[UPDATE: Several commenters, including myself, have remarked on a mathematical error in the author’s work. I note this here in the expectation that the author will return to clarify and perhaps amend his claims. Having made such public mistakes myself, it’s embarrassing if true, but that’s the function of public peer review as practiced on WUWT. Thanks to all who pointed out the error. -w.]
A graph on NOAA’s 2012 “Greenland Ice Sheet” report uses a 2006 modelled projected ice melt for 2012 that is over ten times that in the latest published paper and equivalent to 250% of the long-term sea-level rise of 3.2mm per annum.
Guest essay by Kevin Marshall (posts as ManicBeancounter)
NOAA published on 01/14/13 a “Greenland Ice Sheet” paper as part of its “Arctic Report Card: Update for 2012”. Fig 5.19 shows ice-mass balance loss in gigatonnes and sea level rise equivalent.
In 2012, the ice mass loss is modelled have raised sea levels by 8mm. This is 250% of the average sea level rise trend of the last twenty years of 3.2mm. The graph has a note “After Velicogna and Wahl 2006”. The graph used 49 months of GRACE modelled data to project 80 months forward.
I compare with more recent papers. Last Fall they could have used Rignot et. al 2011. Using 99 months of modelled data, to project 30 months forward, with Greenland ice melt contributing 1.1mm to sea level rise. Now they could use Shepard et. al 2012. Using 96 months of modelled GRACE data (plus other sources going back to 1992), to project 24 months forward, with Greenland ice melt contributing 0.7mm to sea level rise.
A common author of the NOAA paper, the 2006 paper and Shepard et. al 2012 is John Wahr, who works at University of Colorado Boulder. Another department produces the sea level rise figures.
NOAA report http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html
My analysis
http://manicbeancounter.com/?attachment_id=3282
And we pay for this ‘science’?
we need more crisis in our lives, otherwise there is nothing to be concerned about, we just grow older and closer to death
What’s an order of magnitude between friends?
I interpret that graph as cumulative ice loss and cumulative sea level rise. From 2002 to 2012, a total sea level rise of 6 mm, or about 0.6 mm/yr due to Greenland melt.
Interesting that the curve ends before “the sudden disappearance of the Greenland’s ice sheet in four days in July this year*” 🙂
*Farrukh Khan, Pakistan UN Climate negotiator, 11/29/12, The Express Tribune
People are actually still trying to use the GRACE data?
It is long past time for the American people to TAKE OUR REPUBLIC BACK from those that suffer from POTOMAC FEVER . . spending free money to bribe scientist, Universities, agencies like NOAA, NASA and more . . will you help us cut of the flow of borrowed money to bribe for power and more power over the people – we can end this by doing this single project . . it only take around 4,000 legislators being convinced by we the people to do this task. Then we will have returned all the powers to the many States where competition will yield a better government.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/article-v.html
Ice loss is (over?)estimated by NOAA at 3.5e+12 tonnes per decade. Greenland has about 2.4e+15 tonnes of ice, which is three orders of magnitude (a thousand times) the amount of the purported loss. We’re talking a tenth of a percent over a decade?
Be very afraid …
w.
I don’t understand this one. Global sea level rise from start to end of the graph (2002-2012) is about 30 mm. Are you saying the 8mm rise over the same decade that they estimate from Greenland is way out of line, and if so, why?
I suspect there is a fundamental error in your claims, one that you should rectify. The data in the graph is cumulative, not annual. The 8mm is the TOTAL rise from 2002 to 2012, not the annual rise in 2012. As a result, the Greenland melt may be wrong, but it is not 250% of the sea level rise. That claim of yours is incorrect.
Regards,
w.
‘The data in the graph is cumulative, not annual. The 8mm is the TOTAL rise from 2002 to 2012.
Regards,
w.”
#######
yup
perhaps the manic beancounter is a misnomer. or rather, keep him away from my books
I agree chris y that the authors analysis of this graph is off by 10x. The article linked to at NOAA even says 8mm over the period 2002 to 2012.
