Listening to the Antarctic Ice Shelves – they say "no climate change"

From the Australian

Ice shelves stable over six years

ANTARCTIC ice shelves are showing no sign of climate change, six years of unique research have shown.

Previously on WUWT we discussed the media’s fascination with “melt” when it comes to ice shelves cracking off. Then there’s also this picture that keeps getting recycled. Now there’s the “ice listeners” that hear no change. (see my note at the end)

http://www.ogleearth.com/wissm.jpg

Here’s the article in the Australian

Scientists from Western Australia’s Curtin University of Technology are using acoustic sensors developed to support the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to listen for the sound of icebergs breaking away from the giant ice sheets of the south pole.

“More than six years of observation has not revealed any significant climatic trends,” CUT associate professor Alexander Gavrilov said yesterday.

Professor Gavrilov and PhD student Binghui Li are investigating whether it is possible to detect and monitor significant changes in the disintegration rate of the Antarctic ice shelf by monitoring the noise of ice breaking.

The pair are using two acoustic stations, one 150km off Cape Leeuwin, the southwest tip of WA, and another off the gigantic US military base on Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelago, in the Indian Ocean.

“They are part of a network of underwater acoustic receivers, or hydrophones,” Dr Gavrilov told The Australian yesterday.

The stations have been used to locate nuclear explosions detonated by India.

More than 100 signals from Antarctica are detected weekly by the Cape Leeuwin station. They are then transmitted to Geoscience Australia in Canberra.

“Six years of results is not long in the scheme of things, so we will keep watching,” Dr Gavrilov said.

The pair will present their research at a conference in Europe later this month.

NOTE: While the science on this is questionable at this point, one should note that if the results went the other way, our valiant media would no doubt trumpet the news worldwide. No doubt we’d see catchy headlines like “Ice whisperers hear climate change in the Antarctic” – Anthony

Advertisements

105 thoughts on “Listening to the Antarctic Ice Shelves – they say "no climate change"

  1. 6 years?
    Is that really long enough to allow us to deduce anything about climate change? I keep hearing from the other side that the cooling over the last 10 years is also not long enough to discern a climate trend.

  2. Not sure you can expect a meaningful or significant trend from 6 years of data, but that’s never stopped you before.

  3. But our friends in the AGW community seem to have little interest in hearing this kind of news.

  4. With apologies to Adrian Mitchell.
    I was run over by the truth one day.
    Ever since the accident I’ve walked this way
    So stick my legs in sediment
    Tell me lies about global warming.
    Heard the media hacks screaming with Pain,
    Couldn’t find myself so I went back to sleep again
    So fill my ears with cornstalks
    Stick my legs in sediment
    Tell me lies about global warming.
    Every time I shut my eyes all I see is flames
    It’s Al Gore on the TV again
    So coat my eyes with graphics
    fill my ears with cornstalks
    Stick my legs in sediment
    Tell me lies about global warming.
    I smell something burning, hope it’s just coal trains.
    They’re only dropping data which causes iron stains.
    So stuff my nose with tree rings
    coat my eyes with graphics
    fill my ears with cornstalks
    Stick my legs in sediment
    Tell me lies about global warming.
    Where were you at the time of the crime?
    Down by the skating rink drinking iced wine
    so chain my tongue with liquor
    stuff my nose with tree rings
    coat my eyes with graphics
    fill my ears with cornstalks
    Stick my legs in sediment
    Tell me lies about global warming.
    You put your parameters in, you get your garbage out,
    You take the raw data and you twist it all about
    So scrub my skin with coral,
    chain my tongue with liquor
    stuff my nose with tree rings
    coat my eyes with graphics
    fill my ears with cornstalks
    Stick my legs in sediment
    Tell me lies about global warming.

  5. Glug (09:16:38) :
    Not sure you can expect a meaningful or significant trend from 6 years of data, but that’s never stopped you before.

    If you can say “an ice-free North Pole in five years”, then it opens the door for discussions on this sort of timescale.

  6. It’s too darned cold down there in Antarctica for the likes of Al Gore and the Warmers latest smash hit: Wasted Cracks & Floating Ice, Why do I keep listening to you? (with apologies to the late Freddy Fender).

  7. Headline for the story; Final Proof of AGW;
    Even with recent solar remission, no discernable reduction in the pace of antarctic ice melt.
    Bet me.

  8. Hmm … okay, icebergs cracking or breaking off from glaciers and such make sounds. These instruments can detect those sounds. Fine.
    Or can they? They haven’t “heard” any [significant] “melting” in six years. Did they hear any previously? How much? What did it sound like and was it supported by other data.
    Is this a sound methodology? (And I really do mean, no pun intended.)

  9. The “6-year” argument is ridiculous. I *guaruntee* that if the 6 year trend was in the direction they wanted to see, they wouldn’t shut up about it over at Reallywrongclimate.
    Bob: you are 100% correct.

  10. Anthony – as a dedicated WUWT reader and as a hydro engineer who has worked in some of the hottest, coldest and mediumest climate areas in the world, I have to say that monitoring noise from the Antarctic as a way of providing either pro or con justification for climate anything is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.
    This is a complete joke – as anyone who has spent time in polar regions (or on planet earth) will tell you – this is completely unscientific. All it tells us is how easy it is to get huge amounts of funding for any irrational scam that mighy provide some (however tainted) support for the Alarmistas.
    Don’t give them even peripheral credibility by repeating this nonsense.

