Skipping A Step

Here is a little glimpse of how climate alarmism works.  Check out this article in the NewScientist (I don’t know anything about this particular publication, but my general assumption is that most periodicals use “New” in the context of such a title as a synonym for “socialist.”):

Rather than spreading out evenly across all the oceans, water from melted Antarctic ice sheets will gather around North America and the Indian Ocean. That’s bad news for the US East Coast, which could bear the brunt of one of these oceanic bulges.

It goes on and on with more detail, which sounds really scary:

First, Jerry Mitrovica and colleagues from the University of Toronto in Canada considered the gravitational attraction of the Antarctic ice sheets on the surrounding water, which pulls it towards the South Pole. As the ice sheet melts, this bulge of water dissipates into surrounding oceans along with the meltwater. So while the sea level near Antarctica will fall, sea levels away from the South Pole will rise.

Once the ice melts, the release of pressure could also cause the Antarctic continent to rise by 100 metres. And as the weight of the ice pressing down on the continental shelf is released, the rock will spring back, displacing seawater that will also spread across the oceans.

Redistributing this mass of water could even change the axis of the Earth’s spin. The team estimates that the South Pole will shift by 500 metres towards the west of Antarctica, and the North Pole will shift in the opposite direction. Since the spin of the Earth creates bulges of oceanic water in the regions between the equator and the poles, these bulges will also shift slightly with the changing axis….

The upshot is that the North American continent and the Indian Ocean will experience the greatest changes in sea level – adding 1 or 2 metres to the current estimates. Washington DC sits squarely in this area, meaning it could face a 6.3-metre sea level rise in total. California will also be in the target zone.

Spotting the skipped logic step does not require one to be a climate skeptic.  Anyone familiar with the most recent IPCC report should see it too.  Specifically, the authors simply posit — without even bothering to mention it as an assumption! — that tons of land-based ice (remember, sea ice melting has no effect on sea levels) is going to melt in Antarctica.  But just about everyone, even the alarmists at the IPCC, predict just the opposite, even in 3C per century global warming scenarios.

Why?  Well, for a couple of reasons.  The first is that Antarctica is so cold that several degrees of warming will not bring most of the continent above freezing, even in the summer.  The exception is probably the Antarctic Peninsula, which sticks out north of the rest of the continent and accounts for 2% of the land mass and a much smaller percentage of the total ice pack.

The other reason is that if the world warms, the seas around Antarctica will warm and the models show the warming surrounding seas increasing precipitation on the continent and actually increasing snow pack.  In fact, increases in Antarctic ice pack actually exceed decreases forecast in ice packs around the rest of the world.  The entirety of the IPCC ocean rise scenario is driven by the thermal expansion of water, not net ice melting.

By the way, I presume these guys have their math right, but it seems astonishing to me that the ice mass (or lack of it) could really exert enough gravitational pull to change sea levels in the northern hemisphere by a meter or two.  Gravity is an astonishingly weak force — does this reality check?  I had always thought differences in ocean levels (say for example the fact that the Atlantic and Pacific are not the same height on either side of the Panama Canal)  had more to do with differentials in evaporation rates.

PS- Is telling me global warming will flood Washington DC supposed to make me be against global warming?  Because that sounds pretty good to me. ;=)

52 thoughts on “Skipping A Step”

  1. “I don’t know anything about this particular publication, but my general assumption is that most periodicals use “New” in the context of such a title as a synonym for “socialist.””

    If you want people to take your views seriously, best not to start posts by openly declaring your ignorance, eh? Three of your last four posts have started with one. I would think that most people, if they read a paper in a magazine they hadn’t heard of, might do a little bit of research before deciding that the magazine was published by their ideological enemies. But nothing offends a denier more than a little bit of basic research, does it?

  2. hunter:

    nothing ignorant about what he said about the word “New”. Quite satirical if you’re aware of the amount of socialist groups who have stuck “New” on their party names.

    Back to the topic, said IPCC scientist has come out with gravity defying nonsense, literally!

