Antarctic ice expands “against odds”

From a scientist friend, who comments:

About two weeks after it was noised on various blogs and electronic news sources, and is old “news”, The Australian finally deigns to notice the record Antarctic sea-ice (I wonder whether the SMH and The Age will now me-too the story as well?). Leaving aside the wonderful headline, the article itself is a classic attempt to weasel out of accepting the obvious conclusion. The scientists involved really ARE shameless.

I entirely agree with him. This story presents a deplorable mish-mash of propaganda from a scientist who should be a lot better behaved. Be nice to see this covered in the Herald – or has it been – anyone know?

Please note the frank distortion in the original headline: the sea ice hasn’t expanded “against the odds”, it has simply defied certain (wrong!) predictions. Emphasis added, my comments in green. – RT

PAYWALLED AT: The Australian.


* by: Graham Lloyd
* From: The Australian
* October 06, 2012 12:00AM

ANTARCTIC sea ice has expanded to cover the largest area recorded since satellite mapping began more than three decades ago, in stark contrast to this year’s record melt on the northern pole.

The expansion continues a trend of increasing Antarctic sea ice cover of about 1 per cent a decade and is at odds with predictions of climate change models that continue to forecast a long-term decline.

Rob Massom from the Australian Antarctic Division and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre in Hobart said this week: “The message is there is a lot of work to better understand what processes are occurring around Antarctica and the role of these processes in affecting sea ice.” Dr Massom said the most authoritative climate change models forecast a loss of up to 30 per cent of Antarctic sea ice by the end of the century, and did not indicate the present expansion.

If they fail to predict what they’re built to predict, they are scarcely authoritative.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado, Antarctic sea ice reached a maximum extent of 19.44 million square kilometres on September 26.

The September 2012 monthly average was also a record high at 19.39 million square kilometres, slightly higher than the previous record in 2006.

The record sea ice accumulation in Antarctica was in stark contrast to this year’s record melt in the Arctic, where sea ice fell to the lowest extent in the satellite record.

The Arctic melt, to a low of 3.41 million square kilometres on September 16, occurred without the unusual weather conditions that contributed to the extreme melt of 2007, the previous record low, but the extent of this year’s ice loss was affected by a severe storm.

He cleverly calls it “the extent of this year’s loss”, even though it’s no loss caused by global warming, it’s the natural annual melt. But NASA explained that the storm swept the ice into warmer waters (so there were no unusual weather conditions, except the storm :-) ).

The retreat of Arctic ice is happening faster than climate models have predicted.

So the models would still be reliable, d’you think?

Climate scientists have said the behaviour of ice cover at the two poles is not connected.

Though scientists might indeed say this, not so long ago the same scientists gave scientific reasons for an intimate connection between the poles — global warming was going to warm those regions the most, because of their lack of water vapour. They change their tune now that observations show different behaviour (though they don’t know why), but for years they were telling us the poles were doomed. Not that Massom mentions it.

Dr Massom said despite the fact Antarctic sea ice was not melting as had been predicted by climate models, there was still cause for concern.

Tell us why there’s reason for concern.

He is midway through a two-month voyage to the Antarctic pack ice aboard the Australian research vessel Aurora Australis.

Speaking from the ship at about 64 degrees south in the sea ice zone this week, Dr Massom said the Antarctic sea ice was shifting as well as expanding, giving a possible clue as to what was taking place.

Well, what’s the clue?

Although the extent of sea ice overall is increasing in the Antarctic, there are strong regional contrasts,” Dr Massom said.

In certain regions the extent and duration of sea ice is much less on the Antarctic peninsula than it used to be. Some of the changes in Antarctica are strongly negative, as they are in the Arctic.”

The peninsula is on the edge of the Antarctic circle, jutting about 500 km into warmer seas — of course it’s warmer there, it’s not even in the Antarctic. But what changes are “strongly negative”? He’s speaking with deliberate imprecision to mislead us. In less polite times he would be described as speaking with a forked tongue.

Dr Massom said some people would seize upon this year’s Antarctic sea ice record to question climate change predictions, but he said it was a “very complex system . . . In general there are signs that things are changing”.

But five paragraphs back he said: “Antarctic sea ice is not melting as had been predicted by climate models.” The models should be questioned.

