![480px-Antarctica_6400px_from_Blue_Marble[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/480px-antarctica_6400px_from_blue_marble1.jpg)
Sea level rise increase 1/2 thickness of human fingernail crates media “sea level rise alert” panic
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
During May three new scientific papers appeared addressing results of studies of Antarctica ice loss which sent the alarmist media into a feeding frenzy of ill-informed, exaggerated and erroneous print and broadcast climate reporting panic.
The first two papers were released on May 12 and resulted in ludicrous claims being made by the major news media with the big three anchors including NBC Brian Williams warning that sea level would rise by 13 feet by the year 2100 while ABC’s Diane Sawyer chimed in that Florida would be hit by three or more feet of sea level rise and CBS’s Scott Pelley bemoaning that a large part of Antarctica is melting and can’t be stopped.(1)
These May 13 broadcasts were supposedly based on these two new released studies which addressed research on West Antarctica ice loss involving six specific glaciers.(2)
One of the studies was published in Science and involved use of computer simulations to model behavior of the Thwaites and Haynes glaciers to examine ice loss behavior. The results suggested that early=stage collapse of these long known to be geologically unstable glaciers had begun with sea level rise impacts of 0.25 mm per year likely over the 21 century and that somewhere in the next 200 to 900 years onset of sea level rise increase of 1 mm or more per year could begin.
This study specifically cautions that the simulations used were not coupled to global climate models and as such these simulation results do not constitute a projection of future sea level rise impacts.
The second study was published in Geophysical Research Letters and involved use of satellite radar tracking analysis of ice movement and thickness for the Pine Island, Thwaites, Haynes, Smith, Pope and Kohler glaciers in West Antarctica. The study noted that these glaciers constitute about 1/3 of the West Antarctica ice sheet which is equivalent to about 4 feet of potential sea level rise impact.
This study found that over the last 41 years the ice loss from these six unstable glaciers has increased. The study specifically noted that until numerical ice sheet models with realistic oceanic forcing are able to replicate these observations, projections of the evolution of this sector of West Antarctica should be interpreted with caution.
Neither of these studies made any claims regarding sea level rise projections related to these results and in fact cautioned that such assessments were not part of their efforts. Furthermore neither of these studies made any claims that man made climate change was responsible for these findings.
Notwithstanding the very specific qualifiers and cautions contained in both of these studies including cautions regarding the lack of projections of future sea level rise the print and broadcast media “freaked out” with absurd claims of future sea level rise impacts that were not only completely unsupported by these studies but more importantly they were not even addressed in these two studies.
In addition to the NBC, CBS and ABC news anchor absurdities noted earlier the BBC claimed that sea level would rise by 1.4 meters by 2100 and The Guardian claimed that sea level would rise by 4 meters. Based on the material contained in the two published studies the alarmist claims made by NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, The Guardian and many other news organizations about these West Antarctica studies can only be viewed as ill-informed, exaggerated and erroneous. It seems clear that no one involved with these news organizations made any effort to actually obtain, read and evaluate the information contained in the two studies.(3)
On May 19 another study was published in Geophysical Research Letters which addressed the results of new satellite radar altimetry measurements taken over the entire Antarctica continent during the period 2010 through 2013.(4)
The results showed that the total ice loss across the entire continent during this period was “consistent” with prior measurements taken using different satellite measurement technology. The results also showed that the West Antarctica region was experiencing by far the largest amount of ice loss, about 85% of the total with the ice loss about 31% greater than during the period 2005 -2011, the Antarctica Peninsula being about 13% of the total loss and the vast Eastern Antarctica region being only about 2% of the measured loss.
The study noted that the measurements of ice loss in the Antarctica peninsula and Eastern Antarctica regions were more difficult to determine and that for a variety of technical reasons longer time periods would be needed to improve these measurements. Further and as was the case with the previous two studies discussed this third study makes [no] assertions about man made climate change being responsible for the studies findings.
Based on these results the study performed an assessment of the expected change in sea level rise contribution from these latest continent wide ice loss measurements. The results showed the sea level rise contribution to be 0.45 mm per year versus a prior estimates of 0.19 mm per year. The change of 0.26 mm per year is equivalent to about 1/2 the thickness of a human fingernail.
