Today was the day of the Big Push in the Australian's war on science. They published two news stories that distorted scientists' views on Antarctic ice, a long piece promoting "silenced" Ian Plimer's denialist book, an absurdly over the top piece from Christopher Pearson about how Plimer's book is the turning point that leads to global warming being recognized as a mass delusion as well as an editorial touting Plimer's views.
The debunking of this rubbish is outsourced to Harry Clarke.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Miranda Devine, in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald brings us the sad story of how Ian Plimer is being shouted down and silenced:
Human-caused climate change is being "promoted with religious zeal ... there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics." ...
It is…
The Australian has continued its war on science by printing an extract from Ian Plimer's new book, How to Get Expelled from School. The extract is largely plagiarised from this press release on a recent paper in Science by Funder et al finding large fluctuations in Arctic sea ice over the last 10,…
Harry Clarke
It is not wrong to challenge orthodoxy anywhere but the work of Plimer is unscientific and both irresponsible and dangerous - he has provided a social diservice. The extensive publicity he has received has had an entirely undeserved impact.
Forget Plimer, read the science.
John…
Wednesday was an unusual day at the Australian, with two pro-science pieces published. First, Leigh Dayton, their science writer, raises some scientific objections to Ian Plimer's book. Plimer will, no doubt, continued to deny the existence of these problems:
Plimer also repeats the inaccurate "…
> about how Plimer's book is the turning point that leads to global warming being recognized as a mass delusion
In climate denialotopia, everything is a turning point.
I guess it's like a certain type of mathematical function f(.) where f'(x) = 0 for all x.
I am reminded in reading Harry Clark (sic, Clarke)'s piece that a valuable Australian export to the world could be further use of the useful terms "spruik" and "spruiker".
They threw me when I first heard them years ago, but are difficult to tersely replace.
The Herald (Miranda Devine and Paul Sheehan) have been promoting Ian Plimer's book a fair bit in the last two weeks too.
Has anyone gone through the book yet do you know? I'd love to have a source to refute it, as I expect to have a lot of people quoting it at me.
But Harry hasn't even read Plimers book. He only comments on the comments. Looks like a classic claytons debunk - attack the reporter, forget about the science.
But Lank, weren't you sure Harry Clarke would chnage his mind after reading the Australian or is it only climate science researchers who would change their minds after reading the Australian?
Chris I'm sure that both you and Harry could benefit from spending a few dollars and some of your valuable hours reading Plimers book. You have got little to lose and at least you will be better informed.
There's an important point here. There is no attempt in the Weekend Australian to explore the counter-views of orthodox sceince to this one geologist (Plimer), who happens to be a geologist and member of a free-market think thank.
4 articles (including an editorial) and nothing that might question this minority opinion. This is truly perverse, whatever the content of his bloody book. Its hard not to think there are extreme and undisclosed forces at play at "the Australian" (not to mention the bloody SMH) when one sees this sort of nonsense.
He only comments on the comments. Looks like a classic claytons debunk - attack the reporter, forget about the science.
Lank, can you please point out where Plimer has published his peer reviewed science on climate change. I would like to read it.
Lank:
Just like you were sure that 5% of Copenhagen attendees would change thier minds if they read The Australian.
You've missed your calling as a comedian Lank. What other jokes do you know?
>Lank, can you please point out where Plimer has published his peer reviewed science on climate change. I would like to read it.
What I'd really like to see is the references Plimer uses to prove that the El Nino/La Nina process is the result of a geological process. Also the reference for the assertion than atmospheric CO2 rise is due to geological processes.
Perhaps the book would shorter if Ian Plimer could focus on atmospheric physics that he thinks are not due to geological processes. Are gravity waves caused by mountains jumping up and down?
Let me just jump in with the heap of people kicking Plimer from pillar to post here and opine that indeed he's more of a freak show attraction than a scientific viewpoint on anything to do with climate change in the holocene. I provide no relevant evidence to back this assertion, just as Plimer has none to back his ridiculous confabulations on subjects (such as climate science) well outside his qualifications and capabilities. Plimer's a sideshow character who, enjoying his long term argumentation with Creationists, has come to believe that his opponents on more scientific issues are probably as intellectually inferior to him as are Creationists on creationism. He's delusional, pompous, with a presumptively patriarchal delivery of the nonsense he talks. Pity his students as you pity those who get their sciencey talking points from the excellent joke that is our Oz.
Not to say that I don't enjoy hearing the latest from Plimer of course :) .... but it's a guilty pleasure.
Hands up anyone who's read the book yet. Just as I thought no movement out there. Why all these silly character assasinations on Plimer who is one of our best known and respected geoscientists - just ask your Bernard, he has 'had him'.
Todays editorial in the Aussie is a good one 'Wong is Wrong'. I hope that Ms Wong et al are also busy reading Plimer and come to thier senses soon.
The world has plenty of books that I will never read Lank because they have been written by fools. On the other hand, the world is actually full of books that are so good it almost breaks my heart that there will simply never be the time in one lifetime to read more than a fraction of them.
To spell it out further - I know from my previous (recent) experience of Plimer, from the extracts of his book that I've seen, from the comments of critics whose opinions have been proven to normally merit respect, and contrarily by the gushing applause for this book we hear from the greatest fools who currently blather in the Australian media, that Plimer's immodestly titled latest effort is not a member of the second set of books. That's all.
Lank: Seriously old boy, my interest in Ian Plimer extends about as far as making sarcastic comments on his views on a blog. It definitely does not extend as far as buying his book to prove you wrong. I will leave that very dull task to some person/s more interested.
MarkG, you say..."What I'd really like to see is the references Plimer uses to prove that the El Nino/La Nina process is the result of a geological process. Also the..." then in #14.. "my interest in Ian Plimer extends about as far as making sarcastic comments on his views on a blog".
Seriously, MarkG you really don't know what to do when faced with reasoning and science that you cannot hope to understand.
Anyone can tell frankis what to think as he/she is not a speedy reader.
Sorry Chris (#9) - I forgot to give you a joke. Try this one...Last week we had our Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, agree on ABC's Lateline program that sea levels would rise as much as six metres this century due to human-caused global warming.
With material like this who needs there own jokes?
Why would anyone want to read the book when The Australian has made it clear it's drivel in two detailed articles?
I review one of those articles (with a brief mention of another couple from the same issue on my blog).
