Greenland’s Ice Melt Contribution To
Sea Level Just 1.5 cm For 1900-2010
As the HadCRUT4 temperature data indicate, there has been no net warming trend in the Arctic for the last 80 years. In fact, from the early 1940s to the mid-1990s, the Arctic cooled.
HadCRUT Arctic Temperature 1920-2017 (Climate4You)
Due to its Arctic location, Greenland temperatures have likewise followed a similar trend as the rest of the region — warming during the 1920s to 1940s, cooling from the 1940s to 1990s, and then warming (commensurate with the 1930s) since the 1990s.
Climate Alarm Advocates: Arctic Will Contribute 19-25 cm To Sea Levels By 2100
Despite the relatively unremarkable temperature trends in the Arctic in general or Greenland in particular in the last 100 years, the narrative that says man-made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic Arctic ice melt and consequent sea level rise has gained widespread popularity in media circles.
For example, in yet another alarmist headline from this last week it was claimed that some Arctic glaciers will “disappear completely” in the next 83 years and this “extreme” Arctic ice melt will lead to 19 to 25 centimeters of sea level rise by 2100.
“By the end of this century, as some glaciers disappear completely, the Arctic’s contribution to global sea level rise will reach at least 19 to 25 centimeters, according to the report by the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring Assessment Program (AMAP).”
New Paper Concludes Greenland Contributed Just 1.5 cm To Sea Levels Since 1900
A new scientific paper published in The Cryosphere last week indicates that the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) gained mass during much of the 1940s to 2000s period — especially 1961-1990, the common reference period when it was previously assumed the GIS was stable.
In fact, the scientists conclude that the overall GIS melt for the entire 1900-2010 period contributed a negligible 1.5 centimeters (about half an inch) to sea levels during that entire 110-year period.
“Results from all MAR simulations indicate that the period 1961–1990, commonly chosen as a stable reference period for Greenland SMB [surface mass balance] and ice dynamics, is actually a period of anomalously positive SMB (∼ +40 Gt yr−1 ) compared to 1900–2010. … [T]he ERA-20C forced simulation suggests that SMB [surface mass balance] during the 1920–1930 warm period over Greenland was comparable to the SMB of the 2000s, due to both higher melt and lower precipitation than normal.”
“The period 1961–1990 has been considered as a period when the total mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet was stable (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006) and near zero. However, at the last century scale, all MAR reconstructions suggest that SMB [surface mass balance] was particularly positive during this period [1961-1990] (SMB was most positive from the 1970s to the middle of the 1990s), suggesting that mass gain may well have occurred during this period, in agreement with results from Colgan et al. (2015).”
“Finally, with respect to the 1961–1990 period, the integrated contribution of the GrIS SMB anomalies over 1900–2010 is a sea level rise of about 15 ± 5 mm [1.5 cm], with a null contribution from the 1940s to the 2000s, suggesting that the recent contribution of GrIS to sea level change (van den Broeke et al., 2016) is unprecedented in the last century.”
Between 1920-1930, Greenland Warmed By 2 to 4°C In Less Than 10 Years
“A significant and rapid temperature increase was observed at all Greenland stations between 1920 and 1930. The average annual temperature rose between 2 and 4 °C in less than ten years. Since the change in anthropogenic production of greenhouses gases at that time was considerably lower than today, this rapid temperature increase suggests a large natural variability of the regional climate.”
Glacier Melt Rapid, Contribution To Sea Level Rise Substantially Higher Before 1950
Fernández-Fernández et al., 2017
“The abrupt climatic transition of the early 20th century and the 25-year warm period 1925–1950 triggered the main retreat and volume loss of these glaciers since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’. Meanwhile, cooling during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s altered the trend, with advances of the glacier snouts.”
“During the period 1898–1946, the snout of Gljúfurárjökull retreated 635 m, almost two-thirds of the total distance from the LIA maximum (1898–1903) to 2005, at an average rate of 13.2 m yr−1. … The trend in Western Tungnahryggsjökull during the first half of the 20th century was a more rapid retreat, showing the highest average rates of the whole period (19.5 m yr−1). By 1946, this glacier had retreated almost 90% of the total recorded between the LIA maximum (1868) and 2005. … Just as in the glaciers described above, the retreat of the Eastern Tungnahryggsjökull from its LIA position was more intense during the first half of the 20th century, and in 1946 its snout was only 200 m from its current position.”
Conclusion: Abrupt Arctic Warming, Cooling, Ice Melt Uncorrelated With CO2 Emissions
Implicit in the alarmist projection that rapid Arctic warming and ice melt will raise sea levels by 19 to 25 centimeters during the next 8 decades is the assumption that the Arctic’s post-1990s warming trend and ice melt has been driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions — which are expected to continue to rise without dramatic energy policy changes. However, this assumption ignores the nearly 100 years (1900 to mid-1990s) of non-correlation between CO2 emissions and the Arctic climate.
Succinctly, during the 1920s to 1940s period the (a) Arctic warmed rapidly (~3°C per decade), the (b) Greenland ice sheet melted rapidly, and the (c) glacier melt contribution to sea level rise was explosive. This occurred while anthropogenic CO2 emissions were both flat and negligible (10 times smaller than today’s emissions).
Then, just as CO2 emissions began to rise at an accelerated pace after 1940, the (a) Arctic cooled (for nearly 60 years), the (b) Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance was positive with a “null” contribution to sea level rise (1940-2000), and (c) the Arctic-wide ice melt contribution to sea level rise abruptly decelerated.
For the 110 years between 1900 and 2010, the Greenland ice sheet contributed just 0.6 of an inch (1.5 cm) to sea levels despite a 10-fold increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions during that period. Therefore, the very mechanism (human CO2 emissions) assumed to be driving a projected 19 to 25 centimeters of Arctic ice melt contribution has not been observed to be a driving mechanism previously.
The observational evidence indicates that variations in anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not drive Arctic warming (or cooling), ice sheet surface mass balance, or sea level rise from retreating glaciers.
112 responses to “New Paper: Greenland Gained Ice Between 1940s-2000s, Added Just 1.5 cm To Sea Levels Since 1900”
Question 1: Are you saying everything has to increase 10-fold because CO2 emissions increased 10-fold?
Question 2: If that would be the requirement for AGW to be really happening, does that mean that if you observe just one place where this is not the case you win?
You already linked to a paper some time ago demonstrating that the greenhouse effect is sometimes negative over the poles (because the statosphere can be warmer at times than the surface there). Shouldn’t that be enough? You won, hurray?
