jeffmcintirestrasburg

518 Responses to “Green Myth-Busting: Greenland was Once Green”

1. BobFJ Says:
   October 25th, 2007 at 9:11 am

   Themotie and Jason/Reasic; Max and I or Black Wallaby have posed a multiple of questions to you above that still remain with no response. Earlier you, (especially ‘motie), at first were typically very rapid in response, but there is currently a month or more silence from you, and we are missing-out on the entertainment that you have previously provided. I did a Google on "themotie October" and see that YOU are recently active on the subject of Microsoft and Mac’. (You have previously indicated to me an interest in MS, so the coincidence is fairly conclusive as to you being the self-same ‘motie!) So, whilst you are active elsewhere, why are you erstwhile avoiding at length any response to the rational questions that have been raised of you here? Myself, and visitors may easily draw a conclusion, that you are unable to sensibly answer those questions…..that you are unable to deny the truth with any conviction!

2. Jason Leggett Says:
   October 28th, 2007 at 2:12 am

   Max,

   I am also surpised that you have given up so quickly and have not responded to my posts that showed that IPCC 2007 SPM is full of errors, all going in the direction of making AGW sound disastrous (when it is not at all).
   Sorry you’ve given up on the debate. Guess you must realize, yourself, that the disastrous AGW scare is all a hoax.

   Rest assured that neither themotie nor I believe that AGW is a "hoax". I cannot speak for themotie, but I can say that I have not responded to arguments that you and Bob have made here because I have recently become extremely busy, both professionally and personally. So busy, in fact, that I’ve had to shut down my personal blog (Reasic) because I simply don’t have the time to contribute to or even maintain it. As to responding here, I can definitely say that it does not help that you have provided an extreme information overload. You have provided numerous very detailed arguments in a very short amount of time here. It almost seems as though you are purposely trying to drive your opponent away. For future reference, if your intent is honestly to debate with someone, I’d go with one argument at a time, so that you don’t overwhelm the opposition. Each of the arguments you’ve provided require a bit of research. Not everyone would have the time to take on such a laborious task.
   However, despite the overload, I’d like to address your arguments one by one when I can find the time. I can’t find your detailed arguments on the IPCC’s "faulty" claims on our past climate, so I’ll start with the 12 or so you’ve provided on future climate. Specifically, I’d like to start with #2, simply because I don’t think I have time for #1 just yet. I’ll provide my answer in my next comment.

3. Jason Leggett Says:
   October 28th, 2007 at 3:50 am

   Max,

   My response to your #2:

   IPCC projects sea level rise of 0.18 to 0.59 meters over the 21st century due to AGW (p.13), compared to 0.17 meters over the 20th century, which mostly occurred in the first 50 years. INQUA, the worldwide agency responsible for sea level monitoring, estimates a rise of 0.1±0.1 meters for the 21st century and states that any projection exceeding 0.2 meters is “nonsense”. Again, the (not very alarming) low end projection is reasonable while the (more alarming) high end projection is not. IPCC states the sea level “projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993-2003” (p.14), ignoring the fact that both Greenland and Antarctica ice caps grew during this period, rather than shrinking. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54461.htm http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/esa-eas110405.php http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidunka/EPSS-papers/djw3.pdf

   Within this argument, I see two major points. First, you pit the IPCC against the INQUA, giving preference to INQUA, and claim that INQUA negates IPCC’s high-end sea level rise projections. Second, you state that the higher IPCC projections for sea level rise include contributions from the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets, and then claim that these sheets are actually growing, rather than shrinking.

   Briefly, my response to each of these points is as follows.  To the first, I disagree with your representation of INQUA’s findings regarding future sea level rise. The link you provided is to a topic that was discussed at the INQUA Congress in 2003 in Reno by a skeptic, rather than the expressed opinion of the organization as a whole. To the second point, I disagree with your assessment of the reports you’ve provided on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. First of all, observed sea level rise is observed sea level rise, regardless of where the contributions came from. Secondly, the increases you’ve mentioned are due to increased snowfall in the interior of the ice sheets in addition to melting that is still occurring in coastal areas, and this is actually an expected response to global warming. In short, every argument you’ve provided here for #2 consisted of misrepresentations of facts and statements. I’ll take a few minutes to go over each of these responses in more detail for you.

