Note: this is a NASA illustration for the purpose of this story, it is not from the peer reviewed paper.
There is a a peer-reviewed study in the April 5th issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters. It is by Andrew Monaghan of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO. “This is a really important exercise for these climate models,” he said.
Monaghan and his team found that while climate models projected temperature increases of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.75 degrees Celsius) over the past century, temperatures were observed to have risen by only 0.4 F (0.2 C). “This is showing us that, over the past century, most of Antarctica has not undergone the fairly dramatic warming that has affected the rest of the globe,” Monaghan said. The gap between prediction and reality seemed to be caused by the models overestimating the amount of water vapor in the Antarctic atmosphere. ”
“The research clearly shows that you can actually slow down sea-level rise when you increase temperatures over Antarctica because snowfall increases, but warmer temperatures also have the potential to speed up sea-level rise due to enhanced melting along the edges of Antarctica,” Monaghan said.The gap between prediction and reality seemed to be caused by the models overestimating the amount of water vapor in the Antarctic atmosphere. The cold air over the southernmost continent handles moisture differently than the atmosphere over warmer regions.
But they fail to recognize that there may be a volcanic heat source as well such as the volcanic mountain range comprising much of the Antarctic Peninsula, including volcanoes such as the Seal Nunataks around the Larsen Ice shelf and under the Ross Ice Shelf here.
Volcanic Map Temperature Trends
Antarctica has no statistically significant warming for the last three decades.
There is also a writeup on this new paper at Livescience titled Cold Water Thrown on Antarctic Warming Predictions
Where’s Deception Island on that Vulcanism map? I’ve been there it’s awesome.
http://www.deceptionisland.aq/
Ah crap, nevermind, I missed it the first time. Now I see it.
As a sceptic, I would still say that stories like this are very dubious, even if they confirm our beliefs. The claim that Antarctica warming had been measured at 0.2 deg C in the past 100 years sets my BS antenna quivering. How are we supposed to take such a measurement seriously when no location in Antarctica has temperature records going back more than 50 years, and vast tracts of the continent have no records at all?
Personally, I think that any warming (or cooling) claims measured in tenths of a degree over a century, from surface stations anywhere in the world, should be regarded very sceptically.
the fairly dramatic warming that has affected the rest of the globe
The rest of the globe clearly excludes the SH, which has had no significant warming over the 30 year satellite era and there was no measurement over most of the SH hemisphere prior to that period for rather obvious reasons (It’s mostly ocean).
Otherwise, the Antarctic Peninsula isn’t a peninsula. It’s an island. And Antarctica looks more like an archipeligo than a continent. So in terms of vulcanism, it may well be more like Indonesia than Australia.
Antarctica under the ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AntarcticaRockSurface.jpg
Wasn’t there some GISS Ozone hole model that “fixed” this problem? Well, I know of at least one explanation for the difference noted here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0612/0612145v1.pdf
Anthony,
The Antarctica picture that you have shown has been updated by NASA here, where they also explain the reason for the update.
The study confirms what we’ve long suspected…the models have grossly exaggerated future events. The model predictions were about 3.5 times higher than what has been actually observed.
And I agree with braddles. A temperature increase of 0.2°C for 100 years is for all practical purposes a flat trend. Now compare that with the CO2 increase. Any correlation?
The NASA figure is mislabeled. Portions of Antarctica can not be warming and cooling at .2C/year; maybe /decade or /century? (Unless it is talking about
very short term fluctuations, like what happened last year?)
The models did, however, correctly capture the increases in snowfall over Antarctica in the late 20th century, followed by a decrease in the last decade.
I want to see where the models predicted a decrease in temperature over the last decade. And when was Andrew Monaghan of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Co going to announce this cooling of Antarctica predicted by climate models? It seems to me that he waited all through the rise of Gorebal warming hysteria without saying a discouraging word.
I have to float my stick with braddles. This guy’s a liar. You can tell because his lips are moving.
