Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by StuM

Not according to recent research from British Antarctic Survey, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research,NASA Goddard Space Science Center and Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Hardly hotbeds of "deniers"

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


AbstractUnlike the rapid sea ice losses reported in the Arctic, satellite observations show an overall increase in Antarctic sea ice concentration over recent decades. However, observations of decadal trends in Antarctic ice thickness, and hence ice volume, do not currently exist. In this study a model of the Southern Ocean and its sea ice, forced by atmospheric reanalyses, is used to assess 1992–2010 trends in ice thickness and volume. The model successfully reproduces observations of mean ice concentration, thickness, and drift, and decadal trends in ice concentration and drift, imparting some confidence in the hindcasted trends in ice thickness. The model suggests that overall Antarctic sea ice volume has increased by approximately 30 km3 yr−1 (0.4% yr−1) as an equal result of areal expansion (20 × 103 km2 yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1) and thickening (1.5 mm yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1).

Don't know that I agree with using part of an abstract to address something as complex as sea ice formation, volume and extent, but I'll go with it anyway. Interesting that you don't quote the whole abstract, but not to worry, I can do that for you:


"Unlike the rapid sea ice losses reported in the Arctic, satellite observations show an overall increase in Antarctic sea ice concentration over recent decades. However, observations of decadal trends in Antarctic ice thickness, and hence ice volume, do not currently exist. In this study a model of the Southern Ocean and its sea ice, forced by atmospheric reanalyses, is used to assess 1992–2010 trends in ice thickness and volume. The model successfully reproduces observations of mean ice concentration, thickness, and drift, and decadal trends in ice concentration and drift, imparting some confidence in the hindcasted trends in ice thickness. The model suggests that overall Antarctic sea ice volume has increased by approximately 30 km3 yr−1 (0.4% yr−1) as an equal result of areal expansion (20 × 103 km2 yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1) and thickening (1.5 mm yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1). This ice volume increase is an order of magnitude smaller than the Arctic decrease, and about half the size of the increased freshwater supply from the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Similarly to the observed ice concentration trends, the small overall increase in modeled ice volume is actually the residual of much larger opposing regional trends. Thickness changes near the ice edge follow observed concentration changes, with increasing concentration corresponding to increased thickness. Ice thickness increases are also found in the inner pack in the Amundsen and Weddell Seas, where the model suggests that observed ice-drift trends directed toward the coast have caused dynamical thickening in autumn and winter. Modeled changes are predominantly dynamic in origin in the Pacific sector and thermodynamic elsewhere."



So if I understand the abstract correctly, they are using a model to hindcast and verify the observed changes over an eighteen year period, because they don't have 'decadal trend records'. As I stated previously, volume assessments are much more difficult, and, as far as I'm aware of, have a lot of 'estimation' in them.

Also stated is that these modeled numbers are an order of magnitude less than the observed changes in the Arctic.

Are these are the same peoples' models who have been so thoroughly mocked in other parts of this thread, and generally in the denier universe everywhere?

At any rate, the point, as has ben alluded to previously, is that Antarctica is
an ice covered land mass, when the sea ice is at it's greatest it's dark (winter) so although the albedo is higher (more reflective), there's very little sun anyway. Most of the Antarctic sea ice melts away every year anyway, so the Southern ocean albedo is relatively moot. Conversely, when the sea ice in the Arctic is not there, it's summer and the albedo change from ice to sea water is dramatic and very important. This is a very gross oversimplification, but I hope it gets the point across.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

....

At any rate, the point, as has ben alluded to previously, is that Antarctica is
an ice covered land mass, when the sea ice is at it's greatest it's dark (winter) so although the albedo is higher (more reflective), there's very little sun anyway. Most of the Antarctic sea ice melts away every year anyway, so the Southern ocean albedo is relatively moot. Conversely, when the sea ice in the Arctic is not there, it's summer and the albedo change from ice to sea water is dramatic and very important. This is a very gross oversimplification, but I hope it gets the point across.

You serious, bro?

[StuM]

>Interesting that you don't quote the whole abstract,

Not really. The rest is irrelevant to debunking your claim that antarctic ice volume is decreasing.


> Are these are the same peoples' models who have been so thoroughly mocked in other parts of this thread, and generally in the denier universe everywhere?

No, this and PIOMAS, the model used to estimate arctic ice volume, are totally different beasts to GCMS.

>At any rate, the point, as has ben alluded to previously, is that ... (rest of JD style "Squirrel!" wriggling deleted)

No, the point was purely to show that your assertion was incorrect.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

...

Are these are the same peoples' models who have been so thoroughly mocked in other parts of this thread, and generally in the denier universe everywhere?