    REPLY:
    I guess I didn’t make my issue with media coverage of such events clear in the first couple of paragraphs, so I’ve added a note at the end. If the findings went the other way, we’d never hear the end of it. – Anthony

  11. That must be an old ice age photo…there’s no ice on the planet now. We are hockey stick sky rocket burning up all over the planet.

  12. The scientists doing this research differ from many “AGW” alarmists in a couple of ways. They are making observations rather than computer model projections. And, they are candid about the amount of data: “Six years of results is not long in the scheme of things, so we will keep watching,” Dr Gavrilov said.

  13. 6, or even 30 years of coling isn’t long enough to prove anything:
    “…the Earth has been cooling since 2001 and projected that due to “global variation” the climate would continue to cool for the next 20 to 30 years. […] We are not saying there is not warming due to human activity,” Tsonis told CNSNews.com. ‘We are saying that there are natural shifts on top of that.”
    http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44431
    But, on the other hand, 6 month of melting in the Arctic, year 2007 or if it would have occured this summer/autumn, should be enough to force radical politics i Copenhagen, where all nations have to pay a few percent of their GDP (into the cap-and-crash) to save us from the by 6 month of Arctic melting proven climate change catastrophe.
    Can any warmist believer approve this …suitable methodology?

  14. Well, on top of the “hearability” of changes, the best this study shows is that melting has remained stationary over the last years, not that there is no melting. To summarize: I really think they’re loosing their time (an money).

  15. Since AGW promoters freely assert that one storm, one drought, one heat wave is *proof* of AGW, I think we can enjoy this study as one more refutation of the underlying claims of AGW- that the Earth is under going dangerous global warming.

  16. jlc
    As a research engineer having measured “acoustic emissions” in composite fracture, acoustic monitoring of ice cracking makes perfect sense to me. Each acoustic “emission” or pulse gives information as to the magnitude and rate of cracking or rupture. (They also detect collapse of bubbles in cavitation which is critical to monitoring location and degree of cavitation damage.) In the 1980s hydrophones on one side of the Atlantic could detect a hammer dropped on deck on the other side. e.g., See: The Hunt for Red October
    Evidence for universal intermittent crystal plasticity from acoustic emission and high-resolution extensometry experiments, Jérôme Weiss et al. Phys. Rev. B 76, 224110 (2007) [8 pages]

    Plasticity, a key property in the mechanical behavior and processing of crystalline solids, has been traditionally viewed as a smooth and homogeneous flow. However, using two experimental methods, acoustic emission and high-resolution extensometry, to probe the collective dislocation dynamics in various single crystals, we show that its intermittent critical-like character appears as a rule rather than an exception. Such intermittent, apparently scale-free plastic activity is observed in single-slip as well as multislip conditions and is not significantly influenced by forest hardening. Strain bursts resulting from dislocation avalanches are limited in size by a nontrivial finite size effect resulting from the lamellar character of avalanches. This cutoff explains why strain curves of macroscopic samples are smooth, whereas fluctuations of plastic activity are outstanding in submillimetric structures.

    For more universal interest see:
    Real-Time Underwater Sounds From the Southern Ocean Obel et al. Eos, Vol. 87, No. 36, 5 September 2006 pp 361, 366

    This project will provide marine mammal abundances from this remote region resolved at seasonal and species levels, the ocean noise budget and trends from an undisturbed environment, and unique opportunities for public eavesdropping into the Antarctic underwater soundscape. Project cientists particularly encourage the use of the data in the context of educational programs at all levels, for which it is freely available.

  17. I don’t understand the fuss.
    1. They are listening for the crack and possible splash when an ice berg calves. That seems to be legitimate data.
    2. They can potentially combine the acoustic signature with visual observation and measurement of the size of icebergs.
    3. This may provide objective, quantifiable data to show any trend, positive, negative or non-existent, in ice berg formation.
    4. I think some of the posters have underestimated the sensitivity of these acoustic sensors, which were designed to detect submarines at great distance and tested to a fare-thee-well.
    Maybe I’ve missed something, but “whether it is possible to detect and monitor significant changes in the disintegration rate of the Antarctic ice shelf by monitoring the noise of ice breaking” doesn’t strike me as even slightly bogus research.

  18. The implications are crystal clear: “Warm ice makes less breaking noise than cold ice; same noise, more breaking ice.” We’re all gonna’ burn up and die!

  19. Who knows whether this type of data gathering will yield any results or not. But one can make an absolute bet that is a sure winner. You will never get any results if you never do any experiments.
    Can you say Tycho Brahe ! Someone who just gathered a lot of data; very careful accurate data, to the limits of his availablke tools.
    But that accurate data gathering enabled Johannes Kepler to formulate his laws of orbital mechanics, with the foreknowlede that it fitted the best available experimental observation.
    This doesn’t sound like a high budget experiment; you put some well designed gear out and you record and store tons of data. In six years you may not get any aha! insight; but if you don’t start somewhere you’ll never get anywhwere.
    How long do particle physicists collect data on weird particle decays, either from cosmetic rays or accelerator generated critters, before they finally stumble over that mystery that leads to new insight.
    Actually I think those Aussies are on to something clever; that may lead nowhere; but is just another piece of data tot hrow in with all the other.
    Just think how many gigabytes/terrabytes of totally useless data on random depth ocean water temperature measurements, were gathered over more than a century, before anybody started to question whether it was valid to assume that the water temperature was a valid proxy for the lower atmospheric pressure, and lead climatologists astray fornearly 150 years or so.
    If butterflies move a couple of miles from where anecdotal recollections remember seeing one; it’s a big deal in climate change; or maybe just evolution; so why not listen to the planet’s growing pains too.