But wait. I thought the braintrust at Realclimate said Antarctica was going just as predicted…?
NASA claims to have updated the image, Temperature Trends, which shows far less cooling.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17838
Given NASA’s lack of transparency when adjusting time series data, not sure what to think of it.
JoeH
‘Scuse the de-lurking. While I’ve enjoyed the varied comments here, the whole AGW debate seems to be more generally driven by attitudes rather than science. I had some problems over at tamino.wordpress.com.
– Tamino claimed that s/he could legitimately start his/her warming series from 1975 because objective mathematical analysis indicated that was the the turning point. So I asked, if Tamino was so good at picking turning points, when was the next one coming? Or would the seas boil in a few thousand years?
– Tamino also presented and defended an English temperate series in which smoothed data showed a substantial recent peak. I look at the graphs, and concluded that the peak was not justified by averaging, and so the “smoothing” must have included a trend element. So I asked whether the “smoothing” included a trend.
Neither question made it through moderation.
Is that the standard for debate in this part of the blogosphere?
REPLY: Yep, SOP. If you really want to test moderation, try asking when there will be a response to McIntyres criticisms of Tamino’s defense of the MBH 98 tree ring study that evolved the hockey stick.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2869
and
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2897
Does anyone have an “input deck” to one of these climate modeling codes that you could share with the rest of us? I know this question assumes that these guys actually still do the calculations rather than pulling answers from parts unnamed (a dubious assumption).
If these codes are anything like the radiation transport codes that I work with, then we will likely need an interpreter to let us know what the gibberish in the input means. If we could all look at the input and the assumption of these calculations that ALWAYS get the wrong answers, then maybe we could help these modelers improve on their predictions. I doubt that this would help, but maybe it is worth a shot.
http://depriest-mpu.blogspot.com/2008/03/problem-of-choice-making-assumptions_23.html
http://depriest-mpu.blogspot.com/2008/05/it-doesnt-add-up.html
You have these sentences twice:
“The gap between prediction and reality seemed to be caused by the models overestimating the amount of water vapor in the Antarctic atmosphere. The cold air over the southernmost continent handles moisture differently than the atmosphere over warmer regions.”
braddles, I agree. I’ve become a skeptic of everything lately and especially in the case of Antarctica where there simply isn’t enough data to make firm conclusions.
Many AGW proponents say that the cooling of the Antartic was forecasted in the GCMs scenarios.
Generally, it seems the models over-predict warming by a factor of 2 or 3. Primarily, this results from the assumptions that increased GHGs lead to increased temperature which leads to increased water vapour which leads to further warming etc.
The increased water vapour assumption does not appear to hold true in Antarctica, the tropics, and the tropopause region of the atmosphere. The science is still out on the lower atmosphere of middle latitudes and the Arctic.
If the models are indeed out by a factor of 2, such that warming is only 1.5C per doubling of GHGs, then global warming will be nothing to worry about at all.
Making sure the models are accurate (about temperature and increased water vapour) is the difference between the scenarios being “nothing to worry about” or being “a significant problem for the planet.”
Just get it right you modelers and base your model assumptions on the impacts which actually happen versus those that are theorized.
In accordance with AGHG theory, shouldn’t the SH warm more than the rest of the globe? (more ice to melt, more water to vaporize, etc.)
Bill, they also seem overestimate cooling by about half. Makes room for the extra GHG and feedbacks warming. Don’t remember where, probably CA, but I remeber seeing example of how most models overshoot cooling after volcanoes and the subsequent warming as the added aerosols dispate and GHGs don’t.
‘Dissipates’ is not a good word, but I don’t know what is.
Bill,
Dyson Freeman has repeatedly stated that there’s an inherent contradiction in the claims that CO2’s marginal effect in humid air could result in such large water vapor (WV) feedbacks when its effects in dry air would prove the most pronounced. The NASA/GISS Dept. of Creative Data reinforces his point by in turn fudging the WV effects in Antarctica (never mind the big interpolations…).