...

And of course the totally non biased scientific community would never turn on their own:
Allow me to introduce Doctor H. Jay Zwally...

Brief Bio

Dr. H. Jay Zwally is Chief Cryospheric Scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and Project Scientist for the Ice Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat). His recent research includes leading comprehensive analysis of the mass balance of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and ice shelves, discovery of the melt-acceleration effect on the flow of the Greenland ice sheet, and comprehensive mapping of sea ice freeboard and thickness. At NASA since 1974, his early research included radiative modeling of microwave emission from firn, development of concepts for remote measurement of accumulation rates and surface melting, the first observation and interpretation of the Weddell Polynya, and systematic correction and compilation of satellite passive-microwave data sets that led to several sea ice atlases. Dr. Zwally was an early and persistent proponent of the importance of studying the mass balance of the Earth’s ice-sheets and their contributions to sea level change, and the use of satellite altimetry for those purposes. He pioneered the use of ocean-radar altimetry for mapping ice sheet topography and studies of mass balance. He led promotion and development of NASA’s ICESat mission thorough to successful measurements of ice-sheet elevation changes and pioneering laser measurements of sea-ice freeboard. He was been a key participant in the promotion, design, and planning for ICESat-2 and is on the ICESat-2 Science Definition Team. Dr. Zwally was on the Mars Orbiting Laser Altimeter (MOLA) science team and provided key insights to interpretation of the Mars northern ice cap as predominately water ice with an outlying cap remnant using the laser-elevation data.

Bio - Dr. H Jay Zwally

From a 2015 peer reviewed paper titled "Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses":

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1030220523.htm
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses

This has apparantly outraged both the scientific climate change and alarmist communities in general. Here's a sample of the sometimes derogatory rebuttals from around the interwebs:

Is Antarctica Gaining or Losing Ice? Hint: Losing.
By Phil Plait

So no matter how you slice it, Antarctica is losing ice, and losing it fast.

Of course, the usual suspects in the global warming–denying noise machine are jumping all over this study, claiming triumph … but, as usual, they obfuscate, they cherry-pick, and they ignore evidence that contradicts their claims that everything is rolling along just fine.

My thanks to environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli and climate scientist Michael Mann for their helpful comments.

Antarctic ice: Still losing mass.

Jay Zwally: Science denier
The other day, I took to task Jay Zwally -- a Civil Service "scientist" who lies, lies, and lies about the weather. Now British scientist James Delingpole has taken on this unfireable bureaucrat.

Don Surber: Jay Zwally: Science denier

So what is really happening in Antarctica?
Filed under: Climate Science — eric @ 10 November 2015
The recent paper by Zwally et al. in the Journal of Glaciology has been widely reported as evidence that Antarctic is gaining mass, and hence lowering sea level. Is it? Expert Jonathan Bamber weighs in.

So what is really happening? One thing that Zwally’s study does highlight is how difficult it is to nail what is happening in East Antarctica because the signal is small and contaminated by unwanted effects that are as large or even larger. Zwally et al get a different result from previous studies because they make a different set of assumptions. Those assumptions are, by their nature, subjective and difficult, without additional evidence, to corroborate.

So what is really happening in Antarctica? « RealClimate

What Antarctica’s Incredible “Growing” Icepack Really Means
A NASA study has climate scientists up in arms; here’s what it means.

Here’s what you need to know about the new findings:

Do prominent climate scientists agree with the primary conclusions?

No. Some leading scientists vocally disagree with the study, which also runs contrary to the prevailing view of experts that Antarctica has been losing ice mass over the past few decades.

“I think there's a serious issue with the study,” says Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Colorado. “It’s unfortunate that it made it through peer review.”

University of Alaska, Fairbanks glaciology professor Erin Pettit calls the methodology “a really, really hard measurement that I would take with a heavy load of salt.”

What Antarctica?s Incredible ?Growing? Icepack Really Means

What’s Going on in Antarctica? Is the Ice Melting or Growing?

What these reports usually are missing are several critical points:

This is one NASA study. Other NASA studies say different and research continues. It is a mistake to simply assume that this one is right and the others are wrong.
Even if the study is correct, it doesn’t indicate that global climate change is not occurring. The increase in ice mass is the result of increased precipitation, which is the result of increased atmospheric water vapor, which is the result of increased global temperatures. (There are numerous other indicators that our climate is changing).
The study’s lead author, Jay Zwally of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, agrees that the overall global rate of ice discharge into the oceans is increasing. “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” said Dr. Zwally. “But this is also bad news,” he added. “If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
The lead author also notes that the state might be temporary. It could take only a few decades for the ice melt in Antarctica to outweigh the ice gains.

