NSIDC Reports That Antarctica is Cooling and Sea Ice is Increasing

By Steven Goddard

Last month we discussed how NASA continues to spread worries about the Antarctic warming and melting.

A January 12, 2010 Earth Observatory article warns that Antarctica

has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002” and that “if all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet).

[Note that is continental ice, not sea ice, – Anthony]

https://i0.wp.com/earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilkinsIceSheet/images/wilkins_avh_2007.jpg?resize=520%2C489

NASA’s 1982-2007 map showing Antarctica warming

But NSIDC seems to be thinking differently in their March 3, 2010 newsletter.  They say Antarctica is cooling and sea ice is increasing (makes sense – ice is associated with cold.)  

Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region.

The NSIDC graph below shows the upwards trend in Antarctic Sea Ice.  Some recent years have shown anomalies as high as +30%.

https://i1.wp.com/nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png?resize=521%2C297

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png

UAH satellite data also shows Antarctica cooling, as seen in their map below.  (This map is dated November, 2006 – if anyone knows where to get a more recent version, please let me know.)

https://i0.wp.com/climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg?resize=520%2C316

UAH 25 Year Temperature Trends

Perhaps NASA should have stuck with their original 2004 map below, showing Antarctica’s interior cooling?

https://i2.wp.com/earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/6000/6502/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg?resize=520%2C433

NASA’s 1982-2004 map showing Antarctica cooling

While there’s no dispute that there’s some sea ice loss in the Antarctic peninsula, all signs seem to point in the opposite direction of what some what have you believe about Antarctica as a continent.


Sponsored IT training links:

We offer self paced 312-50 training with up to date 642-611 dumps and 70-450 practice test to provide guaranteed success in first dive.


0 0 vote
Article Rating
348 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ken Stewart
March 8, 2010 8:21 pm

I can’t believe I’m among the first to comment!
Cooling Antarctica? Warming Arctic? So what? Perhaps we should just take the “Global” out of “Climate Change” and “Warming”, then we could all agree that climate does change, and warming can occur, but at different times and rates in different places. Climate is regional.
A good slogan might be- Climate Change- not new, not much, and not scary!

March 8, 2010 8:24 pm

Nice one Steve:
This does show the cherry picking going on, now to get this across to the politics in Washington.
One thing u forgot was to mention the “error bars” that THEY left out!
the scale is -.1 to +.1 but the error factor is +/- .05!!!!!!
no significant warming over this time frame!!!!!
good luck
Tim L

March 8, 2010 8:27 pm

OPPS should read statistical not significant .
doh!

John F. Hultquist
March 8, 2010 8:45 pm

What happened to the tag line about how NASA understands the Earth and everything else – or some such? Do I have the wrong agency in mind? Where is that statement? It applies to this post.

DR
March 8, 2010 8:49 pm

I’m thoroughly convinced climate scientists absolutely positively don’t know much of anything with any degree of certainty except that they are uncertain.

Dave F
March 8, 2010 8:56 pm

@John Hultquist – That is NOAA that understands changes in Earth from the tips of its toes to up above its nose.
@Steven Goddard – Is this also consistent with models?

DR
March 8, 2010 8:56 pm

FLASH!!
NSIDC confirms RealClimate conclusions of a cooling Antarctica and ice increasing!

Antonio San
March 8, 2010 9:05 pm

The Arctic is NOT warming: some regions warm other cool. Just as in Antarctica where the WAIS is warming while eastern Antarctica is slightly cooling.

HereticFringe
March 8, 2010 9:09 pm

Darn it! How is the ocean going to rise 20 feet and flood everthing per Al Gore if Antarctica doesn’t hurry up and melt! Maybe Al should spend some of his carbon credit booty spreading soot over the Antarctic ice cap so that he can actually be right about something for once in his life.

duffman
March 8, 2010 9:10 pm

Sorry but I couldn’t get past the first little bit.
“has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002” and that “if all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet).“
where did all the ice go? If it didn’t melt does that mean its floating in the ocean? Last time I checked floating ice has to displace a larger volume then if it melted ( else it would sink and still displace sea water raising the seas). Or did it evaporate at such a rate it escaped earths gravity?

Mark
March 8, 2010 9:12 pm

Must be that Mann-made hole from CFC’s…

March 8, 2010 9:13 pm

But NSIDC seems to be thinking differently
The NASA article and NSIDC are talking about different things. The land-supported ice shelf and the floating sea ice. In fact, the NASA article says that sea ice is increasing.

R. Gates
March 8, 2010 9:19 pm

While this increase in Antarctic sea ice is interesting, it as strong an upward slope as the downward slope in the Arctic sea has been since 1978 or so. Still, in merits watching. Every AGW model shows that at some point, Antarctic sea ice will follow along with the Arctic sea ice and show a decline by sometime later this century. The Ozone hole issue may be causing some of this growth, or it could be something else entirely. I will watch the Antarctic sea ice closely in the next few years, and if the increase continues, or the Arctic Sea ice begins to grow again (on an annualized basis), over several seasons, my faith in the AGW hypothesis will be diminished.
Meanwhile, at 14,000 ft. in the troposphere, global temps have set new 20 year record highs every day in March, and 2010 remains on track to be the warmest year on instrument record. Along with the long term condition of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, these kinds of troposheric records I watch closely. I’m sure AGW skeptics would say it is all El Nino related, for it certainly isn’t a super-active sun. But it is exactly in line with AGW models, so this too, must be considered by an honest observer.

John F. Hultquist
March 8, 2010 9:25 pm

Dave F, Thanks, it is NOAA. And I found it.
“NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.”

michael hammer
March 8, 2010 9:28 pm

The radius of Earth is 6400km so the surface area is 3.14*4*6400^2 or 5e8 sq km. if 70% is ocean thats 3.5e8 sqkm of ocean surface. 100 cubic km of ice per year will raise the sea level by 100/3.5e8 km = 2.9e-7km which equals 0.29mm per year. Since 2002 is 8 years so a total rise of 2.3 mm.
I realise the initial report is countermanded by the later one but even if it were correct the rise of 60 meters at the rate indicated would take a while:- say about 200,000 years!!!!
Seems a shame they missed that little tidbit.

D. D. Freund
March 8, 2010 9:33 pm

I would caution you to distinguish between Antarctic *continental* ice — which the first article you cite claims to be decreasing — and Antarctic sea ice, which has been increasing. Sea level is affected by the first, unaffected by the second.

Wren
March 8, 2010 9:37 pm

NASA’s Explanation
January 12, 2010
“There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent’s giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as “proof” that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.”
For more on the subject, see
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=42399

wes george
March 8, 2010 9:38 pm

The bottom line is that there is no long term discernible trend towards warming at all in the Antarctic. The hypothesis of AGW requires that rapid global warming be obvious (“robust”, ahem) and all the IPCC-approved climate models show rapid warming at both poles.
What does one call a hypothesis that fails to yield useful predictions of observed data?

Pat Frank
March 8, 2010 9:43 pm

Guess Steig, et al., were wrong about the warming Antarctic after all, claims of advanced math notwithstanding.
Jeff id was right, to wit, “There it is, we can now say conclusively that the positive trend in the Antarctic reconstruction comes primarily from the well known peninsula warming trend .”
And now the NSIDC apparently agrees. Who’d have predicted that?

