tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post3596918307110030481..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: FullerminationsMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-46008855054589341052010-09-07T20:11:53.374-07:002010-09-07T20:11:53.374-07:00It's been great sport but is accomplishing not...It's been great sport but is accomplishing nothing further.<br /><br />I agree with Fuller on one thing at least. Let's put this thread to bed.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-28158383531803799572010-09-07T19:38:05.271-07:002010-09-07T19:38:05.271-07:00Surely a respectable author wouldn't blow off ...Surely a respectable author wouldn't blow off a request for a cite?<br /><br />This? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019122838.htm<br />"... while West Antarctica is still losing significant amounts of ice, the loss appears to be slightly slower than some recent estimates ....'"<br /><br />doesn't come close to F's claimed "substantial amount" that he found somewhere. <br /><br />Mr. F? Got a cite? What's your trusted source for that?Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-32773640613893882692010-09-07T19:34:28.806-07:002010-09-07T19:34:28.806-07:00Tom:
All your cites thus far have either been mis...Tom:<br /><br />All your cites thus far have either been misquoted or taken out of context (i.e., they don't say what you think they say), or have been dated and not reflective of the latest studies and consensus of thinking. And when called on it, you have ignored those calling you out.<br /><br />I'm minded of the story of a teenage boy, full of bluster and bravado, who draws a line in the sand & dares another to cross it. And when the line is crossed, backs up, draws another line & repeats the dare. Kind of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno" rel="nofollow">like this one, but not as humorous.</a><br /><br />Been an entertaining day; I thank you for your part in that.<br /><br />Not as unbelievable as those Climate Progress and Real Climate threads I participated in in which Curry imploded, but a wreck nonetheless. Less horror and more funny zombies. <br /><br />That reminds me, the new <a href="http://residentevil-movie.com/" rel="nofollow">Resident Evil:Afterlife</a> movie comes out this week! Bonus!<br /><br />The YooperAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-54121672361984599522010-09-07T19:31:25.776-07:002010-09-07T19:31:25.776-07:00Ron: Do you, Tom, believe that melting ice from An...Ron: <i>Do you, Tom, believe that melting ice from Antarctica will contribute to sea level rise in the 21st century?</i><br /><br />Tom: <i>Mr. Broberg, as I said previously, I think ice will accumulate in the Antarctic during the early part of this century.</i><br /><br />Is that a 'no'?<br /><br />Do you agree or disagree with the conclusion of Wingham 2006 that Antartica ice loss at the edges will dominate ice gain in the interior during the 21st century?Ron Broberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00360356366869878444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-67093090134538405752010-09-07T19:31:02.678-07:002010-09-07T19:31:02.678-07:00PDA, I'd like to speculate on what your initia...PDA, I'd like to speculate on what your initials actually refer to, but I'll restrain myself.<br /><br />Mr. Broberg actually asked three questions, but I guess arithmetic is beneath you.<br /><br />I actually think if he wants more information he is capable of asking for himself.<br /><br />However, if you're feeling a bit of prurient curiosity, my answers are:<br /><br />1. Not through 2030/<br />2. Maybe 1 mm, maybe less.<br />3. (In case that counts as 'not'), because I don't think temperatures will climb quickly enough to cause more, obviously.<br /><br />With that, I'll bid this thread adieu until the next time Tobis decides to lie about me. Which won't be long--I get slimed about once a week here, it seems. <br /><br />But I guess it keeps dhogaza happy.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-9695632835947862242010-09-07T18:58:35.107-07:002010-09-07T18:58:35.107-07:00http://www.springerlink.com/content/r410j700162342...http://www.springerlink.com/content/r410j700162342j0/fulltext.html ?<br /><br />Don't think so, but it's a good survey article with a full section citing significant GPS work in Antarctica.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-28910119826286633112010-09-07T18:51:53.692-07:002010-09-07T18:51:53.692-07:00Tom, Ron asked you a specific question. You copy/p...Tom, Ron asked you a specific question. You copy/pasted the answer to a different question.<br /><br />Care to try again?Paul Daniel Ashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17633446166342778475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-71669030877624842252010-09-07T18:51:34.781-07:002010-09-07T18:51:34.781-07:00> expedition
