Antarctica's ice story has been put on ice

From World Climate Report: Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era

Where are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention?

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.

Figure 1. Standardized values of the Antarctic snow melt index (October-January) from 1980-2009 (adapted from Tedesco and Monaghan, 2009).

The silence surrounding this publication was deafening.

It would seem that with oft-stoked fears of a disastrous sea level rise coming this century any news that perhaps some signs may not be pointing to its imminent arrival would be greeted by a huge sigh of relief from all inhabitants of earth (not only the low-lying ones, but also the high-living ones, respectively under threat from rising seas or rising energy costs).

But not a peep.

But such is not always the case—or rather, such is not ever the case when ice melt is pushing the other end of the record scale.

For instance, below is a collection of NASA stories highlighting record high amounts of melting (or in most cases, simply higher than normal amounts in some regions) across Greenland in each of the past 3 years, as ascertained by Marco Tedesco (the lead author of the latest report on Antarctica):

NASA Researcher Finds Days of Snow Melting on the Rise in Greenland

“In 2006, Greenland experienced more days of melting snow and at higher altitudes than average over the past 18 years, according to a new NASA-funded project using satellite observations….”

NASA Finds Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High in High Places

“A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average. In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface size of the U.S…”

Melting on the Greenland Ice Cap, 2008

“The northern fringes of Greenland’s ice sheet experienced extreme melting in 2008, according to NASA scientist Marco Tedesco and his colleagues.”

And lest you think that perhaps NASA hasn’t had any data on ice melt across Antarctica in past years, we give you this one:

NASA Researchers Find Snowmelt in Antarctica Creeping Inland

“On the world’s coldest continent of Antarctica, the landscape is so vast and varied that only satellites can fully capture the extent of changes in the snow melting across its valleys, mountains, glaciers and ice shelves. In a new NASA study, researchers [including Marco Tedesco] using 20 years of data from space-based sensors have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on Antarctica’s largest ice shelf.”

But this time around, nothing, nada, zippo from NASA when their ice melt go-to guy Marco Tedesco reports that Antarctica has set a record for the lack of surface ice melt (even more interestingly coming on the heels of a near-record low ice-melt year last summer).

So, seriously, NASA, what gives? If ice melt is an important enough topic to warrant annual updates of the goings-on across Greenland, it is not important enough to elucidate the history and recent behavior across Antarctica?

(These are not meant as rhetorical questions)

Reference

Tedesco M., and A. J. Monaghan, 2009. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

83 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
3x2
October 8, 2009 1:17 am

Is that the sound of Crickets chirping? Is anyone surprised?
Only catastrophe sells, “Antarctic Ice Normal”… meanwhile in other news Terry the Terrier saved his owner by dialling 911 ….
I’m sure that somebody somewhere is going through the usual contortions to link more Ice to global warming and will be along soon.
Having said that, only in the AGW era could we consider more Ice better. To most life on this Planet Ice means death.

Mike M.
October 8, 2009 1:19 am

Good grief, go to bed! How many hours of sleep do you get a night? Do you leave auto-posts like Instapundit, or what? 🙂

Telboy
October 8, 2009 1:48 am

Mike M.
Not all readers of WUWT live in your time zone, so not all of us are insomniacs! Seriously, though, it looks like another case of the dog not barking in the night.

meemoe_uk
October 8, 2009 1:59 am

most here already knew NASA had been captured to be used as an AGW soapbox. Under the command of the Internation Money Changer Cartel, NASA’s James Hansen started AGW rhetoric back in 1988, seemingly a result of the 1987 4th World Wilderness Congress where Rothschild announced the World Conservation Bank and plans to cut back on CO2.

