Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
IPCC report shows Antarctica has “negative contribution to sea level” over the 21st century
The recent ridiculous and scientifically flawed media claims of large Antarctica related sea level rise impacts due to “unstoppable” glacier ice loss supposedly reflected in two recent scientific papers looks even more absurd when these made up claims are compared against the Antarctica scientific findings of the UN IPCC AR5 WGI climate report.
Recapping the wonderfully informative reporting by the major “news” networks on May 12 about these two Antarctica ice loss studies we have:
NBC’s anchor Brian Williams asserting that these new studies reflect that sea levels would rise by 13 feet over the next 100 years because of the glacier ice loss which was caused by global warming and is unstoppable. Virtually nothing Williams said was reflected in what was contained in the new studies.
Williams failed to understand that the two studies did not say anything about sea level rise projections, made no mention that man made global warming was driving these glacier ice loss results and additionally appears to have ineptly borrowed his made up 13 foot number from a newspaper article (The Guardian which claimed a 4 meter sea level rise) which managed to confuse “feet” with “meters”. What impressive reporting by the NBC news anchor!!
But Williams was not alone in his zeal to invent the alarmist story line regarding the two new Antarctica studies. ABC’s anchor Diane Sawyer warned us that NASA had issued an “alert” about rising sea levels based on a 40 year study of glaciers in Antarctica that showed they were melting so fast is was unstoppable. She warned that low lying states like Florida would be hardest hit with sea level rise of 3 feet (another made up number) or more by 2100.
CBS’s anchor Scott Pelley not to be outdone by his competition warned that the studies showed that a large part of Antarctica is melting and cannot be stopped. Again the CBS report used yet more numbers telling us sea levels would rise by 4 feet by 2214 and then later by another 6 feet.(1)
The BBC told us that these melting glaciers would cause sea levels to rise by 4 feet when they melt.(2)
Apparently none of these news agencies actually obtained, read and evaluated the studies which did not address sea level rise projections at all nor did they make any claims that man made global warming was driving the study results. One of these two studies mentioned that the amount of ice in these glaciers which represent about 1% to 2% of the total Antarctica ice mass is equivalent to about 4 feet of sea level. That information was not associated with a sea level rise projection estimate or any specific time period.(3)
The UN IPCC AR5 WGI report, which is often used as a source of climate information by the news media, deals extensively with climate issues regarding Antarctica including the continents contribution to sea level rise from climate change.
Amazingly the UN IPCC AR5 report says this:
“Taking all these considerations together, we have medium confidence in model projections of a future Antarctic SMB increase, implying a negative contribution to GMSL rise (see also Sections 13.4.4.1, 13.5.3 and 14.8.15).”
That’s right – the IPCC says that its Surface Mass Balance (SBM) models for Antarctica show that its projected future climate behavior causes sea level to decline not increase!