And what this study really illustrates is how difficult it is for scientists to measure small changes in ice.

What's Going on in Antarctica? Is the Ice Melting or Growing?

Antarctica is gaining ice
"[Ice] is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap." (Greg Roberts, The Australian)
Update Nov. 7 2015

A study published by Jay Zwally and his team on Oct. 30 (Zwally et al. 2015) has suggested that until 2008 there might have been a bigger increase in ice on East Antarctica than there is a decrease in the west, meaning that total Antarctic land ice is increasing. While their results for the Antarctic Peninsula and much of West Antarctica agree with other research, the study disagrees with many other techniques. We will update this discussion once more studies address this issue. Until then here are links to some recently published takes on the study:

A controversial NASA study says Antarctica is gaining ice. Here’s why you should be skeptical - Chris Mooney (Nov. 5)

NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study — That's Exactly What They Did - Media Matters (Nov.4)

More on Antarctic Ice Melt - ClimateCrocks (Nov. 3)

Is Antarctica Gaining or Losing Ice? Hint: Losing. - Phil Plait (Nov. 3)

Q&A: Is Antarctica gaining or losing ice? - Carbon Brief (Nov. 3)

Just Because Antarctica Might Be Gaining Ice Doesn't Mean Climate Change Isn't Happening - Vice (Nov. 2)

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ant...termediate.htm

Now, before you go searching for Dr Jay Zwally's profile on DeSmogBlog, let's rewind to 2010:

Jay Zwally warns Greenland ice loss is canary in coal mine

Let me google that for you so that we can all see how the alarmists basked in his paper on the Greenland ice sheet when it used essentially the same methodology used for his later Antarctic study and - surprise, surprise - without the caterwauling of the Antarctic paper.

The laughable thing is that Dr Zwally states in his paper that the increasing ice trend may not continue beyond 20 to 30 years, yet that still hasn't appeased the alarmist denier hunting pitchfork brigade!

To me, one of the most telling aspects from the above is the constant cry along the lines of "but the measurements aren't accurate enough". I find this somewhat strange considering that pro AGW studies rarely raise this issue with their own data sets and methodologies.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The laughable thing is that Dr Zwally states in his paper that the increasing ice trend may not continue beyond 20 to 30 years, yet that still hasn't appeased the alarmist denier hunting pitchfork brigade!

To me, one of the most telling aspects from the above is the constant cry along the lines of "but the measurements aren't accurate enough". I find this somewhat strange considering that pro AGW studies rarely raise this issue with their own data sets and methodologies.

To religious fanatics, even the slightest hint of apostasy is unbearable.

Unlike science which embraces scepticism and falsification of hypotheses.

It's a sure sign that climate alarmism is religion, not science.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

To religious fanatics, even the slightest hint of apostasy is unbearable.

Unlike science which embraces scepticism and falsification of hypotheses.

It's a sure sign that climate alarmism is religion, not science.

Absolutely. The smoking gun can be found in the hands of alleged colleagues that were not only quick off the mark to pull the trigger, but then proceeded to stab in the knife and give it a good twist.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You serious, bro?

Quite, please elaborate.

Originally Posted by StuM

>Interesting that you don't quote the whole abstract,

Not really. The rest is irrelevant to debunking your claim that antarctic ice volume is decreasing.


> Are these are the same peoples' models who have been so thoroughly mocked in other parts of this thread, and generally in the denier universe everywhere?

No, this and PIOMAS, the model used to estimate arctic ice volume, are totally different beasts to GCMS.

>At any rate, the point, as has ben alluded to previously, is that ... (rest of JD style "Squirrel!" wriggling deleted)

No, the point was purely to show that your assertion was incorrect.

No debunking here. My statement was;


'As I think has been brought up before, more important is sea ice volume, which is much harder to estimate, but appears to be in a steady, if uneven, decline.'


And from the 'irrelevant' part you failed to include;


'This ice volume increase is an order of magnitude smaller than the Arctic decrease...'

And again, this is a model estimate, apparently developed to hindcast nonexistent trend data, presumably to use in forecasting and developing new ways of modeling a theory of climate change that none of the scientists involved disagree with... Without reading the actual study, any assumptions I make about what's stated in the abstract are just that, assumptions.



Now I realize that Newhaul was talking about the Antarctic, so I should have been more specific and said;

'As I think has been brought up before, more important is global sea ice volume, which is much harder to estimate, but appears to be in a steady, if uneven, decline.'


So, my mistake, and apologies, but we are talking about global warming, not regional warming.


GCMS is an acronym for?


