Antarctic Ice Sheet projected to increase this century per UN IPCC 2007 report. UN IPCC says understanding is too limited to make best estimate about melting of other ice sheets such as Greenland

Tweet "For an average model, the scenario spread in sea level rise is only 0.02 m by the middle of the century."

UN IPCC, "Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis," Chapter 10, Executive Summary, Sea Level

"Sea level is projected to rise between the present (1980–1999) and the end of this century (2090–2099) under the SRES B1 scenario by 0.18 to 0.38 m, B2 by 0.20 to 0.43 m, A1B by 0.21 to 0.48 m, A1T by 0.20 to 0.45 m, A2 by 0.23 to 0.51 m, and A1FI by 0.26 to 0.59 m. These are 5 to 95% ranges based on the spread of AOGCM results, not including uncertainty in carbon cycle feedbacks.... In all scenarios, the average rate of rise during the 21st century very likely exceeds the 1961 to 2003 average rate (1.8 ± 0.5 mm yr^–1).  

During 2090 to 2099 under A1B, the central estimate of the rate of rise is 3.8 mm yr^–1
.  
For an average model, the scenario spread in sea level rise is only 0.02 m by the middle of the century, and by the end of the century it is 0.15 m. 

Thermal expansion is the largest component, contributing 70 to 75% of the central estimate in these projections for all scenarios. Glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland Ice Sheet are also projected to contribute positively to sea level. General Circulation Models indicate that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will receive increased snowfall without experiencing substantial surface melting, thus gaining mass and contributing negatively to sea level."...

[Ed. note: Translation: No Antarctic melting is predicted, therefore no sea level rise is predicted from Antarctic melt. Antarctic growth is expected to lower sea levels.]

(continuing): "Further accelerations in ice flow of the kind recently observed in some Greenland outlet glaciers and West Antarctic ice streams could substantially increase the contribution from the ice sheets. For example, if ice discharge from these processes were to scale up in future in proportion to global average surface temperature change (taken as a measure of global climate change), it would add 0.1 to 0.2 m to the upper bound of sea level rise by 2090 to 2099. In this example, during 2090 to 2099 the rate of scaled-up Antarctic discharge would roughly balance the expected increased rate of Antarctic accumulation, being under A1B a factor of 5 to 10 greater than in recent years. Understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or to give a best estimate.

Sea level rise during the 21st century is projected to have substantial geographical variability. The model median spatial standard deviation is 0.08 m under A1B. The patterns from different models are not generally similar in detail, but have some common features, including smaller than average sea level rise in the Southern Ocean, larger than average in the Arctic, and a narrow band of pronounced sea level rise stretching across the southern Atlantic and Indian Oceans."



.

Peer reviewed PNAS study acknowledges no global warming 1998-2008

Tweet .
7/5/11, "Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008," PNAS.org

"Abstract"

"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.

Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008 (1). Furthermore, global surface temperature declines 0.2 °C between 2005 and 2008. Although temperature increases in 2009 and 2010, the lack of a clear increase in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2008 (1), combined with rising concentrations of atmospheric CO₂ and other greenhouse gases, prompts some popular commentators (2, 3) to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface temperature. This seeming disconnect may be one reason why the public is increasingly sceptical about anthropogenic climate change (4)."... 


"Robert K. Kaufmann^a,¹ ,Heikki Kauppi^b, Michael L. Mann^a, and James H. Stock^c"...

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

Regarding aerosols:

Page 1 notes lack of scientific data on aerosols makes it impossible to accurately interpret global climate.

Jan. 15, 2013, “Global Temperature Update Through 2012, 15 January 2013,” Columbia University, J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Rudy

(page 1): “Summary. …”The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing….

(page 1, parag. 3): “The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements 3,4.”…

-------------------------------------------------

Page 6 details problem predicting future “climate change” referenced on p. 1 above, ie lack of data on aerosols, and that the one US satellite designed to measure them crashed on takeoff and  no plans exist to restart the mission:

page 6, last parag. of report under sub-head, “Climate Change Expectations”: 

“The one major wild card in projections of future climate change is the unmeasured climate forcing due to aerosol changes and their effects on clouds. Anecdotal information indicates that particulate air pollution has increased in regions with increasing coal burning, but assessment of the climate forcing requires global measurement of detailed physical properties of the aerosols. The one satellite mission that was capable of making measurements with the required detail and accuracy was lost via a launch failure, and as yet there are no plans for a replacement mission with the needed capabilities.4″

---------------------------------------------

Links re: NASA climate satellite crashes in 2009 and 2011. 2011 satellite (referenced by Hansen) was to study aerosols:

“Perhaps that’s why the loss hurts most, because Glory “was directed very specifically at the place where our knowledge was weakest“, he said.”…”A tragedy for climate science.”…”an area that desperately needs more study.”…

3/4/11, “Raze of Glory: NASA Earth-Observing Climate Satellite Fails to Reach Orbit,” Scientific American, John Matson

“A launch malfunction sent the Glory satellite crashing into the ocean, almost exactly mimicking the 2009 loss of NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory.“…
.

============================
.

3/6/11, “Nasa crashes hit geoscience efforts,” AFP, News24, Washington

“A pair of costly satellite crashes have dealt a major blow to Nasa’s earth science efforts just as the US space agency faces scrutiny from Congress over whether climate science should be part of its focus at all.

The $424m Glory satellite to monitor aerosols and the sun’s power plunged into the Pacific on Friday shortly after launch, just two years after a similar satellite to study carbon dioxide in the atmosphere met the same fate.

“The loss of the Glory satellite is a tragedy for climate science,” said Bruce Wielicki, senior scientist for earth science at Nasa’s Langley Research Centre.”…
.

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

Army artillery drill started Stuart Creek, Alaska, wildfire. Training took place during red flag warning in which residents are asked to avoid activities that could start fires-Newsminer

Tweet 7/6/13, "Army official: Artillery drill started Stuart Creek wildfire," Sam Friedman, newsminer.com

TWO RIVERS, Alaska, "An Army artillery exercise ignited the Stuart Creek 2 fire now threatening the community of Two Rivers, according to the Fort Wainwright garrison commander.

Col. Ron Johnson spoke to area residents this evening at a community meeting at the Pleasant Valley Community Center.

In general, the Army makes sure it has the resources to put out a fire that could start from training before allowing the training, he said.

“In this case it took some mitigation measures, they allowed the training to occur, it was artillery training, it did start a fire,” Johnson said.

The fire, which started June 25, was initially contained until it flared up last week, Johnson said.

The training took place during a red flag warning in which residents are asked to avoid conducting activities that could start fires, he said.

“It was monitored, it smoked up, they hit it again and then when the fire conditions changed it flared up and now we’ve got what we’ve got,” Johnson said.

Saturday’s meeting was organized by the firefighting crew now managing the 32,014-acre fire to give information to the Chena Hot Springs Road community that’s been under an advisory evacuation watch since Tuesday.

Johnson was not a scheduled speaker at the meeting but took the microphone to applause and laughter when a local resident asked “If the military started this fire, then why aren’t they here?”

Chena Hot Springs Road between 14 mile and 32 mile remains on evacuation watch. Warm weather is forecast for Sunday, as is wind that would blow the fire toward the community." via Free Republic




.