Question 3: Doesn’t everyone know by now that thermal expansion is the main driver for current sea level rise?
No. That would imply that there is a long-term correlation between the atmospheric CO2 concentration and ice sheet surface mass balance. There isn’t. The ice sheets and glacier extent were much smaller than now during the Holocene Thermal Maximum — when CO2 levels were 260 ppm.
Win what? What does winning have to do with the surface mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet only contributing 1.5 cm to sea level rise in the last 110 years?
So if that’s the case, why is it that alarmists like NASA’s James Hansen project 10 feet of sea level rise in the next 50 years due primarily to the catastrophic melting of the polar ice sheets? If “everyone knows by now” that ice sheet melt contributes the least to sea level rise, and thermal expansion contributes the most, why are they making such dire projections based upon assumptions about ice sheet and glacier melt?
“The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.”
And if the 0.09 C (nine-one-hundredths of a degree) warmer ocean (since 1955 per Levitus et al., 2012) is the main reason why sea levels have risen, what does that say about the Medieval Warm Period, when ocean temperatures were 0.65 C warmer than they are now (Rosenthal et al., 2013), or the Holocene Thermal Maximum, when the oceans were 2.0 C warmer than now? How much higher were sea levels back then if thermal expansion is what predominantly determines sea levels rise now? And how did the oceans get so warm in the past since CO2 levels were in the 260s ppm at the same time they were 2 degrees C warmer?
“the case you win?””
Truth will always win in the end.
But keep that big “L” firmly stuck to your forehead, seb. It suits you.!!
“Question 3: Doesn’t everyone know by now that thermal expansion is the main driver for current sea level rise?”
No proof it is THE main driver. And if it is, then , as you have amply proven with you total inability to provide any papers showing CO2 causes ocean warming…. ..
…the constant, tiny, sub-2mm/year steady sea level is nothing to do with CO2.
That’s easily calculated from the increase in ocean heat content. Water doesn’t expand randomly.
The ocean heat content change before 2003 was calculate from ASSumption only.
And as you have amply proven,, ocean heat content can ONLY have come from solar effects.
Absolutely NOTHING to do with CO2 or human effects.
Your religion is collapsing because of your own ineptitude, seb.
try not to cry or panic.
it’s fun to watch you do the clown performance, but even you should know that you can calculate thermal expansion from relative OHC changes, right?
The sea level rise is approximately 110 mm per 10^24 J …
Compute the thermal contraction from the -0.9 C drop in ocean temperatures between the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. How many meters did sea levels drop, SebastianH? And what was the cause of this change…since CO2 rose by 25 ppm during this period?
Only if thermal is the only factor.
and it most certainly isn’t.
You make a fool of yourself with every post…
… signalling just how little you actually know. 😉
The longer term perspective on Greenland
Firstly Greenland Total Ice Mass since 1900..
Then the Greenland ice area over the last 10,000 years.
I’m curious to know who is financing the Sebsod Rapid Response Team.
It’s blatantly obvious to me after expecting, and confirming by reading, that the initial and one-and-only comment, at time of reading, would be from sed sobsed.
Here is a link to the RSS feed for new blog posts:
And here is a link to the RSS feed for new comments:
Feel free to subscribe. Since the comment system doesn’t notify about new replies, one has to either manually look inside the posts to find new replies or use the comment feed. The later one is more practical, don’t you think?
Having your granny pay for your Mercedes and your basement heating , leaves you the free time, hey seb.
No need to actually do any work to earn anything.
No wonder you are always yapping.
Do not know whether they got paid. If you pay someone for a job, you can also dismiss him. Seb came later than the poorly performing Sod but both are still here. They are rather unwise, in the sense that a wise man knows his limitations. Responding (keep talking) is more important than content. Because their texts contain ritualistic elements, they may have got some training.
“they may have got some training”
Only in propaganda pap..
… certainly not in anything resembling science.
The only two “players” here that perform rituals are AndyG55 and Kenneth. It always the same reflex answers and clown behaviour.
I get not payed for this, I do this just for fun and sports. What is your motivation to do what you do?
Excellent rebuttal, SebastianH. Insults are so persuasive.
We are certainly having fun.
Laughing at your ineptitude and ignorance. 🙂
Please keep going 🙂
I have known Sod since the early first decade, he has NEVER improved in all that time in his comment quality and depth. It is still the same shallow thinking that I have come to expect,I stopped replying him years ago only to find him here,so I respond to him here and only here.
He has been banned in a lot of places for a reason……….., I don’t think he was ever trained or paid either,he is simply this way from day one. He is a typical low information thinker,that never improved over time.
from CW on RCS
The tripod moved today in the Nenana Ice Classic:
The Tanana River Ice Officially Broke Up and Went Out at 12 Noon May 1st, 2017!
And the trend line of the annual breakup dates for the last 30 years of global warming is still flat.
To melt enough ice off the land to raise global sea level by just 1 metre will require 121,454,545,500,000,000,000 kilojoules of energy.
Pick your time scale and figure out how that energy will be delivered.
And the total net radiative forcing change due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 is only +1.8 W m-2. I believe this forcing value may be slightly less potent than the energy required to raise sea levels by 1 meter via thermal expansion (ocean warming).
SebastianH has another problem, though.
According to scientists (below), thermal expansion only contributed 0.64 mm/yr to sea levels during the 2005-2013 period. Since the satellite altimetry values are well over 3 mm/yr, that means that thermal expansion only accounts for less than 20% of the claimed SLR rate. So his contention that “everyone knows” thermal expansion (ocean warming) causes the greatest sea level rise has some mathematical problems associated with it. Perhaps he can elucidate.
“Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77 ± 0.28 mm yr−1 in sea-level rise … the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise [0.64 mm/yr total from thermal expansion].”
roflmao.. poor seb..
The little chump has NOWHERE to run..
but he just keeps running anyway 🙂
Just use the force, Kenneth … eh the calculator. 1.8 W/m² is more than enough to melt this amount of ice in a few years (1.8 W/m² * 510 mio km² surface area = 9.18×10^14 Js, so it takes 132,303,426 seconds or 4.2 years). But – as you hopefully know – there is no such amount of ice just waiting to melt, is there?
If the temperature in a region increases from -20 °C to -19 °C no ice will melt there. It can only melt where it a temperature over 0 °C is reached and that limits the amount of ice that melt due to global warming, at least in an early stage. If the warming continues more regions will temporarly or permanently have temperatures over 0 °C and thus ice will melt.
