Madhav Khandekar is a former research scientist from Environment Canada and is presently on the Editorial Board of the international Journal Natural Hazards (Kluwer Netherlands). Khandekar was an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC 2007 climate change documents and his latest contribution to sea level rise is a Chapter (Global warming, glacier melt and future sea level rise) in the Book “Global Warming” published by Sciyo Publishers (Sciyo.com) October 2010. He is frequent contributor to stories on Icecap and NIPCC.

Global warming, glacier melt and sea level rise: need for more realistic future estimates by Madhav Khandekar

There is now a heightened interest on the possibility of rapid melting of world-wide glaciers and ice caps ( e.g., Greenland and Antarctic ice caps) as a result of ongoing warming which could lead to escalated sea level rise in the ‘near future’. Sea Level Rise (SLR) is an important climate change parameter which is being intensely discussed at present in the context of human-induced global warming and the climate change debate. Many newspaper articles as well as science magazine articles often refer to world-wide glacier melts and the possibility of sea level rise of 3 to 7 ft (1 to 2m) over the next fifty to one hundred years.

Several recent observational field studies using sophisticated remote sensing technology have provided estimates of “ice sheet mass balance” of Greenland and Antarctic ice caps; these estimates suggest significant acceleration of ice mass loss in recent years (Rignot et al, 2011 Geophysical Research Letters) and conclude that future SLR will be dominated by melting of the two ice caps. Papers published in the last ten years using atmosphere-ocean general circulation models suggest thermal expansion as the largest contributor to future SLR, which is estimated to be in the range of 20 to 37 cm over next 100 years.

A recent publication (Vermeer & Rahmstrorf, 2009 Proc. National Academy of Sciences) obtains values of 1m and higher for SLR over the next one hundred years using an empirical model which links future warming of the earth’s surface to increased sea levels. These studies plus recent Hollywood movies like An Inconvenient Truth showing big ice-shelves breaking off and sliding down into the cold Arctic Ocean have created a perception that “ice caps and glaciers are indeed melting rapidly causing sea level to rise dramatically”.

How rapidly is the sea level rising at present? Let us look at some latest studies and numbers:

Some basic facts on sea level rise:

1. It is now generally accepted that global sea level increased by about 120 m as a result of de-glaciation that followed the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum) about 21000 y BP ( years Before Present). By about 5000-6000 y BP the melting of high-latitude ice mass was more less complete after which sea level rise was small and globally-averaged SLR over the last 1000 years and prior to the twentieth century has been estimated to be just about 0.2mm/year.

2. The 20th century SLR has been most intriguing and has sparked a large number of studies (see, for example, Khandekar 2009, Energy & Environment). The total SLR during the 20th century is now estimated to be about 1.6 to 2.0 mm/yr.

3. GIA (Glacial Isostatic Adjustment): This refers to the gradual springing back of the earth’s crust in response to the removal of snow loads since the LGM, especially in the region of Gulf of Bothnia (also refereed to as Fennoscandia) where the ice was as much as several km thick during the LGM and where relative SLR is still falling at the rate of about 5-10 mm/yr.

4. Recent satellite data using TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimeter obtains a value of SLR about 2.8mm/yr and possibly higher. 

5. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in its latest (2007) document has estimated SLR to be between 14 and 41 cm (mean value 29 cm) under the A1B (greenhouse gas) scenario in which earth’s mean temperature is expected to rise between 2.3C and 4.1C over next 100 years. The IPCC 2007 projects SLR due to thermal expansion (steric component) as about 23 cm while the contribution due to melting of glaciers and ice cap (eustatic component) is estimated as about 6 cm over next 100 years

Several recent papers have provided SLR numbers which need to be examined carefully in the context of present debate on global warming and sea level rise. A paper by Holgate (2007, Geophysical Research Letters) analyzed nine long and nearly continuous sea level records over one hundred years ( 1903-2003) and obtained a mean value of SLR as 1.74mm/yr, with higher values in the earlier part of the 20th century compared to the latter part.

A comprehensive paper by Prof (emeritus) Carl Wunsch and co-workers (J of Climate December 2007) generate over 100 million data points using a 23-layer general circulation ocean model which include different types of data ( salinity, sea surface temperature, satellite altimetry, Argo float profiles etc) and obtain an estimate of SLR as 1.6mm/yr for the period 1993-2004. A more recent paper by Wenzel & Schroter (Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 2010) analyzes tide gauge records over a period 1900-2006 and obtains a mean value of 1.56mm/yr with NO statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise. The latest paper by Houston & Dean (Journal of Coastal Research 2011) carefully analyzes 57 tide gauge records each with a record length of 80 years which include 25 gauges with data from 1930-2010.  This study finds no acceleration in sea level rise, but instead a small average deceleration of -0.0014 and -0.0123 mm/yr2. These latest findings appear to contradict the general perception that sea level rise is escalating at present.

