Neko Harbor Glacier calving at Andvord Bay on the Antarctic Peninsula in Antarctica.

Increased snowfall will offset sea level rise from melting Antarctic ice sheet

From PHYS.ORG

by University of Bristol

A new study predicts that any sea level rise in the world’s most southern continent will be countered by an increase in snowfall, associated with a warmer Polar atmosphere. Using modern methods to calculate projected changes to sea levels, researchers discovered that the two ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica respond differently, reflecting their very distinct local climates.

The paper, published today in Geophysical Research Letters, is based on the new generation of climate models which are used in the newly published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report, reviewing scientific, technical, and socio-economic information regarding climate change.

The project brought together over 60 researchers from 44 institutions to produce, for the first time, process-based community projections of the sea level rise from the ice sheets. This particular paper focusses on one aspect of the overall project which is how the new generation of climate model projections used in the current IPCC assessments differ from the early generation in their impact on the ice sheets.

Professor Tony Payne, Head of Bristol’s School of Geographical Sciences said the team were trying to establish whether the projected sea level rise from the new generation of climate models was different from the previous generation. “The new models generally predict more warming than the previous generation but we wanted to understand what this means for the ice sheets.” he said. “The increased warming of the new models results in more melt from the Greenland ice sheet and higher sea level rise by a factor of around 1.5 at 2100.

“There is little change, however, in projected sea level rise from the Antarctic ice sheet. This is because increased mass loss triggered by warmer oceans is countered by mass gain by increased snowfall which is associated with the warmer Polar atmosphere.”

Read the full article here

Link to paper

Abstract

Projections of the sea level contribution from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (GrIS and AIS) rely on atmospheric and oceanic drivers obtained from climate models. The Earth System Models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) generally project greater future warming compared with the previous Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) effort. Here we use four CMIP6 models and a selection of CMIP5 models to force multiple ice sheet models as part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). We find that the projected sea level contribution at 2100 from the ice sheet model ensemble under the CMIP6 scenarios falls within the CMIP5 range for the Antarctic ice sheet but is significantly increased for Greenland. Warmer atmosphere in CMIP6 models results in higher Greenland mass loss due to surface melt. For Antarctica, CMIP6 forcing is similar to CMIP5 and mass gain from increased snowfall counteracts increased loss due to ocean warming.

Plain Language Summary

The melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (GrIS and AIS) will result in higher sea level in the future. How sea level will change depends in part on how the atmosphere and ocean warm and how this affects the ice sheets. We use multiple ice sheet models to estimate possible future sea levels under climate scenarios from the models participating in the new Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6), which generally indicate a warmer world that the previous effort (CMIP5). Our results show that the possible future sea level change due Antarctica is similar for CMIP5 and CMIP6, but the warmer atmosphere in CMIP6 models leads to higher sea-level contributions from Greenland by the end of the century.

4.5 8 votes
Article Rating
134 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
August 20, 2021 6:06 am

Mo’ models?

Art Slartibartfast
August 20, 2021 6:20 am

Sorry, I stopped reading at ‘models’.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
August 20, 2021 7:03 am

#Metoo

August 20, 2021 6:24 am

More models. More excuses for model failures.

Duane
Reply to  ATheoK
August 20, 2021 8:41 am

It is not that models are by definition faulty. All of science and all of engineering are completely built around models. Nothing that humans produce today is not the result of somebody modeling something, or likely lots of somebodies modeling lots of things.

But there are accurate models, proven models, and useful models .. like the equations that govern gravity, and space-time, and precipitation and stream flows, and building bridges and buildings and aircraft that don’t fall down, and so on and so forth.

Then there are bullshit models, particularly models that are based upon assumptions and assertions that are doubtful and unproven,

Doonman
Reply to  Duane
August 20, 2021 10:57 am

It is not that models are by definition faulty.

Yes, it is. You cannot model chaotic behavior because you cannot establish starting conditions accurately. This has been known for decades (the butterfly effect) and new models do nothing to change that.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Doonman
August 20, 2021 2:00 pm

But the models that apply to building bridges are not “chaotic”, they are long term proven, beginning with the Roman Empire. Many of which are still standing today.

Whereas the models that apply to CC are totally chaotic.

Duane
Reply to  Doonman
August 20, 2021 6:12 pm

Chaos can be modeled, obviously, unless you are totally ignorant of the laws of thermodynamics and physics, which govern all machines ever built by humans.

Climate is no more chaotic than any other natural system. But climate is extremely difficult to model accurately because it is complex with lots of interactions and feedbacks that are not yet well understood.

In the world of engineering, if a given process is not well understood fundamentally and theoretically, then engineers invent empirical models, parametric models, and/or thumb rules that can be used with reasonable accuracy to predict system behavior ..while the users of such models and thumb rules admit that scientists and engineers do not yet have useful fundamental models available

The problem with most climate models used by the warmunistas is the hubris they employ to mask their cluelessness of how to fundamentally model earth’s complex climate system. They end up “faking it” by claiming model fidelity that simply does not exist.

The bottom line is that models are essential for any scientific or engineering undertaking, but the existing limitations of model fidelity must be well understood and taken into account. GIGO – garbage in equals garbage out.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Duane
August 20, 2021 1:50 pm

The useful models are “proven” by verification, and by providing correct predictions. But most modelers are also pretty skeptical of their models, and new ones – trust but verify.

Duane
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 21, 2021 5:32 am

Engineer’s nearly always fall back, in the face of fundamental and theoretical uncertainty, on “safety factors”. The advancement of engineering science is reflected in the magnitude of the safety factor … the better we understand the science, the smaller the safety factor, and the more efficient the engineering design.

