WUWT commenter Ian Cooper says:
I thought that this site may be of interest to those pondering the warming of the Antarctic Penninsula. I came across this while I was scouring the net to learn more about the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and it’s influence on our local New Zealand weather/climate. I hadn’t seen this here before, so apologies in advance if someone has already brought this to your attention. I was particularly taken by the second paragraph of this page, which I have copied below.
Due to the southward shift of the storm track, a high SAM index is associated with anomalously dry conditions over southern South America, New Zealand and Tasmania and wet conditions over much of Australia and South Africa. The stronger westerlies above the Southern Ocean also increase the insulation of the Antarctica. As a result, there is less heat exchange between the tropics and the poles, leading to a cooling of the Antarctica and the surrounding seas. However, the Antarctic Peninsula warms due to a western wind anomaly bringing maritime air onto the Peninsula (Fig. 5.9). Indeed, the ocean surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula is in general warmer than the Peninsula itself and stronger westerly winds mean more heat transport onto the Peninsula. Over the ocean, the stronger westerly winds tend to generate stronger eastward currents. Furthermore, the divergence of the currents at the ocean surface around 60oS is enhanced because of a larger wind-induced Ekman transport. This results in a stronger oceanic upwelling there.
From: Universite catholique de Louvain
http://stratus.astr.ucl.ac.be/textbook/chapter5_node6.html
The Southern Annular Mode
The equivalent of the NAM in the Southern Hemisphere is the Southern Annular mode (SAM). Various definitions of SAM have been proposed: a convenient one is the normalised difference in the zonal mean sea-level pressure between 40 oS and 65o S. As expected, the sea level pressure pattern associated with SAM is a nearly annular pattern with a large low pressure anomaly centred on the South Pole and a ring of high pressure anomalies at mid-latitudes (Fig. 5.8). By geostrophy, this leads to an important zonal wind anomaly in a broad band around 55oS with stronger westerlies when SAM index is high.
|
Due to the southward shift of the storm track, a high SAM index is associated with anomalously dry conditions over southern South America, New Zealand and Tasmania and wet conditions over much of Australia and South Africa. The stronger westerlies above the Southern Ocean also increase the insulation of the Antarctica. As a result, there is less heat exchange between the tropics and the poles, leading to a cooling of the Antarctica and the surrounding seas. However, the Antarctic Peninsula warms due to a western wind anomaly bringing maritime air onto the Peninsula (Fig. 5.9). Indeed, the ocean surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula is in general warmer than the Peninsula itself and stronger westerly winds mean more heat transport onto the Peninsula. Over the ocean, the stronger westerly winds tend to generate stronger eastward currents. Furthermore, the divergence of the currents at the ocean surface around 60oS is enhanced because of a larger wind-induced Ekman transport. This results in a stronger oceanic upwelling there.
The majority of the effects of SAM could be explained by its annular form and the related changes in zonal winds. However, the departures from this annular pattern have large consequences for sea ice as they are associated with meriodional exchanges and thus large heat transport. In particular, a low pressure anomaly is generally found in the Amundsen Sea during high SAM-index years (Fig. 5.8). This induces southerly wind anomalies in the Ross Sea (Pacific sector of the Southern Ocean) and thus lower temperatures and a larger sea ice extent there (Fig. 5.9). On the other hand, because of the stronger northerly winds, the area around the Antarctic Peninsula is warmer when SAM index is high, and sea ice concentration is lower there .
|
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well I guess the Team has to protect its integrity and at least attempt to challenge the destruction of their paper.
Mailman
Looking at today’s sea ice, it would follow that there is a low (negative?) SAM at present? The Amundsen Sea seems empty …
Btw. I’ve looked at Antarctic Peninsula weather stations every now and then over the last few weeks, and it seems like they’re having a cold summer down there. In fact, all of Antarctica has been blue and purple here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/ANIM/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.30.gif during the SH summer.
We are told incessantly that publication and peer review are what sets real climate scientists apart from “uninformed” non-specialist commentators. Here we have a quandary – two published papers presumably fitting all the criteria for valid consideration which differ in their results.
Now here is my problem. Apart from being told that the science is settled (which of course was always patent nonsense) what value is the peer review process adding, since both papers have presumably passed through peer review? They cannot both be right.
