Bipolar disorder – as in the Arctic, the Antarctic sea ice extent is affected by wind, unless of course it's 'climate change'

From the “no matter what happens it is climate change” department. So, according to this, when the Arctic loses ice it is due to climate change ‘global warming’ when the Antarctic gains ice it is due to ‘climate change’ and is just as bad. WUWT readers may recall that a few years ago NASA concluded that wind patterns were a major factor in Arctic sea ice loss, pushing the mobile sea ice further south where it melted. Here’s their press release form 2007. Now from the British Antarctic Survey  and NASA JPL comes a similar but opposite conclusion for the Antarctic.

I’ve downloaded the time lapse and converted it to YouTube for everybody’s benefit since all the folks at BAS offer is an FTP link with this press release that few will visit. See the video I inserted below.

Why Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change

The first direct evidence that marked changes to Antarctic sea ice drift have occurred over the last 20 years, in response to changing winds, is published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience. Scientists from NERC’s British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena California explain why, unlike the dramatic losses reported in the Arctic, the Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change (they neglected to mention natural variation here – Anthony).

Maps created by JPL using over 5 million individual daily ice motion measurements captured over a period of 19 years by four US Defense Meteorological satellites show, for the first time, the long-term changes in sea ice drift around Antarctica.

Lead author, Dr Paul Holland of BAS says: “Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon, using computer models of Antarctic winds. This study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change. The total Antarctic sea-ice cover is increasing slowly, but individual regions are actually experiencing much larger gains and losses that are almost offsetting each other overall. We now know that these regional changes are caused by changes in the winds, which in turn affect the ice cover through changes in both ice drift and air temperature. The changes in ice drift also suggest large changes in the ocean surrounding Antarctica, which is very sensitive to the cold and salty water produced by sea-ice growth.”

“Sea ice is constantly on the move; around Antarctica the ice is blown away from the continent by strong northward winds. Since 1992 this ice drift has changed. In some areas the export of ice away from Antarctica has doubled, while in others it has decreased significantly.”

Sea ice plays a key role in the global environment – reflecting heat from the sun and providing a habitat for marine life. At both poles sea ice cover is at its minimum during late summer. However, during the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above.

The new research also helps explain why observed changes in the amount of sea-ice cover are so different in the two Polar Regions. The Arctic has experienced dramatic ice losses in recent decades while the overall ice extent in the Antarctic has increased slightly. However, this small Antarctic increase is actually the result of much larger regional increases and decreases, which are now shown to be caused by wind-driven changes. In places, increased northward winds have caused the sea-ice cover to expand outwards from Antarctica. The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land, so changed winds cannot cause Arctic ice to expand in the same way.

Dr Ron Kwok, JPL says, “The Antarctic sea ice cover interacts with the global climate system very differently than that of the Arctic, and these results highlight the sensitivity of the Antarctic ice coverage to changes in the strength of the winds around the continent.”

There has been contrasting climate change observed across the Antarctic in recent decades. The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed as much as anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere, while East Antarctica has shown little change or even a small cooling around the coast. The new research improves understanding of present and future climate change. It is important to distinguish between the Antarctic Ice Sheet – glacial ice – which is losing volume, and Antarctic sea ice – frozen seawater – which is expanding.

###

This research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The paper ‘Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea ice motion’ by Paul R. Holland of British Antarctic Survey and Ron Kwok of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California, USA is published in Nature Geoscience this week.

Issued by British Antarctic Survey

h/t to WUWT reader “Forrest”

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

181 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Juice
November 12, 2012 7:08 am

But aren’t Antarctic temperatures also decreasing?

John V. Wright
November 12, 2012 7:11 am

Bipolar disorder – perfect headline, Anthony.

kramer
November 12, 2012 7:21 am

ScienceDaily has an article on this titled “Why Antarctic Sea Ice Cover Has Increased Under the Effects of Climate Change.
I knew a while ago that some scientist(s) were going to come up with a study that tied that increase to climate change if they couldn’t show a decrease in the ice.
And here’s my prediction on all other current and future natural events that skeptics will point out as not consistent with climate change: Scientists will eventually come out with papers that show those natural events are tied to climate change.

Monty
November 12, 2012 7:23 am

Well, Anthony, climate change is complicated. Which is why you should do some science if you want to criticize papers like this. If you think it is wrong why don’t you send a rebuttal to Nature Geoscience? Of course you won’t….that would require some hard work!

November 12, 2012 7:37 am

I am having difficulty with the wind causally being attributed with responsibility for sea ice changes in the arctic, because the process of sea ice loss must distribute its energy response in the atmosphere (whereupon feedback processes impacting sea ice and winds endlessly cycle)

November 12, 2012 7:40 am
P. Solar
November 12, 2012 7:45 am

” The new research improves understanding of present and future climate change. It is important to distinguish between the Antarctic Ice Sheet – glacial ice – which is losing volume, and Antarctic sea ice – frozen seawater – which is expanding.”
I thought the latest on the Antarctic Ice Sheet was that , after replacing guestimated computer models’ output with physical data, the new story was : gaining a lot (+zero/-quite a lot), ie definitely NOT losing volume.

Coalsoffire
November 12, 2012 7:46 am

Folks, CAGW (also known as Climate Change or Climate Disruption) is not science. Until there is a recognized and agreed upon set of conditions or observations that will falsify it, it is just dogma or even doctrine. Nothing scientific about it at all since all conditions and observations are interpreted to support the dogma. If you think this is unfair or just wrong then please state the condition or observation that would falsify the theory and then find and cite support of it in the “scientific” literature.

