The media spin is in full wash mode over this recent paper studying a small section of Greenland. WUWT Reader “non nomen” writes in Tips and Notes:
“Sustained mass loss of the northeast Greenland ice sheet triggered by regional warming”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2161.html
Propaganda? Wishful thinking? Reality?
Have a look at some media headlines published about this paper:
- Greenland’s Ice Loss Triples and Raises Global Warming Awareness
- Fears of faster rising global sea levels as ‘stable’ Greenland ice sheet starts to melt
- Greenland’s ice loss nearly tripled in a decade USA TODAY A formerly stable part of Greenland’s ice sheet in the northeast has been losing ice at an accelerating rate.
- Regional warming triggers sustained mass loss in Northeast Greenland ice sheet
- Greenland Ice Sheet Loses Its Last Grip
Some are conflating regional warming with global warming, because, you know, everything is about global warming. But imagine if I used the regional cooling in the southeastern United States to make a claim about that countering “global” warming. Our friends would have a cow. Observe how the media claims fall apart on examination of the paper.
The Hockey Schtick writes:
Media claims that “Greenland’s ice loss has tripled in a decade” are CAGW propaganda
The CAGW alarmist media is awash today with claims based on a paper published in Nature Climate Change that “Greenland’s ice loss has nearly tripled in a decade” and “the Greenland ice sheet has lost it’s last grip.” As usual, the paper has been hyped by the media to portray impending doom, while examination of the actual scientific paper reveals very little of concern.
Figure 1a shows the tiny region of Greenland that the paper studied, with a blowup of this region in figure 2 below.
Figure 1: Changes in surface elevations obtained using ICESat, ATM, LVIS and ENVISAT data (Supplementary Section 1.0).
a–c, Ice surface elevation change rates in m yr−1 from April 2003 to April 2006 (a), April 2006 to April 2009 (b) and April 2009 to April 2012 (c).
The authors find an increase in the natural glacier calving process in this regional, relatively tiny portion of the Greenland ice sheet. According to the authors, this is due to regional warming found at the site “HKH” marked by an “X” in fig. 2a below. The key word here is regional, which indicates these processes are localized and not characteristic of global warming. In fact, the authors also looked at another nearby site “DH” marked by an “X” in fig. 2a below and found that this site cooled over the past decade.
Examination of Figure 2 from the below reveals that over the past 34 years 1978-2012:
- Annual sea surface temperature anomaly has cooled at both sites DH and HKH
- June-August summer temperatures warmed at site HGH but cooled at site DH, and are only about 2C above the freezing point
- Annual air temperatures at both sites increased, but are about 10 degrees cooler than the freezing point
These localized, regional changes were not predicted by climate models and are not supportive of the CAGW meme, and in fact suggest that other processes are responsible. For example, geothermal sources have recently been discovered under the Greenland ice sheet, which create lakes under the ice sheet and lubricate the natural slide to calving in the ocean. In addition, storm activity and winds largely control Arctic sea ice, which can act as an impediment to glacier calving.
Figure 2: Surface speed, mass loss rates and climate data.
==============================================================
I can see how science challenged journalists might get the idea the study is an indicator of “global” warming (even though nearby there’s that pesky regional cooling) by just reading the abstract:
==============================================================
Sustained mass loss of the northeast Greenland ice sheet triggered by regional warming
Abstract
The Greenland ice sheet has been one of the largest contributors to global sea-level rise over the past 20 years, accounting for 0.5 mm yr−1 of a total of 3.2 mm yr−1. A significant portion of this contribution is associated with the speed-up of an increased number of glaciers in southeast and northwest Greenland. Here, we show that the northeast Greenland ice stream, which extends more than 600 km into the interior of the ice sheet, is now undergoing sustained dynamic thinning, linked to regional warming, after more than a quarter of a century of stability. This sector of the Greenland ice sheet is of particular interest, because the drainage basin area covers 16% of the ice sheet (twice that of Jakobshavn Isbræ) and numerical model predictions suggest no significant mass loss for this sector, leading to an under-estimation of future global sea-level rise. The geometry of the bedrock and monotonic trend in glacier speed-up and mass loss suggests that dynamic drawdown of ice in this region will continue in the near future.
==============================================================
The word “global” is used twice, even though this tiny area likely contributes only a small fraction of global SLR. A better choice would be to write a paper about why this area is so sensitive, in spite of the fact that nearby there’s a regional cooling.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What these researchers are looking at is a ‘weather’ period and not the climate. (
“600 km into the interior of the ice sheet, is now undergoing sustained dynamic thinning,”)
We can cherry pick any region and time to show that we are headed to another glaciation. / sarc Imagine if we were in 2005?
Even the much warmer eemian interglacial showed modest ice sheet reduction.
The melting of icebergs lowers the water level.
The volume of ice is larger than the volume of water.
A simple proof of this:
Fill a glass to the brim with water and ice; when the ice is melted the water level will be lowered not raised.
This has been completely ignored by the global warming school
Sorry, Frank, your assertions are only 50% correct and your proof is faulty.
Agreed the volume of ice in a iceberg is greater than the volume of water that it will eventually turn into.
But as icebergs float, the weight of water they displace is exactly equal to the weight of ice they contain. Hence, when they melt, the volume of ice collapses into the volume of water they displaced. Hence on melting they neither raise nor lower water level.
Same with your ice cubes and water in a glass. The mass of ice and water is unchanged.
As the density of ice is less than water, on melting the ice cubes will occupy less space and the water level will decrease. BUT, this is only true if the ice is packed into the glass. If the ice cubes are freely floating, and the water is right to the brim of the glass, you will find that the water level is unchanged when the ice cubes are completely melted.
Archimedes wins again.
there is simply too much for the left to gain in the way of control over the rest of us if they are able to “sell” the ignorant masses on the concept of man-made global warming, so don’t expect to see the end of the propaganda campaign anytime soon…