Recent snowfall anomalies in Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica
Enhanced snowfall on the East Antarctic ice sheet is projected to significantly mitigate 21st century global sea level rise. In recent years (2009 and 2011), regionally extreme snowfall anomalies in Dronning Maud Land, in the Atlantic sector of East Antarctica, have been observed. It has been unclear, however, whether these anomalies can be ascribed to natural decadal variability, or whether they could signal the beginning of a long-term increase of snowfall.
Here we use output of a regional atmospheric climate model, evaluated with available firn core records and gravimetry observations, and show that such episodes had not been seen previously in the satellite climate data era (1979). Comparisons with historical data that originate from firn cores, one with records extending back to the 18th century, confirm that accumulation anomalies of this scale have not occurred in the past ~60āyears, although comparable anomalies are found further back in time.
We examined several regional climate model projections, describing various warming scenarios into the 21st century. Anomalies with magnitudes similar to the recently observed ones were not present in the model output for the current climate, but were found increasingly probable toward the end of the 21st century.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50559/abstract
h/t to Argiris Diamantis
I predict that there will be an EMERGENCY in the FUTURE, somewhere, sometime, somehow!! And Someone will get funding, but not me [I’m sad].
Since sea level rise has been steady and not particularly significant for decades, this may mean a reversal. Which is worse?
“It has been unclear, however, whether these anomalies can be ascribed to natural decadal variability, or whether they could signal the beginning of a long-term increase of snowfall.”
If “missing heat” has found its way to the oceans, then evaporation should increase, causing more water vapor to be in the atmosphere. And that means more moisture to be squeezed out of the atmosphere as the air moves over the Antarctic landmass and temperatures plunge. Any truly global warming should produce increased Antarctic snowfall rates, but without temperatures rising to the point where melting or evaporation of the snow would measurably increase resulting in more water being stored as land ice, above sea level. (Sea ice does not affect sea levels, because a floating object displaces its own mass in water, so that freezing/thawing leaves the overall water level the same.)
“Enhanced snowfall on the East Antarctic ice sheet is projected to significantly mitigate 21st century global sea level rise.”
I wish these people would just make up their minds on their “planetary emergencies”. Sheesh!
(I’ve often thought it would be much better for our economy to just pay off the global warming industry ™ to the tune of a billion or two USD each year and in return they would go away and not bother us…)
Hmmm … warming…higher tropical humidity … drifts south… higher snowfalls…piles the moisture up onshore….. solves the sea level rise problem…
Can anyone see here a self-regulating system at work?
Rising sea level never was a threat but a chimera summoned from the “vasty deep” in the fashion of Shakespeare’s Owen Glendower, and as in Shakespeare, the monster never answered the summons.
To quote the article:
“We examined several regional climate model projections, describing various warming scenarios into the 21st century. Anomalies with magnitudes similar to the recently observed ones were not present in the model output for the current climate, but were found increasingly probable toward the end of the 21st century.”
Translation:
“The current models are way off the mark when compared to the facts on the ground, but we hope that later this century nature will somehow maybe perhaps magically catch up to the modelled climate patterns we have to predict, because our funds will run out much sooner that our mortgages!”
“…because, OTHERWISE, our funds will run out much sooner that our mortgages!ā – that should read.
My bad!
A negative feedback–whaduyah know!
The fact that Antarctica has been gaining ice is a very inconvenient fact for alarmists. It looks like they are now going to try and spin this into a “future problem”. Hysterical to watch the head stands going on in the minds of alarmists.
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7-303-2013.pdf
Here’s where I stopped reading: Here we use output of a regional atmospheric climate model,
There is no catastrophe!
Panic!
Hide!
Run Away!
MattN says:
May 16, 2013 at 9:13 am
Hereās where I stopped reading: “Here we use output of a regional atmospheric climate model…”
===========
Models have their uses, but…
Let’s remember what the IPCC says about Models: “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
What snows in Antarctica, stays in Antarctica.
It is interesting that the Antarctic ice sheet is increasing in mass, rather than losing mass. The average yearly temperature of the Antarctic ice sheet is -50C. It makes sense that when there is warming of ocean in the vicinity of the Antarctic ice sheet that there is increased precipitation on the Antarctic ice sheet. Very, very cold regions need to warm in order for there to be sufficient moisture in the air for it to snow.
Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your understand of what will happen next, there is indication at high northern latitudes of the start of global cooling, the warming period has or is ending. This is not surprising as the solar magnetic cycle is abruptly slowing down. The planet warms when the solar magnetic cycle is high and cools when is low. The forcing mechanisms modulate the amount of low level and high level clouds.
The timbre of the climate discussion is going to abruptly change as the public demands on explanation for the global cooling.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2013.png
The solar magnetic cycle forcing mechanisms that caused the 20th century warming is reversing. In the 20th century, high latitude northern latitudes warmed and the Antarctic ice sheet cooled during the warming phase. The Antarctic ice sheet is isolated due to the polar vortex. There is paleo climatic evidence of cycling warming and cooling of high northern latitudes and the Antarctic ice. The cyclic warming of the Greenland ice sheet and the Arctic sea ice and cooling of the Antarctic ice sheet and vice verse is called the āPolar See-sawā as one ice sheet warms when the other cools and vice versa.
This is a link to Svensmarkās paper that analyses ice core temperature in bore holes at different deeps to determine there is no lag in the polar see-saw which rules out ocean currents as the forcing mechanism. Ocean currents are also ruled out as recent deep sea analysis has shown the deep ocean does not flow as a conveyor. It flows as multiple unconnected streams.