Thus, 5 thousand years ago, engineers designed and built pyramids … while today Engineers design and build tall slender impossible looking towers and bridges.

Reply to  Duane
August 20, 2021 8:13 pm

The alarmist’s favorite climate models and ones they modify for their own use are never revisited and corrected.

If my model(s) forecast such egregious results, I had hours to days to “fix” the model or find other employment.

No such corrective effort is made in alarmist climate science.

If I had run several models hundreds of times than averaged the results, the bosses would’ve demoted me immediately. Even they knew that was misbehavior without any valid excuse.

If I filled in missing data or adjusted data, I would been turned over to the Inspectors for investigation. There are Federal laws forbidding changing data or creating false data.
The NOAA’s Inspector General is apparently complicit.

Chakra
Reply to  Duane
August 20, 2021 8:22 pm

Engg models are tested against the real thing. That is why some very conventional things like cars are always road tested.

But Climate models cannot be tested & cross checked. Only thing that can be done is to do long term prediction & then cross check. AFAIK, all such forecasts are good for 4-7 days at max. No long term forecast is possible.

That shows that these models are just useless at this moment. they may change for better in future, though.

alf
August 20, 2021 6:25 am

I thought that the Antarctic ice sheets had been loosing mass due to global warming. Can’t they make up their minds.

philincalifornia
Reply to  alf
August 20, 2021 7:41 am

losing ??

MarkW
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 20, 2021 10:01 am

Obviously, the ice sheets get looser, then slide into the oceans.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  alf
August 20, 2021 10:05 am

Nope. Most of Antarctica is gaining mass and the temp. has dropped 2 degrees C since 1979.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
August 20, 2021 11:20 am

“Most of Antarctica is gaining mass………….”.

No it isn’t

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/2018/06/mass-balance-antarctic-ice-sheet-1992-2017/

http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/IMBIE-team-2018-figure-2.jpg

“……….and the temp. has dropped 2 degrees C since 1979”.

And no it hasn’t
comment image
comment image?ssl=1
comment image

Last edited 30 days ago by Anthony Banton
Enough Canuck already
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 20, 2021 1:58 pm

pretty soon it will be warm enough to use MM’s Hockey Stick!

Loydo
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 21, 2021 1:09 am

Down-voted for refuting and correcting an ignorant arm-waver using graphs and data. Ignorant arm-waver gets the thumbs up. Through the Looking Glass at WUWT.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
August 21, 2021 10:29 am

As always, you see what you want to see.

Matthew Sykes
August 20, 2021 6:37 am

Do we really care about sea level rise? OK, cities are at risk, but they are wealthy, the rest of us? Bangladesh and the Maldives are growing, to forget about those two.

Anyone who lives only a meter or so above the highest tide is already having problems unless they live in an incredibly wind and wave free part of the world, because in the UK for example, pretty much every winter your house would be trashed by storms.

But you know, with increased rain fall we might regain those huge lakes in the Sahara, like it was in the Holocene Climatic Optimum, I wonder how much water thy can store?

Steve Z
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
August 20, 2021 8:38 am

Sea levels have been consistently rising at about 2 to 3 mm/year (depending on location and subsidence rates) since about 1850 or so, and it’s a very slow process.

Most of New Orleans is actually below sea level, but it’s surrounded by levees to keep the ocean and the Mississippi River out, which have worked well most of the time (except during Hurricane Katrina, now 16 years ago). People have been reclaiming land from the sea in Holland and Belgium (the so-called Low Countries) using dikes for centuries, and nobody seems to be fleeing that land now. There are also large, flat sandy areas along the west coast of France (in Vendee province) where people build low berms that trap a shallow amount of sea water at high tide, then let the sun evaporate the water at low tide, and the salt left behind is gathered and sold.

The point is that people living along the coast can adapt to changing sea level, and since the process is so slow, they have many years to make the adaptation, which is far cheaper than depriving everyone (including those living on higher ground) of the benefits of energy from fossil fuels.

Reply to  Steve Z
August 20, 2021 9:59 am

Except for polar regions, where land continues to rebound from the last glaciation.

spangled drongo
Reply to  Steve Z
August 20, 2021 6:59 pm

Except for the Pacific Ocean where coral atolls are getting bigger and that Mean Sea Level gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour is showing over an inch LOWER in the latest [July 2021] reading than the first reading [May 1914]107 years ago:

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

Reply to  Steve Z
August 20, 2021 8:54 pm

Most of New Orleans is actually below sea level,”

Not quite. Portions of New Orleans are below sea level and they’re going lower.

Those places were filled bayous or dumps. As the organic matter is consumed by bacteria and other small critters or oxidized, the filled land drops in altitude.

I lived near Lake Pontchartrain in an area lower than sea level. But, not far away were neighborhoods that are above sea level. They were built on land above the waterline since Europeans arrived there.
Technically, my house was built on filled dumps. Streets not far away were built on filled in bayous.

e.g. Most of the French Quarter is above sea level. The nearby Intracoastal Canal is technically sea level, but very high water can top the levees and flood the French Quarter.
The same goes for neighborhoods built along the Mississippi River. It isn’t sea level that’s the problem. Its that most of the original land in New Orleans is not far above sea level. When the Mississippi River floods and tops the levees, those neighborhoods will flood, yet they are not below sea level.

Just as many thousands of acres further north along the Mississippi River are flooded when excessive rains occur.
All are floods that have happened since man started living near the Mississippi Delta.

