From the “department of global roasting” and the UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, where great ideas like this one are formed at Halloween parties, (yes really, see PR) comes this claim:
UAF model used to estimate Antarctic ice sheet melting
To see how burning up the Earth’s available fossil fuels might affect the Antarctic ice sheet, scientists turned to a computer program developed at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute. The ice would disappear, they found, and that conclusion is making headlines across the world.
UAF’s Parallel Ice Sheet Model “was the perfect tool to find out whether human emissions are sufficient to render Earth ice free — and unfortunately it turns out that they are,” said Anders Levermann, a researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Levermann is an author of a paper recently published in the journal Science Advances.
He and the paper’s other authors figured out that burning all available fossil fuels would release about 10,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, which could possibly raise the average temperature of the planet by 20 degrees Fahrenheit. One gigaton is one billion tons. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises temperatures because the greenhouse gas traps infrared radiation from sunlight striking the Earth.
The computer program shows that the increased temperatures would melt the Antarctic ice sheet, which is bigger than the United States, has an average thickness of 6,200 feet and contains more than 50 percent of the world’s fresh water. More than half the melting could occur during the first 1,000 years, although the entire study spans 10,000 years. PISM also shows that the melting would push sea levels up by more than 160 feet. Coastlines would retreat, forcing people in places like New York City, London and Paris to move inland.
“The future evolution of the global sea level is mainly determined by the melting of the big ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica,” Levermann said. “If we want to properly protect our cities, we need to know how these ice sheets evolve. Models like PISM are the only chance we have to understand future sea-level rise.”
Andy Aschwanden, a UAF glaciologist who helped develop PISM, said he uses the computer program to study how climate change could affect Greenland’s ice sheet. He said that more than 50 studies have used PISM, including a soon-to-be-published paper that investigates the future of Alaska’s Juneau Icefield.
“Models are testbeds for all sorts of questions, and PISM is what we call a numerical model.” said Aschwanden. “We take our best understanding of the physical processes of the real world, in this case ice sheets, and frame that in the language of mathematics. Then we teach the computer how to come up with solutions to ‘what if’ questions about the processes that this model represents. We did a lot of work under the hood to make this model work.”
Ed Bueler, a UAF associate professor of mathematics, and GI computer programmer Constantine Khroulev, did much of that work. They built the engine of this model from new mathematical equations. Bueler said PISM is designed to solve what-if scenarios for different-sized ice sheets and glaciers over a time period that extends 100,000 years into the future and the past. It considers such factors as ice thickness and temperature, the weight of the ice and how fast the ice flows as gravity slowly pulls it downhill “like pouring honey onto a pancake.”
“The equations are a way to say precisely how the parts of an ice sheet work and how each of these pieces is connected to all the others,” said Bueler. “Once you have the equations, you can make predictions.”
Most programs that handle such a wide range of scenarios over a large time span rely on mathematics so complex that it may take computers years or decades just to answer one problem. Bueler said PISM is complex enough to be accurate but efficient enough to deliver answers in a timely manner to scientists.
PISM also uses the GI’s high-performance computers to get more accurate answers to the wide variety of scenarios. These computers can outperform an average personal computer in processing calculations.
The PISM team posts the computer program and its updates on the Internet so that scientists can use it freely and provide feedback on the program. Levermann learned about the program after one of his graduate students found it on the Internet and showed it to him in 2008.
“Half a year later, I was flying to Fairbanks to discuss the model with Ed,” said Levermann. “That was my first Halloween party in the U.S. In the two following weeks, my two then-Ph.D.-students, Ricarda Winkelmann and Maria Martin, visited Ed, and he explained the model. That started a wonderful long-term collaboration.”
Winkelmann went on to be the lead author on the recent paper published in Science Advances.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Same old same old garbage. If the climate sensitivity is sucha nd such (which it obviusly is not) and if we burn such and such (which we won’) then such and such may happen. They never tire of producing this rubbish.
So lemme see if I got this correct.