Furthermore it explains this finding by saying:
“Projections of Antarctic SMB changes over the 21st century thus indicate a negative contribution to sea level because of the projected widespread increase in snowfall associated with warming air temperatures (Krinner et al., 2007; Uotila et al., 2007; Bracegirdle et al., 2008).” (13.4.4.1)
The IPCC AR5 report acknowledges that Antarctica is losing ice from some of its glaciers in West Antarctica and the Antarctica peninsula with the following findings:
“The Antarctic ice sheet has been losing ice during the last two decades (high confidence). There is very high confidence that these losses are mainly from the northern Antarctic Peninsula and the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica, and high confidence that they result from the acceleration of outlet glaciers. {4.4.2, 4.4.3, Figures 4.14, 4.16, 4.17}”
“There is very high confidence that these losses are mainly from the northern Antarctic Peninsula and the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica. {4.4}”
“The Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica is grounded significantly below sea level and is the region of Antarctica changing most rapidly at present. Pine Island Glacier has sped up 73% since 1974 (Rignot, 2008) and has thinned throughout 1995–2008 at increasing rates (Wingham et al., 2009) due to grounding line retreat. There is medium confidence that retreat was caused by the intrusion of warm ocean water into the sub-ice shelf cavity (Jenkins et al., 2010; Jacobs et al., 2011; Steig et al., 2012).” (4.4.5)
“There is low confidence that the rate of Antarctic ice loss has increased over the last two decades (Chen et al., 2009; Velicogna, 2009; Rignot et al., 2011c; Shepherd et al., 2012); (4.4.2.3)”
“As with Antarctic sea ice, changes in Antarctic ice sheets have complex causes (Section 4.4.3). The observational record of Antarctic mass loss is short and the internal variability of the ice sheet is poorly understood. Due to a low level of scientific understanding there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet since 1993. Possible future instabilities in the west Antarctic ice sheet cannot be ruled out, but projection of future climate changes over West Antarctica remains subject to considerable uncertainty (Steig and Orsi, 2013).” (10.5.2.1)
“Due to a low level of scientific understanding there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades. {4.3, 10.5}”
The IPCC AR5 report addresses the West Antarctica and Antarctica peninsula glaciers in considerable detail showing that these glaciers have been experiencing ice loss for decades, that the reasons behind this ice loss are associated with warming oceans and ice sheet internal variability in the region and that the causes for this ice loss behavior are unidentified and uncertain. Furthermore the IPCC acknowledges that the total Antarctica ice loss has not increased in the last two decades.
Additionally the IPCC AR5 WGI report also shows that the huge Eastern Antarctica area which is the largest ice mass region with 90% of the continents total ice mass, is in fact gaining ice mass by noting the following:
“The recent IMBIE analysis (Shepherd et al., 2012) shows that the West Antarctic ice sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula are losing mass at an increasing rate, but that East Antarctica gained an average of 21 ± 43 Gt yr–1 between 1992 and 2011. Zwally and Giovinetto (2011) also estimate a mass gain for East Antarctica (+16 Gt yr–1 between 1992 and 2001).” (4.4.2.3)
The UN IPCC AR5 WGI report doesn’t support at all and in fact offers clear scientific evidence to the contrary which both refutes and embarrasses the alarmist sea level rise claims made by the major news media and their “star” anchors concerning their ludicrous reporting on the latest Antarctica ice loss studies.
Thus we have the two new scientific studies themselves and the findings of the UN IPCC AR5 WGI report both of which completely debunk the alarmist baloney put on the air and in print by the “news” agencies regarding these most recent studies.
The news media really “blew it” and provided an astounding demonstration of their monumental political bias and climate science incompetence in their reporting about this Antarctica related climate story.
(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://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27381010
(3) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/the-media-over-hyped-the-west-antarcti
ca-climate-propaganda-reporting/
Why let the facts get in the way now?
Climate researchers hard at work at this topic: “It’s a nagging thorn in the side of climatologists: Even though the world is warming, the average area of the sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. Climate models haven’t explained this seeming contradiction to anyone’s satisfaction—and climate change deniers tout that failure early and often. But a new paper suggests a possible explanation:…”
Wind and big waves they say might explain the expanding Antarctic ice which the article says “isn’t particularly large—about 1.2% to 1.8% on average per decade between 1979 and 2012”
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/05/shrinking-waves-may-save-antarctic-sea-ice
I believe that the news media didn’t make up their alarmist claims, but got them from a press release issued jointly by NASA and some geophysical organization (AGU?). I don’t have the link to it—I hope someone will post it.
I think this is the press release: http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/may/nasa-uci-study-indicates-loss-of-west-antarctic-glaciers-appears-unstoppable/
For clarity of communication, an important distinction should be recognized between a projection and a prediction. A projection is non-falsifiable thus being non-scientific. A prediction is falsifiable thus being scientific. It appears from Mr. Hamlin’s report that the IPCC’s models make non-scientific projections of sea level rise rather than scientific predictions.
1% eh? How about 97% the size of Greenland? Last October?
