Uncertainty be damned, let's make ice and sea level projections anyway

‘A better path’ toward projecting, planning for rising seas on a warmer Earth

From Princeton University, by Morgan Kelly, Office of Communications

More useful projections of sea level are possible despite substantial uncertainty about the future behavior of massive ice sheets, according to Princeton University researchers.

In two recent papers in the journals Nature Climate Change and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the researchers present a probabilistic assessment of the Antarctic contribution to 21st-century sea-level change. Their methodology folds observed changes and models of different complexity into unified projections that can be updated with new information. This approach provides a consistent means to integrate the potential contribution of both continental ice sheets — Greenland and Antarctica — into sea-level rise projections.

“No single ice sheet model or methodology for projections provides sufficient information for good policy and planning decisions,” explained lead author Christopher Little, a postdoctoral research associate in the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy in Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

“Furthermore, there are fundamental limitations in the observational data available on and near ice sheets,” Little said. “Projections of their response to 21st century climate changes are thus very poorly constrained. There’s unlikely to be a single answer in the near future: a better objective is a comprehensive, transparent baseline that can be improved over time.”

The Princeton approach provides a more informative projection of future sea levels that politicians and coastal planners can use to prepare for higher seas, said Little, who works in the group of co-author Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton’s Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs. Little and Oppenheimer worked on both papers with Nathan Urban, a former postdoctoral researcher with Oppenheimer now at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Oppenheimer

In two recent papers, Princeton University researchers present a probabilistic assessment of the Antarctic contribution to 21st-century sea-level change. Their methodology provides a consistent means to integrate the potential contribution of continental ice sheets such as Greenland and Antarctica into sea-level rise projections. In existing projections, the contribution of Antarctica to future sea-level rise is almost entirely derived from locations where present-day mass loss is concentrated (area 15, above). This is despite evidence that future discharge in other drainage basins — which comprise more than 96 percent of the ice sheet’s area — remains uncertain. (Image courtesy of Christopher Little)

Little explains the findings of both papers as follows:

“Gauging the future rate of sea-level rise is critical for climate-change policy and coastal-planning efforts. One crucial component is the melting of polar ice sheets.

“During the past 20 years, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost an increasing amount of ice and now contribute roughly one-third of the rate of global mean sea-level rise. However, the standard tools used to project these ice sheets’ contribution to future sea levels are limited by inadequate process understanding and sparse data. Ice sheets interact with the ocean on small spatial scales, and their motion is strongly governed by poorly understood properties of the ice as well as the sediment hidden several miles beneath it. Sea-level rise projections should reflect these uncertainties.

“Recently, several groups have used alternative techniques to forecast maximum possible sea levels — known as upper bounds — that do not explicitly model ice dynamics. Upper bound estimates by the year 2100 projected using these techniques are up to 6 feet (three times higher than future sea level estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)). However, the physical basis underlying these projections and their likelihood of occurrence remain unclear.

“In our group, we think we can more consistently assess disparate sources of information. In two recent papers, we introduce a novel framework for projecting the mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet that allows for the conversion of current and future uncertainties of ice-sheet dynamics into probability distributions that may be supplemented by expert judgments. The power of this framework arises from its ability to improve and compare projections in a transparent manner.

“Like watersheds on land, ice sheets discharge precipitation that falls over a wide drainage basin through relatively narrow outlets. Although ice flow is linked across basins, each basin may remain relatively independent over time periods less than a century. The framework described in these two papers projects mass balance separately for each drainage basin, while allowing for correlated trends driven by underlying physical processes occurring at larger spatial scales.

The first paper, published in PNAS, introduces this ‘basin-by-basin’ framework and reveals that, even with limited information, a comprehensive probabilistic approach can provide insight that is missing from previous projections. We performed sensitivity analyses by changing the set of assumptions applied to each basin. For each set of assumptions, Monte Carlo simulations [computer algorithms based on random sampling] were used to generate 30,000 to 50,000 scenarios of mass changes originating from each basin and the continent as a whole.

“In previous scenario-based projections, the contribution of Antarctica to future sea-level rise is almost entirely derived from locations where present-day mass loss is concentrated. This is despite evidence that future discharge in other drainage basins — which comprise more than 96 percent of the ice sheet’s area — remains uncertain.