Or perhaps one should ask the crabber who became Mayor of Tangier Island?

Daily Caller: Al Gore was challenged on climate science Tuesday night when the mayor of Tangier Island, a community threatened by coastal erosion, told the environmentalist film producer he hadn’t seen the sea level change since he began his first career as a commercial crabber in 1970.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfARQaVWsI (Video disappeared by youtube).

“Gore was taking questions from the audience at a CNN town hall with Anderson Cooper when the fisherman and Tangier Island mayor James Eskridge refuted Gore’s assertion that rising sea levels were endangering coastal communities.

“I’m a commercial crabber and I’ve been working the Chesapeake Bay for 50+ years. I have a crab house business out on the water and the water level is the same as it was when the place was built in 1970,” Eskridge said. “I’m not a scientist, but I am a keen observer and if sea level rises are occurring, why am I not seeing signs of it?”

The crabber said he worked inches over the water for decades and he had not noticed any significant change in sea levels.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
August 20, 2021 8:44 am

At the current minuscule rate of SLR most folks don’t even notice from one decade to the next. Coastal subsidence is another story but the Dutch showed us how to deal with that a few hundred years ago.

A late season hurricane or wicked Nor’easter could do a fair amount of damage to Casa Obama, an opportunity for schadenfreude…. But such a storm would have absolutely nothing to do with SLR or Global Warming.

It would be grand to see those huge lakes i the Sahara. I would absolutely fly down for a visit!

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
August 20, 2021 10:06 am

Raise the Caspian to regular sea level and lose an inch height from the world’s oceans; and Baku…

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
August 20, 2021 3:03 pm

Refill the Aral Sea
comment image

PCman999
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
August 20, 2021 7:00 pm

Right! Why does the whole world have to impoverish itself in the vain attempt to stop the sea from splashing the cities on the coast? It would be cheaper and more effective for those vulnerable places to build sea walls, dykes, or even retreat from the shoreline. At the rate of less than at worst 30cm per 100 years they’d better get cracking or else they’ll be taking business away from Venice!
/s

August 20, 2021 6:55 am

When I read that a WW2-era plane was discovered a few years ago on Greenland, under 300 feet of ice, I stopped worrying about seasonal ice melt there causing any significant rise in sea level.

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Dave
August 20, 2021 8:59 am

That would be one of the “Lost Squadron” planes,  a group of six P-38 Lightnings and two B-17 Flying Fortresses forced down in a Greenland blizzard on July 15, 1942. 
One (named Glacier Girl) was removed in 1992. A more recent find (2011) is named “Echo.”

MarkW
Reply to  Dave
August 20, 2021 10:04 am

The fact that the planes were found under 300 feet of ice is not evidence that the glaciers are 300 feet higher.
The way glaciers work is that snow falls on the top, gets compressed, and then exits from the bottom.
Those planes have “sunk” 300 feet.

Reply to  MarkW
August 20, 2021 6:12 pm

Isn’t much of the interior of Greenland a “bowl” rimmed by mountains and not technically “glacial”? Where was the plane found?

MarkW
Reply to  Dave
August 21, 2021 10:33 am

If that were the case, since there is no significant melting in that area, then the build up of ice over the last 70 years would be a lot more than 300 feet.
Greenland is a bowl because the weight of the ice has depressed the central area to a point where it is actually below sea level. There are mountains there, but they don’t form a complete, impenetrable ring.

Ed Zuiderwijk
August 20, 2021 7:03 am

That ‘warmer polar atmosphere’ belies the actual data which show that over the past 50 years east Antarctica has cooled by 2 degrees.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 20, 2021 11:22 am

Citation please …….
comment image
comment image?ssl=1
comment image

Last edited 30 days ago by Anthony Banton
Steve Case
August 20, 2021 7:03 am

“The increased warming of the new models results in more melt from the Greenland ice sheet and higher sea level rise by a factor of around 1.5 at 2100.

Groan – Greenland has an ice sheet because it rarely gets above freezing. It doesn’t really melt very much or very often, just a few places for a few days in July and August:

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/files/2013/08/Fig1_greenland_melt_21Jul19Aug1-350×525.png

Ice gain or loss is a function of snow fall in the interior and calving of icebergs around the perimeter. But we will be treated to more images of Windex colored streams pouring down moulins accompanied with breathless descriptions of how the place is melting and how that’s a problem blah blah blah.

Sea level has been rising since the early 19th century when the first tide gauges began keeping records and probably for a long time before that. The water has to be coming from somewhere, and the receding ice caps, ice sheets and glaciers (they’ve been receding since the end of the last ice age) are a good bet for that, and the increase of CO2 in the last 60 years isn’t the reason.

Project phase 6 (CMIP6), which generally indicate a warmer world that the previous effort (CMIP5). 

That’s a surprise the new models indicate more warming than the previous models. In other news the sun will rise in the east.

Last edited 30 days ago by Steve Case
philincalifornia
Reply to  Steve Case
August 20, 2021 7:28 am

Good post – it answered a couple of questions that I had.

I would also add that, in addition to the sun rising in the East, there will be a cat stuck up a tree today at multiple locations on the planet too.

Steve Case
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 20, 2021 7:59 am

Thanks for the encouragement. There are three points:

Sea level is and has been rising for a long time.

There is some acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, about 0.01mm/yr².

The Increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 20, 2021 8:35 am

Probably one of my cats if the door is left open….

hiskorr
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
August 20, 2021 9:25 am

It should be noted that the number of cat skeletons found in tree branches is vanishingly small.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Steve Case
August 20, 2021 9:17 am

Hasn’t there been a couple of crappy Sci-Fi movies in the last 20 years or thereabouts, where ‘A’, the Sun was warming & space scientifcky peeps had to travel through space to launch some nuclear bomb to stop the warming, then ‘B’ a couple of years later another movie claimed the Sun was shutting down, (can’t remember if it was all Western Free-Enterprise Capitalists fault, but it usually was for some bizarre reason), they had to “re-start” the Sun up again using a nuclear bomb……yet again??? I’ve never yet heard & or seen a movie where Socialism/Communism caused any problem or controversy whatsoever!!! Strange that, clearly Socialism/Communism is infallible, perfect, never ever causes a problem/issue anywhere in the World!!! That Karl Marx & his buddy Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov, or better known as Vladimir Lenin to his Marxist devotees, they certainly knew how to provide copious amounts of Bovine Faecal information, & they all came from wealthy middle-class well educated backgrounds, Lenin (father elevated to the Russian Aristocracy), Stalin – well educated middle-class, Hitler again well educated middle-class background – Chairman Mao, well educated middle-class, Pol-Pot, studied in Paris therefore definitely from a wealthy middle-class background!!! Why do they feel so much hatred towards mankind & the system that supplied them with said wealth & education, to bully & manipulate & control their fellow Human Beens??? Oh I guess it’s their psychological dystopian mental illness where they MUST have control over other people, that almighty power they seek, the POWER of LIFE OVER DEATH!!! They are just such cuties, so kind & caring, & thoughtful about their fellow Human beings!!! AND LOOK, if the eco-bunnies are allowed to claim with un-fettered assurances, that anyone who questions manmade globul warming has a mental illness (Goerballs, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol-Pot would love you), I can make similar absurd claims, err isn’t that sort of fair??? I am still waiting to hear from Griffy-baby et al to tell me how much Albert Gore & Barrack Obama et al are spending squillions of $$$$$ on sea defences to protect their muli-million dollar sea-front retirement (taxpayer-funded somewhere down the line) homes??? HAGWE peeps!!! AtB.

Steve Case
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 20, 2021 9:37 am

Not overstated in the least, but you seemed to be squeamish about spelling out bullshit. Eyeroll (@@)

DHR
Reply to  Steve Case
August 20, 2021 2:13 pm

“…and probably for a long time before that.” Indeed. In “A Search for Scale in Sea-Level Studies” by Larsen and Clark of the USGS it is concluded that based on studies of peat bogs and sediments, sea level has risen at a rate of somewhere between 1 and 2 mm/yr for the past several thousand years. See Journal of Coastal Research, 22 4 788-800, July 2006

Coach Springer
August 20, 2021 7:04 am

I didn’t read the article. I thought we knew that 20 years ago.

H.R.
Reply to  Coach Springer
August 20, 2021 7:14 pm

Fair enough, Coach.

The latest scream-like-a-little-girl over 0.0000001 mm change in sea level rise tends to support your attitude.

Bruce Cobb
August 20, 2021 7:12 am

They are throwing SLR under the bus because 1) It doesn’t really frighten people much, so isn’t very useful, and 2) It makes them appear “balanced”. Just as long as the Globalist Warming narrative keeps going.

rbabcock
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 20, 2021 7:26 am

How about the coming snows that will last throughout the summer in the northern latitudes and higher mountain ranges (not just Antarctica)? My “modern” model has the “real” ice age starting November 3, 2022. There will be one of those rivers of moisture flood up from Hawaii, over southern BC into far Northern Canada that will last most of the winter. So much snow will fall ocean levels will drop 10mm over four months and we are off and running.

I would produce my model’s code and post it here for verification but it is written in BASIC and runs on Windows 3.1, which obviously no climate scientist worth their salt would understand. There also aren’t any computers left which runs Windows 3.1.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  rbabcock
August 20, 2021 8:14 am

We kept our first computer, for sentimental resons. Pretty sure it runs on Dunkin’.

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 20, 2021 9:01 am

I have a VIC-20. Maybe it will run that code!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  John F Hultquist
August 20, 2021 9:08 am

A VIC-20! Holy dinosaur Batman!
(Now I’ve dated myself twice!)

MarkW
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 20, 2021 10:08 am

I believe dating yourself has recently become legal in New York.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  MarkW
August 20, 2021 11:03 am

I don’t care who you are, that there was funny!

Reply to  MarkW
August 20, 2021 2:48 pm

And will be obligatory from 02 January 2023, I gather.

Auto

H.R.
Reply to  auto
August 20, 2021 7:17 pm

I love me, I think I’m grand.
I sit in the movies and hold my hand.
I put my arms around my waist.
and if I get fresh I slap my face!

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 20, 2021 8:37 am

SLR sort of stopped being scary a good 15 years ago when none of the dire predictions came to be. Then Obama bought that estate just above the high tide line, not to mention the other celebs who also bought ocean front property.

Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
August 20, 2021 9:08 pm

When climastrologists begin whining about Henri destroying house Obama and drowning Secret Service agents outside, remind them that Obama promised his first year in office, was when the seas stopped rising.

Ron Long
August 20, 2021 7:29 am

“…warmer Polar atmosphere”. What a hoot! All-time earth minimum temperature: -89.6 deg C. More snow? Bring it. Sea level rise? Don’t wait for it. Next.

fretslider
August 20, 2021 7:44 am

Lingo bingo and word salad.

Plain Language Summary
They haven’t a clue and here’s why:

Using modern methods… based on the new generation of climate models which are used in the newly published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report.

