From the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the department of unverifiable forecasts in our lifetime comes this model based projection.
Researchers say Ross Sea will reverse current trend, be largely ice free in summer by 2100
Antarctica’s Ross Sea is one of the few polar regions where summer sea-ice coverage has increased during the last few decades, bucking a global trend of drastic declines in summer sea ice across the Arctic Ocean and in two adjacent embayments of the Southern Ocean around Antarctica.
Now, a modeling study led by Professor Walker Smith of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science suggests that the Ross Sea’s recent observed increase in summer sea-ice cover is likely short-lived, with the area projected to lose more than half its summer sea ice by 2050 and more than three quarters by 2100.
These changes, says Smith, will significantly impact marine life in what is one of the world’s most productive and unspoiled marine ecosystems, where rich blooms of phytoplankton feed krill, fish, and higher predators such as whales, penguins, and seals.
VIMS professor Walker Smith in Antarctica.
Smith, who has been conducting ship-based fieldwork in the Ross Sea since the 1980s, collaborated on the study with colleagues at Old Dominion University. Their paper, “The effects of changing winds and temperatures on the oceanography of the Ross Sea in the 21st century,” appears in the Feb. 26 issue of Geophysical Research Letters. Smith’s co-authors are Mike Dinniman, Eileen Hofmann, and John Klinck.
Smith says “The Ross Sea is critically important in regulating the production of Antarctica’s sea ice overall and is biologically very productive, which makes changes in its physical environment of global concern. Our study predicts that it will soon reverse its present trend and experience major drops in ice cover in summer, which, along with decreased mixing of the vertical column, will extend the season of phytoplankton growth. These changes will substantially alter the area’s pristine food web.”
Researchers attribute the observed increase in summertime sea ice in the Ross Sea—where the number of days with ice cover has grown by more two months over the past three decades—to a complex interplay of factors, including changes in wind speed, precipitation, salinity, ocean currents, and air and water temperature.
But global climate models agree that air temperatures in Antarctica will increase substantially in the coming decades, with corresponding changes in the speed and direction of winds and ocean currents. When Smith and his colleagues fed these global projections into a high-resolution computer model of air-sea-ice dynamics in the Ross Sea, they saw a drastic reduction in the extent and duration of summer sea ice.
The modeled summer sea ice concentrations decreased by 56% by 2050 and 78% by 2100. The ice-free season also grew much longer, with the mean day of retreat in 2100 occurring 11 days earlier and the advance occurring 16 days later than now.
Also changed was the duration and depth of the “shallow mixed layer,” the zone where most phytoplankton live. “Our model projects that the shallow mixed layer will persist for about a week longer in 2050, and almost three weeks longer in 2100 than now,” says Smith. “The depth of the shallow mixed layer will also decrease significantly, with its bottom 12% shallower in 2050, and 44% shallower in 2100 than now.”
The extent and duration of ice cover in the Ross Sea depends on a complex interplay of factors, including changes in wind speed, precipitation, salinity, ocean currents, and air and water temperature.
For Smith, these changes in ice, atmosphere, and ocean dynamics portend major changes in the Antarctic food web. On the bright side, the decrease in ice cover will bring more light to surface waters, while a more persistent and shallower mixed layer will concentrate phytoplankton and nutrients in this sunlit zone. These changes will combine to encourage phytoplankton growth, particularly for single-celled organisms called diatoms, with ripples of added energy potentially moving up the food web.
But, Smith warns, the drop in ice cover will negatively affect several other important species that are ice-dependent, including crystal krill and Antarctic silverfish. A decrease in krill would be particularly troublesome, as these are the major food source for the Ross Sea’s top predators—minke whales, Adélie and Emperor penguins, and crabeater seals.
Overall, says Smith, “our results suggest that phytoplankton production will increase and become more diatomaceous. Other components of the Ross Sea food web will likely be severely disrupted, creating significant but unpredictable impacts on the ocean’s most pristine ecosystem.”
The authors were supported by the National Science Foundation grants ANT-0944254, ANT-0838948 and OCE-0927797.
==============================================================
For the most current data on Antarctic sea ice, see the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
“……global climate models agree that air temperatures in Antarctica will increase substantially in the coming decades, …………………………. When Smith and his colleagues fed these global projections into a high-resolution computer model of air-sea-ice dynamics….”
GIGO
The authors were supported by the National Science Foundation grants… what else is new.
Now, a modeling study led by Professor Walker Smith…
————
*YAWN*
“But global climate models agree that air temperatures in Antarctica will increase substantially in the coming decades, with corresponding changes in the speed and direction of winds and ocean currents.” Truly zombie science. It’s always “the climate models agree/show” and in this study, it happens 37 to 87 years from now when no one will be there to hold these partisan frauds accountable.
National Science Foundations
Grants need to be renewed.
Complex models, but still unable to duplicate the real world.
Model predictions after most sceptics are safely in their boxes.
BS likelihood factor: >97%.
Gravy train science.
I’m waiting for the Headline “Climate Model Proved Right”
I have a prediction for 2100. I predict I’ll be dead by then.