“By incorporating the entire ice sheet, the PNAS study demonstrated that uncertainty in ice discharge outside regions where scientists ‘expect’ ice loss might result in additional sea-level rise that must be considered in projections. In addition, we quantitatively show that the likelihood of upper bounds must be taken into account when assessing their magnitude and appropriate uncertainty reduction efforts.

The second paper, published in Nature Climate Change, extended the framework to include Bayesian updating, which allows prior assumptions to be updated as new data are collected. We combined model-based basin-level projections with data-based extrapolations and previously reported continental-scale observations to forecast the Antarctic contribution to sea-level change.

“The paper projected a 95th percentile ice-mass loss equal to a 13-centimeter (5.1-inch) increase in sea level by 2100; other estimates provide upper bounds reaching up to 60 centimeters (roughly 23.5 inches), but with no quantification of probability. This paper suggests that most earlier projections either overestimated Antarctica’s possible contribution to sea-level rise; implied physical changes inconsistent with underlying methodological assumptions; or, assume an extremely low risk tolerance.

“Future work on this framework includes further addressing inconsistencies in different methodologies, which will continue to refine the range of upper-bound sea-level projections. Our group also intends to include the solid earth and gravitational response that modulates sea-level changes at the local level, allowing the generation of a global map of the local probability distribution of sea-level rise.”

The paper, “Probabilistic framework for assessing the ice sheet contribution to sea level change,” was published February 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The article, “Upper bounds on twenty-first-century Antarctic ice loss assessed using a probabilistic framework,” was published online March 17 in Nature Climate Change. Both papers were funded by the Princeton Environmental Institute‘s Carbon Mitigation Initiative, and Princeton University’s Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

87 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brian
April 5, 2013 10:04 am

Mark Bofill,
I agree. I think the politics involved is really the problem. Most politicians likely do not understand the implications of models and predictions. So I get the disdain for models. But let’s try and not let that disdain permeate discussions of research and prematurely form opinions for us. In general, I think the paper presented in this article is very reasonable in acknowledging its own shortcomings.

Theo Goodwin
April 5, 2013 10:08 am

Brian says:
April 5, 2013 at 8:02 am
“Also, a model is inherently almost always “wrong”. As the article states, their model is a “probabilistic assessment” that considers the likelihood of various potential outcomes. The probability that a specific one of these outcomes will occur is very small. These kinds of models are used for all kinds of things, including local weather forecasts. Forecasts more than 24 hours out are very rarely 100% precise, but they are still helpful for planning purposes. This doesn’t mean that I think the model in the paper is correct, but to attack the concept of a model is just poor reasoning.”
Brian, you seem to be unaware of the long history of WUWT discussion of computer models. The chief complaint is that modelers obsessively claim or insinuate that their computer models can substitute for well confirmed physical theories. Sometimes, modelers are so blinded by computer model lust that they claim that the results of a model run should be counted as scientific evidence. The truth of the matter is that if climate scientists had any well confirmed physical hypotheses, in important areas such as cloud formation and behavior, then they would need their computer models only as calculational devices.
Computer models cannot substitute for well confirmed physical theories or serve as scientific evidence.

Tim Clark
April 5, 2013 10:15 am

Bill Illis says:
April 5, 2013 at 7:35 am
What an erroneous calculation! The title of this article regards Uncertainty. It just upsets me to no end, you deniers. How can you possible estimate sea level without known guage conflicting aliases and human induced changes over time.
You neglected to correct your data for sea foam, encrusted rust, salt and barnacles, floating cigarette butts, total volume of reduced endangered whales minus increased oil barge traffic, increased pressure from atsmospheric CO2, swimming polar bears, New York garbage barge dumping, discharge from transocean jet traffic, plate tectonics, deforestration, Russian vodka, pygmy goats, sasquatch, my hairloss, skinny dippers, and the death of the Loch Ness monster.
Taking these data into consideration, I calculate the actual rise at 1.4009 mms/year.
/s