There are two kinds of science: right-wing science, where the outcome has to fit preconceptions (environmentalists are pot-smoking hippies out to destroy the economy), and old-fashioned science, where the outcomes have to fit the evidence. I suppose this is an improvement on the cold war when we also had Marxist science. The sad thing is that people like Plimer do not appear to realise that they are prejudiced. He happily spouts unfounded opinion as fact, even to the extent of accusing real scientists of exactly the errors he is making himself.
Lank, speedy reading gives you time only to reinforce your pre-existing prejudices or to entertain yourself. Learning, thinking, challenging your understanding are difficult things and take what time they need. You get a clue to this from the fact that some subjects are known as "hard" sciences - you can't gain an education in them by speed reading.
Lank, you aren't much of a comedian. Sea level rise estimates are on the way up, with [1m now considered very likely](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/sea-level-rises-clima…). I don't know where Garrett gets 6m, but our knowledge of ice sheet dynamics under warming is extremely limited so you cannot rule out higher numbers.
Perhaps this one would better satisfy the [request for humour](http://notorc.blogspot.com/2007/09/anatomy-of-humor-5-guy-walks-into-ba…). My favourite is the one that starts with A guy walks into a bar in Cork, in Ireland.
Good jokes Philip but I canât see your sea levels doing much if the ice aint melting - Where is all this water coming from? Containing almost 90 per cent of our ice and not far from 80 per cent of our fresh water the Antarctic ice sheet seems to be getting larger not smaller!
Australiaâs leading Antarctic ice scientist claims that there is no evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap is melting. Ice core drilling near Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. This is from the people that our taxes are funding and that Mr Garrett is sposed to be listening to.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html
"our knowledge of ice sheet dynamics under warming is extremely limited"... Gee Philip #19 you are way ahead of science with this one! Imagine if cooling occurred and the Antarctic ice grew. We'd likely sea sea levels dropping.
Lank:
At least you gave us the joke that Plimer's book will inform anyone.
The Antarctic ice is melting, and nearly as fast as Greenland.
Lank (#20), you should always approach The Australian's stories on climate change armed with some knowledge. That would put you one step ahead of some of their journalists.
From the glossary at the back of the latest IPCC report:
Ice sheet.
A mass of land ice that is sufficiently deep to cover most of the underlying bedrock topography, so that its shape is mainly determined by its dynamics (the flow of the ice as it deforms internally and/or slides at its base). An ice sheet flows outward from a high central ice plateau with a small average surface slope. The margins usually slope more steeply, and most ice is discharged through fast-flowing ice streams or outlet glaciers, in some cases into the sea or into ice shelves floating on the sea. There are only three large ice sheets in the modern world, one on Greenland and two on Antarctica, the East and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, divided by the Transantarctic Mountains. During glacial periods there were others.
Ice shelf.
A floating slab of ice of considerable thickness extending
from the coast (usually of great horizontal extent with a level or gently sloping surface), often filling embayments in the coastline of the ice sheets. Nearly all ice shelves are in Antarctica, where most of the ice discharged seaward flows into ice shelves.
Chris...The 'breathtaking' NASA report that you quote is dated 23 January last year. Why do you have trouble with the ongoing and recent Australian research that shows no evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap is melting. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html
During the last glaciation maximum at (~20,000 years B.P.), ice covered most of mid-latitude NA, N Europe, and Russia. At the end of this glacial maximum, temperatures rose abruptly (without the benefit of man made CO2) and the continental glaciers melted rapidly. The warming produced a sea level rise of about 10mm per year or 1m per century. Today, this ice has long since melted and only two ice caps, Antarctica and Greenland, remain, so glacial melting cannot be anywhere near as drastic today as it was near the end of the last glaciation.
It is unrealistic to expect that any sea rise will even approach 1m during the next hundred years and if the current trend of growing Antarctic ice continues then we can look forward to dropping sea levels over the next few decades. I suggest that this may pose a much larger problem for our shallow coastal reefs and harbours.
Lank #21, your attempts at humour are falling flat again. I don't have to imagine it's cooling. Science in my world is not an imaginary discipline. It's based on evidence and verifiable theories.
If you read scientific sources rather than a newspaper with a political agenda, you'll see that loss of glacial ice worldwide is an ongoing process, and is not only an issue for the [Antarctic](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123181952.htm).
The whole basis of Plimer's diatribe is the manifestly false view ([hint: google IPCC attribution](http://www.google.com.au/search?q=IPCC+attribution)) that all of mainstream climate science is based on the premise that CO2 levels are the only regulator of climate. Having set up a straw target, he knocks it down with a bigger bail of straw. Contemptible. You'd think a scientist of his experience could do better than that, even if he's decided to become a politician.
Thanks Gaz that's a real big help to my understanding of ice sheets and ice shelves.
Oh Philip#25 you miss the point. Containing almost 90 per cent of our ice and 80 per cent of our fresh water the Antarctic ice seems to be getting larger not smaller! The equation really doesn't have much room for 'glacial ice worldwide'.
I have yet to read in Plimer's book where he claims that 'all of mainstream climate science is based on the premise that CO2 levels are the only regulator of climate'. Could you direct me to that section please?
Lank #27 â I am still looking for a scientific publication (not a newspaper report) that shows the Antarctic ice sheet is actually getting larger overall. All the studies I've seen based on satellite gravitational measures show it is decreasing (e.g. see [British Antarctic Survey](http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/journalists/resources/science/sealeve…)). It is very hard to do ground-based studies in the Antarctic because it is such a hostile environment. With less than 20 active [Antarctic weather stations](http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/) I'm curious how you are able to make such definitive statements based on a newspaper report. The satellite gravitation measurements are supposed to be the best we have. Let us know when you can refer us to better data.
Most of us are discussing The Australian's take on the book, not the book itself. [For example](http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25348271-11949,00.html):
I agree with him. I know no scientist making this claim except those attacking the mainstream who set it up as a straw target.
Philip#28, The Allison et al paper is expected to to be published by BAS in the Journal Geophysical Research Letters so keep your eye out.
I'm interested about your comment regarding "satellite gravitation measurements" and the use of these to determine ice thickness. This surely would be ground breaking technology as the sensitivity of this method is just not able to be used for this type of analysis, particularly when it is used in aircraft (as per the BAS surveys which use it to measure the plus 200km or so of thick underlying crust - you really must read the material you quote!). This would be technology that has not yet been invented - am I missing something? Can you direct me to a reference on this please?