Another pony-here-somewhere deliv...> expedition<br /><br />Another pony-here-somewhere delivery from Mr. F.<br /><br />Well, let's see<br /><br />This? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019122838.htm<br /><br />ScienceDaily (Oct. 20, 2009) — "New ground measurements made by the West Antarctic GPS Network .... suggest the rate of ice loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been slightly overestimated.<br /> 'Our work suggests that while West Antarctica is still losing significant amounts of ice, the loss appears to be slightly slower than some recent estimates ....'"<br /><br />Nope, that doesn't come close to F's "substantial amount" description. Anyone got anything?<br />Mr. F? Got anything?Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-12504885104133064162010-09-07T18:50:42.849-07:002010-09-07T18:50:42.849-07:00Mr. Broberg, as I said previously, I think ice wil...Mr. Broberg, as I said previously, I think ice will accumulate in the Antarctic during the early part of this century.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-23832192664211739382010-09-07T18:49:10.625-07:002010-09-07T18:49:10.625-07:00What the IPCC says should be happening: "It i...What the IPCC says should be happening: "It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenicwarming over the past 50 years averaged over eachcontinent except Antarctica.<br /><br />Climate changes during the 20th century are estimated from<br />modelling studies to have led to contributions of between –0.2<br />and 0.0 mm/yr from Antarctica (the results of increasing<br />precipitation) and 0.0 to 0.1 mm/yr from Greenland (from<br />changes in both precipitation and runoff).<br /><br />Model simulations of this kind have not included the<br />possible effects of changes in climate during the 20th century.<br />The simulations described later (Section 11.5.1.1), in which an<br />ice sheet model is integrated using changes in temperature and<br />precipitation derived from AOGCM simulations, suggest that<br />anthropogenic climate change could have produced an additional<br />contribution of between –0.2 to 0.0 mm/yr of sea level from<br />increased accumulation in Antarctica over the last 100 years, and<br />between 0.0 and 0.1 mm/yr from Greenland, from both increased<br />accumulation and ablation.<br /><br />For Antarctica, mass-balance sensitivities for a 1°C local<br />warming are close to –0.4 mm/yr (with one outlier of –0.8<br />mm/yr) of global sea level equivalent. A common feature of all<br />methods is the insignificant role of melting, even for summer<br />temperature increases of a few degrees, so that only accumulation<br />changes need to be considered.<br /><br />For CO2 increasing according to the IS92a scenario<br />(without aerosol), studies by Van de Wal and Oerlemans (1997)<br />and Huybrechts and De Wolde (1999) calculated sea level<br />contributions for 1990 to 2100 of +80 to +100 mm from the<br />Greenland ice sheet and about –80 mm from the Antarctic ice<br />sheet."Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-2134579669333013352010-09-07T18:38:50.624-07:002010-09-07T18:38:50.624-07:00The question at hand, Tom, is whether ice loss fro...The question at hand, Tom, is whether ice loss from Antarctica will cause long term sea level rise.<br /><br />You piece at WUWT seems to derides those, like Wingman 2006, who believe that answer to that question is 'yes.'<br /><br />Do you, Tom, believe that melting ice from Antarctica will contribute to sea level rise in the 21st century?<br /><br />If yes, how much SLR will melting contribute in your opinion?<br /><br />If no, why not?<br /><br />Even though I have read your latest piece at WUWT complete with insulting jabs at Tobis, I was unable to find the answer to these basic questions. Your replies here seem to indicate that you don't believe that there will be long term SLR contributions from AIS, but I won't assume that unless you explicitly state it.Ron Broberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00360356366869878444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-32185009344736894702010-09-07T18:31:41.543-07:002010-09-07T18:31:41.543-07:00PDA: "Um, yeah. NewYork was quoting a differe...PDA: "Um, yeah. NewYork was quoting a different study. Put the link right there in the text and everything"<br /><br />Fuller is probably confused because some of the authors are the same, but the study has a different title, a more recent year, and additional authors.