The news media again went into action and botched the reporting of this third study just as they had done regarding the first two studies. The Guardian and the BBC both wrongly claimed in screaming headlines that the study showed that Antarctica ice loss had doubled since the last measurements. It is hard to explain how they could have managed to make such a dumb mistake other than complete incompetence by the news organizations.(5), (6)
The manner in which these three Antarctica studies were reported and broadcast by the news media can only be characterized as an extraordinary example of what climate alarmism and climate science propaganda looks like.
It is clear from how these alleged news reports were handled that the news organizations involved are pushing political and ideological agendas that have nothing to do with objective climate science reporting.
(1)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/05/13/abc-cbs-and-nbc-freak-
out-over-melting-antarctic-ice-much-south-flori
(2)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/the-media-over-hyped-the-west-antarcti
ca-climate-propaganda-reporting/
(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8387137.stm
(4)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/23/climate-alarmists-make-major-blunder-i
n-reporting-antarctica-ice-loss-results/
(5) http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27465050
(6)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/19/doubling-of-antarctic-ice
-loss-revealed-by-european-satellite
Report them to local media bodies. It is illegal to lie. If we don’t pull them up and demand they print a retraction then we are supporting their lies… I have personally got retractions printed by 4 Australian news organisations when they print this rubbish.
‘It is clear from how these alleged news reports were handled that the news organizations involved are pushing political and ideological agendas that have nothing to do with objective climate science reporting.’
And bears find woods a good to place to get rid of personal waste ,
Fully hooked into blindly supporting ‘the cause ‘because its somehow become a requirement of being ‘progressive’ which both of this organisation desperately want to be seen has . You actual expect nothing but this type of approach, especially when they can feel the political momentum slipping away form ‘the cause’
As a side line it often thought that the BBC and the Guardian are little more than two cheeks of the same rear end for good reason , in some cases good ‘personal’ reasons. So where one goes the other will follow.
Anthony,
It’s important to realise that the blame does not lie entirely with the journalists. The irresponsible exaggeration starts with the scientists themselves.
For example here is climate scientist Mark Brandon saying that “for all intents and purposes the West Antarctic Ice sheet is doomed”.
And here is Eric Rignot, “Last week saw a ‘holy shit’ moment in climate change science. A landmark report revealed that the collapse of a large part of Antarctica is now unstoppable”.
With climate scientists behaving like this, you can’t really blame the journalists for picking up on the scare story.
Australia’s SBS and ABC reported similar alarmist nonsense.
In the US, the 1st Amendment generally protects lying as freedom of speech. Of course, libel, child pornography, and fraud are not free speech, but the standard of proof in the US courts is pretty high, compared to many other countries.
It is clearly dishonest reporting. Even Gov. Moonbeam got carried away with the lying and exaggerations. He had to have his staff retract his ridiculous “making stuff up” about LAX and SFO getting flooded by the end of the century. Note: Moonbeam didn’t retract it personally.
Steve Goddard just posted: “According to always trustworthy US government, sea level is rising 3.1 mm/year. As tiny as this is, it is exaggerated by more than 400% over the actual data. Of the 148 currently active (readings after 2010) NOAA global tide gauges, 83% are below the official average – with a mean value of 0.73 mm/year. Almost a third of the stations show no sea level rise.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/official-sea-level-vs-the-oceans/
We have been told that the oceans have been meters higher and lower than the level they are at present. Whose SUV caused these rises and falls in the distant past? And why do we have to “adjust” the current reading to manage to get even a tiny sea level rise?
When will the %@#$%^% government funded agencies stop cheating on every @#$@%@% measurement they take?
Shouldn’t there be a “no” before “assertions”?
I believe the media didn’t invent their alarmism, but got it from a NASA/GRU press release. I don’t have its URL–will someone please post it?
The real problem lies with the press releases from universities and govt agencies like NASA, a lot of the hype is just the sexing-up and impact-seeking of their marketing/PR departments. Journalists in the media wouldn’t have time to question a dodgy press release, even if they had the knowledge and inclination to do so, they mostly just copy and paste.