Dave Harrison
March 8, 2010 9:47 pm

Of course NASA’s data probably includes ‘correction’ for…. the ozone layer?

James F. Evans
March 8, 2010 9:48 pm

The hits keep on coming — a regular hits’ parade.
Antarctica is getting cooler and ice is expanding.
AGW is melting like the wicked witch of the West in the Wizard of OZ.
And all it took was a pale of water — in this case facts and evidence — who would have thunk it…

Wren
March 8, 2010 10:02 pm

wes george (21:38:17) :
The bottom line is that there is no long term discernible trend towards warming at all in the Antarctic. The hypothesis of AGW requires that rapid global warming be obvious (“robust”, ahem) and all the IPCC-approved climate models show rapid warming at both poles.
What does one call a hypothesis that fails to yield useful predictions of observed data?
=======
Sea ice is only part of the story
“Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.”
For more on the subject, see
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=42399

Rob
March 8, 2010 10:04 pm

Isn’t most of the ice in Antarctica land-based, not sea-ice? So, isn’t it more important to monitor the mass of the land-based ice.? How has that been changing?

Steve Goddard
March 8, 2010 10:06 pm

Sea ice forms at lower latitudes and lower elevations (i.e. warmer places) than the continental ice, which exists at colder places closer to the pole and at higher elevations.
This article is about sea ice, but it should be apparent that it would be impossible for a region of sea ice to be growing and nearby continental ice to be melting.

Steve Goddard
March 8, 2010 10:07 pm

Sea ice also freezes at lower temperatures than freshwater continental ice.

Wren
March 8, 2010 10:07 pm

wes george (21:38:17) :
The bottom line is that there is no long term discernible trend towards warming at all in the Antarctic. The hypothesis of AGW requires that rapid global warming be obvious (“robust”, ahem) and all the IPCC-approved climate models show rapid warming at both poles.
What does one call a hypothesis that fails to yield useful predictions of observed data?
=======
Data collected by NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than 24 cubic miles of ice each year since 2002.”
For more on the subject, see
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=42399

Yippy
March 8, 2010 10:12 pm

“A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region”
Is this a joke? The ozone hole was ‘discovered’ in the late 1970’s through early satellite data. Are we to assume, therefore, that prior to discovery by man the ozone hole did not exist or did not affect atmospheric circulation?

MJ Penny
March 8, 2010 10:13 pm

So with a total ice volume of about 30,000,000 km3 it will take 300,000 years for all the ice in Antarctica to melt at 100 km3. Does not seem catastrophic to me.
MJPenny

Claude Harvey
March 8, 2010 10:13 pm

So…the man-made CO2 would have killed off all the penguins, but the man-made hole in the ozone layer saved them. Man giveth and man taketh away. Man is a powerful deity! Worship services to be held at ten o’clock Sunday morning at the “Tabernacle of The Mercenary Missionaries”.

March 8, 2010 10:19 pm

Here is an interesting 23 page PDF from Questioning Climate,that seem to show that the decline of Ice in the Arctic might be overstated:
How Fast is Arctic Sea Ice Declining?
http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/How_Fast_is_Arctic_Sea_Ice_Declining_v2.pdf

MaxL
March 8, 2010 10:20 pm

Whenever displaying linear regressions it should be mandatory to give both the standard error of the estimate and the correlation coefficient (r). Knowing this and the number of data points you can determine whether the linear relation is statistically significant. I seldom see the correlation coefficient value given. Any decent peer review should be demand this. Any statistical package will spit out a linear regression for you, but is it statistically significant. If the data points vary widely there is not much point in putting stock in any linear relation.
For those who may wish to know more about statistics and linear regression, a very educational and quite easy to follow explanation can be found at Concepts and Applications of Inferential Statistics:
http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/webtext.html.
In particular Chapter 3 on Correlation and Regression.

Ed Murphy
March 8, 2010 10:21 pm

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
A quick glance, ice extent seems a match to follow larger southern hemisphere eruptions. Also…
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2005/05_07_28.html
The bromine emitted from volcanoes is likely large enough to cause local ozone depletion and affect stratospheric chemistry.

Stephan
March 8, 2010 10:25 pm

Actually Artic might be gettin colder too
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
even clicking on each year I dont discern any trend do you?

Steve Goddard
March 8, 2010 10:29 pm

Wren,
Suppose for a moment that the NASA claim of 24 cubic miles per year was correct. It would take 300,000 years for the ice to melt.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/03/nasa-still-spreading-antarctic-fud/

Roy Clark
March 8, 2010 10:33 pm

Don’t forget those Antarctic volcanoes!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/
There is a good reason for the West Antarctic to be warming.

Steve Goddard
March 8, 2010 10:37 pm

I don’t find the Ozone hole story very convincing, because it only appears during during the winter and spring –
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/gif_files/ozone_hole_2007.png
Why would summer temperatures in Antarctica be affected?
and because it is getting smaller each year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/earth/26ozone.html

Steve Goddard
March 8, 2010 10:42 pm

MaxL,
If you object to the NSIDC graph and their statements about sea ice growth, you should let them know. They are very responsive to queries.

pat
March 8, 2010 10:44 pm

Of course the cooling of Antarctica has been known for years by actual thermometer readers. And it is a bit scary. Luckily the sea will protect the planet from the worst effects, but this cooling does not bode well for us all. Frankly, this planet does not need the wheat fields of Argentina, nor the fruits of Chile shriveling up.

Steve Goddard
March 8, 2010 10:50 pm

Still summer in Antarctica, and temperatures at Vostok are minus 60 F, forecast to hit minus 79 F later in the week.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=-78.44999695,106.87000275

Dr A Burns
March 8, 2010 10:54 pm

“These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic”
How is intuition relevant to data ? … or perhaps they feel the negative trend in the Arctic is counterintuitive to what is happening in the Antarctic ?

Editor
March 8, 2010 10:59 pm

For those talking above about a warming arctic and about sea ice, see my analyses here (in the Updates).

Wren
March 8, 2010 11:00 pm

Steve Goddard (22:29:04) :
Wren,
Suppose for a moment that the NASA claim of 24 cubic miles per year was correct. It would take 300,000 years for the ice to melt.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/03/nasa-still-spreading-antarctic-fud/
================
Who said it’s all going away soon?

Wren
March 8, 2010 11:06 pm

Steve Goddard (22:06:34) :
Sea ice forms at lower latitudes and lower elevations (i.e. warmer places) than the continental ice, which exists at colder places closer to the pole and at higher elevations.
This article is about sea ice, but it should be apparent that it would be impossible for a region of sea ice to be growing and nearby continental ice to be melting.
=====
NASA says
“The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.”

