Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

magnifier661

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
59,328
Likes
5,588
Points
113
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ord-high-saturday/?postshare=5511444401234491

Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday
imrs.php


National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.

imrs.php


Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington scientist, studying Antarctic ice. “Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists.”

In a new study in the Journal of Climate, Zhang finds both strengthening and converging winds around the South Pole can explain 80 percent of the increase in ice volume which has been observed.

“The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it has more convergence, meaning it shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging,” the study’s press release explains. “Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth.”

But no one seems to have a conclusive answer as to why winds are behaving this way.

“I haven’t seen a clear explanation yet of why the winds have gotten stronger,” Zhang told Michael Lemonick of Climate Central.

Some point to stratospheric ozone depletion, but a new study published in the Journal of Climate notes that computer models simulate declining – not increasing – Antarctic sea ice in recent decades due to this phenomenon (aka the ozone “hole”).

“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes.

A recent study by Lorenzo Polvani and Karen Smith of Columbia University says the model-defying sea ice increase may just reflect natural variability.

If the increase in ice is due to natural variability, Zhang says, warming from manmade greenhouse gases should eventually overcome it and cause the ice to begin retreating.

“If the warming continues, at some point the trend will reverse,” Zhang said.

However, a conclusion of the Barnes study is that the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer – now underway – may slow/delay Antarctic warming and ice melt.

Ultimately, it’s apparent the relationship between ozone depletion, climate warming from greenhouse gases, natural variability, and how Antarctic ice responds is all very complicated. In sharp contrast, in the Arctic, there seems to be a relatively straight forward relationship between temperature and ice extent.

Thus, in the Antarctic, we shouldn’t necessarily expect to witness the kind of steep decline in ice that has occurred in the Arctic.

“…the seeming paradox of Antarctic ice increasing while Arctic ice is decreasing is really no paradox at all,” explains Climate Central’s Lemonick. “The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, moreover, you’ve got sea ice decreasing in the summer; at the opposite pole, you’ve got sea ice increasing in the winter. It’s not just an apples-and-oranges comparison: it’s more like comparing apple pie with orange juice.”
 
The "average world temperature" is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998, when rising temperatures reversed. There is still global climate change, but no longer global climate warming.

no_global_warning-bw.jpg
 
NASA? What do those hacks know about anything? They thought Matt Damon was dead on Mars when he clearly WAS NOT.

Pretty OK movie. I thought the home-made-bomb-detonation-brake-thing was a little stupid, but entertaining nonetheless.
 
Pretty OK movie. I thought the home-made-bomb-detonation-brake-thing was a little stupid, but entertaining nonetheless.

Haven't seen the movie yet actually. I did read the book, and enjoyed it.
 
I'm not looking to stir up shit, but would you mind sharing the URL/source of that graphic? It doesn't jive with the temperature data I'm looking at here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Fair request.

You can start by studying this site. http://www.remss.com/research/climate

Their research shows the most northern hemisphere has continued to warm. However, the tropics and south have stopped warming and cooled slightly. The overall affect is a lower “average global temperature".

Here is another chart that goes back to 1980 that shows the rise, the fall, and then leveling off of the average global temperature. This graph matches the original chart I posted for the same time frame.

RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png

The problem with the charts in the link you posted is, they go back so many decades they hide the recent global cooling that has taken place over the last 17 years. Temps is the USA are higher, but not world wide.
 
The link in my post does not work for me here. (not sure why) You may need to do a Google search for:

Climate Analysis, Remote Sensing Systems
 
You pasted it wrong.

Two http at the front, i think
 
What about "the blob" off the oregon coast? I think the ocean is absorbing more carbon an heat than anticipated.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 
What about "the blob" off the oregon coast? I think the ocean is absorbing more carbon an heat than anticipated.

I am sure glad the scientists and researchers finally found the “blob” of warm water off of the coast of Oregon and Washington. It took them long enough.

We ocean fishermen have been fishing that warm water blob for decades, only we call it the tuna highway.

The warm water blob starts around Hawaii every year at the end of winter. It crosses the ocean to northern Baja, picks up the waiting Albacore tuna schools. Then the blob, or tuna highway, moves north every spring and usually arrives off of Oregon coast around the end of June. When the blob arrives, the Albacore fishing goes off big time.

The Albacore that we do not catch in the PNW blob leave about this time of the year to travel to the waters around Japan to spawn.

The Native American Indians have been fishing the warm water blob for thousands of years. Excavation of thousands of year old Native American Indian settlements along the Oregon and WA coast has provided remnants of tuna skeletons.
 
Last edited:

I encourage everybody to actually read through the findings here.

Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

  • Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
  • Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
  • The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.


But....

  • The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.
So at best you can say the models over-predict the rate of increase in global temperature, but the trends still point up in the data.
 
Not only the antarctic...

1409435267461_Image_galleryImage_polar1_JPG.JPG

And...

