Debunked: New Computer Simulated Pine Island Glacier Doomsday Paper By Rosier et al Ignores Lots Of Science

Reposted from The NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 1. May 2021

A recent paper announcing Pine Island Glacier doom failed to consider other findings showing the glacier is in fact more stable than assumed. 

A new paper by Rosier et al concludes – based on model simulations – that the Pine Island, West Antarctica, glacier may have already surpassed one of the three dangerous tipping points, prompting the media to issue warnings of doom, so reports Die kalte Sonne here in its latest information video.

The scientists fear that should the Amundsen Sea water temperature rise 1.2°C, the Pine Island Glacier would retreat and trigger the collapse of the entire West Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS, which in turn would mean a rapid global sea level rise of over three meters.

Involved in the the Rosier et al study was Stefan Rahmstorf-mentored researcher Ricarda Winkelmann of the Potsdam Institute.

But other publications show no doomsday

However, as Die kalte Sonne points out, the team of scientists ignored a vast body of science that contradicts their dire findings. For example, a 2017 publication by Bingham et al explains how the researchers actually surveyed to mighty Pine Island glacier (PIG) and found that the terrain’s characteristics would in fact slow down the retreat even under a warming climate:

Also a 2014 publication by Beem et al found that another glacier in the region had seen a deceleration in retreat over the previous 50 years.

Volcanoes, natural cycles at play

In 2018, a paper by Loose et al found that the Pine Island glacier was sitting over volcanic activity, which was providing heat for melting.

Also another 2014 publication by Witus et al found that over the Holocene there have been repeated periods of rapid ice melt at Pine Island:

Collapse improbable

And again in 2018 a publication by Barletta et al found that “observed bedrock uplift” in fact would likely stabilize the Pine Island Glacier, “and make a collapse improbable”.

Die kalte Sonne brings up the question: Why were these earlier studies – many based on observations –  ignored by Rosier et al?  “Hard to believe they were,” says the Die kalte Sonne video report. Surely they must have been aware of these publications?

Amundsen Sea cooling!

Also very peculiar is the fact that Rosier et al  also seem to ignore the data from the ARGO measurement buoys in the area. Recall that sea surface temperatures there (Amundsen Sea) rising 1.2°C would mean passing the third and final “dangerous” tipping point and lead to WAIS collapse.

So what’s the trend there?

Source: Climate Explorer

The Amundsen Sea has been cooling over the past 15 years!

Die kalte Sonne summarzes:

The [Rosier et al] tipping point paper with the PIK penmanship on it doesn’t look so convincing and ignores everything that doesn’t fit their own idea.”

5 24 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
35 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mickey Reno
May 4, 2021 6:33 am

I wouldn’t be surprised if the alarmist authors had read and then ignored the cooling sea temperature study.

That’s what propagandists using post-normal “science” do when they want to brainwash the public that pays them, so that their pay and pension will become more secure.

ScienceABC123
May 4, 2021 6:45 am

Again, the biggest problem with computer models is getting them to match-up with reality.

Reply to  ScienceABC123
May 4, 2021 7:21 am

Living in the matrix, models are the new facts 😀

Patrick B
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 4, 2021 9:56 am

They call the models “studies” and their output “data”. The dishonesty in terminology alone is breath taking.

Mr.
Reply to  ScienceABC123
May 4, 2021 7:23 am

Reality is now adjusted to line up with the model.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  ScienceABC123
May 4, 2021 8:32 am

Progressivism in all its forms is for those who can’t handle reality.

philincalifornia
Reply to  David Kamakaris
May 4, 2021 9:32 am

Exactly – which is why they have to fake the name. Luddism or Ludditeism would be a far better name for these sorry maladjusted excuses for people.

I wouldn’t care, but they seem to want normal people to share in their misery. You can count me out.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 4, 2021 10:18 am

Right on, Phil. Nice to meet a Californian with his head screwed on straight.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  David Kamakaris
May 4, 2021 11:39 am

You know what they call Californians who have their head screwed on straight? They call them “Future Texans”… 🙂

Ferdberple
Reply to  ScienceABC123
May 4, 2021 9:35 am

The biggest problem with compuer models is having to adjust all the historical data to match the models.