I further find it unscientific that both then use the blogoshpere to conduct their subsequent “discussions”, although it is valuable for laymen like me to see the way real scientists conduct themselves when subject to criticism (/sarc). Since consensus is so important to climate science perhaps we could all vote and have some sort of weighting to the votes – eg climate scientists 100%, other scientists and weathermen 50%, laymen 10%, politicians 0%) – to determine who is “right”(/even more sarc). I suggest we call this democratisation of the scientific process
Peter Plail writes:
Peer review is intended and designed to exclude only the most ridiculous errors and excursions. Peer review, when it works, should assure you only that reading the paper is not a complete waste of time.
Peer review does not, cannot, and should not act as a seal of approval from any authority. Any one who appeals only to the authority of the peer review is either lazy or incompetent or both. You have to read and understand the paper and form your own judgement. That is why people get so exercised about full disclosure, or the lack of it.
I find the use of the word “insulation” in this statement to be curiously correct, but abstruse.
The stronger westerlies above the Southern Ocean also increase the insulation of the Antarctica. As a result, there is less heat exchange between the tropics and the poles,
I would prefer the word isolation instead.
BTW Ian Cooper, Great find for SAM!
Thanks
I am not a scientist but watching the changing position of the magnetic south pole over the last century away from the Antarctic Penninsula my question is , what influence does this have on the weather ?
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/magnetic-field/1/2
and
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/gif/pmapS.gif
One thing it does show is that lower pressure means more evaporation and more water vapor in the atmosphere.
Peter Plail says:
February 5, 2011 at 3:03 am
Now here is my problem. Apart from being told that the science is settled (which of course was always patent nonsense) what value is the peer review process adding, since both papers have presumably passed through peer review? They cannot both be right.
Forgetting for a moment that The Team have their own “peers” ready to give their papers the “ok,” I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that the peer review system is perfect – in fact from what I have read, your average honest scientist is happy to admit that the peer-review process is far from perfect. Scientific history is littered with published, peer-reviewed papers that have later been discredited.
I further find it unscientific that both then use the blogoshpere to conduct their subsequent “discussions…”
I disagree. The blogosphere puts scientific discussion and debate into the light of day for all to see. Sure, there’s a lot of crap commented on both sides, but again, this crap is also put into the light. The blogosphere is not by definition “unscientific.”
Since consensus is so important to climate science perhaps we could all vote and have some sort of weighting to the votes…
I hope you were being sarcastic with that one, but in case you were not, science is not, and never has been, about “consensus” (that would be politics). And giving weight to votes of different people is equally irrelevant because the only thing that matters in science is the merit of the proposal, not the assumed authority of he who proposes it.
Peter Plail says:
February 5, 2011 at 3:03 am
We are told incessantly that publication and peer review are what sets real climate scientists apart from “uninformed” non-specialist commentators. Here we have a quandary – two published papers presumably fitting all the criteria for valid consideration which differ in their results.
Now here is my problem. Apart from being told that the science is settled (which of course was always patent nonsense) what value is the peer review process adding, since both papers have presumably passed through peer review? They cannot both be right.
I further find it unscientific that both then use the blogoshpere to conduct their subsequent “discussions”, although it is valuable for laymen like me to see the way real scientists conduct themselves when subject to criticism (/sarc). Since consensus is so important to climate science perhaps we could all vote and have some sort of weighting to the votes – eg climate scientists 100%, other scientists and weathermen 50%, laymen 10%, politicians 0%) – to determine who is “right”(/even more sarc). I suggest we call this democratisation of the scientific process.”
I haven’t heard any serious claim that peer review is a perfect means of filtering incorrect results out of the scientific literature. When properly implemented it will keep out the most blatantly stupid ideas, but does not always do so. It is a human activity, and the human mind is not a perfect scientific instrument.
From what I have gathered, from reading Steig’s blogpost, each group is using somewhat different methods to analyse the data. Their results are similar qualitatively, but quantitatively they are different. Steig’s subsequent discussions seem to be relatively civilized, sticking to the science, and useful in explaining the differences between the papers to those who are really interested. This is the level of discussion that would normally occur at a scientific conference.
Jeff Id, who has a blog called the Air Vent, which seems to be tilted toward skepticism, and a coauthor of the O’donnell paper, complains that one of his comments was censored at RC. He had the option to post it on his own web site, but didn’t do this. The lead author, O,donnell is working on a reply.
