From World Climate Report: Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era
Where are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention?
The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.
Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:
A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.
Figure 1. Standardized values of the Antarctic snow melt index (October-January) from 1980-2009 (adapted from Tedesco and Monaghan, 2009).
The silence surrounding this publication was deafening.
It would seem that with oft-stoked fears of a disastrous sea level rise coming this century any news that perhaps some signs may not be pointing to its imminent arrival would be greeted by a huge sigh of relief from all inhabitants of earth (not only the low-lying ones, but also the high-living ones, respectively under threat from rising seas or rising energy costs).
But not a peep.
But such is not always the case—or rather, such is not ever the case when ice melt is pushing the other end of the record scale.
For instance, below is a collection of NASA stories highlighting record high amounts of melting (or in most cases, simply higher than normal amounts in some regions) across Greenland in each of the past 3 years, as ascertained by Marco Tedesco (the lead author of the latest report on Antarctica):
NASA Researcher Finds Days of Snow Melting on the Rise in Greenland
“In 2006, Greenland experienced more days of melting snow and at higher altitudes than average over the past 18 years, according to a new NASA-funded project using satellite observations….”
NASA Finds Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High in High Places
“A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average. In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface size of the U.S…”
Melting on the Greenland Ice Cap, 2008
“The northern fringes of Greenland’s ice sheet experienced extreme melting in 2008, according to NASA scientist Marco Tedesco and his colleagues.”
And lest you think that perhaps NASA hasn’t had any data on ice melt across Antarctica in past years, we give you this one:
NASA Researchers Find Snowmelt in Antarctica Creeping Inland
“On the world’s coldest continent of Antarctica, the landscape is so vast and varied that only satellites can fully capture the extent of changes in the snow melting across its valleys, mountains, glaciers and ice shelves. In a new NASA study, researchers [including Marco Tedesco] using 20 years of data from space-based sensors have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on Antarctica’s largest ice shelf.”
But this time around, nothing, nada, zippo from NASA when their ice melt go-to guy Marco Tedesco reports that Antarctica has set a record for the lack of surface ice melt (even more interestingly coming on the heels of a near-record low ice-melt year last summer).
So, seriously, NASA, what gives? If ice melt is an important enough topic to warrant annual updates of the goings-on across Greenland, it is not important enough to elucidate the history and recent behavior across Antarctica?
(These are not meant as rhetorical questions)
Reference
Tedesco M., and A. J. Monaghan, 2009. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.
“On the world’s coldest continent of Antarctica, the landscape is so vast and varied that only satellites can fully capture the extent of changes in the snow melting across its valleys, mountains, glaciers and ice shelves…”
I can just imagine.
Ice melt the lowest ever in the satellite record?? That’s not on the list of acceptable climate stories. The acceptable list clings to fear-based gloom and doom stories like a B-horror movie producer. The astonishing result is massive closure of newspapers and TV networks across the land.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/06/television-pressandpublishing
Meanwhile ratings for tiny news blog sites, and free speech outlets on the internet continue to soar.
Who says the truth won’t sell?
Craig Fram Belvidere:
Wow! I did not realize that Parkinson’s Law applied to the physical envirnoment too.
*******************
Pascvaks (06:18:27) :
There is nothing new under the Sun. A little while ago the world was flat, all the lights in the heavens orbited the Earth, we burned witches in New England, etc.
*************
Wait! You mean we are NOT supposed to burn witches?? Oh.
Engiiner (04:28:40) :
We hit a near record last may of global sea ice.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/5590/
Stop getting your information from the press.
I read the AGU abstract and it said the SNOW melt was the lowest ever. It didn’t say anything about ice. What am I missing here?
Perhaps Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan will be looking for a new job soon. Or perhaps they are about to retire or have already just retired.
NOBODY but NOBODY in their right mind publishes anything like this without fear of losing their job, funding, friends and being completely ostracized by their peer group in professional circles and societies.
If you recall the WUWT story about how the Polar Bear Expert (with over 30 years of field experience) was basicaly booted out – YOU ARE NOT WELCOME ANYMORE – said the new Head Honcho of the muli-nation Polar Bear Specialist Group…and why?
All for daring to suggest that Polar Bears are not actually threatened by catestophic man-made climate change because, as far as he was concerned, the arctic climate (where this expert spent decades) has been behaving normally or naturally and, furthermore, none of the fluctuations were worse than what Polar Bears had endured historically and that, on the whole, there was NO impending climate induced disaster for the bears at all.