Today, May 29, “excess” Antarctic Sea is “only” 1.43 million square kilometers.
Today, total “nominal” Antarctic sea ice is “only” 8.58 Mkm^2 …
1.43/8.58 …. Hmmmn.
Yeppers. 16.7 % HIGHER than nominal.
Maybe their arithmatic has 1% = 16% … Or is 1/16 = 97%
I forget now. Ain’t got a Global Circulation Model handy to figger that there mathemagics right ….
I wrote the following on May 12, just a few days after the Antarctic Sea Ice anomaly this month was “only” 97% the size of Greenland. The Antarctic sea ice anomaly is a little smaller today (May 24) at 1.38 Mkm^2. But the lesson remains. Arctic sea ice extent at minimum is not only misleading and a false indicator of the planet’s heating (or cooling) trends, but is the WRONG indicator to watch. But, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly is the ONLY thing the CAGW religion has left.
Submitted on 2014/05/12 at 2:39 pm
All data from last week’s WUWT (May 8) Sea Ice Page. (Today’s values (May 12) are slightly lower. Then again, we are 5 days closer to the maximum solar exposure in the Arctic. Thereafter, the arctic gets less sun every day.) But the Antarctic gets more sunshine everyday after June 22 as well.)
1. “Excess” total sea ice area anomaly is now (May 8) greater than 1.050 million sq km’s.
Hmmmn. An “excess” total sea ice area anomaly (which combines both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice areas together) approaching the size of Hudson Bay.
2. “Excess” Antarctic sea ice area is now 1.67 Million sq km’s (May 8)… Or 97% the area of the entire Greenland ice cap. (A fact which 97% of government-paid climate scientists in the Obama administration will chose to ignore.)
3. By itself, “Excess” Antarctic sea ice area is now back over 1.67 Mkm^2 … a level only reached 5 times before.
A level NEVER reached between 1979 and 2007 in the entire modern (global warming) era, but a level that has been passed five times in the 7 years between 2007 and 2014. Obviously, the more CO2 is in the air, the more Antarctic sea ice area keep increasing, right?
Combine this with the “Inconvenient Fact” that actual measured satellite global temperatures have NOT increased since 1996 … Makes Obama and NASA and NOAA and the NSIDC seem a bit – “premature” maybe in claiming that global warming is a national crisis?
4. “Excess” Antarctic sea ice area in 2014 is now (May 8) about 1.0 Mkm^2 GREATER than 2013′s sea ice area on this date last year. And 2013 set a record-breaking maximum Antarctic sea ice area in late December. Makes you wonder what will come later in this year.
5. And the Great Lakes sea ice – which is NOT included in the NSIDC’s “sea ice area” calculations! – has not yet melted away – but we are now in the second week in May. Steel, iron ore, coal production are already being affected, companies have already announced second quarter incomes and jobs are being affected in the Great Lakes region.
Now, Arctic sea ice is of course melting, and Arctic sea ice area has been dropping since early April as it does every year. Total sunlight onto the Arctic is increasing, and will increase until June 22 – about 5 weeks from now. Arctic sea ice will continue melting through the long summer days up north. But Arctic sea ice will continue decreasing its albedo until late July – decreasing from its present 0.93 to towards its low of 0.45 or so in July. But by mid-September when Arctic sea ice is at its minimum and Antarctic sea ice will be near its maximum, the Antarctic sea ice edge will be irradiated by five TIMES as much solar energy per square meter than the Arctic sea ice edge.
So, if 5 times the solar radiation falls on 1.67 million “extra” square kilometers of newly-frozen “excess” Antarctic sea ice than falls on a missing 0.4 Mkm^2 of Arctic sea ice, what happens to the planet’s total heat balance?
Do we not cool off even more?
The only thing more predictable than the media incorrectly reporting what the IPCC actually says, is Terry Oldberg showing up in the thread with his cut and paste verbatim complaint about the difference between projection and prediction.
It is a joyous occasion both when the IPCC statements are reported correctly and when Terry Oldberg has something original to say about them.