So you do agree that Plimer does not claim that CO2 levels are the only regulator of climate? So why state "The whole basis of Plimer's diatribe is the manifestly false view that all of mainstream climate science is based on the premise that CO2 levels are the only regulator of climate." Clearly you are confused.
Philip (#28) Not even the story in The Australian claims the ice sheets are getting smaller. It refers to sea ice: "Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station..."
The vast bulk of ice is in the ice sheets rather than ice shelves, about 98% or thereabouts I think.
Anyway, why would anyone be surprised by an increase in ice sheet volume (not that this was what was measured by Dr Allison in the newspaper story)?
This is from the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
"Current global model studies project that the Antarctic
Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface
melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased
snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if
dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass
balance."
What's surprising is that it actually seems to be losing ice volume, as the link posted earlier by Chris O'Neill
indicates, if only a small amount. OK, it's over 100 cubic kilometres a year but that's only a tiny fraction of the total. (Here's that link again
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-010 )
re my post #30
"Philip (#28) Not even the story in The Australian claims the ice sheets are getting smaller."
I meant "larger".
Sorry 'bout that.
I was just pointing out that Lank's "point" at #27 misinterpreted the newspaper story, which was about sea ice rather than sheet ice, even though the journo seemed only dimly aware of the distinction.
In contrast, Lank, despite my earlier post at #23, either remains unaware of the distinction or just didn't read the story carefully.
We'll have an opportunity to hear Plimer spruik his book next Monday at 4.00 pm on Radio National's [Counterpoint](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint).
Given Michael Duffy's sympathies, it should be an entertaining interview...
"So you do agree that Plimer does not claim that CO2 levels are the only regulator of climate? So why state "The whole basis of Plimer's diatribe is the manifestly false view that all of mainstream climate science is based on the premise that CO2 levels are the only regulator of climate." Clearly you are confused."
It's a consistent position to hold. The error is in Plimer's false attribution of something which is incorrect. Pointing out that it's incorrect doesn't make the attribution true.
Lank (#29) "This would be technology that has not yet been invented - am I missing something?"
Yes, you are missing something.
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/
Lank:
'Breathtaking'? Where is it described as 'breathtaking'? I didn't know it was 'breathtaking' until you told me.
I don't have any trouble with that research. Why do you think I do?
The East Antarctic ice cap isn't changing much but the West Antarctic ice cap and the Antarctic ice cap as a whole is losing ice nearly as fast as Greenland, as I pointed out before.
The real question Lank is why are you sucked into selective and misleading journalism?
Lank
>Good jokes Philip but I canât see your sea levels doing much if the ice aint melting - Where is all this water coming from?
Current rises are largely due glacial melt and thermal expansion. That is why they are not particularly dramatic (thank goodness).
Lank
>Chris...The 'breathtaking' NASA report that you quote is dated 23 January last year. Why do you have trouble with the ongoing and recent Australian research that shows no evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves.
Does it matter?
Would you like to explain why your statement is important?
ABC did get a quote from Ian Allison, head of the Australian Antarctic Division...
"On average, west Antarctica is losing more ice than the east is gaining."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/20/2547067.htm?section=justin
Lank (#29): No, you're the one that's confused. I can't see any reasonable interpretation of the quote other than that Plimer is accusing others of basing their entire model on CO2. Otherwise what is the point of making that statement?
Here it is again.
Who is he accusing of taking that position?
Here's something else from the same article:
I wonder what specialities he thinks NASA have applied to the job. This is all just ignorant drivel. I find it hard to believe that Plimer doesnât know better in which case he is being dishonest.
Finally, here is a good summary of Australian expert opinion on IPCC climate reports. Why does The Australian not draw on this real expertise to inform the public? Itâs as if these people did not exist. Their whole approach is dishonest, reminiscent of a government-controlled paper in a police state.
I was somewhat dismayed that the Australian didn't describe Plimer as a "leading scientist". Fortunately, the "International Climate Science Coalition" has decided to step up to the toilet bowl.
I think we need to excuse Lank for his ignorance about GRACE. The denialist sites uniformly ignore the GRACE satellites and data, and where else would he find out about it?
Oh there's a mass delusion going on alright. They've got more people going than Stalinist Russia in its salad days. The paradox is that people caught up in it like our friend Lank have a hard time letting go, even after they've been presented with the air brushed photos, before and after. Pity is the only appropriate response I'm afraid. That and maybe a crowbar. You know, in case they express interest in but lack the means to pry open their minds.
Lee#39 - I'm not ignorant about GRACE. Airborne gravity systems have been around for some time infact they were pioneered here in Australia. Trouble is that I am unaware that they can measure ice thickness and I am very interested in the Philip Machanick claim that they can.
I ask again, can you direct me to a reference on this please? Perhaps Lee may be able to find this on an alarmist site, or perhaps Gaz has some details in his/her files?
Perhaps it is just Philip making it up as he goes along.
If you liked the Plimer book - I'm sure you will agree it is a good read. Here's another...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1419686844/ref=pe_606_11879190_pe_ar_d2
Lank said: "Airborne gravity systems have been around for some time infact they were pioneered here in Australia". thsi just shows that lank has no clues about what he is discussing.
GRACE is not an "airborne gravity system", it is satellite based.
You can read all about it here since it appears you know nothing about it.
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoca-ais022806.php
Ian Forrester - where did I say that GRACE was not a satellite system? Like Philip Machanick you also seem to like making it up as you go along.
Just a luker around here Lank, but you said at #41 ... "Lee#39 - I'm not ignorant about GRACE. Airborne gravity systems have been around for some time infact they were pioneered here in Australia." ... and connecting that to your comment at #29 "sensitivity of this method is just not able to be used for this type of analysis" etc., plus the tenor of your stuff from the start of the thread does in fact read like you are, or at least were, oblivious to satelite based systems until the reality was pointed out to you by Philip Machanick.
And now you ungraciously try to save face by dribbling about Ian and Philip 'making it up as they go along'.
Sadly for you 'Australiaâs leading Antarctic ice scientist' has also said that 'west Antarctica is losing more ice than the east is gaining'.
Do you think there'll ever be a time when denialists will honestly report the whole story without mis-representing some aspect of the facts. Probably not.
Chris W you obviously have trouble with concentration.
Chief alarmist Philip Machanick way back at #28 stated..."All the studies I've seen based on satellite gravitational measures show it is decreasing (e.g. see British Antarctic Survey)"
BAS clearly do not use a satellite based system as shown by the BAS website at:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/techniques/aerogeophysics_work….
