NIPCC’s Lake Greenland is brim-full of fail

As should already be clear from my previous posts, the “Not the IPCC” report is awful. It is not an evaluation of the science; rather it is a badly edited compilation of all the papers, regardless of quality, that the Heartless Institute can twist into a cornucopia of doubt. Papers that do not fit this scheme are either ignored (e.g., Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2008; Crawley, 2011), or misread (e.g. Solomon et al, 2009). There is little interpretation in the report, but where it is attempted, it can go badly wrong. From the cryosphere chapter:

According to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, melting of the whole ice sheet would contribute nearly 7 m to sea-level rise (Bergmann et al. 2012). Yet if the whole ice sheet could suddenly melt, much of the water would be retained in a huge lake bounded by the mountain rim. In any case, the distribution of annual mean temperatures on Greenland is such that melting is possible only around the periphery.

Have the NIPCC not noticed that there are gaps in the mountain ranges that surround the Greenland Ice Sheet? There are kilometre-deep fjords, glacial valleys, and a 750 km long sub-glacial canyon cutting through the mountains. Are the NIPCC hoping that these fjords will be dammed by magic to stop the meltwater escaping?

Greenland’s bedrock topography

A post-glacial Greenland probably will contain enormous lakes and/or internal seas, but unless we redefine “much” to mean a rather small proportion , the NIPCC’s claim is false.

The final sentence is as bad. Have the NIPCC not noticed that melting tends to occur in summer, or did they think their readers would not notice? Consequently, mean annual temperature is much less relevant than summer temperature for determining melting. The extreme distribution of melt in 2012 gives lie to the NIPCC’s claim that melting is only possible at the periphery of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

These mistakes are so basic they can only have occurred in the mind of someone either determined to twist reality to fit a preconceived notion, or embarrassingly out of their depth. Or perhaps both.

Advertisements

About richard telford

Ecologist with interests in quantitative methods and palaeoenvironments
This entry was posted in climate, Fake climate sceptics, Silliness and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to NIPCC’s Lake Greenland is brim-full of fail

  1. cartoonmick says:

    I love hearing debate from both sides, as each contain persuasive elements.

    Historically, science and politics have had many disagreements.

    Toss in some religious and business pressure, and anything can evolve (or not).

    “Only listen to advice which assists the cause”.

    Anyhow, it always gives me plenty of material for my cartoons.

    This is my latest . . . .

    http://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/editorial-political/#jp-carousel-775

    Cheers

    Mick

  2. Pingback: Het NIPCC versus de wetenschap: zoek de verschillen | Klimaatverandering

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s