‘Melting Greenland’ likely to add up to half an inch to global sea levels by 2098

Posted: February 17, 2020 by tallbloke in alarmism, Analysis, humour, Ice ages
image credit https://visitgreenland.com/

Mike Waite left the following comment over at Paul Homewood’s excellent not a lot of people know that blog yesterday:

There is an interesting paper by MacGuth et al (2013) which supports you :

From their summary:

-“We calculate the future sea-level rise contribution from the surface mass balance of all of

Greenland’s glaciers and ice caps (GICs, ca. 90 000 km2) using a simplified energy balance

model which is driven by three future climate scenarios from the regional climate models

HIRHAM5, RACMO2 and MAR. Glacier extent and surface elevation are modified during the

mass balance model runs according to a glacier retreat parameterization. Mass balance and glacier surface change are both calculated on a 250 m resolution digital elevation model yielding a high level of detail and ensuring that important feedback mechanisms are

considered. The mass loss of all GICs by 2098 is calculated to be

2016 +/- 129 Gt (HIRHAM5 forcing),

2584 +/-109 Gt (RACMO2)

and 3907+/- 108 Gt (MAR). This corresponds to a total contribution to sea-level rise of

5:8 +/- 0:4,

7:4 +/- 0:3

and 11:2 +/- 0:3 mm, respectively. “-

The future sea-level rise contribution of Greenland’s glaciers and ice caps

H Machguth1,2, P Rastner1, T Bolch1,3, N M¨olg1, L Sandberg Sørensen4,

G Aðalgeirsdottir5, J H van Angelen6, M R van den Broeke6 and

X Fettweis7

Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/025005

Even if subsequent calculations modified these figures they are unlikely to be an order of magnitude higher and the sea level rise to 2098 calculated here is at most 11mm (not cm or feet or metres).

Can’t someone take these activists, sit them in a quet room and just read the literature to them since they seem incapable of such study themselves.

The future sea-level rise contribution of Greenland’s glaciers and ice caps

H Machguth1,2, P Rastner1, T Bolch1,3, N Mölg1, L Sandberg Sørensen4, G Aðalgeirsdottir5, J H van Angelen6, M R van den Broeke6 and X Fettweis7

Published 11 April 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research LettersVolume 8Number 2

Abstract

We calculate the future sea-level rise contribution from the surface mass balance of all of Greenland’s glaciers and ice caps (GICs, ~90 000 km2) using a simplified energy balance model which is driven by three future climate scenarios from the regional climate models HIRHAM5, RACMO2 and MAR. Glacier extent and surface elevation are modified during the mass balance model runs according to a glacier retreat parameterization. Mass balance and glacier surface change are both calculated on a 250 m resolution digital elevation model yielding a high level of detail and ensuring that important feedback mechanisms are considered. The mass loss of all GICs by 2098 is calculated to be 2016 ± 129 Gt (HIRHAM5 forcing), 2584 ± 109 Gt (RACMO2) and 3907 ± 108 Gt (MAR). This corresponds to a total contribution to sea-level rise of 5.8 ± 0.4, 7.4 ± 0.3 and 11.2 ± 0.3 mm, respectively. Sensitivity experiments suggest that mass loss could be higher by 20–30% if a strong lowering of the surface albedo were to take place in the future. It is shown that the sea-level rise contribution from the north-easterly regions of Greenland is reduced by increasing precipitation while mass loss in the southern half of Greenland is dominated by steadily decreasing summer mass balances. In addition we observe glaciers in the north-eastern part of Greenland changing their characteristics towards greater activity and mass turnover.

Full paper here

Comments
  1. cognog2 says:

    You will never get activists or their acolytes to sit down, read or listen to the literature. In fact inconvenient literature is actively suppressed. They can’t cope with it.

  2. oldbrew says:

    the sea-level rise contribution from the north-easterly regions of Greenland is reduced by increasing precipitation

    …which is coming from evaporation of the sea.

  3. Gamecock says:

    ‘parameterization’

    In my day, we called ’em fudge factors.

    Parameterization means they added values/algorithms to get a “better” answer. Note that they are not rooted in intellect. They are not better ideas. They are used simply because they work.

    “This result is off by 50%!”

    “Okay, I’ll change the code to multiply it by 1.5.”

    ==========================

    Wiki:

    A fudge factor is an ad hoc quantity or element introduced into a calculation, formula or model in order to make it fit observations or expectations. Also known as a “Correction Coefficient” which is defined by:

    κ c = Experimental value Theoretical value {\displaystyle \kappa _{c}={\frac {\text{Experimental value}}{\text{Theoretical value}}}} {\displaystyle \kappa _{c}={\frac {\text{Experimental value}}{\text{Theoretical value}}}}

    Examples include Einstein’s Cosmological Constant, dark energy, the initial proposals of dark matter and inflation.[1]

  4. tom0mason says:

    From Joughin et al., 2020, https://www.the-cryosphere.net/14/211/2020/tc-14-211-2020.pdf

    Basically they say that Greenland’s largest glacier (Jakobshavn) has rapidly thickened since 2016. The thickening has been so profound the ice elevations are nearly back to 2010-2011 levels.
    They note that the nearby ocean has cooled ~1.5°C or a return to 1980s temperatures.

    H/T to Kenneth Richard on https://twitter.com/Kenneth72712993

  5. JB says:

    Can anyone REALLY measure sea level to a resolution of less than 1mm? As of 2007, Nd-YAG laser ranging to the moon has achieved ±1.1mm. There is no accounting for absurdity in models.

    “It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. 13 And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.” –The True Believer

    Its the “new” religion replacing all the others.

  6. Russell Johnson says:

    Wow, mathematical gymnastics at it’s finest! After parading in on forcing crutches these authors contorted algorithms with feedback moves and finally employing pretzel logic to finish! I’m stunned!
    They deserve “critical” acclaim and a paper “gold” medal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s