Since the money comes from us taxpayers we have a right to demand scientific accuracy and balance, so lets do something about this, maybe even legal action.
Your link to the BBC article (No.3) is wrong as it is from Dec 2009, not May 2014.
You said “the BBC claimed that sea level would rise by 1.4 meters by 2100” referring to the May 2014 fracas and then gave the link no. 3 at the bottom, linking to that 2009 article.
The BBC did do a shrill article on the subject but it ain’t this one.
Scute says:
The BBC did do a shrill article on the subject but it ain’t this one.
****
The BBC’s Antarctica reports, May 2014
Esa’s Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double
19 May 2014
“…The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year…”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27465050
‘Nothing can stop retreat’ of West Antarctic glaciers’
12 May 2014
“…This retreat will have major consequences for sea level rise worldwide. It will raise sea levels by 1.2m, or 4ft, but its retreat will also influence adjacent sectors of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which could triple this contribution to sea level…”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27381010
Is it possible to sue these alarmist ‘news’ agencies in the USA for causing panic and alarm with their clearly erroneous reports? … just thinking because it seems that any one of multitude of enviro-NGO’s is suing the EPA for one thing or another at any given time and that these appear to be not opposed.
And put all this within the context of record levels of Antarctic sea ice = record cold temperatures in that region.
What the media should also look at is any potential off-setting by increased snowfalls on Eastern Antarctica. Below are a few studies on the issue.
I wonder why we don’t here too much about East Antarctica?
I think this is the wrong approach. It’s not illegal to lie and be alarmist, and if the law is changed, the same government bureaucracy that’s promoting alarmism now will be enforcing the law.
If you want to make a difference with some political activism, I think working to end the brainwashing of school children by public schools.
Anthony
“crates” s/b “creates” in opening sentence
With climate scientists behaving like this, you can’t really blame the journalists for picking up on the scare story.
Yes, I can.
While I accept, and agree, that some of the climate scientists are behaving irresponsibly, the entire raison d’etre of the journalism profession is to act as a responsible filter–not to simply parrot whatever anyone wants to says, but to do some homework, and determine whether the claims have some validity.
The journalist have earned a share of the blame.
Hidden heat is lubricating the collapse of East Antarctic ice into the sea, where it will exacerbate the current excess reflection from sea ice into space, which will result in runaway positive feedback resulting in Snowball Earth. It’s inevitable.
Mickey Reno says: May 27, 2014 at 4:48 am
” . . . It’s not illegal to lie and be alarmist. . .”
I understand the overarching point of your full comment and I’m no lawyer; but I believe that knowingly and falsely yelling “Fire!” or “There’s a bomb!” in a theater or other public space was the textbook case where “free speech” is not protected by US law. Let me know if I’m wrong. . . but of course if true, extending this principle to climate alarmism may be difficult to argue convincingly.
Dan
@Jimbo:
Thanks for those links—-
Interesting set of dates. I’ll have to find studies of anomalies for Greenland and the Arctic for those periods. Plus: what was happening in West Antarctica at those times… Could snow accumulation in the East Antarctic be the canary down the mine for global climate trends? Or at least, A canary?
Now of course if the shrill protestations of say Mann or Hansen were believed and someone subsequently comitted suicide leaving a note about climate change, Mann, and Hansen’s predictions and the heat that was going to jump out of the deep oceans and bite everyones heads off, surely that’s grounds to charge someone? Modern climate alarmism is about provoking terror, in my view it’s a form of terrorism.
This is the exact same nonsense that happened in the 1970s with scientists feeding the media about another “ice age” coming. When there is cooling, some scientists overreact. It is human nature to want attention. Nowadays, it is global warming nonsense, and human nature has not changed – scientists and media persons getting attention. There is no conspiracy, but just chicken littlism running rampant. Laugh or become outraged, but you are not going to change the human beast.
“pushing political and ideological agendas that have nothing to do with objective climate science reporting.”
There is unfortunately NO such thing left as objective reporting in the US. No matter what the subject is.
