2010-11-11 09:00:10Ice Sheet Losses are Overestimed.Response to Wu et al. 2010
Robert Way

Hello all

See the post here:




Let me know what you think.

Robert Way
2010-11-11 10:47:45Thumb
John Cook

I thumbed the blog post but will do so here just for good measure :-)
2010-11-11 10:48:56BTW, for whoever writes the basic version of this rebuttal
John Cook

Two points that leapt out to me was that the full body of evidence finds more ice loss and that even the lesser estimate from Wu is at the upper range of IPCC predictions. Would like to see those points in the basic rebuttal.
2010-11-11 11:58:23comment
Robert Way

Thanks John,
I still think there might be some issues with flow that i'm hoping some of the writers here can help me with:P
2010-11-11 20:11:30
Rob Painting

Rob, I see what you mean about flow. The information is all there, it just needs structure. Feel free to ignore of course, but:


-BACKGROUND - Outlining the "old" method. Ice loss estimates.

- WU NOVEL TECHNIQUE. Differences in approach. Only 3 GPS stations used? . Ice loss estimates

- SORENSON. Ice loss estimate.

- VAN DEN BROEK Ice loss estimate? or agreement with?


- CONCLUSION. Covering the what you discussed above (ala Neal King's constant reminder) Include the snippet about the record 2010 Greenland loss etc there.

Nice work, but man that last graph is a mess!. 


2011-02-24 11:55:23


Robert Ways rebuttal of the proposition that ice sheet losses are overestimated raises the question of the influence of Glacial Isostatic Rebound (GIR) in the calculation of ice loss from satellite data, notably that coming from GRACE.


I am not a scientists and have little knowledge of this subject but it does seem to me that the rate at which polar ice is melting is so fast relative to GIR that, the latter would have no effect on the accuracy of ice melt calculations over a short span of say 5-10 years.


Is that so?  Is there a known relationship between GIR and volume of ice loss and if not, how can it be asserted that failure to determine the effect of GIR results in overestimation of ice loss using satellite measurement of mass change?


Secondly, the fact that the Antarctic land mass has been pushed down by weight of the covering ice sheet has not made the land mass disappear, only changed its elevation.


Although land mass can change over a very long period, is it not true that change in mass detected by satellite measurement over relatively short periods can only have been caused by loss of ice?  What else could have caused change in mass?


If these matters have been addressed by SkS, I would appreciate relevant URL.