Some Emily Litella Moments for the Climatistas

[John Reece]

GREENPEACE CO-FOUNDER: OBAMA CLIMATE RULES 'ALL ABOUT POLITICS'

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore criticized new EPA regulations that he says are “all about politics,” and “almost nothing about science” that “will punish the red states,” and “benefit people in the blue states” in an interview with the Fox Business Network's Stuart Varney on Wednesday.

He strongly criticized those who claim the science on climate change is settled. Moore declared “There’s nothing settled about climate change” and pointed out that there has “been no global warming,” even as carbon emissions have increased. He stated there is “no proof” that humans are responsible and “it may well be that most of the warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age is caused by natural factors.”

[John Reece]

From What's Up With That:

Stunning admission – and a new excuse for ‘the pause’ – ‘lousy data’

Posted on June 14, 2014

“The Models didn’t have the skill we thought they had…”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Guardian, a prominent green UK daily newspaper, reports that scientists have given up on surface temperature as a measure of global warming:

Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as “lousy”.

“It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is,” he said on Friday at the Royal Society in London.

“The models don’t have the skill we thought they had. That’s the problem,” admits Peter Jan van Leeuwen, director of the National Centre of Earth Observation at the University of Reading.

Obviously if the surface temperature was still rising, as it was in the 90s, instead of inconveniently contradicting model predictions, then it would still be considered a valid climate metric.

Thankfully however, climate scientists have not yet run out of metrics which show an upward trend. The new measure of global warming is to be sea level rise – presumably because it is still moving in the right direction, and because it ties in nicely with the “deep ocean heating” narrative.

The inconvenient fact that sea level was around 6 metres higher during the Eemian Interglacial, and around 2 metres higher during the Holocene Optimum, 5500 years ago, was not mentioned in the Guardian article.

The guardian story is here.

[John Reece]

POSTED ON JUNE 17, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER

NON-CARBON ENERGY SOURCES AREN’T GROWING (color emphasis added by JR)

Global warming alarmists have been trying to browbeat the world into giving up carbon-based energy for several decades now. Yet, despite the war on coal that has been carried on not just here in the U.S. but in many countries, despite the endless vilification of oil as “dirty” energy, despite all of the obstacles that have been erected against development of fossil fuel resources, despite a seemingly bottomless pit of government subsidies for “green” energy–despite all of those things, the proportion of the world’s energy that comes from non-carbon sources refuses to budge.

This comes (via Watts Up With That?) from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014, which was released yesterday. It shows the percentage of the world’s energy coming from non-carbon sources–nuclear, hydroelectric, solar and wind–from 1965 to the present. The proportion hasn’t moved from around 13% since the early 1990s. Click to enlarge:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...ree-2014bp.jpg

This illustrates the futility of the entire global warming enterprise. Trying to compel the use of inefficient, impractical energy sources is like trying to push water uphill. The global warming hysterics can, and will, cause a lot of money to change hands, but they aren’t going to prevent CO2 from entering the atmosphere. Fortunately, the consequences of increased atmospheric CO2 will in all probability be benign.

[sylas]

Hi folks;

I've been very busy recently, and haven't given much time to Tweb. So I missed this really interesting thread. I see I have been quoted here as well. So here is my late addition!

First, a general disclaimer. This post is intended to be entirely substantive on the issues glaciers feeding to the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, especially Thwaites; and the causes of glacial retreat and melting. Generalized comments on motives or conduct of individuals I will try to ignore; and will avoid making same myself.

Part 1. Introducing the research under discussion

The main substance of this thread is the recent paper (which is freely available in full at the link):

Evidence for elevated and spatially variable geothermal flux beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, by Schroeder, Blankenship, Young, and Quartini, in PNAS 2014 ; published ahead of print June 9, 2014, doi:10.1073/pnas.1405184111

In an earlier thread we talked about another recent report on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which received a lot of press. You can read a really helpful summary (by NASA) of that other research in msg #99 of “Loss of big Antarctic glaciers inevitable”.