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654

Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013

Wrong again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rctic-sea-ice-has-not-recovered-in-7-visuals/

The most misleading aspect of all this supposed measurement is that it is not a true volume measurement, but basically a 2 dimensional measurement of surface area.

Over 90% of an iceberg's volume (and mass) is underwater. As an iceberg thaws and breaks up, the pieces rise to the surface and cover additional surface. So an increase in sea ice by this measurement is most likely consistent with continual thawing and breaking up of sea ice due to climate change.

This can be demonstrated with this easy experiment I learned in first grade.

One ice cube will not cover the top of your drink, but smash the ice cube into slush and it will.
 
Man can dam a river but only god can damn a planet.

Learn this, love this, live this. We can not destroy what god has created. If the planet was really warming prayer would stop it.
 
Wrong again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rctic-sea-ice-has-not-recovered-in-7-visuals/

The most misleading aspect of all this supposed measurement is that it is not a true volume measurement, but basically a 2 dimensional measurement of surface area.

Over 90% of an iceberg's volume (and mass) is underwater. As an iceberg thaws and breaks up, the pieces rise to the surface and cover additional surface. So an increase in sea ice by this measurement is most likely consistent with continual thawing and breaking up of sea ice due to climate change.

This can be demonstrated with this easy experiment I learned in first grade.

One ice cube will not cover the top of your drink, but smash the ice cube into slush and it will.

Did they teach you in first grade that more means MORE (not less)?


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n8/full/ngeo2489.html

Increased Arctic sea ice volume after anomalously low melting in 2013
Nature Geoscience 8, 643–646 (2015)

Changes in Arctic sea ice volume affect regional heat and freshwater budgets and patterns of atmospheric circulation at lower latitudes. Despite a well-documented decline in summer Arctic sea ice extent by about 40% since the late 1970s, it has been difficult to quantify trends in sea ice volume because detailed thickness observations have been lacking. Here we present an assessment of the changes in Northern Hemisphere sea ice thickness and volume using five years of CryoSat-2 measurements. Between autumn 2010 and 2012, there was a 14% reduction in Arctic sea ice volume, in keeping with the long-term decline in extent. However, we observe 33% and 25% more ice in autumn 2013 and 2014, respectively, relative to the 2010–2012 seasonal mean, which offset earlier losses. This increase was caused by the retention of thick sea ice northwest of Greenland during 2013 which, in turn, was associated with a 5% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred—conditions more typical of the late 1990s. In contrast, springtime Arctic sea ice volume has remained stable. The sharp increase in sea ice volume after just one cool summer suggests that Arctic sea ice may be more resilient than has been previously considered.
 
I encourage everybody to actually read through the findings here.

...See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data...

So at best you can say the models over-predict the rate of increase in global temperature, but the trends still point up in the data.

Santer et al:

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/1/26.abstract

We perform a multimodel detection and attribution study with climate model simulation output and satellite-based measurements of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature change. We use simulation output from 20 climate models participating in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. This multimodel archive provides estimates of the signal pattern in response to combined anthropogenic and natural external forcing (the fingerprint) and the noise of internally generated variability.

...

Despite such agreement in the large-scale features of model and observed geographical patterns of atmospheric temperature change, most models do not replicate the size of the observed changes. On average, the models analyzed underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere.

(The models have been horribly inaccurate)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
February 7th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):



Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
 
Last edited:
Santer et al:

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/1/26.abstract

We perform a multimodel detection and attribution study with climate model simulation output and satellite-based measurements of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature change. We use simulation output from 20 climate models participating in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. This multimodel archive provides estimates of the signal pattern in response to combined anthropogenic and natural external forcing (the fingerprint) and the noise of internally generated variability.

...

Despite such agreement in the large-scale features of model and observed geographical patterns of atmospheric temperature change, most models do not replicate the size of the observed changes. On average, the models analyzed underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere.

(The models have been horribly inaccurate)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
February 7th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):



Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
I think what Maris was trying to say(?) is that when you break up a large object into smaller pieces, you create more surface area. Simple physics. That very much could be a possible explanation for the increase. All the data that is being provided doesn't provide a definitive answer at this time. Same with climate change. The information is inconclusive for the most part. Or that's my take, since scientists, politicians and science geeks can't seem to agree on whether climate change/global warming even exists. Depends on your politics I guess. So Maris's opinion is as good as any right now...
 
I think what Maris was trying to say(?) is that when you break up a large object into smaller pieces, you create more surface area. Simple physics. That very much could be a possible explanation for the increase. All the data that is being provided doesn't provide a definitive answer at this time. Same with climate change. The information is inconclusive for the most part. Or that's my take, since scientists, politicians and science geeks can't seem to agree on whether climate change/global warming even exists. Depends on your politics I guess. So Maris's opinion is as good as any right now...

The artcic ice thickness increase was addressed.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top