By the way, those “winds” and “waves” blowing “hot water” under the the glaciers?
The edge of the Antarctic sea ice surrounding those WAIS glaciers that are “melting underwater” at the glacier grounding line is some 4 -5 degrees of latitude AWAY from the toe of the glaciers.
At 111 kilometers per degree of latitude near the poles, that means the glaciers are being by water driven winds that are 550 kilometers away from the glacier. Odd, isn’t it?
Well done review. Thanks.
The news “anchors” are not supposed to be scientists or even knowledgeable on all the topics they read. Note the word read. They and their staffs are working to keep and raise ratings, sell ads, and make money.
Still, they got this spectacularly wrong!
That is sad because – believe it or not – most people in the world or the USA do not read WUWT.
Once again IPCC forgotten Archimedes Principle…. how many times have IPCC:s´ drink ice melted with rising “fluid level”? What’s landrise after Ice Ages???
What’s Theory of Science compared with IPCC:s usage of Fallacies of the same?
Fallacies in argumentation
davidmhoffer:
Your conclusion that “It is a joyous occasion both when the IPCC statements are reported correctly and when Terry Oldberg has something original to say about them” results from the premise that I have something original to say about these statements. As you imply this premise is false and thus your conclusion is unproved. If you feel that you can prove your conclusion, please submit your argument to the scrutiny of your fellow bloggers.
One time when the news media made a cockup, they used to print or air a retraction and apology.
Has anyone heard or observed any retraction yet?
Maybe this sort of reporting is actionable?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.wordpress.com
I think the point of the recent studies was that the IPCC assessment needs updating in the light of the new data which was not available to the authors at the AR5 was done. So you can’t really use AR5 to “refute”.
It is quite true that the media reported lots crap that was NOT in the studies and clearly had not even read what they claimed to be reporting on. A lot seems due to alarmist press-releases and the press conference where alarmist scientists were spinning this way beyond what they were prepared to put in their papers.
Alarmists journos then took it to next level adding their own exaggerations and made up “facts”.
“but that East Antarctica gained an average of 21 ± 43 Gt yr–1 between 1992 and 2011. Zwally and Giovinetto (2011) also estimate a mass gain for East Antarctica (+16 Gt yr–1 between 1992 and 2001).” (4.4.2.3)”
21 ± 43 Gt yr–1 will not out weigh the 159 Gt yr–1 recently reported. The latter being twice the value of earlier estimations (ie a “more accurate” assessment, not a finding of increasing melting) this still does not seem to make since compared to 21 Gt.y-1
But if values can jump about by a factor of two and have error margins of 200% !! Then they need to be taken with a pinch of (sea)salt.
This is becoming a test of the intelligence of the media. As for politicians, they are well into the special ed class. With Obama being the class speaker.
The main driver is the value of the messages impact not the ‘facts ‘ that are behind the message .
Its not scientific approach , but its often effective which is what matters.
The Warmists are looking more and more like a rabble every day.
But as long as they can keep scoring media ‘spectaculars’ like the Antarctic Ice Sheet Scare we have just seen, we will always be on the back foot.
Plimer’s book ‘Heaven and Earth’ book discusses quite a bit about Antarctica which is relevant here, for example how different datasets and different places in Antarctica seem to show different trends etc, and how it may act in opposite ways to other places. It is quite a complicated place, which obviously gets the alarmists in a tizzy when they seek to magnify bits and pieces about it to the whole, and then the whole world. Too subtle for the alarmist media I’m afraid.
Terry Oldberg;
If you feel that you can prove your conclusion, please submit your argument to the scrutiny of your fellow bloggers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or, you could stop printing the exact same comment, verbatim, thread after thread after thread, and put some time and effort into a comment that would represent some value to the discussion.
It wouldn’t make any difference if a retraction was made, the original scaremongering has already had the desired effect.