  3. You are quite right, ‘New Scientist’ is a science news magazine that reports scientific news and views ‘in a social and cultural context’ according to its web site. While not overtly political, it tends to favour radical ‘newsworthy’ science; I seem to recall it being all over the ‘new ice age’ story in the 70’s. I have not read it for quite some time, but I would imagine that AGW would be right up its street. It used to be required reading for young scientists due to its extensive jobs section, alas no more – I predict that employed scientists here in the UK will disappear long before the polar icecap.

  4. I like the way the original post says “I’m sure they’re right, but are they wrong?”, and Aron describes the result as ‘gravity defying nonsense’. A little bit of physics knowledge and a calculator would have helped you both out here.

    The moon raises the tides, right? Now, the tidal force exerted by one body on another is proportional to M/R**3. The mass of the moon is 7.36e22 kg, and it’s 384000km away. So, what’s the mass of Antarctica’s ice? Its area is about 15 million square kilometres, so let’s assume it’s covered by a uniform ice sheet 1km thick. Then the volume is 1.5e7 km**3, and the mass is 1.5e19kg. Let’s assume that West Antarctica is 20% of the total, with a mass of 3e18kg. The tidal force exerted by the ice of West Antarctica on a hemisphere of the earth turns out to be larger than the tidal force exerted by the moon on a hemisphere of the earth. By how much? Why don’t you work it out?

    It’s certainly curious that someone would describe something as ‘nonsense’ when they obviously haven’t even considered the physics. Combining ignorance with arrogance in that way just makes you look very stupid.

    By the way Aron, the ignorant bit, in case you missed it, was where he said “I don’t know anything about this particular publication”.

  5. When I was doing my degree in physics 25 years ago, magazines like New Scientist & Scientific American were regarded as tabloid rags that would have a penchant for bending the truth & exaggerations. This approach helped sales, but doesn’t do much for the scientific process.

    So 25 years later we have the biggest gravy train ever for these publications – catastrophic AGW. They will milk this for all its worth, and there is plenty of milk to be had (excuse the mix metaphors).

    Hunter – We could sit here make a bunch of assumptions, apply a series of known formulas and calculate out a whole bunch of doomsday scenarios that could ‘possibly’ happen to the Earth. In reality is doesn’t tell us much, other than we might have the theme for a B-grade disaster movie.

  6. Hunter – did you notice the title of this piece? Although he is skeptic of the actual consequence of losing the ice mass, the point is that there are no predictions of Antarctic ice mass loss that would indicate a need to alarm anyone about the consequences. Do you have any information that says otherwise? We are more likely to have the magnetic poles swap or be hit by one of the many objects speeding through space. While I personally find it an interesting calculation to make, it is in the realm of fantastic what-if Sci-fi stories and not reasonable to use as alarmist propaganda. Your attack on the author, focusing on his by-the-way and avoidance of the point he was trying to make takes away from your ability to do anything but flame the author and prove to anyone reading here that his position is stronger than yours.

  7. “the authors simply posit — without even bothering to mention it as an assumption! — that tons of land-based ice (remember, sea ice melting has no effect on sea levels) is going to melt in Antarctica”

    Obviously you haven’t read the paper. They don’t ‘simply posit’ anything of the sort.

    “just about everyone, even the alarmists at the IPCC, predict just the opposite, even in 3C per century global warming scenarios…The entirety of the IPCC ocean rise scenario is driven by the thermal expansion of water, not net ice melting.”

    Obviously you haven’t read the IPCC reports either. From AR4:

    “There is medium confidence that at least partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, would occur over a period of time ranging from centuries to millennia for a global average temperature increase of 1-4°C (relative to 1990-2000)”

    “The projections [of sea level rise] include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993 to 2003″

    This whole post is just a spectacular display of ignorance and stupidity.

  8. It doesn’t matter if the author has never read New Scientist. It might not ever have been available near where he lives. Calling him ignorant for not being aware of one publication doesn’t take away from the author’s contribution. I myself haven’t touched a copy of NS for 15 years and have no need to in order to study the subject at hand.

    hunter, you’re making the classic mistake of applying mathematics in a manner that doesn’t really tell us anything about the chaotic way in which the natural world works with its many many other and unpredictable variables. Just take a look at history instead, the many times when global temperatures were higher, or when ice cover was less, or when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations where higher (or lower), and try to find a single moment when the doomy scenario outlined ever occurred. I can’t think of any out of all the records I’ve studied over the years.

