Missing sea level rise due to parched earth, claims NASA study

Posted: February 12, 2016 by oldbrew in alarmism, Measurement
credit:  John Evans and Howard Periman, USGS

credit: John Evans and Howard Periman, USGS

In between the climate scare stories come the excuses for the non-events the scares were about. How the world becomes ‘increasingly hot’ with little or no increase in average temperatures is not addressed.

As glaciers melt due to climate change, the increasingly hot and parched Earth is absorbing some of that water inland, slowing sea level rise, NASA experts said Thursday.

Satellite measurements over the past decade show for the first time that the Earth’s continents have soaked up and stored an extra 3.2 trillion tons of water in soils, lakes and underground aquifers, the experts said in a study in the journal Science. This has temporarily slowed the rate of sea level rise by about 20 percent, it said.

“We always assumed that people’s increased reliance on groundwater for irrigation and consumption was resulting in a net transfer of water from the land to the ocean,” said lead author J.T. Reager of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “What we didn’t realize until now is that over the past decade, changes in the global water cycle more than offset the losses that occurred from groundwater pumping, causing the land to act like a sponge—at least temporarily.”

The global water cycle involves the flow of moisture, from the evaporation over the oceans to the fall of precipitation, to runoff and rivers that lead back into the ocean. Just how much effect on sea level rise this kind of land storage would have has remained unknown until now because there are no land-based instruments that can measure such changes planet-wide.

There’s more [link below] but you may have had enough by now.

Full Phys.org report: Parched Earth soaks up water, slowing sea level rise: study

‘About 97 percent of Earth’s water is in the ocean’

  1. rishrac says:

    My head hurts. Are they serious? Global warming can do anything!! Those other scientists who said it takes a long time for water to work it’s way into an aquifier, well they’re just wrong. This is worse than spooky physics. The ice melts then poof! The water magically appears in aquarifiers

  2. oldbrew says:

    They are clutching at straws – it’s so weak, it’s laughable.

    ‘About 97 percent of Earth’s water is in the ocean’
    ‘Less than one percent of all the water on Earth is fresh’

    What part of the 1% is in groundwater – enough to make a serious difference to the level of the 97%? How?

  3. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew thank you for the post. At least it makes me feel on the side of the saner, that is if there are any. ;(

    But note, something from the priestly side, you never preach the same sermon more than once or the flock quickly loses interest. Innovate or be forgotten.

    But they may have a point. If the land is that parched it will float higher on the earth’s mantel -lower density. So you don’t see any sea level rise. But then the reverse — !?

    Who was the guy who said “If your theory does not fit the evidence…….” ?

  4. justanotherpersonii says:

    “How the world becomes ‘increasingly hot’ with little or no increase in average temperatures is not addressed.”
    Have you looked at the ocean heat content data? It shows increasing heat content in the oceans during the hiatus period, though with a bit of a slowdown: https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png.

  5. johnbuk says:

    But isn’t it because the missing sea is at the bottom of the sea, or ……I give up.

  6. justanotherpersonii says:

    Well, a Nature Climate Change article (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2387.html) in 2014 found that, essentially, the deep oceans cooled from 2005 to 2013. However, that doesn’t alter my point.

  7. Jmac says:

    Gravitational waves, do they transcend the CMB? A window to the multiverse.
    Just a thought.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Today’s climate hobgoblin is the dustbowl scenario.

  9. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    M’Lord Global Warming made do it 😉

  10. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew, that link paints one of the ugliest scenarios. And not only for the US, but it is worse for others who, since the thirties of last century have become dependent on the produce of the US wheat belt. It could be very nasty for many.

  11. oldbrew says:

    johnbuk says: ‘I give up’

    Ah, another victim of climate propaganda overkill 😐

  12. Chaeremon says:

    @oldmanK Re: Who was the guy who said

    If the facts do not agree with theory – all the worse for the facts [Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the posterchild of irrational philosophy].

  13. oldmanK says:

    Chaeremon, thank you. Someone, I think on this site, posted part of a video about a man who quoted that piece wisdom. Could not find it. I would like to see the whole video.

  14. Fanakapan says:

    Sort of makes you wonder how the ‘Space Program’ would have fared, if back in the 50’s and 60’s, NASA had been hiring the self evident Clowns that it now has on the payroll 🙂

  15. Stephen Richards says:

    justanotherpersonii says:
    February 12, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    The rise or fall in ocean heat content quoted is within the error margin of the measuring technique. In other words, it not real.

