From the IPCC 4th Assessment Report published in 2007, ocean thermal expansion contributed by not, vert, similar 50% to the 3.1 mm/yr observed global mean sea level rise during the 1993–2003 decade, the remaining rate of rise being essentially explained by shrinking of land ice. Recently published results suggest that since about 2003, ocean thermal expansion change, based on the newly deployed Argo system, is showing a plateau while sea level is still rising, although at a reduced rate (not, vert, similar 2.5 mm/yr). Using space gravimetry observations from GRACE, we show that recent years sea level rise can be mostly explained by an increase of the mass of the oceans. Estimating GRACE-based ice sheet mass balance and using published estimates for glaciers melting, we further show that ocean mass increase since 2003 results by about half from an enhanced contribution of the polar ice sheets – compared to the previous decade – and half from mountain glaciers melting. Taking also into account the small GRACE-based contribution from continental waters (< 0.2 mm/yr), we find a total ocean mass contribution of not, vert, similar 2 mm/yr over 2003–2008. Such a value represents not, vert, similar 80% of the altimetry-based rate of sea level rise over that period. We next estimate the steric sea level (i.e., ocean thermal expansion plus salinity effects) contribution from: (1) the difference between altimetry-based sea level and ocean mass change and (2) Argo data. Inferred steric sea level rate from (1) (not, vert, similar 0.3 mm/yr over 2003–2008) agrees well with the Argo-based value also estimated here (0.37 mm/yr over 2004–2008). Furthermore, the sea level budget approach presented in this study allows us to constrain independent estimates of the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) correction applied to GRACE-based ocean and ice sheet mass changes, as well as of glaciers melting. Values for the GIA correction and glacier contribution needed to close the sea level budget and explain GRACE-based mass estimates over the recent years agree well with totally independent determinations
Uh yeah you may want to not cherry pick your articles here Jimmy. This is without context and similar to the 'hockey stick' it is named after but hey i don't expect you to know this so here is some truth -
From the IPCC 4th Assessment Report published in 2007, ocean thermal expansion contributed by not, vert, similar 50% to the 3.1 mm/yr observed global mean sea level rise during the 1993–2003 decade, the remaining rate of rise being essentially explained by shrinking of land ice. Recently published results suggest that since about 2003, ocean thermal expansion change, based on the newly deployed Argo system, is showing a plateau while sea level is still rising, although at a reduced rate (not, vert, similar 2.5 mm/yr). Using space gravimetry observations from GRACE, we show that recent years sea level rise can be mostly explained by an increase of the mass of the oceans. Estimating GRACE-based ice sheet mass balance and using published estimates for glaciers melting, we further show that ocean mass increase since 2003 results by about half from an enhanced contribution of the polar ice sheets – compared to the previous decade – and half from mountain glaciers melting. Taking also into account the small GRACE-based contribution from continental waters (< 0.2 mm/yr), we find a total ocean mass contribution of not, vert, similar 2 mm/yr over 2003–2008. Such a value represents not, vert, similar 80% of the altimetry-based rate of sea level rise over that period. We next estimate the steric sea level (i.e., ocean thermal expansion plus salinity effects) contribution from: (1) the difference between altimetry-based sea level and ocean mass change and (2) Argo data. Inferred steric sea level rate from (1) (not, vert, similar 0.3 mm/yr over 2003–2008) agrees well with the Argo-based value also estimated here (0.37 mm/yr over 2004–2008). Furthermore, the sea level budget approach presented in this study allows us to constrain independent estimates of the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) correction applied to GRACE-based ocean and ice sheet mass changes, as well as of glaciers melting. Values for the GIA correction and glacier contribution needed to close the sea level budget and explain GRACE-based mass estimates over the recent years agree well with totally independent determinations
Sea level budget over 2003–2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo
Global and Planetary Change, Volume 65, Issues 1-2, January 2009, Pages 83-88
A. Cazenave, K. Dominh, S. Guinehut, E. Berthier, W. Llovel, G. Ramillien, M. Ablain, G. Larnicol
Measuring sea level change and understanding its causes have improved considerably in the recent years, essentially because new in situ and remote sensing data sets have become available. Here we report on the current knowledge of present-day sea level change. We briefly present observational results on sea level change from satellite altimetry since 1993 and tide gauges for the past century. We next discuss recent progress made in quantifying the processes causing sea level change on time scales ranging from years to decades, i.e., thermal expansion, land ice mass loss and land water storage change. For the 1993–2003 decade, the sum of climate-related contributions agree well (within the error bars) with the altimetry-based sea level, half of the observed rate of rise being due to ocean thermal expansion, land ice plus land waters explaining the other half. Since about 2003, thermal expansion increase has stopped, whereas the sea level continues to rise, although at a reduced rate compared to the previous decade (2.5 mm/yr versus 3.1 mm/yr). Recent increases in glacier melting and ice mass loss from the ice sheets appear able to account alone for the rise in sea level reported over the last five years.
Present-day sea level rise: A synthesis
Comptes Rendus Geosciences, Volume 340, Issue 11, November 2008, Pages 761-770
Anny Cazenave, Alix Lombard, William Llovel
But oh wait these guys are wrong and a blog is correct right? Especially considering as i pointed out it's taken OUT OF CONTEXT much like the hockey stick was by Al Gore etc.
Funny huh?
You are even dumber than I originally thought !!
Your post sites a report that is at the forefront of the Global warming scam, as parts of it have been found to be erroneous ! ! !
18 January 2010
Glacial Fallout and the
IPCC The IPCC’s error with respect to Himalayan glaciers has all of a sudden gained enormous traction. Here is a quick round up of the latest.
The IPCC’s error with respect to Himalayan glaciers has all of a sudden gained enormous traction. Here is a quick round up of the latest.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, says that the Panel is revisiting the erroneous claims on glaciers:”We are looking into the issue of the Himalayan glaciers, and will take a position on it in the next two or three days,” Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told Reuters in an e-mail.
What this might mean isunclear since the AR4 is disbanded and it is not clear that
the IPC has any policies or procedures for revisiting or addressing errors in previously published reports. Depending on how the IPCC responds, there likely will be other issues to be addressed,
including of course the IPCC’s egregious errors on disasters and climate change.
In Indian media, Pachauri also appears to have disavowed any responsibility for the IPCC error, while India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh claims to have been vindicated in his dispute with Pachauri and the IPCC:India’s Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh Monday said “I was right on the glaciers” while maintaining that the Himalayan glaciers are ”indeed” receding, which is a cause for great concern,
but the view that these rivers of ice would melt down completely by 2035 due to global warning is ”alarmist” and without any scientific basis.The IPCC’s claim was based on an article in a London-based science journal which had borrowed the statement from India’s glaciologist Syed Iqbal Hasnain. “The study was not made on any scientific evidence,” a very happy sounding minister.WWF-India Climate Change and Energy Programme chief Shirish Sinha admitted that there are ”limitations to scientific models used for such studies.”
Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 231Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 231
By sophiaalbertina
This is another example of the “great science” behind the Global Warming Hysteria.
“Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was ”speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research.”
“The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain’s 1999 interview with the New Scientist. B
ut it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas. When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was ”very high”. The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%. “ “
Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. ”I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about,” he said.
Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as ”voodoo science”.
T
he IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain
how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report. Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.”
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
H
asnain has since admitted that the claim was ”speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research.
The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
