Claim: wind change around Antarctica may hasten sea level rise

New research shows projected changes in the winds circling the Antarctic may accelerate global sea level rise significantly more than previously estimated.

Changes to Antarctic winds have already been linked to southern Australia’s drying climate but now it appears they may also have a profound impact on warming ocean temperatures under the ice shelves along the coastline of West and East Antarctic.

“When we included projected Antarctic wind shifts in a detailed global ocean model, we found water up to 4°C warmer than current temperatures rose up to meet the base of the Antarctic ice shelves,” said lead author Dr Paul Spence from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS).

“The sub-surface warming revealed in this research is on average twice as large as previously estimated with almost all of coastal Antarctica affected. This relatively warm water provides a huge reservoir of melt potential right near the grounding lines of ice shelves around Antarctica. It could lead to a massive increase in the rate of ice sheet melt, with direct consequences for global sea level rise.”

Prior to this research by Dr Spence and colleagues from Australian National University and the University of New South Wales, most sea level rise studies focused on the rate of ice shelf melting due to the general warming of the ocean over large areas.

Using super computers at Australia’s National Computational Infrastructure (NCI) Facility the researchers were able to examine the impacts of changing winds on currents down to 700m around the coastline in greater detail than ever before.

Previous global models did not adequately capture these currents and the structure of water temperatures at these depths. Unexpectedly, this more detailed approach suggests changes in Antarctic coastal winds due to climate change and their impact on coastal currents could be even more important on melting of the ice shelves than the broader warming of the ocean.

“When we first saw the results it was quite a shock. It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong,” Dr Spence said.

“But the processes at play are quite simple, and well-resolved by the ocean model, so this has important implications for climate and sea-level projections. What is particularly concerning is how easy it is for climate change to increase the water temperatures beside Antarctic ice sheets.”

The research may help to explain a number of sudden and unexplained increases in global sea levels that occurred in the geological past.

“It is very plausible that the mechanism revealed by this research will push parts of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet beyond a point of no return,” said Dr Axel Timmerman, Prof of Oceanography at University of Hawaii and an IPCC lead author who has seen the paper.

“This work suggests the Antarctic ice sheets may be less stable to future climate change than previously assumed.”

Recent estimates suggest the West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone could contribute 3.3 metres to long-term global sea level rise.

With both West and East Antarctica affected by the change in currents, in the future abrupt rises in sea level become more likely.

According to another of the paper’s authors, Dr Nicolas Jourdain from ARCCSS, the mechanism that leads to rapid melting may be having an impact on the Western Antarctic right now. Dr Jourdain said it may help explain why the melt rate of some of the glaciers in that region are accelerating more than scientists expected.

“Our research indicates that as global warming continues, parts of East Antarctica will also be affected by these wind-induced changes in ocean currents and temperatures,” Dr Jourdain said.

“Dramatic rises in sea level are almost inevitable if we continue to emit greenhouse gases at the current rate.”

Abstract

The southern hemisphere westerly winds have been strengthening and shifting poleward since the 1950s. This wind trend is projected to persist under continued anthropogenic forcing, but the impact of the changing winds on Antarctic coastal heat distribution remains poorly understood. Here we show that a poleward wind shift at the latitudes of the Antarctic Peninsula can produce an intense warming of subsurface coastal waters that exceeds 2 °C at 200-700 m depth. The model simulated warming results from a rapid advective heat flux induced by weakened near-shore Ekman pumping, and is associated with weakened coastal currents. This analysis shows that anthropogenically induced wind changes can dramatically increase the temperature of ocean water at ice sheet grounding lines and at the base of floating ice shelves around Antarctica, with potentially significant ramifications for global sea level rise.

About these ads

85 thoughts on “Claim: wind change around Antarctica may hasten sea level rise

  1. It can’t possibly be models the whole way down.
    There must be a turtle down there somewhere to take the strain down at the bottom, thats if it hasn’t drowned in the modeled BS.

  2. “When we included projected Antarctic wind shifts in a detailed global ocean MODEL, we found water up to 4°C warmer than current temperatures rose up to meet the base of the Antarctic ice shelves,”

    All based on a Model..lol

    When are they going to realize that models are what they eat.(selected data put into them)

    Anthony, When is some one going to do a Peer Rewired study on how the models are a Complete Failure.