   First, not only did I not find the word "nonsense" that you quoted from INQUA, the link you provided was to a presentation that was given by the climate skeptic, Nils Axel-Morner at the 2003 INQUA Congress in Reno, not the consensus opinion of INQUA itself. As a matter of fact, this letter I found from the President of INQUA clearly states that they do not agree with Morner:

   …INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view.

   So, it looks as though your attempt to discredit the IPCC’s sea level rise projections based on supposed INQUA estimates has failed.

   On to ice sheets… First, as I’ve already stated, the IPCC states that the observed sea level rise from 1993 to 2003 was 3.1 mm/yr, regardless of how it happened. Yes, they attributed some of this rise to losses in ice mass in Greenland and Antarctica, but negating these individual losses does not reduce the amount of sea level rise that was observed via satellite altimetry during that period. Now, the reports you referenced were from late 2005 and mid 2006, both after the WGI expert review period. The science of climate change is consistently evolving and self-correcting, when necessary. Just because a new discovery was not reflected in the IPCC’s latest report does not mean that it was "ignored". It will surely be picked up in the next report. However, I’m not sure what was gained by making this point, as the total observed rise in sea level remains standing.

   Finally, I’d like to address a point that I think is insinuated by your mention of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets gaining mass. That point is that since these ice sheets are actually gaining mass, we shouldn’t expect to see them lose mass any time soon, so any future projections that include these numbers must surely be false. This assertion itself is false for several reasons. First, this increase is due to an increase in snowfall, which is actually an expected response to global warming (from your Greenland link):

   Modelling studies of the Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance under greenhouse global warming have shown that temperature increases up to about 3ºC lead to positive mass balance changes at high elevations – due to snow accumulation – and negative at low elevations – due to snow melt exceeding accumulation. Such models agree with the new observational results.

   Also, this increase is generally considered to be short term (also from your Greenland link): 

   The team, led by Professor Ola M. Johannessen of NERSC, ascribe this interior growth of the Greenland Ice Sheet to increased snowfall linked to variability in regional atmospheric circulation known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). First discovered in the 1920s, the NAO acts in a similar way to the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, contributing to climate fluctuations across the North Atlantic and Europe.
   [...]
   [Professor Johannessen] cautioned that the recent growth found by the radar altimetry survey does not necessarily reflect a long-term or future trend. With natural variability in the high-latitude climate cycle that includes the NAO being very large, even an 11-year long dataset remains short.
   [...]
   …potentially within the next hundred years, losses from melting would exceed accumulation from increases in snowfall – then the meltdown of the Greenland Ice Sheet would be on.

   Apparently, the same is also true of Antarctica (from your Antarctica link): 

   What is clear, from the data, is that fluctuations in some coastal regions reflect long-term losses of ice mass, 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, and so the contribution of retreating glaciers will govern the twenty-first century mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet.

   In summary, INQUA does not disagree with the IPCC on sea level rise, leaving higher projections potentially intact. Also, while the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have gained mass in years, they are still expected to reverse course as the Earth continues to warm, thereby also leaving the IPCC’s higher sea level rise projections potentially intact. So, despite your misrepresentations of scientific findings, no valid arguments have been provided that would put the IPCC’s high end sea level rise projections into question.

   On a side note, do you see what I’m talking about when I say that you’ve provided information overload? For this one point, I’ve had to consult multiple sources, and have spent quite some time on a very detailed response. There’s no way I could respond to all of your arguments in one sitting, leaving me or any opponent with a potential feeling of being overwhelmed.

   I anxiously await your response, and after this matter is settled, we’ll move on to the next point. Thank you for your time.

4. Max Says:
   October 28th, 2007 at 12:57 pm

   Message to Jason Leggett re: IPCC vs. INQUA

   Hi Jason,

   Regarding disagreement between INQUA and IPCC on rate of sea level rise,

   You wrote: “I [could] not find the word “nonsense” that you quoted from INQUA”

   And: “In summary, INQUA does not disagree with the IPCC on sea level rise, leaving higher projections potentially intact.”

