Guest post by Steven Goddard
Two days ago I questioned how Antarctic ice could be both “melting faster than expected” and “expanding” at the same time. Yet (as WUWT has noted before) the answer is obvious – according to NASA, most of Antarctica is both cooling rapidly and heating rapidly at the same time.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilkinsIceSheet/images/wilkins_avh_2007.jpg
Since nearly the entire continent is both cooling and heating simultaneously, it makes perfect sense (using AGW logic) that the ice would be rapidly expanding and rapidly retreating simultaneously. In 2004, NASA thought that Antarctica was cooling by as much as 15 degrees C per century. But after three more years of cooling, they changed the map to show a warming trend in 2007.
The hot red warming trend seen in the second map has a stated uncertainty of “between 2-3 degrees Celsius” which means that it might actually represent a rapid cooling trend, rather than a warming trend. Vostok is averaging -96F this week. Does that make anyone think of hot, red colors?
Penguins trying to keep cool in NASA’s rapidly warming world
Nylo posted a link to an excellent parody of the state of Antarctic climate science, written by Dr. John Christy.
“What we believe,” Dr. Frost told ecoEnquirer, “is that a new paradigm is needed in scientific thought. Since mutually exclusive sets of scientific results usually are published in respected scientific publications, we suggest that they are both true. There is a higher level of physical understanding that must be developed, one where the Yin and Yang of scientific findings are reconciled, better understood, and appreciated.”
Good to see tax dollars hard at work, supporting serious and coherent science from the same organisation which put men on the moon – 40 years ago this July.
Shakespeare apparently saw AGW coming:
Much Ado About Nothing
The Comedy of Errors
All’s Well That Ends Well
Measure for Measure A Midsummer Night’s Dream The Tempest
Hangzen (15:09:58) :
Good god! When will somebody, anybody have the balls to stand up to Gore and Waxman and tell them they are lying to the world?
It doesn’t take balls!…….Guts!
They can’t hear you, Hanzgen.
They would’t hear Lord Monckton, nor will they hear Hawking or Dyson.
They won’t hear dissent, and they won’t allow debate.
They heard Gingrich, but they have too much Wax in their ears.
They hear only the drumbeat of thier models.
They will turn a deaf ear to the cry of their own people when bitter cold descends. They will only chant their mantra of Global Warming causes all ills, as they do now.
crosspatch (11:00:45) : I believe that you do not get ticketed for parking your car in your driveway in Pakistan (But then that place is supposed to be third world). PS.In the District of Columbia, if one can lease the driveway after an application then I might scour the neighbourhood for a suitable site to park my car all day (blocking access to whoever lives there of course). I cannot see me being refused , as the land is public space and so anybody should be allowed to apply for a permit , not just the people whose homes abutt the site.
Francis (14:29:11) – I’m wondering if the positive temp. trend of the southern ocean shown in the posted photo is an artifact of the satellite measuring systems response to sea ice change revealing/hiding warmer water beneath. This is one of the things I’ve seen mentioned in relation to the strong positive trends shown in areas where calving has taken place.
If anyone has any actual sea temp data for the area and timespan of the photo please point me to it. Apologies for not digging it myself but I tried the Argo interface and it wasn’t straighforward nor has Argo been in use for 20 years.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts and data.
Derek Smith,
Thank you sir for helping to keep the electrons flowing using a fairly inexpensive (and with technology clean) form of fuel.
Mike
D. King,
Thank you for that link. It made my day. I’m sure it made Al Gores day too!
BTW, saw the Disney Earth movie last night…. I was waiting for Mr. Gore to show up with a plate of sushi and save that polar bear. I guess he was too busy tweaking his climate models.
Oh well, that polar bear died for a great cause. At least, that’s what they thought.
Ohioholic (14:21:12) :
“I thought I was misunderstanding that when I read it, because it didn’t make sense to me. I did read it right? If that is the case, what the hell is the point of that map?! “This is what’s happening as long as we aren’t 1000-1500% off?”
Somebody please tell me that’s not what’s going on here.”
that’s NOT what’s going on. if anyone would bother to actually read the source instead of taking the claim at face value, they’d read that the 2-3 degree margin of error is NOT the error of the graph. it is the possible error in readings of skin temperature from different sensors (as each is a little bit different) – however, since the sensors have the same systematic error in each measurement, trends over time from the sensors are reliable.
but, who wants to actually think critically on these blogs? BOTH SIDES are guilty of the same exact thing – distortion of the facts to fit their arguments.
Would this be from the NASA whose Johnson Space Centre public relations department didn’t recognize the names of Collins, Armstrong and Aldrin in 1989?
See Gordon Baxter, Flying, July 1989, “Moonstruck”, 38-442, quote on p. 42
[snip wayyyy off topic]
“…according to NASA, most of Antarctica is both cooling rapidly and heating rapidly at the same time.”
—————————————————————
This is true in the sense that global cooling is said to be masking global warming.