  3. ““When we first saw the results it was quite a shock. It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong,” Dr Spence said.”

    Seriously?

  4. ” “When we first saw the results it was quite a shock. It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong,” Dr Spence said. ”

    Says a lot, doesn’t it? Science = computer modeling of “what we think.” Want to bet whether there is actually any physical data that he can present that will support the model’s output? Funny how changes in the winds haen’t seemed to slow down the ice buildup, but when you can model the currents and how they are affected by the wind up to 700m below the ice, you have moved closer to “godhood” than I could imagine, so I will bow down to his god like” wisdom.

  5. We have invented a range of probabilities. The lowest on the scale are the scariest and meant to draw the most media attention.

  6. We must see that the ice in the south breaking records not only in winter, but in summer. This means only one thing: the temperature drop atmosphere.

  7. These winds have been blowing like this for the past 33.6 million years when Antarctica became fully glaciated over and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current started up.

    This occured when CO2 was 1,400 ppm.

    Sailing ships from the late-1500s onwards (when CO2 was 275 ppm) have almost never been able to make it through the Drake Passage (between South America and Antarctica) because of these winds.

    Climate models do not trump real history.

  8. Previous global models did not adequately capture these currents and the structure of water temperatures at these depths. … “But the processes at play are quite simple, and well-resolved by the ocean model, so this has important implications for climate and sea-level projections.
    ==============
    If the process is so simple, why did previous models “not adequately capture”?

    Could it be that simplicity is more a state of mind, rather than a property of ocean currents. Is it possible that the researchers have underestimated the complexity of the physical process they are seeking to model?

  9. Maybe when…..maybe if…..could and might. Nice precise scientific terms!!??

  10. So:- “Previous global models did not adequately capture these currents and the structure of water temperatures at these depths. Unexpectedly, this more detailed approach suggests changes in Antarctic coastal winds due to climate change and their impact on coastal currents could be even more important on melting of the ice shelves than the broader warming of the ocean.”

    Also, these previous models didn’t model the increase in antarctic ice, although the author seems to overlook that bit. I recommend that he doesn’t charter a ship and go there as he will only get stuck in the ice that shouldn’t be there according to his computer game.

  11. model outputs translated as “truths” This is how they “smoke and mirror” the world. It’s all pure fantasy. In God we trust. All others bring data.

  12. baart1980: Sea ice is not the same as ice sheet. Try this for monitoring Antarctic sea ice:

  13. “When we first saw the results it was quite a shock. It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong,” Dr Spence said.
    ========
    How do you know it isn’t wrong? How was the model validated?

    The simple fact is that the model cannot have been validated, because it is trying to predict the future, years in advance. However, ocean flows are turbulent and thus chaotic, and thus cannot be predicted beyond a few days in the future using current technology.

  14. “Previous global models did not adequately capture these currents and the structure of water temperatures at these depths. Unexpectedly….”

    The old unproved models were wrong, but you can trust our new unproved models.

    Where the hell were these people trained? You would think real scientists in other hard science disciplines at those institutions would start to complain about the sullying of their institution’s reputation.

  15. More ice melting from warmer water? Thank goodness for that, because warmer water means more snowfall, so without more melting all the water in the world would pile up on top of Antarctica.

  16. “The research may help explain a number of sudden and unexplained increases in global sea levels that occurred in the geological past”
    Does this mean that this is a natural mechanism not related to “man made global warming”, oh sorry ” man made climate change”?

  17. It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong
    =============
    Wouldn’t it be more correct to say:

    It was one of the few cases where I hoped the MODEL was wrong

    The author is assuming that the model is a 100% correct representation of science. This is a physical impossibility. A computer model is at best a rough approximation of reality, that will quickly diverge from reality the longer it runs.

  18. I was going to leave a comment, but ferdberple & Partrick B have captured the gist of what is wrong with this conjecture.

  19. “The research may help explain a number of sudden and unexplained increases in global sea levels that occurred in the geological past”
    ================
    strange how the increases that occurred in the past were natural, but those that will occur in the future must be man-made.