Last edited 3 days ago by ferdberple
Alan the Brit
Reply to  ScienceABC123
May 4, 2021 9:59 am

Well, I remember the late 1970sto early 1980s, (& beyond) when computer models convinced millions that weird & wonderful creatures could fly through galaxies far, far, away, in equally weird & wonderful space ships, in the Star Wars series! Then again in the early 1990s we were all convinced that long extinct dinosaurs could once again in Jurassic Park +++ movies, & wreak havoc upon mankind from beyond extinction!!! Puter models are brilliant & infallible, they can produce any result/output the programmer wants them to produce, & we’re supposed to believe them, (or not), I still say where the UK Wet Office are concerned, they can predict what the climate is going to do a century into the future, but can’t get the weather forecast right more than 3-5 days ahead!!!! AND nobody tell me I’m confusing climate with weather, climate is a series of weather patterns taking place over a protracted period of time (arbitrarily set by the modellers)!!! How’s the potential grand solar minimum doing so far???

Petit_Barde
Reply to  ScienceABC123
May 4, 2021 10:59 am

And the biggest problem with climate computer models is that they are made by crooks and charlatans.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  ScienceABC123
May 4, 2021 11:37 am

No, I disagree…the biggest problem is manipulating the data to agree with the model in such a way as to obfuscate the changes.

Oldseadog
May 4, 2021 7:18 am

” …… ignores everything that doesn’t fit their own idea.”

IOW, normal CAGW “science”.

May 4, 2021 7:20 am

Read PIK and whistle buoy Rahmstorf and stopped reading, even if he didn’t participate writing that paper.

Dave Andrews
May 4, 2021 7:22 am

Ah; the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research aka as PIK. Have’nt they got form in this type of climatastrophy research?

Richard Page
Reply to  Dave Andrews
May 4, 2021 3:45 pm

Plenty of form. In fact I have yet to see anything they have produced that hasn’t been slammed by all sides. They seem to be producing climate propaganda purely for the extreme climate activists; they’ve given up even the pretence of scientific enquiry.

sailor76
May 4, 2021 7:30 am

If you program your software that under certain circumstances the result of SLR will be 3 meters, then when you assume those circumstances will/might occur in the not too distant future, the result of your computer model run, when assigning those circumstances to the required input variables of your computer program (which of course will have been subjected to a quality assurance evaluation by other academics, just to be sure), will be 3 meters of SLR. Voila, prediction validated with simulated computer model run. That was easy!

Editor
May 4, 2021 7:35 am

A couple of translations for our readers:

Die kalte Sonne” means “The Cold Sun” and is also the title of a book climate skeptic book. Published in English as “The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe”  by Fritz Vahrenholt & Sebastian Luning.

“with the PIK penmanship on it” (we might say “with the PIK imprint on it” in American English) refers to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, a major source of climate alarm research.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 3:19 am

a major source of climate alarm research.
a major source of climate alarm propaganda.

Climate believer
May 4, 2021 7:42 am

Antarctica added a million km² (386,000 mi²) in 12 days to it’s sea ice this year. Fastest expansion, for that time of year, since records began.

It’s still ruddy cold down there…..just saying.

Steve Z
May 4, 2021 9:26 am

Roser et al probably figured they could get away with ignoring contradictory data because very few people would travel to Antarctica to prove them wrong.

By the way, the Amundsen Sea temperature data look very stable prior to 2005–maybe there weren’t very many measurement sites before then?

As a side note, maybe we can believe in global warming when there are pine trees on Pine Island.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Steve Z
May 4, 2021 9:34 am

maybe we can believe in global warming when there are pine trees on Pine Island.”

