Melting glaciers, shrinking polar
ice and rising oceans?
And the receding glaciers on Earth,
that are in accelerating retreat
all over? The melting polar ice
caps? The rising sea levels?
Well, first of all, the sea levels
are not rising. The mean sea level
was established and marked in
1841 at the Isle of the Dead,
in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia.
There has been no rise in the
sea level since then, at best
only a very small rise, no more
than 1.6 cm or just a little less
than two-thirds of an inch during
all of the last century. A good
case is being made for the claim
that during the total interval
since 1841 the mean sea level
even fell a little. John L. Daly
(deceased), science advisor to
the Greening Earth Society, resided
in Tasmania and investigated the
history of the mean-sea-level
marker there:
Recent
publicity arising from a study
by the Universities of Southampton
and Tasmania of an old sea level
benchmark at Port Arthur, Tasmania,
claims `dramatic' sea level rise
of about 13cm since the mark was
first struck back in 1841.
These
claims are based primarily on
statistical probability models
and are unsupportable when viewed
in the context of other physical
and documentary evidence available
surrounding the benchmark. The
study claims the benchmark was
originally set 44.5cm above the
mean level of the sea (as it then
existed in 1841). Since it now
sits at 31.5 cm above (see fig.1),
the difference - 13cm - is claimed
to be evidence of sea level rise.
However,
the man responsible for putting
the mark there, explorer Sir James
Clark Ross stated explicitly and
several times in his 1846 book
[3] that the mark was placed at
MSL (as he estimated it to be),
not at a point 44.5cm above, near
the high tide point, as claimed
by the study. Other evidence surrounding
the original placing of the benchmark
is less clear, but we do have
one positive measurement of where
the benchmark stood relative to
sea level taken in 1888 by the
then Government meteorologist,
Commander J. Shortt R.N. He found
the mark to be 34cm above sea
level - only 2½ cm different
to its current position.
This suggests a sea level rise
since 1888 of only 2½cm,
not 13cm as claimed by the study.
This small rise of 2½ cm
is fully consistent with a survey
of long-term tide gauges around
the Australian coast carried out
recently by the National Tidal
Facility in Adelaide, which found
a sea level rise rate of only
0.3 mm/yr, equivalent to a sea
level rise of 3cm over a century.
Even the current sea level in
the inner cove (Mason Cove) of
Port Arthur itself is lower than
that indicated by a tide gauge
which the study claims existed
there in the early 1840s....12
What
John Daly argued is true of the
oceans in the southern hemisphere,
is true of the findings by many
climatologists who studied measurements
of trends in sea levels all over
the globe.
Sea
Level (Difficulties Predicting
Change)
By the Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
(2003 10 01 )
Summary:
Climate alarmists are quick to
make dramatic predictions of catastrophic
increases in sea level, which
they attribute to CO2-induced
global warming. A brief review
of the pertinent scientific literature,
however, suggests that seasoned
researchers in the field are nowhere
near as sure of themselves on
this important point.
And
as to the retreating glaciers,
according to Dr. Landscheidt,
the World Glacier Monitoring Network
in Zurich identifies that "presently
55% of the glaciers in high latitudes
are advancing compared with 5%
around 1950."13
How
much impact global warming had
had on the Athabasca Glacier at
the Columbia Ice Fields since
1972. The Athabasca Glacier had
retreated quite a bit since 1972.
The advance or retreat of a given
glacier is nothing more than a
reflection of the climate in a
relatively small, local area but
not of global warming or cooling.
For an accurate assessment on
a global level we would have to
look at the changing conditions
of all glaciers in the world.
The
Hubbard Glacier, not too far from
the Columbia Ice Fields, at the
Pacific, right at the border between
Alaska and Canada, at Yakutat
Bay, Alaska, is presently in rapid
advance, just as it was in 1985.
If we were to extrapolate from
that — as my niece did from
the retreat of the Athabasca Glacier
— to the whole world, we
would have a dilemma. Which extrapolation
would be the correct one, the
one made from the Athabasca Glacier
or the one made from the Hubbard
Glacier? Have a look at the Landsat
images of Yakutat Bay dated Aug.
7, 1985 and Sep. 11, 1986.
Hubbard Glacier, Alaska
1985, 1986
These images show the vicinity
of Yakutat Bay, Alaska. Russell
Fiord is the narrow body of saltwater
connected to the bay and extending
southeast. The Hubbard Glacier
lies where Russell Fiord meets
the bay.