   Please refer to:

   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm

   You will see in

   “Fig. 2: The sea level rise by the year 2100 according to IPCC and its evaluation by INQUA”,

   BOTH the fact that INQUA does NOT agree with the IPCC estimate and the word “NONSENSE” as applied to any sea level rise projection from 2000 to 2100 that exceeds 20 cm.

   Hope this helps clear this up for you.

   Best regards,

   Max

5. Jason Leggett Says:
   October 29th, 2007 at 3:44 am

   Max,

   My point was quite simply: Sea level rise was lower in the second half of the 20th century than it was in the first half…

   Let me get this straight. There was a substantial period of cooling during almost half of the second have of the 20th century in which sea levels actually lowered, and you think comparing the first and second halves of the 20th century is valid? No offense, but that’s laughable. I’d stick with the argument on 1993 to 2003 if I were you.

   I am not “pitting the IPCC against the INQUA” as you say, but referring to an IPCC claim that disagrees with an ACTUAL MEASURED RECORD. Whereas IPCC claims a 1993-2003 rise of 3.1 mm/yr, the record shows around 1.3 mm/yr.

   What record are you referring to? Satellite altimetry for 1993 to 2003 shows a warming of 3.1 mm/yr. You want to go to the source of sea level measurement? Check out this site:
   http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
   On the front page you can see a graph which clearly shows that from 1993 to 2007, there was a continuous rise in sea level. The rate? 3.2 mm/yr. Where are you getting your 1.3 mm/yr measurement? Please show me on the colorado site, which is more updated than your INQUA sources, where there is a rate that differs from that of the IPCC.

   Your statement of labelling INQUA’s Nils-Börner as a “skeptic” (and thereby attempting to remove his committee’s findings from the record) does not impress me. It’s an old gambit.

   First of all, Morner is no longer with INQUA. As I stated before, the link you provided was to an abstract of a presentation that was given my Dr. Morner. The letter I provided clearly stated that INQUA does not subscribe to Dr. Morner’s brand of skepticism. Jumping ahead, I looked at the additional link you provided on INQUA findings, but it’s simply a paper by Dr. Morner again. In it, he makes the claim that, rather than 3.1 mm/yr rise from 1993 to 2003, there was actually no change in sea level. How does he do that? He actually tilts the graph, and then, VOILA! The measured rise in sea level is gone! He justifies it by claiming that any measured rise is actually due to ENSO events, and should therefore not be counted. Well, as the colorado link I provided shows, even the data to 2007 shows a continuous rise in sea level. Does Dr. Morner really contend that there have been progressively greater and greater ENSO events for the past 14 years, providing what seems to be a nearly constant 3.2 mm/yr rise in sea level?

   What do you have specifically to say about the long tidal record of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory cited above versus IPCC claims? Are these guys also “skeptics”?

   I don’t know if they’re "skeptics", but I’ve already addressed the argument of comparing sea level rise between the first and second halves of the last century. The data ends up being slightly biased, due to the cooling period in the second half.

   To Point 2, you are again talking around the topic by saying that sea level rise does not have to be specifically tied to Greenland or Antarctic ice mass balances and that global warming could cause more snowfall that would increase ice mass and lower sea levels.
   My point is that IPCC specifically states that loss of ice mass in both Greenland and Antarctica contributed to sea level rise (1993-2003). You will read (IPCC 2007 SPM p.7) that: “New data since the TAR now show that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003.”
   IPCC even quantified the amount of sea level rise attributable to each at 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003, significantly higher than in previous periods.
   The ESA measurements over THE SAME PERIOD show no “losses” but AN INCREASE in BOTH Greenland and Antarctic ice mass, contributing to a LOWERING of sea level by 0.18 and 0.08 mm/yr respectively. In other words, IPCC claims something that is directly opposite to THE ACTUALLY OBSERVED AND REPORTED FACTS.
   Any comment on this?