G.L. Alston
March 8, 2010 11:16 pm

R. Gates (21:19:02) : But it is exactly in line with AGW models, so this too, must be considered by an honest observer.
Popper would say “Nonsense!” My less charitable retort would be bleeped despite it having the attributes of being accurate and concise.
One cannot pick and choose which parts of which models seem to correlate and then claim model validity. The model either works in the aggregate or it does not. This is not nuanced. There isn’t anything there but black and white. And the models pushed in the IPCC reports fail to predict a cooling antarctic.
When faced with a cooling antarctic a while back some of the realclimate apologists claimed “we knew this” and then offered “proof” by way of a newer more accurate experimental model that took some new data into account as well as lunar phase, day of the week, price of gas, and jaw angle. I’m pretty sure that if I fed new data into a model and then tweaked it by hand until it screamed, I too could “predict” the obvious and thereby claim that condition X (whatever the data was the past year or so) was “consistent.” This is especially true if one claims that the antarctic will warm +/- 3 degrees (i.e. it may cool, warm, or even do nothing, so you cover all possible bases.)

tallbloke
March 8, 2010 11:27 pm

Just to put a bit of perspective in, Antarctica is seven times the area of Greenland. It is estimated Greenland was losing around 70km^3/year a few years ago. Five times the rate of loss in Antarctica.
Ice flows downhill. I wonder where the alarmists think it used to flow to before man set fire to coal…

Murray Carpenter
March 8, 2010 11:30 pm
C Colenaty
March 8, 2010 11:43 pm

NASA had might as well said that the answer was 42. What difference does it make that ice can flow without melting?

wayne
March 9, 2010 12:03 am

Why does no one mention the very possibility that Antarctica could be subsiding 0.7 mm/year instead of assuming loss of ice over the continent? Or could it possibly be a combination of both? The satellite is measuring height. That 0.7 mm would, over 14,000,000 km, equate to 100 cubic kilometers of ice loss also but would mean no ice has actually been lost. Can the Grace satellite’s instruments measure to this incredible precision. That is to 9 or 10 digits. Don’t know, will have to read the Grace instruments user, calibration, and specification manuals and procedures; NASA usually makes these public. And Grace was launched in 2002 which is when the ‘trend’ began. What? That questions immediately a possible secular drift. Just don’t foolishly accept statements tossed without concrete backup.

maksimovich
March 9, 2010 12:07 am

Steve Goddard (22:37:15
I don’t find the Ozone hole story very convincing,
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/ozoneap.jpg
Why would summer temperatures in Antarctica be affected?
Transport inbound due to an enhanced polar vortex.
and because it is getting smaller each year
1979-2009 DU minimums.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/anacticozoneduanomalies.jpg
There is some interesting studies in causal mechanisms eg Callis et al 1998
Sinnhuber et al 2006 have some discussion on this.
Abstract. Long-term measurements of polar ozone show
an unexpectedly large decadal scale variability in the midstratosphere
during winter. Negative ozone anomalies are
strongly correlated with the flux of energetic electrons in
the radiation belt, which is modulated by the 11-year solar
cycle. The magnitude of the observed decadal ozone
changes (20%) is much larger than any previously reported
solar cycle effect in the atmosphere up to this altitude. The
early-winter ozone anomalies subsequently propagate downward
into the lower stratosphere and may even influence total
ozone and meteorological conditions during spring. These
findings suggest a previously unrecognized mechanism by
which solar variability impacts on climate through changes
in polar ozone.:

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/Sinnhuberetal.jpg

Peter Miller
March 9, 2010 12:13 am

The USGS article by Williams, Richard and Ferrigrio states the volume of the ice caps is as follows:
1. Greenland (Arctic): 2.6 million cubic kilometre (7.9% of total world)
2. Antarctic: 30.1 million cubic kilometres (91.5% of total world)
The average annual (Source: NSDIC) thickness of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is respectively 2.5 and 1.5 metres and their maximum extent is16 and 19 million square kilometres. In other words, the average volume of sea ice is around 1.54% and 0.01% respectively of their associated ice caps.
I don’t really see how minor changes in the maximum and minimum extent of the sea ice is any cause for concern. The Antarctic sea ice has been increasing marginally in recent times, while the Arctic sea ice has been decreasing at a slightly faster rate. However, we do not have any records worth a damn prior to 1960, and therefore cannot make any statistically significant conclusions on whether or not (more likely) this changes mean anything.
The WUWT (AMSR-E) accompanying chart of Arctic sea ice extent suggests we may have a small chance of achieving an 8 year maximum extent record sometime over the next few weeks – if this does happen, there are two things we can be absolutely sure of: 1) it won’t be reported on any alarmist websites, or ii) if it is reported, it will be cited as another example of proof of AGW.

Geoff Sherrington
March 9, 2010 12:13 am

Wren (21:37:09) :
NASA’s Explanation about Antarctic ice volume changing, ‘The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting’.
It can also flow without much heat change. So what is the importance of ice extent measurements anyhow?

Naturalverities
March 9, 2010 12:26 am

This article says, ‘A January 12, 2010 Earth Observatory article warns that Antarctica
“has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002” and that “if all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet).“’
This pair of apparently linked quotes seems erroneous on its face (8 years x100 cubic km of ice couldn’t possibly raise global sea levels 60m). But the article quoted does not actually say this, as the “this ice” of the second quote refers not to the 800 cubic km of the first quote, but instead refers to the total ice overburden of East Antarctica, making it a much more plausible assertion:
“Two-thirds of Antarctica is a high, cold desert. Known as East Antarctica, this section has an average altitude of about 2 kilometer (1.2 miles), higher than the American Colorado Plateau. There is a continent about the size of Australia underneath all this ice; the ice sheet sitting on top averages at a little over 2 kilometer (1.2 miles) thick. If all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet).”
Mr. Goddard’s article should be rewritten to correct this unfortunate (I hesitate to say deliberate) quoting error.

Roger Knights
March 9, 2010 12:44 am

Wren:
Data collected by NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than 24 cubic miles of ice each year since 2002.”
For more on the subject, see
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=42399

That article contains the following statement:

“The oceans surrounding Antarctica have been warming 10, so Schodlok doesn’t doubt that the ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water being brought up from the depths.”

But this is contradicted by:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/antarctic-sea-water-shows-no-sign-of-warming/

DocWat
March 9, 2010 12:54 am

I calculate the surface area of water on earth at 70 % of a sphere with radius 4000 miles= .7 X 4 X 3.14159 X 4000 X 4000 =140,743,232 sq miles. 24 cubic miles of ice has .9 X 24 X 5280= 114,048 sq miles by one foot of water. Dividing 114,048 sq mi ft by 140,743,232 sq mi gives (sq mi divides out) .000810 ft of rise in sea water… or is there an error in my calculations. With that in mind, 197 ft (estimated rise) divided by .000810 ft (calculated rise) gives an error of (feet divide out) 243,111 X 100 or 24,311,100%. with this in mind would it be a gross under statement to say Earth Observatory made a gross overstatement of the rise in sea level caused by melting ice??

March 9, 2010 1:02 am

Geoff Sherrington (00:13:54) :
Wren (21:37:09) :
“NASA’s Explanation about Antarctic ice volume changing, ‘The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting’.”
It can also flow without much heat change. So what is the importance of ice extent measurements anyhow?

It can also disappear without melting. Good ol’ sublimation happens in dry air, and when fresh snowfall doesn’t replace the sublimated ice, the result is — a net loss of ice volume.
Question: Does NASA track annual total snowfall in Antarctica?

