Uh, oh. Another talking point bites the dust.
Leif Svalgaard writes in to tell me of a significant new paper. While Gore, Hansen, Branson, and a gaggle of hangers on just finished a publicity stunt tour of Antarctica to tell us all how terrible the ice loss is there, the data says otherwise. No trend!
A new, high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica
(1979–2010) based on regional atmospheric climate modeling
J. T. M. Lenaerts, M. R. van den Broeke, W. J. van de Berg, E. van Meijgaard,
and P. Kuipers Munneke
Received 17 January 2012; accepted 21 January 2012; published 21 February 2012.
Abstract: [1] A new, high resolution (27 km) surface mass balance (SMB) map of the Antarctic ice sheet is presented, based on output of a regional atmospheric climate model that includes snowdrift physics and is forced by the most recent reanalysis data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), ERA-Interim (1979–2010). The SMB map confirms high accumulation zones in the western Antarctic Peninsula (>1500 mm y^-1) and coastal West Antarctica (>1000 mm y^-1), and shows low SMB values in large parts of the interior ice sheet (<25 mm y^-1). The location and extent of ablation areas are modeled realistically.
The modeled SMB is in good agreement with ±750 in-situ SMB measurements (R = 0.88), without a need for postcalibration. The average ice sheet-integrated SMB (including
ice shelves) is estimated at 2418 ± 181 Gt y^-1. Snowfall shows modest interannual variability (s = 114 Gt y^-1), but a pronounced seasonal cycle (s = 30 Gt mo-1), with a winter maximum. The main ablation process is drifting snow sublimation, which also peaks in winter but with little interannual variability (s = 9 Gt y^-1). Citation: Lenaerts, J. T. M.,
M. R. van den Broeke, W. J. van de Berg, E. van Meijgaard, and P. Kuipers Munneke (2012), A new, high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica (1979–2010) based on regional atmospheric climate modeling, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L04501,
doi:10.1029/2011GL050713.
Here’s the money quote:
[15] We found no significant trend in the 1979–2010 ice
sheet integrated SMB components, which confirms the
results from Monaghan et al. [2006]. The estimated SMB
trend, integrated over the ice sheet, equals –3+/-2 Gt/y^-2
Read the full paper here
UPDATE: One of my readers emailed me today to say that I had left off a minus sign in the last paragraph where it says: 3+/-2 Gt/y^-2 which should read –3+/-2 Gt/y^-2 instead. Corrected, my apology for the error, which originated in this original email from Dr. Leif Svalgaard:
That missing minus sign doesn’t change the conclusion in the paragraph of “We found no significant trend in the 1979–2010 ice sheet integrated SMB components, “ but some alarmist types are apparently all atwitter and looking for nefarious motives. What is typical of that criticism, is that it’s just another coward saying nasty things without the courage to put his/her name behind the words of criticism.
Here’s the fun part, you can open up the PDF that Leif Svalgaard provided here. Then go to paragraph [15] and highlight the relevant text listed above that this blogger and the Tamino crowd are all upset about, and then paste it into notepad or the comments box below and watch the minus sign disappear!
Apparently it is some oddly formatted character they used, and gets stripped on copy/paste, which is why Dr. Svalgaard accidentally sent it to me that way. Another “evil and devious skeptic plot” bites the dust. – Anthony
UPDATE2: Dr. Leif Svalgaard confirms in comments here – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
William M. Connolley says:
February 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm
“I wonder how many commenters here ever read the IPCC analysis:”
Most likely no one. We have read the emails.
BBC says:
“Mass balance of Antarctica = SMB (water in) less perimeter loss (water out)
So the observation that SMB is more or less constant over the past 30 years says nothing about the perimeter loss, or about the mass balance of Antartica.”
Since perimeter ice area is actually UP over the satellite record I would suggest this paper in fact does say something about mass balance. Though I too am sceptical of models.
see ice data
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
“”William M. Connolley says:
February 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm (of course, that is complicated by this model being *surface* mass balance, but that distinction is going to go right over your heads).””
The fact that the IPCC is unable to confirm or deny growth or shrinkage, that distinction between this empirical data of this paper and the IPCC uncertainty is probably going to go right over your head.
Of course people like J. T. M. Lenaerts, M. R. van den Broeke, W. J. van de Berg, E. van Meijgaard,and P. Kuipers Munneke wouldn’t come anywhere near your intellectual prowess.
William you are a legend in your own mind.
BCC
The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 30 million cubic kilometers (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice.
One gagatonne of water has a volume of one billion cubic meters, or one cubic kilometer.
36.3 Gt/y-1 or 0.000121%.
So in 826,000 years time it may be that there is only one ice-cube sized piece of ice left. Unless on of the 7 ice-ages that will happen in this time, do not replenish the ice.
Measuring a rate at +/- 10^-6 is rather good.
That explains why WMC has more time for WUWT comments I guess.
To put all these numbers in context, a gigatonne of ice roughly corresponds to 1 cubic kilometre.
The volume of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is estimated at 30,000,000 cubic kilometres….
I guess this paper’s publication during Gore’s attempted Antarctic publicity stunt is just another version of the “Gore Effect”.
This is riotous! I guess SkS will have to retract one of their argument thingys…… Oops …. looks like DeSlur was wrong too! http://desmogblog.com/antarctica-losing-ice-quickly-melting-away-another-climate-skeptic-myth NASA’s propaganda machine might have to mumble some take backs as well….. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
I’m confused. Does this mean we trust science?