   Yes. Rather than crying "conspiracy theory", I look at it objectively and try to figure out why this discrepancy might exist. After looking into it, I found that the data about increased snowfall increasing the mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is relatively new. As I stated in my last comment, the two reports you referenced were released after the expert review period for WGI. This is new information that will likely be included in the next report. That they did not include it does not necessarily mean that it was ignored. Science is, by nature, constantly changing. We are always learning new things about our planet. If the IPCC held out their report for every new finding, they’d never release a report. Yes, there is a discrepancy, but it’s not something that was "ignored", and there is no conspiracy.
   My second point on this is that, while you say your point was that there is a discrepancy between the amount of sea level rise that the IPCC attributed to the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, that’s missing the bigger picture. That discrepancy proves nothing, especially considering the fact that the info on mass gain is very new. What is important here is whether the IPCC’s future high end projections, which include melting of the ice sheets, are correct. As I stated in my last comment, the links you provided clearly state that the current gain due to snowfall is temporary and that further temperature increases will tilt the mass balance to the negative.

   Please stay on the topic and try to avoid labels such as “skeptic” to try to discredit someone who disagrees with IPCC. In turn, I will avoid labels such as “blind follower” for anyone who agrees with IPCC.

   Just so you know, when I use the term "skeptic", it is not intended to be derogatory. Terms like "blind follower" would be more akin to something like "denier". If you don’t like the term, I won’t use it. I’d actually rather not use it anyway, because I don’t feel that it accurately describes those who would rather believe conpiracy thoeries than mainstream science (no offense).

   BOTH the fact that INQUA does NOT agree with the IPCC estimate and the word “NONSENSE” as applied to any sea level rise projection from 2000 to 2100 that exceeds 20 cm.

   Yes, I see the word "nonsense", so I’ll give you that. However, as I stated above, this is yet again another paper (a memo) by Dr. Morner in which he tries to debunk global warming:

   Climate is becoming increasingly warmer we hear almost every day. This is what has become known as Global Warming. The driving idea is that there is a linear relationship between CO2 increase in the atmosphere and global temperature. The fact, however, is that temperature has constantly gone up and down. From 1850 to 1970, we see an almost linear relationship with Solar variability; not CO2. For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data.

   The letter I provided in my previous comment clearly shows that INQUA disagrees with Dr. Morner on this. I’ve already addressed Morner’s claims on recent sea level rise.
   Thanks for your time. I anxiously await your response.

6. Max Says:
   October 29th, 2007 at 10:36 am

   Reply to Jason Leggett October 28 (Part 2)

   Jason,

   To your second point regarding IPCC false claim of Greenland and Antarctic ice mass loss 1993-2003 you state:

   “Yes. Rather than crying “conspiracy theory”, I look at it objectively and try to figure out why this discrepancy might exist. After looking into it, I found that the data about increased snowfall increasing the mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is relatively new. As I stated in my last comment, the two reports you referenced were released after the expert review period for WGI. This is new information that will likely be included in the next report. That they did not include it does not necessarily mean that it was ignored. Science is, by nature, constantly changing. We are always learning new things about our planet. If the IPCC held out their report for every new finding, they’d never release a report. Yes, there is a discrepancy, but it’s not something that was “ignored”, and there is no conspiracy.’\”

   You are rambling again, Jason, and not addressing the real issue. Bringing in the ridiculous “conspiracy theory” discussion does not address the issue. No one is talking about a “conspiracy”, just that IPCC has made false claims, ignoring actually published data that show just the opposite of the IPCC claim. Is this a “conspiracy” or just human nature and several billions of dollars at work? I do not claim there is a “conspiracy” at all, just human nature.

   You AGREE that IPCC was WRONG in its claim of Greenland and Antarctica losing ice mass 1993-2003 and then say the ESA study that proves this “is new information that will likely be included in the next report”. Don’t count on it, Jason. IPCC does not include data that do not support their claims, as we have seen with several other examples.

   My point remains: IPCC CLAIMS NET ICE LOSS IN BOTH GREENLAND AND ANTARCTICA WHILE THE ACTUAL RECORD SHOWS A NET INCREASE IN ICE MASS IN BOTH LOCATIONS OVER EXACTLY THE SAME PERIOD.