  20. We must always remember the words of the late, great Julian Simon. Fresh from his victory over the doomsayer Ehrlich,
    “He always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they’d been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days “experts” spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker. ”
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html
    These should be taught in schools….

  21. JLC, could you elaborate a little bit why you think these measurements are a stupid idea. Referring to your vast experience in “hydro engineering” is a bit vague explanation.
    For example, the Whillans ice stream generates seismic waves which are as strong as magnitude-7 earthquakes. Twice a day. But because the energy is released over several minutes, the earthquake does not feel the same as a normal earthquake.
    I think listening to the ice movements is a brilliant idea.

  22. I’m skeptical, too. I can’t see being able to tell a medium ice break from a significant one, and I can see large ice chunks already broken off breaking up after colliding. Perhaps the sounds have already been differentiated, but I doubt it.

  23. I find this very amusing. I had been creatively talking of hearing the glaciers creaking as cooling advances, but never thought that people would realy be doing that !! I think I got the idea from hearing the lake cracking while it froze, back in 1960 in the US.
    How would they distinguish a crack from breaking to a crack from extra freezing?

  24. I would believe this experiment before I would believe that stupid “global warming causes less wind” research (or what is trying to pass as research).
    This experiment seems completely plausible to me. I have worked for the DOD and Navy in the past, it is very impressive what can be done with this type of instrumentation, and this technology has been around for a very long time, improved over and over again through the years. I suspect this method could tell one a lot about a whole lot of other things as well. And yes, I would have said the same thing even if the study showed the Antarctic is breaking up more than we thought.

  25. John W. (10:52:47) :
    I don’t understand the fuss.
    […]
    Maybe I’ve missed something, but “whether it is possible to detect and monitor significant changes in the disintegration rate of the Antarctic ice shelf by monitoring the noise of ice breaking” doesn’t strike me as even slightly bogus research.

    You make very good points about the potential value of such research. However, I don’t think that’s what all the fuss is about. It’s the quote by professor Alexander Gavrilov that “More than six years of observation has not revealed any significant climatic trends.” Knowledgeable people on both sides of the AGW debate are going to rip that to shreds but, as Anthony points out, MSM reporters are not so knowledgeable (to put it mildly) and would have most likely danced a jig over this article if the researchers had said they detected a global warming signal.

  26. p.s. Cracks from freezing should be loud too, if we consider the pictures from the Catlin expedition where there were more than a meter high humps.

  27. You can expect more alarmism from Britain’s ITV and Channel 4 in the future as they fall in line with the BBC. The government has unveiled plans for both ITV and Channel 4 to be funded by the TV licence as well as a monthly tax on fixed telephone lines which will go towards funding digital broadband and the aforementioned television channels which make their money from advertising but now are being enriched by government. Taxpayers are not going to be given a say on this matter. Bail outs for banks, taxpayers money towards “green companies”, taxpayers subsidizing the mortgages of politicians and now taxpayers giving money to commercial stations. Everyone bow the knee to thieving technocrats in government and the media.

  28. Once again: Antarctica’s icecube dispenser on the news!!
    Funny or silly?, wouldn’t it be better a live cam?
    It’s like recording the sound everytime your wife takes some icecubes from the fridge!…are these guys paid for this?, surely they are, because it is terribly boring.

  29. New Headline
    Antarctica
    Scientists confirm; the silent apocalypse continues its relentless march.

  30. I would be willing to bet that the ‘sound signature’ from cracking due to breakup and freezing are able to be differentiated. Same thing from siesmic due to earthquakes and magma. Maybe call it an iceprint.
    They probably had to prove that they could tell the difference, otherwise they wouln’t have gotten funded for long-term data set recording. If they couldn’t, thier funding would have been for research into how to tell the difference, and thier findings would be a paper on how the state-of-the art allows/doesn’t allow one to record data in a meaningful matter.
    They surely would not be making a finding of no long-term change if they couldn’t tell the difference.

  31. “Scientists from Western Australia’s Curtin University of Technology are using acoustic sensors developed to support the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to listen for the sound of icebergs breaking away from the giant ice sheets of the south pole.”
    Maybe I am retarded, but I did not realize there are icebergs at the South Pole?!? There is a huge ice sheet that covers the South Pole, but icebergs are over water, and it is a very long distance from the pole to the southern oceans. How am I to take any study seriously these clowns may doing. The ice sheets virtually cover the entire continent of Antartica. Are icebergs going to break away from the ice sheet at the South pole and magically float across the land mass. I understand what data is to be collected, but one should be more careful in the description of who, what, when, where and how!

  32. E french,
    The article as written clearly states that it is looking for icebergs breaking away from ice sheets.
    It does not say the bergs are forming and breaking off at the southpole.
    I find it enlightening that this much scrutiny and sord parsing is expended on a report that may undermine AGW, but any bilge posing as *proof* of AGW is given unquesitoned attention, usually long after it has met the fate of most studies in favor of AGW- the trash heap.