I read in this 1-2% of ice loss from the antarctic gives us 4ft of sea level rise, that interpolates as 400ft if the whole lot melted. This seems a tad exaggerated tho’ it would explain why it is the bottom of the world, that much weight is always going to swing to the bottom. That much rise is about the same as we got coming out of the last ice age. 400ft would make many land masses disappear into a chain of islands. This nonsense of estimations with 200% error bars is as far from science as you can get, this is worse than believing the astrologers in news papers foretelling your destiny.
From NASA, my how the mighty have fallen.
the other pat said –
“This is becoming a test of the intelligence of the media”
28 May: Guardian: George Monbiot: It’s simple. If we can’t change our economic system, our number’s up
It’s the great taboo of our age – and the inability to discuss the pursuit of perpetual growth will prove humanity’s undoing
Let us imagine that in 3030BC the total possessions of the people of Egypt filled one cubic metre. Let us propose that these possessions grew by 4.5% a year. How big would that stash have been by the Battle of Actium in 30BC? This is the calculation performed by the investment banker Jeremy Grantham…
Ignore if you must climate change, biodiversity collapse, the depletion of water, soil, minerals, oil; even if all these issues miraculously vanished, the mathematics of compound growth make continuity impossible…
It was neither capitalism nor communism that made possible the progress and pathologies (total war, the unprecedented concentration of global wealth, planetary destruction) of the modern age. It was coal, followed by oil and gas. The meta-trend, the mother narrative, is carbon-fuelled expansion. Our ideologies are mere subplots. Now, with the accessible reserves exhausted, we must ransack the hidden corners of the planet to sustain our impossible proposition…
On Friday, a few days after scientists announced that the collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet is now inevitable, the Ecuadorean government decided to allow oil drilling in the heart of the Yasuni national park…
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/27/if-we-cant-change-economic-system-our-number-is-up
while in the real world!
25 May: Bloomberg: Putin’s Energy Trumps U.S. Sanctions as Rosneft Extends
Reach
By Elena Mazneva and Ilya Arkhipov
One by one, executives from some of the world’s largest energy companies
climbed the dais to sign accords with OAO Rosneft (ROSN) chief Igor Sechin
as Vladimir Putin stood behind his blacklisted ally, nodding approvingly.
Executives from BP, India’s Oil & Natural Gas Corp. and companies from
Norway, Abu Dhabi, Venezuela, Vietnam, Cuba and Mongolia all signed deals at
Sechin’s table on the last day of the St. Petersburg International Economic
Forum…
“It’s pure foolishness for countries to talk about cutting their energy
dependency on Russia because that dependency can never be one-sided,” Putin
said. “It’s always a case of mutual dependency and that means it increases
reliability and stability in the global economy and in energy.”…
Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), the largest U.S. oil company, went ahead with a
deal to deepen its ties with Rosneft yesterday, even after the Obama
administration urged American CEOs to skip Putin’s annual economic
showcase…
The deals cap a week in which Russia’s other dominant state energy company,
OAO Gazprom (OGZD), struck a historic $400 billion accord with China to
supply natural gas for 30 years…
China agreed to pay $25 billion up front to help Gazprom finance the $75
billion it will cost to build a pipeline from eastern Siberia to the Chinese
border and develop the fields to fill it. Putin said the project will be a
boon for Russia’s entire Far East region.
“I want to stress that this will be the world’s biggest construction site,”
Putin said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-24/putin-s-energy-trumps-u-s-sanctions-as-rosneft-extends-reach.html
following lists even more deals:
24 May: Reuters: Rosneft signs flurry of deals in St Petersburg
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/rosneft-signs-flurry-deals-st-160448141.html
but Kenya should buy renewables even Germany can’t afford!
***from the link: The following Reuters’ story is part of a series of articles, funded by the COMplus Alliance
and the World Bank, looking at progress and challenges in developing nations’
efforts to legislate on climate change. The package runs ahead of the June
6-8 World Summit of Legislators 2014 in Mexico City, organised by the Global
Legislators Organisation (GLOBE International).