Teller and Penn have the proper response to this: Bad Science!
(or something like that)
To argue that all the error is systemic and long term trends are reliable is equally Bad Science.
Doctor Frost has a new paradigm
That is easily stated in rhyme,
“If one thing is true
Then the inverse is too.”
You’ll surely believe it in time.
Current conditions in Vostok, ANT:
-98 F with a dewpoint of -105 F
//www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=vostok,%20antarctica&wuSelect=WEATHER
andrew b (18:02:03) :
“it is the possible error in readings of skin temperature from different sensors (as each is a little bit different) – however, since the sensors have the same systematic error in each measurement, trends over time from the sensors are reliable.”
Ummm, that would be true of an individual sensor perhaps, assuming the error wasn’t because of degrading sensor quality (which would make the long-term trend a continuation of error), but when you net many errors together, your result is a compilation of errors, or in layman’s, a ginormous error. That makes an interesting argument, though. Perhaps an upcoming criminal defense for some Wall Street bozo?
Weird, the spell checker doesn’t underline ginormous.
Actually, the amount of change in either direction is minuscule.
AGW promoters depend on fooling people into thinking, among the many things AGW works to fool people about, is that small changes well within the MOE or actually very significant.
The bipolar dat is so people like the Texas state meteorologist can claim that the Antarctic cooling is proof of AGW, even after he says Antarctic warming is proof of AGW.
The Antarctic cold’s multiplying
At the same time the heat’s amplifying.
How can you tell
If it’s truth or a sell?
If it’s been peer reviewed then they’re lying.
slowtofollow (15:43:13)………. I can’t help you with your quest. But I was able to work up my own theory of calving for floating ice shelves……1…..WARM WATER…..From the link in WUWT 17-4-09 (The Antarctic Wilkins Ice Shelf Collapses)…..For the calved flat topped ice shelf shown, “shear failue of the ice slabs…the weakness of the ice shelf structure is from thinning ice due to the warmer local sea temperatures below.” The weight of the ice above water is supported by the flotation of the ice below, plus shear forces in the plane of attachment to the stationary ice. Melting ice below reduces the upward flotation force, and the block falls down……2…..WARM AIR…..Conceivably, warm air could melt enough ice above water, that the upward flotation force would overcome the shear force. And the block would be lifted up……3…..ANYTHING ELSE?…..That might cause shear failure? Wave action would have negligible lifting effect. And wave action would be dampened by any floating ice, so abrasion wouldn’t be a factor. It would take a lot of snow on top to add a significant downward force. Tidal lift would be a factor only when the stationary ice is on land. A tsunami or an earthquake would presumably be a rare event……4…..CONCLUSION…..The cause of shear failures in floating ice shelves is melting.
Francis (21:34:44) :
3…..ANYTHING ELSE?
How about gravity? Warmer water is not what NOAA has found. In fact, they made an ’embarrassing correction’ to the data to show that the ocean temperature trend is actually flat. Warmer air? Over the Antarctic, warmer is relative.
Conclusion? Re-submit with the above corrections.
Well, there is an east and west side, and a volcanic rift in between:) , and look at the area it effects, gosh, isnt that the area in contention?? So is it bi polar or deceptive twins:P : http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~mstuding/ /tam_map_large.html
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~pwinberr/Site/J%20Paul%20Winberry_files/WinAnanGeology.pdf
The site with the large map has some pretty interesting stuff, most of which goes right over my head.. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~mstuding/
oops screwed up my map link http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~mstuding/tam_map_large.html
Am I the only one having trouble getting NSIDC website up?
Francis (21:34:44)
Hi Francis – thanks for responding. Good info. on sea ice formation and fracture is here:
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/antarctica%20environment/seaice%20formation.htm
There is also a paper I have seen which mentions elestic/plastic properties of ice shelves but I can’t find it right now. However my query is to find actual sea temp. data for the Southern Ocean from physical measures over the same time period as the satellite measures. As mentioned I’m wondering if the mechanism and process of sea ice formation and melt described in the link above will tend to give the satellite data, as processed for the top image on this thread, a warming trend. IMO it would be good to see if there is agreement to the physical measures.
I’m sure the data is out there and again I think I have seen a paper with relevant info. but have not saved a copy. If/when I refind I’ll post a link.
Once really has to question the reliability of information at URL’s that end in .gov.
One image I’d like to see is an Antarctica map showing the typical number of “melting degree days” where each point is the sum of the degrees above freezing for the high temperature over the course of a year, or zero if the high does exceed freezing. This would help show how much of the continent (fifth largest? It’s third smallest) is not melting.
Quote
But after three more years of cooling, they changed the map to show a warming trend in 2007.
Endquote
so, they just changed it, eh? They didn’t use any measurements or anything? And you’re comfortable conflating trends (a period of years) with single-year measurements?
If the science behind ACC was as you like to pretend it is, you wouldn’t need to manipulate the date, nor your readers.