“The break up of the Larson Ice Shelf in 2002 was a very timely reminder that there is rapid change occurring in certain regions of Antarctica,” Dr Massom said.

No, Doctor, that is dishonest, for, as you must be aware, those ice shelves have been snapping off in tidal action for millions of years. It has nothing to do with getting warmer down there, for the simple reason that it’s been getting colder.

One possible explanation for the increase in sea ice was changing patterns of large-scale atmospheric circulation.

This included an increasing intensity of the westerly wind field around Antarctica, which could be leading to a greater extent of sea ice overall.

Please explain this.

“Again, this masks the fact that in certain areas there has been quite a significant decrease where in other areas there has been an increase,” he said.

Masking? How?

“One of the reasons we are down on this ship doing experiments is we are still struggling to understand what are the processes affecting Antarctic sea ice the role of sea ice in the global climate system, how it affects the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere.

“And we are still at a stage where the models are in slight disagreement with what we are observing. A lot of our work is aiming at picking that gap between what we are observing and what the models are telling us.”

Massom is dishonest. The models get the sign wrong twice: on the “growth” of Antarctic sea ice and on Antarctic “warming”; they underestimate the loss of Arctic sea ice and they fail to predict this century’s warming stasis, but he calls all this a “slight disagreement”? When observations are so different from the model output, only the single-minded would continue to believe in the models.

There’s a continuing effort to improve the GCMs. That’s necessary and applaudable. But, while the models so conspicuously contradict observations, warmists should stop pretending that they are skillful enough to inform policy.

74 Thoughts on “Antarctic ice expands “against odds”

  1. You malign Rob Massom unfairly. The Antarctic is warming, which has caused the westerly wind-flow to increase, which due to a variety of reasons actually results in a an increase of winter sea ice. If you want more detail, read this: http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/25-3_maksym.pdf
    Calling people dishonest because you can’t or don’t wish to understand the science is unacceptable.

    • Thanks for your reference to Antarctic sea ice and climate; it’s very interesting. I would point out that the “pronounced poleward intensification” of the prevailing westerlies results in increased sea ice extent, but it doesn’t increase the amount of sea ice, as you said. I’m curious how the changes to the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) might be anthropogenic, attributed to both CO2 and the ozone hole, considering the chaos that surrounds the quantification of climate sensitivity.

      I can’t lay my hands on the reference I had in mind, but these four will suffice: there’s the UAH temp record, a graph of HadCRUT3 data, and articles from January and April this year. I’d like to see a reference for your assertion Antarctica has been warming.

      I twice accuse Dr Massom of dishonesty and what you say doesn’t change my mind.

      1. In referring to the Larsen B breakup in 2002 (was it that long ago?), he explicitly links it to “rapid change occurring in certain regions of Antarctica.” But the floating shelves constantly break up when they reach a certain size, and it has nothing to do with climate change. As a researcher in the field I would expect him to know this.

      2. His statement “the models are in slight disagreement with what we are observing” is a massive understatement, considering the substantial defects I mentioned. I can only view a working scientist’s minimisation of the defects as a deceit.

  2. A good comparison of the massive sea ice loss in the Arctic vs the very small increase in Antarctic.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/

    The Arctic minimum sea ice extent this year was only half what it used to be in the 1980s. The Antarctic maxima have only increased by about 5% over the same period.

    As Simon has pointed out the Antarctic is warming and to that I would add that the land based ice sheets are showing a net loss of mass.

    • Mike Jowsey on October 6, 2012 at 10:01 pm said:

      “The message is there is a lot of work to better understand what processes are occurring around……” in other words, “please don’t kill the grants which give me authority to teach my minions how to work the System to get more grants”.

      massive sea ice loss in the Arctic vs the very small increase in Antarctic. So emotive Nick. Wake up dude! There is no net sea ice loss globally.

      And even if there was, sea ice is a blipping blip. I don’t even know why anybody bothers with it. I have always discounted this precious canary as being a red herring. Ice comes, ice goes. It proves nothing regards multi-decadal trends. Try again. Or maybe don’t.

    • Mike,

      sea ice is a blipping blip

      :-)

      Confirmed by learning that the “record low” Arctic ice extents were caused by winds and currents, not warming. Or am I just being the master of the bleedin’ obvious again?