Factors contributing to sea level change:
Even the great and auspicious Marty Feldman paper only measured 0.2w/m²
You mean this paper? https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
The 0.2 W/m² increase is per decade. 3 decades with this kind of increase and you have an additional amount of energy of … wait for it … 1.4475*10^20 kJ. Enough to melt the ice mentioned above and some more.
Actually, no, it’s computed based on the CO2 change, which was 22 ppm. Not the years. Not every 11-year period has 22 ppm, so extrapolating out 3 decades is wrong too.
IPCC claims a doubling of CO2 levels (275 ppm to 550 ppm) results in 3.7 W m-2 of additional forcing. CO2 increased from 300 to 310 ppm (3.3%) during the the 1900 to 1950 period, and 3.3% of 3.7 is 0.012 W m-2 per decade in claimed CO2 forcing for those 5 decades.
Of course, several scientific papers have claimed that the TSI and surface solar radiation from albedo reduction (clouds, aerosols) provided far more of the forcing for the early 20th century warming (and warming since the 1980s) that far exceeds the negligible 0.012 W m-2 per decade in alleged CO2 forcing for that early 20th C period or the warming since the ’80s. For example, reconstructions of solar irradiance for 1900-1950 show an increase of 3-4 W m-2 for the 50-year period.
Others have it at 5 W m-2 for 1900-1950:
Shapiro et al., 2011
“We obtained a large historical solar forcing between the Maunder minimum and the present, as well as a signiﬁcant increase in solar irradiance in the ﬁrst half of the twentieth-century. Our TSI reconstructions give a value of ∼1 W/m2 per decade for the period 1900–1950.”
And then many dozens of papers have recent surface solar radiation increases of about 2 W m-2 per decade since the 1980s, which is 10 times greater than the alleged forcing for CO2 during the 2000-2010 period.
Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2017
“Trends of all-sky downward surface solar radiation (SSR) from satellite-derived data over Europe (1983–2010) are first presented. The results show a widespread (i.e., non-local dimension) increase in the major part of Europe, especially since the mid-1990s in the central and northern areas and in springtime. There is a mean increase of SSR of at least 2 W m− 2 per decade from 1983 to 2010 over the whole Europe, which, taking into account that the satellite-derived product lacks of aerosol variations, can be mostly related to a decrease in the cloud radiative effects over Europe. … Downward surface solar radiation (SSR) is a critical part of the Global Energy Balance and the climate system … A widespread decrease of SSR from the 1950s to the 1980s [when global cooling occurred] has been observed (Liepert, 2002; Stanhill and Cohen, 2001; Wild, 2009), followed by an increase of SSR since the mid-1980s [when global warming occurred]… Pinker et al. (2005) used a different product (2.5° resolution) and found that the derived global mean SSR series underwent a significant increase of 1.6 W m−2 per decade from 1983 to 2001. … On the other hand, Hatzianastassiou et al. (2005) derived a SSR product from 1984 to 2000 (2.5° resolution) and reported a significant increase of +2.4 W m−2 per decade in the global mean series, which is considerably higher than the results from Pinker et al. (2005) and Hinkelman et al. (2009).”
Using your math skills, which is larger: 0.012 W m-2 per decade for CO2, or the forcing values for TSI and/or SSR (1-2 W m-2 per decade)?
We were talking about ice melting nowadays and not 120 years ago. Since the concentration increase accelerates an average additional forcing of 0.3 W/m² (0.2 increase per decade) over the next 3 decades is likely on the low side.
Regarding TSI and/or SSR, first TSI:
Where is 1 W/m² increase hiding in those measurements?
You do know that those two values (SSR and CO2 forcing) aren’t directly comparable and we had this discussion before. A change in SSR of 2 W/m² might sound like a big increase, but that’s not the forcing change that is happening. Not at all. As seen in previous discussions you don’t seem to understand why, so I will not even try to explain it to you again. Quick hint: reduced cloud cover and decrease in absorbing aerosol levels does not only result in an increase of SSR.
120 years ago? I was referring to 1900 to 1950, when estimates of CO2 forcing were 0.012 W m-2 per decade using the IPCC’s own forcing numbers. Do you believe that that forcing caused the ice sheets to melt rapidly during the 1920-1950 period, or are you willing to acknowledge that the TSI forcing from that period was substantially higher:
I agree that it’s best we not allow you to expose even more of your lack of understanding about surface solar radiation. Every time we’ve discussed it in the past you’ve demonstrated that you don’t even know what it is. You even claimed it was the same as TSI. Pointless.
Small correction: 0.3 W/m² is definetly on the low side, since the average of 0.2 + 0.4 + 0.6 is 0.4 and not 0.3 which I used to calculate the amount of additional energy in 3 decades.
Sebastian, the 0.2 W m-2 is not calculated by the decade. It’s calculated by the CO2 change (22 ppm during the 11 years between 2000-2010). So your “calculations” based on years is not the same as the calculations used in Feldman et al. (2015). To do the math, you first need to do the calculation for the CO2 change, and then you can divide it by 10.
1) If a 275 ppm change equals 3.7 W/m² and we assume that’s a linear dependence then a 10 ppm change equals 0.135 W/m² and not 0.12 W/m² as you have calculated. Of course it is not linear or you would get a value of ~0.07 W/m² per decade since 1750 …
2) I quoted Feldman above. They specifically write “per decade” and they mean the decade they measured, of course. I think we can assume that the years from 2010 to 2040 will not be that different in terms of CO2 concentration build up.
3) Your linked graph shows the TSI in the range 1357 to 1364 W/m². You do know that have to devide by 4 when you want to know how much more energy each surface m² receives on average.
4) Lack of understanding of SSR, ok 😉 At least I know and understand that the value given by your paper is not a forcing. It’s just the increased amount of energy that reaches the surface. It doesn’t account for less warming (less backradiation) because of reduced cloud cover (btw: was the cloud cover really changed? Seems to be about the same level as in 1983: http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverTotalObservationsSince1983.gif). And it doesn’t account for less warming caused by absorbing aerosols.
The 0.012 W m-2 per decade of CO2 forcing was correctly calculated for the 1900-1950 period using IPCC model formula that says doubled pre-industrial CO2 (275 ppm to 550 ppm) yields a forcing value of 3.7 W m-2, which amounts to a temperature change of a little more than 1 degree C. (Yes, the IPCC has acknowledged that the most warming doubled preindustrial CO2 can cause by itself, without “boosts” from water vapor forcing or cloud feedbacks, is 1.2 C.)
When starting at 300 ppm and ending at 310 ppm, the forcing change value is 0.12 W m-2, or 0.012 W m-2 per decade when dividing by those 5 decades in which the ppm value changed by 10 ppm. The 0.12 W-2 is a different forcing value than when starting at 400 ppm and ending at 410 ppm, which would be 0.09 W m-2 (10/400 = 2.5% of 3.7). The the forcing value itself is smaller for the later period (0.09 W m-2) than the 1900-’50 period (0.12 W m-2).
But from your comment above it’s apparent you didn’t realize there’s a difference in the value calculated depending upon where your starting and ending point is. The more CO2 there is, the smaller and smaller the forcing. In other words, it’s logarithmic, meaning that the very same forcing value applies for a doubling from 275 to 550 ppm as from 550 ppm to 1,100 ppm, or from 2,200 ppm to 4,400 ppm, or from 4,400 ppm to 8,800 ppm. A 275 ppm CO2 addition from 275 ppm to 550 ppm equals the exact same forcing (3.7 W m-2) as the additional 4,400 ppm from 4,400 ppm to 8,800 ppm. Every increase has a diminishing effect.
IPCC (2001): “for CO2, radiative forcing increases logarithmically with mixing ratio. … [T]he radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2 to the radiative forcing.”
“It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.”
But as we move up, the forcing values diminish, regardless of the per-decade assumptions you have. So a 22 ppm increase from 468 to 490 ppm will yield a forcing value of 0.17 W m-2 rather than the 0.22 W m-2 from 368-390 ppm for 2000-2010.
(3) Even if 3-5 W m-2 were divided by 4, it would still be much larger than the 0.012 W m-2 per decade of CO2 forcing for the 1900 to 1950 period. Or does your special math indicate otherwise?
(4) Yes, I understand that it is your belief that when the radiative forcing from absorbed surface solar radiation is reported by scientists as ~2 W m-2 per decade for the 1980s to 2000s, you believe that this doesn’t count, and it really isn’t a radiative forcing after all. W m-2 forcing values only count when CO2 is involved. When CO2 isn’t involved, W m-2 values cease to be W m-2 values. Got it. (This is exactly why it is pointless trying to debate with you.)
“If the warming continues” what warming?????
There has been no warming except the El Nino spike in the Arctic for many years.
And no warming in the Antarctic for the whole of the satellite record.
And still a long, long way to go until we reach the warmth and lack of summer sea ice of the first 3/4 or more of the Holocene.
The Arctic has barely RECOVERED at all from the EXTREMES of the LIA and late 1970’s.
Using the IPCC link from 2001 (TAR) SebastianH provided, we find this:
“In summary, while the evidence is still incomplete, there are widespread indications of thermal expansion, particularly in the sub-tropical gyres, of the order 1 mm/yr“
For 2005-2013, thermal expansion provided 0.64 mm/yr of sea level change (Llovel et al., 2014). So, according to SebastianH himself, thermal expansion’s contribution to sea level rise has rapidly decelerated since the late 20th century.
And, of course, 0.64 mm/yr and even 1 mm/yr only account for a small fraction of the claimed rate of sea level rise (3.3 mm/yr). So SebastianH’s claim that thermal expansion is the most dominant contributor to sea level rise has, once again, been debunked…by himself.
If you think so, Kenneth …
Carefully read chapter 13.4 and then read 13.5. and look at the figures (especially 13.11, http://imgur.com/a/jCDVR). Thermal expansion is always the biggest contributor.
In carefully reading chapter 13.4, I read this:
“For 1993–2010, allowing for uncertainties, the observed GMSL rise is consistent with the sum of the observationally estimated contributions (high confidence) (Table 13.1, Figure 13.7e). The two largest terms are ocean thermal expansion (accounting for about 35% of the observed GMSL rise) and glacier mass loss (accounting for a further 25%, not including that from Greenland and Antarctica).”
Didn’t you claim that the “main” reason why sea levels rise is thermal expansion, SebastianH? 35% is hardly a “main” reason. It’s about a third of the reason, which demonstrates, once again, that you really don’t know a whole lot about this subject. 65% of the reason why sea levels rise is unrelated to thermal expansion.
And if the glaciers and ice sheets that do not include Greenland and Antarctica contribute 25%, that leaves 40% left unaccounted for that may include the GIS and AIS contribution.
And if the thermal expansion contribution was 0.64 mm/yr during 2005-2013 (Llovel et al., 2014), and that is 35% of the total SLR contribution, that means that glaciers and ice sheets accounted for the bulk of the rest of the rise, which amounts to 1.19 mm/yr out of 1.83 mm/yr. Can you explain why you believe 35% is greater than 65%, SebastianH, using your special math?
Since when is the largest contributor not the “main driver”? But ok, I’ll write down that definition (> 50% of influence is needed to become the main driver of something). I’ll remind you of that definition next time you describe something as dominant or being the main driver.
Um, SebastianH, the IPCC link YOU provided said that thermal expansion provided 35% of the contribution to sea level rise, mountain glaciers that are NOT the Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets accounted for 25%. That leaves what percentage left for Greenland and Antarctica?
For you to “win” your claim, the Antarctic and Greenland contribution combined would need to be 9% or less so that the source contribution from glaciers and ice sheets would not exceed the percentage-point contribution from thermal expansion (35%). As, you know, the contribution from Greenland and Antarctica is far more than 9% combined, and it’s even higher than the claimed 25% from mountain glaciers. That means that, according to your own source (which you told me to read carefully), the majority of the contribution to sea level rise came from ice sheets and glaciers, not thermal expansion.
Sheesh, SebastianH. Do you ever feel embarrassed by how poorly you are doing here? Do you know how it looks to us when you debunk yourself?
So we combine single factors now because they are similar and count them as one contributor … interesting.
At this point I’d like to repeat the link to figure 13.11: http://imgur.com/a/jCDVR
Thermal expansion is clearly the largest contributor in every scenario, isn’t it?
So in your view, ice melt contribution to sea level rise is a single distinct factor when it comes from Greenland, and ice melt contribution to sea level rise is another single and very distinct factor when it comes from the Himalayas? How far are you going to twist logic so that your initial wrong claim will be shown to be “right”?
So showing me a graph of IPCC model projections based on CO2 emissions scenarios (which assumes that the models that say humans control ocean heat content by burning more or less fossil fuels has been scientifically verified) is supposed to make me agree that the IPCC’s conclusion that 35% of sea level rise comes from thermal expansion, and the rest (65%) comes from ice melt, nonetheless supports your claim that “everyone knows” that thermal expansion’s 35% contribution accounts for more than the ice melt contribution from ice sheets and glaciers?
And the alarmist headlines like the one linked to in the article, as well as projections from people like James Hansen all indicate that it is their belief that the vast majority of sea level rise contribution is going to come from the ice sheets, not thermal expansion. Hansen believes we’ll get 10 feet of sea level rise by the year 2065 because of the ice sheet contribution. Is he wrong, SebastianH?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html “The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.”
I would go with the separation climate scientists seem to use:
thermal expansion, glacier melt, Greenland ice sheet, Antarctica ice sheet and water storage on land.
Oh and before I forget it, a quote from right after the 35% figure:
You can group things together and that’s equally ok. In your world thermal expansion then accounts for only a third and ice melt for almost the complete rest. Fine with me …
Here’s what we get for the most recent decades from scientists’ estimates of each:
Thermal expansion: +0.64 mm/yr
Antarctica + Greenland: +0.59 mm/yr
Mountain Glaciers/Ice Sheets: +0.41 mm/yr
Water storage: -35 mm/yr
Put together (and there is no reason to treat Greenland ice differently than Himalayan ice), the glaciers and ice sheets contributed 1 mm/yr (Jacob et al., 2012, Shepherd et al., 2012) to thermal expansion’s 0.64 mm/yr (Llovel et al., 2014), which makes the ice melt contribution higher/greater than thermal expansion. And the reduction in sea level from terrestrial water storage (-0.35 mm/yr per Cabanes et al., 2001) means that sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 1.3 mm/yr in recent decades, which is in line with estimates from tide gauges, and it is slightly less than the overall estimate for 20th century sea level rise (1.7 mm/yr).
Llovel et al., 2014
“Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77 ± 0.28 mm yr−1 in sea-level rise … the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise [0.64 mm/yr total].”
Shepherd et al., 2012
“Since 1992, the polar ice sheets [Antarctica and Greenland] have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.”
Jacob et al., 2012
“Here we show that GICs [glaciers and ice caps], excluding the Greenland and Antarctic peripheral GICs, lost mass at a rate of 148 ± 30 Gt yr−1 from January 2003 to December 2010, contributing 0.41 ± 0.08 mm yr−1 to sea level rise.”
Cabanes et al., 2001
“terrestrial water storage … is in the range of –1.1 to + 0.4 mm/year with a median value of −0.35 mm/year“
Seb has just decided that sea level rise is due mostly to NATURAL SOLAR warming.
Nothing to do with an human CO2.
When done seb. I tiny skerrick of truth in your otherwise fake, lying religion.
That’s about right.
That’s the amount of energy TOA receives from the Sun in about 8 days if my calculation is correct. With an added surface forcing of 1 W/m² it would take around 7 1/2 years to accumulate that amount of energy.
SebastianH, you wrote this above:
“Since when is the largest contributor not the ‘main driver’? But ok, I’ll write down that definition (> 50% of influence is needed to become the main driver of something). I’ll remind you of that definition next time you describe something as dominant or being the main driver.”
Does this mean you agree that the “main driver” of the greenhouse effect is not CO2 changes? After all…
NASA: “Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent”
Just wanted to be sure that you’re consistent in saying that the largest contributor is the main driver. Or do you change your mind in this case?
1) do you now agree that CO2 GHEs are significant (20%)? I am impressed …
2) in this case, it’s not that simple Kenneth. Why? Because the contributors are not independent contributors and we are talking about the change (as with sea level rise). If something that accounts for 20% of the total effect changes faster than the rest, then it is the main driver of that change.
3) sometime ago you posted numbers for the change in water vapor concentration and CO2 concentration and I showed you why the CO2 change had a bigger effect than the water vapor effect. As far as I remember you didn’t understand that simple calculation …
CO2 greenhouse effect diminishes exponentially with each ppm added. You can put a 4th coat of paint on a wall but the wall isn’t going to get 33.3% whiter.
Poor seb… You are STILL batting an absolute ZERO when it come to producing measured evidence that CO2 causes warming over oceans or in a convective atmosphere.
ZERO PROOF.. EMPTY
And just because NASA anti-science squad say its 20% of greenhouse effect, certainly doesn’t make it true.
Only some PROOF.. which have ABSOLUTELY FAILED TO PROVIDE, starts to make it even worth bothering considering.
in the comment section of this post (https://notrickszone.com/2017/03/31/breaking-leading-warmist-scientists-in-new-study-determine-sun-plays-major-role-warming-delayed-by-decades/) Kenneth made the case that while CO2 ppm increased from 330 to 400 ppm (a 21.2% increase), water vapor increased by 4% (IPCC claim). If CO2’s constribution to the GHE is around 20% and water vapor would take up the remaining 80% (it doesn’t) then the CO2 effect contributed the majority to the increase of the GHE (
0.2 * 0.212 > 0.8 * 0.04).
The logarithmic nature of the CO2 forcing would somewhat lower the LHS. You can calculate the difference if you want, but I don’t think it will turn around the comparison sign.
@AndyG55: let it go … you can’t be persuaded that CO2 has an effect and we all know it. Maybe this comic will help you understand why: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
Just did the calculation for you because I was interested in how much the LHS would change. Turns out it would increase, since the increase from 330 to 400 ppm happens in an early stage.
Additional radiative forcing is 0% at 280 ppm and 100% at 560 ppm. In a linear scenario a 70 ppm change at any time will add 25% to the forcing. In a logarithmic (e.g. reality) scenario the added forcing depends on the actual values and since 330 ppm is pretty close to the starting point actually 27.76% will be added to the forcing (it would be 19.26% if we were talking about the range 490 to 560 ppm).
Other estimates say CO2’s contribution is about 2.7% while water vapor’s is 96%…using the IPCC’s own values. Do you disagree?
Lightfoot and Mamer, 2014
“Figure 7 is FAQ 1.1 Figure 1 from page 96 of AR4 [IPCC, 2007]. It shows the radiation balance for the earth and that the back radiation of all of the greenhouse gases is 324 W m-2. This is the value used to calculate the RF [radiative forcing] of CO2 at 378 ppmv as (8.67/324)/100 = 2.7% back radiation of the total of all of the greenhouse gases. … From Table 1, CO2 accounts for 2.7% of the global warming while all of the other gases [i.e., methane] account for approximately 0.7% for a total of approximately 3.4%. It becomes evident that, on average, water vapour accounts for approximately 96% of the current global [greenhouse effect] warming. This is an important finding because it leads to the conclusion that the factors controlling the average level of water vapour in the atmosphere also control atmospheric temperature.”
“[O]n average, each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by approximately 23 molecules of water vapour at ground level [i.e., water vapour is 23 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2]. … If the warming effect of water molecules and CO2 molecules were the same, then the contribution of CO2 would be (1/22.7) = 4.4% of that of water vapour. But from the previous section, water molecules are 1.6 times more effective at warming than CO2 molecules.”
And here’s a paper that attributes 8/9ths of the warming during 1893-2012 to water vapor and the Sun…in Potsdam. Are they wrong, SebastianH?
“Radiative forcing in both the short and long-wave lengths reaching the Earth’s surface accounted for more than 80% of the inter-annual variations in the mean yearly temperatures measured at Potsdam, Germany during the last 120 years [1893-2012]. Three-quarters of the increase in the long-wave flux was due to changes in the water content of the lower atmosphere; the remainder [25%] was attributed to increases in CO2 and other anthropogenic, radiatively active gases. Over the period radiative forcing in the short-wave flux [solar forcing] slightly exceeded [0.76 W/m2 per decade] that in the long wave [0.64 W/m2 per decade]”.
Seb.. let it go,
You know you have no proof that GO2 causes warming either of ocean water or in a convective atmosphere. ABJECT FALURE.
You are hanging your baseless AGW religion on an unsupportable LIE…
and you at too thick to realise it.
CO2, of course, typo fix,
You know, CO2, one of the two gasses absolutely necessary for ALL life on Earth..
even yours, seb. !
Kenneth Richard, I am not disagreeing with your comments but to say that CO2 levels were exactly 260 ppm in the Holocene can not be justified. There is strong evidence from actual regular measurements that in the early 1940’s the CO2 level was around 390ppm. The evidence for earlier actual measurement is less clear but the average of some measurements in the nineteenth century points to a figure around 340ppm peaking around 1840. The latter of course had a large error margin. However, there is no record of CO2 measurements in the atmosphere prior to 1800. To claim a claim figure for CO2 concentration in the Holocene within the range of 200 to 500ppm is pure speculation. One knows however, that the level could not have been less than 200ppm or else there would have been little plant growth. With warmer seas & oceans it is very likely that there was out gassing from the ocean (as is possible the case in the last 40 years and was the case in the 1930’s leading to peak CO2 in the early 1940’s) that the CO2 level in the Holocene was around the present level of about 400ppm. Please note CO2 concentration in the atmosphere lags temperature of the surface particularly of water surfaces which make up about 70% of the total surface.
I agree that measurements of atmospheric CO2 prior to the late ’50s (Mauna Loa) are little more than speculation. I was quoting the approximate value for the Holocene Thermal Maximum as accepted by the orthodoxy. I’m well aware that there are proxy data that has Holocene levels well into the 400s ppm — but, again, these are not the accepted values.
Here are the accepted CO2 values for the Holocene, with the Thermal Maximum (~10,000-6,000 years ago) around 260 ppm.
Odd isn’t it…
The WARMEST part, Holocene Optimum, of the Holocene was 9000-6000 year ago, when CO2 was at its LOWEST !!!
The COOLEST part (last 1000 years or so), is when CO2 was at its HIGHEST.
Someone.. Please Explain…. preferable without crying.
perhaps someone would like to graph the Epica CO2 data against the GISP temperature data.
Are you capable?
“therefor we are looking at an entirely new feedback mechanism”
Only feedback mechanism is in your fevered brain-washed, anti-science, imagination.
The extra CO2, whatever its source, is a massive benefit to all life on Earth.
That’s not odd at all. CO2 concentration barely changed over thousands of years. It changed a lot in the last 150 years and temperature changed a lot too: http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Please explain without whining …
You really have never followed when these papers have been brought crashing down, have you worm.
CO2 low.. Temperature HIGH
CO2 high.. Temperature LOW.
where’s the graph comparing Epica with GISP.
do you dare ? 😉
Face facts.. or just run and hide, crying like sob-sob, into irrelevance.
“CO2 concentration barely changed over thousands of years”
Look at the graph seb.. or are you incapable or wilfully ignoring yet again?
…or just LYING your A**E off as usual.
CO2 low.. Temperature HIGH
CO2 high.. Temperature LOW
Get over it!!
The FACTS say what they say…
… and there is absolutely no amount of your mindless yapping that will change that.
Marcott? SebastianH is a Marcott believer? Do you have no idea how thoroughly that reconstruction has been debunked…even by Marcott himself?
“Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
Let me guess: you also believe that Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph of the Northern Hemisphere, gleaned from a few select trees in North America (using hidden archived data) and employing “hide the decline” “Mike’s Nature trick” is accurate too?
Here are over 100 graphs that show no such hockey sticks.
CO2 concentrations rose by 25 ppm from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age (1400-1900). And yet ocean temperatures plummeted. What caused that dramatic change in temperature, SebastianH?
Ok, then show me a graph of reconstructed global temperature for the past 10000 years … does it look very different to the one I used up there? Will the measured temperature change in the past centuries not have a ridiculous high slope?
Now compare that to the CO2 graph you linked to and add the current changes in CO2 concentration … did that for you, here:
Any doubt that past CO2 concentration changes were insignificant and entirely in line with what one would expect? The current increase in CO2 is man made and not a result of changes in nature and therefor we are looking at an entirely new feedback mechanism that hasn’t been around before (or do you know of a time where a comparable amount was released in a comparable timespan so we can compare how this influences climate?)
Here’s one for the last 16,000:
Huh? What did “one” expect the CO2 concentrations to be during the 8.2K event (visible on the above graph of global temps), when global temperatures fell and rose again by multiple degrees within a span of ~150 years? If CO2 was a driving factor in temperature change, why did the “accepted” (as of the early 1980s) CO2 values for the 8.2K event not change at all? Shouldn’t CO2 be a determining factor in that temperature change? Or does it only cause temperature changes in some years, but not others? And how would the latter work from a physics standpoint?
We don’t really know if our guesses about past CO2 concentrations are correct. It’s highly likely that they are not. Way too much uncertainty. It must be nice to think that your beliefs about past CO2 concentrations are quite accurate. I’m not convinced they are.
The ice core data from various polar sites are not consistent with each another, and there is a discrepancy between these data and geological climatic evidence. One such example is the discrepancy between the classic Antarctic Byrd and Vostok ice cores, where an important decrease in the CO2 content in the air bubbles occurred at the same depth of about 500 meters, but at which the ice age differed by about 16,000 years. In an approximately 14,000-year-old part of the Byrd core, a drop in the CO2 concentration of 50 ppmv was observed, but in similarly old ice from the Vostok core, an increase of 60 ppmv was found. In about ~6,000-year-old ice from Camp Century, Greenland, the CO2 concentration in air bubbles was 420 ppmv, but it was 270 ppmv in similarly old ice from Byrd, Antarctica. … In the air from firn and ice at Summit, Greenland, deposited during the past ~200 years, the CO2 concentration ranged from 243.3 ppmv to 641.4 ppmv. Such a wide range reflects artifacts caused by sampling, or natural processes in the ice sheet, rather than the variations of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Similar or greater range was observed in other studies of greenhouse gases in polar ice.
The failure to resolve the notorious problem of why about 30 percent of man-made CO2 is missing in the global carbon cycle, based on CO2 ice core measurements, suggests a systematic bias in ice core data. It is not possible to explain the ice core CO2 record in terms of a system with time-invariant processes perturbed by a combination of fossil fuel carbon release, CO2-enhanced biotic growth, and deforestation.
Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings disappeared from the publications.
“therefore we are looking at an entirely new feedback mechanism”
Only feedback mechanism is in your fevered, anti-science imagination.
The extra CO2, whatever its source, is a massive benefit to all life on Earth
EPICA CO2 v GRIP Temperature
CO2 Low: Temperature HIGH
CO2 High: Temperature LOW.. like it is currently, barely a small bump above the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.
And that small spike in CO2, from whatever cause…
…great for the planets plant and other life, more please.
No use at all for warming anything, unfortunately.
No warming from CO2 over oceans
No warming in our convective gravity/density controlled atmosphere.
We are destined to remain at the less-warm part of the current interglacial.
CO2 high, temperature high …
Where does the energy from the CO2 forcing go? Does it just vanish? Do you really think that it is “eaten up” by evaporation? Have you ever tried figuring out how much of the oceans would have been evaporated by that amount of energy? Apparently not 😉
Why was the Holocene Thermal Maximum global temperature 2.0-3.0 C warmer than now…since CO2 was 260 ppm back then? Why has it cooled as CO2 has risen? What caused the cooling, since it wasn’t CO2?
And.during the Ordovician, CO2 was 4,500 ppm…and the Earth was encased in ice. Why, SebastianH?
CO2 lags temperature changes…
“Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years.”
“Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years.”
“The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”
“High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”
“The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years.”
“The lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a lag of (1200 ± 700) yr.”
“[F]rom 130.5 to 129,000 years ago, the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations lagged that of Antarctic temperature unequivocally….At mid-slope, there is an unequivocal lead of δ15N [temperature] over CO2 of 900 ± 325 yr”.
You mean, like the whopping 0.2 W m-2 of forcing from the +22 ppm increase in CO2 between 2000 and 2010 (Feldman et al., 2015)? Why, it goes directly into increasing the air temperature, like this:
“You mean, like the whopping 0.2 W m-2 of forcing from the +22 ppm increase in CO2 between 2000 and 2010
From the dip of a La Nina to the peak of an El Nino..
Who knows what they really found. !!
Took them 5 years to tease out the tiny amount they did find. 🙂
“Where does the energy from the CO2 forcing go?”
The imaginary, mythical forcing.
Bros Grimm would even be laughing at you for your fairy tails.
Oh dear, seb puts his foot in his mouth, yet again.
Where did all that pre-interglacial CO2 come from, seb
pre-glacial coal power stations ????
You have just shown that CO2 levels can rise significantly WITHOUT any human forcing.
re Shakun not stirred, paper.
If you look at the actual data , which would have MASSIVE timing errors anyway…
you will see that the SH warming started about age 19kYrs, while the actual CO2 rise started around age 17.5kYrs.
seb puts yet another sock in his mouth..
His staple diet. !!
and just for fun, here is the temperature data Shakey used.
How the **** do you get the timing he did out of that mess, unless he INTENTIONALLY frauded it.
Just for seb’s sake, let’s have a look at Greenland Total Ice Mass since 1900
And Greenland’s ice area since the start of the Holocene.
Perhaps he will gain some perspective.. but I doubt it. Brain, washed to sludge, he has.
He will ALWAYS choose to be wilfully ignorant.
These must be the two most dishonest graphs ever! You won the challenge!
How to make a graph flat:
How to make a graph wiggle:
“These must be the two most dishonest graphs ever!”
Yes, the second graph would be MUCH flatter on a zero scale axis.
And if you don’t have the intelligence to find the data to reproduce the first graph…
..your ignorance is beyond help.
I doubt you even comprehend the implications of the either graph.
“These must be the two most dishonest graphs ever! ”
please explain what is dishonest..
…except that the data shown, CORRECTLY, is totally destructive to the AGW scam.
shut up or put up.
Real data is ALWAYS your enema.. sob-sob.
And if you think the data for the first graph is incorrect, then feel free to produce a graph of Total Greenland Ice Mass with a zeroed vertical axis.
The ball is in your court to prove that graph is substantially incorrect.
(note, there are varying value of total volume, giving as mass of between about 2.4 x 10^15 tonnes and 2.7 x 10^15 tonnes..)
but either way the graph is essentially DEAD FLAT since 1900.
Prove otherwise ….
Flat … as the temperature graphed in Kelvin with the y-axis starting at 0 K.
Is this graph flat, AndyG55?
P.S.: If you graph (from 1900) with those 2.4*10^15 tonnes changes by only 0.1*10^15 tonnes, by how much would the sea level on average rise? What do you think? Ocean surface area is 3.619*10^14 m² so we are talking about 276.3 kg of ice per square meter or a increase of 276.3 mm. The figure mentioned in the post above is 15 mm (corresponding change in mass is 5.43*10^12 tonnes, nothing one could identify as change in your graph).
What caused that Greenland ice sheet loss in the 21st century, SebastianH? Is it the same mechanism that caused the GIS to gain mass during 1940-2000?
Why were WWII planes that emergency-landed on Greenland in the early 1940s buried under 82 meters of ice when found in the late 1980s…if the GIS loses mass due to CO2 buildup?
Still true …
You are really asking yourself how stuff gets buried by ice? Precipitation on top and sublimation/ice melt on the bottom.
“Is this graph flat, AndyG55?”
And seb displays his ABJECT MATHEMATICAL IGNORANCE.. yet again
So funny to see the little fool floundering away with big numbers vs little numbers.
Keep up the clown act, seb. Hilarious. 🙂
Come on, seb
Produce your own graph of “Total Greenland Ice Mass” using a zeroed scale on the mass axis.
Not tiny gravity based anomalies over a know volcanic area.
Put up or SHUT UP. !!
Seas HAVE NOT risen by that much…. anywhere.
Think about something for once in your life, seb.
As you obviously haven’t?
What’s funny about your 3 replies here is that you totally remind me of how Donald Trump uses Twitter. 3 replies with lots of time between them, ranting and writing nonsense because you do not understand … it’s ok Mr. clown. I should probably stop replying to you and make you feel validated.
Poor seb, truth and facts are not kind to your brain-washed stupor, are they.
Run away, little child.
And since you have reading difficulties.
If you think the data for the first graph is incorrect, then feel free to produce a graph of Total Greenland Ice Mass with a zeroed vertical axis.
The ball is in your court to prove that graph is substantially incorrect.
Put Up or Shut Up.
AndyG55, I’ll help you with your confusion:
1) Your graph is a flat line 246 pixels from the zero-line. That’s 1 pixel per 9.756*10^12 tonnes.
2) The calculation above shows that the current 15 mm change corresponds to a mass loss of around 5.43*10^12 tonnes. That’s about half a pixel in your graph and indeed – if you zoom in enough – you can see that there is a 1-pixel vertical shift in the line over the 120 year timespan and it’s not “flat”.
3) For all intents and purposes this line will still look flat when the mass loss caused a 30 mm or 60 mm sea level rise.
Thanks for confirming that my graph is CORRECT.
Probably the ONLY thing you have ever got correct in the whole time you have wasted here.
You are now batting 1 from 1000+. Well done.
Once you start understanding that everything about climate that you think you know is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG, then you may, perhaps, start to scrape yourself of the bottom of the barrel.
And yes, I know there is a very slight change in the graph.
I drew it about 3 years ago, just to get up alarmist noses.
And boy has it worked a treat. 🙂
You particularly fell right into it.
and sob.. STILL hasn’t go a clue. !!
Hey Seb .
I hope you realise just how much EVERYBODY reading these posts is LAUGHING AT YOU. 🙂
So hilarious watching you make a total FOOL of yourself, letting your EGO and VANITY cash cheques you don’t have the brain or knowledge to account for.
So funny 🙂 🙂
[…] Richard på NoTricksZone sammanfattar vad vi vet om förhållandena i Arktis. Bland annat pekar han på en nyligen […]
A bit off topic and probably deserving of its own post. An excellent summation of the state of climate science from Lindzen http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/#comment-158
Ouch. New paper kills the pause meme. Sorry folks!
And other publications show that the pause is alive and well – so it’s disputed. You cannot declare something over because one natural ocean event took place over a year or two. Note, sod, that Die Zeit is a very Green, centre-left political-correctness-enforcing publication and so you have to be very careful with their reporting. They only present one side of the story. They are not objective.
Says the one who basically translated an article from EIKE … a far right nutjob publication which are true science deniers (not only AGW deniers) 😉
Secondly: didn’t you (or Kenneth) post a link to a paper mentioning that the oceans are sucking up the trapped energy? And isn’t that what Zeit Online is writing about in their article? Which makes sense because they store 90 percent of the heat content? And then an ocean event like El Nino gets called natural (or transient as if it has nothing to do with climate) if it is stronger than usual.
@SebastianH 4. May 2017 at 10:45 AM
“Secondly: didn’t you (or Kenneth) post a link to a paper mentioning that the oceans are sucking up the trapped energy? And isn’t that what Zeit Online is writing about in their article? ”
No, ‘zeit.de’ is quoting feature articles (opinion pieces) from Nature. They even quote S. Lewandowsky opinion piece, thus ensuring that as a piece about climate or science it is worthless.
Even Marx would seem far-right to you, seb.
You are so far left, you need 3 seats next to you to sit down.
“And then an ocean event like El Nino gets called natural (or transient as if it has nothing to do with climate)”
roflmao.. the seb thinks El Ninos are NOT NATURAL
he also thinks the recent El Nino was not just a transient… again PROVING that real data means absolutely NOTHING to him.
(1998 El Nino caused a step, which is always used by the AGW scammers to show a trend related to CO2, even though CO2 has absolutely ZERO warming effect on the oceans.. as seb has more than convincingly proven by his ABJECT INABILITY to produce one single piece of real science related to the issue.)
Pierre it is not so simple. This is a big article in a important magazine (Nature).
you can also see the paper via the link in the Zeit article.
It is giving a pretty good explanation for any difference between models and reality. And it ends with a big bang: hindcasts might wipe out more “sceptic” talking points soon….
The evidence in zeit.de is from a Feature piece (not a research paper)
corrupts this piecesorry, reinterprets this piece with the views of another Feature Article (again opinion not research) from Risbey & Lewandowsky. Thus negating any illusion to climate or science to zero.
“The evidence in zeit.de is from a Feature piece (not a research paper)”
NO! the paper in your link is 3 years old.
“zeit.de corrupts this piece sorry, reinterprets this piece with the views of another Feature Article (again opinion not research) from Risbey & Lewandowsky.”
NO! The article is linked in the Zeit article. You have full access to read it!
Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus
, Martin B. Stolpe
, Erich M. Fischer
& Reto Knutti
Wrong again, I have full access.
Ouch, One far-left AGW suckophant paper talks a load of yapping balderdash.
Or is that sob-sob. samo. !
wrong again sod,
You have obviously not read the ‘zeit.de’ link to Nature from where they cherry pick limited information.
The ‘paper’ they use is an opinion piece in the journal ‘Nature’ — A Feature Article by Jeff Tollefson
My cherry pick from the same article —
In other words the hiatus is observed the models are wrong. Thus by the evidence of ‘zeit.de’ own link they are wrong. They even quote anothe opion piece —
“Die Wissenschaftler James Risbey und Stephan Lewandowsky unterstreichen das in einem Kommentar, der ebenfalls in Nature erschienen ist. In Perioden, die länger andauern als 16 Jahre, sei keine Unterbrechung der Erderwärmung erkennbar (Nature: Risbey & Lewandowsky, 2017). ”
If you have to quote S. Lewandowsky about climate then you know ‘zeit.de’ piece will be nonsense.
This is the way to go.
Keep up the good work, China et al.
Don’t let the AGW SCAMMERS rule your decsions.:-)
his one is for seb and sob.. enjoy, little worms !
A rhetorical question..
…. just HOW STUPID are those pathetic politicians that constantly cow-tow to the far-left socialist anti-science, anti-CO2 agenda.
China.. well done for continuing the ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY production of atmospheric CO2. 🙂