'Gravity is climate'? WTF?!

From the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres  evidence that maybe, just maybe, climate has become a singularity unto its own, and everything now in the physical world is “climate”. Or…they’ve jumped the shark. The headline of this press release  is mind-blowingly stupid.

‘Gravity is climate’ – 10 years of climate research satellites GRACE

How much ice is Greenland is really losing? – Movement in the Earth’s mantle? – Enough water for all?

For the first time, the melting of glaciers in Greenland could now be measured with high accuracy from space. Just in time for the tenth anniversary of the twin satellites GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) a sharp image has surface, which also renders the spatial distribution of the glacial melt more precisely. The Greenland ice shield had to cope with up to 240 gigatons of mass loss between 2002 and 2011. This corresponds to a sea level rise of about 0.7 mm per year.

The "climate" looks a bit lumpy today - The earth's gravity field (vertically enhanced) Image from GFZ

These statements were made possible by the high-precision measurements of the GRACE mission, whose data records result in a hitherto unequaled accurate picture of the earth’s gravity.

One of Newton’s laws states that the gravity of an object depends directly on its mass. “When the mass of the Greenland ice sheet changes, so does the gravity there,” explains Dr. Frank Flechtner from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences. “The GRACE gravity field measurements therefore give us information on mass changes, including climate-related ones.”

But there’s more. The uneven distribution of mass on and within the planet causes, due the resulting variability of gravity, the earth to have an irregular shape, which deviates significantly from sphericity. Known as the “Potsdam Gravity Potato, the geoid has achieved global notoriety. But this potato shape is equally subject to temporal changes. During the last Ice Age, a mile-thick ice sheet covered North America and Scandinavia. Since the ice melted, the crust, now liberated from its load, continues to rise to this day. This causes material flow in the earth’s interior, in the mantle, to replenish. With GRACE, this glacial-isostatic adjustment can for the first time be accurately detected globally as a change in the geoid height: the ice ages continue to have an effect, which is especially evident in North America and Scandinavia.

Anniversary in space

On 17 March 2012, the two GRACE twin satellites will have been in orbit for exactly 10 years. The scientists named them “Tom and Jerry”, because they chase each other on exactly the same orbit around the earth. Since their launch from the Russian cosmodrome in Plesetsk, the two satellites have circled the Earth more than 55 000 times on a near polar orbit at about 450 to 500 km altitude and a distance of 220 km, and continuously collected data.

GRACE is a joint project of the U.S. space agency NASA and the German Aerospace Center (DLR). The mission was planned in 1996 by the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, the University of Texas Center for Space Research (UTCSR) and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, and in 1997 was selected to be the second mission in NASA’s program Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP). The scientific analysis of the data is carried out jointly by GFZ, UTCSR and JPL. Principal Investigator of the mission is Prof. Byron Tapley (UTSCR), Co-Principal Investigator is Dr. Frank Flechtner (GFZ). Especially noteworthy: with GRACE, NASA for the first time commissioned a non-American company to build satellites. Astrium in Friedrichshafen, who built the GFZ’s founding father satellite CHAMP (Challenging Mini-satellite Payload), produced the satellite duo GRACE for NASA.

A hair’s breadth: gravity field measurements with satellite

The primary scientific goal of the GRACE satellite mission is to measure the gravitational field of the earth and its changes over time on a global scale with unprecedented accuracy. If the earth were a homogeneous sphere, the two satellites would orbit at exact elliptical orbits around the Earth. But the uneven distribution of mass causes perturbations in the trajectory. “Their analysis allows us to derive the irregular structure of the Earth’s gravity,” explains Dr. Frank Flechtner. “This, however, requires the satellites’ orbits to be measured with high precision. Each of the two GRACE satellites is therefore equipped with a GPS receiver for positioning, an accelerometer to correct for disturbing forces due to the residual atmosphere and solar radiation, and two star trackers to determine the satellites’ position in space.” But the core is the ultra-precise distance measurement system developed by NASA / JPL, which allows the separartion of the two satellites to be continuously measured with a precision of one tenth of a hair’s breadth.