Seer cited me in this thread as saying:

I mentioned this a while back to Sylas and he assured me that geothermal / volcanic activity had little effect.

Yes; and I still consider that to be a fair summary. The research being cited in the thread here, however, does indicate that it may not be as little as I had earlier assumed. On the basis of the research cited here, it might be better to rephrase to say: ”geothermal / volcanic activity had small effect”, rather than “little effect”.

Also, much of the reporting in this thread seems to be suggesting that the new PNAS paper by Schroeder et al is saying geothermal energy is the cause of retreat of the Thwaites glacier rather than global warming. That badly misunderstands what the paper is about. It isn’t giving a cause for the retreat, but looking processes relevant to how ice flows as retreat occurs.

Part 2. Melting at the base of the glacier, and glacier mass balance.

The focus of Schroeder et al is ”Basal melt”; that is, melting of ice at the base of the glacier. This is really important for determining flow rates of the glacier, because melt water at the base is crucial for overcoming friction. This melting occurs well insulated under a thick layer of ice, and so it actually has very little at all to do with global temperature. It’s also not the major source of melt for the glacier.

The rates of basal melt cited in the paper are of the order of 3 to 6 mm/year. That is, every year, something like 3 to 6 millimeters of ice melts from the bottom of the glacier. The rate varies in different parts of the glacial basin; there is a diagram in the paper as Figure 3.

The whole Amundsen Sea Embayment, or the region that drains into the Amundsen Sea, is 320,000 km². About half that ends up draining through the Thwaites glacier, but I’ll extrapolate anyway. Spreading 6 mm/year melt over that region gives just a bit less than 2 km³ ice melting per year; this will be an overestimate since I am extrapolating high basal melt regions over the whole basin. A cubic kilometre of ice weighs about 920 million tons, or a bit less than a Gigatonne. (A cubic kilometre of water weighs one Gigatonne). So all told, the basal melting in the catchments certainly amounts to less than 2 Gigatonnes per year.

The real loss of ice from the glacier is much greater than this, and it occurs mainly at the ends of the glacier.

In all of this discussion, keep in mind that a glacier is a river of ice, in constant motion. The ice accumulates in the catchment area, mainly by precipitation. This freezes and builds up ice, which then flows out to the sea. For the whole system to persist over a long period of time, it needs to be in an approximate equilibrium balance between ice accumulating in the upper reaches, and ice being removed by melting, or carving icebergs, mainly at the lower reaches. In equilibrium, the glacier has rate of outflow equal to a rate of accumulation. The system changes when the two rates are different, and the glacier and catchment basin as a whole is losing, or gaining, ice.

Now the rate at which the Thwaites glacier is accumulating ice in the catchment is of the order of 60 Gigatonnes per annum; the rate at which ice is flowing out from the glacier is of the order of 80 Gigatonnes per annum; the system as a whole is losing a lot of ice.

Ref: Acceleration of Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers, West Antarctica, (2002) by Rignot, Vaughan, Schmeltz, Dupont, and MacAyeal, in Annals of Glaciology 34, doi 10.3189/172756402781817950

This net loss of ice is a major change in the glacier, and has made it a focus of considerable scientific interest. The net loss can be seen both as thinning of the glacier, and as a rapid retreat of the grounding line (the point at which the glacier is anchored to the sea bed). The change is certainly not from changes to inland basal melting, which are an order of magnitude too small. Even more important, there’s no reason to think that the inland basal melt rate has been increasing; this is a long term small part of the processes by which the glacier accumulates and sheds mass.

What has changed most crucially in recent decades is warmer ocean waters; that is what drives the retreat.

Part 3. Why the basal melt rate matters

So given that the basal melt and geothermal heat contribution is so small in the overall balance of ice loss, does this mean the research is irrelevant, or chasing up a trivial and unimportant detail?

No! This is a really important contribution to the active study of these glaciers, but it is NOT about finding reasons why the glacier is losing ice. What the paper is actually about is stability of the glacier.

