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.
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_Kartoffel
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John F. Hultquist says:
March 17, 2012 at 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. ”
————————————————————
John, I also said there: “Given the huge amount of ice allegedly melted away from the ice sheet, one should at least ask himself: what has happened whis this huge amount of meltwater, where is it, all of it? And demand a PROOF. ” All of it, John.
That’ the point. Logically, you can not conclude from the particular case (a little bit water has been seen) to the general one (a huge amount of ice has turned into a huge amount of water and flowed away from the ice sheet).
If it had been so, we would have seen (or have known about) those rivers of meltwater.
Now, nobody has seen it, that means logically that the alleged ice melting did not happen. (Otherwise, again, we would have seen the product of the huge ice melting, namely the huge amount of water… you know)
In other words, non-existence of an inevitable product of certain process is a proof, that this process did not happen.
No significant ice melting, John.
adolfogiurfa says: March 17, 2012 at 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”!
———————–
Not long ago Siberia was very, very warm ; NASA-GISS and HadCRU fell for it.
NASA temperature map
It was all Brezhnev propaganda after USSR invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, to show that they don’t need the American and Canadian wheat.
And the global temperature wasn’t same ever again, more here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GT-AMO.htm
It is obvious that the GRACE satellites were misnamed. I sugget achange to Calvin and Hobbes.
Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that GRACE detected the change in Lake Mead’s height. During the period from 2000 to 2011, Lake Mead steadily dropped from 1210 feet to 1080, a drop of 130 feet (the lake has since started to recover, it’s gained about 30 feet in the last year). During the GRACE period, the lake dropped almost 100 feet.
Lake Mead does not appear to be visible in the GRACE gravity models released to the public. If anything, the GRACE plots show that gravity INCREASED in the area surrounding the lake.
Lake Mead has a surface area of 247 square miles, so a drop of almost 100 feet should have a delta-gravity signature in water-equivalent mass ( ~300,000 inch-mile^2) many times the water equivalent mass resolution claimed for the system over its spatial resolution of about 200 miles which is better than 40,000 inch-mile^2. Sorry for the funny English units, but you can see the point.
@vukcevic
The Figure 1 (p.18 = pdf p.19) jump in the 1970s can be traced to a simple resonance somewhere ridiculously simple that inexplicably no one thought to look even though hindsight on this will be a 20/20 no-brainer in the future.
Ryskin, G. (2009). Secular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field: induced by the ocean flow? New Journal of Physics 11, 063015. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/11/6/063015.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063015/pdf/1367-2630_11_6_063015.pdf
“The Greenland ice shield had to cope with up to 240 gigatons of mass loss between 2002 and 2011”
But 240 gigatons is roughly about 240 cubic km of ice. Greenland has over 3 million cubic km of ice. Therefore 240 out of 3 million is absolutely insignificant. What’s to cope with?
How about we assume that these scientists know what they are talking about and Greenland has been loosing 200+ gigatons of ice/year for the past few years. How many years is it (at the current rate) until all of the ice melts? I believe it has been stated before that it would take about 10,000 years to all melt away.
Considering the artifacts that are being exposed by melting glaciers (from MWP times) it would appear that sometimes the ice melts, sometimes it builds…
So, not exactly an issue.
Now I would like to know what is happening to the Antarctic ice thickness – seems these guys should have reported on that – perhaps a comparison of the relative melt/freeze rate. Who knows, perhaps Antarctica is freezing ice faster than it is melting on Greenland? Certainly wasn’t covered in this report as far as I can tell.
Hi Paul
Ryskin paper was discussed number of times on WUWT and many other blogs. I raised it on WUWT sometime in 2009 as soon as it appeared in the press. His paper was published in June, mine version 2 was submitted in late August or early September 2009. L.S. still maintains its nonsense. I think Ryskin got it wrong way around, although there is a minor effect in the other direction i.e. Ryskin’s way.
Opps, I meant 20+ some gigatons per year, not 200+. typos…
The image looks like an orange that had been at the bottom of a drawer for about six months
John Robertson says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm
“How about we assume that these scientists know what they are talking about and Greenland has been loosing 200+ gigatons of ice/year for the past few years. How many years is it (at the current rate) until all of the ice melts? I believe it has been stated before that it would take about 10,000 years to all melt away.”
———————————
John, why should why buy it and talk about 10,000 years, if there is no evidence of 200+ gigatons of MELTWATER/year flowing into the sea?
Who carried away the 200+ gigatons of ice/year then? Please do not say “invisible aliens” (LOL).
So, given the impossibility of such a huge ice melting we have all reasons to suspect a sort of scientific/political fraud.
The image of the gravitational field is amazing. I had always imagined the Geoid as being a roughly regular form like an oblate spheroid but this image reveals it as a very battered potato. It’s more like a potatoid.
GeologyJim says
The interpretation depends ENTIRELY on data reduction and MODELING.
———
So Jim has just proved that all that seismology the oil companies do for oil exploration is just a fantasy and waste of time and millions of dollars.
So Jim you run off and tell them that all that computer stuff is rubbish and you know that it is cos you got lots of common sense.
