Climate Conversation Group

Taking the heat out of global warming

For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.

  • rss
  • Home
  • Open threads
    • Climate – how to use open threads
      • Meteorology
      • Global warming
      • Climate science
        • Climate Models
        • Papers
        • Atmosphere
        • Temperature records
        • Energy and fuel
        • Solar
        • Ocean heat content
        • Radiation, radiative imbalance
        • Sea levels
        • Ocean acidification
        • Polar regions, glaciers and ice
      • Regions
        • Europe
        • Asia
        • South America
        • Africa
        • Australia
        • UK
        • USA
        • Pacific
        • New Zealand
      • News
      • Controversy and scandal
        • Skeptical Science
      • Disproving AGW
      • Economics
    • Politics
      • ETS and carbon taxes
    • UN
      • IPCC organisation
      • IPCC politics
      • IPCC science
      • NIPCC
  • Opinion polls
    • SckSckSck
    • Your view of CO2
    • Collective noun for icebergs
    • Stop the ETS
  • Climate of Freedom Tour
  • Files
    • Climate Realists
      • Newsletter #17 6 May 2010
      • Newsletter #16 28 Apr 2010
      • Newsletter #6 11 Feb 2010
      • Newsletter #4 2011
    • News releases
      • February 8, 2010
      • December 20, 2010
    • Wind turbine failures
  • About

More unfounded alarmism at Hot Topic

Richard Treadgold | August 24, 2009

Science Daily reports a week ago that the Pine Island Glacier, in Antarctica, is thinning four times faster than it did ten years ago. Gareth Renowden at Hot Topic pounces on this news with an enthusiastic lack of scepticism and hastens to paint it as alarming, saying:

At this rate of thinning, the glacier could disappear in 100 years, instead of the 600 years earlier estimates had suggested.

Although that merely confirms the error in the previous estimate. To raise alarm, one should always quote facts, even out of context, so he says:

Since 1994, the central portion of the glacier has thinned by as much as 90 metres, and the ice surface is currently lowering by 16 metres a year.

These useful facts are not in the link he provides, they’re from a report by the BBC, though Gareth doesn’t say so. He quotes a scientist saying material is being lost from the Pine Island Glacier at “an exponential rate” and says:

Given concerns about the stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet as the world warms and sea level rises, the words “exponential rate” sound particularly ominous…

So he links it directly with “global warming”, but in loose, ambiguous terms he can easily deny if challenged. The clear intention is to alarm. He unsurprisingly fails to mention that both the Science Daily report and the press release from Leeds say (my emphasis):

Scientists believe that the retreat of glaciers in this sector of Antarctica is caused by warming of the surrounding oceans, though it is too early to link such a trend to global warming.

There is simply no justification to link this (so far unseen) paper with global warming when the scientists themselves fail to do so. He also claims sea level is rising, so we ought to point out that globally, sea level rise has levelled off and levels have not risen since about 2005. Whatever this glacier has done, it is not presently affecting sea level.

A recent (Feb 2009) paper, “Increased rate of acceleration on Pine Island Glacier strongly coupled to changes in gravitational driving stress,” from the British Antarctic Survey, about the inland glacier (i.e. not the floating part), concludes:

Acceleration is highly correlated to slope increase and no sustained increase in longitudinal stress gradient, or decrease in basal drag, is needed to explain the force balance.

So far as I can see, that means nothing more dangerous than that a steeper slope is making the glacier slide downhill faster. Heavier bodies slide more quickly than light ones. That paper says nothing about “global warming” to explain the increased speed, because the only reason glaciers move at all is in response to gravity.

So the Pine Island Glacier seems to be thinning at the moment. For the floating portion, that could mean imminent retreat of the snout, as calving might occur quicker with thinner ice more easily broken by the movement of the sea. We can expect the inland portion to slow down as it loses mass — good news for those fearful of sea level rise.

But, if the glacier is thinning, where’s the missing water?