Kev-in-Uk
November 12, 2012 7:51 am

Monty says:
November 12, 2012 at 7:23 am
Well Monty – I think it is you who needs to research before posting. Firstly, Anthony likely does more hard work in a week than the comedians who wrote this paper probably do in a year.
Secondly, if you think climate change is really that complicated – you perhaps ought not to try to read about it – as most folk with only half a brain can and do understand that AGW is largely a made-up scam and can interpret the good science from the bad. (At a guess, you probably fall into the ‘please will someone help run my life, ‘cos I’ve no brain’ and rely on the output of others for guidance. Sad, No, really! it is!)
as for this paper – what a load of spinological tosh – and that’s just from the bits quoted here!

mitigatedsceptic
November 12, 2012 7:52 am

What’s wrong with climate change? It’s always happening surely?
But watch the alarmists read AGW!

pat
November 12, 2012 7:52 am

Hmmm. But currents and storms have nothing to do with the Arctic’s quick seasonal declines.
And speaking of bipolar. This is too exquisite. In his haste to smear a conservative, George Monbiot wrongly accuses a former treasurer of being a pedophile. And is in deep trouble.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231288/Lord-McAlpine-sue-Sally-Bercow-pointing-finger-Newsnight-investigation.html
In America the press and Warmists would embargo the story. But that is not possible in Britain with its much more diverse national media and brutal slander laws.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead
November 12, 2012 7:55 am

Monty. As long as you do the same in support of this paper. I dare say you must be a scientist, eh? You obviously know how to ‘do science’, so pitter-patter, let’s get at ‘er!

jaypan
November 12, 2012 7:58 am

Impressive movie.
The term “Climate Change” says it all.
Science cannot use misleading language.
In this case even senseless language.
Otherwise it’s not science. QED.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead
November 12, 2012 7:58 am

“the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above”
I love how the press release races through that statement with nary a dwell. The warm ocean? Around Antarctica? What? Monty! Help! Explain this! (/sarc just in case)

focoloco
November 12, 2012 7:58 am

Well Monty, please be patient as I am a very slow person, but you might be able to explain this better then.
If the ice grows it is due to AGW
If the ice is reduced it is because of AGW
For centuries the ice cover has NOT been constant, but varies a lot.
What should non-AGW scenario look like?

November 12, 2012 7:59 am

Monty says…
No Sir, you are wrong, I am afraid. It would just require the pile of funds these researchers have used to come up to their conclusions. I am sure Anthony’s check from Big Oil has been delayed by Sandy and that is the underlying reason he has not answered in due form, as you suggest. Do I really need using /sarc tags here? [Mods, edit or delete if not appropiate, thanks]

kent Blaker
November 12, 2012 8:00 am

They show us how the jet stream in the north causes dramatic changes in the weather but do they ever show us what happens in the southern hemisphere’s jet stream? Following sea ice numbers on a daily basis we see changes of plus or minus 100,000 sq. Km. in 24 hours. The only logical conclusion is that it is the wind blowing this way then that way.

Climate Weenie
November 12, 2012 8:07 am

Clearly lots of factors are involved and natural variability is probably still greater than any antrho signal.
But when one runs radiative models over Antarctica, one finds the surprising result that doubling CO2 causes locales which are cold and high to radiate MORE not less energy to space at the top of the atmosphere. ( This is evident for south pole, and probably also Greenland, Himalayas and high tropical clouds ).
One possible result of this would be colder Antarctic and maybe more Antarctic sea ice.
The implication is that total forcing may be somewhat lower than the presumed 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling. And also maybe a little greater mass and heat exchange across the tropopause.

Ed Moran
November 12, 2012 8:08 am

Monty, @7:23 am
that’s just plain nasty and stupid. Look at his output! Remember he runs the blog after a day’s work because he’s not taking taxpayer’s money. (Unlike say Gavin.)
One man to answer all the AGW garbage that comes out every day? Grow up! Anyway, The Team would “change the meaning of peer review” to stop any rebuttal being published.

Mr Lynn
November 12, 2012 8:09 am

Monty says:
November 12, 2012 at 7:23 am
Well, Anthony, climate change is complicated. Which is why you should do some science if you want to criticize papers like this. . .

What exactly do you mean by ‘climate change’? ‘Global warming’? ‘Anthropogenic global warming?’ Have you any observational evidence that these hypothetical constructs actually have empirical referents?
/Mr Lynn

Richard111
November 12, 2012 8:14 am

-15C forecast for UK before November ends.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/357655/Coldest-winter-freeze-on-way
All those fans on the mountain tops really cooling the place down. /sarc

Jimbo
November 12, 2012 8:20 am

Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above.

I wonder how much heat the Arctic lost since mid September?
From my vaguest recollection I seemed to remember that Antarctica has not warmed overall and may have cooled slightly. Doesn’t this, if correct, fly in the face of CAGW which says that most of the warming would be felt at the poles? Just askin.

temp
November 12, 2012 8:20 am

Monty says:
November 12, 2012 at 7:23 am
No research needed since NASA and many others have come out and stated for global warming to be true both poles must melt.
You see if “polar amplification” is really only “arctic amplification” then we can say its perfectly natural. We know thats its natural because of things like the medieval warm period and such that as you know according to Mann and other global warming “experts” happened “only”(majority etc) in the northern poles. So if the arctic is the only thing melting and global warming “experts” say the medieval warm period is natural then it is on them to show that the current events are not natural as well. Anyway you cut it be it our side of the argument or the “expert” side melting only at the arctic disproves global warming.

Dodgy Geezer
November 12, 2012 8:20 am

Monty says:
“….. Of course you won’t….that would require some hard work!”
Um… Monty, you ARE aware that this is the same Anthony Watts who ran the ‘Surface Stations’ temperature project, and single-handedly proved what the NOAA was unable to do with around 1500 staff? For free, and in his own time?
Just asking…..

1 2 3 8