26 May: Reuters: Pius Sawa: Oil exploitation contradicts Kenya’s climate
goals, legislator warns
Petroleum discoveries have been made in Turkana, the Nyanza
region around Lake Victoria and off the coast in the Indian Ocean. Coal has
been found in Kitui in the east, and iron ore in Taita on the coast. The
government has enacted a mining bill, and dedicated a new ministry to the
sector…
British company Tullow Oil, meanwhile, has sunk seven oil wells in the
semi-arid northwestern county of Turkana. In a January update, it said it
had discovered estimated reserves of over 600 million barrels, adding that
the overall potential for the basin could top 1 billion barrels. The company’s
exploration director, Angus McCoss, said results so far suggested the area
could become “a significant new hydrocarbon province”.
Kenya is hoping that resource exploitation will create jobs and wealth. But
Ottichilo believes it runs contrary to efforts to tackle climate change…
Among the solutions it proposes are fines and jail sentences for polluters,
solar equipment and energy efficiency in new buildings, and community kiosks
that sell solar lamps and charge mobile phones using solar power.
Under the law, land owners would be required to plant trees on 10 percent of
their land, and farmers would be helped to adapt to climate change,
especially in dryland areas…
Martin Oulu, a climate change consultant in Nairobi and researcher in the
Human Ecology Division of Sweden’s Lund University, said Kenya’s oil
exploitation should be viewed from an equity perspective.
“Even though Kenya might be seen as becoming a ‘polluter’ by exploiting its
oil, the country’s emissions per capita will still be way lower than those
in the more developed northern countries,” he said.
Poverty levels remain high in Kenya, and it is off track to meet several of
the Millennium Development Goals. If oil exploitation generates state
revenue that is used to lift people out of poverty, and it is carried out
with the best technology causing minimal pollution and harm to other
economic sectors, then the potential rise in Kenya’s carbon emissions is
more than justified, Oulu argued…
http://www.trust.org/item/20140526131230-mdjnu/
Take a look at the bright side of this media debacle outlined here on WUWT..
Twenty five years ago at the height of the Ozone Hole scam there was no effective counter to the media’s grossly inflated, hyped, bigoted, alarmist and lying news releases.
Nor was there any counter or questioning methods available to the public and interested and somewhat skeptical scientists from other fields to make the Ozone Hole scientists actually have to prove their highly alarmist inflammatory language they used to justify the billions poured into the so called Ozone Hole research,
Research which Proff James Lovelock refers to in a quote from a Guardian interview.
“I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
There was no all pervasive internet and mobile / cell phone technology in the late 1980’s so that any doubters could reach a wide audience or a wide and independent data base.
Everything that the public heard about the Ozone Hole, fraudulent and plain wrong as most of it was, came through the MSM of the times.
We now know that because we have a very viable internet alternative to the MSM, that the MSM is anything but impartial and accurate in it’s news reporting and opinion writing.
The media has agenda’s and always has had but the man on the street until the advent of the Internet by the mid 1990’s had no alternative means of assessing events and the claims put forth by the MSM when assessing the usual alarmist and catastrophe riddled hyped up news items and alarmism of those past times.
People seem to have completely forgotten just how young the internet really is.
There would be no WUWT, Jo Nova’s, Bishop Hills, Climate etc, Climate Audit and etc, all checking on, expanding on and most of all acting to expose the major flaws and the arrogance along with wide spread incompetence of some of science, media, politics, business and law.
Now we have the internet, the World Wide Web and the mobile / cell phone.
We are moving into an era of world wide contact between people at street level bypassing the media and seeing the true corruption of a bigoted, biased, untruthful, arrogant and ultimately despicable Main Stream Media, despicable for the continued arrogance it still appears to possess along with a total willful ignorance that the alternatives to the MSM are being rapidly created, alternatives that as they mature and some have already done so, will supply far more accurate news and opinions than the current MSM deigns to try and sell to the public, which unlike the pre internet days, with ever less success.