And if you want to resort to typical denier-style name-calling in defense of ignoring factors pertinent to understanding an extremely complex system, I can understand your lack of understanding the system, and of credibility.

And before you counter-accuse me of name calling by using 'denier', please advise a preferred appellation. I find 'one who disagrees with AGCW' a little tedious...you can call me an alarmist if you want, but I prefer the more Latin flavor of Warmista...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Quite, please elaborate.

If you'd cut and pasted directly from skepticalscience instead of paraphrasing your explanation it wouldn't have come across as some odd attempt to blame sea ice variations mostly on albedo.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

Here's one for everyone to chew on all this screaming that melting glaciers are causing sea level rise. Well man is actually directly causing at least a good portion of it. Is Groundwater Depletion Causing Sea-level Rise?
Some studies say as much as 25% is directly man caused.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here's one for everyone to chew on all this screaming that melting glaciers are causing sea level rise. Well man is actually directly causing at least a good portion of it. Is Groundwater Depletion Causing Sea-level Rise?
Some studies say as much as 25% is directly man caused.

From the article:

...as Chameides points out “the groundwater depletion story of Wada et al doesn’t change the big-picture story of climate change and sea-level rise. Should the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets go, the contribution to sea level from groundwater depletion will be … well, like a drop in the bucket.”

In fact, according to Chameides, the IPCC suggested that groundwater might be contributing to sea-level rise, but did not quantify how much because of uncertainties. Furthermore, as far as I know no one has studied to the degree to which the human pressure to accelerate groundwater depletion is exacerbated by increasing drought caused by climate change.

One thing is for sure though – for anyone who has studied the issue, there is no “good news” in the depletion of groundwater at such staggering scales. Take India, where the exploitation of groundwater is already taking a massive toll—in the form of lost productivity, huge government costs for subsidies and energy consumption, unstable electrical infrastructure, unsustainable debt burdens, displaced and suicidal farmers, families suffering from fluoride poisoning (a result of ever-deeper drilling of wells) and saltwater intrusion among many other consequences.

...in other words, we suck at water management, period, and it's not just because of AGW. Can't see much good news in this info, either pro or anti AGW.

[newhaul]

L E I never said it was good news or that it had any good effects. I just put it out to as another contributor to the sea level rise. Also I did say it was entirely man caused. And yep as a species we suck at water management.

[Kenomac]

Despite all the worry about polar ice melting, and measuring the so called loss of ice... Isn't this GW religious belief/fact actually refuted by the fact that the sea level has remained the same over the past thirty years? Don't know the sea level where everyone else lives, but around here in New England and in Southern California, the tide rises up to the same level on the marina docks as it did thirty years ago.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here's one for everyone to chew on all this screaming that melting glaciers are causing sea level rise. Well man is actually directly causing at least a good portion of it. Is Groundwater Depletion Causing Sea-level Rise?
Some studies say as much as 25% is directly man caused.

Chewed on it.

Five plus year old article.

If all the lakes and reservoirs in California were nearly or fully empty due to drought, and are now filling due to El Nino-inspired flooding rains, perhaps we can measure the effect on sea level due to their draining and filling./jk

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor

The mean global content of water vapor in the atmosphere is roughly sufficient to cover the surface of the planet with a layer of liquid water about 25 mm deep.

This NASA plot suggests sea level rise is moderating...

[newhaul]

I was not talking about the recycling that happens with rainfall filling lakes and people using it and returning it to the sea. That would come under the broad umbrella of runoff. I am pointing out the addition of the melinial ground water which until we draw it out it is not in the day to day cycles of water.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Despite all the worry about polar ice melting, and measuring the so called loss of ice... Isn't this GW religious belief/fact actually refuted by the fact that the sea level has remained the same over the past thirty years? Don't know the sea level where everyone else lives, but around here in New England and in Southern California, the tide rises up to the same level on the marina docks as it did thirty years ago.

From what I gather from the literature, sea level is a complex thing to try & measure. There are also significant factors other than melting sea ice, such as the constant rising & falling of the land (presumably that which lies under the oceans & that which surrounds), and thermal expansion of water. Accordingly, there's a margin of error that doesn't seem to have yet been definitively surpassed. So like climate change, sea level is never constant. And also like CC, it might also be fair for some to claim that humans are having some impact. But the real issue is whether the human impact is exceeding those significant and constantly variable natural forces.

Instead, I think the alarmism may primarily be coming from assumptions about future sea ice loss. But whether that is occurring in a sufficent amount to impact sea level, and the even tougher question of whether human influence is making a significent difference, remains as unsettled science as Reefmagnet's & other's links show.