They say; well their x-box says, that we can burn enough carbon to raise the temperature by 20 deg. F
That’s approximately 10 deg C; close enough compared to their x-box model.
So they are saying the Antarctic highlands will warm up to only -84 deg. C, instead of -94 deg. C, and that will melt the ice there.
I hope the results of this study are not currently incorporated in anything that is on its way to Mars or some other important place; might not get there.
g
“We did a lot of work under the hood to make this model work.”
I’m sure they did.
Not sure any of this has anything to do with science, tho …
I guess they used the methods IPCC endorse – the methods real scientists laugh at:
“When initialized with states close to the observations, models ‘drift’ towards their imperfect climatology (an estimate of the mean climate), leading to biases in the simulations that depend on the forecast time. The time scale of the drift in the atmosphere and upper ocean is, in most cases, a few years. Biases can be largely removed using empirical techniques a posteriori. The bias correction or adjustment linearly corrects for model drift.”
(Ref: Contribution from Working Group I to the fifth assessment report by IPCC; 11.2.3 Prediction Quality; 11.2.3.1 Decadal Prediction Experiments )
“Biases can be largely removed using empirical techniques a posteriori.”
“a posteriori” is where their numbers came from.
“Biases can be largely removed using empirical techniques a posteriori. The bias correction or adjustment linearly corrects for model drift.”
In plain English:
“Our number crunching supercomputers give results so bad and unrealistic (thanks to GIGO principle) we have to fix these with arbitrary feel-good corrections. (Although the end result could be obtained by simply pulling numbers straight from our rear end without all the model programming and supercomputers, and such simplified process would be both cheaper, faster, and lead to huge energy savings, we feel that doing so would lower our credibility.)”
For the sake of the planet, unplug the supercomputers!
VW did a lot of work under the hood in order to pass EPA tests.
They did a lot o work behind the curtain.
They did a lot of subtle coding – kind of like climate modeling.
“Not sure any of this has anything to do with science, tho …”
I am sure.
It does not.
More like science fiction.
After the world’s population stabilises (some say 2050, UN says 2100), what next? We don’t know, BUT the world will have an aging population and possible decline! Plunging fertility rates around the world have been observed since the 1960s.
What this has to do with is more scary “scientific horror stories” to ensure more funding for future studies…
“The future evolution of the global sea level is mainly determined by the melting of the big ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica,” Levermann said. “If we want to properly protect our cities, we need to know how these ice sheets evolve. Models like PISM are the only chance we have to understand future sea-level rise.”
“These models are the “ONLY CHANCE WE HAVE!!!…..”
All of these A holes need to be prosecuted for the money they’ve sucked from our blood, sweat and tears taxes we’ve paid, as well as the idiots who funded and approved
studies like these. On and on and on it goes…
So no feedbacks from all that melting ice?
What melting ice? Reported 20 °C raised temperature and Amundsen-Scott station at the South Pole temp daily max °C is – 25.9. Russian Vostok station is Average daily temperature °C – 32.1.
Does ice melt below 0 °C in the computer models?
I wonder if the model can predict when this interglacial will end?
Wonder no more.
I can tell you with all certainty that it does not, cannot, and will not.
Period.
.
I wonder if there is a model that predict the end of plain stupid.
Not as long as paychecks or on the line (willful stupidity).
I created a model to calculate when that would happen. It’s been running for years with no end in sight.
It will be sometime in the next 10 to 10000000 years from now…..
Do they assume an infinite amount of IR light for the CO2 to absorb? One would reasonably expect that once the max absorbable IR has been absorbed that a max has been reached.
No doubt they assume that if the current doubling would result in 2C warming. (Not true, but it’s what a lot of them assume.) Then if we add the same amount more CO2, we will get another 2C, and so on until we run out of CO2, or the teacher tells us it’s time for our mothers to pick us up.
They’re probably assuming what you would consider high sensitivity but due to polar amplification. Probably something like 6C per doubling at the poles but less elsewhere. Even so, that would require ALL the fossil fuels assumed to exist…and probably work out to a concentration of about 2500+ PPM.