Not precisely on topic, but can anyone lead me to the original on-line source for this graph? The link to it was provided in a comment on this site. I saved the image to my hard drive, but didn’t bookmark the on-line link to it:
The Guardian piece is attributed to Damian Carrington. ‘Nuff said.
“It is illegal to lie.”
Since I am currently an attorney, I must say that although many (maybe even most) people desperately wish this were true, it isn’t, not unless you’re under oath and testifying in court, or some other comparable legal proceeding. (deposition, filing a police report, etc) Other than that, you can say whatever you want, unless you cross the line into fraud (but generally, you have to be directly and personally asking people for money, based solely on your statements, for that to apply) or you get into the famous “Can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre” exception, but for that to apply you have to say something that is going to cause someone to physically hurt themselves or someone else, RIGHT here, RIGHT now. There’s slander and libel laws, but again, those very narrow, have to be focused on a specific person or business, and are more misused than anything (ask Mark Steyn about that)
What are being called “lies” is usually nothing more than fiction. The problem comes in because quite a few people still haven’t quite come to terms with the hard fact that much of what people say, and most of what is commonly written, is pure fiction, and the claim that “this is the truth!!!” is just a game to suck in the gullible.
Your average newspaper or mainstream news outlet is about as “true” as any Harlequin novel you can pick up at the used book rack, and it is written, and read, for the pretty much the same reasons. (with a dose of local gossip thrown in just because most people like that sort of thing, too) Realize that you should believe *nothing* anyone says or writes without independent confirmation, combined with at least one or two properly sworn statements (remembering always that people lie there, too, and it is very rarely punished). Do “news” outlets lie? Of course they do, because almost everyone lies about everything all of the time, and except for reputation effects, there are no consequences meted out to anyone for being a liar. Once you accept that hard fact of the world, you will have learned, as they say, how to think like a lawyer. (and not just us lawyers; most any cop on a beat will tell you the same thing.) Well, a deep rooted and permanent dose of cynicism is a side effect for anyone who has any part to play in the “justice” system for very long, which is why it is as dysfunctional as it is. That’s life.
Paul Matthews says:
May 27, 2014 at 12:50 am
With climate scientists behaving like this, you can’t really blame the journalists for picking up on the scare story.
__________________________________________________________
A real journalist would have the study in one hand and a list of questions in the other asking asking either the authors of the study or the authors of the press release to explain the inconsistencies.
They claim the WAIS (actually, six glaciers feeding from the WAIS, or 5% of the WAIS ice itself) are retreating catastrophically.
Fine.
From an earlier Antarctic WAIS shelf ice thread, a reader submitted
Marcos says:
May 26, 2014 at 4:57 pm
the grounding line over at the Ross Ice Shelf has been retreating at an average rate of 120 ft/year for the last 7600 years…no different from the modern rate. I’d wager that these West Antarctic ice shelves are doing something similar
OK,let us assume your comment is right – we have, after all, no reason to doubt it.
120 feet/year = 36.5 meters/year.
What if the current grounding line – that “depth of water” where the glacier ice (assumed equally deep all the way across a 30 kilometer wide moving stream of ice!) hits the bedrock and “stalls out” thereby blocking the ice upstream from moving further. What if the grounding line is “retreating upstream” into deeper water because the glacier ice coming “downstream” is just a little bit deeper now?
Assume for example, that the undersea bedrock has a 1:20 slope at today’s grounding line.
Thus, if the edge of the flowing glacier ice is not melting underwater, but is now 2 meters deeper than it was last year, then the glacier ice would “stop” 40 meters further away from the reference point. 40 meters closer to the continental land mass. Remember, in these three glaciers, the sea gets deeper little ways away from the original shoreline, then gets shallower again as you get further out. it is this “shallow area” where the WAIS is claimed to be grounding out. The glacier would appear to be “retreating” when it fact it actually is deeper and heavier and has more ice than it is “supposed to have” .. but would be 40 meters further “retreated” ….
They claim the “retreating” is due to, or a symptom of, or is occurring simultaneously with, or is measured by a “retreat of the grounding line” towards deeper water. This deeper water is between the original grounding line, and the original continental bedrock at the original shoreline way back upstream of the glacier.
OK, fine.