Recent observations and studies of breaking of ice shelves and ice sheet mass losses must be carefully assessed in the context of Arctic climatology which is now identified as being linked to low frequency atmosphere/ocean oscillation with a period of 60-80 years. An excellent temperature dataset for the entire Arctic basin has been prepared by Dr Igor Polyakov (University of Alaska) for the period 1860-2005.

This dataset shows clearly that the Arctic was at its warmest in 1935 and 1936 and the present temperature in the Arctic is about the same as it was in the mid-1930s. Further, the Arctic witnessed significant icecap and glacier melting during the 1920s and 1930s as evidenced by the following commentary ‘The Arctic sea is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared (US Weather Bureau 1922)”.

Also, the temperature history of Greenland shows that the 1920s and 1930s were the two warmest decades over Greenland, in a long dataset from 1880 to 2007. These observations and the US weather Bureau report strongly suggest that the Arctic witnessed significant ice melt and icecap mass loss during the 1920s and 1930s, however, no detailed quantitative calculations (of icecap mass loss) were possible then due to lack of adequate remote sensing technology.

An estimate of sea level rise can be made by observing that from 1940 to 2010, global sea level has risen by about 13-14 cm. Of this rise, the steric (thermal) component of SLR can be estimated at about 6 cm while the eustatic (melt part) contribution is about 8 cm.  If these estimates are used to extrapolate SLR to 2100, we obtain a maximum of 12 cm of SLR due to the eustatic (melting) contribution, while another 8 cm or so due to steric (thermal expansion) contribution.

In summary, the estimate of over 1m and higher rise in sea level by 2100 (in next 90 years) seems unrealistic, when analyzed in the context of present sea level rise which is just about 1.5mm to 2.0 mm per year with almost NO component of acceleration. For the global sea level to rise by over 1m in the next 90 years would require acceleration (in sea level rise) of up to 0.28mm/yr2, which is almost two orders of magnitude larger than present. This seems highly unlikely at present given the fact that the earth’s climate has not warmed in the last ten years and further that the earth’s mean temperature seems to be declining at present.

There is a definite need to obtain more realistic estimates of future SLR than what are available at present.

May 10th, 11:16

In a landmark court ruling in New Zealand that will send tremors around the world, the once respected Greenpeace is stripped of its charity status.

High Court Judge, Justice Paul Heath made the groundbreaking decision today after overwhelming evidence was presented that proved that the organization’s illegal activities were motivated by zealous political advocacy and crossed the line of what charities are permitted to do.

In a story making headlines in the New Zealand Herald (May 10, 2011) climate skeptics around the world will now be consulting lawyers in their respective countries to assess whether similar legal challenges may be made against the disgraced former charity. Dr. Tim Ball, who is currently facing court proceedings from Greenpeace supporters in Canada, urged skeptics to “pursue this globally.”

Climate Courtroom Worm Has Turned

In the U.S and Britain environmentalist activists have for decades sought to influence policymakers by a swath of unlawful protests often involving criminal damage and trespass. Several prominent UN climatologists have long aligned themselves with and been apologists for the radical and unlawful acts of these environmentalists.

As a consequence of the shock New Zealand ruling Greenpeace’s political activities mean it will be de-registered as a charity and thus lose the prestige and tax advantages associated with that status.

NASA’s problematic climatologist, James Hansen, flew to London to be an ‘expert witness’ to testify in the defense of climate activists prosecuted for such crimes.

Hansen flew to the UK in the case of the “Kingsnorth Six”, who had climbed up E.ON’s coal plant. The six had used Greenpeace’s climate change defence - that their actions were designed to prevent immediate harm to human life and property from climate change - and were acquitted.

Judge Rules Greenpeace Acted Illegally

Justice Paul Heath’s decision was as the result of an appeal launched by Greenpeace after a 2010 ruling by the Charities Commission which found its promotion of “disarmament and peace” was political rather than educational. Greenpeace members were ruled to have acted illegally.

Justice Paul Heath pronounced:

“Non-violent, but potentially illegal activities (such as trespass), designed to put (in the eyes of Greenpeace) objectionable activities into the public spotlight were an independent object disqualifying it from registration as a charitable entity.”