  33. What is the sound of no ice cracking?
    or
    If an iceberg doesn’t break off, will Al Gore still hear a splash?

  34. Six years’ worth of data may not be very much but surely it was only about ten or eleven years between the present warming trend beginning and papers being published in the mid-eighties that led to the formation of the IPCC in1988. We’ve now had ten or eleven years of no warming, but, of course, that’s a statistical blip. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

  35. WUTW readers may enjoy exploring the related issue of “Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate”
    How is sound used to measure temperature in the ocean?
    # Acoustic Thermometry (ATOC)
    # ATOC Project Homepage

    The travel times can then be used to estimate the range- and depth- averaged temperature with a precision of about 0.006 °C (0.01°F) at ranges of 3,000-5,000 km (1620-2700 nm) (Dushaw, 1999; Worcester et al., 1999). . . .
    Sea-surface height is related to ocean temperature because of thermal expansion. It was found that previous interpretations of sea-surface height variability as being primarily due to ocean temperature changes are inaccurate. The effects on sea-surface height of varying ocean salinity and ocean currents also appear to be significant. This result is important because it affects the way in which sea-surface height data are used to test and constrain ocean circulation models. This result is also important because it means that satellite altimetry data and acoustic thermometry data are complementary, providing independent information on ocean structure. . . .
    The study results showed that the distance and time between successive whale surfacings (segment length and segment duration) increased slightly with increasing sound levels. This result is not what would be predicted, in that if the animals were stressed by the sound source, it might be expected that they would remain at the surface longer because of the lower received levels there.

    # Spindel, R.C., and P.F. Worcester, “Ocean acoustic tomography,” Scientific American, 263, 94-99 (October, 1990).
    # “Sounding Out the Oceans Secrets” by the National Academy of Sciences
    # URI-GSO IES Group
    Observing the Ocean in the 2000s: A Strategy
    for the Role of Acoustic Tomography in Ocean Climate Observation

    B. Dushaw, et al. 1999 Observing the Oceans in the 21st Century, C.J. Koblinsky and N.R. Smith (Eds), GODAE Project Office and Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne.

    In the context of longterm oceanic climate change, acoustic tomography provides integrals through the mesoscale and other high-wavenumber noise over long distances. In addition, tomographic measurements can be made without risk of calibration drift; therefore these measurements have the accuracy and precision required for large-scale ocean climate observation. The transbasin acoustic measurements offer a signal-to-noise capability for observing ocean climate variability that is difficult to attain by an ensemble of point measurements.

    Acoustic thermometry in the North Pacific Brian D. Dushaw, Exchanges No. 26, March 2003

    The error bars in 0-1000 m average temperature obtained for the North Pacific were around 0.01oC, comparable to the formal uncertainty in temperature derived acoustically on a single day on a single acoustic path. . . .The average temperatures from ALACE floats during the decade of the 1990‘s were found to be 0.17±0.06oC warmer than the historical temperatures. Over the 5 years that the acoustic data has been obtained, we find (by eye from Fig. 4) that the eastern Pacific between Hawaii and California (path from Kauai to receiver f) has cooled by about 0.2oC, while the central Pacific (path from Kauai to receiver k) has warmed by about 0.2oC, with uncertainties determined mainly by the level of mesoscale variability around Hawaii.

    NPAL – 2004 Annual Report

    Recent data along the paths from Kauai to the California coast show cooling relative to earlier ATOC data. A path to the northwest showed modest warming until early 2003, when a rapid cooling event occurred. This was followed by a much stronger annual cycle. The changing temperatures may be a manifestation of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

    With such superbly low uncertainty and long term accuracy, why not extend this research?

  36. “”” E French (12:10:51) :
    “Scientists from Western Australia’s Curtin University of Technology are using acoustic sensors developed to support the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to listen for the sound of icebergs breaking away from the giant ice sheets of the south pole.”
    Maybe I am retarded, but I did not realize there are icebergs at the South Pole?!? There is a huge ice sheet that covers the South Pole, but icebergs are over water, and it is a very long distance from the pole to the southern oceans. How am I to take any study seriously these clowns may doing. The ice sheets virtually cover the entire continent of Antartica. Are icebergs going to break away from the ice sheet at the South pole and magically float across the land mass. I understand what data is to be collected, but one should be more careful in the description of who, what, when, where and how! “””
    “Giant ice sheets of the south pole” no mystery there. “Icebergs breaking away” no mystery there either; we all know what ice bergs are.
    So what is the probablility that a person can travel from the south pole to the edge of the giant ice sheet, and never set foot off that giant ice sheet.
    From what I’ve seen, it’s a virtual certainty that such a journey is possible.
    Ergo; icebergs breaking away from the giabt ice sheets of the south pole. QED

  37. And E French it does say “of” the south pole, and not “at” the south pole.

  38. Well, on this one I’ll hope for the best and expect the worst.
    The best – this is a genuine unbiased research aimed at determining what’s really happening and if their acoustic tools are viable enough for measuring changes in ice.
    The worst – after six years of collecting data, they’ve not found what they were looking for and have sent out preliminary findings in hopes that their colleagues will help them find a way to find the warming proof they’re looking for.
    In any case, they’ll have to walk a fine line to keep up their funding.