@William Howard M. Connolley
======================
“With rising global temperature, GCMs indicate increasingly positive SMB for the Antarctic Ice Sheet as a whole because of greater accumulation (Section 10.6.4.1). For stabilisation in 2100 with SRES A1B atmospheric composition, antarctic SMB would contribute 0.4 to 2.0 mm yr–1 of sea level fall (Table 10.7). Continental ice sheet models indicate that this would be offset by tens of percent by increased ice discharge (Section 10.6.4.2), but still give a negative contribution to sea level, of –0.8 m by 3000 in one simulation with antarctic warming of about 4.5°C (Huybrechts and De Wolde, 1999).”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7-4-4.html
Connolley appears to cite the parts of the IPCC that are convenient to his argument but doesn’t cite the parts that are inconvenient.
As much as it sorely grieves me to have to admit it, in this case Connelly and others are correct. This paper doesn’t say what you think it does people. That said, it’s yet another paper based almost purely on modelling, so make of that what you will 😉
Hey, poster identifying as “William Connelley”, is this you?
“[Connelley’s] career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle their accomplishments or make them appear to be frauds, Wikipedia barred him — again unanimously — from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.”
http://tinyurl.com/35ajlkr
Just wondering. 😉
@LC
Ok, so we did trust science for a few minutes, but then it turns out the science we just agreed with disagrees with our opinion, so therefore we stopped trusting science again, and vehemently disagree with the paper?
Did I get that right?
(Censorship rocks!)
[Reply: Read the site Policy. You are threadbombing under numerous articles. This site does not censor different scientific points of view. We snip or delete posts that violate our written Policy. If that bothers you, please move on. And the next time you post “censorship rocks” or anything similar, I’ll give you what you’re wishing for. ~dbs, mod.]
LC says:
February 20, 2012 at 4:29 pm
“As much as it sorely grieves me to have to admit it, in this case Connelly and others are correct. This paper doesn’t say what you think it does people. That said, it’s yet another paper based almost purely on modelling, so make of that what you will ;)”
==================================================
What do you think Connelly wrote that requires your endorsement? He seems to have done two things here (1) Cite the IPCC where they point out that measurement of ice balance is deeply uncertain. And (2), everyone here is stupid except for him. 😉
The SMB map confirms high accumulation zones in the western Antarctic Peninsula (>1500 mm y^-1) and coastal West Antarctica (>1000 mm y^-1), and shows low SMB values in large parts of the interior ice sheet (<25 mm y^-1).
There isn’t much dispute that the western Antarctic Peninsula has warmed over this period with substantial peripheral ice melt. This study shows it snowed a lot more when the western Antarctic Peninsula warmed. Unsurprising as the warming results from increased oceanic influence. The increased snowfall will doubtless result in future glacial advances.
All in all, it points to a decadal oceanic cycle mainly determining western Antarctic Peninsula ice mass.
yawn,
There’s this E-Z way to find stuff out. It’s called doing a “search”. Get an adult to show you how.
> 3+/-2 Gt/y^-2
That is an odd way to write the units. Did you mean Gty^-2 or the equivalent Gt/y^2?
Will Nitschke says:
Actually, the part that you cite provides even further support for points that Connolley was making, including the fact that there is a distinction between the total mass balance and the surface mass balance and that the surface mass balance is EXPECTED to increase. You also seem to have left out the paragraph following the one that you did quote, perhaps because it is a bit inconvenient to you:
@Smokey
Urban Dictionary: “”Threadbombing” is posting an image (or images) with superimposed text in a forum thread; usually to illustrate a point. Often, the “threadbomb” conveys a humorous message of disdain towards the original poster or the entire thread.”
WTF?
@Smokey
What are you suggesting that I search for? How to understand whether this site trusts or distrusts science from one moment to the next?
So, in Jones speak, the overall ice mass levels are flatlined, but just barely.
Damn. The ice won’t melt. The sea level won’t rise. The temps have stopped increasing. The ozone hole has vanished. Hurricanes aren’t forming more frequently. The animals, plants, and humans won’t die. Carbon offsets won’t sell. The sheeple won’t buy our propaganda. The whole thing is crumbling before our eyes.
It’s a catastrophe, I tell you. Something needs to be done about it…
boston12gs says:
February 20, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Hey, poster identifying as “William Connelley”, is this you?
=============================================
..one and the same
Wikipedia Topic-Bans Global Warming Activist William Connolley, aka ‘Stoat’
By: Bradley Fikes — October 16th, 2010
Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information, not propaganda. But William M. Connolley, who blogs under the name Stoat, has repeatedly abused his administrator position at Wikipedia to bias climate change-related articles to reflect his global warming activism.
But no more. After extensive run-ins with Connolley, Wikipedia has banned him from participating in climate change articles.
Since CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) supposedly has so much evidence on its side, it’s remarkable how vehemently Connolley fought against letting Wikipedia readers read neutral articles that include the views of skeptics. His deceptive conduct was deeply unethical.
Watts Up With that points that that in addition to Connolley, other administrators on both sides of the global warming issue have been sanctioned. At least one CAGW-skeptical administrator says he was sanctioned for kicking up a fuss about the pro-CAGW bias.
At least the net result is a gain for fair editing, since Connolley was by far the most active in shamelessly inserting his bias into Wikipedia’s global warming articles.
Connolley’s pro CAGW campaign extended over years. I hope that Wikipedia speeds up its cumbersome bureaucratic process so that future offenders can be dealt with more swiftly.
http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=11266
Oh sheet, there you go again. Intruding with real science. I mean what is real science when you already have consensus.
Mike Smith says:
February 20, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Damn. The ice won’t melt. The sea level won’t rise. The temps have stopped increasing. The ozone hole has vanished. Hurricanes aren’t forming more frequently. The animals, plants, and humans won’t die. Carbon offsets won’t sell. The sheeple won’t buy our propaganda. The whole thing is crumbling before our eyes.
It’s a catastrophe, I tell you. Something needs to be done about it…
=======================================
It’s all hiding in the deep ocean Mike………………….