  9. As usual Hunter is a standard AGW alarmist who makes an ad hominem attack and then ignores the main point.

    But first to New Scientist. Warren is right in his guess. This is no longer a science magazine more like the house journal of Greenpeace. Apart from a non-stop diet of AGW alarmism and totally unscientific analysis, it recently devoted an edition to strategies to save the planet that could be summed up by

    ensuring that most of Africa remains in poverty
    we all return to cave dwelling

    As to the nonsense about the Antarctic, as Hunter can’t be bothered to finish the calculation (I wonder why), it’s irrelevant as the actual likelihood of the ice melting to the degree mentioned as a result of a small increase in a trace gas is near to zero. Any estimate emerging from the IPCC must be taken with a large pinch of salt.

    I look forward to the torrent of abuse.

    Paul

  10. I’m not even sure if our hunter and all those alarmists are even aware at what temperature ice begins to thaw so rapidly. It’s typically -50C across much of Antarctica with windchill dropping temperatures to as low as -80C or more. What kind of a scientist thinks massive thawing will occur because of future warming of between the 1-6C as forecast by extremely crude computer simulations that have so far failed to make any accurate predictions at all?

  11. Well wasn’t that to be expected. The original post can be summed up as saying “I am ignorant. I don’t believe the results of a paper I haven’t even read, because they contradict my world view and also I think they contradict the IPCC report which I also haven’t read”. I gave a small calculation that demonstrated the plausibility of the result, and pointed out passages from IPCC reports that showed that our ‘climate skeptic’ obviously didn’t have the faintest idea what was in them.

    What does Aron do? Changes the subject entirely and makes an idiotic comparison between his estimate of a regional temperature, and projections of global temperatures. What does Paul Maynard do? Claims that small quantities of things can’t possibly have any effect. Good one, guys! You really rebutted my points there, didn’t you?

  12. Just answer the question, hunter. By how much would temperatures have to go up to cause very wide scale thawing of land-based ice in Antarctica and what evidence shows that there is a chance of that occurring?

  13. To be fair to the authors of the New Scientist piece, there are several ways I can think of off the top of my head that the Antarctic ice sheet could be melted.

    For instance, a large rock could sideswipe planet Earth and knock us off our axis so that Antarctica ends up pointing towards the Sun all the time. Of course there might be some ice issues in the bits pointing away from the sun but who knows.

    Then again, a massive body could pass through the Solar system and drag our orbit a bit nearer the Sun.

    And then, when old Sol goes all red giant on us, Antarctica is pretty much guaranteed to melt. But since all the water will quickly evaporate, flooding may not be our most pressing problem.

    Assuming of course, that Washington is still around when any of this happens.

  14. As a sceptic of catastrophic AGW, I rather like the New Scientist and have a subscription to it. Other than its obsession with global warming, it is generally an interesting and trustworthy publication. This article was not published in the magazine itself anyway, so it is likely some people there realised it went a bit far.

  15. Since we are talking about assumpsions here, could some one with a better understanding of things explain a problem I see with a lot of these ice melting scares? If all the ice shelves did melt, wouldn’t that lead to a drop in sea level, not a rise? After all, water expands when it freezes, and the ice shelf is displacing the water already, so I would think that if the ice became liquid sea leveld would drop. Then again I don’t claim to have a perfect understanding of the process. Can anyone enlighten me?

  16. Hi eagle feather,

    To make things easy to understand and rest your mind at ease, certainly if a substantial amount of ice above sea level (ie. land based, massively tall icebergs, etc) were to melt then it would cause sea levels to rise, but the plain fact is that it simply isn’t possible to melt enough ice to cause a threatening increase because we, or industrialisation, can’t cause enough global warming to make a large thaw occur.

    Alarmists always mention the Arctic, Anarctica, Siberia and Greenland as regions where dangerous thawing or release of methane gas will occur because of global warming, completely or conveniently ignoring that the average temperatures in those locations are -25C, -50C, -40C and -30C respectively yet the IPCC forecasts a rise in temperatures of between 1-6C by the end of the century, only if our technology and use of fossil fuels remains exactly the same (which is unthinkable as technology is always becoming more efficient and cleaner without interference from climate campaigners).