Shona
March 9, 2010 1:05 am

It seems to me that reading both the pros and cons that the “honest” climatologist’s answer should be “we don’t know, but we’re working on it”.
And how can we say anything intelligent about something, the climate, that has 22 000 year cycles after 40 years of accurate measurements?
What, to me is disproved, it that co2 is causing “runaway” global warming.
And I would like to know how people are already saying that 2010 will be record hot, when it’s only March. Are they astrologers or something?

Kate
March 9, 2010 1:09 am

The “Global Warming” Machine Just Keeps Running…
The world will almost certainly fail to draw up a new treaty on climate change this year, the minister in charge of last year’s Copenhagen summit has admitted, delivering a heavy blow to hopes for a swift global ­settlement.
Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister who masterminded the summit of world leaders on global warming last year and is now the European commissioner for climate change, says negotiations were not progressing fast enough for a treaty to be signed soon. She also gave warning that pushing too hard for a treaty this year could be counterproductive.
“To get every detail set in the next nine months looks very difficult,” she said. “Europe would love that to happen, and I would love that to happen … but my feeling is that it is going to be very difficult to get a treaty.”
Governments had been hoping to forge a final treaty at a global conference this December in Mexico, after failing to do so in Copenhagen. However, Ms Hedegaard said this was more likely to happen at a follow-up meeting next year in South Africa. That would still allow governments to meet their self-imposed deadline of forging a new agreement before the end of 2012, when the current provisions of the world’s only existing treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, the 1997 Kyoto protocol, expire.
Ms Hedegaard defended the Copenhagen summit, which attracted loud criticism, especially for the chaotic way in which it finished. She said that calling world leaders to the long-running negotiations had ensured rapid progress towards the end, when for the first time developed and developing countries mutually agreed limits on their emissions. But she said there would not be another Copenhagen-style summit. “You can do such a thing one time,” she said. The price of failure, if diplomats attempted to force an agreement this year, was too high, Ms Hedegaard said. “People would say let’s skip that idea, let’s skip the UN thing,” she said.
She also defended climate scientists, saying the handful of flaws in the 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the e-mails in which scientists talked of concealing data did not affect the large body of scientific evidence amassed over decades.
The UN climate talks have been going on since 1992, when world governments signed the first legally binding treaty aimed at avoiding dangerous levels of climate change. The Kyoto protocol failed because it did not impose obligations on developing countries and was rejected by the U.S.
***************************************************************************
If the majority of political leaders are stupid enough to still believe in all the lying propaganda about man-made global warming, then maybe it’s time for the cockroaches to have a go.

Roger Carr
March 9, 2010 1:23 am

G.L. Alston (23:16:48) : (responding to R. Gates (21:19:02)) Popper would say “Nonsense!” My less charitable retort…
Thank you, GLA; I needed that response.

Alex Heyworth
March 9, 2010 1:25 am

Antarctica “has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002”

Spread over the 14 million km2 of Antarctica, that amounts to an average reduction of ice thickness of just over 0.7 mm. Anyone who believes it is possible to accurately measure so small a loss of ice from a satellite is kidding themselves IMHO.

DocWat
March 9, 2010 1:31 am

As long as we are calculating… Wikipedia says “The total area of Greenland is 2,166,086 km2 (836,109 sq mi), of which the Greenland ice sheet covers 1,755,637 km2 (677,676 sq mi) (81%) and has a volume of approximately 2,850,000 cubic kilometres (680,000 cu mi).” then 680000 cu m X 5280 ft/mile = 3,590,400,000 sq mi ft of ice. Then 3,590,400,000 sq mi ft X .9 (density of water) divided by (see above) 140,743,232 sq mi = 23 ft. rise in sea level. Provided all the ice in Greenland melted and every one with beach front property built a levee of 25 feet… now don’t you feel better ? But to stay on topic, on order to get a 197 foot rise in sea level, we would need to melt the equvalent of 197 divided by 23 or 8.5 times the ice on Greenland.

Roger Knights
March 9, 2010 1:36 am

Dave F (20:56:42) :
@John Hultquist – That is NOAA that understands changes in Earth from the tips of its toes to up above its nose.

NOAA knows
How it goes
By the tingle in its toes
And the frost along its nose

D. Patterson
March 9, 2010 1:37 am

R. Gates (21:19:02) :
[….]
But it is exactly in line with AGW models, so this too, must be considered by an honest observer.

As water goes through a phase change from a gaseous vapor to a liquid and from a liquid to a solid snow and ice, it liberates an extraordinary amount of thermal energy. When this phase change from a warmer water vapor or liquid to a colder solid snow and ice occurs in the troposphere, a certain amount of that thermal energy must be radiated into space. Consequently, a satellite in orbit around the Earth whose instruments are used to detect the emission of thermal energy is going to see this radiation of thermal energy being radiated from the cooling water precipitates. Since the Northern and Southern Hemispheres have both been experiencing colder than usual weather and record precipitation of rain, snow, and ice in recent months; it must be expected that an orbital satellite must see extraordinary emissions of thermal energy to correspond with the extraordinary cooling of the precipitates. In other words, when the Earth is cooling it must radiate elevated levels of thermal energy to space where the satellite instruments can record the thermal emissions resulting from the cooling.

Mooloo
March 9, 2010 1:50 am

It can also disappear without melting. Good ol’ sublimation happens in dry air, and when fresh snowfall doesn’t replace the sublimated ice, the result is — a net loss of ice volume.
The argument is not whether the Antarctic is losing ice. It is whether it is getting warmer.
Adding extra sea ice is pretty much contradictory to it getting warmer. If you want to show warming, then you need to answer this directly, not change the subject to another area.
Speculation of sublimation causing the loss of shelf ice doesn’t do that. It may well be that because it is colder, in general, that less snow is falling, as the air passing over is less moist. Which means the losses to wind are not being replaced. So losses of shelf ice to sublimation could well be proof of cooling. You need to show otherwise, not speculate.
(BTW the vapour pressure of water at Antarctic temperatures is pretty low. I bet more actually just blows off.)

Alan the Brit
March 9, 2010 1:54 am

Question: I have heard Ian Plimer et al claiming that the ice on Greenland and that in Antarctica is in a basin. If this is so, surely all one would end up with if it all melted is a couple of huge inland seas, would it not? I am sure there would be a few valleys thro which water could escape, but for it all to escape to the sea would be highly unlikely. Besides, as others have calculated it would take around 300,000 years to melt, meaning that it wouldn’t happen at all as three ice-ages would have occurred in the meantime, followed by three inter-glacials, and likely three new human civilizations to boot (Or whatever we mutate into in that time frame)!

March 9, 2010 1:55 am

Never before in human history have so many world leaders come so close to looking like total prats. They all know this climategate affair came within a hair’s breadth of becoming the biggest scientific and political scandal in world history and one which would forever stain the hands of those who went to the Jokenhagen Circus. Think about it! 50 trillion dollars being thrown away on the say so of a few “scientists” so incompetent they threw away vital data and couldn’t e.g. answer simple FOI requests. And these world leaders got to walk away into the snow storm without serious collateral damage.
Who was really responsible for the mess at the CRU and US meddling? It was Brown and Obama, and if the sceptics had really been the superb big-oil backed lobby machine, these two wouldn’t been held directly accountable for the mess their governments created and more than likely one or the other would have been forced to resign.
They know they got away with it by the skin of their political teeth, and they know they probably will not get away so lightly next time!