If PM new anything at all about the BAS work or gravity measurements in general and if he had bothered to read the link he quoted like I did then he would have known that BAS use an airborne gravity system which does not measure ice thickness.
It is you and PM that are ill informed.
Lank you have trouble with honesty. Why are you deniers so dishonest? Just about everything you say is just a bundle of lies. Did you really read the link that PM provided or was that just another of your lies.
Just in case you have trouble here is what was said in that link: "Why are ice sheets in the news?
For two reasons. Firstly, satellite measurements of Antarctica and Greenland suggest that the ice-sheets are more sensitive to climate change than once thought".
Do you see the word "satellite"? Do you know the difference between a satellite and an aircraft?
Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
Lank,
Because GRACE is operating continuously and has multiple repeats of each location in global coverage on a reasonably high time resolution, it can measure changes in local gravitational field over time. Those changes are a measurement of changing local mass - things like bulk movement of ocean water, accumulation and runoff of amazonian seasonal rainfall - I can't find it now, but somewhere on the internets there is an amazing video of this - and accumulation or loss of ice mass in ice sheets.
Airborne Gravimetry Systems are essentially spring scales - usually a zero-length quartz spring with a test mass, in pressure isolated enclosure to remove the effect of buoyancy changes on the test mass due to air flow or barometer/altitude changes, and acceleration compensated to remove the effect of airplane buffeting.
GRACE works on a different principle. It is a pair of satellites, one following the other. As the pair encounters varying gravitational strength, it accelerates or decelerates the pair - with the leading satellite feeling the effect first, and the distance between the satellites therefore varying as the gravitational field changes. A laser interferometry link measures the distance between the satellites, and that variation is converted to a surface gravity map.
The technique is different from AGS, the resolutions and limitations are different, and the fact that you tried to apply AGS limitations to this data shows that you don't understand GRACE, Lank.
Even better, you have been given links to the GRACE home page several times, now, Lank. Hell, AFTER being given that link, you still ask for a link to such information. What you seek is on that site, Lank - there's a whole page citing publications, including publications analyzing Antarctic and Greenland bulk ice changes over time.
Lee - thanks for this clear analysis - I'll be interested when you find the link showing GRACE measurements of ice. Please let us know when you do.
Where did I "apply AGS limitations to this data"? - I was responding to PM who was clearly wrong in stating that BAS were using satellite gravity results for ice measurements.
Again, I'm looking forward to the link to your "I can't find it now....amazing video"
Ian Forrester you say.... "Firstly, satellite measurements of Antarctica and Greenland suggest that the ice-sheets are more sensitive to climate change than once thought".
Do you see the word "gravity" in this? Satellites measure a whole range of different measurements.
Lank says
> But Harry hasn't even read Plimers book. He only comments on the comments.
and then proceeds to throw out inactivist talking points that have nothing to do with Plimer's book.
Projecting much?
Lank, when you are up to date on the science as are most on this site then things don't have to be spelled out in detail.
Are you stupid or are you being disingenuous in your arguments? It would be nice to know since we can fine tune our responses to your misinformation if we knew whether you are just ignorant of the science, in which case we would help you if you showed a bit more humility, or we will treat you with scorn if we believe you are being dishonest. The choice is up to you.
My vote's for scorn.
Lank, PM was clearly CORRECT when he stated that BAS were using satellite gravity results for ice measurements. You are wrong, Lank. The links have been given to you - if you are too lazy or too incompetent to go see the relevant papers at the links given to you - well, that speaks for itself, doesn't it.
Here are some. There is nothing here you haven't been linked to already. I include a couple of groundwater mapping papers - there are a lot of these - because they illustrate the kinds of things you can do when you have time maps of changing gravity - which correspond to time maps of changing mass.
BTW, I found that amazing video of Amazonian water flow determined from gravitational changes - but I'm not going to give it to you. Find it yourself - this stuff Ive posted is sufficient to show you are wrong.
Flury, J Ice mass balance and ice dynamics from satellite gravity missions, EARTH MOON AND PLANETS, APR 2004, Vol. 94, Iss. 1-2, PP. 83-91.
Forsberg, R, Skourup, H Arctic Ocean gravity, geoid and sea-ice freeboard heights from ICESat and GRACE, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, NOV 4 2005, Vol. 32, Iss. 21.
Frappart, F, Ramillien, G, Biancamaria, S, Mognard, NM, Cazenave, A Evolution of high-latitude snow mass derived from the GRACE gravimetry mission (2002-2004), GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, JAN 20, 2006, VL 33, IS 2
Han, SC., Shum, CK., Jekeli, C., Alsdorf, D Improved estimation of terrestrial water storage changes from GRACE, GEOPHYS RES LTRS, APR 6 2005, Vol. 32, Issue 7.
Velicogna, I, Wahr, J, Hanna, E, Huybrechts, P. Short term mass variability in Greenland, from GRACE, GEOPHYS RES LTRS, MAR 1 2005, Vol. 32, Iss. 5,
Velicogna, I., Wahr, J Greenland mass balance from GRACE, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, SEP 30 2005, Vol. 32, Iss. 18.
Velicogna, I; Wahr, J. 2006. Measurements of time-variable gravity show mass loss in Antarctica. SCIENCE 311 (5768): 1754-1756.
Wahr, J; Wingham, D; Bentley, C. A method of combining ICESat and GRACE satellite data to constrain Antarctic mass balance. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH 105 (B7): 16279-16294, 2000.
Wu, XP; Watkins, MM; Ivins, ER; Kwok, R; Wang, P; Wahr, JM. 2002. Toward global inverse solutions for current and past ice mass variations: Contribution of secular satellite gravity and topography change measurements. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH 107 (B11): doi:.
Here Lank, have a crack at these ...
http://classic.ipy.org/development/eoi/proposal-details.php?id=125
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/GSTM/2008/b2.html
Yes, you are right, these are NOT tables of actual GRACE data ... but I suppose an honest person (i.e. a non-denialist) would infer from them that the data exists and that gravity sensing via GRACE is indeed used for ice-mass calculations.
Perhaps you could mail the IPY or those GRACE team leaders asking for their data and report back ? Somehow I don't think you will though, all you seem to want to do is mince around drooling that PM was wrong about BAS.
Or was he ? ... I see a reference to remote sensing techniques on their site, maybe BAS uses the full range of options available to get the clearest possible analysis ... unlike the standard mis-representation from you lot.
Denialists; lemming-like, weak as piss, and perpetually dishonest.
Shaddap.
My vote's for scorn.