From the varying distance between the two satellites, GFZ scientists can determine the gravitational field of the earth. Approximately every 30 days, the satellite pair has collected enough data for a complete global map. This monthly survey of gravity is at least 100 times more accurate than any previous model, and thus invaluable for the research at the GFZ and the international user community. “Many processes in the climate of our planet are accompanied by large-scale water mass redistributions, which are made visible in the gravitational field,” adds Flechtner. This enabled, as the name of the mission suggests, the first observation and analysis of homogeneous and globally numerous climate-related processes from the monthly gravity field models over the last 10 years. Particularly worth mentioning are

  • The mass balance study of the continental water content, which is ultimately a sum of precipitation, evaporation, runoff and storage. GRACE monitors the season-dependent changes in the major river basins, but also the huge groundwater extraction due to irrigation in northern India and California.
  • Quantification of the increase or decrease of the ice and snow masses in the polar or large glacier areas. GFZ scientists were able to demonstrate a strong correlation between the climatic phenomenon ENSO / La Nina, the rainfall patterns in West Antarctica and the reduction of ice mass there.
  • The observation of surface and deep currents, which – in combination with the sea surface topography derived from satellite altimetry – brought about a much better understanding of the global ocean circulation and thus the heat transport from the equator toward the poles.
  • The first-time possibility of separation of mass (ice melt) or temperature (global warming) induced sea level changes.
  • The changes in the solid earth after large earthquakes, such as Sumatra-Andaman (2004), Chile (2010) and Fukushima (2011).

New potatoes and improved weather forecast

The ‘Potsdam Gravity Potato’, originally developed in 1995, is now much more precise thanks to GRACE. This is not a gimmick, but is required, for example, to improve the trajectories of geodetic satellites and derive accurate global reference systems from them – a prerequisite for the combination and evaluation of various global sensor systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS), Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR), the satellite altimetry or local gauge measurements such as for the observation of sea level rise. Another scientific objective of the GRACE mission is to derive about 150 globally distributed vertical temperature and water vapor profiles from GPS data on a daily basis. These data reach the GFZ via its own receiving station in Ny Ålesund (Spitsbergen) and are delivered to the global weather centers within 2 hours to improve global forecasts. In addition, these data are used for studies of climate induced changes in the earth’s atmosphere.

A scientific birthday gift

Right from the beginning, GRACE was planned to be an international program. “For the 10th Birthday, the researchers have devised a special gift for the more than 3,000 users”, says Professor Reinhard Huettl, Chair of the Board of the GFZ. “The entire mission was recalculated with improved correction models, instrument data and processing standards.” Initial analyzes show that the accuracy of gravity field models could be further improved by a factor of 2. These new models will be released to the global users on 17 March via the Information System and Data Centre (ISDC) of the GFZ.

Like its predecessor mission CHAMP (Challenging Mini-Satellite Payload), GRACE will on 17 March be running for twice as long as originally planned. An end of the mission is, however, still in sight. Therefore, the GFZ have initiated a follow-up mission together with the U.S. colleagues. Professor Hüttl is confident: “We hope that at Christmas 2016 two GRACE-FO (follow-on) satellites will orbit around the Earth, because only long time series can provide reliable information on global trends in climate.”

###

Images in printable resolution can be found here:

http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/portal/gfz/Public+Relations/M40-Bildarchiv/Bildergalerie_Satelliten/04+Bildergalerie+GRACE

http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/portal/gfz/Public+Relations/M40-Bildarchiv/Bildergalerie_Kartoffel

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

97 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 17, 2012 2:27 am

Particularly note figure 2 in my link above (and repeated below).
This clearly shows the melting glaciers are south facing.
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/C1670/2012/tcd-5-C1670-2012-supplement.pdf

Keitho
Editor
March 17, 2012 2:39 am

Aj Strata says:
March 16, 2012 at 9:20 pm (Edit)
I have said this before – GRACE can only detect mass changes, not the source of the mass change. There is no, repeat ‘no’, way for anyone tie changes in the Earth’s gravity field to melting ice.
Take it for the NASA Systems Engineer with a quarter of a century of experience. GRACE only knows something between the center of the Earth and it’s orbit altitude changed. Nothing more.
————————————————————-
Exactly. There is convection going on below the solid crust and that surely has an effect that must swamp any changes in ice cover. Ice has a specific gravity of 1, rock generally over 2.5 and molten iron 7.2 .
Mind you I suppose if you can impute the effects of man made CO2 as being catastrophic you can impute gravitational changes to melting ice. PNS anybody?