William Astley
April 5, 2013 10:18 am

The extreme AGW paradigm pushers have logically painted themselves into a corner. They have set up the biggest scientific and political scandal of the 21st century.
How does one back track from statements that the science is settled and those who point out the observations and analysis unequivocally does not support the extreme AGW paradigm are deniers?
The AGW theory predicted there would be a tropical troposphere hot spot (At about 10 km above the planet’s surface, as the CO2 warming mechanism is saturated in the lower atmosphere. The warm troposphere would then warm the surface of the planet by radiative heating.) The AWG theory predicted that the majority of the warming would be in the tropics, amplified by water vapor, not high in the Arctic. There was no significant warming in the tropics, there is no tropic troposphere hot spot.
The explanation for the lack of any significant tropical warming and the fact that there is no warming of the tropical troposphere is that clouds in the tropics increase or decrease, reflecting more or less solar radiation off into space thereby resisting any forcing change. The extreme AGW paradigm requires amplification, positive feedback, if the planet resists rather than amplifies the CO2 warming, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will result in an increase the biosphere.
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) … ….We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….
The observations and analysis support the assertion that the majority of 20th century warming has caused by a different mechanism, by something related to the solar magnetic cycle change. The public interest in climate change will return if there is even slight global cooling, say a return to 1970’s temperature. Each time there is another cooling event, coldest month, coldest year and so on, the media that have been pushing the extreme AGW paradigm will need to provide an explanation. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

April 5, 2013 10:27 am

“…a novel framework for projecting the mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet that allows for the conversion of current and future uncertainties of ice-sheet dynamics into probability distributions that may be supplemented by expert judgments…”
And what direction might those supplemental expert judgements take?
“Both papers were funded by the Princeton Environmental Institute‘s CARBON MITIGATION INITIATIVE,”
I’m sure Steve McIntyre will have something to say about the novel probablistic “methodologies”. However, for my two cents worth, if you are wedded to the assumption that global warming and sea level will continue to rise, then you are leaving out half the picture. The probable variation isn’t just between +30cm and several metres sea -level RISE. They admit to high uncertainties of the upper bound of the RISE, but judge 100% probability to some lower bound level of RISE (what? +10cm? +20cm?). Where does the confidence for the lower bound of positive increase in sea level come from? What would have been the 100% probable lower bound of the rise in the heydays of the mid 1990s? With 1/6 of a century of no global warming, what should this 100% probable level of rise have fallen to? If they believe that there is fair probability of, say, a +15cm rise and a low but possible chance of +300cm rise, they shouldn’t rule out a low but possible drop in sea level, say, of 50cm (some long period of “flat” oscillations followed by gradual decrease – who knows what the lags, and accelerations would be?). I also note that they plan to dovetail in the probability of isostatic sea level changes as well to confound the whole issue. Transparent indeed.

Brian
April 5, 2013 10:38 am

Theo, I’m not a long-time reader, but I completely agree with you that models should not be considered evidence. But does this paper do that? I think they do a great job of describing all of the inputs, processes, and outputs of the model without exaggerating its implications. And this is where the bias comes in. Since many models have been inappropriately used in the past, this one has been prematurely dismissed and the researchers compared to “cockroaches…scurrying around in the dark”. WUWT?

Mark Bofill
April 5, 2013 10:48 am

Brian says:
April 5, 2013 at 10:04 am
———-
Maybe. Maybe I’m becoming overly accustomed to trying to decode doubletalk and I’m false rejecting on phrases like ‘may be supplemented by expert judgments’. Might be I’m just becoming cynical. I will say this for myself however, if the approach proves to model reality to a degree that it does in fact produce meaningful projections, I’ll gladly take my hat off to these guys and pay attention to their results.
BTW – I agree with Theo’s point as well although I neglected to mention it. I’d qualify it slightly to say this: models are only good substitutes for observations after it’s been solidly established that the models demonstrate predictive skill; this isn’t a straw man argument, people have seriously argued this point with me.

Editor
April 5, 2013 10:56 am

I found it interesting that at the end of the day they predicted about what we see today. The language is alarmist, but the results say that there will be little change in sea level rise.
Encouraging …
w.

Editor
April 5, 2013 11:12 am

Brian says:
April 5, 2013 at 9:25 am

… I’m not looking for a site where “everybody is always correct”, but one with two-sided dialogue involving educated people who are simply trying to understand climate. Sadly, I don’t believe that such a site exists. The fact that there are very few dissenting opinions (from the poster’s intended point) on this site indicates either widespread gullibility or a severe case of confirmation bias.