“Now, a modeling study led by Professor Walker Smith of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science suggests …
I have a model right here on this computer that suggests that pigs will fly with ease by the year 2100. We need a log of research funding to study ways to midigate the effects of these airborn porkers!
Oh my.
‘But global climate models agree that air temperatures in Antarctica will increase substantially in the coming decades’…
….while actual measurement of air temperature probably won’t given that is what has happened so far. And ‘climate scientists’ will get stuck in the ice that according to the models won’t be there. I’m not sure I would have the cheek to draw a salary and then produce this sort of stuff.
“Study projects big thaw for Antarctic sea ice”
Well, they’ve been wrong for the last 30 years on this one, so maybe, statistically, they’ll luck out and win one.
Reminds me of a common scam…
Send different stock picks to 10 different people.
One will pick will undoubtedly hit big.
Use this to convince this one person that you can do it all the time, and all they need to do to be rich is to entrust you with all of their money… Tadaaaaa!
are these the same models that cannot recreate historical climate? So lets take junk models and see what predictions we can come up with so that the co2 Munch Scream can be kept going? sept 2013 was supposed to be the last month of sea ice in the arctic?
OT
Very strong Geomagnetic storm started in the last hour (22 GMT)
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_kp_3d.gif
Northern lights seen as far south as Norfolk, England
OK, take a Barbie and stuff her in a Chatty Cathy. The result is reality, right?
Models in models.
The authors use historical temperatures and winds to verify their model. They then accept projected temperature increases of about 1.66 and 2.5 degrees C through 2050 and 2100 respectively to make their projections.
So the model may be quite reasonable, but its forecasts depend entirely on the assumed increases in Antarctic temperatures and wind shifts. Those changes remain entirely absent thus far.
“The Ross Sea is critically important in regulating the production of Antarctica’s sea ice overall…”
Ascribing human attributes to the freezing process or likening it to a factory is not very helpful, and gives a false impression of some natural intention and is emotive.
The arctic, which is demonstrably reducing in extent over the record, shows no significant change in the melt season. I show the date of maximum ice in the arctic is coming earlier by 4.5 days per century, but this is offset by the summer minimum also coming earlier by 4.0 days per century. The total melt season is only increasing 0.5 days per century.
Yet this study of the Ross Sea suggests an increase in the melt season by nearly a month?
I pray that “booster spice” is found soon, so these idiots are alive when the predictions are falsified.
One crucial factor here is the regime of the immense Ross Ice Shelf (not to be confused with “sea ice”), and its future is still very much “up in the air”.
Another apocalyptic prediction that can only be tested after the authors’ projected retirement date – not that accuracy matters at all.
Paul Ehrlich made the apparently serious mistake of making predictions for the relatively short term future. He was shown to be demonstrably wrong on more things than nearly any other human being in history – yet he still enjoys rock star status with the alarmist crowd.
The scarier, the better – don’t sweat the facts.
Seems to me that a longer growth season for phytoplankton would be well received by the locals, but then I’m not a krill either. I prefer cheeseburgers.
The supplemental material notes that the 2046-2050 temperature increase is 1.66C plus or minus 2.58. So if there is cooling over the next 40 years, he’s still spot on. I wonder if he’d be open to a decadal bet; run the model for the endpoint delta T’s at 10, 20, 30 and 40 years based on the central values. I’ll kick in $50 per decade to see if he hits his marks. Think he’ll take me up on it?
At some point there will be enough motivation to start auditing these NSF grants on behalf of the taxpayers who are forced to pay for this drek.
Studies like this demonstrate just cause for suspending funding pending proof of competancy.
Are they EVER going to make a projection / prediction that can be verified in their own lifetime (or, preferably, career) so they have to face the results?
Joe says:
February 27, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Are they EVER going to make a projection / prediction that can be verified in their own lifetime (or, preferably, career) so they have to face the results?
Hansen did. Their memories are so short it doesn’t seem to matter.
Joe says:
February 27, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Are they EVER going to make a projection / prediction that can be verified in their own lifetime (or, preferably, career) so they have to face the results?
===================================================
They would loose their doomsayers license if they did that.
And?
Everyone on this thread will be dead by 2100 so what is the point to this study?
When the AMO goes negative, Antarctic Sea Ice will shrink and Arctic Sea Ice will grow.
Lou,
Human life spans are constantly increasing and people living passed 100 years is becoming increasingly common. I don’t know about you, but I’ll only by 131 in 2100.
The first IPCC report projected a decrease in Antarctica sea ice. Their last report acknowledged an increasing trend since 1979. They admit in the same last report that they don’t know why but still ‘project’ a decrease this century. They also project an increase in snowfall up to 2100.
I project that I will be going to bed soon. My eyes are weary after the ADL jump shark moment.
Turtles, turtles all the way down….
“global climate models agree …” that current temperatures are wrong, that current ice should not be there. The models cannot be wrong as they all agree with each other.
etudiant says:
February 27, 2014 at 3:04 pm
The authors use historical temperatures and winds to verify their model. They then accept projected temperature increases of about 1.66 and 2.5 degrees C through 2050 and 2100 respectively to make their projections.
