From the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Alarmism, I think maybe they are a bit unclear on the concept of how glaciers work.
As snowfall varies with the seasons, the flow of ice speeds up and slows down.
Besides, it isn’t real data, but just another modeling scenario tweaked for a particular outcome. I had to laugh at this quote:
“We now know that snowfall in Antarctica will not save us from sea-level rise,”
More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica
Stronger snowfall increases future ice discharge from Antarctica. Global warming leads to more precipitation as warmer air holds more moisture – hence earlier research suggested the Antarctic ice sheet might grow under climate change. Now a study published in Nature shows that a lot of the ice gain due to increased snowfall is countered by an acceleration of ice-flow to the ocean. Thus Antarctica’s contribution to global sea-level rise is probably greater than hitherto estimated, the team of authors from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) concludes.
“Between 30 and 65 percent of the ice gain due to enhanced snowfall in Antarctica is countervailed by enhanced ice loss along the coastline,” says lead-author Ricarda Winkelmann. For the first time, an ensemble of ice-physics simulations shows that future ice discharge is increased up to three times because of additional precipitation in Antarctica under global warming. “The effect exceeds that of surface warming as well as that of basal ice-shelf melting,” Winkelmann says.
During the last decade, the Antarctic ice-sheet has lost volume at a rate comparable to that of Greenland. “The one certainty we have about Antarctica under global warming is that snowfall will increase,” Winkelmann explains. “Since surface melt might remain comparably small even under strong global warming, because Antarctica will still be a pretty chilly place, the big question is: How much more mass within the ice sheet will slowly but inexorably flow off Antarctica and contribute to sea-level rise, which is one of the major impacts of climate change.”
Since snowfall on the ice masses of Antarctica takes water out of the global water cycle, the continent’s net contribution to sea-level rise could be negative during the next 100 years – this is what a number of global and regional models suggest. The new findings indicate that this effect to a large extent is offset by changes in the ice-flow dynamics. Snow piling up on the ice is heavy and hence exerts pressure – the higher the ice the more pressure. Because additional snowfall elevates the grounded ice-sheet but less so the floating ice shelves, it flows more rapidly towards the coast of Antarctica where it eventually breaks off into icebergs and elevates sea level.
A number of processes are relevant for ice-loss in Antarctica, most notably to sub-shelf melting caused by warming of the surrounding ocean water. These phenomena explain the already observed contribution to sea-level rise.
“We now know that snowfall in Antarctica will not save us from sea-level rise,” says second author Anders Levermann, research domain co-chair at PIK and a lead author of the sea-level change chapter of the upcoming IPCC’s 5th assessment report. “Sea level is rising – that is a fact. Now we need to understand how quickly we have to adapt our coastal infrastructure; and that depends on how much CO2 we keep emitting into the atmosphere,” Levermann concludes.
Article: Winkelmann, R., Levermann, A., Martin, M.A., Frieler, K. (2012): Increased future ice discharge from Antarctica owing to higher snowfall. Nature [doi:10.1038/nature11616]
More wishful thinking by global-warming scientists courtesy of Nature. When you tell these types that there has been no warming this century, they look at you blankly.
The press release is at war with itself. The most significant statement in it, IMHO:
“Since snowfall on the ice masses of Antarctica takes water out of the global water cycle, the continent’s net contribution to sea-level rise could be negative during the next 100 years – this is what a number of global and regional models suggest.”
By the way, it’s a good time of year to buy your pals a book about climate.
Best of the season to all.
Virtual reality.
Provided they did not want to apply this in the real world it would be tolerable. Alas, we know different.
I am sure if they could simply replace all the carbon units (humanity) with virtual ones, that would solve everything….?
The increased water from the ocean that makes the glacier calve more quickly back into the ocean is a problem how?
Its always worse than we thought. Today we had wind blowing higher than 5mph I barely survived as this was unprecedented.
“Since snowfall on the ice masses of Antarctica takes water out of the global water cycle…”
It is the amount of surface area exposed to evaporation of the global bodies of water that determines how much water participates in the global water cycle. Rising sea levels increase this quantity. There is also sublimation.
BTW, I see I cleverly linked the Kindle version. It is fun and easy to give Kindle books as gifts. All you need is your friend’s e-mail address, the knowledge that they’re a Kindle reader, and you’re good to go. Want to send them paper anyway? I understand.