    That amount of warming isn’t enough to cause a dangerous thaw. At the current rate of technological progress and with global birth rates set to fall as more nations become prosperous, we’ll probably see a degree or so of warming at most by the end of the century. That means we’ll see the same temperatures that humanity saw for the majority of the last 10,000 years.

    The result of that should see sea levels fall in many areas by almost a foot as water is evaporated from the seas and transferred inland as rainfall where it will add to water tables, increase the size of lakes and shrink deserts. Some inland, not coastal, flooding can be expected by nothing we can’t fix with a bit of engineering when the time comes. For the most part it will be beneficial and create a better eco-system. Plants and wildlife will thrive and there will be more fertile arable land for people where deserts diminish.

  17. Oh, and I must add: Antarctica’s ice mass will continue to grow as precipitation will cause increased snowfall down under.

  18. Aron – you live in a dream world. It’s very conspicuous that you haven’t provided a single source for your claims. You’ve quite obviously just invented those ‘average temperatures’. You don’t seem to be aware that

    – Greenhouse gas emissions are increasing every year, not staying the same and certainly not decreasing.
    – birth rates are irrelevant. Population is relevant. Global population is forecast to continue rising for a long time yet.
    – the temperature today is higher than it has been throughout the majority of the Holocene. A further degree of warming would put us way into uncharted territory, and is at the low end of all scientifically reasonable projections (i.e. projections that haven’t just been pulled out of someone’s arse like yours has).
    – water expands as it warms, and so a drop in average sea level in response to rising temperatures is physically impossible.
    – your idea that global warming will create a ‘better ecosystem’ is pure fantasy.

    Why do so many stupid but loud-mouthed people think they have something to say about climate that is worth listening to?

  19. I have been posting here for awhile, and whoever is using my name in this thread is not me.
    I wish that the AGW fundies would have the integrity of religious fundies and not highjack other people’s names and in effect act as total cowards.
    Is there any way a host can ban the IP of the sock puppet highjacking my name?

  20. Jennifer, stop the crap. Everyone knows you are just an immature troll, no matter what name you use. Pick one and stick with it.
    I highjacked nothing, just as you offer nothing but ignorance and spew and demonstrations of psychological issues.
    I have never taken any of your names, you miserable twit.
    Yet you are fixated on me on this thread and others. Do yo think you are making AGW believers look less ignorant by doing what you do?
    Pick an original name and stick with it. You might even increase your credibility above the level of 0 by demonstrating some of the basics of integrity.

  21. Oh well, another discussion gone to pot. Proof that alarmism appeals to the insane and spreads insanity. This is my last post on this site as I definitely don’t want this identity theft and confusion happening to me. I recommend registered usernames ASAP.

  22. Who you calling Jennifer? And what the fuck do you know about integrity? You have never displayed a shred of integrity, in anything you’ve said. Nor has the ‘climate skeptic’. You are nasty, you encourage nastiness, and you are extremely happy for nastiness to go on here – unless it’s happening to you. Well, then, until you learn your lesson, nastiness is going to continue happening to you.

    Aron – good riddance.

  23. Jennifer,
    You are clearly projecting your interior condition, and rather pathetically at that.
    What ‘lesson’ should I learn? To never question an AGW true believer’s faith-based tenets?
    To properly accept what my self-declared betters have decided is holy writ on climate?
    To bow three times when you dribble some useless, vacuous post that pretends to put skeptics in the place you choose for them?
    Jennifer you are a transparent loser, and while you might be able to stink up a thread, you will not make AGW any less false with the effort. You just reveal that your being a troll, like the buggers no doubt stuck up in your nose, never really runs out, no matter how much you keep picking at it.

  24. I ain’t Jennifer you prick. And what bit of this didn’t you understand: “You are nasty, you encourage nastiness, and you are extremely happy for nastiness to go on here – unless it’s happening to you. Well, then, until you learn your lesson, nastiness is going to continue happening to you.”