Bah. [killfile] is much better. Certainly with [killfile] I just come to this thread (and the Curtin one) just to see the thread continue, as I can't read what the comics trolls write.
Best,
D
But Dano, you do scorn so well!
Well Patrick Ross you seem to be the perfect 'go to' man for authoritative opinion on matters rectal ... and while Michaels certainly does have a nice speaking voice in that clip what exactly is your take on this whole GRACE thing anyway ?
Can ice mass be measured using regional changes in gravity or is Lank just blowing it out his arse ?
Lank #45:
Thanks for the acknowledgement.
All I did was point out a few things that anyone could find out if they took the trouble. All the good people who piled in to point out your lack of knowledge and inability to support your case did so with no direction from me.
Not that I'm complaining. Good work, guys.
That was fairly incoherent.
To clarify: BAS themselves are not doing the GRACE data collection or analysis. They are doing large-scale studines using ssatellite laser altimeters, or regional analyseses using airborn laser altimeters.
But their results are referred to GRACE results, and they are consistent with GRACE results. Where BAS has measured, they show flat to slightly increasing ice mass in regions where GRACE shows flat ice mass over time, and BAS shows ice loss in regions where GRACE shows ice loss. And BAS is directly involved in efforts to place monitoring stations on rock outcrops, to get better measurements of rock mass movements, which in turn will further refine the GRACE results.
So, even though they aren't doing GRACE analyses directly, BAS are up to their eyeballs in GRACE-related work.
Shorter (or longer) Patrick Ross:
But... but... but... AAAALLLLL GOOOOOOORE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have to admit that I've learned something very interesting from Lank today - "satellite's measure.....measurements".
But who is measuring the satellites?
Thanks Chris for the link (#22)
to ALL:
Let's put the facts straight amidst all the politically motivated emotions:
1.)GRACE hasn't even quantified the mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet yet.
2.) Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory - as I read it - has based his estimate of "ice loss" in Antarctica's ice mass on the patterns of ice loss merely on a glacier to glacier basis, from 1996-2006.
3.) As was seen in Greenland, the speed of iceflow varies on an annual basis (will link later if needed).
4.) Rignot about the speed-up: "This is mostly a result of warmer ocean waters, which bathe the buttressing floating sections of glaciers, causing them to thin or collapse." How can it possibly be when sea ice is growing around the entire Antarctica?
I notice that all you alarmists crowing about the satellite measurements of Antarctica neglect to tell us that the same satellites show that Al Gore is GAINING MASS!
@BLank
Good point! "We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend toward fatness, and recognize it as a key factor in the battle to reduce (carbon) emissions and slow climate change," say Edwards and Ian Roberts from London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Stay slim to save the planet, Al Gore, tell people to sell all their extra weight to his company, he will make sure Antarctica will gain in mass instead.
Lank, maybe you could get together with your fellow bumbler, climatepatrol, and he could set you straight re gravity measurements and ice. The first link at #62 talks about "...satellite measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)." and "loss/gain of ice mass observed by GRACE".
I like your work climatepatrol !! You demolish Lank then go and give yourself a flesh wound in the same link (no doubt gripped by some politically motivated emotion).
Your assertion that GRACE hasn't even quantified the mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet yet seems a bit flaccid in view of http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0012821X07007315 (link to the PDF ftp://ftp.csr.utexas.edu/pub/ggfc/papers/EPSL_9011.pdf).
GRACE looks to have made a good start.
cp:
So where were you when the garbage from The Australian was being spread around? You'd gain a lot more credibility if your concern wasn't so selective.
So what do you think this is about?
Yes and he also points out that his estimate is
"about 20 percent higher over a comparable time frame than those of a NASA study of Antarctic mass balance last March that used data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. This is within the margin of error for both techniques, each of which has its strengths and limitations."
So?
It's not growing everywhere around Antarctica. But in any case it was Rignot's hypothesis for the reason for the speed-up. What hypothesis for the reason for the speed-up would you prefer?
climatepatrol:
"GRACE hasn't even quantified the mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet yet."
It most certainly has. You've been linked to the 2007 paper - at this years AGU meeting, it was reported that continuing observation from GRACE show that the ice loss is continuing and accelerating. The proposal you link to - and yes, it is a proposal to quantify ice loss using GRACE data - is for continuing studies gong forward.
"How can it possibly be when sea ice is growing around the entire Antarctica?"
Sea ice is growing very, very slightly in the satellite-era data. Antarctic sea ice is down over a longer time period, based on non-satellite data, and on re-purposed pre-1978 satellite data. And it is clear that warm-water buttress erosion is happening - among other things, it has been seen in the sequential loss of ice shelves over the last several years, each next one further south than the previous.
Also, sea ice is largely determined by surface air temperatures - once it is formed, it helps insulate the sea water from further cooling. Change in sea ice extent is not necessarily a good direct proxy for change in sea water temperatures in the water column.
Even more importantly, who is photographing the satellites? Because you can't trust the measurements if there have been not photographs taken by independent auditors.
Glad I found this (linked from a comment on RealClimate), because I was very annoyed by The Natalist's(*) recent Global Warming Denial special issue.
I've been regarding Plimer with some horror for a couple of decades, since watching him 'debate' Duane Gish on 'Creation Science'. Not the kind of person I want to have on my side in an argument, so there's some Schadenfreude involved in seeing him pissing inside the enemy camp for a change (I see frankis #11 had similar remarks).
Christopher Pearson, of course, has impeccable scientific credentials... not! (he's still just writing speeches for John Howard and Pope Palpertine, afaict). Don't know much about Greg Roberts, but he seems to specialise in hatchet jobs (Google got me http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/goss/response.htm), while the Oz's science writer Leigh Dayton... must have been spiked for that issue, since she's usually pretty good (YMMV).
My comments are shamelessly ad hominem in form, because others will already have done much better at criticising the spurious arguments and rhetoric - I haven't even gone to the Clarke link yet. But it's... encouraging (or something) that the paper maintains its editorial independence, with no change of position following Murdoch's announcement on the probable reality of AGW.
This is great spectator sport.
Lank@29 confuses aircraft and satellites, shows his ignorance of GRACE, and says "This would be technology that has not yet been invented - am I missing something? Can you direct me to a reference on this please?"
Then Gaz@34 politely responds, giving a link to the GRACE homepage. The top news story on that page has the title "Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss".