Alan the Brit
October 8, 2009 2:13 am

No kidding? How many journos do you know who actually believe the crap they write? News travels fast, bad news travels faster still! It’s not about the “news” story, it’s about how they can sensationalise it for maximum effect. The way round this sort of “negative” news (AGW-wise) is to resort to that classic Greenie methodology, re-cycling. So they will re-cycle old “positive” news stories instead, watch this space & I will be proven right!
OT, but interesting IMHO, BBC tv weather presenter the other day told us about the “mish-mash” of weather the UK would be getting over the next few days, sort of you name we get it kind of thing. He finished by saying that this was “typical” of our October climate!!!!!!!! If things are changing “faster than experts expected”, then how can this be “typical” climate? Surely this unpredictability must be a direct effect of Climate Change? Me thinks the cat may just be pushing its nose out of the bag!

TC
October 8, 2009 2:14 am

No, someone screwed up and forgot to inverse the graph 😉

Patrick Davis
October 8, 2009 2:18 am

Because the politics is settled. It’s spring here in Aus, and it’s quite a bit cooler than average.

P Gosselin
October 8, 2009 2:20 am

Send this report to Copenhagen.
By the way, why would the south pole behave differently from the north pole?
Comments anyone?

Patrik
October 8, 2009 2:36 am

They’re probably working on “homogenizing” these results away. 😉
After that the media coverage will come! 😀

Bob Shapiro
October 8, 2009 2:50 am

“NASA Finds Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High in High Places
… the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface size of the U.S…”
So, the scientists at NASA think that volume is interchangeable with surface area?

Espen
October 8, 2009 3:11 am

Hmm, last time I saw any news on snow & ice in Antarctica in the last few weeks, it was BBC running a story on Pine Island Glacier (and others) getting thinner: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8272357.stm
I think we need a large volcanic eruption near the Pine Island Glacier before they stop using that as evidence of seal level rise to come… Or maybe we have to wait for Antarctic sea ice to close the sea passage around Cape Horn?

MattN
October 8, 2009 3:24 am

Once again, not surprising.
Other facts you won’t hear: 5 of the 6 highest ice extent ever in Antartica have occured in the last 10 years…

Graeme Rodaughan
October 8, 2009 3:53 am

I don’t believe it – how could this be – Steig et al 2009 said it was getting warmer…
I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!

rbateman
October 8, 2009 4:01 am

So, how much has this extra accumulation dropped the sea levels?
You know, the very condition no one has ever stopped for a single moment to consider the effects of?
All this effort spent on cherry-picking whatever catastrophic melting than can be dragged out of no-man’s land, and all the while the Polar Opposite has been going down.
All you number crunchers out there: Tell me how much the sea level can possibly drop if you have the all-time record accumulations & retentions of snow & ice going on in both poles simultaneously?

Rhys Jaggar
October 8, 2009 4:11 am

What is required with this is the ‘Adlai Stevenson’ moment.
The brutal confrontation of the warmist guru with AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. In front of the world’s media. And with global headlines the intent.
Who is the best person to do that? Which media organs will write the copy and broadcast it top of the evening news??
And when and where should it take place??
Scientists all (by that I mean those who value dispassionate data analysis, not those who are called ‘Chief Scientific Advisors’ (some CSAs are scientists, others are lying mouthpieces)) should be considering this crucial piece of drama as key to restoring scientific enquiry to its rightful place.
A guide to effective political decision-making.
Not a PR machine to peddle South Sea bubbles.

Craig Fram Belvidere
October 8, 2009 4:15 am

The amount of ice melted should be directly proportional to the amount of ice available to melt. If the total ice was at record high levels (and record distances north of the pole) and there was record low melt it would mean one thing but if the total ice level was at record low levels before the melt it would mean another. This seems to give an incomplete picture of the situation in the Antarctic.
On the other hand, if you are just using the article to point out the stilted view of the MSM and ruling political class this works.