Robert of Ottawa
March 17, 2012 5:19 am

ImranCan makes a good point. The reduction in gravity over Greenland supposedly is causing 0.7mm/year sea level rise, which isn’t detected as sea level has been falling recently … or is it worse than we thought?

Jimbo
March 17, 2012 5:24 am

The Greenland ice shield had to cope with up to 240 gigatons of mass loss between 2002 and 2011. This corresponds to a sea level rise of about 0.7 mm per year.

Did it stop corresponding recently? 😉
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Jimbo
March 17, 2012 5:40 am

Greenland, it’s worse than we thought. Head for the hills…………………

Melt-induced speed-up of Greenland ice sheet offset by efficient subglacial drainage
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7331/full/nature09740.html

It’s unprecedented!

Abstract:
We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995-2005) warming period with the previous (1920-1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 – 2005.
http://88.167.97.19/albums/files/TMTisFree/Documents/Climate/Greenland_warming_of_1920%E2%80%931930_and_1995%E2%80%932005_Chylek.pdf

A layman’s easy read with references.
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_Greenland.htm

Jimbo
March 17, 2012 6:03 am

What happened to the Greenland ice back on 14th March 1979? Can anyone help? It seems to have been less.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=14&fy=1979&sm=03&sd=14&sy=2012

March 17, 2012 6:11 am

Robert of Ottawa says: March 17, 2012 at 5:19 am
…….
Not much to do with Greenland, I blame Canada or to be more precise, the Hudson Bay area, where you have probably the largest crust uplift anywhere, not to mentioned the true magnetic pole of Northern hemisphere, now in the rapid decline and a corresponding rise in its counterpart in the Central Siberia.
More info: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NATA.htm
and: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
As the Hudson Bay weakens further, NE Canada may get warmer, while Siberia may get colder.

Bengt Abelsson
March 17, 2012 6:18 am

Since 1942 some 75 m of ice have accumulated on Greenland ( WW2 airplanes recovered, see ” lost squadron”)
That is about 3000 Gton / year, so 300 Gton yearly differences in accumulation / melting should not be expected as other than small variations.
Icebergs and melting is probably also in the range of 3000 Gton / year.

R Barker
March 17, 2012 6:18 am

“The Greenland ice shield had to cope with up to 240 gigatons of mass loss between 2002 and 2011. This corresponds to a sea level rise of about 0.7 mm per year.”
This piece of informantion is a bit confusing for me. The statement says up to 240 gigatons between 2002 and 2011 which I divide by 10 to get an average of up to 24 gigatons per year which I divide by 360 cubic kilometers/mm sea level rise (approximately) times 1 cubic kilometer/ gigaton equals an average of up to ~0.07mm per year. Isostatic rebound is not accounted for and we do not know what the current rate is for the area under the Greenland ice sheet. Am I missing something?

Jimbo
March 17, 2012 6:19 am

“Gravity is Climate” only until we see increasing global ice back towards 1979 levels. 😉

Daveo
March 17, 2012 6:31 am

Philip Bradley says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:26 am
Increasing solar insolation would melt south facing glaciers while having little effect on north facing glaciers.
No one has explicitly compared north and south facing glacier melt in Greenland, but this study of regional changes in Greenland icesheet melt, strongly indicates the melt is overwhelmingly in south facing glaciers. GHG warming could not cause this differential melting and solar insolation increases (caused by aerosol and cloud changes) are the only possible cause.

Only possible cause? Dude, read the paper you linked to. The title of the paper gives you a clue as to another possible cause. (emphasis mine)
Changes in the marine-terminating glaciers of east Greenland and potential connections to ocean circulation, 2000-2010
and from the abstact
We find that glacial retreat, thinning and acceleration have been more pronounced throughout the Denmark Strait, supporting our hypothesis that ocean warming associated with shifts in the Irminger and East Greenland currents are causing increased melt at the ice-ocean interface.
Not one mention of solar insolation or aerosols throughout the entire paper. The only mention of clouds is in relation to data collection, not melting.
March 17, 2012 at 2:27 am
Particularly note figure 2 in my link above (and repeated below).
This clearly shows the melting glaciers are south facing.

