A recent article in Axios claims that the current rate of global ice sheet melting and sea level rise will rapidly accelerate unless global warming is stopped before it reaches 1.5°C.
Axios also claims that even if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, sea levels will rise for centuries because of the “delayed response” of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. [emphasis, links added]
Axios’ claims are misleading at best. Warming, sea-level rise, and ice melt are likely to continue regardless of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, as it has been going on for far longer than human emissions have been a factor.
There is no evidence that any out-of-control “tipping point” exists or is being approached, nor any evidence rates of sea-level rise are increasing. Ice mass naturally grows and shrinks in the north and south poles.
The article, “Drastic emissions cuts needed to avert multi-century sea level rise, study finds,” discusses a new study that comes to some old, unoriginal conclusions.
Mainly, unless humans rapidly stop emitting greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane to keep warming to 1.5°C or less (the Earth has already warmed 1.2°C), rapid ice melt and rising seas will occur.
Writer Andrew Freedman cites a study published in Nature Communications to support his story.
Describing the study’s methodology, Freedman writes it “utilizes multiple simulations from what are known as “coupled” computer models in which the interactions between the atmosphere, ocean, ice sheets, and ice shelves are included and capable of influencing one another over time.”
As is typical, these alarming predictions are based not on observable data, but on computer model projections that have a bias toward human-caused warming. Climate Realism has discussed the problems with climate modeling dozens of times, including here, here, and here, for instance.
In reality, scientists’ understanding of how the atmosphere, clouds, oceans, and polar ice caps interact is limited in scope, with new connections and feedbacks being discovered with some regularity.
Because of the immense complexity of the Earth’s climate, it is no wonder that modelers consistently fail to accurately predict future warming and downstream effects like sea level rise.
Regarding sea level rise, current and past trends are hardly alarming. Climate at a Glance: Sea Level Rise shows that global sea level has been rising since the end of the last Ice Age, long before humans began burning large quantities of fossil fuels, sometimes at rates far above the roughly 1.2 inches per decade measured over the past couple of centuries. (See figure below)
Sea level has already risen more than 400 feet since the end of the last ice age. As explored in Climate Realism here and here, for example, recent claims that rates of sea level rise have increased in the past few decades are due to an incorrect methodology in accounting for a shift from one set of satellites to a newer set.
Tidal gauge data does not support the claim that rates of sea level rise are accelerating.
Freedman claims that the research proves “even if global warming slows near or just after 2100, as would be the case in moderate to high emissions scenarios, ice sheet contributions to sea level rise would keep accelerating well beyond that.”
The researchers are quoted as claiming that ice sheet melting will be “similar to a runaway train.”
However, ice melt data demonstrates no evidence such a “tipping point” exists that would lead to runaway melting.
Looking at Greenland, one of the “at risk” locations mentioned in the article, it’s clear that ice mass change fluctuates over time.
While there has been a general decline in ice mass, the rate of loss has actually been declining in recent years, despite the modest warming and increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (See Figure below)
Ice loss in Greenland has thus far been insignificant compared to the ice mass of the entire Greenland ice sheet, the loss each year is around 0.005 percent of the entire mass.
Antarctica’s ice sheets, also mentioned by Freedman as being at risk of melting away, are seeing similarly unalarming melting trends.
In fact, recent research concludes that Antarctica has seen a modest expansion of ice over the last several decades, as well as net-zero warming across the continent.
Some sections, like the Antarctic Peninsula, are more prone to melting, while the eastern portion of the continent has seen a cooling trend and ice expansion.
The discovery of 800-year-old penguin remains that were revealed after some ice melted away in Antarctica gives good evidence that Antarctica experienced lower ice levels and warming that allowed penguins to inhabit the normally too-icy region during the Medieval Warm Period, which took place between 900 A.D. and 1200 A.D.
The researchers and Freedman claim that the ice sheets are merely “delayed” in responding to global warming. Yet when ice losses begin to mount, researchers claim it shows ice sheets respond to warming nearly immediately.
It evidently never occurred to the researchers or Freedman that the climate models could be wrong, as they have consistently been concerning temperatures, and as a result, the response might not be as severe as they hypothesize.
Without a return to ice age conditions, sea levels will inevitably rise over time, and ice will melt, regardless of anthropogenic causes. These cycles of warming and cooling are natural elements of the Earth’s history.
Although humans are likely contributing to warming, available data does not point towards a looming catastrophe from rising seas.
Axios probably would have been better served had they taken a more skeptical approach towards computer modeling, relying on publicly available (and easily accessible) sea level and ice melt data instead.
Read more at Climate Realism
OMG! Did you just cite Stephen Goddard AKA Toni Heller? This guy REFUSES to have his own work peer reviewed and NEVER cites peer-reviewed science in his articles. Heller was such a crackpot that he was actually kicked off WUWT by Anthony Watts for being unhinged.
You would be hard pressed to find a more tainted spokesman for your absurdities.
Regarding temperature models – since 2006 (when data from Argo Buoys and GRACE satellites were included), they have been remarkably accurate. As more data is gathered from even newer tools, they continue to improve.