Well, the Shepard paper would have to be discounted because of the number of authors; I think we already have some science which says that more authors = less believable. I’m surprised the alarmists haven’t jumped all over that low number.
The rest is explained by the fact that the NOAA report card was written by alarmist Jason Box who loves to hype up the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting story. He needs to take a look at this picture of the outwash plain at Kangerlussuaq (Sondre Stromfjord) and ask himself why it is so massive and gets so little use these days even in the hottest of Greenland summers.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo&position=1547&with_photo_id=56248764&order=date_desc&user=420107
GRACE is a simple concept but no-one has adequately explained how it can possibly distinguish ice melt from changes in the earth’s crust; especially when the crust is 5 times as dense as the stuff lying on top.
The text in the original paper says: “GRACE satellite gravity solutions computed according to Velicogna and Wahr (2006) are used to estimate monthly changes in the total mass of the Greenland ice sheet (Fig. 5.19). The data show that the ice sheet continues to lose mass and has contributed +8.0 mm to globally-averaged sea level rise since 2002”.
This implies that the calculation method of Velicogna and Wahr (2006) was used, but was applied to the latest data (which would then be about 120 months rather than the 49 mentioned in the post).
Is that possible?
“In 2012, the ice mass loss is modelled have raised sea levels by 8mm.”
That is not at all the claim being made at your NOAA link. It says 8mm since 2002. A serious retraction is necessary.
It is now obvious to me that you don’t need a high I.Q., and/or the ability to reason or research to become a NOAA “scientist”.
I will use the words of “Old Spock” talking to “New Spock” -> “In this case, do yourself a favor, put aside logic, do what feels right.” “Since my customary farewell would be oddly self serving, I shall simply say ‘Good Luck'”.
Until this mess is corrected, the Planet will need ‘Good Luck’.
The trick they use is the use values with big numbers which ordinary people have no reference to.
Ok 1000 Gigatons in volume, assuming as I think that one ton of ice has a volume of one cubic meter, then 1000 Gigatons has the volume of 1000 cubic kilometers which is a cube of 10 kilometers in length.
The total mass of ice on Greenland is 2,850,000 cubic kilometers.
If 1000 Gigatons melted each year, the ice would be gone in 2850 years.
Of course the rate of melting is less than that and the rate of change of ice varies depending on temperature, ice pressure, ice movement and snow accumulations.
Once again its worth remember the first rule of climate science, if the models and reality differ in value its reality which is in error .
Imagine , if you like, that your standing in a room on fire you can feel, the heat all over your body , smell the smoke , hear the roar of the flames , but the models tell you your standing at the bottom of a pool. In climate science the ‘correct’ thing to do would be to get out of the water and dry off by starting a fire . Its mad has a hatter but its meets rule one so it must be the right idea .
Once you got a grip of that approach you can understand how they can keep pushing this BS out whilst all around them the facts tell a different story.
Isn’t it nice to observe the small touches. Notice how the average line starts horizontal in 2002, as if there was never any sea level rise due to Greenland ice melt BG (before GRACE).
National Obama Agenda Administration
Just tooooooo gooooooood!!!! NOAA what? No he does not no one told him . . .
Kevin Marshal is comparing two different values with one another.
NOAA report http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html
states that the Greenland ice sheet contributed +8.0 mm to the global averaged sea level rise since 2002. This is the sea level as measured in height averaged from various places around the globe.
This is not the rate (how fast it is changing) that global averaged sea level is changing each year.
Using Kevin Marshal’s own calculations here: http://manicbeancounter.com/
Sea level is changing at a rate of 3.2mm per year.
Given 10 years, 2002-2012, that would be a sea level rise of +32 mm.
Which would mean that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet would be 8mm/32mm or only 25%.
Not the 250% he claims.
I love this branch of science….I call it Phallusy Science. Always over exaggerating the size or the impact. But once exposed, we get to see how big…..I mean how really small it is.
Greenland’s contribution to the rate of change in mean sea level rise over the same time period (2002-2012) would be 8mm/10 = 0.8mm/yr
Using Kevin’s [source 1=”http://manicbeancounter.com” language=”:”][/source] calculated rate of sea level change per year: 3.2mm/yr
The contribution to the rate of change in sea level rise for the past 10 years would still be 25%, not the 250% he claims.