Lank plainly doesn't actually follow the link, or read the page, because his response @41 states "I'm not ignorant about GRACE. Airborne gravity systems have been around for some time infact they were pioneered here in Australia. Trouble is that I am unaware that they can measure ice thickness and I am very interested in the Philip Machanick claim that they can."
And so on, through comments 43, 45, 48.
Similarly his total confusion of ice sheets, ice shelves, and sea ice: three quite different things. A clue: Ice which "had a maximum thickness of 1.89m" is neither an ice sheet nor an ice shelf, and has absolutely no bearing on sea-level rise.
His ignorance is sad. His bare-faced denial of his ignorance, when it is plain for anyone to see, is very, very, funny.
For those that are interested, I've now read Plimer's book, Heaven+Earth, and written up a review of it here, including a catalogue of misrepresentations:
[Ian Plimer - Heaven and Earth](http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/)
dhogaza:
> Even more importantly, who is photographing the satellites? Because you can't trust the measurements if there have been not photographs taken by independent auditors.
Yep.
slightly related, but really nice:
In an Earth Day hearing, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu was forced to explain to Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) how oil is found in the Arctic.
[video](http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/04/22/barton-oil-science/)
Tim Curtin, do you copy?
bi -- IJI:
thanks for it is great. Afitting companion for my longterm favorite,
Someone over at Tamino's blog pointed out that Denial Depot debuted at about the same time as Mark Moran's Climate Depot.
Nice site, and bi--IJI i saw that post you referenced above earlier today. Made me laugh. I like the photo at the top with the red circle around the solar panel labeled "heat sink".
That Barton video is umm ... interesting.
I hope that was a review copy of Prof Plimer's book, Barry. I'd hate to think you'd paid good money for it.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
Yes, it was a review copy from the Australian Science Media Centre...
Thanks Barry for going through Plimer's book. I find it quite incredible that people who make the claim to be professional are engaging in behaviour like using Beck's CO2 "reconstruction". To actually put it down in writing in a book is astonishing.
Lank: remind me again why I am supposed to read this crap?
Climate patrol and Lank can't get enough of demonstrating their ignorance. One funny one after another. There is a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice AND a measured increase in both surface air temp and ocean temps. Zhang has explored thia and the paper is discussed at Skeptical Science (by John Cook, another Aussie).
Thanks Chris W, Chris O'Neill, Lee and Philippe for your enlightment and I mean it.
Let me summarize where I think the plethora of sources and articles leave us:
1) The said arcticle in The Australian is indeed misleading as it causes confusion between the loss of part of Antarctica's ice sheet on one hand and the increase of sea ice on the other hand.
2) Sea ice around Antarctica is expanding
3) The first GRACE study is indeed "a nice start" but it actually supports my assertion that GRACE has not yet quantified the mass balance of the antarctic ice sheet:
Yes: "The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005." Velicogna, Wahr (2006)
However: a quantification has not been possible, just a statistical model with poor confidence; and:
4)"GRACE mass solutions have no vertical resolution, however, and do not reveal whether a gravity variation over Antarctica is caused by a change in snow and ice on the surface, a change in atmospheric mass above Antarctica, or post-glacial rebound (PGR: the viscoelastic response of the solid Earth to glacial unloading over the past several thousand years). Users must employ independent means to separate those contributions." (same study, Sciencemag)
5)...and look at the short time scale (3 years)!
Okay, I am still waiting.
6) Temperature of Antarctica was actually decreasing during the GRACE period. (lol)
Meanwhile:
7) Temperature around main outlet areas of coastal glaciers was indeed rising.
8) Outlet glaciers change speed rapidly on a year to year basis. So? "What hypothesis for the reason for the speed-up would you prefer?"
Sciencedaily has the answer.
9) Other, longer-term studies conclude a positive mass change of the entire ice sheet of Antarctica!
Got cherry-picks?
Try looking at annual temperature anomalies , not just the month of March.
Still laughing, stupid?
YUP, wise crack:
annual temperature CHANGE 2002-2006. Next pick?
So what is your point?
climatepatrol:
"However: a quantification has not been possible, just a statistical model with poor confidence; "
Well, no. They use a model of isostatic rebound, constrained by actual observations of vertical movement of surface rocks outcrops as actual direct measurements of isostatic rebound. They have fewer rock movement observations than they would like, which leads to larger confidence intervals than they would like. The entire range of the confidence interval is negative - they observe mass loss.
And WTF is the point of showing a three year variation in temperature - your link at 84. It doesn't matter if 2006 was cooler relative to 2002 - what matters is that the 2000's are overall warmer than earlier decades. And they are.
And are yo seriously suggesting that West Antarctic ice flow acceleration and mass loss has nothing to do with warming, but is rather entirely due to subglacial flooding? It seems you are confusing cause with ONE of many mechanisms.
Philippeyou wrote;
"There is a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice". When I look at Cryosphere today's sea ice levels for yesterday I find that the slight increase is about 20%.
It is good that people are finally realizing that sea ice acts as an insulator and actuallly contributes to global warming while open sea water at the poles contributes to global cooling. Soon we may begin to focus on the cooling of the polar sea water(during the 9-10 months of cooling) instead of focusing on the sea ice extent or sea ice depth. In Climate change we need to focus on the world's water in all it's forms, not just the ice phase.
One respondent is essentially using weather data and one climate data. I'll let readers be the judge of who's picking ripe cherries.
For those who like to dabble, this link takes you to this NASA page:
Data Sources: Land: GISS
Ocean: none
Map Type: Anomalies/Trend
Mean Period:
Time Interval: Begin â End
Base Period: Begin 1951 â End 1980
Smoothing Radius: 1200 km
Projection type: regular/polar
where you can try it out for yourselves. Have fun.
z:
The Mad Revisionist rocks. Best part:
> A cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon. This reward remains unclaimed.
My favorite is the tour de force in which he applies the principles of rigorous scientific inquiry to the question of his own existence, and finds that there is not enough evidence to prove it to himself.
Most remarkable of all, since this page was written over a decade ago:
"A cursory examination of the contents of my wallet reveled a document that one might, at first, imagine would be conclusive in proving my existence: namely, my birth certificate. However, further research revealed that this was not, in fact, an original birth certificate, but rather a copy. In light of the dishonesty shown by the alleged eyewitnesses in section 1, I found myself justifiably reluctant to simply take it on faith that this facsimile was authentic."
'Tis true; what once was parody has become serious doctrine.
Tim,
The Australian's at it again, this time with Jan Veizer.