    • Nick,

      Good, you confirm there has been an increase in Antarctic sea ice. The point is that the very existence of an increase shows the forecasts of big polar changes and loss of sea ice were wrong, and therefore there’s something wrong with the theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming. Until a prediction is correct, the theory is mistaken.

      Please provide a reference to the warming of Antarctica. Not Steig et al.

    • Nick the NASA article you cite states that west Antarctica is warming, yet east Antarctica has a cooling trend in places.

      We knew this from the issues in the Steig et al paper.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 7, 2012 at 9:03 am said:

      ‘Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al.(2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction’

      R O’Donnell, N Lewis, S McIntyre, J Condon – Journal of Climate, 2011

      “Rather than finding warming concentrated in West Antarctica, the authors find warming over the period of 1957–2006 to be concentrated in the peninsula (≈0.35°C decade−1)”

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3656.1

  3. Hi Mike,
    Global sea ice area has reduced by about 5% or 1 million km^2 since the 90s.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

  4. Richard T,
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239

    Shows increasing Antarctic surface temperatures between 1981 and 2007

  5. Richard T,
    The net loss of mass on the Antarctic ice sheets also points to increasing temperatures

    • Evidence for loss of mass on the Antarctic (and Greenland) ice sheets:

      Rignot et al. 2011. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
      Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice
      sheets to sea level rise

      http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2012-0315-200618/rignot_etal_grl2011.pdf

      Jacob t et al. 2012. Nature
      Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise

      http://www.ualberta.ca/~eec/Jacob_2012_Nature.pdf

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 7, 2012 at 2:34 pm said:

      Evidence for loss of mass [cause] on the [East] Antarctic ice sheet:

      ‘Surface energy balance, melt and sublimation at Neumayer Station, East Antarctica’

      VAN DEN BROEKE, KONIG-LANGLO, PICARD, MUNNEKE and LENAERTS
      2009

      Abstract: A surface energy balance model is forced by 13 years of high-quality hourly observations from
      the Antarctic coastal station Neumayer. The model accurately reproduces observed surface temperatures.
      Surface sublimation is significant in summer, when absorbed solar radiation heats the surface. Including a
      first order estimate of snowdrift sublimation in the calculation more than triples the total sublimation,
      removing 19% of the solid precipitation, indicating that snowdrift sublimation is potentially important for
      the mass balance of Antarctic ice shelves. Surface melt occurs at Neumayer in all summers, but all the
      meltwater refreezes. In two-thirds of the cases, the refreezing is quasi-instantaneous (within the model
      timestep of 6 min), so that no liquid water remains in the snow. For all other events, the occurrence of liquid water in the snowpack at Neumayer agrees well with satellite-based liquid water detection.

      http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2010-0510-200206/download.pdf

      Conclusions

      We show that a surface energy balance model, driven by high-quality hourly observations from the Antarctic coastal station Neumayer, is capable of accurately reproducing observed surface temperatures. For this relatively cold and windy coastal site, surface sublimation is significant only in summer, when absorbed solar radiation heats the surface. Including a first order estimate of snowdrift sublimation more than triples the total (surface plus snowdrift) sublimation, indicating that this is potentially an important process for the mass balance of Antarctic ice shelves.

      Surface melt does occur every summer at Neumayer, but with large interannual variations. The in situ melt that is calculated with the surface energy balance model can be used to validate and improve the representation of surface processes in climate models, e.g. the all-important meltalbedo feedback. A comparison of satellite-detected liquid water days and calculated in situ liquid water in the snow at Neumayer shows a high degree of correlation.

      # # #

      No mention of CO2 or carbon dioxide.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 7, 2012 at 8:19 am said:

      >”The net loss of mass on the Antarctic ice sheets also points to increasing temperatures”

      As for the Arctic, is there a corresponding increase in the anthropogenic component of DLR sufficient to be the cause?

      There certainly wasn’t in the Arctic so fossil fuel emissions were not the cause of temperature increase there. What’s different in the Antarctic?

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 7, 2012 at 12:37 pm said:

      Antarctic DLR fluxes 1987 and 2001 vs aCO2 forcing 1979 – 2005.