Or it could just mean that people mostly agree about a topic. Or that they totally misunderstand the topic. Or they don’t much care about the topic. Or it could mean that people are simply wrong, but neither gullible nor subject to “confirmation bias”. Or it could just mean that the poster is correct, and people find little to disagree about. There’s lots and lots of possible explanations … but you only think of two of them, both of them insulting to your readers.
The fact that you impute a lack of discussion on a particular question to either “gullibility” or “confirmation bias” shows me that you’re not really looking for a two-sided dialog. People actually looking for dialog don’t start by calling folks gullible and the victims of confirmation bias just because they may not disagree with a certain post.
So I’m sorry, Brian, but I’m not buying it. You’ll find more two-sided dialog going on here than most anywhere else on the web … but you’re not a part of it with your “gullible” and your “confirmation bias”. You claim you came here for dialog, and then you start the dialog, not by discussing the issues but by insulting people? Yeah, that’s the best plan for dialog …
In fact, by accusing people of not holding valid opinions (your two choices are that we’re all suckers or we’re just agreeing with each other to agree, so our opinions can obviously be ignored), you’ve proven that you don’t care much about dialog, you’re more about insulting folks … no wonder nobody wants to have a “two-sided dialog” with you after you start by calling them “gullible”.
Now, I’m sure that your “I’m just looking for an honest website so I can have an honest discussion” line of bull fools your friends, and perhaps it impresses the girls in your philosophy class.
Here it just makes you look like a shallow poseur … get with the picture, join the discussion, and stop bitching about the quality of people around you, you’ll get much farther in life that way.
w.

atarsinc
April 5, 2013 11:47 am

John Parsons AKA atarsinc
Jimbo says:
April 5, 2013 at 4:01 am
“…Antarctica losing or gaining ice?”
Your link is about sea ice. Antarctic Ice Mass is declining. JP

Mickey Reno
April 5, 2013 12:23 pm

Brian, while I do find myself in agreement with you at times, that there are many posts that are simply argumentative without being helpful, I disagree with you completely on your conclusion that models are useful for planning, and your tacit presumption that models are scientific in nature. A model prediction/projection in the context of ice melt that would take thousands to millions of years, even if the worst heating proposed by CAGW proponents occurred, is worse than worthless, as it cannot be tested. Furthermore, in the climate modeling field, they have broken the most fundamental of “laws” in presuming predictive accuracy of their output does not degrade over time. Every weather model builder can tell you that this is nucking futs. The further out in time a model projects, the closer to zero it’s ability to accurately predict. If climate science would actually worry about stuff like this, and test their models and allow them to be falsified in normal scientific ways, the term cockroach might be a bit less prevalent among the more vociferous of the opposing political camp.
Models that fail (or are merely pointless, as in this case) still have propaganda value, a fact not lost on people who want the color of science as they advance their collectivist, radical green agendas (which pretty much describes the entire pro-alarmist faction of climate science, in my opinion) under the rubric of saving us from our own freedoms.
In the future, when you hear terms like “cockroaches scurrying” I hope you think of the poor ability of models to predict real world climate, Hanson’s historic flip-flop from cooling to warming, the downright idiotic “science” of Lewandowsky, the intentional muddying of linguistic precision in political terminology (ie. from Global Warming to Climate Change to Climate Disruption) in order to conceal model failures, the movement’s us-vs-them mindset, the “ends justify the means” ethics of Peter Gleick and his cheerleaders, the near-fascist levels of political correctness at major western public universities, the information bubble machines that are John Cook, Bill McKibbon, HuffPo, Think Progress and “Real” Climate, the subtle yet fully exposed money grubbing hypocrisy of Al Gore, not to mention the sheer number of Greenpeace activists who participate in the IPCC with little or no scientific credentials at all. Maybe then the term “scurrying cockroaches” won’t sound quite so severe to your ear.