Dave Wendt
March 9, 2010 1:57 am

Naturalverities (00:26:16)
“Mr. Goddard’s article should be rewritten to correct this unfortunate (I hesitate to say deliberate) quoting error.”
The extended quote you base this assertion upon includes this tidbit
There is a continent about the size of Australia underneath all this ice;
The area of Australia is about 7.7 million km2, Antarctica’s area is somewhere close to 14 million km2. You may not find that this kind of basic ignorance damages your confidence in the scientific abilities of these folks, but I’m not so sanguine.

DocWat
March 9, 2010 2:00 am

Well, as long as I am still awake… from Wikipedia again “Greenland ice sheet covers 1,755,637 km2 (677,676 sq mi) (81%) and has a volume of approximately 2,850,000 cubic kilometres” and “The Antarctic ice sheet… covers an area of almost 14 million square km and contains 30 million cubic km of ice.” then 30,000,000 divided by 2,850,000 = 10.52 times as much ice on Antarctica as Greenland. So, we would have to melt 73% of the ice on Antarctica and Greenland to get a 197 ft rise in sea level, if and only if everyone with beach front property built a levee of 200 ft height. The conclusion is Earth Observatory needs an editor who can distinguish the difference between 100 cu km of ice and 23,980,500 cu km of ice.

wayne
March 9, 2010 2:13 am

DocWat (00:54:18) :
… or is there an error in my calculations.
You’re basically correct, but 197 ft (estimated rise) divided by .000810 ft/yr = 243,000 years at this rate to melt Antarctica if it never snows again. (watch units)

wes george
March 9, 2010 2:14 am

Shona is right on. What do 40 years or so of observations of weather say about climate? Only that the pace of “change” (I prefer the term evolution) is well within the historical proxy parameters of the last 2,000 years, ie the natural variability that brought us the LIA, various minimums and the MWP.
This, in and of itself, is counter to the implications of the AGW hypothesis which predicts unprecedented warming MUST be occurring since circa 1950 well outside of historical precedents…rationally, that this is not the case is reason enough for falsification.
What does one call a hypothesis whose forecasts are not confirmed by observed events?

Derek Walton
March 9, 2010 2:15 am

There is an interesting “review” article regarding collapsing ice sheets in this months Geoscientist magazine. This is the Geological Society’s popular magazine rather than a journal, but interesting none the same.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/pid/7209
The bye line is “Cliff Ollier takes issue with some common misconceptions about how ice-sheets move, and doubts many pronouncements about the “collapse” of the planet’s ice sheets”.

March 9, 2010 2:26 am

Even Hollywood snubs Global Warming
“HOLLYWOOD, Calif., March 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The month of Avatar versus Hurt Locker Oscar predictions came to a close on March 7th with the Hurt Locker overtaking Avatar for Best Picture and Kathryn Bigelow trumping James Cameron for Best Director, causing environmentalists to see red. If you are one of the dozen people who haven’t seen Avatar yet, the environmental message shines through the jaw-dropping special effects – the dangers of global warming, respecting Mother Nature, and environmental resource management.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/oscars-avatar-snub-sparks-voting-frenzy-at-green-globe-film-awards-87099587.html
I heard the news and it didn’t twig until afterwards – particularly as I’ve not seen Avatar. But when it gets pointed out: environment versus war movie, and the war movie won!! There’s even a book out with some maniac climate scientists as the baddy. What next? A film of climategate whereby some weatherman saves the world from the clutches of man and evil scientist hell-bent on taking over the world?

DocWat
March 9, 2010 2:31 am

As a Louisiana boy (and proud fan of the Saints) The elevation of my home is about 100 ft above sea level. So I worry about high water. From Wikipedia: “The surface of the state may properly be divided into two parts, the uplands and the alluvial. The alluvial region includes low swamp lands, coastal marshlands and beaches, and barrier islands that cover about 20,000 square miles (52,000 km²). 100 cu km of ice (24 cu mi) or 114048 sq mi ft divided by 20000 = 5.7 ft. so with proper terracing we could cover the entire state of louisiana with 5.7 feet of water. Hey! that is great! I am 6 feet tall.

Slabadang
March 9, 2010 2:31 am

Weather!
What makes Antarctic land ice grow? Snow and rain!
What makes it move? Gravity!
What makes it melt? Warming!
What makes it to freeze? Cooling!
So how does the boring disregarded weather affect both ices. Cooling for sea ice! Snow and temperarutres below zero for land ice.
Weather made arctic ices disappear 2007 strong long similar winds transported the ice out of the straight.
Do we now how much the weather increased/decreased the landice in Antarctica? No! Do we now how long the “delay in or more rapid movement is conected with landice? Wheather plays an extreme important role in how the poles changes. The proof is at hand in the Arctic this year!
Can anyone remeber the time long long ago before the “climate hype” when observations of the weather ment anything and explanined everything?
Now adays tables are turned…”Climate” is explaining weather? Climate is supposed ti explain shifts in the poles.Its time to go back to basics! Weather is basic!

Roger Knights
March 9, 2010 2:32 am

NOAA doth know
All above, all below
By the tingle in its toes
And the way the wind blows

Lindsay H
March 9, 2010 2:38 am

Antarctic is a dynamic system, like australia it is a desert with only about 100mm of ice per year accumulating at the pole up to 1m at the coast , up .45 m of ablation occurs annually due mainly to wind blown ice particles flowing into the oceans.
” A database of accumulation values for 5365 gridpoint locations with 50 km spacing is interpolated from the isopleth map, giving a bulk accumulation of 2151 Gt a−1 and a mean of 159 kg m−2a−1 for an area of 13.53 × 106 km2. Following the implementation of deflation and ablation adjustments applicable to sectors of the coastal zone, the accumulation values are reduced to 2020 Gt a−1 and 149 kg m−2a−1.”
glacial ice flows move glacier ice to the oceans at rates up to 2m per day so between ice flow & ablation for the antarctic ice sheet to remain static 2100 gigatons of ice has to flow off the continent each year. ie 2100 billion cu m.
the coastline of the antarctic is about 15000 km.
thats a lot of icebergs say 300 sq km per annum at 100m thick.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2000/00000031/00000001/art00028
http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/kees99-1.pdf

DocWat
March 9, 2010 2:41 am

Note to Earth Observatory: I was raised in Webster Parish Louisiana, Area 595 sq mi. If you could figure out how to contain the water, your 24 cu miles of ice would cover that parish with 191 feet of water. How ever the 41,000 people who live there would not be happy.

wayne
March 9, 2010 2:44 am

Shona (01:05:34) :
And I would like to know how people are already saying that 2010 will be record hot, when it’s only March. Are they astrologers or something?
You don’t think that “or something” has anything to do with the fact that “they” have their fingers controlling the machines measuring what defines what “hot” is? You’ve got a good question, how do they already know ten months in advance?