In
May 1986, the Hubbard Glacier
surged down from the mountains,
blocking the outlet of Russell
Fiord and creating "Russell
Lake". All that summer the
new lake filled with runoff; its
water level rose 25 meters, and
the decrease in salinity threatened
its sea life.
Around
midnight on October 8th the dam
began to give way. In the next
24 hours an estimated 5.3 billion
cubic meters of water gushed through
the gap, and the fiord was reconnected
to the ocean at its previous level.
The
fiord could become dammed again,
and perhaps permanently. If this
happens, the fiord could overflow
its southern banks and drain through
the Situk River instead, threatening
trout habitat and a local airport.
Sure
enough, it didn't take long and
the Hubbard Glacier advanced once
more, rapidly, in 2002.
Advancing
Hubbard Glacier has narrowed the
channel into Russell Fiord to
less than the width of a basketball
court, Tongass National Forest
officials said Friday.
The
Anchorage Daily News indicated
in the article identified just
above that "Current information
and photographs of Hubbard can
be found at the Tongass National
Forest Web page (www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/).
Is
it possible that the citizens
of Yakutat Bay feel threatened
by the effects of global "warming"?
Of course not! They are worried
about their immediate local problem,
not about long-term trends in
global climate change. However,
their local problem is no more
representative of global climate
change than is the slow retreat
apparent at the Athabasca Glacier.
Moreover, both of those local
problems are at opposite ends
of the range of concerns employed
by climate alarmists. If we average
things out between those two glaciers
out of many thousands in the world,
then the conclusion is that the
average growth of glaciers is
still quite considerable and should
be taken as evidence of global
cooling. That would be another
mistake. The study sample of two
glaciers is too small to permit
valid conclusions as to a relationship
between their average rate of
growth and global climate trends.
Moreover, those two glaciers are
not even representative of the
many thousands of glaciers in
the world. Both, the Hubbard and
the Athabasca glaciers, are located
on the west side of North America,
just a few hundred miles apart
from one another.
Let's
consider exhaustive and in-depth
studies of northern glaciers.
The Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change reports
that the northern glaciers in
the world that should, according
to the climate alarmists, be in
rapid melt-down, do nothing of
the sort. Especially during the
past few decades some of them
have been advancing and others
exhibit a marked slowing down
of the rate at which they had
been retreating during the first
half of the 20th century.
Taken
together, these observations from
high northern latitudes, where
CO2-induced global warming is
supposed to be most evident, provide
no evidence for that dreaded phenomenon.
In fact, they suggest that nothing
out of the ordinary is occurring
at all. Hence, we once again have
a situation where the predictions
of today's best climate models
fail to conform to reality.
Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change
The
summary from which that quote
was taken contains links to additional
summaries of studies of northern
regions of glaciation or of specific
glaciers:
In
a review of "the most current
and comprehensive research of
Holocene glaciation," along
the northernmost Gulf of Alaska
between the Kenai Peninsula and
Yakutat Bay, Calkin et al. (2001)
report there were several periods
of glacial advance and retreat
over the past 7000 years. ...
Subsequent
to this time [the last half of
the 19th century], as the planet
emerged from the depths of the
Little Ice Age, the mass balance
records of the 18 Arctic glaciers
with the longest observational
histories were studied by Dowdeswell
et al. (1997). ...."ice-core
records from the Canadian High
Arctic islands indicate that the
generally negative glacier mass
balances observed over the past
50 years [when the vast majority
of the CO2 resulting from human
activities entered the atmosphere]
have probably been typical of
Arctic glaciers since the end
of the Little Ice Age [our italics],"
when the magnitude of anthropogenic
CO2 emissions was a whole lot
less than it has been from 1950
onward.
Additional
evidence that the Arctic's glaciers
are not responding to human-induced
warming comes from the studies
of Zeeberg and Forman (2001) and
Mackintosh et al. (2002), who
indicate there has been an expansion
of glaciers in the European Arctic
over the past few decades.
Other
glacier observations that run
counter to climate model predictions
are discussed by Mackintosh et
al. (2002), who concentrated on
the 300-year history of the Solheimajokull
outlet glacier on the southern
coast of Iceland. In 1705, this
glacier had a length of about
14.8 km; and by 1740 it had grown
to 15.2 km in length. Thereafter,
it began to retreat, reaching
a minimum length of 13.2 km in
1783. Rebounding rapidly, however,
the glacier returned to its 1705
position by 1794; and by 1820
it equaled its 1740 length. This
maximum length was maintained
for the next half-century, after
which the glacier began a slow
retreat that continued to about
1932, when its length was approximately
14.75 km. Then it wasted away
more rapidly, reaching a second
minimum-length value of approximately
13.8 km about 1970, whereupon
it began to rapidly expand, growing
to 14.3 km by 1995.