  16. oldbrew says:

    Fanakapan: ‘Sort of makes you wonder how the ‘Space Program’ would have fared’

    It would have been a computer model only 😉

  17. justanotherpersonii says:

    Forgive that last comment, I thought that a person was responding to me but they weren’t.
    Stephen, do you have a source for that? How about a peer-reviewed citation? Could you link me to where NOAA says that (or whoever calculates the data)?

  18. tallbloke says:

    0-700m OHC vs TOA balance from CERES flashflux prior to the 2010 OHC data ‘adjustment’.

    Well worth a read: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/

  19. p.g.sharrow says:

    Well, I guess it is good that someone on the “team” has observed that the runaway rising of the seas has slowed. Maybe some day they will realize that the oceans are cooling not warming. You know the increase in sea ice that demonstrates the loss of energy in the oceans. We don’t need faked thermometer readings. The Oceans are our thermometer and the amount of ice the energy avalible…pg

  20. justanotherpersonii says:

    Interesting, but that doesn’t answer my question to Stephen. Anyway, I don’t know if we ought to be suspicious of the adjustments simply because they adjust it upwards. Perhaps there was a valid reason. But that graph is very interesting, as I said before, especially since the new OHC data looks much different on that timespan.

  21. justanotherpersonii says:

    p.g., but global sea ice is below normal right now: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png.

  22. tallbloke says:

    So far as Pielke Sr could ascertain, they dropped rapidly cooling buoys from the dataset because it was assumed there is something wrong with them….

  23. justanotherpersonii says:

    That does indeed seem rather odd. Especially since the OHC previously went pretty well with the surface measurements (of that time) and satellite data.

  24. Toss another one onto the basic “we can’t account for the lack of X at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t” pile. Speaking for myself and my own focus on a non-science facet of the issue, I can’t wait to see what the excuse is from Al Gore, Naomi Oreskes and Ross Gelbspan is about the sheer lack of physical evidence (full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc.) proving skeptic scientists were paid to fabricate demonstratively false science papers, reports, assessments or viewpoints. No doubt it will be something to the effect of ‘dog-ate-homework’. Keep in mind that Oreskes said particular damaging fossil fuel documents were archived at AMS’s place in Washington D.C., but Ron Arnold got it corroborated that they never were: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2627 So, if anybody were to confront Oreskes directly over that, just imagine what her response would be.

  25. tallbloke says:

    Yes, southern hemisphere SST’s took a definite dive during the noughties. It requires some [cough] interesting approaches to the 2nd law of thermodynamics to have the deeper ocean warming through a cooling layer above it.

    I think they’ve decided to ‘adjust’ the SSTs instead.

    The whole lot is ‘calibrated’ to the satellite altimetry, which is itself calibrated to a sinking tide gauge in Hong Kong…

  26. justanotherpersonii says:

    However, like I said before, that Nature Climate Change article said that the deep oceans cooled from 2005 to 2013.

  27. p.g.sharrow says:

    justanotherpersonii says:
    February 15, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    “p.g., but global sea ice is below normal right now;”

    Did you know that there are sea ice fields at both poles?
    Your link is for ARCTIC conditions only…pg

  28. […] Source: Missing sea level rise due to parched earth, claims NASA study […]

  29. dscott says:

    Maybe if we got a definitive answer on whether Greenland and Antarctic glaciers (land ice) are net increasing or decreasing we would have a reasonable answer to what a slow down in ocean level increase is caused by.

    Somehow I doubt seriously that underground aquifers are gobbling up water since all we ever hear is that they are dropping due to over pumping by man. Is there any real data that suggests any aquifer is gaining water volume? If you are pumping millions of gallons a year out of the aquifers it obviously has to go somewhere… either in the ocean or as ice/snow on land. In fact, what are the estimated amounts of water extracted from the aquifers? What are the estimated amounts of liquid water that shows up as sea level rise?

    Which brings me to circle back to the ocean level issue itself, ocean level, i.e. liquid water volume is a function of overall planetary climate conditions. Looking back just 500 years we see that the ocean level was 18 inches lower than today during the Little Ice Age. 2000 years ago, during the Roman times, ocean levels were 18 inches higher than today. Overall there has been a 36 inch swing in ocean levels over a 1500 year period, all of which coincided with acknowledged global temperature swings. It would be a fair statement to make that every global average temperature has a corresponding ocean level. If this is a reasonable conclusion, then looking at the satellite temp. data, we can say that a flat trend in global air temperature would induce a flattening of the ocean level trend with some to be determined delay period (flywheel response in energy storage) that will eventually cause a peak (cessation in rise) in ocean levels. Does the current diminishing trend in ocean level rise infer a time period to achieve that peak? The year?