  20. The models are performing brilliantly (as always)! It is the reality and observations that are corrupted and unreliable. We must learn to observe as the models leads.

    A model is… what a model does. GK

  21. Changes to Antarctic winds have already been linked to southern Australia’s drying climate
    ===============
    Thus Australia built a bunch of very expensive desalination plants. Based on Climate Science recommendations. Now mothballed, lying idle. And record flooding swept Queensland.

  22. The “anthropogenically induced wind changes” was a pretty bold assumption thrown in at the beginning of their modeling process. I would like to see evidence that the wind changes are even semi-permanent and are actually induced by man. I hate this type of “scientistic” speculation.

  23. I just went to the NSIDC Page to check on the Arctic ice conditions. Whenever I have gone to their page, I have always seen both Arctic and Antarctic updates. Not this time, though. On the main “news” page where you find all the info, there is not one mention of Antarctic ice. (Except for one little link at the top showing a couple charts called “Antarctic Daily Image”. Is this normal?

  24. The fortune telling bit is the same game, but the crystal ball looks more like a bank of computer servers. The price? Rising higher and higher. The con? Getting dirtier and dirtier.

  25. We should expect more and more nonsense speculation like this about Antarctica since the sea ice around the continent continues to break records in extent. My respect for the “peer reviewed” paper continues to decline.

  26. this more detailed approach suggests changes in Antarctic coastal winds due to climate change . . . .

    IOW, the winds will only speed up if the global temperature rises. But if it doesn’t, as it hasn’t been, then they won’t–and the knock-on effect won’t happen either.

  27. Could … might … may … suggests … modeled …

    Yawn.

    Anybody else bored with all of the “it’s worse than we thought” modeling?

    News flash (or not) Antarctica has been melting for 15,000 years.

    Call me when you have some real data.

  28. Bill Illis says:
    July 8, 2014 at 6:00 am
    “Climate models do not trump real history.”
    ————————————————————————————————————————-
    They can appear to if one is ignorant of history.

  29. “When we first saw the results it was quite a shock. It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong,” Dr Spence said.

    So in most other cases they are happy that disaster is on the way?

  30. Using super computers at Australia’s National Computational Infrastructure (NCI) Facility the researchers were able to examine the impacts of changing winds on currents down to 700m around the coastline in greater detail than ever before.

    Waterproof super computers capable of descending to 700m. Imagine that.

    What? They used the computers to model projected winds and currents, not actually observe them.

    Oh. Never mind. Just more journalistic misrepresentation.

  31. In reply to:

    bernie1815 says:
    July 8, 2014 at 5:47 am
    And the continued growth of Antarctic sea ice is explained how?
    William:

    That is a tough question to answer. Here is an attempt.

    Peer review analysis indicates, surprise, surprise, surprise, there is more sea ice in an Antarctic region when the surface air temperature in the Antarctic region in question is colder. Who would have thought that? Likely also applies to the Arctic.

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Shu_etal_2012.pdf

    Sea ice trends in the Antarctic and their relationship to surface air temperature during 1979–2009
    “…If the relationship between SIC and GISS SAT trends is examined regionally, Antarctic SIC trends agree well with the local SAT trends in the most Antarctic regions. That is, Antarctic SIC and SAT show an inverse relationship: a cooling (warming) SAT trend is associated with an upward (downward) SIC trend. It is also concluded that the relationship between sea ice and SAT trends in the Antarctic should be examined regionally rather than integrally.”

    So as it is a fact that sea ice is now more than two sigma higher for every month of the year in the Antarctic and the sea ice in question is found in all regions of the Antarctic, what is the logical conclusion?

    Yep. It’s getting colder in the Antarctic.

