There’s a paper (Shepherd et al) on ice loss and sea level rise that has been making the rounds in media (such as this article in Science Recorder, claiming it validates global warming) that is causing some stir, mainly because it has a powerfully written press release combined with a volume of researchers (47 scientists), plus additional never before used together satellite data, because more data and more scientists is always better, right?
Here’s the press release where they claim to have “clear evidence”. A deconstruction follows using NASA JPL’s own internal program documents showing that the “certainty” claimed in Shepherd et al really falls apart for lack of a stable reference for the data.
===========================================================
From the University of Leeds
Clearest evidence yet of polar ice losses
International satellite experts release definitive record of ice sheet changes
An international team of satellite experts has produced the most accurate assessment of ice losses from Antarctica and Greenland to date, ending 20-years of uncertainty.
In a landmark study, published on 30 November in the journal Science, the researchers show that melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has contributed 11.1 millimetres to global sea levels since 1992. This amounts to one fifth of all sea level rise over the survey period.
About two thirds of the ice loss was from Greenland, and the remainder was from Antarctica.
Although the ice sheet losses fall within the range reported by the IPCC in 2007, the spread of the IPCC estimate was so broad that it was not clear whether
Antarctica was growing or shrinking. The new estimates are a vast improvement (more than twice as accurate) thanks to the inclusion of more satellite data, and confirm that both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice.
The study also shows that the combined rate of ice sheet melting has increased over time and, altogether, Greenland and Antarctica are now losing more than three times as much ice (equivalent to 0.95 mm of sea level rise per year) as they were in the 1990s (equivalent to 0.27 mm of sea level rise per year). The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) is a collaboration between 47 researchers from 26 laboratories, and was supported by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Led by Professor Andrew Shepherd at the University of Leeds and Dr Erik Ivins at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the study combines observations from 10 different satellite missions to develop the first consistent measurement of polar ice sheet changes.
The researchers were able to reconcile the differences between dozens of earlier ice sheet studies through careful use of matching time periods and survey areas, and by combining measurements collected by different types of satellites.
Professor Shepherd, who coordinated the study, said: “The success of this venture is due to the cooperation of the international scientific community, and due to the provision of precise satellite sensors by our space agencies. Without these efforts, we would not be in a position to tell people with confidence how the
Earth’s ice sheets have changed, and to end the uncertainty that has existed for many years.” The study also found differences in the pace of change at each pole.
Dr Ivins, who also coordinated the project, said: “The rate of ice loss from Greenland has increased almost five-fold since the mid-1990s. In contrast, while the regional changes in Antarctic ice over time are sometimes quite striking, the overall balance has remained fairly constant – at least within the certainty of the satellite measurements we have to hand.”
Commenting on the findings, Professor Richard Alley, a climate scientist at Penn State University who was not involved in the study, said: “This project is a spectacular achievement. The data will support essential testing of predictive models, and will lead to a better understanding of how sea-level change may depend on the human decisions that influence global temperatures.”
‘A reconciled estimate of ice sheet mass balance’ by Prof Shepherd et al is published in Science on 30 November 2012, DOI: 10.1126/science.1228102.
=============================================================
All well and good, and it looks like a home run for Professor Andrew Shepherd at the University of Leeds and Dr Erik Ivins at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the team of 45 others if you just read the press release. But, let’s look a bit deeper, the paper abstract reads:
A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance
Abstract
We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.
Note the key words here “satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets” along with the second named author “Dr Ivins, who also coordinated the project…at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory”
=============================================================
Hold that thought about the key words, and now read this, excerpted from our previous report: Finally: JPL intends to get a GRASP on accurate sea level and ice measurements
New proposal from NASA JPL admits to “spurious” errors in current satellite based sea level and ice altimetry, calls for new space platform to fix the problem.
This recent internal PowerPoint presentation (obtained from an insider) from NASA JPL touts the new GRASP (Geodetic Reference Antenna in Space) satellite project. I’d say it is more than a bit of a bombshell because the whole purpose of this new mission is to “fix” other mission data that apparently never had a stable enough reference for the measurements being made. This promises to rewrite what we know about sea level rise and acceleration, ice extent and ice volume loss measured from space.