There’s a persistent fundamental confusion in public discussion on all of this research – both the research from the earlier thread on instability of the ice shelf and this thread about geothermal heat and basal melting. In NEITHER case is the research directly related to global warming, or reasons for loss of ice from the Antarctica. BOTH papers are really about stability of the glaciers, ice shelf, and inland ice cap. It’s basic background data for both papers that there’s a lot of ice being lost from the glaciers, and it is plain as a pikestaff that this is being driven by warming ocean. We can see that directly in the rapid retreat of the grounding line; that’s not in dispute (at least, not by any of the scientists working on any of these papers).

The earlier thread considered a paper that deals with the shape of the sea bed under the glaciers. The important aspect of this research is that once the grounding line of the glaciers begins to retreat, there’s no suitable ridge upstream that could make a stable grounding line for a stable end point to the glaciers. The complete retreat of the glaciers and emptying of the catchment basin into the ocean now appears to be inevitable; not because temperate is increasing, but because of the shape of the land. But the earlier research was not able to say anything much about how long it would take. Scales were suggested as being something between 200 and 1000 years; and the unknown factor here is the ice flow characteristics; how fast can the ice flow out of the catchment into the sea now that there’s no stable grounding point to stop it?

This new research is about the ice flow characteristics. It suggests that ice flow models need to consider a relatively high degree of lubrication at the base of the glaciers. That is, once they are out of balance with a net flow into the sea, the flow is likely to be faster rather than slower; since there’s enough melt at the base to let the whole thing slide more easily.

What I said previously about geothermal heat remains true. This is basic data about energy flows on Earth. The geothermal energy flux is small by comparison with the heat now being accumulated as the greenhouse effect strengthens – and in any case the geothermal flux hasn’t changed significantly to be a driver for changes in global mean temperatures.

The average geothermal energy flux on Earth is about 0.092 W/m² overall, and about 0.071 W/m² over continental crust. This new research indicates the values under the Thwaites catchment are higher than average; around about 0.114 W/m² with isolated hot spots of over 0.2 W/m². This has not changed significantly on a scale of decades; it has always been a small trickle of heat to go alongside the 240 W/m² we get from the Sun; but it’s important because it determines how freely the glacier can move in response to any changes.

Solar input hasn’t changed much; and what changes have occurred are in the wrong direction to account for measured global warming. The changes in global temperature are driven primarily by changes in the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat radiation, and this has resulted in an imbalance of the order of 0.6 W/m². That isn’t a particular energy flow; it is rather the rate at which Earth is accumulating additional heat as the planet – oceans in particular – continue to heat up. Lots of other changes are taking place as the globe continues to warm; one of them is warmer currents around Antarctic and increased rates of ice loss at the head of the Thwaites and other adjacent glaciers.

The relatively high basal melt rate – which has always been there as a very small contribution for how the glacier loses ice – is highly important because it lubricates the base of the glacier and lets it slide faster as the head of the glacier is eaten away by a warming ocean.

Cheers -- sylas

[Teallaura]

So, because the basal rate is higher, the overall melt rate increases because the ice can move faster into the warmer areas where it's melting - did I get that right?

If so, wouldn't the basal rate be a contributing factor in the causal picture as well?

[sylas]

So, because the basal rate is higher, the overall melt rate increases because the ice can move faster into the warmer areas where it's melting - did I get that right?

That's not a bad way to look at it.

As is my wont, I'll try to fill it out a bit... you've got me thinking this on my feet a bit.

When the climate is stable, the glacier is stable -- no matter how much it melts along the base. It must still reach some equilibrium point, where the ice flowing in matches the ice flowing out, and you have a comparatively constant size for the glacier. When there is a change, a glacier will respond; usually by expanding, or by shrinking, but as the climate settles to a new normal, the glacier reaches a new stable configuration as well.