    The proxy data indicates it has warmed 342 times in the Antarctic in the last 240,00 years (1500 year and 400 year periodicity, same as the observed Dansgaard-Oeschger warming/cooling cycle in the Northern hemisphere). 342 times the warming period was followed by a cold period.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

    The physical reason for the sudden high latitude cooling? An increase in low altitude clouds and a reduction in high altitude cirrus clouds (the wispy cirrus clouds warm by the greenhouse affect particularly in the winter, note there is record sea ice now in the Antarctic winter.). The change in Antarctic cloud cover is caused by a reduction in solar wind bursts (Ap which a measurement of changes to the geomagnetic field caused by solar wind bursts is down by 66% as compared to previous solar magnetic cycle maximums see link below.) and by an increase in galactic cosmic rays (GCR also called cosmic ray flux CRF, GCR/CRF is mostly high speed protons). The GCR/CRF (high speed protons) strike the atmosphere and create cloud forming ions. The solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions by creating a space charge differential in the ionosphere which creates a potential differential between the poles of the planet and the equator. Solar magnetic cycle changes modulate GCR/CRF by what is called the solar heliosphere. The solar magnetic cycle creates what is called the solar heliosphere (a tenuous cloud of magnetic flux and gas ejected from the sun, that extends well past the orbit of Pluto). The solar heliosphere blocks and deflects a portion of the high speed protons (GCR/CRF).

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/07/peak-solar-geomagnetic-activity-shows.html

  32. Tom in Florida, if you think the Crazy World of Arthur Brown is a hoot, come down to Tasmania and try the loony green world of Bob Brown.

    As for the supposed drying of southern Australia, actually it is only the SW of Western Australia that has dried off ( -20%) and Tasmania to a lesser extent (-10%) although the latter has twice the rainfall of the mainland to start with. Southern Ausytralia as a whole has got wetter by about 10% so go figure.

    This ‘research’ is the latest offering from the Retard Twerk outfit that brought you the Ship of Fools debacle so you can imagine the sort of breathless eco conference junkies we are talking about.

    Incidentally I am in Perth, WA as I type and if sure ain’t dry here at the moment!

  33. What does it take to get a doctorate degree? Maybe a box of cracker jacks and wish that the world will end.

  34. The thing that shocked me was the fact that the increased 200 to 700 meter warmer water didn’t try to rise to the surface, and melt all that additional sea ice that has been increasing for the past 20 years.

    “Here we show that a poleward wind shift at the latitudes of the Antarctic Peninsula can produce an intense warming of subsurface coastal waters that exceeds 2 °C at 200-700 m depth.”

  35. ‘And when we rigged the model we were shocked at the result’?

    The funding vampires are always “shocked” at their results fabricated from computer simulations based on other model simulations of what the global temperatures may do to SSTs and winds and currents themselves based on models and simulations. A great big steaming pile of speculation supported by guesswork and wishful thinking. And none of it takes into account the now historic record sea ice levels. And where have we heard the old ‘its a supercomputer so it cant be wrong’ claim before?

  36. Gerry, England says:
    July 8, 2014 at 6:14 am (commenting from the original article)

    So:-

    “Previous global models did not adequately capture these currents and the structure of water temperatures at these depths. Unexpectedly, this more detailed approach suggests changes in Antarctic coastal winds due to climate change and their impact on coastal currents could be even more important on melting of the ice shelves than the broader warming of the ocean.”

    Also, these previous models didn’t model the increase in antarctic ice, although the author seems to overlook that bit. I recommend that he doesn’t charter a ship and go there as he will only get stuck in the ice that shouldn’t be there according to his computer game.

    The Antarctic sea ice is 100 – 200 kilometers from the Antarctic shore AT MINIMUM EXTENTS each Antarctic melting season in mid-February each year. During “average” Antarctic sea ice periods, the edge of the Antarctic sea ice from the continental ice and the two largest Antarctic Shelf Ice, that distance is 500 – 1200 kilometers away from the “disturbed” region where Antarctic circular winds could FIRST begin influencing sub-surface ocean currents. At maximum Antarctic sea ice between August and October each year, this distance is 1000 – 1500 kilometers away, some place even greater.

    What distances from the Antarctic coast did these people use to create such increased ocean movements from wind? Even off of the US coast, the tremendous Gulf Stream is a narrow band of currents. What measurements have they cited to verify even the original current “model” – much less the CHANGES to the original Antarctic current flows AFTER increased Antarctic sea ice the past 7 years AND the potential Antarctic continued global warming. Which global warming, by satellite measurements – is actually NOT warming over Antarctica the past 50 years of satellite and regional air measurements!