No it doesn’t. It shows some of the south facing glaciers are retreating more than others. Above 69N some of the south facing glaciers are retreating at the same rate as the north facing ones. Again, read the paper to find out a possible explination as to why.

Pete Of Perth
March 17, 2012 7:16 am

Watch a show the other day about the recovery of ww2 aircraft that crashed on Greenland in 1942. AT the time of recovery in 1990, the aircraft was buried under 268ft of ice.
Me thinks the ice is getting thicker.
(http://www.damninteresting.com/exhuming-the-glacier-girl/)

Jimbo
March 17, 2012 7:17 am

Now this is what I call climate change. But if it were to happen today you can bet it would be blamed on Co2.

Geographical Review -1929
Changes in the oceanic circulation and their climatic Consequences
In the last decade of the nineteenth century, between 1892 and 1897, there occurred an enormous outburst of ice from the Antarctic which filled the Southern Ocean with ice floes and icebergs to such an extent that traffic between South America, Africa, and Australia had to seek a more northerly track………………….Reports of ice dangerous to navigation in the Southern Ocean began to appear again in 1922.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/208079?uid=3738096&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21100667583481

Werner Brozek
March 17, 2012 7:29 am

The Greenland ice shield had to cope with up to 240 gigatons of mass loss between 2002 and 2011. This corresponds to a sea level rise of about 0.7 mm per year.
However one must look at the complete picture. See the graph below to see what happened to sea surface temperatures since 2002. Is it possible the contraction of the oceans exactly balanced the loss of ice in Greenland? Was this even factored in?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend

March 17, 2012 7:53 am

“Moo, It’s starting to get cold here” says the Greenland Viking cow about 500 years ago. Not so much ice in Greenland historically. From my layman POV, It seems Greenland still recovers from the “Little Ice Age”.

March 17, 2012 8:09 am

.Daveo says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:31 am
We find that glacial retreat, thinning and acceleration have been more pronounced throughout the Denmark Strait, supporting our hypothesis that ocean warming associated with shifts in the Irminger and East Greenland currents are causing increased melt at the ice-ocean interface.

I was going to point out that inevitably an GHG AGW compliant cause is proposed based on zero evidence, but I thought it was unecessary editorializing. Do they present any correlations or other evidence to support their proposed cause?
Answer = no.
Their proposed cause isn’t science, its speculation.
There are several studies that show north facing glaciers are not retreating or advancing while south facing glaciers are retreating. Here is one from Nepal.
http://iahs.info/redbooks/a218/iahs_218_0095.pdf
Care to explain how this is caused by ocean currents in the nearest ocean 1,000 Ks away?

Kaboom
March 17, 2012 8:20 am

The interesting bit in the article really is the mass loss that is supposed to translate to a 0.7 mm/year sea level rise. That puts a rather firm (and very low) limit on the arctic melt panic.

March 17, 2012 8:40 am

Daveo says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:31 am
Above 69N some of the south facing glaciers are retreating at the same rate as the north facing ones.

No it doesn’t.
This looks like a case of AGWers making up stuff.
But feel free to show that I am wrong. I am delighted when people show where I am wrong because I learn something.

Patrick Davis
March 17, 2012 8:56 am

According to some alarmists I talk to, gravity is “just a theory” and “not proven” etc. I guess that must be disimilar to theories about AGW, huh? Science settled? I guess also that NASA space missions would be pretty much screwed if “calculations for gravity” were wrong and the missions would fail every time. Yeah right!

March 17, 2012 9:22 am

Patrick, exactly Gravity is not a “force” per se. It is the result of massive objects curving space. Some say.

adolfogiurfa
March 17, 2012 9:39 am

Any surprise? Was it not that all different fields are just ONE? Any water tight compartments in science are artificial, just an entanglement of words, actually a Babel Tower “confusion of tongues” we are living in and which we cherish so much that we cannot see reality.
A conspiracy or the conspiracy of foolishness?