Ian Coopers commentary explains how the winds and ocean currents around the Antarctic work and affect the weather in each region. This is an aid in understanding of what is driving the temperature record for Antarctica, and explains why the West Antarctic Peninsula is warmer than the rest of the continent. This was a very useful and educational post.
I have already dealt with this here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/05/antarctic-sea-ice-increase-not-linked-to-ozone-hole/
Stephen Wilde says:
October 5, 2010 at 3:43 pm
“The West Antarctic Peninsula would normally grow when the sun is weak with more frequent air flows into and out of the continental interior (a cooling period) but shrink when the jets are more poleward and more tightly directed around the continent (a warming period). The position of the West Antarctic Peninsula is a by product of the land distribution around it. The air flow around Antarctica is disturbed by the land mass of South America so when during a cooling period with equatorward jets
there are more frequent flows of air into and out of the interior the favoured route for cold outflows is across the West Antarctic Peninsula which then grows.”
So during a tropospheric warming period the main part of Antarctica cools and expands because there is less in the way of northerlies entering the interior but the West Antarctic Peninsula is skimmed away by the tighter run of winds around the Antarctic from the more poleward jets.
During a tropospheric cooling period the interior of Antarctic will be a little less cold due to more air flowing in and out from more equatorward jets but the West Antarctic Peninsula will grow back again because that is the favoured route for outflow of cold air.
Perhaps I have missed something, but I think that the blogosphere is the ideal forum in which to ‘discuss’ science. It gives time for proper consideration of topics, time read and look at contentious matters and one can always turn it off in favour of a book and coffee. Much better than being stuck in a lecture theatre suffering something that wasn’t ‘as advertised’.
Wandering of the Geomagnetic poles could be a good reason for the warming on the Antarctic peninsula.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/GeomagneticPoles.shtml
————-
http://www.sott.net/image/image/s1/34003/full/usgs1980_2009.gif
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthchanges/gallery/Quakes/
INCREASED tectonic and geothermal activity could be a good reason for the warming on the Antarctic peninsula.
“relative to the 20-year period from the mid-1970s to the mid 1990s, the Earth has been more active over the past 15 or so years,” said Stephen S. Gao, a geophysicist at Missouri University of Science and Technology. ”
———–
Geothermal activity causes warming in West Antarctica
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_AntarcticPeninsula.htm
———–
Troubling Global Volcanic Activity on the Rise – By Alan Caruba
http://www.iceagenow.com/Troubling_Global_Volcanic_Activity_on_the_Rise.htm
———–
Thje South American Colliding plates continue on through/under Antarctic could be a good reason for the warming on the Antarctic peninsula.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35618526/
NOT SO FAR AWAY,
“The Chilean earthquake occurred at the boundary between the Nazca and South American tectonic plates. These rocky slabs are converging at a rate of 3 inches (80 mm) per year, according to the USGS. This huge jolt happened as the Nazca plate moved down and landward below the South American plate. This is called a subduction zone when one plate subducts beneath another.”
“(Over time, the overriding South American Plate gets lifted up, creating the towering Andes Mountains.)”
“The plate movement explains why coastal Chile has such a history of powerful earthquakes. Since 1973, 13 temblors of magnitude 7.0 or greater have occurred there, according to the USGS. ”
———–
“Almost all tectonic movement can be linked to magnetic reversals. Seafloor spreading, sea level changes, mountain growth, earthquakes, and volcanism all seem to speed up whenever the frequency of reversals speeds up.”
Alan Caruba blogs daily at
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/
Regarding Antarctic temperature changes, it is important to realize that changes in wind speed cause changes in the recorded near-surface temperatures.
This is because higher winds create a larger disturbance of the near-surface air and thus greater mixing of that air with the warmer air above it. We see this phenomena regularly in the mid-latitudes, when calm nighttime air gives lower recorded temperatures. Orange growers sometimes use fans to simulate wind and keep their groves warm on frosty nights.
If the average wind speed in Antarctica has increased, especially during the Antarctic night, then near-surface temperatures will appear to have risen. This effect would be due to increased wind and not due to increased greenhouse gases.