If
the hypothesis of man-made global
warming were true, then the sea
would be warming up, and the Arctic
sea ice would be shrinking. Some
newspapers reported that the Arctic
sea ice is indeed doing that.
It
is most definitely true that the
area covered by Arctic sea ice
shrinks. It does that every year
during the summer months –
and during the winter it grows
again. The area covered by Arctic
sea ice more than doubles each
year from its smallest expanse
in summer to its largest expanse
in winter. The question is whether
a long-term trend of the size
of the relative area covered is
super-imposed on the annual oscillation
in the size of the area covered
by Arctic sea ice.
It
would be neither practical nor
even possible to send teams of
surveyors to the Arctic to take
measurements sufficiently often
and with a sufficient degree of
accuracy to be able to determine
whether the shifting and drifting
Arctic sea ice is experiencing
a long-term trend in change of
size. However, the advent of satellites
and computers made it possible
to do what could not be done with
traditional methods. Regular,
accurate measurements of the area
covered by the Arctic sea ice
have been made, covering the interval
from 1978 to now.
If
we were to assume that the trend
exhibited by changes to the Arctic
sea ice for the interval from
November 1978 to December 1998
would hold true for the future,
then it would seem that by about
2320 the Arctic will be totally
free of sea ice, at least during
the summer. Is that a reasonable
assumption? That depends on a
number of things, first and foremost
of which is the requirement that
the Arctic air temperatures are
truly warming up and that whatever
else caused the arctic sea ice
to shrink during the 20 year interval
will continue to have the same
effect to the same extent. That
would require quite a stretch
of the imagination. For one thing,
surface temperature measurements
taken at weather stations around
and in the area of the Arctic
Ocean show no indication at all
that a warming trend is at work.
That leaves the examination of
other factors and the search for
what they may be.
A
group of Canadian scientists (CRYSYS)
used the same data displayed in
the graph from NASA shown above
(all of the data used for such
purposes comes from the same satellite
measurements), added data from
observations of sea ice extent
made from ships during the time
prior to when satellite measurements
took place, massaged it using
modelling, and postulates that
within a hundred years or so there
will be no Arctic sea ice left
or perhaps just a little bit during
the winter.
Source: CRYSYS
Would
it be correct to suppose that
the melting of the Arctic sea
ice will prove to be a boon to
Canada's tourist industry? Think
of the thousands of miles of pristine
beaches available that would then
be accessible to vacationers from
all over the world!
Unfortunately,
CRYSYS' prediction is troubled
by a few problems. It will only
come to pass if all of the assumptions
they used in their modelling are
correct. Sadly, the researchers
at CRYSYS did not put any confidence
limits on their prediction, so
that we cannot be sure how accurate
they feel it may be and how likely
it is to come to pass. Furthermore,
they do not appear to offer any
predictions for other and probably
more realistic scenarios. For
one thing, the key factor in their
assumptions, namely that "green
house gases" (GHG) will increase
at a rate of one percent per year,
is wrong. CO2 in the atmosphere
presently increases at a linear
rate of 1.5 ppm/year and not at
an exponential rate of one percent
per year. The difference between
the real rate of increase and
the rate assumed by CRYSYS is
quite substantial.
Source: The "National Assessment"
Overview: Politics Disguised as
Science
By John L. Daly, Greening Earth
Society Science Advisor
It
stands to reason that a climate
prediction for the next 100 years
that is based on data represented
by the red line in the preceding
graph would be off the mark. Then,
too, it seems to be necessary
as well to consider that the Arctic
sea ice extent forecasted by CRYSYS
for the years 1999-2002 is not
born out by reality. As their
very own depiction of the latest
data shows, the arctic sea ice
area increased during the last
two of the last three years. That
is data that was not used in their
model.
Given
that the area covered by arctic
sea ice did increase by a small
amount during the 2000-2002 interval,
claims that the polar ice is melting
because the ocean is heating up
due to man-made global warming
must be taken with a bit more
than just a grain of salt. It
seems doubtful that CRYSYS can
be doing objective research. It
would not be surprising at all
if their research is politically
oriented. After all, their funding
and some of their team members
come from the same source that
pushes for increased taxation
and for global income equalization
through income transfers to less
developed nations by means of
implementing the Kyoto accord.
