Outback, longer summers in Canada, etc. Who is going to decide? Al and the IPCC? Anthony? Who?
It is harder still to come by proponents of this notion, and to understand why, when concern is far and widely expressed in much more nuanced terms, this is any kind of useful starting line for a thoughtful post on the subject.
By all means, bring on the quotes from anyone not some sort of crank in the bowels of some blog or other, where credible people are announcing that climate change will “destroy civilization”.
Otherwise, when can we start burning these straw men?
barry says:
So, if “climate change” (it used to be “global warming” BTW, and even “anthropogenic global warming”) is not going to destroy civilization, where’s the problem?
Are you guys scaring up a toothless bogey man for some particular reason?
Thomas Fuller,
The statement that all other methods of ice measurement besides grace show antarctica is gaining ice is absolutely and utterly a fabrication. Click my name to see a post on the matter. It is very clear that Laser altimetry, radar interferometry and grace data agree well and have done so in the past. Furthermore, the only two studies to show antarctica was gaining ice were done using radar altimetry which has known biases over ice sheets (Thomas et al. 2008) that are known to have contributed at least 75 GT of false-gain over Greenland. It is quite nice to see such a clearly incorrect comment as it is easy to refute. Once again, see the graph at the bottom of the aforementioned link and prepare your correction to the original post.
Also with respect to the new GRACE estimates, notice that the new grace estimate still shows the EAIS is losing ice… and also that apparently the remainder of the worlds ice outside of a few areas is gaining according to it. Highly suspect to use such a low resolution sensor to detect changes in small regions such as svalbard, alaska, himilayas, Scandinavia, Patagonia and so on… Also note that the radar interferometry estimates for Pine Island Bay and the WAIS from Rignot et al. (2008a and b) still remain the most accurate assessments for WAIS ice losses.
Which guys?
RW says:
September 7, 2010 at 10:49 am
“I fail to see where squid2112 and peakbear are wrong. There seems to be no end of people predicting continuous temperature rises.”
“Continuous” does not mean the same thing as “unending”.
Is this another of those silly games where the trolls redefine the terms so that the sceptics can never be right?
What is the practical difference, in this case? Some people assert that we are in imminent danger of temperatures rising more or less continuously for the next few hundred years. For all meaningful purposes, that is unending.
Arguing about semantics ignores the forest for the trees. Some scientists are claiming temperatures will rise dramatically and continuously for the next few hundred years, if we pass some point of no return. It matters not if that rise happens to eventually plateau in the even more distant future, or if the rise is not entirely continuous.
“Is this another of those silly games where the trolls redefine the terms so that the sceptics can never be right?”
Yes, you and others think you can redefine the word “unending” so that it does not actually mean unending. But you can’t redefine facts. No climate scientist has ever predicted unending temperature increases.
RW says: September 7, 2010 at 10:49 am.
““The A2 scenario.”
… does not result in an unending temperature rise. It only takes a moment to check these things.”
I did check as I need to read the references I’m linking to to see if they demonstrate my point. What temperature increase does it stabilise at and when?? I see A2 as the scenario where we don’t do anything specific to control CO2 emissions.