Glad you realize part of the point of Tim Lambert's posting which is that The Australian is continuing its war on Science with a misleading article. Also, glad you realize Antarctica's ice sheet is losing mass. Did take you a while though.
Hey I just real ClimatePatrol made up a handy new word, in #82: "arcticle".
I think it should be "antarcticle" - an article about the Antarctic.
Dang. I left "ised" off the end of "real".
In my exprience, far from being "balanced" regarding the climate change issue, much of the mainstream media is impervious to articles by scientists concerned about the scale and pace of global warming.
Which amounts to a COVER UP.
(Dr) Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleoclimate research
Australian National University
24-4-09
@Chris
Wrong, I am still looking for solid evidence. By the way, while I think "The Australian" was jumping from "ice sheet" to "sea ice", at least he kept the known facts straight. As to the selective quotes of Dr. Ian Allison in both misleading arcticles in "The Australian" and - even worse - "Harry Clark", it is hard to tell what Dr. Allison's main view is. I have however evidence of one thing in "The Australian":
.
It goes well with
Mass flux measurements across the margin of the Antarctic ice sheet
Entry ID: ASAC_2318, Australian Antarctic Data Centre.
If there is evidence regarding the mass balance of the entire ice sheet of the Antarctic continent, well it has not reached the policy makers. The scientific basis I have seen in this thread is too weak. Just hammering words.
cp:
Whatever turns you on. I can't tell you what your opinion of solid evidence should be. BTW, you should ask The Australian if you can write for them. BTW2, The Australian's claim:
is not just selective or misleading journalism, it's plain wrong. Expanding sea ice is not contrary to an overall melting continental ice cap.
Ah yes, an apologist for The Australian. You really should ask them if you can write for them.
I'm sure there are more policy makers than the IPCC. So you're telling us that if something didn't make it into IPCC 2007 then it's not real evidence. As I said, your opinion is your choice.
CP has another funny one:
"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off -- I'm talking 100km or 200km long -- every 10 or 20 or 50 years."
Except, of course, that Larsen B was about 10000 years old
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/full/nature03908.html
climatepatrol is a little behind, quoting
"Estimates for the overall mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet range from +100 to â200 Gt yrâ1 (â0.28 to 0.55 mm yrâ1 SLE) for 1961 to 2003. IPCC 2007"
Recent peer-reviewed papers have narrowed this down to net loss. climatepatrol's ignorance of this literature is of no consequence except to show that deniers never vary tactics - in this case deny the antarctic ice is melting.
The research is quite clear on this.
Lank is right.
Antarctic ice is increasing by -192GT(+/-92)per year.
Suck on that warm-o-holics!
Michael,
Did you wipe that pseudo-statistic off before displaying it here?
BPL:
I may be mistaken, but I think that if one increases something by a negative amount, one is actually decreasing that something.
Therefore, if "Antactic ice is increasing by -192GT(+/-92) per year"...
This is from The Australian (the web site at least) on Saturday April 25:
"It is always possible that one day the small but vocal minority of climate change sceptics will be proved right. In the meantime, risk management is the prudent strategy: while the overwhelming majority of scientists with expertise in the area remain persuaded of the human contribution to global warming, we should at least take out insurance against the possible consequences."
I think "always possible" is overstating it, but aside from that the article by Mike Steketee "Cool on a hot topic" was a breath of fresh air from the Oz, especially in comparison to some of the tripe it's published on climate change recently.
Aureola -- Oops. I missed the minus sign. My apologies to Michael.
@Lee
No, I did some more research about Antarctica. I like your suggestion that the growing sea ice extent is not necessarily a good thing. While it cools air temperature, it traps ocean heat from lower latitudes. This will go down under the hundreds of meter thick sub-surface ice shelves of WA. However, the energy from potential global warming used up for the melting of so much ice is a negative feedback by itself. SST -65S - -80°S has even cooled during the melt season in Antarctica. I don't sea how GRACE could detect such lowering in altitude of the surface of ice shelves that doesn't necessarily mean the ice has already melted, it may just sporadically have "sunken in" under its own weight near its edge, why not between 2003 and 2006, giving the impression of a mass loss of frozen continental water that has just expanded deep below Sea surface, while the continental ice is continually gaining mass. Anyway, I am going to read the following paper if time allows: "The influence of sea ice on ocean heat uptake in response to increasing CO2." JCLI CCSM Special issue, Bitz, Gent, Woodgate, Holland, Lindsy, 2006.
Aureola,
I don't care what mathematical mumbo-jumbo you throw around - Antarctic ice is icreasing.
Michael:
I call Poe.
clmatepatrol:
"However, the energy from potential global warming used up for the melting of so much ice is a negative feedback by itself."
uhhh... energy doesn't get "used up."
cp:
It's not a negative feedback, it's an inertia, a.k.a. phase lag.
GRACE detects changes in gravitational field from which changes in mass can be inferred. In the case of floating ice-shelves there would be zero mass change from melting/freezing.
@Lee
microclimate during snow melt. I am talking about the portion of the heat source that is no more available as sensible heat to warm air, snow and soil, but is being transformed into latent heat for the melting and evaporating process. I seek to still apply the term "energy used up to melt" (and evaporate) in my layman's terms unless there exists better simple English to express the same.
@Chris
Hi all,
I couldn't find TAWOS #36 so here is my question in #35.
In today's edition of The Australian, William Kininmonth makes the following claim:
"As the Earth warmed during the 1980s and '90s, it
was observed that the convective overturning of
the tropics (the Hadley circulation) increased.
In contrast, the overturning of the computer
models is portrayed to decrease as increasing
carbon dioxide generates global warming."
"Separately it is found that the computer models
underspecify (by a factor of three) the
important rate of increase of evaporation with
projected temperature rise, meaning that the
models underspecify rainfall increase and
exaggerate the risk ofdrought."
Can anyone point me to any published papers discussiing the alleged disparities between actual and predicited convective overturning and/or actual and predicted evaporation?
There appear to be some obvious issues with the newspaper story, eg the role of the sea as an effectively infinite heat sink.
That's not to mention the strange comment that "Evaporation and the exchange of latent energy from the surface is a strong constraint to surface temperature rise."
Anyway, if anyone can point me to some sources I'd be grateful.
cp:
Is this supposed to be significant?
You'll need to explain.
Further INLAND, at the bottom of the iceshelf. I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that iceshelves are floating on the sea which by definition is not inland.
I'm already aware that your objective is uncertainty and that you'll assert as much at every chance you get.
