Skip to comments.New science upsets calculations on sea level rise, climate change
Posted on 11/28/2012 6:09:02 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
A new analysis of data from dedicated satellites shows that one of the main factors predicted to drive rising sea levels in future has been seriously overestimated, with major implications for climate talks currently underway in Doha.
The new methods involve filtering out noise from the data produced by the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft, sent into orbit with the aim of finding out just how much ice is melting from the world's ice sheets and glaciers. Such water then runs off into the sea, providing one of the main potential drivers of sea level rise - which is itself perhaps the main reason to worry about climate change.
"GRACE data contain a lot of signals and a lot of noise. Our technique learns enough about the noise to effectively recover the signal, and at much finer spatial scales than was possible before," explains professor Frederik Simons of Princeton uni. "We can 'see through' the noise and recover the 'true' geophysical information contained in these data. We can now revisit GRACE data related to areas such as river basins and irrigation and soil moisture, not just ice sheets."
Simons and his colleague Christopher Harig tried their new methods out on GRACE data covering the Greenland ice sheet, which is of particular interest as the rest of the Arctic ice cap floats on the sea and so cannot contribute directly to sea level rise by melting. Meanwhile the Antarctic ice cap is actually getting bigger, so Greenland is probably the major worry.
According to a Princeton statement highlighting the new research:
While overall ice loss on Greenland consistently increased between 2003 and 2010, Harig and Simons found that it was in fact very patchy from region to region.
In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.
The rate of loss of ice from Greenland is estimated at 199.72 plus-or-minus 6.28 gigatonnes per year. So the possible acceleration of losses is only barely larger than the margin of error in the readings: it's very difficult to tell the supposed loss curve from a straight line.
In other words the possible acceleration in ice losses is barely perceptible: it may not really be happening at all. Similar results were seen not long ago in GRACE data for central Asian mountain glaciers, another suggested source for sea-level rises.
If the Greenland ice losses aren't accelerating, there's no real reason to worry about them. According to the Princeton statement:
At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters).
Put another way, in that scenario we would be looking at 5cm of sea level rise from Greenland by the year 2130: a paltry amount. Authoritative recent research drawing together all possible causes of sea level rise bears this out, suggesting maximum possible rise in the worst case by 2100 will be 30cm. More probably it will be less, and there will hardly be any difference between the 20th and 21st centuries in sea level terms.
The new GRACE research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Details of the computer code can be found here.
Doha delegates take note. ®
Yabut, does the data match the model?
Ain’t “lookin’ good” for the greedy, freeloading enviroloonies. They may end up having to get REAL JOBS in order to have money to buy food.
"Proud man," said the Nguarorerue. "What are these data, if not direct revelation? Where have they come from, if not from the Rocket which is to be? How do you presume to compare a number you have only derived on paper with a number that is the Rocket's own? Avoid pride, and design to some compromise value."But that would not serve the left's agenda, so forget it.
Or maybe: The data is RACIST!
“They may end up having to get REAL JOBS”
There is always the next crisis. Sea levels aren’t rising? Oh no! The sea levels never stayed the same before we started using fossil fuels. We need government grants to study thge disasterous consequences of Sea Level Stagnation. We need higher taxes to punish the evil corporations for disregarding the harm they are doing to the environment.
So when you take the net of Greenland and Antarctic ??? I'm guessing this is just a little shifting and jostling - admittedly on a global scale in Gigatons over centuries...
The undulations of the geoid have NOT changed..... so go to bed.
I think I can make a fairly accurate prediction that by 13,000 years we'll be in another deep Ice Age cycle, and we won't be worried about Greenland's ice melting, but rather the giant, 1 mile thick ice sheet that will cover North America--almost all of Canada and half the USA--and when is THAT going to melt? Oh, and don't forget similar concerns about the giant European and Siberian continental ice sheets!
At that time, our descendants will want to dig us up and kick our a$$es because we were stupid enough to believe in global warming and did nothing to stave off the ice. Of course, our graves will be covered with 6,000 feet of ice by then....
Facts have no implications whatsoever for that crowd.
Money Line = “So the possible acceleration of losses is only barely larger than the margin of error in the readings”
It will be interesting to follow their repeated surveys over the years to see if there is a trend that can be correlated with the documented North Atlantic Ocean 30 year Oscillation.
And by “science” I assume that entails: application of the Scientific Method?
Because I can hardly think of an area where the word Science is used more incorrectly than in relation to the climate.
