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.
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
September 7, 2010 at 3:36 pm
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.
——————————–
Snow accumulates in the interior of Antarctica. Hence stations there get buried by ice. Ice is lost from the edge of Antarctica by surface melting and iceberg calving. If the loss from the edge is greater than the accumulation, then Antarctica will loose mass.
Once again, with another example, IF sea level rises, then all we have to do is have a special one time fund raising event, say a cake sale or something, and raise a few thousand trillian dollars (maybe more if the little things are worth less than today) and build sea walls all along the coast line – East, West, and South. You know, like New Orleans. Man made sea walls are superduper strong –if you build them with good steel and cement and don’t have to give kick backs to politicians and unions.
Grace needs a new face.
barry says on September 7, 2010 at 9:59 pm
barry says on September 7, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Truly, Barry, you are a troll.
Since you chose to claim that no one of any credibility claims that “climate change” will destroy civilization, perhaps you can tell me why we should bother to worry about climate change.
Clearly, we can shove as much CO2 as we want into the atmosphere, because, whether or not it is connected to climate change, as you say, no one with credibility claims that “climate change” is going to destroy civilization.
peakbear, please tell me what you understand the definition of the word “unending” to be.
This whole thang is built on ” ice melt changes the gavity curves” and an specified rate of “rebound of land masses” when the ice so melts. if you assume the rate of rebound is a known value (that value should be different in different type of rock), and the assumed value is wrong, then all this is just mental ………ing
Thank you for the heads up, Richard. And my compliments to the moderators.
If your doctor advises you that you will lose your leg if you keep drinking, do you keep guzzling thinking, “oh at least I won’t be dead?”
The concern about global warming does not and never has hinged on the the absolute mortality of our species. The concern is the stresses put on our civilizations, which could result in significant misery (water and food shartages, massive displacement of people) and rising mortality. Militaries of the world are even now doing war planning based on climate change scenarios – wars over water resources, for example. Perhaps you should educate yourself on what the real concerns are, instead of lamely defending the straw-man, first line of the post above.
I believe what was meant by “Unending” temperature increase is the tendency of the reports from climatologists almost universally show a big graph, low on the left, high on the right (Pick a scale / start/ end point) that plug off into eternity, no reguard for any possibility of natural processes taking over and bending the curve down a bit. No possibility of a change in temperature that goes any way but up. Like the earth jumps up and gets stuck there. There will be ice ages big and small. The earth is a cyclical place and those natural cycles are all but ignored.
I think we will find that gravity measurements are very usefull for tectonics but not a good proxy for ice melt just like tree rings are a poor proxy for temperature.
RW says:
September 7, 2010 at 12:35 am
It seems that some are less interested in learning, and more interested in changing the rules as they go along – to ensure they never lose. They keep moving the bar so that the goal is impossible to obtain, yet they forget the first rule of the game.
The role of skeptic is not to prove a theory. It is to provide evidence that the current hypothesis is flawed, and therefore useless. That has been done. You have to prove that there is no contradiction in your statements, which you have failed to do.
The cliche of “the exception proves the rule” applies to social sciences, not hard sciences.
barry says:
September 8, 2010 at 3:20 pm
“The concern is the stresses put on our civilizations, which could result in significant misery (water and food shartages, massive displacement of people) and rising mortality.”
But, of course, the economic dislocations induced by hobbling our economies with useless regulations and inefficient energy pipe dreams won’t stress our civilizations a bit. It’s all grassy fields and prancing unicorns if we just bow down and immolate ourselves for the gratification of our environmental overlords.
RW says:
September 8, 2010 at 12:12 am
“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
…—…—…
False.
EVERY ‘climate scientist” pushing their latest press release-promoted scientific CAGW study – and EVERY politician who pays them their grant money and salaries – ARE claiming unending temperature rises UNLESS we “immediately and this week” pass destructive and murderous energy and economy tax hikes and restrictions.
The IPCC actually goes a bit further and “promises” in their propaganda that “if” we immediately stop increasing CO2 emissions (immediately), we “might” begin reducing temperature rises in less than 1000 years. Maybe.
Is that your source for claiming nobody says temperature will rise continuously?
barry says:
September 8, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Since you chose to claim that no one of any credibility claims that “climate change” will destroy civilization, perhaps you can tell me why we should bother to worry about climate change.