Once again… the models are broken.
I get it. Modelling is fun and, in some cases, even useful. But, folks, we gotta stop going crazy and formulating public policy and spending billions or even trillions of dollars based upon models which have not been validated to at least a reasonable degree.
Shame about the error.
Still, it is interesting to note that if sea level is allegedly rising at say 3.2mm per year and the Greenland Ice melt is 8mm over ten years (thats 0.8mm/year) – this still leaves about 2.4mm of SL rise to be accounted for from ‘other’ sources. Whether this is part thermal expansion or other glacial/ice sheet melt, reduced atmospheric water vapour, tectonic movement, etc, etc, is what actually raises my interest.
For the warmists – this kind of discrepency, especially when trying to claim the SL rise is mostly due to ice melt (and drowning polar bears) – needs to be answered?
Maybe less manic and more counting would be in order.
At last !!
It really is worse than we thought !!!
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 26, 2013 at 2:08 pm
Ice loss is (over?)estimated by NOAA at 3.5e+12 tonnes per decade. Greenland has about 2.4e+15 tonnes of ice, which is three orders of magnitude (a thousand times) the amount of the purported loss. We’re talking a tenth of a percent over a decade?
====================================================================
Most people aren’t able to grasp the difference in the total mass and the losses because of the enormity of the ice sheet.
Mind boggling.
Well, when a figure is used in a paper the figure needs to provide all the information it self. The caption under the figure is not a substitute, since it maybe cut off, all the data and labels need to be on the graph. In the above example, the units on the left y axis suggest a cumulative total. Maybe the unit (Ct) has been used without abbreviation in the paper prior to the above figure, and clearly stipulates that Ct is short for cumulative total mass in tonnes?, but even then on this bases alone the paper should be rejected. The reader must assume that the right hand y axis also represents a cumulative total, which again is not very scientific (having to guess what the units are is completely unacceptable!). And even if it is implied in the caption below the figure, that is also not good enough, demonstrated……by this post. People use other peoples figures /data all the time in science. Of course Manic should have consulted the authors.
The GRACE measurement is being affected by the current solar magnetic change and hence cannot be used to determine the ice sheet mass. GRACE is being affected by a massive charge unbalance on the surface of the planet. As the oceans are conductive there is a charge difference between the regions of the earth such as ice sheets due to the low conductivity of the ice sheet as compared to oceans (very conductive) and due to the relative slightly higher conductivity of the continental crust. GRACE has been adjusted to attempt to hide the obvious anomaly. The depth of the oceans has been increased and so on, again to hide the anomaly. As has been pointed out by laser measurement, the change in the height of the ice sheets (no change) does not agree with GRACE.
The charge unbalance explains why the ionosphere height is anomalous low and why there is suddenly an increase in volcanic activity. … ….What we are observing has happened before. The current solar magnetic cycle change will lead first to a Maunder like cooling and then when the solar magnetic cycle restarts to a Heinrich event. … ….There is a physical reason why volcanic activity increases during solar minimums and why super volcanic eruptions occur soon after Heinrich events.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19149983-alaska-volcano-spews-5-mile-high-plume-of-cinders
“For some reason we can’t explain, it picked up in intensity and vigor,” said Tina Neal, an observatory geologist.” …. ….“A second Alaska Peninsula volcano continued a low-intensity eruption, the observatory said. Ash from Veniaminof Volcano, 485 miles southwest of Anchorage, has been limited to the area around its 8,225-foot summit, the observatory said.” … ….“A third, more remote, Alaska volcano remained restless but was not currently spouting lava or ash, the observatory said.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMPP61A0298A
The Role of Explosive Volcanism During the Cool Maunder Minimum
“Volcanic eruptions and solar activity” by Richard Stothers
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989JGR….9417371S
The historical record of large volcanic eruptions from 1500 to 1980 is subjected to detailed time series analysis. In two weak but probably statistically significant periodicities of about 11 and 80 yr, the frequency of volcanic eruptions increases (decreases) slightly around the times of solar minimum (maximum). Time series analysis of the volcanogenic acidities in a deep ice core from Greenland reveals several very long periods ranging from about 80 to about 350 yr which are similar to the very slow solar cycles previously detected in auroral and C-14 records. Solar flares may cause changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that abruptly alter the earth’s spin. The resulting jolt probably triggers small earthquakes which affect volcanism. (My comment. This mechanism guess is not correct.)