Don’t forget the water vapor part of the theory that supposedly increases the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb and re-emit LWIR, negating the logarithmic absorption pattern of just CO2. This is the only way models can demonstrate such catastrophic results.
The tipping point runaway fudge factor warming is still alive and well in the models. Damn the observations.
They completely deny the Beer-Lambert Law such that Co2’s effect is 90% spent already and more CO2 will have marginal effects. I love the way they have to deny the heat engine of the water cycle, ignore cosmic rays and cloud cover, and ignore Beer’s Law. How convenient that known scientific principles simply disappears when they want it to.
“The tipping point runaway fudge factor warming is still alive and well in the models. Damn the observations.”
The most damning observation is that the biosphere exists, thus there is no chance that a tipping point, runaway effect, or anything like it exists.
Because many times in Earth history the globe has warmed for one reason or another, and experienced all manner of cataclysms, from bolide impacts to flood basalts and orogeny, and giant super volcanoes.
What has happened in every single case is that the Earth immediately set about restoring balance, and mitigating the damage, and healing.
Not descending into feedback loops of catastrophe.
“How convenient that known scientific principles simply disappears when they want it to.”
There is a quote (or paraphrase) of a French Green senator that is circulating. He was talking about the segregation of “green” electric energy in the electric grid. Here it is from memory:
ingénieur: On ne peut pas faire ça, parce que ça violerait la loi des nœuds.
sénateur: Alors on abrogera cette loi!
Engineer: We can’t do that, it would break Kirchhoff’s law.
Senator: so we will repeal this law!
Although I couldn’t find the original quote, I think it is not unrealistic given the Green mentality.
“One would reasonably expect that once the max absorbable IR has been absorbed that a max has been reached.”
RHS,
Your logic here appears to be airtight.
Did they also add in the law of diminishing returns for increases in CO2 as the effects fall off after an initial fast rise?
Probably not as that is not what they want from these models.
Can’t have facts getting in the way of a good headline can we!
James Bull
There are not enough fossil fuels to melt the EAIS even in 10,000 years.
It has existed for around 34 million years, and formed when the earth was about six degrees C warmer than now.
I agree, but we can hope, can’t we?
We should hope for this. For every hundred square miles of coastal city requiring being moved, there would be thousands of square miles opened up on Antarctica and Greenland for colonization.
Not to mention the wonderful abundance of fresh water.
But on their models, all that fresh water will be in the oceans (hence the sea level rise).
Their model must not take into account that clouds respond to temperature changes, so there is no way they could have modeled the changing feedback correctly.
Even the climate modelers will admit that they don’t get clouds correct.
This model proves Arrhenius was right, that by burning fossil fuels we can forestall the onset of the next glaciation as the Holocene comes to a close…
That is, provided they used correct formulae and input realistic values in the model runs. They probably didn’t, probably used the highest “equilibrium sensitivity” that includes all positive feedbacks and no negative feedbacks, and assumes the feedbacks amplify and multiply warming rates virtually without limit. But, if they took the glass-is-half-full approach they could actually project the realization of Arrhenius’ dream, to cause global warming on purpose so we don’t all freeze to death.
Max Planck proved Arrhenius wrong in 1906. Arrhenius admitted his experiment was flawed and his conclusions unfounded. Then Arrhenius went back to his university and continued to preach on the benefits of industrial CO2 caused Global warming…pg
I was not able to find anything supporting your statement “Max Planck proved Arrhenius wrong in 1906” – you wouldn’t happen to have an online reference to support that?
It is almost certainly the case that a warmer world would be a much better place, so I can understand Arrhenius preaching the benefits of that. It is difficult to understand why anyone would a fear a world some to 2 to 4 degrees warmer, and the oceans would take a very long time to significantly increase in temperature..
Well that’s it. I’m leaving this planet! Good lord, this got press?!?