What is most interesting, is the admissions of the current state of space based sea level altimetry in the science goals page of the presentation, as shown in the “Key science goals” slide:
The difference between tide gauge data and space based data is over 100% in the left graph, 1.5 mm/yr versus 3.2mm/yr. Of course those who claim that sea level rise is accelerating accept this data without question, but obviously one of the two data sets (or possibly both) is not representative of reality, and JPL’s GRASP team aims to fix this problem they have identified:
TRF errors readily manifest as spurious sea level rise accelerations
That’s a bucket of cold water reality into the face of the current view of sea level rise. It puts this well-known and often cited graph on Sea Level Rise from the University of Colorado (and the rate of 3.1 mm/yr) into question:
What’s a TRF error? That stands for Terrestrial Reference Frame, which is basically saying that errors in determining the benchmark are messing up the survey. In land based geodesy terms, say if somebody messed with the USGS benchmark elevation data from Mt. Diablo California on a regular basis, and the elevation of that benchmark kept changing in the data set, then all measurements referencing that benchmark would be off as well.
In the case of radio altimetry from space, such measurements are extremely dependent on errors related to how radio signals are propagated through the ionosphere. Things like Faraday rotation, refraction, and other propagation issues can skew the signal during transit, and if not properly corrected for, especially over the long-term, it can introduce a spurious signal in all sorts of data derived from it. In fact, the mission summary shows that it will affect satellite derived data for sea level, ice loss, and ice volume in GRACE gravity measurements:
That list of satellites, TOPEX, JASON 1-3, ICESAT1-2, and GRACE 1-2 pretty much represent all of the satellite data used in the new Shepard et al study released this week A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance.
In a nutshell, other JPL scientists (Yoaz Bar-Sever, R. Steven Nerem, and the GRASP Team) are saying we don’t have an accurate reference point for the satellites, and therefore the data from these previous satellite missions likely has TRF data uncertainties embedded. They say clearly in their PowerPoint presentation that:
The TRF underlies all Measurement of the Earth
And, most importantly, they call for a new space program, GRASP, to fix the problem.
Without that stable Terrestrial Reference Frame that puts the precision of the baseline satellite measurements well below the noise in the data, meaning all we have are broader uncertain measurements. That’s why the plan is to provide ground based points of reference, something our current satellite systems don’t have:
To help understand the items in the side panels:
GNSS = Global Navigation Satellite System – more here
SLR = Satellite Laser Ranging – more here
DORIS = Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite – more here
VLBI = Very Long Baseline Interferometry – more here
Taken together, these systems will improve the accuracy of the TRF, and thus the data. It’s rather amazing that the baseline accuracy didn’t come first, because this now puts all these other space based measurement systems into uncertainty until their TRF issues are resolved, and that’s an inconvenient truth.
We’ll never look at satellite based sea level data or GRACE ice volume data in quite the same way again until this is resolved.
See the JPL PowerPoint here: Poland 2012 – P09 Bar-Sever PR51 (PDF)
Summary:
1. JPL admits that satellite measurement of the Earth has issues because a stable Terrestrial Reference Frame was never established for any of the satellite programs. It’s like setting out to do a terrestrial survey without having an accurate benchmark first. This puts all subsequent data derived with the stable benchmark (the stable TRF) into question.
2. The lack of a stable TRF affects most if not all satellite programs used in this new Shepherd et al paper ‘A reconciled estimate of ice sheet mass balance‘ including ICESAT and GRACE, upon which the paper heavily relies.
3. In searching both the full paper (which I purchased from AAAS) and from the extensive supplementary materials and information (SM-SI available here: Shepherd.SM-SI.pdf ) for Shepherd et al, I find no mention of TRF or “Terrestrial Reference Frame” anywhere. It appears that all 47 authors are unaware of the TRF stability issue, or if they were aware, it was never brought to bear in peer review to test the veracity of the paper and its conclusions from the satellite data. Section 3 of the Shepard et al SM-SI deals with uncertainty, but also makes no mention of the TRF issue.
4. The lack of a stable TRF puts all of the space based geodetic data into question, thus the conclusions of the Shepherd et al paper are essentially worthless at the moment, since there isn’t any good way to remove the TRF error from the data with post processing. If there were, the GRASP team at NASA JPL wouldn’t be calling for a new satellite platform and mission to solve the problem. Obviously, this isn’t an issue they take lightly.
In my opinion, the folks at NASA JPL really should get those two teams talking to one another to get a handle on their data before they make grand announcements saying :
An international team of satellite experts has produced the most accurate assessment of ice losses from Antarctica and Greenland to date, ending 20-years of uncertainty.