   Sorry. You have not been able to convince me of anything else.

   Regards,

   Max

7. Jason Leggett Says:
   October 29th, 2007 at 12:12 pm

   Max,
   I your original #2, you had two main points. One was that the IPCC’s higher end projections for sea level rise were unreasonable, while the second was that the IPCC’s latest report claims a total loss of mass on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets while the latest research shows a gain. In this last comment, you did not address my argument against the former. Does this mean that you concede the point? On the latter:

   My point remains: IPCC CLAIMS NET ICE LOSS IN BOTH GREENLAND AND ANTARCTICA WHILE THE ACTUAL RECORD SHOWS A NET INCREASE IN ICE MASS IN BOTH LOCATIONS OVER EXACTLY THE SAME PERIOD.

   I agree with you, and I’ve already said that. There is indeed a discrepancy. However, this research that you continue to refer to about mass gain due to snowfall in higher inland areas of Greenland and Antarctica is very new. At the time that the IPCC report was put together and reviewed, their data was accurate. There has simply been new information released since then. You claimed it was "ignored", which to me spells conspiracy, but if you don’t want to call it that, that’s fine. I’m trying to explain here that there is a logical explanation for this discrepancy other than it was "ignored", and you don’t seem to be getting it. What would you have the IPCC do, edit their nearly finished report to reflect every new development in earth science? As I said before, they’d never release a report. Besides, this is such a non-issue. You are trying to make a big deal out of two numbers on a chart that, even if changed, don’t affect any future projections or big picture in any way whatsoever. They took the officially measured 3.1 mm/yr in sea level rise from 1993-2003, and they attempted to determine the contributions of different sources to that sea level rise, based on the research that was available at the time. As it turns out, new research shows a total mass gain on these ice sheets, due to snowfall, but this does not change the total rate of sea level rise that was measured via satellite altimetry over this period. Do you have any credible information that disputes the measured rate of sea level rise from 1993 to the present, because this discrepancy you’ve pointed out changes nothing.

8. Max Says:
   October 29th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

   Reply to Jason Leggett October 29

   Hi Jason,

   Yes, I have already replied with regard to the sea level rise 1993-2003, but the site has not yet posted (or censored out) my reply.

   You say “this discrepancy you’ve pointed out changes nothing”. What should it change? It only points out that IPCC 2007 SPM contains FALSE CLAIMS of Greenland and Antarctic ice melting contributing to an increase in sea level over the period 1993-2003. That’s all.

   Regards,

   Max

9. Jason Leggett Says:
   October 29th, 2007 at 1:49 pm

   Max,

   Yes, I have already replied with regard to the sea level rise 1993-2003, but the site has not yet posted (or censored out) my reply.

   Look, no one is censoring your comments. I’m sure it is simply lost in a moderation queue, and will hopefully be recovered soon. If not, simply try to post it again.

   You say “this discrepancy you’ve pointed out changes nothing”. What should it change? It only points out that IPCC 2007 SPM contains FALSE CLAIMS of Greenland and Antarctic ice melting contributing to an increase in sea level over the period 1993-2003. That’s all.

   If your only point here is that two numbers in a chart on sea level rise in the IPCC report are outdated because of new developments, I won’t disagree with you. However, I’m not sure that you’ve proven much of anything. My main point on this that I’ve tried to explain several times already here is that there is a reason behind the fact that this new information was not included in the report, and that is that the information was not available at the time that the report was put together. The IPCC’s report accurately reflects the information that was available at the time. Also, even if you change the IPCC’s chart to reflect this new information, the total rate of sea level rise, as measured by satellite altimetry does not change, so you’ve proved nothing. What do you have to say about this? You have yet to address it.

10. Max Says:
    October 29th, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    Reply to Jason Leggett October 29 (sea level)

    You wrote: “Also, even if you change the IPCC’s chart to reflect this new information, the total rate of sea level rise, as measured by satellite altimetry does not change, so you’ve proved nothing. What do you have to say about this? You have yet to address it.”

    My reply to you which addresses this has now been posted.

    Check it out.

    Regards,

    Max

Pages: « 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 … 52 »

Post new comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Advertisement