But it PROVES that G.I.G.O. is true !!!!!! Garbage in , garbage out !!!!!
I’m in Vermont – we pour maple syrup on our pancakes, not honey.
That must be why we can’t see 100,000 years into the future … try as we might.
LOL, Bubba! If maple syrup can’t do it, nuttin’ can.
Nuttin’, honey?
I have an idea – let’s test this “greenhouse effect”, I propose that we double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and then measure the resultant rise in global temp. If there is no increase in global atmospheric temperature for, say 18 years, we can conclude that there is no GHE.
To be safe, let’s make that 18 years and 9 months.
That’s crazy talk, Sal! ;o)
You can do that experiment controlled, in a laboratory. To eliminate out other factors that might be responsible for the change. Unfortunately for the pseudo scientists, physics shows clearly: a doubling of CO2 in atmospheric composition results in a minute change in heat conductivity for a column of gas. So minute, that it’s probably not possible to measure with current technology.
http://pism-docs.org/wiki/doku.php
Co-author Ken Caldeira? Why are we not surprised …
And it’s on GitHub, https://github.com/pism/pism, so anyone can join the team …
NASA funding mentioned.
Science has become fortune telling, pure and simple. How do otherwise smart people come up with this hysterical stuff?
“How do otherwise smart people come up with this hysterical stuff?”
It seems most unlikely, does it not?
We must the question the original assumption (“smart people”), no?
Climate astrology.
I continue to struggle with the idea that sometime in our dark past, there was an optimum climate..evidently for the entire planet. Until we define that climate, we don’t have a goal..and if we don’t have a goal, how will we know when we have reached it?
“What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof”…Christopher Hitchens
I always get a good laugh when I hear these “scientists” talking about their latest infallible computer model. I’m a retired computer systems architect and I worked on many computer models in my career. When someone asked what our models could do we always said “whatever you want. All you have to do is be willing to pay for it.” When they asked can you do XXXXX ? The answer was always “yes”. You want a model that “proves” it’s going to rain marshmallows tomorrow? No problem, coming right up. And they’ll be the best marshmallows you ever tasted. Be very careful what you believe from a computer model.
and Doonesbury used to run a comic in which you could write in whatever you believed in and the site myfacts.com would create the facts to support your belief
Does anyone even believe the species (as we know it) will be around in 10,000 years, let alone 100,000???
10,000, yes, absolutely for sure.
100,000, almost but not quite certain.
We are the new cockroaches.
Just ask Kafka.
Does anyone believe we will not have a new and better source of energy within 100 years ???
I expect to be completely, irreversibly, dead.
Gamecock September 24, 2015 at 4:55 pm
“I expect to be completely, irreversibly, dead.”
Don’t you mean Morally, Ethically, Spiritually, Physically, Positively, Absolutely, Undeniably and Reliably Dead.
ding dong, ding dong.
Probably not after the year 2525.
In the year 2525, If woman can survive…some guy will be hot on her tail!
🙂
https://youtu.be/WiuaaJVcxSk
Their second sentence begins
“Although Antarctica has already begun to lose ice (3)”
Reference (3) was published in 2011. Now Antarctica is setting new records for ice volume.
I stopped reading at that point.
Man will never do anything to make the Earth ice free.
(But if some man wants to volunteer to keep my driveway ice free this winter…..)
“The ice would disappear, they found”
So, if all the ice melted, we would lose some land, but we would have new coastlines, not all clogged up with rich people houses.
And we would have a lot of artificial reefs and prime habitat for fish in man of the newly submerged areas.
And presumably, there would be vast areas of Arctic land open up for habitation and agriculture, or new habitat formation. Plus Greenland, and all of Antarctica.
Also, presumably winters the world over would become far shorter and less severe, extending growing seasons and perhaps adding vast areas with two full growing seasons…like we have here in Florida (August and late February are the planting times.)
Large numbers of coral atoll islands kept up with rising seas in the past, and would likely do so again. If they had not, there would perhaps not be so much life on them.