HOWEVER, models are still just a tool and climate science, like all earth sciences, is based on OBSERVATIONS not models. Those observations show that the warmest 24 years in the instrumental record have occurred since 1998 with the last 8 hottest of all.
The last cold-record year was more than a century ago. And no, the MWP was NOT 3 degrees warmer than today.
Bottom line?
Climate models are getting better.
The temperature models post 2006 (when Argo Buoys and GRACE satellite data was used) have been within one standard deviation of actual observations. FYI, the last 8 years are the hottest years in the instrumental record.
Bottom line. Total Bull Manure. They are not getting better at predicting anything but more money to those who create them.
Talk about moronic.
In over 10 years I have heard this absurdity countless times, but what I have not heard is the name of a single person/group who funded these “phony” temperature readings, the name of a single scientist who was paid to corrupt these readings, how much they were paid or even the reason why anyone would pay them.
Maybe you can be the first?
Brewski….
The UN IPCC claims that a doubling of CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will cause the global temperature to rise 1.5/2.0 C degrees. If so, then the additional 400 ppm of CO2 will trap the heat required to raise the global temperature 1.5/2.0 C degrees. Correct?? The additional CO2 of 400 ppm is equal to 1 ppm in 2500 ppm of air. Correct? Will you please explain to me how 1 molecule of CO2 can trap enough heat to raise the other 2499 ppm of air 1.5/2.0 C degrees. Thank you.
I am not aware that the IPCC has said 800ppm of CO2 will raise temps to 2C above pre-industrial times, HOWEVER, the IPCC does say that we will reach 1.5C by 2050 unless we reduce our current CO2 NOW.
And you are forgetting about feedback cycles.
Ice ages and swamp earths happen every 100,000 years or so because of Milankovitch Cycles (changes in earth’s orbit and tilt) which raise or lower the amount of energy reaching the earth by a tiny amount but with time and feedback loops, it will change the climate entirely.
Milankovitch Cycles add or subtract the amount of solar energy reaching every square meter of the surface by an average of 1 watt – which is considerably less than over 3 watts man has already added through our 40% increase of CO2, however, that number has been mitigated by about 1 watt less energy because of solar blocking smog.
BTW, I noticed that you were also unable to name a single person who has paid scientists for bogus studies.
Pressing for the name of who paid who is a lawyer’s trick to create an illusion that historical data has not been altered. The hard fact is that it has been altered to support the climate change narrative. The article:
Global Temperature Record Is A Smoking Gun Of Collusion And Fraud | Real Science (wordpress.com)
Shows that NASA altered its own data to support climate change cause. (Search on “NASA temperature data doesn’t even agree with NASA temperature data from 15 years ago.”) This alternation lowered the temperature before 1960 to make it appear that there were greater increases in temperature.
The article at:
NOAA Milestone! 50% Fake Data | Real Climate Science
Shows how NOAA faked data making temperatures before 1960 lower. These alternations show that scientists at NASA and NOAA know that the unaltered data doesn’t support climate change, and that they are will lie to change it.
As far as estimates of warming, the computer models are really off from real world data. The article:
Worst Case Climate Fraud Becoming Increasingly Likely – Climate Change Dispatch
Shows the differences between climate models and real world data.
Even the IPCC AR5 report shows a difference.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/new-report-climate-less-sensitive-to-co2-than-models-suggest.html
Search on “It was 1.5-4.5°C in 1979.” The article states that the 1.5-4.5°C is what the IPCC models have predicted. However, the article also acknowledges the IPCC projections from real word data, called “observationally-based,” 1.25–3.0°C, with a best estimate of 1.75°C, for a doubling of CO2. The standard for estimates is by the year 2100.
One thing carefully ignored by the alarmists is that warming effect of carbon dioxide declines at a logarithmic rate as the concentration increases. This is shown in:
Joining Battle Over The “Science” Of Global Warming — Manhattan Contrarian
Searching on “Wijngaarden results:” will bring you to the graph. It shows that at our current level of carbon dioxide concentration, increasing the level has almost no impact. This is consistent with recent data. Forty percent of the warming blamed on man occurred between 1910 and 1941 when the carbon dioxide levels were relatively low and raising very slowly. Yet, the warming pause earlier in this century happened at a time when CO2 level were rising rapidly. We can expect doubling carbon dioxide to have no impact and any increases or decrease in temperature would be due to other factors.
Feed back loops definitely happened at the beginning and end of the last ice age. Today asserting that we are in danger of such loops is useful because it can be theory without evidence. However, such phenomenon is very unlikely. The medieval warm period was 3 degrees warmer than it is now. One indication is they were growing grapes in northern England. No run away loop happened.
Back in the 1990’s when they made that big stinkeroo Water World With Kevin Cosner and some goofball named Mariner who flip flopped looking less like a Dolphin and more like a Sea Slug
When real world data doesn’t support their cause, the climate activists use computer modeling that is designed to give the results that they want.
Moronic
So what is moronic other than your comment?
You
Of course