It seems that is was ideological
fervor that made the CRYSYS team
choose their somewhat propagandistic
acronym for their organization.
However,
in addition to the false assumption
as to the trends in CO2 content
of the atmosphere, there is another
flaw that is illustrated in the
trend in the Arctic sea ice extent
shown by CRYSYS. It doesn't measure
up to reality.
Sources: CCC model run as per
CRYSYS
Annual means of Arctic sea ice
extent derived from data by NASA
(Nimbus 7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I
data sets with the NASA Team sea
ice algorithm)
If
the calculation by a climate model
of what the climate ought to have
been is so wide off the mark,
what is the chance that the model's
prediction of future trends is
anywhere close to being accurate?
It would have been possible for
CRYSYS to show the deviation of
the model run's prediction from
reality, but CRYSYS did not. Instead,
CRYSYS appears to have worded
their comments in the graph showing
the model run output to mislead.
The results of "Historical
GHG and aerosol forcing from 1850
to present" are not representative
of historical ice extent, they
are results of calculations by
the model run of what historical
Arctic sea ice extent ought to
have been according to what the
Canadian Climate Centre wishes
for. Why did CRYSYS not also show
what the Arctic sea ice extent
actually was? From what CRYSYS'
performance is in that regard
it would seem that Canadians are
hardly getting much value for
their tax dollars devoted to the
funding of CRYSYS.
Other
researchers seem to be driven
to a somewhat lesser extent by
ideology. They still have the
capability to be skeptical of
some of the projections shown
by the various General Circulation
Models and the data that goes
into them:
7.1.2
The passive microwave sea ice
concentration record - how reliable
is it?
The
recent digitization of Canadian
and US sea ice charts has produced
an easily accessible and valuable
record of sea ice conditions over
the northern hemisphere over the
last 30-years. An analysis of
ice type of information that can
be obtained is shown. One interesting
result is that the East Coast
of Canada has the highest proportion
of new and young sea ice types
of any Canadian region. This is
related to the sea ice regime
on the East Coast where sea ice
advances unconstrained on its
eastern and southern edge opening
up the sea ice cover and accelerating
surface sea ice formation. This
record is compared to the passive
microwave sea ice concentration
record over the last 20 years.
Results of the comparison using
the NASA Team algorithm over the
1979 to 1996 period demonstrates
the consistency with which sea
ice concentration and sea ice
area is underestimated during
summer melt and fall freeze-up
conditions. This underestimation
is considerably larger than previous
comparisons using satellite remotely
sensed data.
Minutes
of the Twelfth Annual Meeting
of the Participants of the International
Arctic Buoy Programme (IABP)
Hosted by Marine Environmental
Data Service (MEDS)
Ottawa, CANADA, 10 – 12
June 2002
The
problem affecting the accuracy
of estimates of sea ice extent
based on satellite measurements
(areas covered by melt water on
top of ice floes are presently
not recognized as part of the
Arctic sea ice area) is being
addressed. As per NASA:
A
pre-launch Arctic campaign called
Meltpond2000 (Cavalieri, 2000)
took place from June 25 through
July 6, 2000 with the objective
of quantifying the errors incurred
by the AMSR-E sea ice algorithms
resulting from the presence of
melt ponds. Melt ponds are currently
the largest single source of error
in the determination of Arctic
sea ice concentrations with satellite
passive microwave sensors.
AMSR-E
Sea Ice Validation
Melt
ponds are vast and numerous expanses
of water that floats on top of
arctic sea-ice fields during periods
of melting. They constitute a
considerable proportion of the
surface of arctic sea ice during
the summer. They pose a problem
with the accuracy of satellite
measurements of the sea-ice expanse,
as they obscure the underlying
ice and prevent the accurate measuring
of the true sea-ice expanse. Of
no lesser importance is the note
of caution expressed in the following.
Interannual
variability in extent is large:
for example, a record minimum
in September of 1995 was followed
by very high extent the next year.
Globally, the annual variation
of sea ice area is about 37% of
the mean (Gloersen et al. 1999).
Because of this, it is difficult
to infer long-term trends from
short observational records, or
to deduce the influence of possible
natural oscillations in ice extent.