A nice simple case to think about is an alpine glacier, which has a lot of ice coming in from one end up in the mountain, and a lot of water flowing out somewhere in a valley in the other end. Increasing precipitation might mean more ice piling up at the top, a greater net flow of ice through the glacier, and the tongue pushing further into the valley as a result. Colder temperatures might mean the tongue pushes further into the valley as the ice lasts longer. Or warmer conditions might mean a retreat as the ice melts away faster and ends the glacier somewhat higher in the mountain.

If the glacier tends to flow fairly fast and easily -- because of a steep slope, or smooth terrain, or plenty of water flowing underneath from high basal melt, then the response to change might also be a bit larger and more rapid than otherwise. Suppose, for example, there is region along the path where ice flows particularly easily. At equilibrium, ice will still be flowing in and out of this region at the same rate; there will still be a mass of ice further ahead to hold things up and keep the more freely flowing region full. It would be unusual to have the glacier actually terminating in that region.

Once the glacier extends as far as the region where movement is easy, then the ice will tend to flow all the way along it, and end somewhere that the flow is more restricted again. Conversely, if the stable end point moves to above the free flowing region, then the ice will flow away from that region faster than otherwise, and it will clear away more quickly than otherwise. The more freely the ice can flow, the faster the glacier responds to any change, either increase OR decrease.

The basal melt isn't something that has changed at Thwaites. It is rather a characteristic of the glacier which makes it particularly responsive to any other effects that DO change.

What is happening at Thwaites, as I understand it, is that in response to the warming ocean temperatures, the grounding line has now moved back past a natural slowing point associated with ridges in the sea bed, and is now in a comparatively steep fall, with no upstream ridges. That's the point of the research we discussed in an earlier thread. It isn't that the shape of the sea bed causes melting. It is rather than the retreat of the glacier, which is driven by a warmer ocean, has moved the head into a region where ice flows easily down a sloping sea bed. With the old more stable grounding point removed, the glacier flows substantially faster than ice is accumulating in the main catchment. So the glacier keeps losing ice faster than it is gaining ice, and once it starts this, it just keeps going faster without temperature needing to change at all. The glacier must therefore continue to shrink until a new end point is reached at which outflow matches the accumulation, and that's bound to be somewhere up fairly high in the catchment regions. So a lot of ice is bound to be lost now.

What we are looking at here is how fast the glacier can move when it is not impeded by a nice stable grounding line. That isn't a change; the glacier has always had a nice well lubricated base. What happens now is that the ice from the catchment will be able able to slide out faster rather than slowly; the glacier can essentially find its new equilibirum -- whereever that may be -- more quickly.

So the previous research indicates that loss of ice is now committed, and in something between 200 and 1000 years the glacier will retreat right up out of the ocean, with the complete loss of the grounded ice shelf. What the new research says is that the potential speed of the glacier is at the higher end rather than the lower; and the time frame for reaching a new comparatively stable normal will be closer to the 200 years than the 1000 years.

If so, wouldn't the basal rate be a contributing factor in the causal picture as well?

Sort of, perhaps. It's certainly a factor in how the glacier responds to anything that causes change, but not by being itself an additional cause. Rather by influencing the glaciers stability -- or lack of stability -- making any response larger and faster than otherwise.

Basal melt would be equally a "cause" of glacial advance should the globe be cooling rather than warming; and it would still be the same melt if the climate and the glacier were stable and in equilibrium.

IMO the better way to think of basal melt and lubrication not as a cause of retreat, but as part of the reason this glacier is particularly sensitive to changes, in any direction.

Cheers -- sylas

[Teallaura]

That's not a bad way to look at it.

As is my wont, I'll try to fill it out a bit... you've got me thinking this on my feet a bit.

When the climate is stable, the glacier is stable -- no matter how much it melts along the base. It must still reach some equilibrium point, where the ice flowing in matches the ice flowing out, and you have a comparatively constant size for the glacier. When there is a change, a glacier will respond; usually by expanding, or by shrinking, but as the climate settles to a new normal, the glacier reaches a new stable configuration as well.