Of the 1.66 °C till 2050 we still miss 1.66 after almost 1/3 of the time in this century even with all the innovative adjustments for urban cooling.
This “urban cooling” phenomenon is one of the big recent discoveries of the CAGW science.
http://oprj.net/articles/climate-science/31
“ NASA GISS are currently the only group calculating global temperature estimates that explicitly adjust their weather station data for urbanization biases. In this study, their urbanization adjustment procedure was considered.
A number of serious problems were found with their urbanization adjustments: 1.) The vast majority of their adjustments involved correcting for “urban cooling”, whereas urbanization bias is predominantly a warming bias. “
I might be able to make it to 2050. If so, I will remember this 56% reduction claim and be there to remind them of it.
Their prediction “modeled summer sea ice concentrations decreased by 56% by 2050” will certainly make the “climate fail” category . The growing Antarctic sea ice is aligned with the lack of warming at the south pole and the increasing ice mass in east Antarctica, as well as declining solar activity. Antarctica’s Ross Sea ice will indeed vary with El Nino/La Ninas and their effect on the Aleutian Low, but the long term trend will continue upward as solar activity continues to wane. Antarctic sea ice is a better indicator of global climate change. Natural cycles will cause Arctic sea ice to recover while Antarctic sea ice will continue to expand. http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-sea-ice–climate-change-indicator.html
I’m trying to find the FILM…the 10 year old is with the parent on “take your child to work” day.
The kid watches the parent for a few hours. Get’s taken out to lunch. The Mom (Dad) asks, “Do you have any questions?” The kid says, “Yeah! Do they really PAY adults to do this??”
I think we see the application here..
Max
Dear Dr. Walker,
I have an important question for you, which I hope you can answer.
How long ago was it that summer sea ice cover in the Ross Sea was
last at the level your modelling attempts predict it to be by 2100?
Oh, yes, and here’s a bonus question:
And where on the planet was the landmass we now call Antarctica
located when this low sea ice event occurred?
Thank you.
Antarctica’s Ross Sea is one of the few polar regions where summer sea-ice coverage has increased during the last few decades, bucking a global trend of drastic declines in summer sea ice across the Arctic Ocean…
OK, first, unless you define ‘few’ as ‘all but one’, the first statment is obviously false. Then, it appears that he is mixxing up Arctic and Antarctic. The Arctic Ocean is in the North (near Canada and Russia), while Ross Sea is in the so called Antarctic Ociean (bits of each ocean surounding Antarctica) is in the South. Some ice reduction in the North (unrelated to this study), but almost all increased ice in the South.
Can’t wait to see this in my local paper, masquerading as greentruth. What a steaming pile of dog’s droppings.
Abstract: when we set our computer to simulate warmer climatic conditions, we found that ice was more likely to melt.
Unfortunately this is just one amongst a number of articles along the lines of: If this changes then this might happen……or not. I say unfortunately, because though there is little certainty in all of this, it becomes yet another article that will confirm the consensus for those who believe in such things.
And in some late weather news (not climate).
Browse open water in Antarctica’s past.
I can now project with 99% confidence that I am now going to bed.
It’s worse than we thought.
He lost me at the “unspoiled marine ecosystems”. Wasn’t there some recent news about toxic waste at the Wilkes Base in the Antarctic??? I wonder what trash & toxic waste will be at the various research spots by 2100?
If I predicted a coin toss of heads 100 times in a row, I will eventually be proved correct. However, I may have to toss that coin once a second for several thousand years.
I reminds me of a version of the old saw of 10,000 monkies on 10,000 typewriters eventually producing a Shakespearian play:
If I had a computer which had a display and every second, it produced a new image, simply in black and white, every second, after some time it would produce the Mona Lisa image.
True, theoretically. Assuming the machine can survive that long. Let’s do the math:
For a black and white image, i.e. binary image, no gray scales, of say around 700 x 500 pixels – that is 350,000 pixels, definitely not HD, there are 2 to the power of 350,000 combinations. That is a number of seconds much larger than there is in the Universe; and certainly beyond the MTBF of the computer itself.
Therefore, I suggest that 10,000 monkies on 10,000 typewriters cannot produce a Shakespearian play. Either the monkies will die or the typewrites cease to function.
Therefore, I say that you Warmistas should just give up, game over. You can continue to predict death and disaster (D & D), and you will always be successful in your predictions because D&D is the lot of humanity. However, your prediction of D&D is meaningless.
Wow, these folks can predict the future out to 2100. Where do I get a crystal ball like that? Can I borrow their ball? I promise I’ll be very careful with it. I’ll only go out for say, 10 years at the end of which I’ll be one of the wealthiest people in the history of the world.
How does one get a million bucks plus for these crackpot studies? Must be nice to ride the government gravy train. Have they released their data and was Mikey Mann involved in this in some way?
Joe Haberman says:
“Gravy train science.”
That says it all, in just three words.
My own model predicts that any ice loss in Antarctica will be fully offset by ice gain in the Arctic. That has always been the case in the past with the polar see-saw, as far as reliable records go.