      ‘Antarctic Surface Energy Budget Data Set Validation’

      http://stratus.ssec.wisc.edu/products/aseb/validation.html

      Validation Data

      In order to assess the validity of the model output, the radiative and turbulent heat fluxes were compared to surface measurements. The radiative fluxes are compared to measurements taken at Amundsen Scott South Pole Station for the year 1987. The measurements at the South Pole were taken by Dutton et al. (1989) from April 1986 to February 1988.

      Dutton, E.G., R.S. Stone, and J.J. DeLuisi, 1989: South Pole surface radiation balance measurements, April 1986 to February 1988. NOAA Data Rep. ERL ARL-17, 49 pp.

      Radiative Flux Validation

      Figure 1 shows the downwelling longwave flux comparisons at the South Pole.

      South Pole LWDN
      Jan 155
      Aug 90
      Sep 100

      http://stratus.ssec.wisc.edu/products/aseb/pics/lwdn_validation.jpg

      ‘Spectral and Broadband Longwave Downwelling Radiative Fluxes, Cloud Radiative Forcing, and Fractional Cloud Cover over the South Pole’ [2001]

      TOWN, WALDEN and WARREN
      2005

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3525.1

      TABLE 4. Monthly means, and standard deviations (std dev) and standard errors (SEs) of the monthly means of downwelling flux measured by the PAERI and pyrgeometer under all conditions and under clear conditions during 2001. The time series of LDFclear (column 4 mean) is shown in Fig. 8 for broadband and partial band, and the time series of LDCRF (column 3 mean minus column 4 mean) is shown in Fig. 10. All entries below are in W m2.

      PAERI all sky
      Jan 94.3
      Aug 41.6
      Sep 58.1

      Pyrgeometer all sky
      Jan 140
      Aug 85
      Sep 103

      Also see:-

      TABLE 8. Broadband pyrgeometer measurements under all conditions in W m2 for 1992, 2001, and 1994–2002.

      TABLE 7. Seasonal LDFclear from 1992 and 2001….Units are W m2.

      H2O (2001) 83 summer, 48 winter
      CO2 (2001) 35 summer, 23 winter

      By comparison, 1979 to 2005 aCO2 forcing using the IPCC’s forcing expression is 0.0006 W.m2

      Calculation here:-

      http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/09/renowdens-foot-again-finds-his-mouth/#comment-121073

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 7, 2012 at 12:59 pm said:

      Oops, aCO2 1979 – 2005 is 0.02 W.m2 (0.6*0.038) – not 0.0006 W.m2

      Not that it makes any difference.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm said:

      ‘Ten-year global distribution of downwelling longwave radiation’ [1984–1993]

      K. G. Pavlakis, D. Hatzidimitriou, C. Matsoukas, E. Drakakis, N. Hatzianastassiou and I. Vardavas
      2003

      [Model derived values from observations]

      Fig. 8 [page 19]. Time-series of hemispherical DLF anomaly over the ten-year period 1984–1993…..(a) Northern Hemisphere, (b) Southern Hemisphere.

      http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/3/5099/2003/acpd-3-5099-2003-print.pdf

      Clearly, aCO2 (or all CO2) has no control over DLF whatsoever.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on October 7, 2012 at 8:33 am said:

    An Initial Assessment of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent in the CMIP5 Models [AR5]

    John Turner, Tom Bracegirdle, Tony Phillips, Gareth J. Marshall, and J. Scott Hosking

    Journal of Climate 2012

    Abstract
    We examine the annual cycle and trends in Antarctic sea ice extent (SIE) for 18 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 models that were run with historical forcing for the 1850s to 2005. Many of the models have an annual SIE cycle that differs markedly from that observed over the last 30 years. The majority of models have too small a SIE at the minimum in February, while several of the models have less than two thirds of the observed SIE at the September maximum. In contrast to the satellite data, which exhibits a slight increase in SIE, the mean SIE of the models over 1979 – 2005 shows a decrease in each month, with the greatest multi-model mean percentage monthly decline of 13.6% dec-1 in February and the greatest absolute loss of ice of -0.40 × 106 km2 dec-1 in September. The models have very large differences in SIE over 1860 – 2005. Most of the control runs have statistically significant trends in SIE over their full time span and all the models have a negative trend in SIE since the mid-Nineteenth Century. The negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979 – 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.