    Further problems with this propaganda: There are only a few places where the Antarctic “toe melting” can actually occur: in the tips of only three glaciers off of the West Antarctic sheets which “drain” only 5% of the Antarctic continental ice cap. Thus, only three glaciers are “fixed” by their toe grounding (the biggest are Thwaits and Pine Island Glaciers), and THAT movement can be better explained by a 2 meter INCREASE in glacier depth than by a recent melting under the toe of the glacier.

  37. I read somewhere that at the current rate of ‘man made’ wind-change/antarctic melting/worse-than-we-thought b.s. that it will be 2200 before 1 % of said ice mass melts…..wow. Where is the data linking the trace chemical 95% emitted by Gaia to ‘wind’….love to see that ‘proof’.

  38. Bill Illis
    “Climate models do not trump real history”
    I agree with you . This looks like another flawed alarmist attempt to push the sea level rise issue again . If winds are more active in the Antarctic, the opposite off setting could happen too,
    More winds > more mixing and upwelling of cold water to Southern oceans and to ocean conveyor belts > cooler surface currents > cooling of southern and mid latitude Atlantic SST > > cooling of North Atlantic Ocean STT> more rain in Northern Hemisphere > less salinity in Northern Atlantic ocean> slowdown of ocean conveyor belt > more freezing of Arctic oceans .> more ice > less sea level rise

  39. This paper is nothing more than speculation. We know little to nothing about sea surface temperatures in the Southern Ocean before the satellite era, and we have even fewer samples of subsurface temperatures for the Southern Ocean before 2003. We know nothing of the decadal, multidecadal and centennial variability of coupled ocean-atmosphere processes there, nothing.

  40. The piece talks about a 2 degree rise in sea water temp due to the wind, , but i wonder if this is only during the summer months. If the summer winds can do this what can the winter winds do? From my experience the AGW crowd tends to leave out half the story.

  41. The advantage of super computors is that they can digest a larger questionable Model and output more questionable data faster than a less than super computor can.

  42. William: I cannot judge the validity of your account – but the increasing Antarctic sea ice seems to be a “fact”. But, to follow on Bob Tisdale’s trenchant comment, if the authors do not have the SST data, they do not have the data to even justify their theory. Their mode of scientific reasoning just leaves me baffled. It is like reading medieval theological treatises: Yes, it is possible but is it real?

  43. It’s a damned shame these ‘scientists’ have screwed up the science with their believe systems to the point where no one with even a shred of common sense can accept anything they say. In a normal world (read that as before ‘Global Warming’) a paper like this might at least provide food for thought and have maybe a 10% chance of being at least partially correct. But these idiots have totally destroyed their own reputations and partially that of science in general. I won’t even mention the effect they have had on (trust in) statistics and modeling.

  44. “This work suggests the Antarctic ice sheets may be less stable to future climate change than previously assumed.”
    “Dramatic rises in sea level are almost inevitable if we continue to emit greenhouse gases at the current rate.”

    A dead give away phrase for an alarmist standard paper

    It is worse than we thought
    We must reduce greenhouse gases

  45. “When we first saw the results it was quite a shock. It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong,” Dr Spence said.

    When it comes to climate science and model projections, it would be more of a shock to me if the “science” proved itself accurate when the time arose to verify it.

  46. For the benefit of Mr. Spence and all the other so-called climate scientists who do not know the difference:

    science
    the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

    computer model
    A computer model is a computer program that is designed to simulate what might or what did happen in a situation.

    Computer models are not observations and they are not experiments. While they incorporate some structure and behavior of the physical and natural world, they do not contain all or even most of it. Since are knowledge of climate is far from complete, these models must be built with massive assumptions.

    Computer models are designed. The outcome is predetermined by the assumptions of the designer. This is completely different from experimentation, where the outcome occurs independent of the expectations and assumptions of the experimenter. The outcome of an actual experiment is a physical reality. The outcome of a computer model is a fiction.

    Models are not science.

  47. ““When we first saw the results it was quite a shock. It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong,” Dr Spence said.”

    Dr. Spence – don’t you mean, “lets hope this another case where the models ARE wrong.” .???