Engiiner
October 8, 2009 4:28 am

I hate to be a groupie, especially when the party line is this blatant.
I listen to both sides of the AGW issue, searching for the truth. The fact that the ocean surface is anomalousy WARM in many areas (http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/hydro/hydrosphere/latest/avhrr_sst/avhrr_ssta.html) would lead one to expect more evaporation, and thus more snow and ice deposition.
I believe the PDO is in the cool phase, but a whole lot more correlation with AMO, PDO, ENSO SOI etc versus snow deposition is needed to explain why there is not net ice increase worldwide… (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg)
Get Real!

Claude Harvey
October 8, 2009 4:39 am

If NASA does get around to reporting this, the headline will read something like this:
“NASA reports Antarctic snow melt is 30th highest in 30 years!”

tallbloke
October 8, 2009 4:41 am

So, snow has been falling in Australia and NZ where winter is late ending. And snow is falling in America where winter seems to be arriving early.
I hear it’s been warm in Khazakstan though.
SST’s are high and have been for several months.
Lots of wet snow this winter by the look of it.
Lovely.

Tom in Florida
October 8, 2009 4:59 am

Hey, give the U.N. a little credit. At least they didn’t confuse the ice caps on Earth with those on Mars. (as far as I know)

Tom in Florida
October 8, 2009 5:00 am

Sorry folks, posted the above on the wrong thread.

Editor
October 8, 2009 5:08 am

P Gosselin (02:20:39) :

By the way, why would the south pole behave differently from the north pole?
Comments anyone?

You’ve been around here to know some answers to that, though I don’t think I can find a good link to a WUWT article. Certainly worth a mention in this thread.
Various reasons:
The Antarctic ice is grounded on the continent and, except at the margins, isn’t pushed around by wind and currents.
Being surrounded by ocean and having a high average elevation, there are fewer opportunities for marine and atmospheric incursions into Antarctica. Wind circulation around the continent make a bit of a wall that also helps keep things out.
The larger area of ice and snow make for a higher regional albedo. Cloud cover over most of the planet (and Artic summer) increases albedo, cloud cover over Antarctica decreases albedo.
I don’t know if there’s an impact, but there’s also the Earth’s orbital eccentricity, meaning that the Antarctic summer has greater insolation than the Arctic summer.
And, of course, more people live near the Arctic and are affected by weather there so even, if it people couldn’t wring hands over the increasingly hard to find melt news, people would be more perturbed by it.

Vincent
October 8, 2009 5:08 am

Engiiner,
I think you are missing the point of this article. There has long been evidence of something called “ratchet reporting” in the MSM. This is a technique in which only news stories supportive of your point of view are published.
Ratchet reporting would lead to a state where although there are observations of increasing ice, this would go unreported. And this is exactly a case in point.
Ratchet reporting is real, it is happening now and it is worse that we thought.
Get real yourself!

Jim
October 8, 2009 5:12 am

********************
Engiiner (04:28:40) :
I hate to be a groupie, especially when the party line is this blatant.
I listen to both sides of the AGW issue, searching for the truth. The fact that the ocean surface is anomalousy WARM in many areas (http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/hydro/hydrosphere/latest/avhrr_sst/avhrr_ssta.html) would lead one to expect more evaporation, and thus more snow and ice deposition.
I believe the PDO is in the cool phase, but a whole lot more correlation with AMO, PDO, ENSO SOI etc versus snow deposition is needed to explain why there is not net ice increase worldwide… (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg)
Get Real!
***************
You get real! Your sea temp chart is from August!

Chris Schoneveld
October 8, 2009 5:19 am

Graeme Rodaughan (03:53:33) :
“I don’t believe it – how could this be – Steig et al 2009 said it was getting warmer…”
That’s not exactly what they said as they commented on a 50 year period whereas the above graph “only” (which is long enough in my view) covers the last 30 years. They conveniently included the period of low temperatures from 1957-1969 to obtain a warming trend. Had they plotted or commented on the trend from 1970-recent they would not have been able to claim any discernible warming, irrespective of their questionable use of and much criticized interpolation of stations.

1 2 3 4
Verified by MonsterInsights