I am a big believer in the Null Hypothesis. Nothing happening now is either unusual or unprecedented. And any changes are likely to be toward a cooling planet, as this long term Holocene chart indicates.
But of course I won’t be getting any grants for pointing out the obvious direction of the climate based on past indications. To get my ticket punched on the gravy train I would have to do a Chicken Little imitation, and sound a false alarm that the sky is falling.
Heh. Given the long term increase in global sea ice, the areas must be pretty tightly constrained to make this statement true. “We only have TWO areas where sea ice is increasing! Certainly, we only created an arbitrary group of three so we could make this statement, but 2 is a small number (over 66% smaller than 3 if you study it closely) so we feel justified in saying that it’s one of the few.”
Can’t blame this guy. Grants are highly politicized nowadays. And he’s got to feed his family.
in the mean time it’s -41 degrees
[Well, you need to be more clear than that. Tasmania, the Cook Strait, Bass Strait, and Argentina are all -41 degrees latitude. 8<) But none of those are -41 degrees though. Mod]
Professor Walker Smith is a wise man. He can’t be proved wrong until December 31, 2100.
Climate models agree . . . would seem that they are therefore all wrong, since this means that if one is wrong, so are the others (basic logic, taught in freshman philosophy courses, but apparently beyond the learning ability of these mollusks).
I used to read the funnies for a laugh… Volcanoes are the reason for the warming pause that isn’t really happening…No, the trade winds are too fast and that is causing the cooling that isn’t really happening, No , the oceans are hiding the warming that isn’t really happening… wait the sun is not as active and that is contributing to the percieved cooling that isn’t really happening for 17 years now… Ferouscious northern hemisphere winters are caused by a drunk jet stream because the arctic is warm… Honestly, long term weather predictions are modeled with high resolution computers are good for about 3 to 6 days out. Thank you Anthony for running this site! Laughing so hard it hurts!
Hmmmmn.
Just one area was increasing, eh? Which Antarctic continent is he looking at, this supposed climate scientist “expert”?
The ANOMALY last year for the Antarctic sea ice extents AVERAGED just at 1.0 Million square kilometers all of last year … In October 2013, the antarctic sea ice extents anomaly – the difference between measured sea ice and the normal sea ice extents was larger than 1.4 Mkm^2. And it was remarkably steady through the entire year. This increase in day-to-day-to-day Antarctic sea ice extents was about 1/3 the entire area of Greenland! And at the same latitude as the middle of Greenland too.
In fact, the ENTIRE Antarctic sea ice extents has been increasing through EVERY season of the ice year since May 2011. Almost three years now the Antarctic sea ice has been increasing, on a pace to soon block the Cape Horn sea route in 8-10 years.
The entire area of Hudson Bay is right at 1.2 Mkm^2.
So, the POSITIVE ANOMALY of Antarctic sea ice extents for the entire year was larger than Hudson Bay, and as mentioned above, a substantial fraction of the entire area of Greenland.
Now, if “one bay” near Antarctica sheds “one” large iceberg, we re told everything is melting and doom will ensue! If in 96 years ONE bay near Antarctica “might” lose “some sea ice” and this “expert” gets written up as if he had discovered a new miracle.
But, just let the Antarctic sea ice extents increase by an area equal to the entire size of Hudson Bay, and does this “expert” even notice?
Climate Scientists; making it up as they go along…since 1987
“Researchers say Ross Sea will reverse current trend, be largely ice free in summer by 2100”
And Commonwealth Bay?
Lord God in Heaven. The ‘recently’ observed increase in sea ice is NOT recent, where do they get this stuff? I only hope that I’m tottering around in 2100 (I’d be 149 by then) in 2100 to thumb my nose at this ‘science by pre-decisional models’
But none of those are -41 degrees though. Mod…
You’re right, I just checked Accuweather again and the south pole is now -42 degrees
“Overall, says Smith, “our results suggest that phytoplankton production will increase and become more diatomaceous. Other components of the Ross Sea food web will likely be severely disrupted, creating significant but unpredictable impacts on the ocean’s most pristine ecosystem.” ”
If the impacts are unpredictable, how do we know they will be significant?
Gee, I thought the models had already shown that the Antarctic sea ice should be melting already. Instead, it has been steadily increasing for the last 40 years. It is unprecedented. It is worse than we thought!
…it probably won’t be so toasty when the sun sets next month.
Another modeled science experiment?
I just don’t get it.
How good are we at even making predictions a year out, let alone 10, 20《》 with modeling climate.
We have a “study factory” based upon fundamental inaccuracy (climate modeling) at it’s core.
Yet we still throw money at it.
Without a prepaid product, this business would not exist, would it?
Time for a change in my book.
markstoval says: @ February 27, 2014 at 2:47 pm
….I have a model right here on this computer that suggests that pigs will fly with ease by the year 2100….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually they have already been seen flying. Image That is why I used a butterfly net to catch them (aka potbelly piglets, I thought my vet was going to bust a gut he was laughing so hard.)