  48. “…may accelerate global sea level rise significantly more than previously estimated.” (in actuality it appears to be decelerating)
    “…… in a detailed global ocean model, we found water up to 4°C warmer than current temperatures …..base of the Antarctic ice shelves,” said lead author(from) Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.” (Guess where: Aust Nat Uni and UNSW – I guess the Ship of Fools did do a report)
    “When we first saw the results it was quite a shock.”

    This shows how deep they are into fantasy. “I was quite in shock when I saw Alice fall down the rabbit hole”

  49. Once again, I am offering these scientists an opportunity to cash in on their academic expertise. After all of this research, surely they must consider themselves to be experts in their field, having knowledge and a level of understanding that transcends anything a simple-minded GED diploma sporting fool such as I could achieve. And so, based upon this gauge, http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ I am offering a $10,000 annual prize to any and all takers. In any one year period, if the gauge rises by >5mm, I will pay $10,000 and if it fails to rise by >5mm then you pay me $10,000. If the acceleration in sea level rise is real then surely I will be inundated with professional experts who want to take my money. Funny though, I’ve been making this offer for over a month and have had no takers at all.

  50. “…the mechanism that leads to rapid melting may be having an impact on the Western Antarctic right now.”

    How can that be when there hasn’t been any warming? I guess these scientists were so focused on their models that they missed the recent news that the melting in Western Antarctic is due to geothermal heat warming from below, not from winds, currents, or any other effects of climate change.

    “But the processes at play are quite simple, and well-resolved by the ocean model”

    Why does that statement lead me to believe that they over-simplified the “processes at play” in programming their model? The model is only as good as the theory it is based on, the programmer that designs it, and the data fed into it. Models don’t write themselves.

    “When we first saw the results it was quite a shock.”

    They programmed the model to produce the results they wanted, and we’re supposed to believe they were shocked to see the results? There is nothing in this models-based study that passes the smell test. Nothing.

  51. Looking at the Supplemental Materials it would appear that the entire intellectual edifice of this particular piece of “scientific” wonderment is premised on the foundational assumption that circumpolar winds will both shift 4 degrees South and increase in velocity by 15%. Since the paper is paywalled I wasn’t willing to pursue what logical justification they may have offered for these assumptions, but judging by the tenor of the rest of their output I am inclined to speculate that the numbers were smoothly extracted from their anal orifices.

  52. “When we first saw the results it was quite a shock. It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong,” Dr Spence said.
    In other words, there were fist bumps all round, and the dancing of jigs.

  53. “Dramatic rises in sea level are almost inevitable if we continue to emit greenhouse gases at the current rate.”

    If antarctica was losing, instead of growing ice, I might be a bit more concerned. Bullshit always looks the same, ho hum.

  54. “Dramatic rises in sea level are almost inevitable if we continue to emit greenhouse gases at the current rate.”
    Nothing like ignoring the past. Why one would believe that gradual warming (even if that should occur), would result in “dramatic sea level rises,” is an oxymoron. Global temps have been warming for more than a century and sea level rises (which have happened at a far greater rate in the previous thousands of years) are now actually slowing down. The only thing dramatic around here is the grossly exggerated fear mongering. Now THAT’S dramatic.

  55. Model projections based on model projections. How many more before we find one that was in a movie with Kevin Bacon? Seriously, non-scientists like me always need some editorial help; is any real science in there?

  56. The hardest part in climate models is conservation of energy. They haven’t invented double bookkeeping yet. It’s easy to get the desired warming by having a little bit accumulate out of thin air from step to step.

    ““When we first saw the results it was quite a shock. It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong,” Dr Spence said.”

    Guy sounds like a scripted reality show actor. Government science needs better impostors.

  57. Tom O says:

    July 8, 2014 at 5:52 am
    “When we first saw the results it was quite a shock. It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong,” Dr Spence said. ”

    This gets my vote for the most stupid words to emanate from the mouth of a scientist, evah, evah.

  58. I suspect this paper was written to try and tie the hyped, West Antarctic melting to AGW induced winds. However, the UT/IG study came out and stole their thunder. We now know the melting is geothermal based. Of course, they couldn’t pull this paper on short notice so they are trying to BS their way around the issue in the press release. I wonder how stupid they actually feel? Given the chance I will mock these jokers any chance I get.

  59. ‘Changes to Antarctic winds have already been linked to southern Australia’s drying climate ….’
    As Mike in Tassie says, what drying?