What really gets me about this report are the continued claims of the effects of the ozone hole on winds & air temperature. That’s a lynch pin that holds up their entire message against CO2 complacency. This paper cites the ozone hole as holding temperatures down, but the ozone hole didn’t appear until the mid-1980’s, so their claims don’t hold until then, which puts their ozone hole statement completely into question.
I’m still at a loss, honestly, to understand how more UV entering the atmosphere can change pressure differentials in the atmosphere (as is claimed by the statement that the ozone hole is leading to increased winds). UV doesn’t translate to IR, and IR is the only thing I can fathom would ever lead to changes in air pressure. The ozone hole is a regional difference in oxygen chemistry, not a thinner patch of air with lower air pressure.
That is, the amount of total net atmosphere over the continent is the same, whether there’s O2 or O3 in the ozone layer. Nor have I heard any claims that the ozone layer in any way is involved in releasing or containing radiative heat. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. So how is it that the ozone hole can have a role in air pressure and wind?
Again, the ozone hole didn’t appear until the mid-1980’s, but they claim that the temperature trend is 50 – 100 years and then skip onward as though the ozone hole was involved in holding temperatures down for the entire duration. Looks like a big discontinuity in reason to me. If the climate models were this wrong, then what else did they get wrong? How many more warming-only hypothesis reversals do we need to endure before someone in the AGW camp finally has the temerity to toss off the entire mess?
Hmmm let me see if I remember correctly if the water warms then it evaporates faster causing the remaining water to cool. The evaporated water is water vapor. The water vapor then rises due to being warmer than the cooled surface of the water. Let me think yep the water vapor rises into cooler atmosphere and condenses causing clouds. Now if I remember clouds look white when exposed to sunlight. and that would be the top of the clouds and the part of the cloud that isn’t exposed looks dark. If that is true the tops of the clouds would reflect at least the visual spectrum of the suns energy away from earth and the dark lower would absorb the heat radiated from the surface warming the vapor more making it to rise further into cooler areas perhaps causing rain. Rain evaporates partially falling to earth and cools the near surface atmosphere and the surface of the earth causing less water vapor. Less water vapor the clouds thin and clear allowing more sun to reach the surface causing heat and then water evaporates causing more water vapor. and we start all over again.
It seems that water vapor might be the controlling factor when considered along with the forcing of the sun that keeps the other GHG in check… This is just the thoughts of a non scientists remembering some of the earth science taught more than 40 years ago in high school.
I think it is time to review what we really know about water vapor and how it really effects the temperature. It seems that with the action of the forcing of the sun it might either cause retention of heat or the radiative loss of heat.
Am I confused.
Bill Derryberry
papertiger,
New & improved constantly shifting rationale are the bestest and surestest signs of smart people realizing they effed up. I find it remarkable how the old warming-only figure was 0.7 degrC, pretty much matched to the current H-CRUT trend line, etc.
” Ooops. Crap! We were off by 3x? S***, sh**, sh** ! What do we do now?”
Professional egos overly invested in stating a large risk (typically based on known unknowns, risk mgm’t for the neurotic) can be bad enough, but when their assumed knowned facts fall on the blade of empiricism, the shortcomings of expertise rear their head in very amusing ways.
First, CYA.
The scale seems ‘way off. It can’t be by year. By century, maybe? Please clarify.
REPLY: Evan, what are your referring to?
Malcolm,
I’ve tried to post links to sunspot movement & spotless day trends on Andy Revkin’s “dot Earth” NYT blog after I got flamed for remarking on the forecast for SC#25.
No go. My comments went into the bit bucket. Thrice now. There’s a trend here.
They do let my posts through if I don’t put direct link-cites in my posts (other posters can) or commentaries on Al Gore. So long as I look enough like a know-nothing “denier” the posts go through.
I’m good agitprop for the denizens. Nice trick, and the NYT doesn’t even have to pay me for my services.