“…the higher the ice the more pressure. Because additional snowfall elevates the grounded ice-sheet but less so the floating ice shelves, it flows more rapidly towards the coast of Antarctica where it eventually breaks off into icebergs and elevates sea level.”
=====
I can’t follow this. Are they saying that Antarctic ice is already at a maximum so any additional snow will cause the ice underneath to flow into the sea? Has the ice on Antarctica ever been higher than it is today? If so, what kept it from flowing into the sea then? Does excess CO2 in the air make the ice more slippery? I’m really at a loss to understand the logic behind their conclusions.
Papers like this are why I don’t bother to read Nature anymore–it has lost all scientific credibility by publishing such nonsense. The authors apparently didn’t bother to check the temperature records at the South Pole and Vostok, which go back to 1957 and show no warming whatsoever over the past 55 years. If I understand the AGW arguments, sea levels are rising because the Antarctic ice sheet is melting away, and it’s also rising because the ice sheet is growing? That’s right up there with “the hotter it gets, the colder it will be!”
The Antarctic ice is growing because of its positive mass balance (more snow or less ablation). If snowfall has increased, it isn’t because of warming because there hasn’t been any.
I saw this paper early today. The press release was worth a good laugh the remainder free and worth every penny.
Catastrophe is the only outcome from any possible scenario, We are all doomed! pg
“Niff says:
December 12, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Virtual reality. …”
No. I call it “virtual reading”. What else explains people criticizing an article they have not read?
Usually when I read an article and have no clue what the author is talking about, the article is heavy in math, but this article is just bizzare. They seem to be saying if it snows more the glaciers just calve icebergs faster because the snow weighs down the ice. Then they say it’s snowing more because of global warming and the warm air holds more moisture, yet that doesn’t make any sense to me because as the warm moist air moves south along the surface from the horse lattitudes toward the polar region where it rises at high latitudes in the vicinity of 60 degrees, dumping the moisture as rain and release vast amounts of heat into the upper atmosphere above the CO2 saturation level, which cools the temperate regons. The rising air cools and dehydrates, then returns to the surface over the poles; therefore no matter how warm the Earth gets, the air is unlikely to bring additional snow fall over Antarctica, and that’s why Antarctica is a desert.
With an annual precipitation of 200 mm, I wouldn’t be surprised if the glacers didn’t have sublimatation as their primary albation mechanism.
Potsdam Institute for Climate Alarmism… PICA – A disorder in which a person hungrily craves things that have no nutrient value, such as clay, sand, or dirt. In this case, money. It fits.
Ya just can’t win for losing.
F = ma
That’s the equation all glaciers obey (along with practically everything else unless approaching the speed of light). If they don’t, then there’s horseplay at work.
My rock mechanics professor began each lecture with that simple equation then derived the day’s lesson from it, which was fascinating in and of itself. A stiff course in rock mechanics derived from this simple yet elegant equation would do these “theoretical glacial climatologists” a lot of good.
Add to that a lesson in logic and more research on the topic would likely change some of their conclusions, but their big stumbling block is that CO2 has caused this warming. Everywhere in the geologic record does it show warming increases the level of CO2; nowhere does it show that CO2 causes the warming.
“Since snowfall on the ice masses of Antarctica takes water out of the global water cycle, the continent’s net contribution to sea-level rise could be negative during the next 100 years – this is what a number of global and regional models suggest…”
“Thus Antarctica’s contribution to global sea-level rise is probably greater than hitherto estimated, the team of authors from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) concludes…”
……………………..
What they mean “greater contribution”? Greater negative?
Never mind. Anyway, Ricarda is such a sweet mice in her red jacket on the pristine white antarctic snow!
“A number of processes are relevant for ice-loss in Antarctica, most notably to sub-shelf melting caused by warming of the surrounding ocean water. These phenomena explain the already observed contribution to sea-level rise.”
One has to wonder if they ever rehearse or practise these articles/speeches/hypothesis/dream-time-theories in the mirror, it would at least give them some indication on how ridiculous they really sound. It is a typical example of an article, with the bets going both ways but zero on the winner. Cognitive dissonance is an affliction granted to these type of almost-thinkers. The rationale of their presented argument does not stand any scrutiny at all. I am absolutely amazed and flabbergasted about how anyone can get their thinking processes so completely befuddled.