THANK GOODNESS – they managed to stop the expert attending any conferences – keep his mouth shut and muzzled- after all the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) CANNOT accept this kind of talk….if the sheeple get the idea that Polar Bears are not actually on the brink of extinction then WHERE IS PBSG SELF INFLATED IMPORTANCE AS A RESEARCH GROUP AND GRAVY TRAIN FUNDING going to go? – down the tubes obviously!
None of this has anything remotely related to science – it is purely and issue of POWER, IMPORTANCE, GREED and HUBRIS.
NASA does have a story which attempts to explain away the Antarctic Sea Ice here:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic_melting.html
They list three possibilities: a) the increasing ozone hole cools the stratosphere which results in increased wind speeds and more ice freezing; b) warmer temperatures result in a more stratified ocean which results in less mixing of fresh water and hence more ice; and c) snow which weights down the existing ice and then sea water floods the ice which freezes.
NASA goes to great lengths to explain away the Antarctic sea ice extent yet they immediately ascribe Arctic sea ice melt to global warming.
Kudo’s to Ric Werme and others for answering P. Gosselin.
You only ever here about ice versus water albedo in the arctic. It is absolutely true that water absorbs most direct sunlight/heat while ice reflects most sunlight/heat. This they say could lead to the runaway warming effect.
I will add this list of things you rarely ever hear about summer sea ice melt in the Artic:
1)The sun is only above the horizon for half the year. It’s still freakin freezin for most of the year.
2) When the sun is above the horizon and the angle is large, say 80%, then the water can reflect nearly half the rays.
3) Open water could produce more clouds and clouds are more reflective than water.
4) When it is cloudy the clouds reflect almost as much as the ice would. So clouds reduce rays getting through to both ice and open water. So really you have to insure any model comparing ice against water does not just assume cloud free skies.
5) More rays are reflected because the atmosphere is thinker (because of the strong angle) so less likely to get to earth as opposed to with direct overhead rays.
6) Snow also is reflective similar to ice and with cold air blowing across open water you get a phenomenon often called ocean effect snow. For those living near Great lakes likely familiar with Lake-effect Snow. Ocean Effect Snow would also need to be factored into any model.
7) Ocean Effect Snow and evaporation could lead to more snowfall over Greenland and surrounding areas compensating somewhat for potential warming due to waters. Fresh snow is more reflective than old snow and can blanket otherwise windblown exposed rock surfaces for example.
8) Ice can also insulate less cold water underneath it where exposing it to air would lead to quicker cooling. The same way an Iglo works.
I’d appreciate it if anyone else knew of a thorough paper on just the angle and atmosphere effects of the arctic circle alone.
Maybe when a scientific concept gets too much big budget/big science behind it, the concept becomes “too big to fail” just like AIG or Citigroup. You can’t expect a whole institution to support propositions which will likely lead to the institution’s extinction. If the Nazis fund enough archeological research into finding evidence of a genetically superior Aryan race of supermen, the archeologists will find the evidence. Stalin’s scientists proved that Mendelian genetics was wrong, and anyone who objected went to the Gulag.
Me, I don’t know whether it will get warmer or cooler, but I don’t think CO2 has much to do with it, and neither does anything else humans control.
Ripper (05:33:23)
Thanks for the link to the ABC story. Note the use of the obligatory footage of polar bear on melting ice. Australia’s defence chiefs seem to have actually looked at the data unlike the idiot defence analysts who just want people to look to the IPCC. All in all though just another example of ABC bias. I bet people didn’t even notice the last few words saying the PM had signed off on the defence report. So much for his belief in imminent dangerous climate change. By pushing the time line out to 2030 I’d say the defence guys are sending a strong signal that they don’t believe any of this rubbish.
Snow melt or ice melt?
Has anybody access to the full paper?
Chris Schoneveld (05:19:32) :
Graeme Rodaughan (03:53:33) :
“I don’t believe it – how could this be – Steig et al 2009 said it was getting warmer…”
That’s not exactly what they said as they commented on a 50 year period whereas the above graph “only” (which is long enough in my view) covers the last 30 years. They conveniently included the period of low temperatures from 1957-1969 to obtain a warming trend. Had they plotted or commented on the trend from 1970-recent they would not have been able to claim any discernible warming, irrespective of their questionable use of and much criticized interpolation of stations.