A good first step would be to get the GRASP mission funded and then go back and redo Shepherd et al to see if it holds up. Until then, it’s just noisy uncertain data.
UPDATE: Figure 4 in the Shepherd et al paper shows clearly how uncertain the GRACE and other data is. They used a brief bit of Laser Altimetry data, shown in green. Laser Altimetry is more accurate that the radar/microwave based data from the other satellite platforms, and is one of the keystones specified for the proposed GRASP mission to clean up the noisy radar/microwave based data.
Note that the Laser Altimetry data in green is essentially flat across the short period where it is included in all four panels, though there is a slight drop in Greenland, but the period is too short to be meaningful.
The uncertainty is quite clear in Table 1, which has error ranges larger than the data in some cases:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“REPLY: And yet, they still didn’t take this into account. I find it gobsmacking that people at JPL don’t talk to one another, or that 47 scientists couldn’t/wouldn’t bring this issue to bear. Until the baseline is established, the measurements are in fact uncertain with a noise component. ”
This issue is included in the error-assessment and it is negligible for SAR and altimetry. I seriously doubt that it would change the GRACE-results either.
“We don’t know what the true noise component is, all we have are estimates. And, we won’t know what the true magnitude is until such time that a stable baseline is established. […] – Anthony”
Nope, the magnitude of the uncertainty is known, please don’t succumb to hand-waving argumentation.
abstract: “We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. ”
Well it does not take much to increase certain peoples certainty when they are already in a state of belief. However this should not be read as meaning there is a reduction in the scientific measurement uncertainty.
Combining two datasets which do not have a common calibration base means you INCREASE the uncertainty of the result by adding in the uncertainty with which you are able to cross calibrate the two time series.
This is yet more of the false accounting that applies right across climate science, because if they were honest and rigorous in stating the true scientific uncertainty, most of the results would have >100% error bars and no one would be taking a blind bit of notice.
CostCo says: “Heck, in some places and at some times the ice sheet surface is dropping 10+ meters per year!”
Which does not necessarily indicate a loss of ice, instead it can indicate subsidence. But that tidbit wouldn’t conveniently fit with Al Gore’s CO2/GW Scam.
As for making wild alarmists claims, turnabout time – Heck, in some places and at some times the ice sheet surface is rising 10+ meters per year!
CostCo says: “This cannot have been “overlooked” by 49 different professional scientists.”
Never heard of Group Think or Herd Mentality, Eh?
CostCo says: “Nope, the magnitude of the uncertainty is known”
If that were true they wouldn’t be requesting more money for yet another satellite, would they!
Global Warming is a SCAM in part being used by Faux Climatologists to infuse their studies with funding at the expense of Taxpayer$
CostCo
I, for one, welcome your comments because it is always beneficial to have diverse viewpoints and you seem familiar with the issues. But you need to support your claim that the largest sea level changes occur in open ocean. How can that be?
My local survey crew can probably provide better data via landbased direct comparative measurement. The whole of the many issues here seems with making excuses to spend billions of others money on a non-issue. Send a memo: “If you live/work/own by the sea shore remember Atlantis.” It’s called “acceptable risk” as defined separately by each. 🙂
“And yet, they still didn’t take this into account. I find it gobsmacking that people at JPL don’t talk to one another, or that 47 scientists couldn’t/wouldn’t bring this issue to bear.” Anthony
Unlike Boeing, that can be sued for the landing gear failure because it did not fit properly into the gear well, public servants go unscathed in their inept turf protecting production of junk. A good manufacturing company in today’s world uses a common automated design system that is with one in all phases of development, so the landing gear fits the gear well. they can’t design a landing gear to fit into a gear well that does not fit, and vice verse; the 3d design CAD system won’t allow it.
You can make current measurements more accurate, but you CANNOT make past measurements more accurate.
If you establish a stable TRF now, you can only apply it to present and future measurements, Any “adjustments” to past measurements are just that, “adjustments”,, and we all know what happens when these are left in the hands of those trying to prove an agenda.
This continued mish-mashing of measurements made by different systems really is a fool’s journey !
““This cannot have been “overlooked” by 49 different professional scientists.””
all with noses in the trough.
“has error ranges larger than the data in some cases:”
Just stop right there. Do not pass go and do not collect $200.
Seriously? They can draw a conclusion with error bars that big? I call that a crap shoot myself and dicey this is.