Mike Core
March 9, 2010 2:51 am

Regarding Glaciers:
Glaciers: Science and Nonsense
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/page7209.html
From the current issue of the Geological Society
Worth a read

Ryan Stephenson
March 9, 2010 2:56 am

Sea ice is floating on warm water, the base of the ice being in thermal equilibrium with the sea water. If that water gets just a little bit warmer, you’re going to get a lot more melting, with the floating ice turning into more water. Big deal, the displacement remains the same so sea level doesn’t rise significantly.
Ice on land is not in thermal equilibrium with anything that is above melting point so the same rules don’t apply. During the winter the sun doesn’t reach Antartica at all for 6 months. It is also high up. Consequently winter temperatures are -60Celsius. But the Summer only gets as warm as -30Celsius. SO HOW CAN THE LAND ICE MELT!!!!
It can’t. The earth would have to warm enormously for ANY of the land ice at Antartica to melt at all. But notice how the doom-merchant scientists are all so happy to conflate melting sea ice with the concept of rising sea levels due to melting land ice. It’s nonsense, and this hokum is just designed to pull the wool over the eyes of those that are suggestible and easily hoodwinked by the snake-oil salesmen. Why they are doing it I can only guess, but these “scientists” are not to be trusted.

pwl
March 9, 2010 3:12 am

I’d love to see the data that they are using to claim that the globe warmed again in 2009-2010 winter.
The CBC was making the claim that Canada had a very warm winter this year. I’d love to see their data.
Anyone where the data sets for these groups are kept?
What I find really annoying is that people go on the airwaves or the media and make all these wild claims, many of which are counter intuitive, without any supporting data or links to web pages that show their work IN FULL DETAIL! It’s at the point where I now always want to see their work in full detail just to understand what they are saying and to have a chance at seeing what games they are playing fast and loose with the data or statistics or interpretations.
Obviously North America has had a strange winter with the south being really cold and Canada allegedly having a bit warmer of a time although I don’t recall the news about that as the cold was happening up here in the great white north (in Vancouver we call it the Great Green North… puff).
Strangely the forecast for Tuesday March 9th (10 days after the Olympics ended) is a 40% chance of snow flurries for Greater Vancouver Area including the local mountains which were devoid of natural local snow during the games! Also the cherry trees were blossoming over the weekend a wee bit early… last week it was 12c this week it’s -4c! Yikes spring interrupted as usual in Vancouver.

TerrySkinner
March 9, 2010 3:14 am

R. Gates wrote: “Meanwhile, at 14,000 ft. in the troposphere, global temps have set new 20 year record highs every day in March, and 2010 remains on track to be the warmest year on instrument record. Along with the long term condition of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, these kinds of troposheric records I watch closely.”
Are these record temperatures because increased cloud cover below 14,000 feet is reflecting more heat upwards or at least preventing it from going downwards? In other words is the widespread cold/cloudy/snowy N. Hemisphere winter producing this heat upsurge at higher levels?
This would fit with the theory of more clouds when the sun is quiet. It would also fit the observations that heat discharge from the sun does not change a great deal (why AGW supporters reject it as a major cause of warming I think).
Similar heat volume coming in from the sun but less heat reaching the ground = higher temperatures higher up in the atmosphere. The heat has to go somewhere. It is simply that more of it is blocked off from reaching the ground.
So ironically could it really be that ‘hottest year/month on record’ = coldest year month on record’ but in a different place, i.e. at a different altitude?

rob
March 9, 2010 3:28 am

Two separate issues:
Climate is real
Climate Change is a misnomer
—————————————————————-
Climate Science, the study of weather and climate.
Climate Change Science, the product of hearsay and propaganda.
—————————————————————-
Two separate scientists:
Climate Scientist, studies weather and climate.
Climate Change Scientists, issues hearsay and propaganda for a collective cause.
—————————————————————–
It is very easy to tell the difference between a Climate Scientist and a Climate Change Scientist. All Climate Change Scientists suffer from a condition known as Illusory Superiority complex, think Mike hockey stick Mann, Mad hatter James Hansen, Phil my shadow scares me Jones etc.
Climate Science is real. Climate Change Science is an illusion for the collective scientific misfits that would be found out about in an instant in any other branch of science.

P Gosselin
March 9, 2010 3:30 am

Clearly the 30 year Antarctic trend is increasing. Another hit to GW.
By the way, :), are there readers here who could give Donna Laframboise a hand?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/03/help-audit-un-climate-report.html
Hope you WUWT does not mind my recruiting here. If so, just delete this post.
I think it would be interesting to check some references. This way the IPCC will never again think nobody is ever going to take the time to check them out.

March 9, 2010 3:32 am

I think Wayne nailed the problem (strange Antarctic ice loss measured using satellite). I happen to live in an area where the land is rising after the last ice age. In southern Finland this is ca. 3 mm/yr. It has been estimated that the ice layer here was 1 … 2 km thick during the ice age. A 0.7 mm/yr subsiding is actually a very small value compared to the presently measurable opposite process here. Further north where the ice melted later and where ice layers may have been thicker the land rises 10 mm/yr.
Perhaps this could provide a starting point for an alternative way of looking at the ice cover of Greenland. By measuring the sea level over a long time at a few points along Greenland’s coast one should be able to directly see if the ice load on top of Greenland increases or decreases.

Roger Carr
March 9, 2010 3:38 am

D. Patterson (01:37:51) : (responding to R. Gates (21:19:02)) As water goes through a phase change from a gaseous vapor…
Enlightening, D. Patterson! Thank you.

March 9, 2010 3:50 am

Another trend that is not statistically significant.

Joe
March 9, 2010 3:54 am

Anthony,
I am about to show you why understanding the mechanics of what is happening in the antartic and planet is important.
We have been studying this planet as a circle and not a rotating body. The factors of a rotating body are much more different.
The axis of the planet runs through this area. Now because the planet rotates, the equator has a much larger measurement of distance in circumference. As you go to the poles the planet is smaller and smaller in distance in circumference.
The prevailing winds would always be moving one way. Notice the ice build up is consistant to forming on the side where least wind and waves would break them up.

maz2
March 9, 2010 4:09 am

The agonizing death rattle of AGW.
Mr. AGW, he dead.
…-
“EU climate chief delivers treaty blow
The world will almost certainly fail to draw up a new treaty on climate change this year, the minister in charge of last year’s Copenhagen summit has admitted, delivering a heavy blow to the barely flickering hopes for a swift global ­settlement.
Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister who masterminded the summit of world leaders on global warming last year and is now the European commissioner for climate change, told the Financial Times negotiations were not progressing fast enough for a treaty to be signed soon.
She also gave warning that pushing too hard for a treaty this year could be counterproductive.
“To get every detail set in the next nine months looks very difficult,” she said. “Europe would love that to happen, and I would love that to happen … but my feeling is that it is going to be very difficult to get a treaty.”
Her pessimism echoed that of the outgoing United Nations climate change chief, Yvo de Boer. He told the FT as he resigned last month after four years of seeking an agreement that he could not see a treaty being signed this year.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2466962/posts
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/03/08/how-will-climategate-affect-earth-hour/#comment-76592