GRACE is something of a “johnny come lately” in the satellite geodesy business, though I am sure this recent program has benefitted from more modern technology. However, in the 60’s and 70’s I worked with New Mexico State University – Physical Science Lab on a Navy – Johns Hopkins University – Applied Physics Laboratory program that was in its early stages, called Transit. It was the Navy Navigational Satellite (NNS) program which was a precursor to the GPS system we have today. One of the major projects in the 60’s was to redefine the earth’s geoid but this work continued into the early 90’s and included satellite programs such as GEOS and Seasat. The potato shape was already apparent in the 3-D models developed from work done in the 70’s and was more refined in the 80’s and 90’s. This integrated program used dozens of satellites and utilized new and interesting techniques such as doppler and laser ranging both based on satellite to earth techniques. Seasat used synthetic aperture radar (SAR) methods to determine global values of sea heights for the first time. Some of the first confirmation of plate movements in the new field of plate tectonics were emerging in the early 70’s from data being produced by the NNS system. GRACE and many other modern programs clearly ride on the back of some early giants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_geodesy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(satellite)
http://sd-www.jhuapl.edu/Transit/
Bernie
@ur momisugly Philip Bradley says:
March 17, 2012 at 2:27 am
And @ur momisugly Daveo,
Marcel Leroux has explained that the east Greenland melting -just as is the Antarctic peninsula’s- is of dynamical origin, i.e. in the case of Greenland, due to the renewed advections of warm air as a result of more powerful, colder anticyclones coming from the Arctic, a consequence of the rapid mode of circulation that started during the 1970s climatic shift.
Moreover such observations are consistent with 1) the Svalbbard island paleoclimatological records during the onset of the last glaciation, showing in fact warming for a while in these regions until the cold finally takes over globally and 2) a recent paper showed that during the LIA, arctic sea ice extent was not greater, on the contrary, lesser than now in these regions.
Contrary to the reductionnist approach derived from statistical manipulation of world wide temperatures as a proxy of climatic evolution, what we observe is therefore a transitional period towards a cooling since the 1970s rather than the ominous signs of AGW. Will we get much, much cooler? No one knows.
@ur momisugly LazyTeenager says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:11 pm
As usual you open it and some non sense comes out. Clearly you have no clue about exploration and how seismic works in this context. Instead of Lazy, go to school.
Philip Bradley says:
March 17, 2012 at 8:09 am
I was going to point out that inevitably an GHG AGW compliant cause is proposed based on zero evidence
Again, read the article, read the references it cites. You’ll find your evidence.
Their proposed cause isn’t science, its speculation.
Rubbish. Get 2 glasses of water, one cold from the fridge the other warm from the tap. Drop an ice block into both of them. Which one melts faster?
Care to explain how this [paper about glaciers in the Himalayas!] is caused by ocean currents in the nearest ocean 1,000 Ks away?
Ocean currents was the cause in the original paper you cited. This one is not. I’ll put this poorly constructed straw man down to the sting of being caught with an ill conceived reference, rather than an indication of your intelligence.
What I will say, again (seems to be a common theme) read the article.
The global warming of the atmosphere also affects the Himalayan region. This could result in a general reduction of snow cover extent… As a consequence, the albedo of the region is reduced, heating is increased due to larger absorption of solar radiation, and stronger thermal winds (slope and valley winds) develop.
All the explanations and conclusions discus thermal winds and the effects they have on the glacier system.
Philip Bradley says:
March 17, 2012 at 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.
That’s an answer I expect from my 6 yr old nephew. Look again. Can you explain how the 3 South facing glaciers at the same latitude as the North facing glaciers have similar rates of retreat?
But feel free to show that I am wrong. I am delighted when people show where I am wrong because I learn something.
Are you wrong? Depends how you class wrong. On the most basic of levels, you may have a point. However it is more complex than that. Glaciers retreat for many different reasons, which are generally location specific (as the 2 papers suggest).
Learn something?
I hope you have learned to link studies that support your position (and that you read them first to confirm). I hope that by going back and reading the studies, if nothing else you learn that there is more to glacier dynamics than your basic explanation.
I’ve tried to help you learn something, but based on this comment,
This looks like a case of AGWers making up stuff.
I think your mind is already made up.
TomRude says:
March 17, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Marcel Leroux has explained…
Ties in with what I said, theres many reasons why glaciers melt/retreat.
2) a recent paper showed that during the LIA, arctic sea ice extent was not greater, on the contrary, lesser than now in these regions.
Haven’t heard that one before. Sounds interesting though. Does that add some validity to Curry’s recent paper? Less ice in the artic, changes weather patterns, more snow in some lower lattitudes? Love to read it, do you have a link?
pat;
Your cite/summary of the NM situation made me wonder (“also scraped rules”) just what a scraped rule would look like. Perhaps the underlying agenda would be exposed to the light of day? Providing a good reason that it should be scrapped.
<;)
@ur momisugly Daveo: Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years
Kinnard,1 Zdanowicz,2 Fisher,2 Isaksson,3 de Vernal4 Lonnie G. Thompson5
Journal name:Nature Volume: 479, Pages: 509–512
Date published: (24 November 2011) DOI: doi:10.1038/nature10581
According to press reports, they discovered that ice actually shrank during what’s known as the Little Ice Age, a period between 1450 and 1850, due to relatively warm ocean waters moving north…
The rest of the paper is predictably warmist but the observation above is not.
So does this mean that when the Vikings settled in Greenland and set up farms there (when the climate of Greenland was much warmer and the glacier was no doubt much smaller) that the Earth’s gravity was somehow different to what it is today?
Chill out, guys. What? Like we shouldn’t measure the gravity field? If it can register changes in ice and water (or even air) mass, so much the better.
But that picture is not a picture of weather, nor of ice, water, or air. It is a picture of the inner gizzardly workings of molten rock. Interesting that the Indian Ocean negative sems to extend north beneath the Himalayas where one might expect accumulated surface mass to at least balance the negative.
How cool would it be to see a time series of that picture of an asteroid impact on some nice experimental planet?