The other flying pig: Image
daviditron says: @ February 27, 2014 at 3:18 pm
At some point there will be enough motivation to start auditing these NSF grants on behalf of the taxpayers who are forced to pay for this drek….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point I am well passed the ‘I want an audit stage’ and have progressed to defund the whole freckin’ lot including all the Universities.
Nothing but dreck and brain washed idiots is shown for all that tax payer money.
This is academic la-la land stuff.
Eugene WR Gallun
I always thought that the basis for a scientific hypothesis was either that empirical data disagreed with current theories or that a novel attempt to falsify currently believed theories involved novel experimentation approaches.
This paper says that data emerging from climate models is the basis for new hypotheses.
This is like saying: ‘I’m sure that XXX fancies me. On that basis, I’ll buy her an iPad to show her my feelings for her.’
Of course, if XXX doesn’t fancy you, you end up looking rather stupid……..
The models aren’t even accurate to next week. How in the hell do they what’s going to happen in a 100 years?
I got to this part and stopped to do my own study.
“Our study predicts that it will soon reverse its present trend and experience major drops in ice cover in summer, which, along with decreased mixing of the vertical column, will extend the season of phytoplankton growth. These changes will substantially alter the area’s pristine food web.”
I’m done. Here’s my findings:
“My study predicts that there will be little to no significant change in the current trend while experiencing minor fluctuations in ice cover in summer involving varying time scales. Additional
fluctuations in the mixing of the vertical column will result in ebb and flow changes to the season of phytoplankton growth. These ongoing changes will preserve the area’s pristine food web.”
Who do I invoice?
Since the Holocene ended in AD 1998, I don’t think we need worry about the region’s “pristine food web,” except for maybe the polar bears (hat tip to TV personality Bill Nye for pointing that out recently).
Well, maybe the models tell us it will get warmer “down-under” some day, but today it has been snowing at Lake Ohau ski field in the Southern Alps of New Zealand, with today being the last day of official summer.
The Magellan Striate is close to freezing enough to block passage. Major shipping companies worldwide are worried about this because even the expanded Panama Canal cannot accommodate the giant container ships now sailing. This tutti fruity is worried about the Ross Sea where the likelihood of melting is slim and none and slim is on a gurney to the morgue. I guess we have to keep up with the enemy but reading this junk gets tiresome.
Same crap, different decade. 25 years ago when I bought into this nonsense they were saying by 2010 Antarctic would be red hot and there was going to be a runaway “greenhouse” effect (comparing it to a real greenhouse).
Nothing they say holds one iota of credibility. They just make it up as they go along. Frankly I’m sick of the whole affair.
His model would never predict it, but my data tells me that SH sea ice has turned the corner and grown since yesterday. ‘Scientific’ tourists, please leave now! Though a winter there would possibly teach you something worth knowing at last. Brett Keane, NZ
Is this a Monty Python sketch ?
Sorry to say, but James Hansen’s Congressional testimony and the below article in Popular Science (how could NASA scientists be wrong?) made me a True Believer for about 15 years, then I discovered Steve McIntyre’s original website (forget the name now), and began asking questions as he was banned from RC for simply asking questions. I thought it was odd that they would ban someone for asking for data. Prior to the internet we only had the MSM and the talking heads on network news. Who was I to doubt them and the climate scientists they hand picked to present the “truth”? Within a year it became clear there was much dishonesty, exaggeration and downright lying going on. I waited for the predictions to occur, but they didn’t happen, particularly the vaunted “greenhouse” effect.
Here is the magazine article that I remember reading way back then:
http://is.gd/pZdujx
All this latest pap does for me is reinforce my skepticism.
“But global climate models agree that air temperatures in Antarctica will increase substantially in the coming decades,”
Duh, where did they not predict substantial warming of air temperatures in coming decades?
However, I suspect they may be right about the ice. What they neglect is the corollary that the Arctic sea ice will increase proportionately.
Of course it will decrease in size , the only alternative is that it will keep growing until it takes over the world or stays the same. Sounds like the only option is that it shrinks until it grows again.
This is a great way to secure a rather useless occupation with a lifetime of grants, nearly a sure thing, unless he freezes to death first.
Who did the peer review on this paper? Chris Turney?
Sooooo, let’s see: we tell the model it will get warmer and then the model tells us that the ice will melt… no shit… that’s new… who would have known? And how much money did they get to come up with that? $955 THOUSAND!!! Almost ONE MILLION… I’d give my 10yr old a bag of candy and he’d tell me that ice melts when it gets warmer… What an utter waste of OUR money professor Walker Smith. You should be ashamed of yourself. Can we get a refund and instead use this money to improve our children’s education so we can learn them to become REAL scientists?! Can we get a refund and instead use this money to fight real problems such as childhood obesity!? Now please Mr. Smith take your research vessel, may we remind you it is paid and operated by OUR tax dollars!, and please get stuck in a far away corner of this planet; preferably the increasing Antarctic, so you can rethink your BS (bad science)
Oh, and it looks like he may need to call in the ice breakers in to get that ship unlocked from the ice.
[snip off topic, not relevant -mod]
Explain the polar see-saw.
ferdberple says:
February 27, 2014 at 10:05 pm
Explain the polar see-saw.