As noted above, the forcing mechanism is solar modulation of high altitude and low altitude clouds. Sensmarkās paper only looks at altitude clouds.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly. ā¦ ā¦ Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south-flowing warm ocean current crossing the Equator[17] with a built-in time lag supposedly intended to match paleoclimatic data. That there is no significant delay in the Antarctic climate anomaly is already apparent at the high-frequency end of Fig. (1). While mechanisms involving ocean currents might help to intensify or reverse the effects of climate changes, they are too slow to explain the almost instantaneous operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly. ā¦. ā¦.Figure (2a) also shows that the polar warming effect of clouds is not symmetrical, being most pronounced beyond 75ā¦S. In the Arctic it does no more than offset the cooling effect, despite the fact that the Arctic is much cloudier than the Antarctic (Fig. (2b)). The main reason for the difference seems to be the exceptionally high albedo of Antarctica in the absence of clouds.
“Comparisons with historical data that originate from firn cores, one with records extending back to the 18th century, confirm that accumulation anomalies of this scale have not occurred in the past ~60āyears, although comparable anomalies are found further back in time.”
What the #&*% is that supposed to prove other than these accumulation anomalies are part of the natural world. Why are they so amazed when they see that?
And what ‘s the big deal about the last 60 years?
Let me say this: Records extending back to the 18th century confirm that Tom in Florida was not born in the past 60 years, although he was found to be born further back in time.
greg2213 says:
May 16, 2013 at 9:24 am
“Letās remember what the IPCC says about Models: āIn sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.ā
Re-read this greg. How can we recognize what’s possible from models for a system if it is such that long term prediction is not possible. Here is a commonsense replacement for models in recognizing what’s possible: we have a range of possibilities from -10C to +10C – global snowball to global tropics. So now what do we do. No the models are built around a false central hypothesis and it is recognizing nothing – they don’t work and we can see that now. Don’t apologize for these guys, they will never apologize to the citizens of the earth for the colossal waste of funds – more than a world war’s worth.
A language note, for help with the location. In Danish and Norwegian, dronning means queen. So the territory might be known as Queen Maud’s Land to English speakers.
But only today, the UK’s Dvaily Mail had a big article saying London would drown because of seal-level rises.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2324741/Risk-London-worse-feared-rising-sea-levels.html
Don’t you love our brain-dead media.
The BBC also ran an item saying that many bird species ate not returning to the Uk because our spring weather is now too warm. And this in the same week as Shropshire was blanketed in snow.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324803/UK-weather-Its-middle-May-Two-inches-snow-months-rainfall-day-65mph-winds-hit-Britain.html
Yup – snow in England in mid May means our spring weather is too warm.
Don’t you love our brain-dead media.
Adrian O says:
A language note, for help with the location. In Danish and Norwegian, dronning means queen. So the territory might be known as Queen Maudās Land to English speakers.
Oh! I though it was like the moaner Lisa. I know I’d be dronning like mad if I had to live there. š
Silver Ralph says:
May 16, 2013 at 10:55 am
“The BBC also ran an item saying that many bird species ate not returning to the Uk because our spring weather is now too warm. And this in the same week as Shropshire was blanketed in snow.”
I don’t suppose that any of them could be moved to consider that declines in bird populations might have something to do with the fact that they’ve been scattering bird chopping wind turbines all across the landscape for many years now.
Talking of snowfalls being a thing of the past they are now a thing of MID MAY in the UK! Hailing Viner, hailing Viner.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324803/UK-weather-Its-middle-May-Two-inches-snow-months-rainfall-day-65mph-winds-hit-Britain.html
Silver Ralph says:
May 16, 2013 at 10:55 am
But only today, the UKās Daily Mail had a big article saying London would drown because of sea-level rises.
I read the Mail and that paper has article after article from the sceptical point of view.
The article mentioned is not in the paper, must be on the website. When any paper puts in only ever one side of the climate story it is rightly to be blamed as propagandist (as is The Guardian – an ex-editor of which is to take over running the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme Newsnight so no change there then)
How does this play?
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2013/05/16/worlds.biggest.ice.sheets.likely.more.stable.previously.believed
Silver Ralph says:
May 16, 2013 at 10:55 am
But only today, the UKās Daily Mail had a big article saying London would drown because of sea-level rises.
============================================================================
I wonder what they would say when the Thames freezes over again?
If global cooling is as firmly attached to the coat-tails of solar minima
as it appears to be, then this phenomenon could occur again, perhaps
before 2030.
Or would they just capitalise on it with another Frost Fair?
“Get your official Daily Mail Ice Skates here! Seventy five quid
a pair! No, sir, they are NOT gold plated! Those are a grand a pair.”
“Anomalies with magnitudes similar to the recently observed ones were not present in the model output for the current climate, but were found increasingly probable toward the end of the 21st century.”
Did they just admit that their climate models can’t tell us what is going on right now, but then claim that its projection for a 100 years from now will be right on??? How stupid do they think we are?
I went to boarding school in England for 6 months in 1937-38 at Worthing in the south of Sussex. In May it snowed, enough for us children to build a small snowman! Unlikely to be a significant event but memorable for a small boy who had never seen snow before, coming from sunny Sydney. Cheers from Sydney, still sunny but somewhat chilly.