"cannot"? So you've got proof. Let's see it.
Gaz my comment on John Quiggin's blog will give an inkling as to why I personally would not be wasting too much time fact-checking anything William Kininmonth has had to say. Laughing hard and enjoying the show - yes! Fact checking him - ummm not so much.
Gaz -- there's a conceptual problem in the Australian's's statement. The fact that precipitation is rising on global average -- which nobody denies -- says nothing about where the precipitation comes down. The distribution of rainfall can get more extreme even as overall precipitation rises. Global warming means more drought in continental interiors. Ask the Australians.
I beg to disagree: This map shows how big the twilight zone between the continent and broken off sea ice really is. Looks quite significant to me.
www.sciencemag.org/...
"Fig. 2. GRACE monthly mass solutions for the Antarctic ice sheet for April 2002 to August 2005. Blue circles show results after removing the hydrology leakage. Red crosses show results after also removing the PGR signal. The latter represent our best estimates of the mass variability. The error bars include only the contributions from uncertainties in the GRACE gravity fields and represent 68.3% confidence intervals".
May I add that - as some commenters here have insinuated correctly - three years observation is irrelevant to global climate change.
What a surprise.
All those ice shelves are floating on the sea.
That 68.3% confidence interval does not go down to zero. It goes down to a substantial mass loss.
. Ok then. if I understand correctly, uncertainties in connection with the behavour of iceshelves and marine based ice sheets are accounted for in the error estimates of the study - e.g. under the term "hydrology leakage". However, you asked me to prove that 95% condidence of a net loss of ice mass cannot be derived from this study:
- No uncertainty range was calculated for the hydrology leakage accounted for (- 12 km3/year).
- "The PGR contribution (192 ± 79 km3/year) is much larger than the uncorrected GRACE trend (39 ± 14 km3/year [68.3% confidence]). A significant ice mass trend does not appear until the PGR contribution is removed."
- Mike Willis, a postdoctoral fellow at Ohio State, who works on POLENET was quoted as follows:
âThey [GRACE] will have this very accurate means to track changes in the mass in the ice in a way that they intended to do...â. In the future, using these tools, scientists will be able to say whether Antarctica grew or shrunk on at least a monthly basis... âWe donât even know that at this time. We have hints of it, but [removing PGR signals] thatâs based on models â which are probably wrong.â Source.
Conclusion:
- Even if the use of the Antarctic long-term IJ05 model as a trend for the PGR signal during this short ~4 year period is correct, it will obviously miss the already low accuracy using GRACE gravity fields.
- The GRACE estimate is based on IJ05 for the determination of the lower range of PGR signals (ICE-5G), and on a global model for the upper range of the signal source. I conclude that the global model was clearly used because the trend shown by IJ05 alone didn't show the desired trend of rock move.
- Even if the calculated error bars derived from a combination of the IJ05 and ICE-5G models are comparable with the accuracy of the uncorrected GRACE trend, I am correct with my claim that 95% confidence cannot be derived from this study for the following reasons:
1. There is a 15.8% chance according to uncorrected GRACE that 53 km3/year or more mass is being gained in Antarctica (p95.4% at max. 79 km3/year).
2. Under the above assumption of same accuracy, there is a 15.8% chance that the the missed mass loss according to the PGR signal is less than -113 km3/year and a 2.3% chance (p95.4%) that PGR is less than -34 km3/year.
3. The 95% confidence that Antarctica is losing ice mass cannot be derived from the study, since the remaining 4.6% probability (2 SD), which this "PGR removal model mix" would account for - 34 km3/y or less, could be more than offset by the best estimate of observed mass gain (+ 39 km3/y).
Less serious:
"ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap."
Correct. The temporary overspill of ice flows into the Sea caused Antarctica to expand.
@ Chris
Correction:
The 95% confidence that Antarctica is losing ice mass cannot be derived from the study, since the remaining 2.3% probability (2 SD), which this "PGR removal model mix" would account for - 34 km3/y or less, could be more than offset by the best estimate of observed mass gain (+ 39 km3/y).
The word "contrary" is incorrect. Sea ice expansion is not contrary to a melting continental ice cap.
@Chris
Sir, "Sea ice" seems to be an ambigious term whatsoever.
For instance: Where is Chardot Island on this satellite image of 2004 showing err - oh! and where is the reportedly 10'000 year old finger of the Wilkins Ice Shelf?
Follow-up. The above NSIDC-link seems not to work. Please check out NSID - images of wilkins 2002-2009.
Does this have anything to do with the continental ice cap?
Well is Chardot Island a real island with ice sitting on bedrock? If so, yes, it has something to do with it. The reason why I question all this is because I have always considered an ice shelf that is formed by outlet glaciers as part of the Antarctic continent since nobody is sure where it starts to sit on bedrock or clay and where is the line where it starts to be afloat. this map seems to show the edge of the previously thought edge of floating ice shelves as a black line, while the bedrock elevation suggests that the floating part of the ice could go much further inland. Does the new satellite sensoring technique change the old map of the extent of "marine ice sheets" versus "floating ice shelves"? I mean, you can classify millions of square km of marine based ice (see bedrock elevation map) as part of the continental ice shelf or not, depending on whether it significantly contributes to sea level rise or not per se (without taking into account the behavor of surrounding glaciers that start to flow faster).
Having said this, I believe that a claimed thinning of WAIS in Gt/year has less effect on sea level than a claimed thickening of EAIS in Gt/year because ice doesn't sink below sea level easily because of the weight of snow accumulation in East Antarctica, in a similar way it does in the West. Is there a paper which clearly defines the term "mass loss" in terms of Sea level rise from Antarctica? The paper "Richard B. Alley,1* Peter U. Clark,2* Philippe Huybrechts,3,4* Ian Joughin5* seems to start to address this problem but doesn't give an answer which would answer the question of contribution of sea level rise IF EVER one day, the claim "ice loss is continuing and accelerating" can be derived FROM OBSERVATION.
cp,
Ice shelves do not float.
Be that as it may, what sea ice does is not contrary to a melting continental ice cap. The Australian's statement is incorrect.
@ Chris
ok thank you. I accept.
@ luminous beauty
Really? Maybe you should tell Wikipedia.
cp,
It is an error to think the 'floating' ice, a relatively small region of an ice shelf extending seaward beyond the grounding line, is actually resting at neutral buoyancy, much less to think it is a general characteristic of ice shelves.
luminou beauty,
thank you for the link. "Grounding line retreat (or advance)" is the question.