————
“Study projects big thaw for Antarctic sea ice”
Not see-saw, thee-thaw.
Climatology professor goes into a bar.
– Vodka on the rocks, and be quick before my hot model melts the ice.
The bartender serves the drink with a condescending look
– dream on sir
Every one talks about the heating effect of sun on the polar seas. Nobody mentions the properties of sea water during the polar winter. Ice has high albedo! How effective is this during the polar winter? The ice surface can cool to many degrees BELOW zero Celsius. Radiative cooling effect of ice is low. Sea water on the other hand will freeze and turn to ice at around -2C only if left in peace. On the other hand if the sea water is churned up by wind storms the sea surface temperature can reach several degrees ABOVE zero. Use the S-B formula to calculate the radiative energy leaving say a million square kilometres of sea surface at say 275K as opposed to that amount of ice surface at 258K over a period of about four months during the polar winter. This energy is leaving from the SEA. I think you will find it accounts for the ‘missing heat’.
How is it that the alarmist scientists can find no possible natural explanation for any warming and ergo the warming must be nearly all man made, but they have absolutely no difficulty finding hundreds of natural causes for cooling which counteracts this amazingly mysterious warming.
“global climate models agree that air temperatures in Antarctica will increase substantially in the coming decades”. Do the models all get together in one room and pat each other on the back?
“But It’s turtles…. ALLLLLLL the ways down…
The turtle story is cute, but when “scientists” basically replace turtles with models, it’s get’s a bit tedious; especially since my taxes help pay for that vile tasting turtle soup…
The Antarctic Ice Extent looks to have just hit its annual minimum yesterday, and still stands at about 2 standard deviations (+620,000 KM^2) above the 34-yr mean…
It’ll be interesting to see what new turtle CAGW acolytes come up with to explain this year’s record-high minimum Antarctic ice extent.
On a somewhat related topic, I noticed an interesting phenomenon this year in the Arctic. When record breaking cold air swept down from the Arctic to cover huge portions of the US, DMI Arctic anomalies spiked up +15C at the same time. Accordingly, with the warmer than normal Arctic temps this winter, less Arctic Sea Ice formed this winter.
When the Arctic Sea Ice starts to melt, I expect the Arctic Sea Ice anomaly to be quite large this year. The warmunistas will, of course, blame the smaller than normal Arctic Sea Ice Extent on Global Warming and conveniently forget about the bitter cold in the US, which at least contributed to the lower than normal Arctic ice formation.
Consensually modeled suggestions disguised as science. A crystal ball is an instrument of utmost precision compared to that…..
First, you program a computer model with what you believe should happen. It then spits out data that confirm your beliefs. You write a paper based on your results and get recognized for doing ground-breaking research. Then you apply for a another grant to do it again. Is this the way today’s science works?
Why are these 100 year projections funded? They have no value. It’s a huge guess what will happen and no one will even be around to see if it works out that way.
Here’s my prediction: everyone reading this blog right now will be dead by 2100. Now isn’t that scary? Shouldn’t we be doing something about it? Instead we worry there might not be ice in 2100 somewhere hardly anyone even visits because it’s too cold.
Just what is he talking about? The Ross Sea is always largely ice-free in summer and has been ever since the Ross expedition discovered the place in the 1840’s. How else does he think Scott, Shackleton, Amundsen etc reached the coast there (and just about nowhere else)? They didn’t have icebreakers a hundred years ago.
“… a modeling study led by Professor Walker Smith…”
Oh. Another model. That’s all right then.
Can somebody please explain to me when it was that observation and good ole’ hard data became redundant in science?
@Londo
I nominate you for the WUWT comment hall of fame. Computer models predict that the WUWT hall of fame will eventually be awesome. 🙂
But we need to study it more to be sure…
1. markstoval says:
February 27, 2014 at 2:47 pm
We need a log of research funding to study ways to midigate the effects of these airborn porkers!
That would be pork choppers.
anybody can say anything about the future if you will not be around to see if is is true what bull s..t you have been get real
‘be largely ice free in summer by 2100’ and if it’s not I will be long retired or died so I cannot be pulled up for claiming such BS . Now isn’t ‘useful’
Back in the 90’s Global Warmists gave safe 70 to 80 year projections, gaining confidence they reduced the timeframe to 30 to 50 years, once the governments climbed on board, money started flowing and the arrogance grew the projection timeframe began falling rapidly to the short term which unfortunately could be checked. After the disasterous forecasts of the last decade they have now started to expand their forecasts to the long term again. Can’t be checked.
Back in biblical times people who made predictions were called ‘prophets’ as opposed to some now days that are called ‘climate scientists.’
If a prophet was wrong only once… once…. he was taken outside the city and stoned.
It’s not so much that I think these AGW prophets need to be stoned, but I really would like to stop throwing money at them.
I better stop now.