    # # #

    Since 2005:-

    Antarctic Sea Ice Extent for September 2012 averaged 19.1702 million sq km.
    That is the highest September average of ALL TIME!!!! (during the satellite era).

    Year Average for September (million sq km)
    2012 19.1702
    2006 19.0932
    2009 18.9596
    2004 18.9184
    1998 18.9027
    2000 18.8872
    2007 18.8599
    1980 18.817
    2005 18.8036

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/2012-highest-september-average-antarctic-sea-ice-of-all-time/

  7. Australis on October 7, 2012 at 12:43 pm said:

    The simple fact is that there is strong correlation between the respective fluctuations of sea ice extent (SIE) in the two polar regions. Overall, the global SIE has remained stable throughout the 21st century to date.

    Whatever the respective mechanisms may be, this stability is the entirely predictable result of the fact that there has been no measurable global warming since 2002.

    A corollary is this: If there has been a decrease of global SIE during the past decade, then it must have been caused by something other than global warming.

    • Rob Taylor on October 10, 2012 at 5:24 pm said:

      RT, Australis and Mike Jowsey, your desperate grasping at straws is amusing, if pitiable.

      Forget the sea ice, if it makes you uncomfortable; Earth’s glaciers, including the Greenland and Antarctic land ice sheets are shedding gigatonnes into the sea. Explain that away, if you can…

      Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth’s land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.

      The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth’s glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That’s enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.

      “Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet’s cold regions are responding to global change,” said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study.

      Ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica and their peripheral ice caps and glaciers averaged 385 billion tons (100 cubic miles) a year.

      http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grace20120208.html

    • Rob Taylor on October 11, 2012 at 8:41 am said:

      OK, Bob, here’s some scientific findings re ice mass loss at both poles, now let’s see you discuss them – or is all getting a bit too hard?

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2012 at 11:05 am said:

      >”…here’s some scientific findings re ice mass loss at both poles, now let’s see you discuss them”

      The study period was 2003 and 2010. Has it not occurred to you Rob, that there is a loss-gain-loss cycle in ice mass accumulation e.g. Greenland here:-

      http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ARC-Accum.png

      The study period merely focusses on the latest loss period. This begs the question: if there’s anthro cause, what was the momentous human event in 2000 that kicked off the latest Greenland loss?

      We’ve racked this over umpteen times with Nick – [you're a bit late to the party Rob. - RC, this is true only if we've finished our conversation, which we haven't. - RT]

    • Yes we have covered this at length. This is what we discovered based on peer reviewed evidence:

      1) Greenland ice mass has a natural cycle of as yet undiscovered cause, period or magnitude. This does not preclude an anthropogenic effect

      2) Current Greenland ice mass loss or gain has no detectable effect on SLR. Future Greenland ice loss will raise sea levels proportional to the amount of melt

      3) In the timeframe of the “anthropogenic era”, Greenland ice mass is a non-issue to people who believe the undiscovered cause of the accelerating melt is about to slowdown, stop and then reverse

      4) The current annual loss of ice in Greenland is unprecedented over the entire instrumental record

      5) The current rate of accelerating in ice loss in Greenland is unprecedented over the entire instrumental record

      6) The current peak extent of melt in Greenland is unprecedented over the entire instrumental record

      7) The current low level of Greenland ice mass is unprecedented over the entire instrumental record

      http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/08/ice-cap-scare-just-67-millennia-left/comment-page-1/#comment-112376

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2012 at 12:56 pm said:

      >”This does not preclude an anthropogenic effect”

      Herein lies your problem Nick. I repeat my response to Rob:-

      “The study period merely focusses on the latest loss period. This begs the question: if there’s anthro cause, what was the momentous human event in 2000 that kicked off the latest Greenland loss?”

      I’ve asked you this on previous occasions but you’ve never come up with anything so I don’t expect anything now e.g. here last month:-

      http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/08/ice-cap-scare-just-67-millennia-left/#comment-112213

      Using the anthropogenic actions control Greenland ice mass rationale:-

      1) What anthropogenic actions caused the 1970 loss?

      2) What anthropogenic actions caused the 2000 gain?

      3) What anthropogenic actions caused the 2010 loss?

    • Hi Richard C,
      There are two anthropogenic effects that have dominated the changes in mass of Greenland.