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6341.full#otherarticles
Analyzing data from our optical dust logger, we find that volcanic ash layers from the Siple Dome (Antarctica) borehole are simultaneous (with >99% rejection of the null hypothesis) with the onset of millennium-timescale cooling recorded at Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2; Greenland). These data are the best evidence yet for a causal connection between volcanism and millennial climate change and lead to possibilities of a direct causal relationship. (William: the researchers are confusing the tail and the dog. The abrupt increase in volcanic activity is caused by solar magnetic cycle change which also causes the planet to cool. The key observational evidence is bio-hemisphere increase in volcanic activity. The mechanism is causing a sudden increase in volcanic activity in both hemisphere and is cause simultaneous eruptions of volcanoes that are feed from different magma chambers.) Evidence has been accumulating for decades that volcanic eruptions can perturb climate and possibly affect it on long timescales and that volcanism may respond to climate change. ….
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/photogalleries/volcano-lightning-pictures/
“We don’t always get lightning [when a volcano erupts],” said Steve McNutt, research professor of volcano seismology at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who was involved in the project. “And that’s one of the things we’re trying to figure out.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027284.shtml
Geomagnetic excursion captured by multiple volcanoes in a monogenetic field
Five monogenetic volcanoes within the Quaternary Auckland volcanic field are shown to have recorded a virtually identical but anomalous paleomagnetic direction (mean inclination and declination of 61.7° and 351.0°, respectively), consistent with the capture of a geomagnetic excursion. Based on documented rates of change of paleomagnetic field direction during excursions this implies that the volcanoes may have all formed within a period of only 50–100 years or less. These temporally linked volcanoes are widespread throughout the field and appear not to be structurally related. However, the general paradigm for the reawakening of monogenetic fields is that only a single new volcano or group of closely spaced vents is created, typically at intervals of several hundred years or more. Therefore, the results presented show that for any monogenetic field the impact of renewed eruptive activity may be significantly under-estimated, especially for potentially affected population centres and the siting of sensitive facilities.
X Anomaly says:
June 26, 2013 at 4:01 pm
The problem is the lack of clarity in the font—it says “Gt”, for “gigatonnes” (10^9 tonnes).
w.
I have contacted the author of the paper (left a comment on the website) pointing out the error. Hoefully he will remedy it, and correct his title – as it no longer 10x as he previously indicated.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 26, 2013 at 4:42 pm
> The problem is the lack of clarity in the font—it says “Gt”, for “gigatonnes” (10^9 tonnes).
And it clearly does not say per year on the axes.
Kevin Marshall says:
> In 2012, the ice mass loss is modelled have raised sea levels by 8mm. This is 250% of the average sea level rise trend of the last twenty years of 3.2mm.
The sea level trend has been reported as 3.2 mm/year.
Physics becomes a lot less error prone if you apply “dimensional analysis” to everything in sight. My physics teacher didn’t teach that in detail, I think I picked it up from Dad. I recall seeing an item in Science News from someone making a push to get more people to use it well.
On Climate Audit some 10 days ago, Ross McKitrick gave conference detais with a paper by Beenstock et al on sea level rise frome tide gauge analysis on the programe. It was under embargo then. If it is now released, it is an important contribution. Think 1 mm a year globally, including some falls.
Is it not the same error every time – pay me money [grants] and I will give you what you desire?
I admit to the mistake. I am sorry for any commotion that it has caused. I will report later on how I made the mistake.
Kevin Marshall
Moynihan said we are entitled to our own opinion but not our own facts.
Climate Science says: We are entitled to our own facts. You cannot have an opinion.