Well, that’s just about wraps it up for that effort.

If your car was missing a wheel would you continue to drive it?

Last edited 30 days ago by fretslider
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  fretslider
August 20, 2021 12:46 pm

If your car was missing a wheel would you continue to drive it?

Absolutely. My car has five wheels, one is a spare. It runs perfectly well with just four.

fretslider
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 20, 2021 1:07 pm

Pray you don’t get a flat then – that would be funny

H.R.
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 20, 2021 7:20 pm

Spoilsport.

BTW, the triangular wheel was a great technological leap over the square wheel. It eliminated one bump.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  H.R.
August 20, 2021 9:25 pm

Yes, it eliminated one bump but, sadly, it ended up with a rougher ride.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Rory Forbes
August 21, 2021 4:19 am

We considered it the ultimate performance back then but there came the string theorists and doubled down.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rainer Bensch
August 21, 2021 10:04 am

🙂

Ossqss
August 20, 2021 8:07 am

Does anyone remember when Chicago was buried under thousands of feet of ice and when it melted the Great Lakes were formed several thousand years ago?

Laurentide Ice Sheet – Wikipedia

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Ossqss
August 20, 2021 9:03 am

Well, I remember it. I was there, but Chicago wasn’t.

H.R.
Reply to  John F Hultquist
August 20, 2021 7:30 pm

Oh, I remember that, John. We had great fun making sno-cones. Yum!

We were really cheesed off when it all began to melt. I suppose that’s why the CAGW alarmists have their panties in a wad; no more sno-cones. Waaaahhh!!

Andy Pattullo
August 20, 2021 8:15 am

Not science, just fantasy. Let me know when the validated models role out.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
August 20, 2021 9:21 am

I don’t think at 63 I will live that long, might as well ask Walt Disney when he’s woken up!!!

Duane
August 20, 2021 8:37 am

What, you mean the earth’s climate cannot be modeled by a simple formula?

That has always been one of the achilles heels of the warmunistas, their insistence that the only thing that controls climate is CO2, and that there are no negative feedbacks due to a warming atmosphere.

And all these ignorant doofuses claim to “believe in science” and who call all of us who call bullshit on their “science” are “science deniers”.

The earth is an extremely complex system of systems, and is generally stable except over very long geological timescales. There is never a single thing that controls everything.

fretslider
Reply to  Duane
August 20, 2021 8:50 am

They “believe”

For my money that’s the problem

Kpar
Reply to  fretslider
August 21, 2021 12:21 pm

And “they believe” that “your money” is the solution.

Gordon A. Dressler
August 20, 2021 8:38 am

The title of the above article:
“Increased snowfall will offset sea level rise from melting Antarctic ice sheet.”

Here’s the thing: the Antarctic ice sheet is, on balance, not melting.

From the abstract of Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses, Zwally, et. al., Journal of Glaciology [2015] (free download available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290456405_Mass_gains_of_the_Antarctic_ice_sheet_exceed_losses):
“Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992–2001) give a similar gain of 112 ± 61 Gt a–1. Gains of 136 Gt a–1in East Antarctica (EA) and 72 Gt a–1in four drainage systems (WA2)in West Antarctic (WA) exceed losses of 97 Gt a–1from three coastal drainage systems (WA1) and 29 Gt a–1 from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP). EA dynamic thickening of 147 Gt a–1 is a continuing response to increased accumulation (>50%) since the early Holocene. Recent accumulation loss of 11 Gt a–1in EA indicates thickening is not from contemporaneous snowfall increases. Similarly, the WA2 gain is mainly (60 Gt a–1) dynamic thickening. In WA1 and the AP, increased losses of 66 ± 16 Gt a–1 from increased dynamic thinning from accelerating glaciers are 50% offset by greater WA snowfall. The decadal increase in dynamic thinning in WA1 and the AP is approximately one-third of the long-term dynamic thickening in EA and WA2, which should buffer additional dynamic thinning for decades.”

Therefore, the above-referenced WUWT article quoting “researchers”(?) from the University of Bristol, touting the results of “the new generation of climate models” merits classification as the logical fallacy of a strawman argument.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 20, 2021 11:29 am

“Here’s the thing: the Antarctic ice sheet is, on balance, not melting.
From the abstract of Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses, Zwally, et. al., Journal of Glaciology [2015] (free download available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290456405_Mass_gains_of_the_Antarctic_ice_sheet_exceed_losses):”

This study done 2 years later says different ….

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/2018/06/mass-balance-antarctic-ice-sheet-1992-2017/

The Antarctic Ice Sheet is an important indicator of climate change and driver of sea-level rise. Here we combine satellite observations of its changing volume, flow and gravitational attraction with modelling of its surface mass balance to show that it lost 2,720 ± 1,390 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017, which corresponds to an increase in mean sea level of 7.6 ± 3.9 millimetres (errors are one standard deviation).”

http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/IMBIE-team-2018-figure-2.jpg

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 20, 2021 2:01 pm

Surely these “experts” need to get together and agree on their results. Repeated disagreement does not help their cause – why not call in Mickey Mann to resolve things?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 20, 2021 4:26 pm

Anthony Banton, you claimed “This study done 2 years later says different ….”

Well of course it does! Please take the time to notice that in YOUR posted excerpt there is this: “Here we combine satellite observations . . . with modelling of its surface mass balance . . .” (my underlining emphasis added).

In comparison, the excerpt from the scientific paper by Zwally, et.al. [2015] made no mentioning of modelling surface mass balance. See the difference?