<br /><br />In summary:<br /><br />1. Most studies of recent observations (last couple of decades) indicate Antarctica is on balance losing sheet ice.<br /><br />2. One outlier study (Shepherd & Wingham 2006) indicates a small net gain in Antarctic sheet ice over 1992-2003, although losses are within the uncertainty bounds. Their methods use radar altimetry, which is biased towards positive values. Nonetheless, Daniel Bailey posts some key quotes from the study, indicating the gains are primarily from snowfall and losses primarily from retreating glaciers. Since the effects of snowfall are considered to be short-term and retreating glaciers long-term, the authors conclude that retreating glaciers will dominate 21st century changes. <br /><br />3. A more recent study involving the same authors note that losses to key glaciers has accelerated in recent years, and that they are expected to contribute significantly to global sea level rise this century.<br /><br />So what might Fuller have left to sling at those big bad "alarmists"? He reminds me of a lawyer defending a hopeless client. 10 witness line up to testify against his client so he dismisses them and finds a witness, who when cross-examined, undermines his case further. Time for him to bust out some random quotes about Antarctic sea ice. Objection - irrelevant information...sustained.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498962662346378802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-5567767336393579542010-09-07T18:20:36.907-07:002010-09-07T18:20:36.907-07:00Mr. Broberg, I cannot blame you for not having rea...Mr. Broberg, I cannot blame you for not having read all of the comments here, but I have said several times that I agree with conventional climat theory that projects ice accumulation in the Antarctic for the first few decades of the 21st Century, possibly helping to balance out melt from other sources.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-38149465045182950212010-09-07T18:04:59.326-07:002010-09-07T18:04:59.326-07:00Louis: "After processing GRACE data from the...Louis: "After processing GRACE data from the western Antarctic, the calculated loss of ice was so large that an expedition was sent to verify the numbers. They found that the processed data overestimated ice loss by a substantial amount."<br /><br />Source, please. You might also want to read <a href="http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2115" rel="nofollow">this</a>.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7515481193714049532010-09-07T18:03:26.741-07:002010-09-07T18:03:26.741-07:00Mr. Fuller cites the following for support that th...Mr. Fuller cites the following for support that the ice mass of Antarctica is slightly increasing. Mr Fuller has raised this point as evidence that loss of ice from Antartica is unlikely to contribute much to sea leavel rise in the 21st Century:<br /><br /><i>Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet</i><br />www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf<br /> <br /><br />Lets read the conclusion:<br /><br /><i>We show that 72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27G29 Gt yrK1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm yrK1. The IPCC third assessment (Church & Gregory 2001) partially offset an ongoing sea-level rise due to Antarctic retreat since the last glacial maximum (0.0–0.5 mm yrK1) with a twentieth century fall due to increased snowfall (K0.2–0.0 mm yrK1). But that assessment relied solely on models that neither captured ice streams nor the Peninsula warming, and the data show both have dominated at least the late twentieth century ice sheet. Even allowing a G30 Gt yrK1 fluctuation in unsurveyed areas, they provide a range of K35–C115 Gt yrK1. This range equates to a sea level contribution of K0.3–C0.1 mm yrK1 and so Antarctica has provided, at most, a negligible component of observed sea-level rise. In consequence, the data places a further burden on accounting (Munk 2003) for the twentieth century rise of 1.5–2 mm yrK1. <b>What is clear, from the data, is that fluctuations in some coastal regions reflect long-term losses of ice mass</b>, whereas fluctuations elsewhere appear to be short-term changes in snowfall. While the latter are bound to fluctuate about the long-term MAR, the former are not, <b>and so the contribution of retreating glaciers will govern the twenty-first century mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet.</b></i><br />(emphasis mine)<br /><br /> <br />I believe that Mr.Fuller has characterized the current state of the data well enough. It is highly uncertain with multiple (and conflicting) lines of evidence that show that Antarctica, on the continental scale, *may* be gaining ice mass. That he is concentrating on those papers which show ice mass gaining is reasonable, since that is his argument. He should not have to argue both sides of the issue. He is not presenting himself as a fair or balanced analyst. He is pursuing a line of argument. But given that he has cited Wingham 2006 in defense of his case, it's interesting that he fails to mention the conclusion of that paper.<br /><br />Tom, did you deliberately choose to overlook the conclusions of Wingham et al in the paper that *you* cited? Or do you believe that Wingham 2006 supports your contention that Antarctica will contribute little to sea level in the 21st century *despite* their conclusions? Is there some other reason you fail to note the conclusions of the paper that you cited?<br /><br />---<br /><br />I see that Daniel Bailey has also noted that the paper Fuller has cited does not support the main thrust of his argument. But I think it is a point worth repeating. :)Ron Broberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00360356366869878444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-49164924939044873792010-09-07T17:41:03.661-07:002010-09-07T17:41:03.661-07:00Louis, attempting to be scientifical:
> If, af...Louis, attempting to be scientifical:<br /><br />> If, after calibration, you stick it in boiling water, and it doesn't read 100 C or 212 F, then the calibration is WRONG.<br /><br />Residents of Denver will be surprised to learn this.<br /><br />How are we supposed to distinguish the Cool-It-Kids from those that scream "Teach the Controversy" when it comes to evolution?<br /><br />Demonstrate that there is more than "the Art of Controversy" to your hand-wringing, by holding yourself to a higher standard of discourse and rigor, while obtaining published results in the same field of inquiry. Or naming practitioners who maintain your high standard.<br /><br />Will the result be less shabby than what has been produced by intelligent design investigators? Unlikely. Feel free to prove the world wrong.manuel moe ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04878149837118503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-12395438653177098172010-09-07T17:20:42.603-07:002010-09-07T17:20:42.603-07:00Sort of, but the measurement will never be perfect...Sort of, but the measurement will never be perfect, and the decisions have to be made in a timely way.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-44651381617269208092010-09-07T17:17:25.730-07:002010-09-07T17:17:25.730-07:00Michael Tobis said:
By Louis' standards there...Michael Tobis said:<br /><br />By Louis' standards there practically is no such thing as observational data about quantities of physical interest. Even a thermometer, after all, is ultimately a model; it measures not temperature but volume of mercury. Sort of. Actually it measures how many notches up a tube the mercury expands to.<br /><br />Your statement about the thermometer illustrates my point. A thermometer with only notches, and no numbers is nearly useless. Before you can get accurate readings, the thermometer must be calibrated correctly. If, after calibration, you stick it in boiling water, and it doesn't read 100 C or 212 F, then the calibration is WRONG. Therefore, if you draw conclusions from temperature readings taken with an incorrectly calibrated thermometer, they will also likely be wrong.<br /><br />I stand by my previous statement: Clearly, there are errors in the way the data is processed. The path forward is to find the error(s), fix them, and then reprocess the data to see what is really happening.Louis Hooffstetterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04513015772596843711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-77240318733429663462010-09-07T17:12:18.102-07:002010-09-07T17:12:18.102-07:00Oops, its when the Ross and Weddell seas once agai...<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/05/climate-change-ice-caps-antarctica" rel="nofollow">Oops, its when the <b>Ross</b> and Weddell seas once again join, right through the heart of WAIS, as had happened not all that long ago.</a><br />But please don't let facts about the past influence your thoughts about what the future will bring, despite the fact that CO2 concentrations are now higher than at any time since the Miocene.<br /><br />By all means concentrate on the <i>here and now</i>, being sure to ignore to difficulties that massive SLR will bring to future generations (if any).David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-17186918342600210882010-09-07T17:08:20.185-07:002010-09-07T17:08:20.185-07:00Time for a quotation sanity check.