      Increased loss of marine terminating glaciers due to higher water temperatures and increased precipitation due to moister air.

      At different times a different effect dominates which accounts for the changing net rate of loss/accumulation. Given the steeply accelerating loss and recent widespread melting events I expect that terminal melting will continue to dominate with surface melting effects becoming more pronounced.

      So to summaries:

      1) What anthropogenic actions caused the 1970 loss?
      Increased water temperatures due to AGW

      2) What anthropogenic actions caused the 2000 gain?
      Increased precipitation due to AGW

      3) What anthropogenic actions caused the 2010 loss?
      Increased water temperatures due to AGW

      Of course I’m not discounting other effects acting in parallel but I am just listing the main anthropogenic actions as you requested. If you have a list of natural causes then I’m happy to discuss them.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2012 at 1:19 pm said:

      >”At different times a different effect dominates which accounts for the changing net rate of loss/accumulation”

      Why?

      >”Increased water temperatures due to AGW”

      How?

      >”Increased precipitation due to AGW”

      What?

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2012 at 1:29 pm said:

      >”f you have a list of natural causes then I’m happy to discuss them”

      You don’t address them elsewhere so why the enthusiasm now but reticence then?

      Up and down these threads are natural cycle correlations with climate as high as R 0.96 where there’s a solar driver component but the best AGW can do is 0.4 – 0.44 on CO2 concentration and nada on DLR.

      Concentration alone is meaningless so the posited enhanced greenhouse effect is non-existent.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2012 at 2:15 pm said:
    • Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2012 at 10:13 pm said:

      >”If you have a list of natural causes then I’m happy to discuss them”

      On the global scale:-

      1) 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity (including 50% rise in UV) since the Maunder minimum (IPCC 0.12 W/m2).

      ‘Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder minimum’

      Krivova, Vieira and Solanki, 2010

      http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/j317.pdf

      ‘Impacts of Shortwave Penetration Depth on Large-Scale Ocean Circulation and Heat Transport’

      Sweeny et al, 2005

      http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/cos0501.pdf

      2) The magnitude of the surface warming is consistent with direct solar radiative forcing if positive feedback processes such as ice albedo, water vapor/lapse rate and cloud feedbacks are incorporated (0.2 C response to 11 yr solar cycle, correlation 0.84).

      ‘Solar cycle warming at the Earth’s surface in NCEP and ERA-40 data: A linear discriminant analysis’

      Tung and Camp, 2008

      http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/TungCamp08.pdf

      On the regional scale:-

      3) Solar/Hydroclimate Mechanism

      ‘Association Between Solar-Irradiance Variations and Hydroclimatology of Selected Regions of the USA’

      Perry 1995

      http://ks.water.usgs.gov/waterdata/climate/homepage.galway.html

      4) Greenland SMB tracks the AMO.

      ‘Extreme Greenland air temperatures in a warming climate, 1890–2010, and impacts on Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass balance’

      Mernild et al, 2012

      ftp://ftp.bas.ac.uk/dgv/IPCC-submitted-papers/Mernild%20XXX%20Submitted.pdf

      ‘Greenland ice sheet surface melt extent and trends: 1960–2010′

      Mernild et al, 2011

      http://www.igsoc.org:8080/journal/57/204/j11J003.pdf

      SMB

      http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ARC-Accum.png

      AMO

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1957/to:2012

    • Hi Richard C,
      How about you choose one aspect and we discuss that? What you have presented above is a bit of a gish gallop. No offence intended, I’m just slightly time limited.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2012 at 10:54 am said:

      My case stands on its merits and peer-reviewed literature. If you can’t cope with macro/micro, global/regional cases then you’re out of your depth here boyo.

      BTW, where’s the peer-reviewed literature to support your case?

    • Get over yourself

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2012 at 1:20 pm said:

      I would have thought Nick, that if you had a watertight case that you would be able to put it together coherently complete with the supporting peer-reviewed literature that you always demand of others. Instead you spit the dummy.

      Why is that the most common response we get from warmists when challenged to produce the goods? Leaky case, lightweight or no support, and a tantrum.

    • Tell you what Richard, choose one thing and we will discuss it. Then we will move on to the next thing.