So I think I’ve got this straight…
“I’ve made many predictions before, and they were all wrong. I realize that the population didn’t die off, England is still here, people there aren’t starving, India is, in fact, doing quite well…BUTTTTTTT….THIS time, I used other models, which have always been wrong, to figure out the amount of warming involved, which they’ve never been able to do, and used that as input to my own untested and unproven model, and it clearly shows that we’re all in dire straights. Oh…and I’ll need some more money to refine things a bit more.”
Is that about it? And not only do people still give this asshat airtime…they give him more MONEY. OUR money.
As has been said above…
Oooga in, Chucka out.
Jim
“It’ll grow back; it’ll grow back; God and the cold will bring it back”
“knr says:
February 28, 2014 at 1:23 am
‘be largely ice free in summer by 2100′ and if it’s not I will be long retired or died so I cannot be pulled up for claiming such BS . Now isn’t ‘useful’”
Actually, that obviously doesn’t really matter. He’s still alive during the time frame that all of his other predictions failed, and no one seems to care. No one is holding him accountable for any of these failed predictions, which is no surprise, as there’s really no accountability in this scam anyway.
People can be wrong over and over and over…but the politicians will still continue to redistribute “funds” to them.
Jim
Brett Keane says:
February 27, 2014 at 8:48 pm
His model would never predict it, but my data tells me that SH sea ice has turned the corner and grown since yesterday.
====================
SAMURAI says:
February 27, 2014 at 10:48 pm
The Antarctic Ice Extent looks to have just hit its annual minimum yesterday, and still stands at about 2 standard deviations (+620,000 KM^2) above the 34-yr mean…
=====================
I agree with both the above comments and,according to a bit of analysis I’ve done on the Cryosphere numbers, the mean date for Antarctic sea ice extent is 25 February. Having said that, I would counsel caution. At either pole and at minimum or maximum extents, the measurements do often fluctuate for some time before any definitive trait becomes apparent.
Also
stargazer says:
February 28, 2014 at 1:32 am
It’s not so much that I think these AGW prophets need to be stoned …
====================
Judging by some of their remarks, they’re permanently stoned (not that I’m necessarily condemning them for that 😉 ).
“If it disagrees with experiment (i.e. reality), it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess (model) is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” – Richard Feynman
“…global climate models agree that air temperatures in Antarctica will increase substantially in the coming decades, with corresponding changes in the speed and direction of winds and ocean currents. When Smith and his colleagues fed these global projections into a high-resolution computer model of air-sea-ice dynamics in the Ross Sea, they saw a drastic reduction in the extent and duration of summer sea ice.”
The only thing this study proves conclusively is that the authors are not scientists. No real scientist would use falsified model projections as input for a subsequent model. Ray (in comment #1) nails it.
JDN:
Thanks. With a touch of wishful thinking I was hoping that we could start a new series of blonde jokes with climate scientists because ridicule is the only think they deserve.
How much is this pile of crap going to cost the US Taxpayer?
The faith that too researchers put into models which have demonstrated no ability to model what they claim they are designed for is fascinating.
The money wasted on studies like this, based on the failed modeling system is annoying.
The transparent attempt to distract from the Arctic, the growing list of failed AGW predictions and to offer yet another target fro fear and hype is quite cynical.
That they seem to claim it is air temperatures and not ocean currents that do most of the melting of pack ice raises questions as to if the authors are even serious.
Hunter says:
They don’t have to have faith in the models.
What they have faith in is the ability to extract more money from the system by using the term “model”. No one cares that they’re wrong.
It’s like the switch that the rat learns to hit to get more food. It doesn’t know anything about electricity, or switch, but he DOES know that if he hits the switch, more food comes out.
Jim
The Antarctic ice cover has been increasing for 30 years, yet it has had no adverse or substantial effect on flora and fauna. However, all of a sudden, a predicted reduction in ice cover will have a massive adverse effect on said flora and fauna. I smell yet another rat in really poor grade school writing.
Similarly if the UK became covered in ice, it would not require much cenc to state that such an event woud have an adverse effect on cows and sheep living in the UK.
They get paid for that stupidity,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Give him his due. He hasn’t been so stupid as to actually go there. People who do that are liable to get trapped by non-existent ice. At least he stayed warm and at home, where he ran absolutely no risk of his prediction being even a little wrong.
Researchers attribute the observed increase in summertime sea ice in the Ross Sea—where the number of days with ice cover has grown by more two months over the past three decades—to a complex interplay of factors, blah, blah-blah, and blahbitty blah blah. In other words, coincidence.
Londo says:
February 28, 2014 at 2:51 am
I was hoping that we could start a new series of blonde jokes with climate scientists
=========
what do you get when you stand a room full of climate scientists ear to ear?
a wind tunnel
The Polar See-Saw
Headline Grabbing Climate Scientists are being fundamentally dishonest when they ignore the Polar See-Saw. They know full well that today’s observations of a warming Arctic and cooling Antarctic are completely consistent with natural variability going back tens of thousands of years.
The timescale of the Polar See-Saw matches the natural 1000-1500 year climate cycle observed by many researchers.
Modelling the bipolar seesaw
North Atlantic temperature changes are mirrored by equal amplitude South Atlantic changes of opposite sign.