A nice simple case to think about is an alpine glacier, which has a lot of ice coming in from one end up in the mountain, and a lot of water flowing out somewhere in a valley in the other end. Increasing precipitation might mean more ice piling up at the top, a greater net flow of ice through the glacier, and the tongue pushing further into the valley as a result. Colder temperatures might mean the tongue pushes further into the valley as the ice lasts longer. Or warmer conditions might mean a retreat as the ice melts away faster and ends the glacier somewhat higher in the mountain.

If the glacier tends to flow fairly fast and easily -- because of a steep slope, or smooth terrain, or plenty of water flowing underneath from high basal melt, then the response to change might also be a bit larger and more rapid than otherwise. Suppose, for example, there is region along the path where ice flows particularly easily. At equilibrium, ice will still be flowing in and out of this region at the same rate; there will still be a mass of ice further ahead to hold things up and keep the more freely flowing region full. It would be unusual to have the glacier actually terminating in that region.

Once the glacier extends as far as the region where movement is easy, then the ice will tend to flow all the way along it, and end somewhere that the flow is more restricted again. Conversely, if the stable end point moves to above the free flowing region, then the ice will flow away from that region faster than otherwise, and it will clear away more quickly than otherwise. The more freely the ice can flow, the faster the glacier responds to any change, either increase OR decrease.

The basal melt isn't something that has changed at Thwaites. It is rather a characteristic of the glacier which makes it particularly responsive to any other effects that DO change.

What is happening at Thwaites, as I understand it, is that in response to the warming ocean temperatures, the grounding line has now moved back past a natural slowing point associated with ridges in the sea bed, and is now in a comparatively steep fall, with no upstream ridges. That's the point of the research we discussed in an earlier thread. It isn't that the shape of the sea bed causes melting. It is rather than the retreat of the glacier, which is driven by a warmer ocean, has moved the head into a region where ice flows easily down a sloping sea bed. With the old more stable grounding point removed, the glacier flows substantially faster than ice is accumulating in the main catchment. So the glacier keeps losing ice faster than it is gaining ice, and once it starts this, it just keeps going faster without temperature needing to change at all. The glacier must therefore continue to shrink until a new end point is reached at which outflow matches the accumulation, and that's bound to be somewhere up fairly high in the catchment regions. So a lot of ice is bound to be lost now.

What we are looking at here is how fast the glacier can move when it is not impeded by a nice stable grounding line. That isn't a change; the glacier has always had a nice well lubricated base. What happens now is that the ice from the catchment will be able able to slide out faster rather than slowly; the glacier can essentially find its new equilibirum -- whereever that may be -- more quickly.

So the previous research indicates that loss of ice is now committed, and in something between 200 and 1000 years the glacier will retreat right up out of the ocean, with the complete loss of the grounded ice shelf. What the new research says is that the potential speed of the glacier is at the higher end rather than the lower; and the time frame for reaching a new comparatively stable normal will be closer to the 200 years than the 1000 years.



Sort of, perhaps. It's certainly a factor in how the glacier responds to anything that causes change, but not by being itself an additional cause. Rather by influencing the glaciers stability -- or lack of stability -- making any response larger and faster than otherwise.

Basal melt would be equally a "cause" of glacial advance should the globe be cooling rather than warming; and it would still be the same melt if the climate and the glacier were stable and in equilibrium.

IMO the better way to think of basal melt and lubrication not as a cause of retreat, but as part of the reason this glacier is particularly sensitive to changes, in any direction.

Cheers -- sylas

Okay, I think I get it.

I presume the presence of liquid water at all has to do with friction (Geo 101 was a looooong time ago) creating enough heat to allow water to be liquid underneath a giant ice cube. It seems reasonable (as a concept only - not presuming this to be the case since I need to reread some of this to make sure I got the premise the first time) that an outside heat source (say a lovely volcano) might well change the equation, perhaps even causally (sounds like that would depend on where the thing was in relation to the glacier).

Eh, never mind - I'm not going anywhere with that. I'll reread some of the thread and get back to you - assuming I still have the question that I can't quite seem to form here.

Anywho, thanks - I really appreciate the help!