      I’m not particularly claiming to have a water tight case, that is why I’m exploring it here. However your insistence on presenting all the papers you can think of in one go with very little in the way of critical analysis is unhelpful. As is your patronising tone.

      As I said I’m time limited at the moment so you will have to content yourself with the echos of your own voice for a while. I’m sure that’s how you prefer it.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2012 at 2:39 pm said:

      >”…your insistence on presenting all the papers you can think of in one go with very little in the way of critical analysis is unhelpful”

      It’s just a matter of going through all the papers (as I did along with a stack of others) then join the dots from the analysis already detailed in the papers with your own critique. I did it in one evening, how hard can that be over a few days? It is also what I will have do if you actually compile a counter-case even just for Greenland SMB.

      If you only want to address one issue at a time, and even that subordinate to the core issues of the climate change debate then you’ll have to find another sounding board.

      >”As is your patronising tone”

      Likewise.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2012 at 9:04 am said:

      >”….these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise…”

      Meanwhile sea level fell 5mm last year (an -8mm turnaround from the +3mm trend) and that’s been the situation in a negative PDO/La Nina dominated climate lately.

      BTW, It must be upsetting that the latest El Nino’s dying Rob – will you be holding a wake over at HT?

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2012 at 9:14 am said:

      >”…here’s some scientific findings re ice mass loss at both poles, now let’s see you discuss them”

      OK, there’s no anthro attribution, no anthro correlation, no anthro-centric mechanism.

    • Rob Taylor on October 11, 2012 at 8:57 pm said:

      What arrant nonsense. You simply hide your head under the pillows and conjure up imaginary “cycles”, Gods, volcanoes and / or unicorns to defend yourselves against the uncomfortable and inconvenient fact of massive accelerating ice melt across most of the Earth’s surface. [You exaggerate while ignoring our questions. You sound scientific while ignoring science. See, Gods were mentioned only in connection with droughts and floods, which humanity certainly does not create, and in a list of three or four equivalent names, such as nature. Nobody has mentioned unicorns but you. You suggest others said what they didn't say. The name for this is falsehood. Have you offered a reference for "massive accelerating ice melt across most of the Earth's surface"? Why did the sea level decline last year by - RT]

      The name for this is intellectual and moral cowardice. [That's three names. - RT]

    • Rob Taylor on October 11, 2012 at 9:29 pm said:

      D’oh, RT, that’s three words that make up one name.

      Why did the sea level fall recently? Here’s the science, which you could find for yourself if you were genuinely interested:

      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL053055.shtml

    • What a gish gallop. You’ve forgotten your own words. How do you reconcile that non-AGW drop in sea level with “massive accelerating ice melt across most of the Earth’s surface” caused, apparently, by severe AGW?

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2012 at 10:37 pm said:

      >”What arrant nonsense”

      Really?

      Where is the anthro attribution for ice mass loss at both poles?

      Where is the anthro correlation for ice mass loss at both poles?

      Where is the anthro-centric mechanism for ice mass loss at both poles?

  8. Gary Kerkin on October 7, 2012 at 4:08 pm said:

    “Nick says:
    October 6, 2012 at 10:45 pm
    Richard T,
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239

    Shows increasing Antarctic surface temperatures between 1981 and 2007″

    This is not exactly useful. The graphs shows anomalies increasing, but as far as I can determined the average temperature over the continent are substantially below zero. Presumably any melt occurring at the surface will, therefore, be refrozen immediately.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on October 7, 2012 at 8:40 pm said:

    The Earth Observatory Sea Surface Temperature animation is a fascinating watch. It shows both Arctic and Antarctic SIE 2002 – 2012.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M

  10. Pingback: Prat watch #7.5: No, you’re not entitled to your opinion

  11. Rob Taylor on October 12, 2012 at 3:04 am said:

    How do you reconcile that non-AGW drop in sea level with “massive accelerating ice melt across most of the Earth’s surface” caused, apparently, by severe AGW?

    D’oh! RT, in the world that most of us inhabit, more than one thing can be happening at any given time…

    The sea level is rising long term, due to ice melt and thermal expansion of the oceans, with short-term modulation by the ENSO and other cycles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

    PS: If you’re not sure what “modulation” means, turn on your radio. The music and voices you hear are conveyed by modulating either the amplitude or frequency of the underlying carrier wave.