Further to earlier comment, the source of my confusion is the between this statement in Velicogna and Wahr 2006:-
This after having earlier read the later papers like Rignot et al 2011, which states:-
The earlier paper did not state acceleration, but a step change in annual rate. I saw acceleration in the graph and therefore saw acceleration in the words. Unfortunately I had not cross-checked the words in the paper with my eye-balling of the graph. I apologise again for the confusion caused.
However, even as a cumulative, the graph appears to show a year-on-year acceleration. From the statement above, the total change over the 4 year period is 2(-104-342) = -892. Multiply this by 10/4 and you get a cumulative decadal loss of -2230 on the graph. In mid-2006 the hand-drawn trend is around -700. The last 4 years (mid- 2008 to mid-2012) have a cumulative loss of about double that. Therefore, although I have mistaken annual for cumulative, there are still two sub-issues here I state in a longer article on my blog.
First is about using old research, when more recent and higher quality research is available. This is particularly the case when projecting forward from actual data. Second, is about observing discontinuities in a short period, and modelling a trend. Like many other aspects of climate, changes in ice mass are hugely difficult to measure and highly variable year-on-year.
Kevin Marshall
======================================================================
Mr. Layman here. My impression is that with just traditional peer review (pal-review aside) a weakness is that a paper that has passed it may be too quickly or easily accepted as “gospel” by other researchers and/or students.
Public peer review put it out there for people who are adept in their fields to spot what traditional peer reviewers might have missed.
I would think that a paper that “passes” both would have more credibility.
(Of course, the downside of public peer review is that the author has to wade through trolls and tread jacking and attempts at humor and comments from people like me who may or may not know what they’re talking about.)
From the graph, Greenland contributed 8 mm of sea level rise over 11 years. That would be 7.2 cm over a century, which is just under 3 inches per C. Call it 6 inches by 2200.
The latest Greenland study, featured on Andy Revkin’s web site, finds that the melting rate on the four of the largest glaciers on Greenland would add about 1 inch to sea level rise by 2200. These glaciers comprise about 22% of Greenland’s ice. Extrapolate to the whole of Greenland (multiply by 4 to 5) and you get between 4 and 5 inches by 2200. Pretty close to this graphic.
They may try to scare us, but if you do the math, it isn’t scary. Greenland is supposed to be where most of the melting occurs for sea level rise of 2 or 3 feet by 2100. It’s not happening, though, it looks like Greenland will contribute about 2 to 3 inches by 2100. There won’t be much more than one foot of sea level rise, total for all sources, at that rate.
From my previous comment above, you can see that I agree with Steve Mosher that the 8 mm is cumulative, and at that rate, is about 1/4 of the sea level rise in the last 11 years.
While it is true that everyone makes mistakes, why is it that 100% of these people’s mistakes overstate the AGW case?
Could the constant drone of “CONSENSUS” of Scientists and “SETTLED SCIENCE” be dulling our ability to formulate responses. The cause of this in my mind is that the logical peer review population is not provided with mountains of Taxpayer Dollars to fund a large team. So, many individual writer reviews and we all make mistakes [unintentional] which are publicly corrected.
The AGW side as you state is always making wild assumptions with data that is tilted toward the predictions of maximum damage and danger. Just like in all things POLITICAL create fear and stampede the uninformed with DANGER DANGER and only my side can PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN. This entire issue is about securing a TAX ON LIFE ITSELF [see Carbon cycle]. In the end it is all about the money . . .
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history-of-taxation-in-the-united-states.html
Willis and Steve: “I suspect there is a fundamental error in your claims, one that you should rectify. The data in the graph is cumulative, not annual. The 8mm is the TOTAL rise from 2002 to 2012, not the annual rise in 2012. ”
Don’t think so. I’m looking at the CU sea level page and it looks like there was 8mm rise for 2012. It was a very abnormal year and it was coming out of a 2010 and 2011 were there was no sea level rise. From 2002 to 2012 you would expect more like 30mm of rise.
Scratch previous comment. I was looking at the global melt when I should have been only looking at Greenland.