If it fell as snow elsewhere, there could be no net effect on sea level for several hundreds or thousands of years. If it rained elsewhere, it would add something to sea level after evaporation, absorption and storage. If it’s still in the atmosphere, it has not yet increased sea level. If it failed to fall hundreds of years ago, thereby depriving the glacier of mass, it has already done whatever it was going to do and we can disregard it; we are not told how long it takes the Pine Island Glacier to traverse its course to the sea.

However if the glacier was melted from underneath by warmer water, it was floating, so the melting added nothing to sea level. There’s a lot we don’t know about glaciers and sea level.

But there seems no reason for alarm, Gareth.

Categories
General
Tags
Alarmists, General, Geophysical Research Letters, Glaciers, Hot Topic, Oceans, Polar regions
Comments rss
Comments rss
Trackback
Trackback

« What do we get, Dr Smith? The audience strikes back »

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

buy FastProof now

          • Climate Conversation Group •
   • more than 1,400,000 visits a year
   • over 7,600,000 hits a year
               — join the Conversation —

Hot off the press

  • Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Emotional knowledge
  • Global warming less than we thought
  • Climate porkies from TV One
  • Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought
  • Renowden a scaring warmist
  • Hide sticks it to Renwick
  • The incredibly elusive absolute surface air temperature
  • Faults, fallacies and failures of wind power
  • For real striving, give up the driving
  • Cost to ‘restore climate’ a game-changer
  • Signs of strain in justifying climate predictions
  • Is the game nearly over
  • IPCC created and controlled by activists
  • Policy: politicians write it but scientists incite it
  • The industry of denial
  • Lord Monckton complains to VUW
  • Climate forecasts fulfilled or what?
  • Snip-it
  • Forget prosperity, we need the extra tree

Latest comments

  • Richard C (NZ) on Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • David on Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Mike Jowsey on Emotional knowledge
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Mike Jowsey on Emotional knowledge
  • Mike Jowsey on Emotional knowledge
  • Andy on Global warming less than we thought
  • Andy on Global warming less than we thought
  • Bob D on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Andy on Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought
  • Richard Treadgold on Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought
  • Richard C (NZ) on Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought
  • Andy on Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought
  • Bob D on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • David on Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought
  • Bob D on Painting wanting rebuttal

PayPal Tip Jar
Even a couple of dollars helps us
(if you're in the mood). Thanks!


Click to get your own widget

Tags

Activists AGW Air temperature Air temperature Alarmists Alternative energy Australia Carbon dioxide Carbon Sense Carbon trading CCG blog Christopher Monckton Climate Conversation Group Climate research Climate Science Court action Data quality Disproving AGW Economics Energy supply Environmentalism ETS General Global temperature Global warming Hot Topic IPCC Journalism New Zealand NIWA NIWAgate NZCSC NZ Herald NZ temperature records Oceans Politics Royal Society Sceptics Science bias Scientists Sea levels United Nations USA Watts Up With That What is the evidence

Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Climate change links

  • Bishop Hill
  • Carbon Sense Coalition
  • Climate Audit—a science blog
  • Climate Debate Daily
  • Climate Depot
  • Climate Etc. (Judith Curry)
  • Climate Realists
  • Global warming at a glance
  • Jo Nova
  • Kiwi Thinker
  • NZ Climate Science Coalition
  • Science of Doom
  • Watts Up With That

 

August 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Previous posts

Oil prices

models v. reality
Latest climate models v. reality

As the models continue to leave actual temperature readings in their dust, sizeable warming halted about 1995 — although it might resume at any time. It must hasten to have any hope of catching up with the predictions.

If you claim warming continues, we want evidence of continued warming — eminently reasonable. Making us wait for 17 years for that evidence invites us to doubt you.

Claiming that warming hasn't stopped is the same as claiming it has — and both are ridiculous, for nobody knows the future. The best you can do is describe the past.

Click graph for larger version.

 

rss Comments rss valid xhtml 1.1 design by jide powered by Wordpress get firefox