These internet based alternative sources of news and events and opinions will in the end, lead to the complete destruction of the current media empires unless the media goes back to completely and thoroughly checking out every aspect of every story to make damn sure they have it down and right before they broadcast it as News.
If they do that then they may find they also are important and not replaceable as news reporting organisations for most of their public.
A public whose continuing opinion of the media today sinks ever further down the scale on a daily basis.
I don’t remember the BBC and other usual suspects reporting on this paper last year.
The record shows that this region has warmed since the late 1950s, at a similar magnitude to that observed in the Antarctic Peninsula and central West Antarctica, however, this warming trend is not unique. More dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries, suggesting that at present the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers at this location has not exceeded the natural range of climate variability in the context of the past ~300 years
I wonder why?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/antarctic-peninsula-warming-not-unusual/
“Williams failed to understand”
================================
Pretty much sums it up. I think it’s pretty obvious most of the “news hour” talking heads have only very superficial, if any, understanding of what they’re reading. They are profoundly, deeply, superficial.
These latest results are new projections of glacier dynamics of individual large ice streams, I don’t think IPCC has been in a position to assess such projections as they did not exist at the time of the writing of AR5 WG1.
Kate Forney says:
May 29, 2014 at 3:36 am
Just like our fine, young president. The real power in the United States is that damn teleprompter.
Guess the IPCC is still smarting from the Himalayan Glacier debacle. Otherwise, they would be the head cheer leaders of these incompetent PR outlets.
Antarctica is too terribly cold to be anything other than a massive sea level sink in a mildly warming world, just like a freezer that clogs up when it gets humid. This isn’t rocket science, but don’t tell that to the National Aeronautics And Space Administration who are doing their damnest to officially make Muslims proud by helping shut down fossil fuel use here as Britain sends Phil “Hide The Decline” Jones to a Saudi university that he now uses as attribution for his latest up-adjusted global average temperature plot that climate “science” now considers the gold standard, ignoring Space Age satellites that falsify its recent incline. I guess how alarming it all is depends though on what the current leftist definition of “is” is.
Does every reporter and alarm crying careerist finally *know* it’s a scam at this late hour of inquiry? Oh yes they do, for what excuse is there now for not knowing it, as they discount the Internet, preposterously, digging deeper into the profound madness of pure evil, which evidently sells well as they cement themselves into doomsday cultism with not a hint of self-consciousness humility.
@- Larry Hamlin
“IPCC report shows Antarctica has “negative contribution to sea level” over the 21st century”
No it does not. It correctly identifies the ongoing rate of land ice loss from the Antarctic continent, but remains neutral on whether that rate will increase.
However the recent papers identify a process which will ensure that the rate of mass loss of land based ice will definitely increase when the ice blocking the glacier outflows melts out. This may take another few centuries before the fast mass loss starts, but the collapse could come sooner. The IPCC has a history of being exceedingly conservative in its estimation of sea level rise and has consistently underestimated the actual rate of ice mass loss and seas level rise in each of its reports.
All US TV networks except Fox are part of the Democratic Party. Spreading socialist propaganda is part of their job. They’re not fabricating phony global warming disasters for sound business reasons, i.e., to increase ratings and sell air time. In fact the farther to the left they are, the worse their ratings, e.g., MSNBC. They’re doing it for the same reasons John Kerry, Al Gore, Ed Markey, David Axelrod, Stephanie Cutter, Barack Obama, etc., etc., do it – to tighten the government’s grip on its subjects. The more disastrous the news about climate change, the more people will be willing to accept greater government regulation and higher taxes to “combat” it.
Terry Oldberg,
In your first comment, you appear to esteem “clarity of communication” and assail us, once again, with a putative distinction between two synonyms.
Your second comment reveals no such sensibility; look how your scorn for punctuation transforms an intended (probably) adverb into a conjunction, thereby creating an orphaned subordinate clause, which is syntactically incoherent and, semantically, as bereft of value as your tedious cavil.