  25. Jennifer, you use my name, I will continue to use the one I think appropriate. I was not even posting on this thread when you highjacked my name, Jennifer.
    I take no responsibility and have no authority to enforce any posting rules, even if I tried to take responsibility, for what others post here. And since your complaint is the exact same complaint as Jennifer, I think you are not only a troll, you are a dim troll, as well.
    You started this thread by highjacking my name and posting non-sane dribble. Do not blame me for what others post here, or for the tone you choose to set.
    You quack like Jennifer, you waddle like Jennifer, you fail to understand anything like Jennifer. Jennifer you will remain, until you pick a new name, and one that is not mine.

  26. hunter = cfdman = Aron = climate skeptic = braindead. Ain’t that a mature thing to write.

    What this site needs is not to be populated by retards. People come along, and in good faith point out simple errors that are made. Then what happens? Idiots pile on, get incredibly nasty, start hijacking names, etc etc, and all the while the ‘climate skeptic’ does fuck all. Then the same nasty people get all upset when the tables are turned on them.

    The ‘climate skeptic’ can decide what kind of atmosphere he wants to promote on this blog. He obviously likes it this way, so this way it will be. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to visit.

  27. Its a shame that this discussion has degraded so. I really wanted to hear some opinion on this topic. So typical of the AGW crowd. By in large, the AGW crowd holds no credibility with me. It has gotten old, not even cute anymore. IMHO…

  28. Jennifer,
    You are the only one highjacking anything on this thread.
    I am not going to start, and I suggest that if you don’t like it, don’t do it.
    We are guests of Climate Skeptic. If our host is benign enough to let the threads flow freely, I do not think that is reason to demonstrate what you have deomnstrated here.

  29. It’s ironic that AGW supporters by making arses of themselves, help to discredit what they are passionately trying to defend, particularly in the eyes of casual readers. It should be about the science, and even if some AGW supporters are nut jobs, that doesn’t disprove anything, but it does have the unavoidable tendency of making people in general more sceptical of AGW.

  30. If on the one hand global temperatures are on an inexorable upward trend, and on the other, a whole lot of bad-mouthing is going on on a very badly-run and obscure website, which one do you think plays a greater role in forming opinions, Will?

    As for nut jobs, it takes a real one to come out with “The entirety of the IPCC ocean rise scenario is driven by the thermal expansion of water, not net ice melting”. Do you think that behind that statement was mere ignorance, or was it in fact a conscious lie?

  31. AGW is now more about politics these days than science… (unfortunately)… the public is generally sceptical of the media in almost everything it reports, particularly when it focuses on a single viewpoint, and that includes AGW. “Obscure” sceptical websites like Watt’s Up With That scored 1,318,794 web page views in January along. So maybe they are not as obscure as you would hope. Obviously, you don’t think they are obscure enough for you to not come here and rubbish whatever is written, usually without giving much thought to your criticisms first.

    As for “nut jobs” there are extreme viewpoints on both sides of the debate, such as those you post, and those of bogus sceptics and cranks. The truth lies somewhere between these extremes.

  32. I’m suprised you didn’t know that New Scientist is a fake publication that is a significnt part of the AGW PR machine. There is no scientific value in this publication.

  33. Jennifer,
    Are temperatures on an ‘inexorable rise’?
    If so, please post us something to demonstrate this.
    Here is what the IPCC says about ocean levels, which is in need of update since AGW now says that it has predicted a warming Antarctic all of these years anyway.
    “Ice, snow, permafrost, rain, and the oceans
    The SPM documents increases in wind intensity, decline of permafrost coverage, and increases of both drought and heavy precipitation events. Additionally:

    “Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres.”
    Losses from the land-based ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely (>90%) contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003.
    Ocean warming causes seawater to expand, which contributes to sea level rising.
    Sea level rose at an average rate of about 1.8 mm/year during the years 1961-2003. The rise in sea level during 1993-2003 was at an average rate of 3.1 mm/year. It is not clear whether this is a long-term trend or just variability.
    Antarctic sea ice shows no significant overall trend, consistent with a lack of warming in that region”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Ice.2C_snow.2C_permafrost.2C_rain.2C_and_the_oceans
    My bet is that, unlike your behavior,Jennifer, it was not a conscious lie.