Hi Chris – Looks like you missed my ironic tone…
I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!
Mike Borgelt (14:46:16) :
Ripper (05:33:23)
Thanks for the link to the ABC story. Note the use of the obligatory footage of polar bear on melting ice. Australia’s defence chiefs seem to have actually looked at the data unlike the idiot defence analysts who just want people to look to the IPCC. All in all though just another example of ABC bias. I bet people didn’t even notice the last few words saying the PM had signed off on the defence report. So much for his belief in imminent dangerous climate change. By pushing the time line out to 2030 I’d say the defence guys are sending a strong signal that they don’t believe any of this rubbish.
I wouldn’t assume that the PM read the report before signing it – after all he is a Very Important Person, saving the planet from Global Catastrophy, and Flying to Important cities, and hob nobbing with World Leaders…
@ur momisugly Alan the Brit (02:13:23) :
No kidding? How many journos do you know who actually believe the crap they write? News travels fast, bad news travels faster still! It’s not about the “news” story, it’s about how they can sensationalise it for maximum effect.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Unfortunately, it goes well beyond just the sensationalize problem, and this article is a prime example.
If it WERE just newsies (and unethically, some scientists) going for maximum sensational value, from this article we’d promptly be seeing stories reporting it with headlines like the following – and including similar terminology throughout the articles too of course.
Unprecedented Ice Accumulation In Antarctic – Are We Heading Into The Next Ice Age?
Antarctic Hording Water – Failing Crops and Worsening Worldwide Droughts Possible
Scientists Shocked [Shocked I Tell You! -g-] At Unprecedented Antarctic Snow And Ice Increase Over Bulk Of Pole; Falling Sea Level May Kill Coral Reefs
Is Man-Caused Global Warming Saving Us From The Next Ice Age? Largest Ice Accumulation Over Antarctic Ever Recorded
heck, even:
Massive Polar Ice Accumulation Questions Man-Caused Global Warming!
I mean, at this point what would be more sensational than the idea that the entire AGW movement, all those scientists who swore its happening, all the $$$$ sunk into it, all the countries that fell for Kyoto, etc., etc., etc…. all of it may be utterly wrong!
——————
I’m sure folks here can likely imagine far better headlines, but you get the point. If the problem were just sensationalism, they would have lept on this information and spun it to the hilt. Its directly contradictory to the vast majority of stories out there – what’s more sensational than that? That they haven’t tells us clearly that its a very one sided and biased agenda in the general media out there – and for many years now its all been aimed at pushing the whole AGW spiel.
Over time I’ve slowly and reluctantly come to believe that some percentage of the most powerful pushing this have got to be doing so not because they actually believe science supports it, but because of the huge amount of control and power (and that pesky money) it would give those in power over their citizenry – and the potential for massive wealth redistribution, massive taxation (new revenues, oh boy! they gleefully think while rubbing their hands together). All whether they understand the science or not. All of it relatively short term gain for a very few, regardless of the long term harm to pretty literally everyone in terms of standards of living, productivity, and so on.
P Gosselin (02:20:39) :
“[…] By the way, why would the south pole behave differently from the north pole?
Comments anyone?”
Well, if you hover directly over each pole you’ll find they rotate in opposite directions ;o)
Then there’s always the small matter of the current arrangement of the continental plates and the resulting ocean currents due to the plate locations.
Espen’s reference (03:11:34) 8 Oct:
“Normally, they’re heavy things and they rest on the sea bed and friction slows them down. But as you start to thin glaciers, they start to float off the sea-bed more and more; there’s less friction and the glaciers can speed up.”
The swiftness with which some of the glaciers now move towards the sea far outstrips the rate at which ice can be restored to the land through precipitation.
As a consequence, these glaciers are shown in the Icesat data to be falling in height – some dramatically so.
For example, the giant Pine Island thd Thwaites Glaciers in the West Antarctic are thinning by up to nine metres per year…
BBC, 24 September, 2009
‘Antarctic snow melt’ seems a curious statistic, in a land of ice. The areas that might get up to melting temperatures will be mostly in West Antarctica and on the Antarctic Peninsula. Inland East Antarctica is too cold.
The graph shows that it has been generally declining in the post 1980 global warming era. And, that it has been steeply declining since 2005, the warmest year (without a record El Nino event) globally.