Well, this can’t be good news for the socialist “global warming” scammers.
How are they supposed to convince world populations that they need to pay much higher prices (in the form of much higher taxes) for energy with this kind of news being published in the New York Times and aired by the dinosaur network newscasts?
The "scientists" who continue to perpetrate the "global warming" scam approach their science in exactly the opposite manner as the approach described above. They formulated a theory based on political correctness (as well as the path of least resistance to "grant" money) and then did whatever they had to do with their data to "prove" it.
What the world has now seen with the expose of the "global warming" scam puts a new spin on the old saying: "Figures can lie and liars can figure." The discipline of science has taken a massive hit over the past three-plus years (Climategate I, November 2009; Climategate II, Novemeber 2011) and it could take decades for science - - and scientists - - to begin to regain credibility with the public. A lot of that burden must fall on honest scientists, and the first and most important thing they must do is scream for the heads of Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and the rest of the fraudsters masquerading as "scientists". I guess we'll see if they have the guts, integrity and self-respect to speak up loudly... No, I am not holding my breath.
Clearly, we need to do something about "climate change", and fast!
"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Newsweek: The Cooling World (April 28, 1975)
From the original "climate change" scam, the one known as "global cooling".
Meet the new corrupt alarmists, same as the old corrupt alarmists.
What you do, if you are a serious scientist operating according to the established method, is attempt to falsify your hypothesis. Test it to destruction; carry out serious attacks on its weakest points to see if they hold up. If they do -- and the vast majority of hypotheses suffer the indignity embodied in a phrase attributed variously to Thomas Huxley and Lord Kelvin: "a beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact" -- then you have a theory that can be published, and tested, and verified by other scientists. If you don't, you throw it out. Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science - J. R. DunnAs someone who is constantly critiquing
the mediajournalism, I would apply that directly to journalists:
If someone promotes the idea that you are objective, you must assume that they are flattering deceivers. What you do, if you are actually serious about trying to be objective, is attempt to prove that the people who say the things you like to hear are a bunch of con artists running a scam.
If you dont earnestly try to do that, you may think that you are giving both sides of the story - but when you think you are giving the other side of the story you will inevitably be setting up straw men instead.
Excellent graph! Thanks! A linear regression fit to the data leaves room for a curvalinear fit to the 60-day smoothing curve with changes in slope at 1996, and 2006.
It is all well and good to flame and blame OTHERS over THEIR lack of testing a speculation such as the junk science Global Warming Speculation.
What we Scientists need to do is to first look at ourselves, and examine what our so-called tests are the WE use in the published literature.
IMHO, over 90 % of our published tests fall within one of the following methods of testing:
1.) The Null Hypothesis;
2.) Statistical Inference/Correlation;
3.) Acceptance of the preponderance of expert scientific opinion.
Also IMHO, it is very rare to read in high quality Scientific Journals, such as Nature, an article that tests an idea by the use of the Cause and Effect Method.
Observation is the first step, speculation is the second step, and here comes the fork in the road: Is there a Cause and Effect between two chosen and independent variables?
Over 90 % of published Scientists take the easy way out and use one or more of the above non Cause and Effect tests.
The History of Science is replete with examples of long-held, well-accepted theories being proven to be false.
As Scientists, our duty is to prove our ideas to be false. Failing that we are duty bound to ask our peers to prove our ideas to be false.
If they also fail, after multiple tests, then begrudgingly the more foolish among us will admit that the idea MIGHT be more correct than false.
In the back of every Scientists mind is this doubt: The true reality is probably None of the above.
As far as I know, there is NO known, and commonly peer repeated Cause and Effect between the concentration of CO2 and variation of Heat Energy in Ocean Water, or the Atmosphere of the Earth.
Thus, IMHO, the Global Warming Speculation remains as a Speculation, and not an Hypothesis, and not even close to being elevated to the very high status of a Theory.
I challenge any and all to refute anything that I have posted in this comment.
What say all of you?
BTW, a fossil Polar Bear skull was recently found in Norway and age-dated at 135,000 years BP - - - - .
FYI: The 105,000 BPY Sangamon Interglacial was a LOT warmer than 5,000 YBP, which was itself warmer than the Medieval Warm period or the temperatures of today.
(Yup, we have been is a sawtooth, downward trending time of Global Cooling for over 5,000 years. Deal with it)!
BTW, BTW, most business people are better Scientists than are many published Scientists, because businesses use the Cause and Effect Method every day. They however call it Profit and Loss.
Thank you very much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.