Maybe the next generati0n of news people will report on the growing Laurentide continental glacier growing over northern Manitoba, and how this has been such a big boom to down hill and cross country skiing in the province.
The MSM is told what to report by the political controllers. Just as AGW can’t be proven, so the preceding statement. Equally valid
Davd Hoffer
Oldberg made a reasonable request which you sneered at in response. You can do better than that, can’t you?
If anyone is interested in sea level, go survey the NOAA tide guages. With a few exceptions where subsidence or uplift is a factor, these all indicate that mean sea level has remained unchanged since the last century.
See what you can discover when you go look for yourself! When you do, the whole myth of rising sea levels collapses.
My only problem would be using the IPCC report to debunk the warmists. It lends to the report having credibility and not being a political document.
‘The news media really “blew it”’
—
It just goes to show that it’s okay to deny “settled science” if you do it in an alarmist direction. Just don’t deny it in the other direction or the same news media who deny science themselves will label you as a “science denier.” Isn’t hypocrisy grand?
We might be on the back foot, but increasingly at the global level it just isn’t going to matter. China and India will keep digging for coal and their economies will carry on growing while ours will stagnate. If current trends continue, in a few decades the beliefs and actions of the leaders of Europe and the USA simply won’t be important at the global level.
Izen says:
“However the recent papers identify a process which will ensure that the rate of mass loss of land based ice will definitely increase when the ice blocking the glacier outflows melts out.”
You must be remarkably ignorant of glaciology if You think that this process was “identified by the recent papers”. It was originally suggested by Mercer in 1968 and put on a more quantitative basis by i. a. Hughes, Weertman and Thomas in the 70´s. It was described as “glaciology’s grand unsolved problem” by Weertman in 1976. It still is, though it has been discussed ever since.
There is still no real evidence of previous interglacial WAIS collapses (though ANDRILL suggested that it might have happened during the Pliocene).
What is the climatological definition of glacial ‘instability’? What is the climatological definition of glacial ‘collapse’? Does ‘unstoppable’ to a climatologist mean that things will carry on as before?
I think we should be told.
@Navy Bob –
Well said.
I would add that I think the news anchors at CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN believe the crap they’re broadcasting. They worship Obama as though he were a god, the personification of Gaea. They will do and say anything and everything to advance Obama’s agenda. Journalists they are not; they are pure propagandists.
Thank goodness for the Internet – at least there is an alternative to the twaddle about climate being put out by these coelenterates.
“If anyone is interested in sea level, go survey the NOAA tide guages.”
Not very useful for determining the global sea level as NOAA seems to operate gauges only on US territory and Central America., which is a very small subset of the global coastlines. In addition, changes in the open ocean will not be caught my tide-gauges anyway.
So how many landlocked oceans do we have on earth anyway ??
As far as I know, ALL of planet earth’s oceans are connected together by a continuous water path.
So why do you need any more than one tide gauge to read the sea level ?? The sea surface ought to be gravitationally level, except for natural fluctuations like tides and waves, all of which should average out to zero.
“””””…..Terry Oldberg says:
May 28, 2014 at 9:54 pm
For clarity of communication, an important distinction should be recognized between a projection and a prediction. A projection is non-falsifiable thus being non-scientific. A prediction is falsifiable thus being scientific. It appears from Mr. Hamlin’s report that the IPCC’s models make non-scientific projections of sea level rise rather than scientific predictions……”””””
For clarity of communication (of course), when somebody makes a “projection” of some future sea level rise; NOT a “prediction” you understand; and subsequently, as in circa that “projected” sea level risen time, it is found that the sea level did not rise by the “projected” amount, either significantly undershooting, or significantly overshooting the projected sea level rise, is not that a failure of the “projection” to materialize. And is not a failure of a “projection” to materialize, a “falsification” of the original “projection”; “falsification” for this purpose, being synonymous, with the “non-occurrence” of the earlier “projected ” possibility ?? ??