RockyRoad
March 9, 2010 4:22 am

NASA says
“The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.”
————–
Reply:
That’s a rather weird sentence; melted ice isn’t ice at all; it is water.
Everybody knows glaciers don’t stop moving in their wintertime. Solid rock flows all the time–at sufficient P & T it becomes plastic and deformation ensues. Most of the earth below the crust (called the Mantle) is plastic. Note: glacial ice is actually a “rock”; it meets the definition of a monomineralic rock; individual ice crystals in continental or glacial ice qualify as individual mineral entities.
Should Antarctic ice loss be factual, I see several possibilities:
1. There is actually a “tipping point” in ice flow; a warming of ~1 degree increases the rate of plastic deformation.
2. The Antarctic ice sheet is being warmed from beneath by an increase in subsurface continental heat flow. (Recent studies indicate some of the valleys in the Antarctic continent are actually filled with liquid water.)
3. The earth is suddenly spinning faster, causing centripetal forces to push ice to the periphery of the continent.
However, as Ryan Stephenson pointed out above, Antarctica is way below freezing in the summer months and much colder in the winter months. Besides, what warmth is imparted to the surface of the Antarctic during the summer isn’t going to penetrate that vast ice mass very deeply.
There may be some validity to my point #2 above, but the others are unsubstantiated. And I don’t see how ice loss in the Antarctic can be tied to the moderate warming the earth has experienced since the last Little Ice Age.

Jon at WA
March 9, 2010 4:43 am

Question?
Why would the Ice cap melt when the air temp is normally below freezing?
Reading Jon Stephenson’s book ‘Crevasse Roulette’ about the first Trans – Antartic Expedition, I was impressed by the depth of this ice and the temperatures experienced by these men and their machines.

wilt
March 9, 2010 5:05 am

Steven (and other experts):
Interesting, but I have a question regarding the role of the ozone layer. The NSIDC claims that the Antarctic sea ice increased because of cooling due to the ozone hole and refers to a report by Turner. I have been reading parts of that (very lengthy) report and it states that in recent years there was no further decrease (perhaps even some recovery) of the ozone. So how can the ozone hole be held responsible for the continuing 3% yearly increase of sea ice there?? As far as I can see the ice increase has certainly not flattened since let’s say 1995.

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 5:16 am

Naturalverities,
People like Al Gore and James Hansen have done everything they could get people alarmed about massive sea level rise from melting ice caps. When Hansen’s organisation – NASA – publishes an article about Antarctic melt, saying “if all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet).“ they are fanning the fire.
Perhaps the NASA article should be rewritten? Sea level is rising at 30 cm/century, considerably less than the average for the last 16,000 years.

latitude
March 9, 2010 5:18 am

It’s obviously not temperature doing it,
so it must have something to do with moisture in the air.
Isn’t AGW supposed to put more moisture in the air?

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 5:19 am

The Ozone hole doesn’t even appear each year until after Antarctica reaches its peak sea ice extent. How could it be the cause of it?

March 9, 2010 5:25 am

There is an interesting push-pull going on between the Arctic’s and Antarctica’s magnetic fields. There are 3 distinct periods each lasting about 120 or so years (AMO period ~ 60 years).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC14.htm
1600 to 1720+intensities of the vertical Z GMF are moving in opposite directions with the North changing at twice the rate.
1720+ to 1840-50 both North and South Zs are falling at roughly same rate.
1850 onward the North Z has hardly changed, while the South Z has lost about 20% of its value.
Considering that the strong ocean currents in both areas (Circumpolar in Antarctica and number of currents in the Arctic sea) are controlling transfer of hearth along oceans’ conveyor, it is possible that above referred variations, would have (electro-magnetic) effect on the saline currents velocities, and so have noticable impact on the regional temperatures anomaly.
More GMF graphs: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm

Pamela Gray
March 9, 2010 5:26 am

A follow-up article on this Anarctic trend (which agreed, is not statistically significant in the long run) would be to find atmospheric/oceanic conditions that trend in correlated ways. That coupling may indeed be significant. I would be fishing around for data tied to that rather large body of water circling said ice trend and would also be asking questions about atmospheric oscillations one might find at that pole. The fact that Europe was cold this winter and Washington DC got loads of snow may not offer much understanding of Antarctic ice oscillations. One thing is for sure, the IPCC report has little to offer us in this area.

Stephen Wilde
March 9, 2010 5:41 am

Applying my climate theory this is what should be happening:
i) Normally the Arctic will warm and the Antarctic will cool during a period when the climate system is gaining energy. Vice versa when the climate system is losing energy as now. Pointing to a relatively warm troposphere is not relevant here because a warm troposphere is generally an indication of net overall system cooling as energy leaves the oceans faster on it’s way to space.
ii) The reason for the two poles behaving differently is that one is an ocean surrounded by land and the other is land surrounded by ocean as I have explained elsewhere.
iii) I consider that the climate system entered a cooling mode around 2000 as evidenced by the start of a shift in the air circulation systems equatorward. That would be consistent with the Antarctic interior starting to become lesss cold.
iv) During a cooling period the air circulation systems wander more latitudinally than during a warming period because the expansion of the tropics does not constrain their latitudinal movements so much. Consequently one sees more flows of air into and out of the polar regions than occurs during a warming period.
v) So now what is happening is a slightly less cold Antarctic interior probably resulting in greater sublimation (but not melting) of ice in the interior but at the same time the outflowing cold air over the surrounding oceans is creating more sea ice.
Remember that the Antarctic is not a single climate zone. The interior is a climate zone of it’s own but the sea ice areas around it are an entirely separate zone.
Furthermore during a global warming period one would expect the sea ice to reduce as the interior becomes colder because the faster and tighter wind flow around the Antarctic will eat away at the margins of the sea ice constantly and the sea ice will not be renewed by so many cold outflows from the interior.
Thus both reports could be correct (though I doubt the suggested scale of the ice loss in the interior) and in accordance with my climate description. It is merely the interpretations that are wrong.

Cassandra King
March 9, 2010 5:47 am

The map shows a blue to red difference of just 0.2 degrees, how on earth can such a tiny fraction of a degree be actually measured and what is the margin of error.
It seems supremely idiotic and not a little desperate to resort to measuring in tiny fractions and using the red/blue colours to enhance the effect, I wonder what the colour map would look like with single degree increments?

Stephen Wilde
March 9, 2010 5:49 am

I should mention that the situation is rendered more complex when the speed of the outward flow of energy to space is contrained as possibly is now happening with the less active sun but that’s for another day and is explored more fully elsewhere.
I can envisage queries on my post (05:41:44) unless that factor is taken into account.

March 9, 2010 5:54 am

I am afraid someone is going to make a lot of money off the comedy called “climate change, yes it does”.