  39. I take your point Anthony about the media, but this is pretty lightweight material. I suppose you could use it to alert yourself to the breaking so that you can study particular satellite images. I gather the two units are for triangulating the sources, otherwise, the world’s glaciers, gas explosions, fault movements (and maybe aircraft landings in Antarctica, etc would make for a lot of noise.

  40. Surely, the colder it is, the more ice you have, the more (healthy) ice break up you have, every year?
    The only thing this proves, is how desperate the Global Warming Taliban are becoming!

  41. This sounds reasonable to me. The first step in the scientific process. Observation. Sounds were noted when chunks fall off (and when the whole thing makes noise as it slids down the slope into the sea). Someone thought we should be listening to these sounds and describe them. Maybe correlate them with frequency of observed chunk falling. The null hypothesis would be that sounds generated from ice sheet movements, growth or melt rate, would not correlate to their observed movement, growth, or melt rate. This is basic science at its best. Simple. Elegant. Informative. It reminds me of early listening to magma. It was eventually correlated to volcanic erruptions. Magma movement sounds different than erruption of lava and turns out to be predictive. Would anyone here who thinks that listening to ice movement is stupid also say back then that listening to magma was stupid?

  42. “Ice whisperers hear climate change in the Antarctic” – Anthony
    Ice whisperers deafened by silence in the Antarctic.

  43. Speaking of ice…this just in…
    http://wcbstv.com/local/washington.township.hail.2.1045714.html
    Shoveling Hail In Sandals?
    Hail Storm Pounds Parts Of Garden State With Several Inches; Residents Watch In Amazement As Plows Clear Streets
    WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. (CBS) ―
    Parts of New Jersey were pummeled by a massive hail storm on Monday afternoon, leaving it looking as if a June blizzard blew through with inches of dime-sized pellets piling up.
    Washington Township residents were seen on their driveways breaking out the snow shovels and officials sent out bulldozers to act as snow plows to clear the streets after severe thunderstorms pounded the region. Children were seen forming hailballs.
    CBS 2 HD’s Christine Sloan was in Washington Township and spoke to stunned residents. This as the snow and ice piled up around them.
    It was a day for snow boots and a jacket as several inches fell in what’s being looked at as one freak storm.
    Plowing snow, ice, whatever you want to call it on a street in Washington Township in June. It wasn’t an understatement to say folks in the neighborhood were shocked.
    “Never in my lifetime, never,” Karen Yates said.

  44. Yep! It’s stupid.
    Because the media is going to have a run away story of :
    Increased noise from Antarctic ice shelves = Global Warming.

  45. Many people do not realize how sophiticated sound detection in the oceans can be.
    Over forty years ago the “Thresher” , an early generation US Naval attack sub, was lost off the East coast of the US. It sank to crush depth and imploded, with complete loss of crew.
    I have been told that a US listening post in Bermuda, hundreds of miles away, heard the sounds of the sub’s demise very clearly and distinctively.
    Here is a link on the development of undersea listening techniques:
    http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2357

    • hunter:
      In 1993 I vacationed on this ship.
      When touring the research area below decks I got the steward (previously head research scientist) to wink wink nod nod in admitting that before the fall of the Soviet Union, they were actively participating in studying the propagation of sounds through internal waves (layers of different salinity). From my earlier classes in Oceanography it was pretty easy to see they were involved in researching submarine detection technology. Then, when the Soviet Union fell they became a tourist ship.

  46. Dodgy Geezer (11:04:36)(if you’re still reading here): Thanks for the link! That whole post is great reading, and I had not known of it previously. And, while I’m at it, thanks to WUWT for existing.

  47. Not completely on-topic, but not, I hope, completely off either.
    The masters of Newspeak have apparently decided that ‘climate change’ is to be substituted for ‘global warming’, such a substitution having, for propaganda purposes, the distinct advantage of not being falsifiable. But surely there is a problem in basic logic involved here. The proposition ‘Global warming is causing typical weather patterns (i.e. ‘climate) to change’ is at least a formally legitimate causal statement. ‘Climate change is causing the climate to change’ is a tautology.
    In other words, ‘global warming’ could be a causal term; ‘climate change’ is purely a descriptive one.

  48. Re; Jersey hailstorm.
    Thirty miles north of me, unfortunately. By the time that micro-event reached this far south, all that was left was a dismal, breeze-chilled quarter inch of rain. It was the chilliest 60 degree reading I can remember, especially since no more than an hour previous I had been comfortably basking in the sun in a t-shirt. This June, 70 degrees for an hour passes for a heat-wave around here.
    Please note, by the way, that for me, as a rabid weather-weenie, the word ‘dismal’ has a perversely positive meaning.

  49. The USA is doomed
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5inRFaXp8ixkgLSc-zVGV8FwGGDSQD98S1JU80
    New US climate report dire, but offers hope
    By SETH BORENSTEIN – 52 minutes ago
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Rising sea levels, sweltering temperatures, deeper droughts, and heavier downpours — global warming’s serious effects are already here and getting worse, the Obama administration warned on Tuesday in the grimmest, most urgent language on climate change ever to come out of any White House.

  50. The “major disruptions” already taking place will only increase as warming continues, the authors wrote. The world’s average temperature may rise by as much as 11.5 degrees by the end of the century, the report said. And the U.S. average temperature could go even higher than that, Karl said.