April 5, 2013 12:27 pm

This article is about what I have termed “Trenberth Events”, or TEs, named, as you will see, after Kevin Trenberth, he of the Consensus Climate Team.
There are two types. One, called Negative, is an observation (event) that has not been observed but is predicted to exist by a model. The other, called, Positive, is an observation (event) that has been observed but is predicted not to exist by a model. The Event leads to more than a simple contradiction to the the established (consensus) opinion. The Event leads to strident remarks that observations, not the model or opinion, are in error. Furthermore, when we are dealing with a TE, serious effort is made to find work-arounds to explain away the disconnect or even to discredit the source of the problem observations.
The sea-level non-acceleration of this article is a Negative Trenberth Event. The sea-level is supposed to be accelerating in its rise. The non-warming of the mid-tropospheric is another. Both are supposed to exist, but do not. In both these cases, observation has been deemed faulty: tidal guages are inadequate in the first, and millions of balloon radiosondes in the other. A third is the non-projected rise in oceanic heat content (Trenberth’s missing heat): the answer is that the thousands of Argo floats are not sampling deep enough.
An example of a Positive Trenberth Event is the increase in mass and ice area of Antarctica. It has observed, but shouldn’t have happened. An increase in cloud-seeing nuclei (even if small) with gamma ray radiation should not have happened at CERN, but did. That is an established Positive TE, and was met with the reply that the nuclei were too small and NO, we aren’t doing follow-up tests to determine if the small will grow to the large. The original researchers, after all, are denialist idiots.
A possible Positive TE is occurring right now, in that temperatures are dropping and cloud cover is increasing (at least in the European part of the NH) as sunspot activity has slowed down; we need more data to know if this is global or regional. We already have Al Gore saying that the idea the sun is responsible is BS, and that it doesn’t matter that Europe is cold because the open “warm” Arctic water (from whence the “cold” comes) caused it. Besides, it’s been a mild winter in the mid-continental US of A. So there.
Trenberth Events are a prime feature of the current CAGW argument. When a TE is upon the scene, alarm bells ring and the Climate Team leap about like the teenage “fire drills” in which everyone leaps out of a car stopped in traffic at a red light, runs madly around the car while bystanders gawk, only to leap back in when the light changes and drive away laughing hysterically.

April 5, 2013 12:29 pm

atarsinc,
Antarctica is steadily gaining ice, both sea ice and continental ice. There is no problem. In fact, both Arctic and Antarctic ice is growing.
Total global ice cover [red graph] is back above its long-term average. How does that affect your world view? Are you willing to change your mind when facts change? Or is your mind made up and closed tight?

Brian
April 5, 2013 12:31 pm

Sorry to give you that impression Willis. I certainly haven’t added any original points of my own, so I can understand your position. I suppose the most interesting thing I took from the article is that nearly all of Antarctica’s ice mass loss comes from a very small area in the west part of the continent. I’m curious as to why that is.
The line about gullibility was a response to Michael Hart saying “What I sense most from contributions here is a serious lack of gullibility, not credibility.” There is certainly a lack of dissenting opinions here across all articles. The possible reasons you mentioned can apply to specific articles, but for a large collection of articles, I believe confirmation bias is the most likely. (Confirmation bias is highlighting evidence that supports your opinion and ignoring/attacking evidence that opposes it, not “agreeing with each other to agree” as you put it) I’m sure you would say the same about, say, skepticalscience’s comment section.
I come here, as well as other sites on both sides of the issue, to read and learn of new research. I am frustrated by the many close-minded and uninformed comments I see. I don’t normally comment myself, but I felt compelled to on this article for some reason. Perhaps I am misguided and I should keep to myself. I find your accusation of “bitching about the quality of people around you” line ironic, since this site is full of insulting AGW scientists while praising those who oppose them and ignoring their failings. I’m not picking a fight here, and certainly not personally insulting anyone. You can do without the references to philosophy class (I assume that was derogatory) and calling me a “shallow poseur” with a “line of bull”.

April 5, 2013 1:02 pm

“No single ice sheet model or methodology for projections provides sufficient information for good policy and planning decisions,” explained lead author Christopher Little.
Does the above mean, “If we make it complex enough, using lots of models and methods, those pesky realists (use the D-word, if you want to), will never have their mitts on enough information to throw our theories out. We can refute them by saying, ‘Ah, but you’re missing the…[fill in the blank].’
What about: “Furthermore, there are fundamental limitations in the observational data available on and near ice sheets,” Little said. “Projections of their response to 21st century climate changes are thus very poorly constrained. There’s unlikely to be a single answer in the near future: a better objective is a comprehensive, transparent baseline that can be improved over time.”
Does that mean, “Shifting our goal posts is always an option – We like to move around a lot”?
To me the “transparent baseline” is a promise of the exact opposite. Call me skeptical.