It’s not at all surprising to me that the “scientists” fronting the AGW/CAGW meme took only two years to create models that could reverse the trend in hard data (i.e., ice mass measurements derived from two different satellite systems).

They could not let that data stand on its own without some “adjustments”. Not the first time we’ve seen such antics, and this surely isn’t the last time for such.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 20, 2021 5:53 pm

Don’t any of you people know the difference between projections and predictions or between evidence and fantasy?

Tom in Florida
August 20, 2021 8:47 am

I’ve had an RTI for a week so maybe my mind is playing tricks on me, but, please someone explain how increased snowfall “offsets” sea level rise? How does that work? Are they implying that the increased snowfall will come from water evaporated from the sea which will reduce sea level rise in an equal amount?
BTW, I am vaccinated with Moderna and had both the rapid and lab COVID tests this week. Both were negative as was a test for regular influenza.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 20, 2021 9:16 am

Upper respiratory tract infections are listed among the various adverse events (“AE”, aka adverse reactions) for persons receiving one of the current COVID-19 vaccines, based on the December 2020 database of VAERS.

Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8177815/ (Table 2)

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 20, 2021 9:54 am

I had the vaccines back in March and April. The Dec 2020 data is probably outdated by now.

But you didn’t answer my questions.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 20, 2021 11:48 am

Your mind may still be “playing tricks on you”. You appear to have offered a reasonable-but-partial explanation for your own question.

To the extent that snowfall, which largely comes from evaporated sea water, falls on the Antarctic ice sheet portion that is resting on land (that is, is not floating on water) it will be a mechanism for net removal of ocean water, which necessarily partially offsets (i.e., reduces) SLR arising from all other causes . . . for example, thermal expansion of the world’s oceans.

As I previously posted, satellite data indicates that the annual rate of snowfall/ice accumulation on the Antarctic ice sheet exceeds the annual rate of ice sheet melting, leading in turn to a mechanism for decreasing global SLR rates.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 20, 2021 2:04 pm

You expect us just to believe that? Surely you can prove it with modelling?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mike Lowe
August 20, 2021 8:55 pm

If not modeling, one could always fall back to one of the old standards, like reading the bones or studying poultry entrails 🙂

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 20, 2021 12:52 pm

please someone explain how increased snowfall “offsets” sea level rise?

Basically what they are claiming is that Global Warming ™ is still a problem, but Antarctica will not lose any ice because something, something. It’s all hand-waving modelling of bovine scat.

It’s just a pre-written excuse for the fact that Antarctica won’t lose any ice, so they can still claim that CAGW is actually happening when all of the predicted catastrophic events don’t actually occur.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 20, 2021 8:57 pm

I was thinking the same thing. They all know it’s cooling and they’re setting themselves up to make the conversion, while still flogging human caused “climate change”.

fretslider
August 20, 2021 8:57 am

I bet their model doesn’t include geothermal activity beneath West Antarctica

Steve Z
August 20, 2021 9:25 am

Have any of these “experts” ever wondered why Greenland has a thick ice cap, while most of the neighboring Canadian archipelago and northern Russia is not glaciated (the snow melts in summer)?

There is a range of mountains just inland from most of the entire coast of Greenland over 2000 meters high, which surrounds a basin of somewhat lower land in central Greenland. The mountain tops are at such high altitude that the temperature there stays below freezing even in summer, and any storms over the neighboring ocean (especially along the east coast) drop their moisture in the form of snow. The top of the ice sheet is at such a high altitude that there is very little summer melting, and any water that does melt seeps through crevasses to the basin below, forming lakes below the ice, that are trapped in the basin and cannot flow into the sea.

On the other hand, the Canadian archipelago and the northern coast of Russia are at relatively low altitude for hundreds of miles inland. Any snow-free land has a low albedo and can absorb heat from the sun during spring and summer, and the warm air spreads from south to north, eventually melting most of the snow by early summer, and meltwater flows into the Arctic and Hudson Bay through rivers. The summers along the Arctic coast are mild enough that some storms will produce rain instead of snow.

The Arctic Ocean is a polar ocean mostly surrounded by land, and its widest opening to the sea is the North Atlantic between Greenland and Scandinavia, through which a warm current flows in from the southwest, which remains ice-free most of the year. The water can flow out of the Arctic via cold currents through the Bering Strait and the sea between Labrador and Baffin Island.

Antarctica is a polar continent completely surrounded by ocean, where strong winds flow in a circle from west to east, and there are no warm currents that can flow toward the South Pole. The surrounding Southern Ocean always has a high albedo even when it is ice-free, so that it is not very warm even in summer. The coast of East Antarctica is almost uniformly at about 70 degrees south latitude, and most of West Antarctica is at even higher latitudes (except for the Antarctic Peninsula), so that most precipitation there is in the form of snow.

Does anyone seriously believe that a little extra CO2 in the air can cause any serious melting of the Antarctic ice cap, with so many natural factors acting against it?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Steve Z
August 20, 2021 12:55 pm

Does anyone seriously believe that a little extra CO2 in the air can cause any serious melting of the Antarctic ice cap, with so many natural factors acting against it?

Unfortunately, yes, a lot of gullible people believe this.

griff
August 20, 2021 9:35 am

Hmmm. Today we learn of an unprecedented rainfall event at 10,000 ft up the Greenland ice cap and above zero temps there… following one of 3 highest one day melts and record temperatures set on W coast of Greenland.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2021 10:12 am

What you consider to be unprecedented, never is.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2021 10:15 am

According to the Vikings, that is what made it lush and, er, green

Do you have any data for, say, 985 AD to 1450 AD?