  51. Glug (09:16:38) :
    Not sure you can expect a meaningful or significant trend from 6 years of data, but that’s never stopped you before.

  52. Glug (09:16:38) :
    Not sure you can expect a meaningful or significant trend from 6 years of data, but that’s never stopped you before.
    The breaking up of an ice shelf is a very short term event but that hasn’t stopped the AGW crowd from claiming it as a significant indication of AGW before.

  53. If no trend is observed over 6 years that proves that any trend that does exist is not strong enough to overcome natural variation/weather/noise over a 6 year period.
    The stronger the trend the shorter the time period it can be detected on. The longer the time period with no trend observed, the lower the limit on the strongest possible trend becomes.
    Also I would guess that if the ice sheets are gradually shrinking or growing, then no trend in the noise levels would be detected if the shrinking or growth rate stays the same.

  54. This looks like a good way to remotely monitor what’s going on in the most inhospitable place on our planet.
    It will be interesting to see how much publicity this neutral report gets, as it failed to mention AGW.

  55. It seems to me that the phrase “settled science” is the most obvious example of an oxymoron out there. In fact it should probably be referred to as a carbomoron.
    I’ve had my ear to the ground for a couple of years and it sounds colder to me.
    Of course as always I could be wrong.
    Mike

  56. Arthur Glass,
    AGW it was, AGW it is, and we should not let the AGW community slip out for a name change just because of the inconvenience of their being wrong about the warming.
    I urge all skeptics to continue to call this social movement for what it is – Anthropogenic Global *Warming* (AGW). We should not permit them a name change just to keep it unfair.

  57. Glaciers do make noise as they move. Incorporated in the ice are rocks of all sizes and they scrape and gouge and polish the underlying bedrock at the interface. Cracking ice makes noise. If the signals being recorded can be separated and identified then the sensors may be able to alert researchers that something has happened or is happening. That might be helpful. As to CAGW, they might just as well stick their thumb in a cherry pie and hope for a eureka moment.

  58. Waiting and listening for ice to crack – gives new meaning to the phrase “Doing Time…”

  59. “Ice whisperers hear climate change in the Antarctic” – Anthony
    Seems like that if this cooling continues there will be more ice which will make for more calving. They will be hearing more cracking and seeing more icebergs.
    Of course then they’ll tell us it is temporary and global warming will be with us for decades and centuries. But who will be listening to them at that point?

  60. David L. Hagen (13:43:04) :

    WUTW readers may enjoy exploring the related issue of “Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate”
    How is sound used to measure temperature in the ocean?

    With such superbly low uncertainty and long term accuracy, why not extend this research?

    David, thanks for the interesting links.
    With respect to jeez’ post, both long-range acoustic tomography and propagation of sound through the stratified ocean are still active areas of research. 😉

    • I never said it wasn’t continuing, but there was a temporary glitch in funding for some USSR military research programs around 1989 or so for mysterious and hard to elucidate reasons.

  61. George E. Smith (10:58:02) :

    Just think how many gigabytes/terrabytes of totally useless data on random depth ocean water temperature measurements, ….

    Terrabytes? Don’t you mean hydrobytes? Or Terabytes? 🙂
    Your typo about “cosmetic rays” was cute too, but I tend to pounce on Terrabytes. Sorry. Even people who aren’t talking about Earth Sciences come up with that.

  62. If warming is causing the mass balance of the glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland to melt or speed up, then there should be an increase in the size and number of icebergs.
    The pro-AGW crowd thinks an ice-shelf never calved an iceberg before now or that glaciers didn’t actually flow into the ocean until the great global warming of the 1980s.
    I don’t think there is any data showing an increase in the number of icebergs or ice-shelf calving events (and the Titanic did sink after hitting a perfectly normal iceberg well before the great global warming occurred).

  63. OT (moderators please delete as needed)
    I just read an interesting piece by James Buchal at the First Annual Northwest Water Law Symposium, Lewis & Clark Law School, January 31, 2009. His presentation on the politics of science within the realm of water and fish management is amazingly akin to much of what we see published about global climate change under the guise of “science”.
    Thought it might interest some.
    http://bainbridgeshorelinehomeowners.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/how-government-destroyed-science/

  64. OT – but you have to laugh (it’s too cold to cry).
    Here in New Zealand the capital city, Wellington, has a front page article in their leading daily newspaper (The Dominion-Post) titled, “Polar Fleece,” featuring a photo of a heavily wooled sheep covered in snow.
    The second paragraph states, “Snow and ice closed roads, schools and airports as an ARCTIC (my emphasis) blast swept up the country yesterday – and MetService says there is more to come this weekend.”
    I suspect, looking at my atlas, that this Arctic blast would have had to have spread down over Europe & Africa before passing over the the South Pole to have turned up as a southerly in our neck of the woods. Boy this climate stuff is real confusing!

  65. “William (13:20:58) :
    What is the sound of no ice cracking?
    or
    If an iceberg doesn’t break off, will Al Gore still hear a splash?”
    It certainly won’t be ice he’ll hear breaking off for the splashdown.