"The trou...Time for a quotation sanity check.<br /><br /><em>"The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, it's that they know so many things that just aren't so.“</em> -- Mark Twain<br /><br /><em>"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."</em> -- The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan<br /><br /><em>"Sure, we're driving toward a wall on a foggy night at a high rate of speed, but it might be 30 yards ahead or 100, so why panic and assume it's only 30 yards to impact? The problem, as I pointed out, was that we can't decelerate at anywhere near the desired rate, so it's a difference of hitting the wall hard enough to sustain broken ribs and numerous bad lacerations, or hitting it so hard we wind up with life-threatening injuries."</em> -- Lou GrinzoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56328305675205037932010-09-07T16:33:09.405-07:002010-09-07T16:33:09.405-07:00By Louis' standards there practically is no su...By Louis' standards there practically is no such thing as observational data about quantities of physical interest. Even a thermometer, after all, is ultimately a model; it measures not temperature but volume of mercury. Sort of. Actually it measures how many notches up a tube the mercury expands to. Assuming you know what an eyeball does. That way lies madness, not science, of course.<br /><br />As for Louis' other points, they seem identical to the ones made and claimed surmounted in the Wu et al work cited in the posting.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-29742131505548875892010-09-07T16:32:52.308-07:002010-09-07T16:32:52.308-07:00There are obviously a bunch of bright guys posting...There are obviously a bunch of bright guys posting here, but IMHO, some of you are missing, or glossing over valid concerns about the way GRACE satellite data is processed. Keep in mind this is gravity data from a new satellite. Gravity measurements indicate a loss of mass, which is most likely, (but not necessarily) from a loss of ice.<br /><br />Several posters at WUWT correctly point out potential pitfalls with the way the raw data is processed. These are valid scientific concerns that need to be resolved and put to rest before the processed data can be trusted:<br /><br />1) A fairly simplistic, un-calibrated computer model is used to adjust the satellite data for mantle rebound from the last glaciation ~12,000 years ago.<br /><br />2) After processing GRACE data from the western Antarctic, the calculated loss of ice was so large that an expedition was sent to verify the numbers. They found that the processed data overestimated ice loss by a substantial amount.<br /><br />3) GRACE should open their systems and software so that people can see exactly how they are processing the raw data from the instruments.<br /><br />4) Statistically “manipulated” or “interpolated” data is not “observational data”, and should never be referred to as such.<br /><br />Clearly, there are errors in the way the data is processed. The path forward is to find the error(s), fix them, and then reprocess the data to see what is really happening. Until then, it is premature, bad scientific form, and yes, 'alarmist' to publish conclusions from processed data that is known to be bad. Any conclusions made before the bugs are worked out of the processing will most likely be wrong.Louis Hooffstetterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04513015772596843711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-77291223634336988742010-09-07T16:25:40.758-07:002010-09-07T16:25:40.758-07:00Whoah! from the "cited by" link posted ...Whoah! from the "cited by" link posted earlier, this:<br /><br />http://www.springerlink.com/content/b13x0v3726x555g7/fulltext.html<br /><br />"... The model predicts melting at all ice shelf bases in agreement with observations, ranging from below a meter per year for Ronne Ice Shelf to about 25 m/year for the Pine Island Glacier. In a warming scenario with a one-degree increase of the inflow temperature, the latter glacier responds with a 1.4-fold increase of the melting rate. Other caverns respond by more than a tenfold increase, as, e.g., Ronne Ice Shelf...."Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-52645654120849131712010-09-07T16:25:05.362-07:002010-09-07T16:25:05.362-07:00New York, you seem to be selectively quoting.
Um,...<i>New York, you seem to be selectively quoting.</i><br /><br />Um, yeah. NewYork was quoting <a href="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a905016057" rel="nofollow">a different study</a>. Put the link right there in the text and everything<br /><br />But please, keep complaining about ad homs while talking about "insanity and inanity," and go on accusing others of illiteracy while at the same time <b>totally failing to read their posts.</b> It's comedy gold.<br /><br />Also: countering one study that claims the Eastern Antarctic has lost 57 billion tons a year–plus or minus 52 billion tons by pointing to another study that claims the Antarctic has gained 27 billion tons a year–plus or minus 29 billion tons? <b><i>Classic</i></b>. This is weapons-grade satire… Andy Kaufmann could only have aspired to such at the peak of his talents.Paul Daniel Ashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17633446166342778475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-19858778527769404882010-09-07T16:23:09.030-07:002010-09-07T16:23:09.030-07:00Does Fuller know the difference between sea ice an...Does Fuller know the difference between sea ice and ice sheets, and if so when will he retract his conflation of the two?Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.com