Stephen Rasey says:
December 3, 2012 at 9:49 am
“…Failure to continue the plot of the tidal gauge record only invites, nay demands, suspicion.”
A point I have made. Where is the post satellite tidal guages record? Are we the only two who wonder where it is? It exists unless the observers have been force-moved to Siberian gulags.
Steven Mosher says:
December 3, 2012 at 10:08 am
The total uncertainty is .6mm/year. Of that .45mm/year is related to TRF.
Really?
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/J2_handbook_v1-3_no_rev.pdf
OSTM/Jason-2 Products Handbook
2.3.1. Accuracy of Sea-level Measurements
Generally speaking OSTM/Jason-2 has been specified based on the Jason-1 state of the art,
including improvements in payload technology, data processing and algorithms or ancillary data
(e.g: precise orbit determination and meteorological model accuracy). The sea-surface height shall
be provided with a globally averaged RMS accuracy of 3.4 cm (1 sigma), or better, assuming 1
second averages.
The instrumental and environmental corrections are provided with the appropriate accuracy to
meet this requirement. In addition to these requirements, a set of measurement-system goals was
established based on the anticipated impact of off-line ground processing improvements. These
improvements are expected to enable reduction of sea-surface height errors to 2.5 cm RMS.
Knowledge of the stability of the system is especially important to the goal of monitoring the
change in the global mean sea level, hence a specification on the system drift with a 1 mm/year
goal.
From the table that immediately follows the above
Table 2 : Summary of error budget at the end of the verification phase
Altimeter noise 2.5 cm
Ionosphere 1 cm
Sea State Bias 3.5 cm (more on this later)
Dry Troposphere 1 cm
Wet Troposphere 1.2 cm
Altimeter Range 5 cm
RMS Orbit 10 cm
These collectively add up to nearly 25 cm, but with the application of appropriate statistical magic the sub total is reduced to a SSH error of 11.2 cm. Then comes the real fly in the ointment, the error for Significant Wave Height, which is given as 10% or 0.5 Meters, whichever is greater. SWH averages out at a little over 2 meters with peaks in the 8-9 meter range. On a daily basis SWH is present over about 95% of the world’s oceans. Although they generally admit they have yet to come close to resolving this error, they account for it in the above with that nice little 3.5 cm Sea State Bias uncertainty.
I would point out that this information is for the Jason 2 data which, due to improvements to instrumentation and processing, is probably at least an order of magnitude better than the TOPEX/POSEIDON era data, maybe even two. The changes to the instruments and methodology would seem to make it very problematic to attempt to combine the records into a coherent dataset.
CostCo says; “…the magnitude of the uncertainty is known,…”
Excellent. What is it?
NASA JPL presented the GRASP Mission Concept to the EGU in April 2009 in Vienna, Austria. “Promising revolutionary improvments to the definition of the TRF, its densification, and accessibilty. ” also “offering an inovative space-based approach to a heretofore intractable problem: establishing precise and stable ties between the key geodetic techniques used to define and disseminate the TRF. GRASP also offers a solution to another difficult problem, namely, the consistent calibration of the myriad antennas used to transmit and recieve the ubitqutious signals of the present and future Global Navigation Satellite System [GNSS].” It looks to me like NASA participated In,and spent money on , a study they knew from the beginning was far from robust, aka, WORTHLESS.
@markx 9:50 am From the 23 stabel sites selected by Douglas in 1997 …
I participated in a lengthy discussion about whether those stations were in fact stable with reason to doubt their stability. Look up “Is Sea Level Rise Accelerating.” WUWT May 16, 2012
May 16, (7:06 am – tectonic settings of stations used.) (7:30 am – Earth Tide)
(10:54 am – Thames flood barrier used to retain water in river.)
(11:13 am – too many fail tectonic setting. List of other places to try)
May 17 (11:26 am – Links to 20,000 yr Post glacial Sea Level charts)
(12:36 pm – more on other gauges. Tectonic Setting Map link)
(1:01 pm – Clustering and tectonic problems in Douglas)
May 20, (10:02 pm – More on clustering of the gauges used.)
May 28, (4:45 pm — PSMSL FAQ – up to 2000 mm of noise)
@markx 9:50 am From the 23 stabel sites selected by Douglas in 1997 …
I participated in a lengthy discussion about whether those stations in Douglas were in fact stable. I have reason to doubt their stability. Look up “Is Sea Level Rise Accelerating.” WUWT May 16, 2012
May 16, (7:06 am – tectonic settings of stations used in Douglas)
(10:54 am – Thames flood barrier used to retain water in river.)