  12. Rob Taylor on October 12, 2012 at 3:46 pm said:

    Yeah, time for a swim and a barbie!

  13. So ok so its the largest sea ice formation in 30 years .. strangely yet another record . Doesn’t that tell you something is going on ? . Thing to understand is that the climate is very complex . The earths heat flows are being altered . Some years ago CO2 deniers pointed out with glee that there was an increase in water vapour/cloud cover which is a green house gas and so this dismissed the notion of manmade CO2 being the culprit of global warming . What the deniers forgot is the reason there is more water vapour IS BECAUSE the heat out to space is blocked by CO2 (+CH4) and so raised the global temperature which then raised water vapour . In fact global water vapour/humidity has risen 4% since the 1970′s . And as we can see more water vapour means more intense rain and heavier snowfalls . So don’t be so quick to run around saying ‘record sea ice proves the global warming is wrong ‘ .. or once again climate deniers will need a big scrubbing brush to take the egg off their faces when we find out there is nothing wrong with the theory.

    • Yes Dan, everything is caused by CO2 , even if it is the exact opposite of what the IPCC said.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2012 at 8:46 am said:

      >”Some years ago CO2 deniers pointed out with glee that there was an increase in water vapour/cloud cover”

      “CO2 deniers”? Not many of those Dan. Were they referring to the Antarctic or world-wide? Regional effects are not necessarily global effects. However, wouldn’t a global AGW effect be the same at both polar regions? That’s what AGW predicted but it’s not happening.

      You’ll find with a little research that the case by sceptics of the enhanced GHG effect is a little different than whatever you’re imagining Dan (your “CO2 denier” case). Cloud cover is both an albedo effect (increase cools by radiative reflection, decrease warms by insolation) and a spectroscopic (DLR) effect. But DLR (GHGs+clouds) is ineffective as a heating agent. Cloud cover varies obviously, less and more on a decadal scale i.e. a feedback. Sceptics argue that feedbacks on temperature are negative, AGW says feedbacks are positive. There is no evidence of positive feedback but plenty for negative.

      Water vapour is a DLR effect but an increase (at upper tropical troposphere specifically) is the AGW case – not the sceptic case. WV measurement is only recently returning information that is even remotely reliable but indications are that although there may be a WV increase at surface, there’s been a decrease at the AGW-critical upper tropical troposphere level (i.e. no positive feedback and no AGW “hotspot”). Over this first period of the 21st century, the WV increase at the surface has not translated into atmospheric warming either.

      The case for increased CO2 causing warming falls flat because a) the warming effectiveness of the emitted LWIR is limited to low levels of CO2 (less than present) due to the characteristics of the gas (actually a refrigerant), and b) there’s been no observed DLR increase corresponding to the increase in CO2 levels

      The AGW theory – as it turns out – IS wrong, and the egg is definitely not on sceptics faces. In any event, the climate variations since the LIA have solar explanations.

    • Dan:

      …largest sea ice formation in 30 years .. strangely yet another record.

      A record over 30 years is trivial on climatic timescales. We’ve only had satellites in place since the late seventies, so in terms of polar ice, we’ve really only just started measuring.

      So don’t be so quick to run around saying ‘record sea ice proves the global warming is wrong ‘

      Why then are the alarmists running around saying ‘record sea ice proves the global warming is right’?

  14. katesisco on December 30, 2012 at 2:25 pm said:

    The end of 2012 is here, 2013 in two days.
    Isn’t this about the solar magnetic reversal?
    The one that hasn’t happened?
    If the sun keeps its two south poles would that mean
    a cold 30 degree N&S of equator and warmer poles?

    Remember the tales of Brenden and St Pat cruising the North Sea in their little cockle shell?

  15. i have to say the venom expressed by the pro warming crowd in these comments comes across as frustrated desperation. Here’s a hint for the warmistas, if you ignore the evidence because it doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas then your ship is guaranteed to run onto the rocks eventually. Your desperation is because you can hear the grating on the bottom of the ship yet you put your fingers in your ears in the hope the sound will fade. Your frustration & desperation are the result of the disparity between theory and observation. Really guys, when are you going to face the reality that your AGW theory has failed all it’s fundamental criteria – no warming despite rising CO2, no tropospheric hot spot therefore no water vapour feedback.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Post Navigation