There are some old comments (by me and maybe others) at CA on this topic, maybe including a few analyses of station temperature and wind trends. A comprehensive wind vs temperature analysis by someone would be very interesting, but would take some effort as the station data is imperfect.
Eric Steig needs an extended vacation down in Vostok, Antarctica, where right now it’s -33F. That’s balmy for Vostok! Bring your flip flops and Bermuda shorts…
Having competing theories with differing conclusion about the same science is common — People think peer review means something conclusive, it does not. It just means it’s plausible and no obvious errors. It confirms nothing, no status, no higher order of understanding.
For instance, Einstein’s peer reviewed notion of the static universe has now been falsified.
Gorgeous graphical image from NASA at the top of this post. So, some areas were a little cooler and some were a little warmer and there is a “hot” tip? This was between 1957 and 2006 and would look different if different endpoints and/or reconstruction methods were used? Still, never understimate the power of a pretty picture to persuade.
Re: Peer review,
I wrote the following some time ago, for another discussion
. And then there is “blogs are not peer reviewed”. See: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269
QUOTE “THOUGH SCIENTISTS AND science journalists are constantly talking up the value of the peer-review process, researchers admit among themselves that biased, erroneous, and even blatantly fraudulent studies easily slip through it. Nature, the grande dame of science journals, stated in a 2006 editorial, “Scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth.” end quote. Peer review in Climatology, is strongly biased to support of AGW advocates. Non-editor-controlled peer review is much more present in the blogosphere and is both swift and merciless.
It might be interesting to deal with the subject of scientists a bit. For sure scientists suffer from all of the human frailties of the rest of us, including ego, greed, paradigm paralysis, and narrow mindedness. In fact, because of the way funding, recognition and specialization work in the science community, they are more subject to these specific failings than most of us. (See “Climategate”). However there is no consensus, and it seems that since 2007 there is a swelling cadre of skeptic scientists, and would be more except “Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution.” See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport.
What does it mean to be a climatologist? The study of climatology involves at least the specialties of physics, gas chemistry, statistics, biology, computer modeling, and geology. How many “climatologists” have real expertise in any, let alone several of these fields? Why should not real specialists in these fields be qualified to question the work of climatologists when that work involves their field of specialization? When climatologists present analyses that are wrong, even to the layman, (and they do), or reach conclusions that are not supported by a careful assessment of the evidence (assuming the evidence is made available), why should not even a layman question their work? This “appeal to authority” is simply the use of bad logic to wave away arguments that the user can’t refute.
Peter Plail, when opposing views are NOT allowed in scientific rags means that science is no longer a data driven, objective discipline, but a faith-based, Pope edict-ed religion. The very fact that two articles present opposing cause and effect views is to me, a breath of fresh air.
This all makes perfectly sense doesn’t it.
And this all without the term AGW or Climate Change in a single sentence.
Just great, thanks for the posting.
Roy 4:02:
re: Peer Review.
Very well put, Roy.
Peer review is meant to ensure the integrity of the process, not necessarily whether the author(s) are right or wrong. Peer review is meant to ensure that good scientific practices are followed, and that certain standards are met before a paper is published. It is good at things like double-checking the internal consistency of a paper, verifying that relevant references to prior literature are used, that any statistics are reasonably accurate, etc. Do the authors make a good argument for their case? One can acknowledge that even if one disagrees with their conclusion.
Judging whether that argument is right or wrong should be left to the broader community to decide. Different authors using different datasets and different statistical analyses may very well come to different conclusions.
That’s science. Two papers can easily disagree on things, and it may only be after some third or fourth or umpteenth research paper years hence, building on information developed in these early articles, where the everything clicks and we reach what could genuinely be referred to as a consensus among scientists.
Peer review is about ensuring that that process works. It is as flawed as everything else we do, but two papers disagreeing with each other is not really a flaw in the peer review process.
While the rest of the world does not behave for the Team, they continue to obsess over the Poles. Only in Climate Science can these people get away with such nonsense.
“Stronger upwelling”. Hmm, where have I seen that before? Do I sense a pattern here?
The measure of the relevance of these studies should surely be the rise (or lack thereof) in sea-level caused by the melting of ice (or its addition to the sea from glaciers on land).
If sea-level is not rising significantly then these factors are nothing more than normal and repetitive phenomena that happen to be in their current configurations.
It’s all about the end result, after all.