(11:13 am – too many gauges fail tectonic setting. List of other places to try)
May 17 (11:26 am – Links to 20,000 yr Post glacial Sea Level charts)
(12:36 pm – more on other locations to try. Tectonic Setting Map link)
(1:01 pm – Clustering and tectonic problems in Douglas)
May 20, (10:02 pm – More on clustering of the gauges used in Douglas)
May 28, (4:45 pm — PSMSL FAQ – up to 2000 mm of noise in sea level from geoid)
Doug Proctor says:
>>
Stephen Rasey says:
December 3, 2012 at 9:49 am
“…Failure to continue the plot of the tidal gauge record only invites, nay demands, suspicion.”
A point I have made. Where is the post satellite tidal guages record? Are we the only two who wonder where it is? It exists unless the observers have been force-moved to Siberian gulags.
>>
This plot is based on the tide gauge record, from Jevrejeva 2008
“Recent global sea level acceleration startedover 200 years ago?”
http://i40.tinypic.com/nx3q1.png
(red dots and lines are mine)
Acceleration is a positive slope on the rate of change shown in the lower panel. There was accelerating rise in means sea level UNTIL the mid 20th century. Since then it is decelerating, with a residual rate of change around 2mm/y at the end of the data (this study’s data ends in 2002).
This paper was never about science, it was a propaganda piece timed to be released to bolster flagging spirits at Doha Round. As usual the usual Media suspects have responded as required and spread the misinformation before the public.
CostCo said : on December 3, 2012 at 9:20 am
And this despite temperatures in the Antarctic having fallen consistently for years. Presumably you can find a link for that apparent contradiction.
It’s the expansion of the universe that is being measured not sea level rise! 23mm per year or 71km/s/Mpc!
I always laugh when I see something like “new satellite readings show a change. in ………………”
Sorry, but compared to what………… readings from an old satellite?
Why was the old satellite replaced? Because it was inaccurate ?? DOH !!!
I happened to have flown over Greenland for the first time a few weeks back. Wow, impressive. I work in DOD, engineering, on satalite launch programs. I have trouble believing anything in space can accurately measure all of Greenland ice to within a meter. But the public believes our government can do anything.
Can somebody tell me how these satellite altimeters compensate for the inverse barometer effect where there are no measurements of the surface pressure?
In order to get accurate sea levels you have to have accurate simultaneous atmospheric pressure measurements.
Re Steven Mosher on December 3, 2012 at 10:08 am and Anthony’s reply:
It’s a simple issue. Steven Mosher knows he is a very smart guy. He is far too smart to ever be taken in by false claims and slick propaganda masquerading as real science.
Therefore because he accepted (C)AGW, there must be truth in it for him to have ever accepted it. So he will keep looking for more proof, which he will find as he must find it, since confirmation of the reality of (C)AGW is confirmation of his smartness.
Which means that Anthony, I, and millions of other people who formerly accepted (C)AGW before rejecting it as unproven hyped-up nonsense, and all of those who never accepted (C)AGW, are stupid, clearly not as smart as Mosher. We must be stupid, as we reject the science that Mosher finds so clear and convincing, that convinces Mosher he’s as smart as he always knew he was.
It’s expected he’ll sound more like a warmist, as becoming even more convinced of (C)AGW is more confirmation of his smartness, and more confirmation that those who disagree with him on the science must be stupid.
Take note there are many thousands of Mosher’s out there, of many varieties, convinced their investments in Green energy companies will pay off someday, that the politician they supported and voted for will do what they promised if the obstructionist opposition wasn’t preventing them from doing the right thing. Good con men of all stripes love and appreciate such very smart people.
” mpainter says: But you need to support your claim that the largest sea level changes occur in open ocean. How can that be?”
I’m not an expert on sea-level but I guess that the largest warming has happened over the open ocean and then the thermal expansion takes care of the rest.
“Darren Potter says: CostCo says: “Heck, in some places and at some times the ice sheet surface is dropping 10+ meters per year!”
Which does not necessarily indicate a loss of ice, instead it can indicate subsidence.”
Subsidence of bedrock or what? Anyway, the surface velocity of the ice is known, which can be used to infer what is going on.