Brian
April 5, 2013 1:09 pm

Mickey, your post illustrates my point perfectly. I said that weather forecast models are useful in planning, and that the model in this article did not claim to be hard evidence. At no point did I say that all models should be used in planning/politics and should be viewed as scientific evidence. Similar to how you have lumped my comments in with what many warmists believe, many commenters here are lumping this article in with all of their preconceived negative bias toward models.
I agree with your list of corruption of the science, but I could also list many instances of overt propaganda against it. They’re not hard to find on warmist blogs. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

richardscourtney
April 5, 2013 1:34 pm

Brian:
I read your reply, at April 5, 2013 at 12:31 pm, to the clear and just comments of Willis.
And I was reminded of this
Queen Gertrude, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks “
Hamlet, Act III, scene II (written by Shakespeare W).
Richard

April 5, 2013 1:48 pm

Brian.
How about you start over and post what you want to say about this topic, leaving out complaints and criticism about others who comment here. If you are not familiar with WUWT, then look around a little, there’s HEAPS here to explore. I get as much out of the comments as I do from the articles and have found people wonderfully diverse.
It looks to me as though you started off on the wrong foot and now you’re having a hard time defending your position. Don’t worry about it. Ditch the lot, start over. Add what you want to about the TOPIC, and let the dialogue continue from there. The people here are very smart and very quick, but they are also very forgiving if your intention is as honest as you say it is.
We’ve all been roughed up in here a little. I’ve put my foot in my mouth more than once, or used faulty reasoning, and been rightfully jumped all over – but it’s wonderful. I’ve learned to think before I type (mostly). 🙂 Just trying to help. Cheers.

u.k.(us)
April 5, 2013 1:59 pm

Brian says:
April 5, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Mickey, your post illustrates my point perfectly.
======================
And the point is well taken.
Unless you feel the need to drive it even harder.
It’s a free internet.
(time to make a belated donation to Anthony and crew, thanks for the reminder).

Mark Bofill
April 5, 2013 2:18 pm

A.D. Everard says:
April 5, 2013 at 1:02 pm
———
Exactly – you cracked it! 🙂

ThinAir
April 5, 2013 2:56 pm

Phase 1 of Climate Science: Models become so popular we stop experimentation on actual physical systems resembling the atmosphere, oceans and the biosphere.
Phase 2 of Climate Science: With model predictions so entrenched we stop comparing model results to the actual weather we have and its recorded historical patterns. After all, weather is not climate and we know today’s weather must be warmer and worse that it was before.
Phase 3 of Climate Science: We stop using observational data to feed into the models and instead focus on “probabilistic frameworks” and other mathematical methods (including advanced data manipulation and opaque averaging techniques.)

April 5, 2013 3:43 pm

Mark Bofill says:
April 5, 2013 at 2:18 pm
A.D. Everard says:
April 5, 2013 at 1:02 pm
———
Exactly – you cracked it! 🙂
*
Thanks! I didn’t think I’d be the only one to see it. 🙂

Bill Illis
April 5, 2013 4:22 pm

One of the problems with most Antarctic glacial ice mass balance estimates is that they used an inaccurate glacial isostatic adjustment model.
The newest models based on GPS receivers and/or the IceSat satellite is showing that Antarctic ice loss is actually between 75% lower or might actually be +25% on the gaining side instead.
We can’t expect climate scientists to keep up with the latest science since they are stuck believing their 1980 theories.
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/6/3703/2012/tcd-6-3703-2012.pdf
http://www.climate-cryosphere.org/en/events/2012/ISMASS/AntarcticIceSheet.html
(I note the original paper from Jay Zwally seems to have blocked for some US Export Control Laws reason. Now that is really out there which has a climate science mafia-type smell on it).
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf

April 5, 2013 5:32 pm

Illis
“1.41 mms/year in reality since 1980”
Thanks for that.
I have an irregular collection of records for three relatively local tide gauges (out of about 40 available in the region), collected for mandatory design requirements, eg mean sea level and highest astronomical tide. Rough average is 1.4mm/yr. Maybe trending down.
No wonder the olds who have been fishing off the beach for 60+ years can’t see any cause for alarm 🙂

atarsinc
April 5, 2013 5:43 pm

John parsons AKA atatsinc
dbstealey says:
April 5, 2013 at 12:29 pm
atarsinc,
You say:
“Antarctica is steadily gaining ice, both sea ice and continental ice. There is no problem. In fact, both Arctic and Antarctic ice is growing.” But your links only show sea ice. What about that is supposed to change my mind? JP

Verified by MonsterInsights