Paul Vaughan
March 17, 2012 9:45 am

““Many processes in the climate of our planet are accompanied by large-scale water mass redistributions, which are made visible in the gravitational field,” adds Flechtner.”
“Another scientific objective of the GRACE mission is to derive about 150 globally distributed vertical temperature and water vapor profiles from GPS data on a daily basis.”
“The mass balance study of the continental water content, which is ultimately a sum of precipitation, evaporation, runoff and storage. GRACE monitors the season-dependent changes in the major river basins, […]”
“The observation of surface and deep currents, which – in combination with the sea surface topography derived from satellite altimetry – brought about a much better understanding of the global ocean circulation and thus the heat transport from the equator toward the poles.”

Net Surface Solar Radiation:
http://i53.tinypic.com/2r5pw9k.png
Precipitable Water:
http://i52.tinypic.com/9r3pt2.png
Near-Surface (850hPa) Wind:
http://i52.tinypic.com/nlo3dw.png
Evaporation Minus Precipitation:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2isvynb.png
Monthly Maximum of Daily Precipitation:
http://i41.tinypic.com/34gasr7.png
Column-integrated Water Vapor Flux with their Convergence:
http://i51.tinypic.com/126fc77.png
Credit: Climatology animations have been assembled using JRA-25 Atlas [ http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm ] images. JRA-25 long-term reanalysis is a collaboration of Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) & Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI).
“Apart from all other reasons, the parameters of the geoid depend on the distribution of water over the planetary surface.” — N.S. Sidorenkov
Sidorenkov, N.S. (2005). Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 24(5), 425-439.
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/09/28/0001230882/425-439.pdf
1. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn1.png
2. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image10.png
3. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn4.png
4. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/10/solar-terrestrial-lunisolar-components-of-rate-of-change-of-length-of-day/
I have new results. I’ve answered the questioned I posed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases.pdf
I could whip up a brief post and send it to Anthony, but it will be years before I have time & resources to elaborate to the degree most seem to crave &/or need, so would some capable-minded readers like to see the raw insights now (without the spoonfeeding)? For the brighter readers (some of whom rarely comment) the graph alone should be enough to trigger at least base-awareness of need for fundamentally-essential reconception, but paradigm shifts can be delayed by long incubation periods as subconscious minds reconcile incompatibilities with earlier misconceptions, which are woven intricately into extensive fabrics, necessitating tedious – & in some cases painful – unraveling & reweaving.
According to the data themselves, solar-terrestrial relations don’t work how folks (whether lay, academic, mainstream, eccentric, alarmist, skeptic – or whatever) thought.
Regards.

adolfogiurfa
March 17, 2012 9:48 am

@Vukcevic: As the Hudson Bay weakens further, NE Canada may get warmer, while Siberia may get colder.
A hint of the New Paradigm in Science!, and not precisely “consensual” or “convenient”!

John F. Hultquist
March 17, 2012 9:50 am

Greg,
Regarding your comment at 9:37 – “Has anybody seen water . . .”
Perhaps in the interest of being concise, you were misleading. In response, I pointed out (via that link) that water had been seen. Anyone knowing of the site linked to, or any other similar sites, whether that person being an alarmist type, neutral, or a skeptic, would come away from your comment thinking that poor Greg doesn’t know ‘s’ from Shinola.
http://www.zazzle.com/i_know_shit_from_shinola_tshirt-235953428725156363
The point being, glacial ice manages to find several ways of moving from its formative regions (“zone of accumulation”) and ending up back in the ocean — and melting is one of those ways. See the part about “basal sliding” and “melting” in the following:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Glacier?topic=54335
So, having established that there can be changes in the location and mass of Greenland ice (or Antarctica ice) then the questions revolve around how to measure this and what can we learn from it. “The primary scientific goal of the GRACE satellite mission is to measure the gravitational field of the earth and its changes over time on a global scale with unprecedented accuracy.” This seems to be a reasonable thing to work toward.
You seem to start with a chip on your shoulder: In your first comment (Greg 9:16) you say “Gravity changes can not prove ice melting, . . .
Insofar as we know ice melts, the point is ‘Can GRACE show where and how much?’. Turning the question around seems not to be a useful strategy. Just saying!

Gail Combs
March 17, 2012 10:16 am

Paul Vaughan says: March 17, 2012 at 9:45 am
Bring it on.
We seem to be getting pretty good at doing “Crowd Science” So a lively discussion of your information should be interesting.