So … If the moving glacier were melting on the bottom (due to an assumed “warmer water” current getting blown in somehow underneath 450 – 550 kilometers of packed antarctic sea ice!) then the glacier ice would be shallower at least near the tip, right? If not shallower completely across the toe of the glacier, it would be weaker or less consistent and less able to resist the relentless pressure
pushing down from the billions of tons of glacier ice higher up (further away from the grounding line), right?
Now, if the bottom “toe” of the glacier were melting and were weakening or were disappearing completely, would not that relentless force of the upstream glacier ice FORCE the tip of the glacier to move DOWNSTREAM and further away from the continental sea coast? If it were melting underneath, then it would be shallower, and the glacier would move further UP the shallow slope of the grounding line bedrock?
So, the shallower the glacier ice -> the less ice there is underwater -> for the same force pushing the glacier “downstream” the tip of the glacier must be expanding (getting longer!) or getting pushed further “up” the sloping bedrock underwater -> the further forward the top of the glacier must be observed!
The deeper the glacier ice, the quicker it hits the sloped grounding line underwater, the further BACK the glacier is touching the grounding line bedrock, and the further back the “top” of the glacier appears to be moving.
Can someone explain the difference between the roughly consistent ice-loss amount, and the sea level calculation suddenly doubling from 1.9 mm to 4.5 mm.
What made the same ice loss, cause more sea level rise? What is their explanation for this?
Are you being sarcastic? Or do we have to address each of your phrases for their exaggerations and distortions?
Mark Twain famously said “A lie is halfway round the world before the truth can get its pants on.” It’s breathtaking how quickly the progresive left spreads a lie, and then defends it with loud and sustained invective aimed at those who whould set the record straight, ar at least wish to debate the issue. This continues until the next big lie is hatched, and the same process begins again.
News agencies have always been ambulance chasers long before insurance companies joined in. Any mob-like behavior attracts their attention and headlines will include references to bleeding, even if from a hang nail. It is hilarious to watch them chase a flame in moth-like frantic scrambling to get there first.
Hey Jimbo, how do you find so many pertinent abstracts so quickly — do you use Google and search terms or some other method?
For those who may be interested, I have a short commentary on the three Antarctica studies here: http://www.globalwarming.org/2014/05/23/the-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-doomed-but-dont-sell-the-beach-house/
ATTN> MODS!! This needs fixing!!
rogerknights says:
May 27, 2014 at 1:27 am
“Furthermore neither of these studies made any claims that man made climate change was responsible for these findings.”
…………………….
“Further and as was the case with the previous two studies discussed this third study makes assertions about man made climate change being responsible for the studies findings.”
Shouldn’t there be a “no” before “assertions”?
[Yes, and usually, any typo or error in an article is immediately changed as you point out. However, because of the implications of this particular change, we will await the author’s confirmation of his intent, and not our assumption of what he wanted to say. (Guest essay by Larry Hamlin, not Anthony Watts. .mod]
The sentence regarding the third study which reads “Further and as was the case with the previous two studies discussed this third study makes assertions about man made climate change being responsible for the studies findings.” should say “makes no assertions”
Regarding the reasons for the change in the sea level rise estimate the third study notes : “We estimate that, since 2010, the average Antarctic ice sheet contribution to global sea level rise has been 0.45 ± 0.14 mm yr-1. This value, which is more than twice as large as the 20- year mean determined from an ensemble of geodetic techniques (0.19 ± 0.15 mm yr-1 in Shepherd et al., 2012), reflects both the improved capability of CryoSat-2 to observe regions of ice dynamical imbalance, and the impact of short- and intermediate-term changes in ice sheet mass. In West Antarctica, there is now little doubt that the rate of ice loss has continued to rise, and that, with over 97 % sampling of this region, this increase is now well-resolved. However, in East Antarctica and at the Antarctic Peninsula, the average change in ice sheet mass remains small in comparison to expected fluctuations in snow accumulation (Table 1), which present an observational challenge to all geodetic techniques.”
@Sasha
Thanks for finding and linking the BBC articles I mentioned but didn’t have time to find.