If it was a child, you would send it to it’s room for being silly.
Disturbing to hear that a PIK employee is lead author of the sea-level change chapter of the upcoming IPCC’s 5th assessment report, despite the Interacademy Report
“called upon the IPCC to develop policies governing conflict of interest, including
intellectual conflicts of interest in which Lead Authors are in a position of reviewing their own
work, or have revealed through speeches, public statements or writings that they hold “fixed
positions”.”
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
“We now know that snowfall in Antarctica will not save us from sea-level rise,” says second author Anders Levermann,
“Know” this? as in scientific fact? based on an unproven model that is regularly adjusted?
This is not science. This is a religion based on studying the entrails of chickens.
This is good, almost as coherent as saying CO2 emissions from Asia cause cooling, I smell an attempt to explain the sea ice expansion around the antarctic continent, by the most bizarre reasoning .
Glowball warming causes more snow, more snow(by weight) causes ice to flow to sea faster, ice flows calving into sea cause sea ice to grow(cause it can’t escape? melt? Pinned by manmade wind?) Sea ice expansion makes continent colder.And makes the ocean colder.
Ergo…. AGW causes Antarctic ice to grow.
Death is too good for these shaman impersonating grant suckers.
Trade them to North Korea?
I beg to differ. This is a major scientific discovery. Winkelmann et al have proposed the perfect mechanism to underpin Lovelock’s self-regulating Gaia hypothesis. The more the glacier grows the more it self-destroys. A genius of simplicity. No more mysterious planetary consciousness required.
I have no great problems with the sub-hypotheses and assumptions – nature does cycles – but the whole matter depends on the accurate measurement over long times of a large number of variables. It’s the type of scenario where a small error in one assumption can upset the whole apple cart. For example, in mining we use principal component stress analysis to predict rock burst; but an offshoot of that type of study is that I require much persuasion that the addition of a century of ice at the South Pole will have any measurable effect on the pressure at the base of the pile, however defined. Like, you can take a brick from a big brick wall and it not fall down or seem any different at the top.
I’m still waiting for someone from PIK to state in clear, unequivocal terms that no disconformity or unconformity has been identified in the extant ice layers, especially near the South Pole. It does not have to be the easily-recognised angular type, just a hiatus in deposition. This is important, not only for historical calibration, but also because the absence of a disconformity would indicate that the near-Pole ice has not melted before in the 700,000 years or so that are claimed to be measured in drill holes. I’m optimistic enough to think that 700,000 years of history is unlikely to be upturned at precisely the year in time that experts write their opus magnums.
Also, I keep wondering what climate existed at the bottom of these deep ice holes when the ice pile started to grow. Was it bare rock and warmish, was it sea near freezing, or was there already an accumulation of several km of ice that has long been moving down and out. Any evidence for conditions there in the past?
I’ve come to the conclusion these extremists are all robots.We’ve been taken over by robots. Or aliens. Something that doesn’t think, doesn’t feel, doesn’t consider any other way. Brainwashed or programmed, I guess it’s the same thing. Maybe possessed. How do we snap them out of it? Stronger coffee? A slap upside the head? A group hug? What?
Humour was the first thing to go, then any consideration for others, up to and including acceptance of thousands of deaths to cold, soon more to hunger – let’s not get to the firing squads. Now they’ve stopped thinking. I suppose they have to in self-defence. I mean, how could they bear to? They’d self-destruct.
Is the restriction of CO2 so important to them that they’re willing to give up being HUMAN? The sad thing is, I think some really are, you know? Some are willing to sacrifice not only themselves but their own families and all of humanity. So here is another crime in all this mess – that someone has come along and very delibately taught these people to self-hate, to turn them into tools, into robots, into aliens. It must be so horrible inside their heads, seeing only the dark side, knowing only hatred and fear. Those poor sorrowful hopeless people, all of them.
john robertson You have discovered the explanation for growing Antarctic Ice causing sea level increase! The Sea Ice that grows causes more sea water to be displaced then the the water that that was removed to create the ice. So the sea level rises. See I can be a Climate Scientist too. 😉 pg