I’ve no idea how the two might be related. But obviously a declining Antarctic snow melt has not been slowing the Pine Island glacier in its march to the sea.
I wonder if the contrast in sea ice trends between the two hemispheres is a counter-balancing or dampening effect? Vostok vs Gisp2 is below to show the two largest ice cores to represent each hemisphere. They always seem to have opposing trends. Why? Is is that warming trends from solar forcing (or whatever source) are driven from the NH and the departing heat leaves the cold in the SH? Whatever it is, it seems to hold regardless of time period.
http://s852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/etregembo/?action=view¤t=Vostok_GISPS_AVG_DIV.jpg
Any theories?
Rational Debate,
I think that while any of the headlines you posted above are obviously sensationalistic (and creative 😉 enough to merit front page news, they just don’t fit or make sense within the prevailing cultural fears. They probably would have been perfect in the 70s when the big concern was a looming Ice Age, but we have been consistently been sold the story of melting ice and sea level rise.. I imagine the emotional response to these kinds of headlines in today’s world would be primarily a neutral one- they would work as a diffuser of global warming fears but probably wouldn’t carry enough strength on their own to create a fear response.
The global warming story presented in the media, while ever confused in the details, is still coherent enough in making sure that people are getting the primary message – ‘global warming is bad, the polar bears are dying, it’s our fault and we need to turn things around’.
Which makes the lowest melt recorded in the Antarctic completely off message and therefore extremely un-newsworthy.
Rational Debate (17:31:00) :
All of it relatively short term gain for a very few, regardless of the long term harm to pretty literally everyone in terms of standards of living, productivity, and so on.
———————————-
Litigation around manipulation of the stock market could be lots of fun when the markets in question crash.
Revenge is a meal best eaten cold.
Don’t worry about the silence. Give the politicians and their pets 10 years, and the panic will be all about global cooling and the coming ice age. Due, undoubtedly, to human activities, which must be controlled and regulated.
Ed (20:17:21) “[…] contrast in […] trends between the two hemispheres is a counter-balancing or dampening effect? […] They always seem to have opposing trends. Why? Is is that warming trends from solar forcing (or whatever source) are driven from the NH and the departing heat leaves the cold in the SH? Whatever it is, it seems to hold regardless of time period. […] Any theories?”
See the works of Russian scientists Yu.V. Barkin and N.S. Sidorenkov. Particularly for anyone who knows cross-wavelet methods, this could be among the very best climate-literature-reading investments possible.
I have been preparing for the backlash; true environmentalists may find themselves mired in the battle-of-a-lifetime correcting the climate-alarmist movement. This task must be pursued with appropriate restraint, but also with due severity; public confidence must not be undermined. There is not a moment to waste in planning to catch all that will fall; with careful & strategic planning, this is an opportunity to harness the accumulated charge and coax the momentum in a positive direction. There is little time to prepare the public for what will come, so this is a call to the very brightest amongst amongst us to be vigilantly on-their-game in preparing, starting now. Stability can be maintained during the transition if we are prepared in-advance to gather each loose thread as it unravels; there is no need for alarmism tomorrow, just as there wasn’t yesterday …and this isn’t a time for “I told you so” – we have serious work to do and under the circumstances the most sensible course might be one of austerity.
Graeme Rodaughan (03:53:33) :
“Hi Chris – Looks like you missed my ironic tone…”
No, I didn’t miss the irony but I thought it was a cheap shot and the irony misplaced.
Fascinating stuff Paul. “The physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities”.
Couldn’t find this other paper though. “The Effect of El-Niño Oscillation on the Exitation of the Chandler Motion of the Earth Pole” Do you have a link by chance?
Thanks, d
ET (12:44:03) “Fascinating stuff […] Do you have a link by chance?”
I know of no free/public link to that Sidorenkov paper, but the paper you’ve found is an excellent overview of his work.
What I can share is a result I found with ease not long after discovering the works of Barkin:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/-LOD_aa_Pr._r.._LNC_Env_MorletPi.png
You will note one discrepancy. It relates to Earth nutation and I will be endeavoring to identify the source of the asymmetry; I already have a short-list of potential conditioning factors.
Barkin gives a series of clues that liberate investigators of terrestrial oscillations from the oppression of misguided conventional paradigms that have rammed head-on (at full speed) into impenetrable barriers.
For anyone who hasn’t clued in yet: This is serious business.