Davey Salmon, Greenpeace’s lawyer in the action was crestfallen at the failure of his argument that such political advocacy was acceptable in 21st century. Read more here.

t may be reaching a bit, but when one of the world’s leading climate alarmists and activists - British author and journalist George Monbiot - declares that he and his environment movement colleagues “are lost” in a world that still believes in what many environmentalists do not believe, namely growth and prosperity, it is almost certain that global warming is in decline as a political issue.

In a column this week in The Guardian, Mr. Monbiot laments the failure of green activists to reach beyond a “set of deep beliefs ...that in some cases remain unexamined.” Mostly, he said, the battle over energy supplies and carbon emissions has plunged the environmental movement into choosing objectives that “are at odds” with one another.

Green predictions of collapse have not materialized as the global carbon-based economic expansion continues. “The problem we face,” he said, “is not that we have too little fossil fuel, but too much.” As conventional oil declines, economies will switch to tar sands, shale gas and coal. If coal runs out, other fossil fuels will take its place. Because the greens can’t get their political and ideological acts together into a world economic view that makes sense, Mr. Monbiot sees the world heading for “environmental destruction.”

Mr. Monbiot’s defeatism in the face of economic and technological reality represents just one aspect of what appears to be a giant shift in the political and economic environment around climate change.

Another portent: Jeff Immelt, the CEO of global industrial giant General Electric, publicly recalibrated GE’s approach to climate issues and government intervention to control carbon emissions. In comments reported this week by Reuters, Mr. Immelt - an outspoken climate-change activist and advisor to President Barack Obama - said: “If I had one thing to do over again, I would not have talked so much about green.”

He also said he was ending his activist support for a comprehensive U.S. energy policy. “Even though I believe in global warming and I believe in the science...it just took on a connotation that was too elitist; it was too precious and it let opponents think that if you had a green initiative, you didn’t care about jobs. I’m a businessman. That’s all I care about, is jobs.” On a national green energy policy, he said: “I’m kind of over that state of arguing for a comprehensive energy policy. I’m back to keeping my head down and working.”

Mr. Immelt’s conversion to job creation as a priority may well reflect broader public and political opinion about climate change and carbon issues. That the public might be somewhat unsure of climate issues is not new, although doubt is certain to be enhanced with a new Science paper published this week that showed that climate change varies from country to country. In fact, since 1980, there have been no signs of warming in Canada or the United States, where temperatures have declined since 1980.

In the Science study, headed by David Lobell of Stanford University, researchers found that climate stability in North America promoted an increase in agricultural production, while warming in other parts of the world may have caused a decline in production of some crops in some regions. On the whole, though, the heavily hedged study concluded that more study is needed.

Uncertainty and ambiguity, a hallmark of climate science, may explain the findings of a survey of British public opinion. Eric Berger, a science writer for the Houston Chronicle, says a recent British poll shows that more people believe the benefits of climate change outweigh the risks than believe the risks outweigh the benefits. Put another way, only about one-quarter of respondents seem to think the risks of climate change outweigh the benefits.

For politicians, the latest developments do not suggest drastic action on carbon will be automatically welcomed by voters. In North America, a lack of warming undermines political motivation. Elsewhere, people are growing aware that if warming is happening, there are winners and losers - so why bring in carbon controls that might increase economic risks.

Meanwhile, green dreams of a carbon-free future are fading as the world’s energy industries continue to develop new fossil-fuel sources. Massive new oil fields have been found in Brazil. The biggest energy revolution is not in solar or wind, as greens might have fantasized, but in shale gas. A review of shale gas prospects, The Shale Gas Shock, by journalist Matt Ridley for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, highlights the astounding prospects for shale gas around the world as a lower-carbon - and much cheaper - source of energy.

All of which drives the George Monbiots of the world to distraction. He posed what he called “an awkward question for us greens,” a question that green ideology is not equipped to answer. “Why hasn’t the global economy collapsed as we predicted? Yes, it wobbled, though largely for other reasons. Now global growth is back with a vengeance: it reached 4.6% last year, and the IMF predicts roughly the same for 2011 and 2012.. Not only does the economy appear to be more resistant to resource shocks than we assumed, but the result of those shocks is an increase, not a decline, in environmental destruction.”

In Mr. Monbiot’s view, however, all human activity produces environmental destruction, which is why few people outside the green movement are buying into what he calls environmental “belief systems.” What people want is what Mr. Immelt has come around describing as his priority: “All I care about, is jobs.” He might have added, prosperity, production, wealth creation.

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com

Unwilling to reign in Washington’s overspending problem, Democrats and their allies on the Left are stuck championing tax increases. Raising the corporate income tax rate - already the highest in the world - or increasing the personal income rate is untenable, leaving Democrats no choice except to try and repeal tax credits and deductions.