  66. “Ian Cooper (17:54:53) :
    OT – but you have to laugh (it’s too cold to cry).
    Here in New Zealand the capital city, Wellington, has a front page article in their leading daily newspaper (The Dominion-Post) titled, “Polar Fleece,” featuring a photo of a heavily wooled sheep covered in snow.
    The second paragraph states, “Snow and ice closed roads, schools and airports as an ARCTIC (my emphasis) blast swept up the country yesterday – and MetService says there is more to come this weekend.”
    I suspect, looking at my atlas, that this Arctic blast would have had to have spread down over Europe & Africa before passing over the the South Pole to have turned up as a southerly in our neck of the woods. Boy this climate stuff is real confusing!”
    For this *arctic* (LOL) blast to have swept up New Zealand it would have had to flow south over Alaska/Russia/China/Fiji etc to get to little old Nuh Zilund.

  67. “”” Ric Werme (17:28:32) :
    George E. Smith (10:58:02) :
    Just think how many gigabytes/terrabytes of totally useless data on random depth ocean water temperature measurements, ….
    Terrabytes? Don’t you mean hydrobytes? Or Terabytes? 🙂
    Your typo about “cosmetic rays” was cute too, but I tend to pounce on Terrabytes. Sorry. Even people who aren’t talking about Earth Sciences come up with that. “””
    Trouble with you Ric, is you are just too Eagle eye.
    I put those little grains of salt in to keep Charles the Moderator happy; we sometimes annoy him accidently so he needs some cheering up.
    Besides you know what white knuckle fliers say; “The further I get from the firma, the more the terra ! ”
    George
    Reply: Terrable. ~ charles the (moderne spelling always use lower case) moderator

  68. As Murray Walker used to say “What am I saying?”.
    Open mouth, change foot, d’oh! 15 years living downunder, I still get confused about certain things.

  69. “”” jeez (17:27:26) :
    I never said it wasn’t continuing, but there was a temporary glitch in funding for some USSR military research programs around 1989 or so for mysterious and hard to elucidate reasons. “””
    Something to do with Humpty Dumpty and a wall as I recall; anyway, at least a wall.

  70. “”” oms (17:19:34) :
    David L. Hagen (13:43:04) :
    WUTW readers may enjoy exploring the related issue of “Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate”
    How is sound used to measure temperature in the ocean?

    With such superbly low uncertainty and long term accuracy, why not extend this research?
    David, thanks for the interesting links.
    With respect to jeez’ post, both long-range acoustic tomography and propagation of sound through the stratified ocean are still active areas of research. 😉 “””
    When I revisited my alma mater (U of Auckland) Physics Dept in 2004; the current Dean of the Dept sat down with me and related the areas of research they were currently working on and accoustic tomography was one such area. I thought it was a pretty damn clever way to get at a value that could be otherwise difficult to get a handle on.

  71. Because most of the land is in the northern hemisphere, AGW theory predicts that most of the warming will be in the Arctic.
    Antarctica’s situation is only regional. This is partly due to the ozone hole, which acts on the stratosphere, to increase the circumpolar winds.
    These warm the Antarctic Peninsula, while preventing warmer winds from reaching East Antarctica. Also, East Antarctica is at high elevation.
    And, Antarctica is a continent surrounded by water. While the Arctic is an
    Ocean surrounded by land.
    Antarctica is certainly not as important to AGW theory as, say, its sea ice is to skeptic argumentation.

  72. Pat
    not sure if you didn’t miss the point. For the wind to come in from the south here it would have to come “up” from Antarctica at some stage. Your path was the direct, northerly approach over the Pacific.
    One thing is for sure, I bet none of the GCM’s have that one factored in!
    (sark off).

  73. Francis (19:45:31) :
    Because most of the land is in the northern hemisphere, AGW theory predicts that most of the warming will be in the Arctic.
    Antarctica’s situation is only regional. This is partly due to the ozone hole, which acts on the stratosphere, to increase the circumpolar winds.
    These warm the Antarctic Peninsula, while preventing warmer winds from reaching East Antarctica. Also, East Antarctica is at high elevation.
    And, Antarctica is a continent surrounded by water. While the Arctic is an
    Ocean surrounded by land.
    Antarctica is certainly not as important to AGW theory as, say, its sea ice is to skeptic argumentation.

    Francis (19:45:31) : – I would beg to differ.
    [1] The Wilkin’s ice shelf is in the news approximately every SH Autumn when large chunks break off and is used to whip up alarmist sentiment.
    [2] Recent work by Steig et al to “demonstrate” warming has been trumpeted as confirmation of the Climate models.
    [3] The melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheets are a major component of the “Catastrophy” aspect of Man Made Global Warming that is currently expected to inundate the worlds seaboards.

  74. Not sure you can expect a meaningful or significant trend from 6 years of data, but that’s never stopped you before.
    That’s about all it took to end the Younger Dryas . . .

  75. Is it possible to use this wonderful equipment to listen to the crumbling of the warmist arguments?

  76. Seems they must need a chiropractor down there to perform some adjustments on the glacier.

  77. I just CAN’T believe this blog missed the boat on that one Burger King sign! I thought for sure it’d be up for a whole week here, with the headline “B.K. knows Global Warming is B.S.” I consider it a lost opportunity.

  78. Flanagan (10:30:11). You say that they do not prove that it’s not melting, but satellite data, and other data, shows that the Antarctica ice over all is expanding. NOAA and all scientists I know admits this.
    But since you don’t seem to admit this at all can you mention any data which shows Antarctica’s ice over all shrinks?
    I guess my questino to you is — as you put it — to “loosing [my] time (an money)”, but now it’s done… What’s your answer?