@ Marlo Lewis 27th May 8:27 AM
Thanks for the link to your article which I read. You’re the first source I’ve read that mentions the fact that the sills are moraine debris. I suppose it’s obvious in one sense but the way they are described elsewhere is that they are simply features of seabed topography. For all I knew, the moraine sill could be 200km out to sea. It all makes so much more sense once it is pointed out.
You mention finding multiple abstracts quickly. I use Google Scholar that returns academic papers only. I’ve found a few haystack needles there after searching fruitlessly on the main site.
So climate ‘scientists’ lie to push their agenda, and ‘environment journalists’ lie to push the lie pushed by climate ‘scientists’. Who knew?!
*I’ll be amazed if the Guardian & BBC each issue a correction or retraction. The headlines were screamed, their readers raged and they’re happy. ‘Till next time.
The Medieval Warm Period was a northern hemisphere affair. Antarctica has always been stable. It’s all your fault. And it’s all unprecedented. Send more money now.
Find the main keywords and variations thereof.
Go to Google Scholar and search. Also follow citations as well as use general search engines to find paywalled papers and use other leads such as LiveScience. News articles will also state papers but alas they are now into the CAGW religion.
Another method is to do a site search of the GREAT hockeyschtick.blogspot.com
(copy and past into Google: site:http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com keywords)
There are other ways such as go to CO2 Science and drill down by subject.
Google Scholar is my first port of call. Also save some of the best abstracts on your computer and sort into subject matter for quick responses.
“Further and as was the case with the previous two studies discussed this third study makes assertions about man made climate change being responsible for the studies findings.”
Didn’t you mean “Further and as was the case with the previous two studies discussed this third study makes no assertions about man made climate change being responsible for the studies findings.”
Please clarify or correct. Thanks.
Of the news media liars regarding climate in the US, in my observation NBC’s Brian Williams and Anne Thompson are probably the worst, or at any rate the most arrogant. Brian Williams is so far left that he refused to greet former President G.W. Bush when he encountered him on the street in New York. Neither of these individuals responded when I wrote to them to point out the falsity of some of their statements. Of course, the other networks aren’t any better
One hesitates to advocate anything that smacks of an attack on the First Amendment when confronting these spreaders of disinformation. But one approach might be this: network news is a consumer product, and we have truth in labeling laws for all kinds of consumer products – quantities on food packaging, warnings on cigarette packs, risks of advertised medications, disclosure of actual interest rates on loans of all types. How about a truth in labeling law for network news? requiring reporters to disclose their political biases and the fact that what they are saying may not be true or may be challenged by others?
Jimbo says:
May 27, 2014 at 9:54 am
Those studies might never have seen the light of day had they been submitted today instead of in 1994 & 2002, or at least between then & release of the Climategate emails, during which time the CACA police were pounding the periodical beat.
Chad Wozniak says:
May 27, 2014 at 10:20 am
Consumer boycott? Seems to be going on already in effect, since the broadcast networks’ viewership is down so low.
As a followup – such labeling would (obviously!) not apply to blogs or to corner soapbox orators.
Another followup – labeling would apply to mass-circulation news outlets, like the NY Times, LA Times or Washington Post.
Seems to me that if the grounding line is receding, it’s also moving upward, closer to sea level. Since the ice seaward of it is floating, that means the glacier is thinning. That should be a result of less precip up in the source regions, as temperatures are too low to cause much melting.
Chad Wozniak says:
May 27, 2014 at 10:32 am
Those are also in trouble.
I do hope as sea level rises they don’t only blame melting glaciers and thermal expansion. Then there is the issue of dams and the increased snowfalls I mentioned earlier. I suspect they really can’t predict what sea levels will be in 2100.
But there’s more.
And there could be even more.
I used Google Scholar.
You can find other studies from Antarctica below re MWP.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/antarctica.php
Other world regions below.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/antarctica.php
Jimbo says:
May 27, 2014 at 10:52 am
Groundwater spread on the Columbia Plateau since the ’70s is about 40,000 years old. Here & on the Ogallala Aquifer of the Great Plains, the water is essentially being mined, recharge being much slower than drawdown.
Jimbo says:
May 27, 2014 at 11:00 am
I’ve noticed in compiling evidence for the global nature of the Medieval WP & the LIA that the studies tend to be older. Even Lamb still remains valid.
Mann had plenty of material available to falsity his claim of regional extent, had he bothered to look.
The Media and Alarmists bloggers had a field day with this. Not a moment goes by without some Alarmist using the Antarctic as a meme for AGW/Climate Change/Extreme Climate, whatever. It surely didn’t help when the President and Secretary of State get involved. Now we have a situation where Alarmists confect two horribly incorrect talking points: The Melting Glaciers of the Antarctic and the 97% consensus. Thus, 97% of Scientists believe that AGW is causing the Antarctic to melt away.
What’s even worse, is that much of the political opposition (i.e., the GOP) is about to concede the argument due to this hyper-ventilation. I’m of the opinion that even if this was July and snow was falling in Kansas, there would be 40% of Americans obsessed with fantasies of melting polar ice, and political, I mean scientific consensus.
There also seems to be a concerted effort by universities and scientific organizations to time the publishing of their “studies” to coincide with pronouncements from On High. For the last 3 weeks there has been the National Climate Assessment, melting polar glaciers, and a recent “study” that reports that 44 out of 50 states in the US will run out of water within the next decade. Again, hyperventilation seems to be the order of the day.
@milodonharlani –
As I understand it, there is plenty of evidence so show the MWP affected Australia, New Zealand, southern South America and Africa. Inter alia, this was the period of the Maori migration to New Zealand, which might well not have occurred if the climate there were as it has been in recent centuries – too cold to be attractive to Polynesians generally in recent times. New Zealand’s climate during the MWP was probably subtropical, more like Queensland.
Do glaciers move faster after they received more snow/ice upstream? I’m wondering if a higher transfer of H2O from land to sea is because of higher transfer of H2O from sea to land.
I have a vague memory of a report that there are some undersea vents somewhere in the region of the WAIS.Can anyone confirm or rebut this.
The third reference after the essay regarding the BBC article should be:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27381010
Thanks for the information.
This latest BBC article refers to 1.2 meters of sea level increase versus the 1.4 meters from the prior BBC article regarding the ice loss from these glaciers.
Can someone please help me find the answers to these 2 key questions:
1. How much longer will these glaciers last if we stop emitting CO2 tomorrow?
2. What is the temperature of the sea where it is in contact with these glaciers?
Just read that back – let me try question 1 again…
1. How likely is it that the glaciers would have collapsed anyway, as a result of ‘natural’ warming, even if we had never emitted any CO2?
Pat says:
There is unfortunately NO such thing left as objective reporting in the US. No matter what the subject is.
There never really was – there was only ever a pretense of objectivity. Originally, newspapers were clearly biased and didn’t pretend to be objective.
Here is the “problem” with the modern press reporting the news. If you are a business or company selling a product, then to get the public’s attention and to induce them to buy that product, you hype the product, imply there is more to the product than there really is. You offer more than your competitors.
But If you are a news organization, then all your competitors have exactly the same news. How are you going to stand out and attract more viewers. Simple — hype the news; pretend you have more news than is really there. Exaggerate; Embellish the story, even make things up.
To the author, Larry Hamlin, Moderators and/or Anthony; I think there is a rather substantive typo in the paragraph reading:
Shouldn’t that read:
“Further and as was the case with the previous two studies discussed this third study makes NO assertions about man made climate change being responsible for the studies findings.”??
After all, the article states that the first two studies made no claims that the ice loss was related to AGW….. So I think the key word got accidentally omitted from this sentence about the third study.
Apologies if others have already noted this — I haven’t read through the comments yet.
Forgive me if I remembered this wrong, but isn’t warming of the ocean at large not possible by IR back radiation from green house gasses? I read somewhere that such IR radiation would only heat a few mm in depth that would trigger evaporation, but not a continuous heating, and especially not to depth enough to cause such melting.
Jimbo, thanks for the research tips and all the great stuff you post here. Best, Marlo
Could a real glacial expert from the pre-alarmist era step forward to tell us just how high ice fields are supposed to stack vertically before it moves?