Kevin Marshall,
You have my respect and admiration for stepping up and owning your mistake. I hope that you can feel good about the fact that you understand such complicated information well enough to even attempt to write a post about it. I NEVER could. I hope that you will write another post for WUWT. Thanks for sharing what you (thought you) found.
Janice
Say, that reminds me… I’ve been meaning to give a shout out to R. J. Salvador! Come back! You are missed. Try another post!
And, you, too, Cementhead — don’t be a stranger.
BTW What happened to Richard Courtney, the enthusiastic refuter of trolls? Hope he’s okay, too.
The angry rebuke of Admiral Tovey to his Met. Officer as his ships struggled through a gale the Met boys insisted was easing, springs to mind. “The trouble with you Meteorolgical types is you refuse to look out through the scuttle!” (Scuttle is the RN term for a ‘Porthole’ or ‘window’ on a ship for any non-naval types)
Manicbeancounter’s error, and the number of people who picked it up, suggests climate science ‘peer review’ might be better conducted on WUWT rather than by anonymous pals of the author.
So much rubbish has been allowed to be published on climate science, as a result of the highly flawed pal review process. This in turn, because of politicians’ greed and gullibility, has incurred a huge economic cost for all of us.
The ice-sheet mass loss numbers (and the impacts on sea level) are being updated as we speak to reflect the newer more accurate glacial isostatic rebound models.
The Grace satellite data is/was adjusted based on the older models (which were more guesses based on modelling than anything). Now we have a large array of GPS receivers around Greenland and Antarctica which have been around long enough to give us better rebound data and there was more rebound occuring than was believed before.
A recent paper which consolidated the new numbers for Antarctica cut the ice mass loss estimates by 50%. Greenland’s estimates haven’t had the new rebound data incorporated yet.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7452/abs/nature12238.html
Antarctica mass loss was reduced to between -200 GT/yr (loss) to +100 GT/yr (gain). Greenland is still in the -200 GT/yr (loss) range.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7452/images_article/nature12238-f1.2.jpg
A handy conversion factor to sea level is 360 GT/yr (ice) = 1.0 mm/yr (sea level)
@manicbean
That the error has been recognized is admirable. Now what would be more admirable would that you amend the title and/or issue a retraction of your post. As the current title is entirely inaccurate and misleading.
Has any of this actually been measured?
Sorry, but this is another error. There is no “projecting forward” in the NOAA graphic, they have applied the Velicogna and Wahr (2006) methodology to the GRACE data from March 2002 to September 2012.
“manicbeancounter says:
June 26, 2013 at 5:49 pm
I admit to the mistake. I am sorry for any commotion that it has caused. I will report later on how I made the mistake.
Kevin Marshall
#############
it’s all good bro. everybody makes mistakes.
{ daddyjames says:
June 27, 2013 at 9:54 am
@manicbean
That the error has been recognized is admirable. Now what would be more admirable would that you amend the title and/or issue a retraction of your post. As the current title is entirely inaccurate and misleading. }
Anthony’s usual policy is to strikeout errors rather than delete. It is a better policy than the warmist sites use.
I can see the bind Anthony is in here with this one. He doesn’t want to poof it, since that leads to its own line of criticism, and the author probably has not had time to correct/redo the analysis.
I think the best course of action would be to wait for the correction, assuming it still warrants a post, and then have the old post point to a new one without deleting anything. Maybe adding “retracted” to the title of the old post.
If the new analysis does not warrant a post, just the “retracted” in the title and a detailed explanation in another update would do.
IMHO.
Why are 100% of mistakes in the direction of pro AGW?
@Tim Clark
@ckb
I don’t think it should be deleted. I agree that either a strikeout be put through the “exaggerates” and the “by 10x”, or a retraction. I had pointed out what error had been made in my post. The honorable thing would be to correct the inaccurate and misleading title.
The error was taking the 8.0 mm global averaged sea level rise since 2002 and dividing it by 3.2 mm/yr (rate of change of sea level) instead of the correct number, 32 mm – the total change in sea level.
A simple mistake. We all make them. Now the next step would be to amend the inaccurate title, or issue a retraction (like ckb suggests)