2010-10-09 18:02:46A new paper that predicts 0 to 17cm sea level rise from Greenland by 2100. Zero cm?!?!
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198

This one got my attention, Greenland’s contribution to global sea-level rise by the end of the 21st century (Graversen 2010):

The Greenland ice sheet holds enough water to raise the global sea level with ∼7 m. Over the last few decades, observations manifest a substantial increase of the mass loss of this ice sheet. Both enhanced melting and increase of the dynamical discharge, associated with calving at the outlet-glacier fronts, are contributing to the mass imbalance. Using a dynamical and thermodynamical ice-sheet model, and taking into account speed up of outlet glaciers, we estimate Greenland’s contribution to the 21st-century global sea-level rise and the uncertainty of this estimate. Boundary fields of temperature and precipitation extracted from coupled climate-model projections used for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, are applied to the ice-sheet model. We implement a simple parameterization for increased flow of outlet glaciers, which decreases the bias of the modeled present-day surface height. It also allows for taking into account the observed recent increase in dynamical discharge, and it can be used for future projections associated with outlet-glacier speed up. Greenland contributes 0–17 cm to global sea-level rise by the end of the 21st century. This range includes the uncertainties in climate-model projections, the uncertainty associated with scenarios of greenhouse-gas emissions, as well as the uncertainties in future outlet-glacier discharge. In addition, the range takes into account the uncertainty of the ice-sheet model and its boundary fields.

0 to 17 cm by 2100?!?

2010-10-09 18:29:04And hot off the press, another paper prediction total sea level rise of 60cm to 1.6 metres by 2100
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198

http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1005/full/climate.2010.35.html

2010-10-09 18:45:15
doug_bostrom

dbostrom@clearwire...
184.77.83.151
Hey John, I want comfort of knowing we won't be submerged but the link to 0-17cm paper comes up to the generic SpringerLink homepage.  
2010-10-09 19:19:41
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.104
Doug there's a + in the url. Delete it and it works. Hope I'll find the time to read both papers.
2010-10-09 19:26:58Fixed the Greenland link
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198
Thanks Doug for pointing out what the error was. Note - I don't have access to the full paper, unfortunately paywalled
2010-10-09 19:28:38
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.140.41
 Pathetic, zero cm?. Could they pussyfoot around anymore?.
2010-10-09 19:34:40
doug_bostrom

dbostrom@clearwire...
184.77.83.151

Reading the abstract, that seems a counterintuitive result. Meanwhile, the lead author has published in Nature

http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/AGU_2008/Zz_Others/Li_agu08/Graversen2008.pdf

and does not seem like he's coming from left field. Also, coauthor of NOAA State of the Arctic report for 2006.

My first thought after reading the abstract was "typographical error" and they've reported the -entire- range of outcomes to the antipodes of the error bars.  

BTW, that Nature article is quite intriguing.  

2010-10-09 22:08:06comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.16.193
Consider that Greenland is contributing 0.5 mm a year now. We only have to wait 20 years to figure out if he's right haha
2010-10-10 05:29:18
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.105.54

Remember the last part of the abstract:

"This range includes the uncertainties in climate-model projections, the uncertainty associated with scenarios of greenhouse-gas emissions, as well as the uncertainties in future outlet-glacier discharge. In addition, the range takes into account the uncertainty of the ice-sheet model and its boundary fields."

With those uncertainties, I don't think minimum of 0 cm is so far fetched. If we consider extreme scenarios where we would stop all GHG emissions and start heavily taking them out from the atmosphere (by some means), we could even turn that number negative. But that really is an extreme scenario.

2010-10-10 09:25:59
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.92.100
Ari, I think that falls under the definition of Doug's "magical incantation". In fact, that geo-engineering hogwash has to be one of my pet peeves.