If your doctor advises you that you will lose your leg if you keep drinking, do you keep guzzling thinking, “oh at least I won’t be dead?”
The concern about global warming does not and never has hinged on the the absolute mortality of our species. The concern is the stresses put on our civilizations, which could result in significant misery (water and food shartages, massive displacement of people) and rising mortality. Militaries of the world are even now doing war planning based on climate change scenarios – wars over water resources, for example. Perhaps you should educate yourself on what the real concerns are, instead of lamely defending the straw-man, first line of the post above.
—…—…—…
False.
The concern about global warming does not and never has hinged on the the absolute mortality of our species. False.
The concern about global warming does not and never has ALWAYS hinged on the the “deliberate” mortality of as many humans as possible. The latest? The Discovery Channel bomber. Mann’s diatribes. Hansen’s extremism. And hundreds of of more public figures who blame humans for the world’s problems, and who want humans removed. (All except the humans needed for room service and daily cleaning in the socialist rooms at expensive 5 star resorts, that is.)
The murderous IPCC and climate scientist’s predictions and regulations – YES, the restrictions on energy use are the ones you support and the ones I condemn – will commit millions immediately, and billions eventually, to a life of ending squalor, hunger, starvation, contaminated drinking water, and bad food, fuel, and storage due explicitly and deliberately to the IPCC’s determination to harm people.
Your supposed “concerns” about welfare are simple lies: There is NOTHING in the pervasive energy and environmental restrictions supposedly “needed immediately” to cure (the artificially hyped) global warming that helps anyone. Anywhere.
So-called war-planning exercises are not true. Every “misery” and shortage you claim are CAUSED by government intervention by corrupt third world dictators who are the ones who will RECEIVE the UN money of cap-and-tax and energy restrictions and artificial price rises – after filtering through hundreds of greedy hands in NGO’s and other governments and enviro agencies! No money for thrid world carbon emissions rebates will get that money. Ever,
No carbon rebate and carbon reinvestment schemes – all started by ENRON under Clinton – will benefit anyone except rich socialist investors and politicians.
REPLY: Both sides are expected to be able to justify their remarks. – Mike
Still waiting for Fuller to provide more than an out of context sentence in support of his version of climate change theory.
richard telford,
Words matter. Please use correct terms. The climate has always changed. Only climate alarmists like Michael Mann try to cover up that observed fact.
Climate change is not a “theory.” It is an empirical fact long accepted by skeptics. What you refer to as a theory is only a hypothesis: CO2=CAGW. And since it has been falsified — not least by the planet itself — its status has been downgraded to a failed Conjecture.
Smokey
What evidence would persuade you that you are wrong?
richard telford,
My comment was to correct the attempted elevating of a hypothesis to the status of a theory.
Regarding your question above, the CO2=CAGW hypothesis claims, without verifiable empirical [real world] evidence, that human emitted CO2 will cause climate catastrophe.
Skeptics simply ask for testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming. The burden is on the believers in the CAGW hypothesis — not on skeptical scientists — to provide empirical evidence. The proper question is: why are they unable to provide solid, replicable evidence that a minor trace gas will lead to runaway global warming? So far, that hypothesis is based on speculation.
Understanding that distinction is critical to understanding the scientific method.
I love this question-
richard telford says:
September 11, 2010 at 11:34 am
What evidence would persuade you that you are wrong?
Please, may I answer for me?
What would convince me the globe is getting warmer (enough to notice and care):
crocodilians frolicking on Ellesmere Island! (oh, wait… been there, done that http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060928-hot-earth.html )
my heating bills going down down down! (can’t a guy dream?)
palm trees on the beaches of antarctica? (oh, wait…)
Seriously, though, with respect to the CO2phobia- it’s not what could convince, because a fundamental and inviolable relationship exists between cause and effect. The cause precedes the effect every single time. CO2 in the atmosphere does not precede warming therefore it is not the cause of it. Falsification doesn’t get better than this.
You may as well ask what will convince a person that black is white. I think it would require some form of blindness.
My question it response would be “Why would you want to convince somebody of a falsehood?’ When somebody believes a lie, they are damaged. It does them harm. It’s wrong.