Someone needs to calculate the net gain in usable land area if we had all the new places once the ice is gone. And the other benefits that would accrue from not having huge swaths of our planet and whole continents frozen, barren, and God forsaken wastelands.
Maybe if we stopped burning oil and coal and instead used to make a BIG plastic ball to cover the Earth (thereby making the Earth a real greenhouse) this fantasy might come true.
BUELER …..BUELER……BUELER…….MUST HAVE TAKEN A DAY OFF FOR THIS CARIBOU SHITE!!!
People using a similar approach back in 1715 would have probably concluded that at the rate at which we were felling trees and burning them for heating and cooking – humans could have rendered the Earth tree free by 1850. Of course, that didn’t happen.
What happened was that new technologies developed. People shifted energy use to coal and then oil and gas. The forests of Europe were saved.
Why are we busy predicting what would happen if technology did not change between now and far into the future. We are making two massive assumptions:
1. That climate sensitivity is high.
2. That fossil fuels will remain the cheapest and most preferable technology well into the future.
Neither of these assumption appears to be justified by current evidence.
Recently I have started buying LED lighting. Not to save the planet. But because, in my situation it is now preferable and now works out cheaper over time than the alternatives.
Technologies change over time.
These far-off frightening scenarios are foolish predictions. And action taken upon them is far more foolish.
Just as it would have been foolish for the people of 1715 to set about banning fires and stoves, in the desperate hope of saving the great European forests from certain annihilation.
Because in the process, they may well have also banned the recently invented, “…new invention for raising of water and occasioning motion to all sorts of mill work by the impellent force of fire, which will be of great use and advantage for drayning mines, serveing townes with water, and for the working of all sorts of mills where they have not the benefitt of water nor constant windes.”
And then where would we now be?!!
indefatigablefrog
September 24, 2015 at 4:06 pm
Yeah, I have been replacing burned out high use lights with LED colour corrected lights too. Trouble is, the lifetime of good incandescents is about the same as the LED’s. In my kitchen, I have only replaced three flood light bulbs in the last 13 years. I tried the original LED’s and hated the colour, changed the ONE bulb that is used the most to colour corrected and it is good.
I tried the curly cue mercury vapour bulbs years ago but they were awful. They affected the electronics in my house, useless outdoors at 20 below as they never came on, the colour was awful, the flicker was annoying. I took them all out so I have a card board box full of them in the basement. I should give them away, but I am hesitant to foist them on the unsuspecting. I offered them to some neighbours but they had the same experience and didn’t want them.
The LED’s are good, but based on the “burn out” rate of the incandescents I will likely be dead before they are all replaced.
I replaced a ton of my lights even though they are still good. I have boxes of old incandescents. Maybe they will make a good museum piece someday. I decided not the wait until the old wasteful ones burned out…too many of them, and they guy i bought my house from apparently did not like compact fluorescents either…not a one in the whole house.
Amazing how many bulbs are in a house…hundreds and hundreds…and my house is rather modest.
I have spent thousands on LEDs and CFLs.
But, today I bought a box from Costco…ten 60 watt equivalent Feit brand LEDs for about $24!
The ones I love best are the outdoor floods, which had been 150 watts, and to keep the exterior illuminated at night required a few dozen. Now, with LEDs, they each burn a tenth that wattage, and are brighter.
I also decided I would rather get used to unpleasant color temps than wait for R&D to catch up with my needs. But that is just me.
A real crisis (at the time), unlike the global warming crisis which is imaginary: The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894. Obviously, the ‘forecasts’ were very wrong.
Yeah, well they got that wrong.
They predicted that by now we would be up to our necks in horse shit.
But, what actually happened was,,,
OMG…they were absolutely right!!!
New computer model says human emissions can ‘render Earth ice free’
… inside the Virtual Reality of the computer model.
My question is, how much pot do they have to smoke to come up with this carp?
Well I have a computer model that says I can turn the EARTH INTO A SNOWBALL. Next stupid article.