Please share it.

Mr.
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2021 11:57 am

“There is no previous report of rainfall at this location”

Would that be because it’s not that unusual, and / or rainfall can turn to sleet, then to snow, and vice-versa all in the same precipitation event?

Honestly Griff, do you ever go outdoors and OBSERVE first-hand the hourly / daily / weekly weather effects that occur continuously?

Or do you just hunker down indoors and curl up into the fetal position from reading climate doom p0rn on the internet?

Help is available.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2021 12:07 pm

Ah your ‘consensus science’ again is it, Griffy? I’d be very, very careful if I were you – after all a consensus of experts recently told Biden that the Afghan government would hold against the Taliban for at least the rest of the year.

garboard
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2021 5:26 pm

try googling history and dynamics of the Greenland Ice sheet .excellent non ideological summation of ice on Greenland. much less during the holocene optimum , reached its max during the little ice age 150 years ago , underwent rapid melting in the 30’s similar to current melting. the whole article is worth a read

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2021 8:59 pm

Have you still not learned the difference between climate, weather and natural variation?

Kpar
Reply to  griff
August 21, 2021 12:29 pm

A few years back, I read of a large melting event in Greenland. The report said of the event that it was unprecedented, and only happened every 600 years or so.

So which was it? Unprecedented or six hundred years?

I get so confused… or is that amused?

griff
August 20, 2021 9:36 am

On August 14, 2021, rain was observed at the highest point on the Greenland Ice Sheet for several hours, and air temperatures remained above freezing for about nine hours. This was the third time in less than a decade, and the latest date in the year on record, that the National Science Foundation’s Summit Station had above-freezing temperatures and wet snow. There is no previous report of rainfall at this location (72.58°N 38.46°W), which reaches 3,216 meters (10,551 feet) in elevation. Earlier melt events in the instrumental record occurred in 1995, 2012, and 2019; prior to those events, melting is inferred from ice cores to have been absent since an event in the late 1800s. The cause of the melting event that took place from August 14 to 16, 2021, was similar to the events that occurred this late July, where a strong low pressure center over Baffin Island and high air pressure southeast of Greenland conspired to push warm air and moisture rapidly from the south.’

Greenland Ice Sheet Today | Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2021 10:13 am

Of course the “record” only goes back a couple of decades. But what the heck, that’s good enough for climate science.

fretslider
Reply to  MarkW
August 20, 2021 10:18 am

If you are sceptical weather is not climate

If you believe then climate is weather

Simply Orwellian.

Reply to  fretslider
August 21, 2021 10:11 pm

Climate is weather – but only if the weather is warm.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  MarkW
August 20, 2021 11:34 am
TonyG
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 20, 2021 12:19 pm

How old is Greenland?

Rich Davis
Reply to  TonyG
August 20, 2021 7:53 pm

I can’t imagine it’s more than 5 or 6 decades old. The Vikings were there in the 60s I’m pretty sure. Admittedly we only have data back to the 80s. But it’s UNPRECEDENTED in four whole decades. We’re doomed, DOOMED I tells ya!

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 20, 2021 12:51 pm

Even if true, still at least 200 years too short to make any kind of definitive statements regarding what is “normal” or unprecedented for that area.

Last edited 30 days ago by MarkW
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 20, 2021 9:05 pm

You need to avoid posting until you learn a few science conventions … like not mixing observed data, proxy data and modeled output to find anything scientifically meaningful. You were schooled earlier on that. Also learn to take anything from NOAA, NSIDC or NASA/GISS with a large grain of salt and check any of their news releases with (at the very least) someone from this site.

icisil
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2021 11:59 am

Now tell us about Greenland’s surface mass balance being well above the 30year mean for most of this summer.and the anomalously high spike in late May (unprecedented!) that went off the chart it was so high..

http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20210819.png

http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

Last edited 30 days ago by icisil
Loydo
Reply to  icisil
August 21, 2021 1:31 am

Here is graph of the net change – the Total Mass Balance which includes the losses from calving and melting from the fringes of Greenland. Notice anything?
comment image

https://arctic.noaa.gov/

Last edited 29 days ago by Loydo
MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
August 21, 2021 10:39 am

I notice that the record is too short to tell us anything meaningful.

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
August 21, 2021 11:40 am

Didn’t you know that Greenland didn’t exist before 2002?

icisil
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2021 2:28 pm

What is melt extent? I can’t find it defined anywhere. Is this another one of NSIDC’s bullshit metrics that makes it look like they are doing something useful?

rbabcock
Reply to  icisil
August 20, 2021 3:06 pm

Doesn’t look like the net melt vs net accumulation was biased toward melting this season. http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_map_LA_acc_EN_20210819.png

garboard
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2021 5:37 pm

try googling ; history and dynamics of Greenland Ice sheet . good non ideological summary ; less ice during the holocene optimum , max extent during the little ice age , rapid melting similar to present in the 1930’s

MarkW
August 20, 2021 9:59 am

So they have finally realized that warmer oceans mean more evaporation.
Now we just need to wait for them to figure out that more evaporation means more heat being taken out of the oceans.
BTW, just how much more evaporation does warming the oceans by 0.03C cause?

Reply to  MarkW
August 21, 2021 11:40 pm

And then they have to figure out what weather patterns cause ocean-effect snowfall in arctic regions

Mark Kaiser
August 20, 2021 10:21 am

First sentence of the article:

A new study predicts that any sea level rise in the world’s most southern continent will be countered by an increase in snowfall, associated with a warmer Polar atmosphere. 