+1,000

frankclimate
Reply to  Steve Z
May 4, 2021 11:23 am

The uppermost 100 m of the ocean temperatures ( also the Amundsen sea) were investigated by “Argo” since 2004. All the data points b4 this year are more or less “estimates”. Therefore one can see a brake in the dynamics. BUT: since this time we see a cooling trend there. This is the message.

Ferdberple
May 4, 2021 9:33 am

Ah, but you doubting thomases ignore the first rule of climate science. When the facts contradict the models, the models are right and the facts are wrong. Time to adjust the facts to match the models.

May 4, 2021 11:21 am

Jan de Rydt is a co-author on both the 2017 study and this one. Looks a bit odd to me.

Rusty
May 4, 2021 11:32 am

Don’t these academics perform a litrature search before they start their ‘research’?

Reply to  Rusty
May 4, 2021 12:13 pm

No, fearing to find s.th. opposing. 😀

Stephen Skinner
May 4, 2021 12:49 pm

The scientists fear that should the…Pine Island Glacier would retreat and trigger the collapse of the entire West Antarctic Ice Shelf, which in turn would mean a rapid global sea level rise of over three meters.”
Scientists directed by Michael Bay or Gerry Anderson?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
May 4, 2021 8:16 pm

Yes, it was called the Day After Tomorrow

Actually it wasn’t climate change. Dennis Quaid pounded a stake into the ice which then split off the entire west Antarctic ice sheet.

Just like real life
$2 wooden stake from Home Depot and there is New York under water

Cause and effect is a marvelous thing

Meisha
May 4, 2021 1:25 pm

Computer models…. Remember the computer models in “Limits To Growth” (1972) that purported to show the world was running out of all sorts of minerals and that agriculture would not keep up with population increases, etc., etc.? Those models couldn’t come close to modeling the nature of resource availability, extraction, and the economics that drive all of that. Those models were tinker-toy because no one had (or has) the necessary knowledge of the underlying reality (and possibly insufficient computing resources) to accurately model the outcomes.

Same today with climate or ice shelves or any other similarly complex phenomenon. How can climate scientists believe their models are meaningful? Don’t they KNOW that climate is non-stationary/ chaotic over at least centuries and that tuning models to fit a given history with a sufficient number of “parameters” is relatively trivial, guaranteed possible, and yet TOTALLY inadequate to predict the future?

It’s just stunning how delusional these people are — and everyone in the support system around them: funders, colleagues, publishers, media…

What will it take to disabuse climate scientists of the belief they know what they’re talking about when they act as though their models depict reality?

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Meisha
May 4, 2021 1:54 pm

What will it take to disabuse climate scientists of the belief they know what they’re talking about when they act as though their models depict reality?”

I think you’re asking the wrong question… we who still think as reasonable people, searching for truth amongst all these competing papers, are baffled why/how the Warmunist scientists are believed, and their research employed to support policy, when there is still so much uncertainty? But if you think this way, you don’t realize the cart is actually driving the horse. Politicians and bureaucrats of a certain stripe (both supported by a lazy but greedy popular media) have determined to take control of as much of the economy as possible, and fund “studies” that will support that ultimate goal, and since they fund the studies, only those studies that support Central Control of the world get funded, and all other lines of research are shut down. And if those other lines of study attract funding through any other means, those researchers are immediately denigrated and canceled, to silence any competing voices. Those “scientists” who produce research that gets funded are not necessarily stupid, after all they have figured out how to get funded, often lavishly. We need to look a little closer at Eisenhower’s farewell address, and see if he actually proposed any solutions to avoid the capturing of “Science” by the Military/Industrial Complex.

See, once you know the right question to ask, it all makes perfect sense.

H B
May 4, 2021 2:33 pm

The chart from climate explorer is labeled as 74 to 70 north not south

gdt
Reply to  H B
May 4, 2021 4:32 pm

-74 N. They also have -107 E. Their graphing software needs improving.

frankclimate
Reply to  H B
May 4, 2021 10:58 pm

No the coordinates are correct. The input of the fields in the “KNMI Climate Explorer” demands this format which is 70…74°S. 103…107 °W.

%d bloggers like this: