|
06 May 2011
Scientists of AMAP, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme domiciled in Norway, recently published a new study claiming that sea levels might rise by 90 to 160 cm by 2100. These same news was spread by other magazines as well, e. g. “Washington Post” or “Der Spiegel” in Germany, to name only a few.
Although the projected time scale - “by 2100” - does not seem to be too intimidating, the one anxious question always remaining with those presages (I intentionally did not use “forecast” here) is: How much truth do they hold?
To answer this question I would like to use the usual or standard scientific approach as we are dealing with scientists here, aren´t we?: Analyze the claims, analyze the facts, analyze theories and, finally, discuss some alternative theories.
Analysis of (AMAP) claims
In the absence of a better source I will use this NWCN.com article as momentary reference. The article says that “The full report will be delivered to foreign ministers of the eight Arctic nations next week,...” which explains why it cannot be found on AMAP´s site yet.
The first and most prominent claim the article starts with is “Arctic ice is melting faster than expected and could raise the average global sea level by as much as five feet this century, an authoritative new report suggests.”
Well done, NWCN. This of course guarantees that almost any reader will take the time to read the full article and will feel relieved there are “friends” warning us of coming threats. A clever but easily understood way of customer retention.
The second claim worth noticing is “The report also shatters some of the forecasts made in 2007 by the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change. The cover of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, for example, is shrinking faster than projected by the U.N. Panel.”
Who do we believe now? IPCC or AMAP? Did the IPCC lose part of its authority? Why didn´t THEY know in 2007? Did their models fail? Didn´t they have enough data or the wrong data? Why didn´t they have enough or did have the wrong data? If they were failing in such an important field of presage, how credible are they anyway?
Why, in the first instance, is AMAP´s study now more credible than IPCC´s? Do they have better scientists or better models or better data or anything altogether? Why do they compete with IPCC?
Who can we believe and what should we believe?
Then, please read thoroughly, the claim says “The cover of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, for example, is shrinking faster than projected by the U.N. Panel.”
IS shrinking faster??? The sentence following the “is shrinking” statement says “The level of summer ice coverage has been at or near record lows every year since 2001...”. Aha. “At or near record lows”. Very precise figures. And now, within four years difference between the IPCC and the AMAP study and the very clear finding of “at or near record lows” they know it IS shrinking faster? Now, suddenly, it´s not a presage, or for all I care also a forecast, any more, it´s a fact?
Friends, especially those friends warning us of coming threats: please take your time and understand the little neat difference between a fact and a forecast. And please, please, please, use the appropriate grammar form for forecasts, “would” or “might” or “should” or something alike, but, please, not IS!
“Its assessment also said the U.N. panel was too conservative in estimating how much sea levels will rise -- one of the most closely watched aspects of global warming because of the potentially catastrophic impact on coastal cities and island nations.” is one of the next very interesting claims.
Please let me try to translate this: “Too conservative” probably means “too boring”. After 20 years of global warming hype a “too conservative” approach will either not bother anyone or, even worse, will fail to raise more (research) funds as recently became the painful destiny of IPCC.
Now we come to the most important claims finally giving us some precise figures:
“The melting of Arctic glaciers and ice caps, including Greenland's massive ice sheet, are projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches (90-160 centimeters) by 2100, AMAP said, though it noted that the estimate was highly uncertain. That's up from a 2007 projection of 7 to 23 inches (19-59 centimeters) by the U.N. panel, which didn't consider the dynamics of ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctica. "The observed changes in sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic ice caps and glaciers over the past 10 years are dramatic and represent an obvious departure from the long-term patterns," AMAP said in the executive summary.”
Here we have it again: IPCC was too stupid, because they “didn't consider the dynamics of ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctica.” Or did they perhaps know better and were right in doing their “too conservative” approach? We´ll see. Please be patient. I will shed light on this when discussing the facts and theories.
The article also mentions another study,
“That team, led by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, projected that the accelerating melt of the vast Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would itself raise sea levels by about 6 inches (15 centimeters) by 2050. Adding in other factors -- expansion of the oceans from warming and runoff from other glaciers worldwide -- would raise sea levels a total of some 13 inches (32 centimeters) by 2050, they said. They did not project sea levels to 2100 because of long-range uncertainties.”
Please, once again, read very thoroughly: The team led by Eric Rignot took into account Greenland and Antarctica. Why is this important? Because Arctic is mainly comprised of the Arctic Ocean with Greenland and other – comparably – small areas of land masses. More on this in the “Facts” section.
But Antarctica is mostly comprised of a huge land mass covered by ice. So, the major difference between Arctic and Antarctica simply is: most of Arctic´s ice is swimming in the Arctic Ocean whereas most of Antarctica´s ice is not swimming but residing on a land mass.
The team led by Eric Rignot probably was “too conservative”, too, because they “did not project sea levels to 2100 because of long-range uncertainties.” But AMAP knows better. No long-range uncertainties. AMAP´s scientists are better than any other fortune teller. THEY can fluffily presage conditions until the end of this century although, then again, they don´t trust themselves by saying that “the estimate was highly uncertain.”
Greeeeeeeat! These are the presages I like best! The fortune teller doesn´t trust himself but does it anyway.
If you still didn´t die laughing about this new “study”, here´s the punch line, of course, according to good manners, at the end of the article:
“Scientists are still debating how much of the changes observed in the Arctic are due to natural variances and how much to warming caused by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. AMAP projected that average fall and winter temperatures in the Arctic will climb by 5.4-10.8 F (3-6 C) by 2080, even if greenhouse gas emissions are lower than in the past decade.”
Now it´s even better than hilarious, “...even if greenhouse gas emissions are lower than in the past decade.” Weren´t those summer ice coverages “at or near record lows every year since 2001”, which is well WITHIN the last decade and means they did NOT drop to record lows before? So, provided “greenhouse gases” should exist and they should have the alleged affect on our climate, how can then “average fall and winter temperatures in the Arctic”... “climb by 5.4-10.8 F (3-6 C) by 2080, even if greenhouse gas emissions are lower than in the past decade.”?
Because those fortune tellers don´t trust themselves or perhaps because more and more forests are devastated to clear the land needed for biofuel production in order to save the climate which would – according to AGW premises – not only keep carbon dioxide on a constant level even though “greenhouse gas emissions are lower than in the past decade” but add more “man-made carbon dioxide” due to decay or burning of trees?
For, if trees are not cleared on a large scale, then, again according to AGW premises only, within a time span of 70 years! (man, if I had presaged we would discuss about global warming on the Internet in 1941 I would have been put to the mental home more quickly than I could have enunciated this prophecy) more CO2 in combination with the projected warmer climate very certainly means more and faster growing plants and trees thus reducing CO2 when greenhouse gas emissions are lowered. But this is another story.
Now that it´s easy to see that the article is so full of contradictory and ridiculous statements it gets even better when we come to the
Facts
Being a scientist, I always thought that facts are better than fiction although I understand we need some fiction in order to build theories which, again, are necessary to understand why facts are as they are. But any theory always has to stand the very hard tests of the true nature of facts.
So, here are the facts about the Arctic:
Please, if you like, go to Wikipedia and enter “Arctic”. This is what you get:
“The Arctic consists of the Arctic Ocean and all or parts of Canada, Russia, Greenland, the United States, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. The Arctic region consists of a vast, ice-covered ocean, surrounded by treeless permafrost.”
And then, look at the map of the Arctic. Do you see something? The by far largest part of the Arctic is the “vast, ice-covered ocean”.
Let us recall what AMAP says in its Executive Summary:
"The observed changes in sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic ice caps and glaciers over the past 10 years are dramatic and represent an obvious departure from the long-term patterns,"
Now, would you agree with me that the ice located on land masses – Greenland, Canada, Russia, the United States, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland – is comparatively small with respect to the ice swimming in the Arctic Ocean?
If you do, here´s the most interesting fact about swimming ice: Swimming ice, when melting, will NOT change sea level by any means or at least not significantly. My latest statement “not significantly” refers only to the fact that the density of water is only exactly 1.000 at exactly 4° C. Hence, as the temperature of the Arctic Ocean most likely is not exactly 4° C, there´s a minimal theoretical uncertainty.
Perhaps we should take our time to recall some basic facts about “things” being submersed in a fluid like water. These basic facts called buoyancy (anybody needing coaching?) were discovered by Archimedes already 212 B. C. According to Archimedes´ principle, Buoyancy = weight of displaced fluid.
What does this mean for ice swimming in the ocean? Each and every single piece of ice did displace its own weight thereby increasing sea level provided it did not arise from sea water but was brought into sea water from an external source like, e. g., a glacier.
If it DID arise from sea water, it won´t affect sea level at all because, as the density of water is 1, the volume of displaced water corresponds exactly to its weight. This means, as 1 kg water freezes to ice, 1 kg water will be displaced which will NOT affect sea level by any means.
Why then, you could ask, does ice swim on water but will not sink until its surface is even with that of the water surface (density = 1)? Because ice has a slightly lower weight per volume (density) than that of the water it arose from thus making it “lighter” than water. However, its weight is still the same.
For example, when 1 kg water freezes to ice, its volume will expand by about 7% (Thanks to Dr. Tim Ball for this) thereby crushing e. g. a bottle of glass it is enclosed in but its weight, displacing the same amount of water, will still be 1 kg.
And now we come to the most crucial point: let ALL of the arctic ice swimming in the Arctic Ocean melt by this bad, bad man-made global warming or whatsoever, and what will happen with regard to sea level? Plainly nothing! Nothing!
Because ice displaces exactly the same amount as the water it is comprised of. Ice is frozen water and frozen water when melting will occupy exactly the same space inside the water the frozen ice did and will NOT change the level of the water it swims inside.
Anyone who never did it can easily check this statement by performing a simple experiment: take a glass of water but make sure you have some space left. Then cautiously bring in a little ice cube. Mark the “sea level” on the glass. Let the ice melt. What happened to “sea level” with respect to your mark after the ice cube melted completely? Surprise, surprise, NOTHING.
This Is The Point Where We Come To Analyze The Theories
When we agree that the major part of arctic ice swims inside the Arctic Ocean it should be easy to see that AMAP´s theory is not only wrong but dead wrong. No matter if or when the Arctic temperature will increase and by whatever cause, the “highly uncertain” (quote from referred article) but anyway estimated sea level rise of 90 to 160 cm is not only “highly uncertain” but totally uncertain because it vastly contradicts a law of physics discovered more than 220 decades ago and still unrefuted.
This should, by the sheer number of 220 outrivaling 1, be a bit more convincing than “even if greenhouse gas emissions are lower than in the past decade.”
Of course we can discuss if the sea level will rise and to which extent. Of course there is ice located on land masses even within the Arctic. But even in this case things are getting complicated because, as Dr. Tim Ball noted in a private email to me: “Even the Greenland figure is questionable because you have to determine what portion of the ice is already below sea level” … “and calculate the isostatic adjustments that would occur among other factors.
Questions to ask. How much did sea level rise during the Medieval Warm Period? How much did sea level rise, or at least the rate of rise decrease, during the Little Ice Age.”
Also, the very mass of the Greenland ice depresses this land mass thereby already increasing sea level. If this ice melts, more water would be added to the ocean thus increasing sea level but the pressure onto the land mass would be decreased thereby again decreasing sea level. The same holds true for Antarctica. Who can, or wants to, calculate all these effects altogether on an irrefutable scientific basis?
IPCC? Or AMAP? Just go ahead and convince us the way you did it here!
Even if we trust another, more conservative, study, according to the referred article conducted by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and his team, more than AMAP´s study we could and should still question their figures on the basis of what I said above: How much of Greenland´s and Antarctica´s ice is already submersed inside the water and how big is the extent of the ice´s depression of the land mass it is situated on?
So, what is the value of those studies anyway? And can AMAP´s study tell us anything we need to know?
Is it only by chance that AMAP´s study will be published about 3 months later than another study referring to Arctic´s rapid melt published in Science? The abstract says:
“The Arctic is responding more rapidly to global warming than most other areas on our planet. Northward-flowing Atlantic Water is the major means of heat advection toward the Arctic and strongly affects the sea ice distribution. Records of its natural variability are critical for the understanding of feedback mechanisms and the future of the Arctic climate system, but continuous historical records reach back only ~150 years. Here, we present a multidecadal-scale record of ocean temperature variations during the past 2000 years, derived from marine sediments off Western Svalbard (79°N). We find that early–21st-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming.”
While it would be futile to question their method of reconstructing “ocean temperature variations during the past 2000 years” because I cannot say anything about the validity of such methods, their presumed link to the “Arctic amplification of global warming.” is definitely questionable. Please take your common sense.
Didn´t we learn at school that all coastal regions have a moderate climate because the ocean acts as a huge buffer? And this immensely huge buffer – about 1,3 million cubic kilometers of all oceans altogether - should react so fast – we are talking about “global warming” for 20 years only – to increased land and air temperatures that at least one major ocean current heading towards Arctic already has reached temperatures “unprecedented over the past 2000 years”?
Twenty years of modern “global warming” weighing more than 2.000 years with 150 years of Medievel Warm Period included? According to a Wikipedia Graph, Medieval Warm Period temperatures were about 0.3 to 0.4° C lower than that of 2000. Should this be enough for “unprecedented” ocean temperatures?
Alternative Theories
This is the part I am coming to fiction and speculation. However, I do say it´s fiction and speculation. Speculation can be and is fun as long as it is not sold as science and facts.
Obviously, the ocean current leading to the Arctic, called Fram Strait, is “rather warm”. And, obviously, the Arctic ice is melting, perhaps faster than before 2001. If we do not believe in “global warming” being the cause of this and if we do not believe in a “climate sensitivity” of 3° C as predicted by the IPCC as a possible future cause of global and Arctic warming – Prof. Claes Johnson of Sweden says 3° C is scientific fiction -, what could be the cause for a warmer ocean, especially in the region of Arctic and Antarctica?
Well, the question more exactly goes like this: what could be a heat source large enough to heat up something as big as the worldwide interconnected ocean(s) in a comparatively short time so that ocean temperatures might be “unprecedented over the past 2000 years?”
Does it come to your mind or imagination?
Volcanoes!
The latest article on “iceagenow.com” says there are more than 3 million underwater volcanoes. It also says, “Volcanic activity in Arctic Ocean "dramatically" higher than expected. The Arctic Ocean contains far more underwater volcanoes, and displays more hydrothermal activity than scientists had suspected.” Already on March, 31st, 2010, John O´Sullivan reviewed a study saying Hillier and Watts estimated a “total of 3,477,403 submarine volcanoes must reasonably exist worldwide."
Finally, the article reports on a crater lake 1/4 mile wide and 1/3 mile long heated up to more than 40° C by ONE volcano alone.
Now it´s not more speculative than AMAP´s or IPCC´s speculations to imagine that more than 3 million underwater volcanoes with many of them being under the Arctic might heat up the ocean to “unprecedented temperatures”.
Why this is happening today is a very interesting but totally different question. Perhaps man-made carbon dioxide – but only man-made! - with its massive inherent back radiation triggered the underwater volcanoes´ enhanced activity by a mechanism AMAP and IPCC very likely and very convincingly will discover within the next decade. And politicians worldwide will buy their findings just like they did in the previous 2 decades.
Sometimes, mysteries are easily solved. Sometimes, you don´t need any government funded science organization to explain you the world. Sometimes, common sense and scientists deserving their names is all you need...