From the plain language summary

The melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (GrIS and AIS) will result in higher sea level in the future….and….Our results show that the possible future sea level change due Antarctica is similar for CMIP5 and CMIP6

So they use fuzzy wording to hide the undesired results from the first sentence by combining Greenland melt with Antarctic melt in the Plain Language Summary.

Does CMIP5 and CMIP6 really say no SLR from Antarctic ice melt?

cerescokid
Reply to  Mark Kaiser
August 20, 2021 10:41 am

IPCC5 said 0.27 mm/yr for Antarctica which is precisely 1/5 the thickness of a US dime. IPCC6 had a couple of different numbers depending on chapter. In one I calculated 0.264 mm/yr, almost the same. The other chapter is slightly different. None of the numbers are significant.

Beyond the specific estimates, considering the size of Antarctica, it’s a bit much to have confidence in any numbers, given the variables and endless assumptions involved.

The hype and fear mongering in the press is completely divorced from the science. But what is new.

ThinkingScientist
August 20, 2021 11:14 am

I count 63 authors. My usual rule of thumb is that the quality and value of a published paper is inversely proportional to the number of authors once they exceed 3.

I note also Tamsin Edwards only managed 17th author. Shame she has gone full AGW (I know, I know, she has to get those grants in and pay the mortgage) but I do miss the days when she engaged enthusiastically at Bishophill and actually posed cogent arguments and joined in proper discussions.

Goodness, I am getting all sentimental about the good old days of climate change blogs. Next I’ll be reminiscing about carpet bombing the comments thread at RealClimate. You know you are over the target when you start taking flak and all that!

🙂

August 20, 2021 1:18 pm

Winter is coming

MarkW
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
August 20, 2021 5:11 pm

Not to Antarctica.

Vuk
August 20, 2021 1:47 pm

There is panic among climate caccalogists: Rain falls in Greenland ice cap for first time on record !“An umbrella, an umbrella! My kingdom for an umbrella!” cried Harald Bluetooth.

Gary Pearse
August 20, 2021 2:54 pm

Professor Tony Payne, Head of Bristol’s School of Geographical Sciences said: blah blah…

Tony, your ‘coffee grows in Brazil’ discipline must have skipped McKittrick’s gutting of Models here at WUWT the other day because of inappropriate use and tuning of the models you used. Yeah, I know the math was above your pay grade. So, here is a correction to your forecast:

The models are running too hot and the new one is even worse. The real outlook for Antarctica is for continued cooling. You could, quite competently, check for future destruction of Brazilian coffee plantations from Antarctic wintry blasts and scoop your geography colleagues.

The cooling will reduce your ‘calculated’ warming and snowing, but also reverse ice loss but only slightly. You see Tony, the average annual T there is -56°C, so even at a blistering 2°C of warming a a century, it would take over 20 centuries before we had to start worrying too much, and remember it’s been iced up for 36 million years! No. No, really.

Now, add cooling in light of this, to Greenland, and cooling to the oceans and both sealevel and CO2 will go down!

This is a good time to get back into coffee in Brazil and Bully Beef in Argentina, Tony. We’ve reached Peak Climate Scientist and the tipping point for their services is in the offing.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 20, 2021 8:00 pm

Betting on peak stupid is a fool’s errand.

Enthalpy
August 20, 2021 2:57 pm

Who needs a model – ice, water, water vapor, are the three phases of the earth’s climate control system.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 20, 2021 9:19 pm

AGW true believers use sea ice an “ice sheet” interchangeably, to best effect, when defrauding the general public. It’s rather like their insistence on confusing weather and climate as it suits their narrative. They only use measured data when it favorably follows that same narrative, otherwise it’s models all the way down.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
August 21, 2021 6:12 am

Did you read that Griff?

You must have missed this

“As a result the 2021 net run off is below average as of this post”

Reply to  griff
August 22, 2021 3:32 pm

The Arctic sea ice mean for July is now higher than in 2007. That is of much greater importance compared to what happens on Greenland. …comment image

Rory Forbes
August 20, 2021 5:37 pm

“The new models generally predict more warming than the previous generation but we wanted to understand what this means for the ice sheets.”

But of course they do. They project more warming because the programmers were told to project more warming. There is no other reason for them to do so.

However, further down in the paragraph they say, “The increased warming of the new models” … an admission that it’s the models that are warming, not the Antarctic.

Vincent Causey
August 21, 2021 12:43 am

Using models to fight models. Brilliant.

August 21, 2021 11:44 pm

Using modern methods to calculate projected changes to sea levels, researchers discovered that the two ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica respond differently, reflecting their very distinct local climates.

Well, this is truly astonishing! An island ice-continent under the influence of a polar cell and surrounded by a complete ocean-track Ferrel cell responds to climatic changes differently from an inland ice-ocean. A land-locked ocean that is also under the influence of a polar cell but is almost completely surrounded by a land dominated Ferrel cell where east-tracking ocean weather systems encounter a significant continental scale transverse mountain barrier that forms an atmospheric dam. Who’d have thunk it?
 
Do I really need to add the sarc tag?

August 22, 2021 3:25 pm

Meereisportal has a great graphic showing monthly means for sea ice at both poles. I was just looking at Antarctica for the month of November. The largest drop in sea ice on that graph was clearly caused by the large El Nino which peaked in early 2016. The southern sea ice then climbs all the way back to above average levels within 4 years. This look at all 12 months of the year gives one a much greater understanding of the yearly trend. …comment image

%d bloggers like this: