![480px-Antarctica_6400px_from_Blue_Marble[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/480px-antarctica_6400px_from_blue_marble1.jpg?quality=83)
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.