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=saus&season=0112&ave_yr=14

    A little drop in the past few years but nothing like the period of drying prior to 1950. Only SW Aust shows drying – everywhere else in Aussie, rainfall has increased.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=14

  60. Who will tell these morons to stop digging? They’re in a hole so deep already if they get any deeper they could find geothermal heat.

    Antarctica is cooling. It is what it is.

  61. said lead author Dr Paul Spence from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS)

    Heh. Some quite careful press release writing going on there. Here’s what the write up in our green-as-grass ABC national broadcaster said yesterday.

    said Paul Spence from the Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW

    Why, that’s just amazing. I have heard of the Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW before. Not so long ago. Now where did I hear about them? Ah I remember I heard about them here at WUWT.

    So much sea ice in Antarctica that a research vessel gets stuck, in summer!

    Wow! Isn’t that funny. Its the very same group whose models were predicting Antarctic sea ice melting and went to Antarctica last summer, got stuck for a month, ran out of booze and had to be rescued by icebreakers.

    Yes, the ‘Ship of Fools’. No wonder the press release avoids any mention of the CCRC.

  62. Someone needs to tell these clowns that computer games do not constitute science.

  63. Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science –now there’s an oxymoron for you.

  64. Above all folks, particularly Australian folks, we are being forced to pay for this crap without having any input into whether we want to pay or not.
    In normal life we can wander into a premises and look the potential purchase over and decide if it is of a quality and price we like. Or the counter, that it is crap and no way we would touch it.

    But here, with this absolutely abysmal quality and an apparent significant deficit any discernible intellectual capabilities we are being forced to pay for science if it can be called that, that is nothing more than a total waste of whole giga gross of electrons and a whole bunch of trees.

    Compounded by the gross insult to the ordinary street level citizen tax payer where if he / she wants to look at the science he / she has already paid for, they have to pay all over again to see the results of their enforced expenditure on an item, an expenditure over which they have no say or control and which is totally controlled by those same scientific insider’s Good Old Boys network.

    Somewhere there has to be a radical overhaul of science funding so that the pseudo scientists who push this sort of crap out as science never get funded again.
    As well it should be mandated that any science already funded from tax payer’s pockets should never be allowed to be pay walled and MUST be available in it’s totality along with ALL the supporting data and processes to anybody who wants to examine the science and who can do so without expending a red cent of his own to do so.

    In short, from being a supporter of science all my life [ I was a member of a five person trustee board for some 28 years for our local large agricultural research organisation with it's over two hundred scientists and support staff ] I have had an absolute gutsfull of the sheer fraud that is perpetuated as some sort of science today and which is turning into nothing more than a gigantic rip off of the trusting tax payers by a small groups of conmen who have managed to get themselves some letters after their name and who now try to pass themselves off a some sort of intellectual giants intent on saving the planet. All the while collecting and garnering large and munificent funds that will keep them in comfort for the rest of their lives.

    Meanwhile the policies these pseudo scientific con men continuously and heavily and openly promote are all directed towards the deprivation of living standards and life styles of the ordinary citizen, never their own of course, to supposedly to “save the planet”, a deprivation directed at the very street level tax paying citizens who are forced to pay without having any say, the munificent incomes of these same pseudo science conmen.

  65. “The research may help to explain a number of sudden and unexplained increases in global sea levels that occurred in the geological past.
    “It is very plausible that the mechanism revealed by this research will push parts of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet beyond a point of no return,” said Dr Axel Timmerman”

    Isn’t this a contradiction? It returned in the past.

    “”It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong,” Dr Spence said.”
    Er…science or modelling? This statement is also very cryptic – its meaning is not obvious. I’m sure he hoped nothing of the sort. These guys should write the screenplays for disaster movies.

    “What is particularly concerning is how easy it is for climate change to increase the water temperatures beside Antarctic ice sheets.” Dead easy. All we need is some climate change. All we need for that is some temperature rise. I don’t know what we need for that – CO2 isn’t doing it. What else can we try to heat the world so these guys can bask in glory, and collect more grant monies.