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/research/climatechange/modelling_dynamics/bipolar_seesaw/
Applying the model to the data of GRIP and Byrd, we demonstrate that maximum correlation can be obtained using a timescale of about 1000-1500 years.
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/publications/papers/abstracts/abstract167/
Study Projects …. The two loosest words in quasi-scientific literature.
“Coach Springer says:
February 28, 2014 at 5:52 am
Study Projects …. The two loosest words in quasi-scientific literature.”
“Study Project & Models…”
Fixed it for ya
Jim
Grey Lensman says:
February 28, 2014 at 4:47 am
“They get paid for that stupidity,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Exactly, there are actually a lot of savings option, the more such bs study projects come the more it is clear how big a waste is. And to think it is done on borrowed money…
{ Our study predicts that it will soon reverse its present trend and experience major drops in ice cover in summer, which, along with decreased mixing of the vertical column, will extend the season of phytoplankton growth. These changes will substantially alter the area’s pristine food web.” }
So are you suggesting that this has never happened before, or that the ice loss then was not pristine?
These wackos think if they didn’t see “it”, it didn’t happen.
I remember a ‘prediction’, based on models, that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013 – didn’t happen. We have seen that 95% of GCMs have been wrong about the projected increases in temperature, therefore I can say, with a 95% confidence level, that this ‘prediction’ is also wrong.
As an aside, for over 30 years I worked in the real world with engines which were projected, by the engineers who designed them, to work at efficiencies which they were theoretically capable of achieving. Never did I see one work at its theoretical limit. In my experience, the models used are designed to project the best, or worst, case scenario, and when they are applied to the real world they are almost always overly optimistic, in the best case, or overly pessimistic, in the worst case.
So, they agonize over warming over a 15 year period and say it’s short-lived and will be gone in 50 to 90 years. Ninety years is not that short-lived for alarmists that panic over every storm and hot day.
“The models agree …” is about as valuable as “the models at the 2014 Victoria’s Secret show agree …” as far as the reality of climate is concerned.
was arguing with a warmist recently and the SOB seems to think that there really is no disagreement between model output and reality. I keep asking him what the hell planet he’s from and what data he’s reading, and he procures some AGW funded piece of GIGO that claims the model output is correct.
Seems like every time, the thing was run just yesterday or something and hasnt had time for the model to break.
How does this stuff get published?
Their Abstract states:
“…We examined the effects of projected changes in atmospheric temperatures and winds on aspects of the ocean circulation likely important to primary production using a high-resolution sea ice–ocean–ice shelf model of the Ross Sea.” [my emphasis]
In other words: “We assume that forecasts made from unproven models are correct; we extract the results that we think are most useful for our hypothesis and then we use them as input into another untested model – one which is based entirely on unproven conjectures.”
RAV and DAN have been reminded of GIGO but it is actually GIGO squared or even GIGO cubed.
FFS…
Ya know , I am thinking a public global reporting of surface temps on a regular basis, charting time of day, longitude and lattitude, urban or rural environ, elevation , date and tempeture , say on sundays, daily might be a bit much, and then we cross check what is reported by the “orthodxy” be it weather channel. accuweather or NOAA etc. Could be fun and educational!
This is one of the greatest comments threads I have ever read- truly funny, LMAO funny!
In the meantime, I’m shivering in Chicago, and the Chicago Tribune (formerly, but not now, a “right-wing rag”) has this: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-27/news/ct-extreme-weather-met-20140228_1_katharine-hayhoe-climate-change-winter-chill
The article points out that the MELTING of arctic sea ice is causing our cold weather woes in the US, but fails to mention that the sea ice has grown (i.e., freezing).
Go figure…
I think we can safely predict that, computer technology in the near future will be much more advanced than it is now. So, ten years from now, we will look back at todays computers with much the same view we have now of ten year old computers. Things have improved a lot in the technology world in a relatively short space of time.
However, even though we can see huge errors and failures with past climate model predictions, they seem to be stuck in a time warp. Still intent on making the big warming predictions, despite having missed the big current pause, it looks like the only thing their models are capable of predicting, is warming regardless. In fact, you don’t need models to make these predictions into the future, just a wild guess with a large dose of bias.
Unfortunately, they don’t have to be right, they just have to get the scare out there. For a lot of people, this is good enough to convince them that this disaster, headed our way in 2050 and even worse again another 50 years after that, is a reality. No chance that they are wrong. These guys should be picking horses or the lottery numbers. Though, in this two horse race, they’ve consistently picked the runner up.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/28/over-100-published-science-journal-articles-just-gibberish/
Add one to the list.
So many climate models… so many temperature trends based on rising CO2 emission scenarios… and not one model reflected a temperature pause over the last 17 years.
And these scientists now want us to believe what they say is going to happen in 2100!!!!
Unbelievable! It’s this sort of stuff that is making climate scientists look like modern day snake-oil salesmen trying to flog a catastrophic man-made global warming potion.
Hey Professor!!! Model this!!!
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/ant_wave.html
Idiot
He has demonstrated the sensitivity and responsiveness of his models to fudges. A tweaky-weaky here, a tweaky-weaky there and … they then show what he wants.