With oil and natural gas companies releasing their first quarter earnings this week, look for revenue hungry Democrats and to set their sights on this industry. First out of the gate is the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) which began asking Members of Congress to pledge to raise taxes on American oil and natural gas companies by eliminating a handful of pro-growth deductions. The LCV pledge reads:

“With five biggest public oil companies enjoying $60 billion in profits and Americans struggling with high gas prices, we should no longer force Americans to subsidize oil companies. I hereby pledge to end taxpayer subsidies and handouts for oil companies.”

Let’s cut through the hyperbole. Unlike renewable sources of energy which received $60 billion in taxpayer dollars since 2008, the American government doesn’t give oil and natural gas companies a cent to produce oil. The LCV’s characterization of tax credits and deductions as subsidies is intentionally misleading. A subsidy is when the government takes money from you and gives it to someone else, like a solar company. Allowing a company to keep more of its earned money by employing a tax credit is anything but a subsidy.

You would think from the LCV’s pledge that oil and natural gas companies pay virtually no taxes and are gaming the system for profit. This could not be farther from the truth: paying nearly $100 million a day in income taxes - and $300 billion in total income taxes between 2004-2008 - the oil and natural gas industry’s effective income tax rate is 48 percent, compared to 28 percent for other S&P Industrial companies. And that’s just income taxes, those numbers don’t even include an additional $60 billion in non-income taxes or $350 million in excise taxes paid on petroleum products.

Furthermore, it is worth asking who profits when oil companies prosper. Apart from the 9.2 million people the industry employs, 27 percent of oil companies are owned by pension funds, 23 percent by individual investors, 30 percent by mutual funds, and 14 percent by IRAs. Only 1.5 percent of oil stocks are held by corporate management. This means that if you or your employer has been saving for retirement, well, you are likely part of Big Oil. Gasp!

And then there’s the matter of gasoline prices. As a commodity, oil prices are subject to speculation from investors who access global supply and demand. When you spend a dollar on gasoline, 68 cents from that dollar go towards purchasing the crude oil and 18 cents is used for refining and retailing. The remaining 14 cents is forked over to the government in excise taxes.

If Democrats really wanted to alleviate Americans’ pain at the pump, they could reduce the gasoline excise tax. Revealing their true intention, more revenue, Democrats are arguing for higher taxes on oil and natural gas companies - it is hard to imagine how further taxing oil and natural gas companies would bring down the cost of gasoline.

The truth is Democrats would rather demonize oil and natural gas companies than make necessary spending cuts. Leadership is making tough decisions about which programs to cut, bolster, or eliminate, not which companies to tax.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich asked for it, and now he has it: evidence that so-called “renewable” energy mandates raise electricity costs, subtract jobs and harm the economy.

Earlier this month our organization released a study of Ohio’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard, and the findings will not encourage citizens of a state struggling with still high unemployment and stagnant population growth.

If the AEPS is kept, consumers can expect to pay $8.6 billion more for their electricity between 2016 and 2025, while seeing net losses in jobs, annual wages and disposable income because of the mandate.

Ohio’s AEPS requires that the state’s utilities generate 25 percent of their power from “alternative” sources by the year 2025, with half that amount (12.5 percent) required to come from “renewable” sources such as wind or solar.

When he campaigned last year, Kasich said he would support a repeal of AEPS “if it drives up costs to consumers.” An uptick was expected before the law passed, since it contained a provision to cap costs from the mandate to three percent per year. But that stipulation has so many holes in it, that utilities can easily exceed the three percent with other compliance and surcharge mechanisms.

Unsurprisingly, the renewables-driven hidden tax on everyone’s electric bills will flow throughout Ohio’s already beleaguered economy, and will serve as a heavier anchor upon it. Among the findings of our study - conducted by the economists at the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston - are that Ohio will lose close to 10,000 jobs in 2025 (when the AEPS is supposed to be in full effect), while real disposable income will fall by almost $1.1 billion and net investment in the state will be reduced by $79 million.

Global warming was supposed to be the reason for a broad departure from greenhouse gas emissions (caused by fossil fuels like coal, which generates 84 percent of Ohio’s electricity) in favor of “renewables” like wind and solar. But the weather has failed to cooperate, with no alarming, sustained increases in temperatures, sea level rise or hurricane intensity, as was predicted.

Meanwhile the prescription is really a placebo - or worse. Because of wind’s intermittence, utilities must employ coal- and natural gas-fired generators as backups. Studies have shown that when these fossil fueled power producers are required to constantly ramp up and down, they emit more pollutants (like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and yes, greenhouse gases) than they would if they ran consistently without wind.

Do Kasich and the General Assembly really need to give repeal of AEPS much more thought?