  79. “Ian Cooper (21:31:57) :
    Pat
    not sure if you didn’t miss the point. For the wind to come in from the south here it would have to come “up” from Antarctica at some stage. Your path was the direct, northerly approach over the Pacific.
    One thing is for sure, I bet none of the GCM’s have that one factored in!
    (sark off).”
    Refer to post…
    “Pat (18:20:08) :
    As Murray Walker used to say “What am I saying?”.
    Open mouth, change foot, d’oh! 15 years living downunder, I still get confused about certain things.”

  80. Francis (19:45:31) :

    Antarctica is certainly not as important to AGW theory as, say, its sea ice is to skeptic argumentation.

    As a follow up to Graeme Rodaughan’s response, you need to go to RC and tell them they’ve been mistaken in looking at Antarctic conditions. Be sure to come back and let us know how that works out for you.

  81. nelsonleith. Here’s a description of in media re-used pictures of the Wilkins Ice Shelf catastrophe (sic!):
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/the-antarctic-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse-media-recycles-photos-and-storylines-from-previous-years/
    West Antarctica will not start to collapse in at least 100 years, and the collapse will takes thousands of years, according to the best science available — a quite new study in journal Nature:
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/study-west-antarctic-melt-a-slow-affair
    (Lots of mainstream media which presented this study did that wrong, and told the public the opposite of what the study actually says.)

  82. The massive coastal glaciers girdling Antarctica are shrinking fast, but the situation may be different in some other parts of Antarctica.
    The glaciers of the Garhwal Himalaya are retreating fast, but the situation has not changed in the Siachin glaciers during the last century. Models are models, the ground-truth may spreak differently.
    I am reminded of models predicting that the Maldives will disappear soon under the rising sea-levels due to glaobal warming. Morner has shown it is the otherway round.
    Are the alarmist listening!

  83. Ron de Haan, 01:57:01
    America really has a colossal problem this has been sanctioned by the Obama admin, Jimmie Carter come back! all is forgiven ! the only thing left is ask the Iranians for help in communication and crowd control.

  84. “”” I put those little grains of salt in to keep Charles the Moderator happy; we sometimes annoy him accidently so he needs some cheering up.
    Besides you know what white knuckle fliers say; “The further I get from the firma, the more the terra ! ”
    George
    Reply: Terrable. ~ charles the (moderne spelling always use lower case) moderator “””
    Well I chose to anoint you with the title of “Moderator” as distinct from an inanimate object like the moderator in a nuclear reactor; and being properly British (as well as fully American) we always use caps for titles of nobility.
    And for the Terabytes; the cap “T” is by international agreement, as the diminutive “t” ; while not a current in use prefix, would be something very small such as “tichybyte”.
    George

  85. “Ice whisperers hear climate change in the Antarctic” – Anthony
    I can see the book title now: “Silent Ice Scream”

  86. When it is hotter than normal it is AGW.
    When it is colder than normal it is weather.
    People GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!

  87. Graeme Rodaughan (21:49:32) & John W. (06:49:47):
    I was referring to AGW’s central ‘THEORY’, because that is the obvious first target of skeptic criticism.
    As suggested, I looked at two RC articles on Antarctica.
    The good news is that they back-up my no-warming-for-East-Antarctica
    statement.
    The bad news is that there is no mention of my land area argument.
    polar amplification: “…the amplified rate of surface warming at the poles compared to the rest of the globe in (a) climate model’s response to increasing (greenhouse gas) levels.”
    “Newer climate models generally also have very modest or no polar amplification over the Southern Ocean and Antarctica in hindcasts of the last century. The presence of a deep and circulating ocean component is key becaue the ocean heat uptake increases most in the Southern Ocean as the climate warms.”
    “…models have (also) been used to attribute a considerable fraction of the warming on the Antarctic Peninsula and the lack of warming elsewhere on Antarctica to a decreasing trend in stratospheric ozone levels in the past few decades.” 2 Jan 06
    “…we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict…and have predicted for the past quarter century.”
    “…computer models…continue to show that Antarctica cannot be expected to warm up very significantly until long after the rest of the world’s climate is radically changed.” 12 Feb 08

  88. They ought to listen to Greenland too, since the warmers claim that glacial calving has increased.

  89. Today in Parliament, the Environment minister Hilary Benn outlined apocalyptic climate change for UK between now and 2008. Global warming will result in temperatures up to 41° C , and the desertification of much of the country! And high increases in sea level!

  90. Roger Knights (23:55:03) :

    They ought to listen to Greenland too, since the warmers claim that glacial calving has increased.

    This also sounds (no pun intended) like a good idea, but a nice, isolated place (Antarctica), away from shipping channels and other noises, is probably not a bad place to start.

  91. Pamela Gray (11:31:43) :
    It took me a while to find the daily satellite image of Wilken’s. Here it is. Should be fun to watch what happens as it ices up again or not.

    The ice that’s broken up isn’t going to ‘ice up’ in any reasonable time, it was 200m thick. Also the ‘pinning points’ that kept the ice in place are gone so I think you’ll see further breakup over the next year or so, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the bridge to Latady go too.

  92. “Antarctica is certainly not as important to AGW theory as, say, its sea ice is to skeptic argumentation.”
    What is the AGW theory? How do we test it?

Comments are closed.