  66. It is absolutely amazing what a difference having that ‘r’ at the end of one’s name makes! (Spence Spencer) Must be that ‘r’ that allows Dr. Spencer to achieve and demonstrate his genius as a true scientist versus the modeled wannabe ‘Spence the alarmist’ who claims that his supercomputer program does exactly what his programmers wanted.
    :>

  67. “Baart says: July 8, 2014 at 5:41 am”

    or is that

    “baart1980 says: July 8, 2014 at 5:48 am”

    Got many more online IDs?

    Computer models and super computers do exactly what they’re told to do; not one bit more and not one bit less.

    Models, super duper computers and alarmist teachers can not make all the broken models in the world real nor factual.

    Models and super duper pooper computers all follow the programming maxim that “garbage in means garbage output”. We’ll give you a couple guesses where those models and lumps of microelectronics get all their garbage to ingest… S P E N C E
    (remember, no ‘r’)

    Meanwhile those other well constructed lumps of orbiting microelectronics, called satellites, have kept Antarctica under observation and yes, they can confirm that it is quite cold in Antarctica and the ice is still growing.

    Perhaps there is a ship planning on visiting Antarctica later this year and you could try for a berth? Make sure you bring plenty of bananas and peanut butter…

  68. “””””……JimS says:

    July 8, 2014 at 8:55 am

    “When we first saw the results it was quite a shock. It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong,” Dr Spence said…….””””””

    So how many times have I asserted, that the only thing that statistics is good for, is to predict how “shocked” you will be when you see the real results.

    So Dr Spence, for once you pegged it on the money; the “science” IS wrong.

  69. “Changes to Antarctic winds have already been linked to southern Australia’s drying climate…”

    The claim is sciency-sounding but safely blurry. There’s a reason: most of Australia experienced a half century of drying climate from the mid-1890s to post WW2. The whole continent since 1950 is a wetter place overall, except for the south-west tip of WA. It’s true that the north is much wetter since the 1970s but that rain was not subtracted from the south.

    You can always find a drought over a large area of Oz at any given time (except maybe the mid-1970s) so maybe our experts are just taking pot luck with their comment. Since the latest bad drought has been in the north east of the continent their clever little throw away line might look weak when examined…But we were supposed to examine it, were we?

    A half century of rainfall deficit in Australia is a lot to ignore, but many people termed climate scientists manage to do just that. They love the long term deficit but hate the dates on it.

  70. “The southern hemisphere westerly winds have been strengthening and shifting poleward since the 1950s. This wind trend is projected to persist under continued anthropogenic forcing, but the impact of the changing winds on Antarctic coastal heat distribution remains poorly understood. Here we show that a poleward wind shift at the latitudes of the Antarctic Peninsula can produce an intense warming of subsurface coastal waters that exceeds 2 °C at 200-700 m depth.”

    The winds exist now according to the paper,
    So measure the sea temp at 200-700m depth. Can you find the “intense warming of substrate coastal waters that exceeds 2°C” that your theory predicted?

    If so, publish your theory. If not, quietly re-think.

    Publishing a paper on modelling that seems to have a clear prediction that is measurable and not providing any experimental measurements certainly is not science. DO SOME MEASUREMENTS. DO SOME SCIENCE

  71. I read this the other day on the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) website, linked to by a Peter Hannam, a notorious alarmist. I read the article up to the word model and then ignored it. Another day, another alarmist article at the SMH.

  72. Here we show that a poleward wind shift at the latitudes of the Antarctic Peninsula can produce an intense warming of subsurface coastal waters that exceeds 2 °C at 200-700 m depth.

    They haven’t shown anything, it’s simply model output, just like the IPCC’s diverging projections with observation. Garbage in, garbage out. Here are what some other models show. More garbage.

    Abstract
    The Key Role of Heavy Precipitation Events in Climate Model Disagreements of Future Annual Precipitation Changes in California
    Climate model simulations disagree on whether future precipitation will increase or decrease over California, which has impeded efforts to anticipate and adapt to human-induced climate change……..Between these conflicting tendencies, 12 projections show drier annual conditions by the 2060s and 13 show wetter. These results are obtained from 16 global general circulation models downscaled with different combinations of dynamical methods…

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00766.1

    If you haven’t had enough of the garbage then you can find more garbage HERE.

Comments are closed.