  34. Jennifer,
    Please show where anyone is saying global temps are on an inexorable upward trend. Links, please.
    And I would say that since there is a great deal of talk about thermal expansion being responsible for the cliamed ocean level increases, that if a mistake was made it was not deliberate. Unlike what you do, people do make errors that are not part of deception.

  35. “I don’t know anything about this particular publication, but my general assumption is that most periodicals use “New” in the context of such a title as a synonym for “socialist.””

    I have subscribed to this publication for several years. In general it is pretty good but the editor seems to have quite a fixation about global warming and seems to have bought into the idea that the science of global warming is “settled’ (as compared to the science of Newton and Einstein, which evidently is not settled). No evidence which might appear to contradict global warming will make it into the magazine until such time as it can be cited as disproved.

  36. Valerie: have you really never heard of GISS, or HadCrut, or UAH, or RSS? These are the common measures of global temperature. Try out the following:

    1. Download the annual mean temperatures in each data set. I am sure you can find them with google.
    2. Starting from the present day, fit linear trends to the data for the past year, two years, three years, four years etc. Calculate the errors on your linear fits.
    3. Recall that whenever the errors are larger than the trend, then there is no statistically discernible trend.
    4. For each dataset, tell us from what year we have to start, to derive a negative and statistically significant trend from that year to the present day.

    As for the wrong statement about attributing sea level rise, I’ll allow that as well as ignorance and malice, there is the possibility of simple stupidity as well. Does it give you confidence in what the ‘climate skeptic’ is saying, when he gets something as basic as reporting what someone else said totally wrong?

    Steve: did you or anyone else so keen to mark down the New Scientist as an enemy publication actually notice that the article was actually published in Science, and merely reported on by the New Scientist?

  37. Your name, Valerie? And is no-one else but you in this world of six billion people called ‘hunter’?

    Tell you what, though, if you do those four things that I suggested, then I will never again use ‘your’ name.

  38. “did you or anyone else so keen to mark down the New Scientist as an enemy publication actually notice that the article was actually published in Science, and merely reported on by the New Scientist?”

    I noticed. Did you notice that this is irrelevant to my comment? The New Scientist treats Global Warming as religion, not science.

  39. hunter (10/2, 3:15pm), what’s the point of fitting a linear trend to a trend that’s not linear? What’s the point of calculating the error of the resulting “linear fit” to a set of data that has the wrong properties for simple linear regression, most notably in that they are autocorrelated? What worthwhile inferences can result?
    Just questions. My statistics may be out of date.

  40. dinosaur: these are sensible questions to ask. It looks like a linear fit is a good approximation to the most recent three decades of temperature measurements. And greenhouse gas forcing is increasing approximately linearly, so one would a priori expect an approximately linear temperature trend over that time. Going back further than thirty years, a linear fit becomes obviously less valid. But I think that by the the time hunter gets back that far, he’ll have realised the point I’m making.

    Autocorrelation doesn’t stop us fitting a line to the data, it just changes our error estimates. The value you would estimate from simple linear regression would be too low, and you would think that ‘trends’ were statistically significant when they weren’t. But in the exercise I suggested hunter do, it wouldn’t affect the outcome.

    So, the exercise I set contains simplifying assumptions. However, although they would quantitatively change the outcome, they wouldn’t qualitatively change it, and I would like hunter to begin by understanding the data at least in a qualitative sense.

  41. Jennifer,
    Since GHGs behave in a logarithmic fashion, I think you should call the Noble Prize Committee and tell them how to spell your name on your physics prize for discovering that GHGs are linear.
    So, please answer the simple questions I posed and stop the fillibuster and dissembling.

  42. Fucking hell, you’re a thick cunt. You’re just repeating words you’ve heard. You obviously can’t make any sense of scientific terminology. To the surprise of no-one at all, you haven’t followed the four simple steps I outlined. Either you are incapable of doing so, or you have actually done so but you don’t like the answer it gave. In any case you’re a cocksucker of the highest order.

  43. Jennifer,
    Your ignorance and your lack of integrity are only matched by your inability to communicate.
    I will conclude, along with other people who have dealt with you before, that you are just a neverwuzzer troll.

Comments are closed.