Pamela Gray
March 9, 2010 5:57 am

So. It seems that Nature, at one time, allowed scientific debate:
Brief Communications
Nature 432, 290-291 (18 November 2004) | doi:10.1038/432290b; Published online 17 November 2004
Atmospheric science: Early peak in Antarctic oscillation index
Julie M. Jones1 & Martin Widmann1
The principal extratropical atmospheric circulation mode in the Southern Hemisphere, the Antarctic oscillation (or Southern Hemisphere annular mode), represents fluctuations in the strength of the circumpolar vortex and has shown a trend towards a positive index in austral summer in recent decades, which has been linked to stratospheric ozone depletion1, 2 and to increased atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations3, 4. Here we reconstruct the austral summer (December–January) Antarctic oscillation index from sea-level pressure measurements over the twentieth century5 and find that large positive values, and positive trends of a similar magnitude to those of past decades, also occurred around 1960, and that strong negative trends occurred afterwards. This positive Antarctic oscillation index and large positive trend during a period before ozone-depleting chemicals were released into the atmosphere and before marked anthropogenic warming, together with the later negative trend, indicate that natural forcing factors or internal mechanisms in the climate system must also strongly influence the state of the Antarctic oscillation.
1. Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre, 21502 Geesthacht, Germany
Correspondence to: Julie M. Jones1 Email: jones@gkss.de

J_M
March 9, 2010 5:58 am

SkepticalScience has picked up on the Antarctic Ice extent discussion here, but Berényi Péter has tried to set them straight.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up-With-That-ignorance-regarding-Antarctic-sea-ice.html

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 6:06 am

cassandra,
In the NASA article with the red map, they say the error is +/- 3 degrees. In other words an admission that the choice of red color was arbitrary, at best.

latitude
March 9, 2010 6:08 am

Stephen Wilde
Quote: “”ii) The reason for the two poles behaving differently is that one is an ocean surrounded by land and the other is land surrounded by ocean as I have explained elsewhere.””
exactly
The Arctic is effected by wind, water. It’s mostly floating.

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 6:11 am

Glaciers expand and flow towards the ocean (like in Antarctica and Greenland) when their mass is increasing in the interior. Diminishing glaciers are characterized by retreat, not expansion.
As far as the gravity measurements go, they are very questionable, because there is no bedrock reference point under the ice for the vast majority of the continent. The tiny measured gravity changes could be due to isostasy or tectonic movement rather than ice loss.

March 9, 2010 6:14 am

Vukcevic (05:25:59) :
it is possible that above referred variations, would have (electro-magnetic) effect on the saline currents velocities, and so have noticable impact on the regional temperatures anomaly.
No, it is not possible. The electric currents induced by weak conductor of sea water moving through the Earth’s magnetic field is MUCH to weak to have any effect, as any electric engineer [or just high-school science] could have told you.

March 9, 2010 6:16 am

Since the Ozone Hole is caused by excessive GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) which go along with this solar minimum, cooling makes sense.

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 6:16 am

wilt,
I don’t buy the ozone theory. The positive Antarctic ice anomaly appears during times of year when the ozone hole isn’t even present.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png

JonesII
March 9, 2010 6:24 am

What if the water cycle is not closed but opened?. During summer time above the pole and due to increased radiation, atmosphere´s oxygen is turned into Ozone (O3), which during winter time and specially when there are proton flares from the sun or increased cosmic rays, as during solar minimums (mainly composed of protons-90%-, which, btw, we must remember are Hydrogen Nucleii), then these react with ozone to produce water 2H+…O3=H2O+O2 and increase the “Ozone Hole” once again , then snow fall increases ice. So we have an ice cube making machine over there.

Ziiex Zeburz
March 9, 2010 6:43 am

I would suggest that its time to go back to the drawing board, when you have one of the worlds leading scientific organizations quoting 0.7 mm on a land mass larger than Australia, is this not comic strip science ? The weight of the ice would be enough to double this, were are they basing there calculations, from the earths diameter ? bedrock ? the earths center ? water level ? or maybe a model ? No, its a satellite measurement, and that is it. 0.7 mm is about the space of the 2 mm’s I know this is 2010, but we are still waiting for Buck Rodgers !

Bill Marsh
March 9, 2010 6:47 am

Given the current Ice extent in the Arctic, I’m not sure what they’re talking about
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Looks like the currents and wind patterns have changed and the Arctic is recovering quite nicely.

Patrik
March 9, 2010 6:52 am

BIG NEWS:
CO2 can be transformed into CO with visible light:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja910091z

DocWat
March 9, 2010 6:53 am

wayne (02:13:52) :
Thanks! I see my error. Antarctica is melting at 100 cu km/yr and, assuming no further accumulation, sea level will rise .000810 feet per year. Then, sense 2002 we could have had a sea level rise of 8 X .00081 ft or .00648 ft. rise. Or reverting to metric, .00648 ft X 30.48 cm/ft = .1975 cm sea level rise. AH!! HA!! The editors, writers and peer reviewers at Earth Observatory can’t distinguish between .197 cm and 197 ft. As a former Math and Science teacher I had students like that… but none of them had PhD’s… Perhaps I was wrong in believing they never would.

Ronaldo
March 9, 2010 6:54 am

Derek Walton (02:15:29) :
Many thanks for the reference to the description of how ice really deforms.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/pid/7209
I recommend the review to all who post here.

JonesII
March 9, 2010 6:54 am

Cassandra King (05:47:06) : It seems supremely idiotic and not a little desperate to resort to measuring in tiny fractions and using the red/blue colours to enhance the effect
That reveals NASA involvement in the international “climate change” conspiracy, and the same conduct is found in many official institutions around the world, as was found in the world connections of climate-gate emails: There were “partners”-presumably well funded too-everywhere.

Davide
March 9, 2010 7:06 am

From: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“Antarctic sea ice reached its summer minimum, near the average for 1979 to 2000.”
Near the average for 1979 to 2000? Wow.
I wondered how they could portray the recent gains in a negative light and it appears they have just retrenched on the average for 1979 to 2000 line.
Note the graph on the top of the page showing the blue 2009-2010 line approaching the new Marginot line. Now how to portray that in a negative way….
Then towards the end, a little blurb on Double-dip Arctic Oscillation and how it will keep the ice from melting as much during the summer and setting up a reason for increased ice at the September extent.
The cherry on the top (well, at the bottom actually), is a chart of the average ice sea area on Canada’s east coast with a nice little red bar for 2010 at up to 1/6th of the height of previous years…

R. Gates
March 9, 2010 7:11 am

Steve Goddard said:
“This article is about sea ice, but it should be apparent that it would be impossible for a region of sea ice to be growing and nearby continental ice to be melting.”
This is incorrect. The two form by completely different processes and dynamics. Sea ice formation is an annual process, much more closely governed by short term fluctuations. Continental ice, i.e. glaciers, is much longer term process. The growth of shrinkage of one does not necessarily indicate the status of the other. Also, as I’ve pointed out several times when AGW skeptics get all excited about the relatively modest year-to-year growth of Antarctic sea ice, the southern sea ice has had negative anomalies within the past few years, whereas the arctic sea ice has not had a positive anomaly since 2004…i.e. the northern sea ice is shrinking faster than the southern sea ice is growing.
Having said this, I do believe it is possible for the first time since 2004 that the arctic may see a positive anomaly in the next few weeks. I’ll watch this closely, and if the arctic begins to have more frequent positive anomalies, that last more than just a year, it will strongly diminish my belief in the accuracy the AGW hypothesis. The reason I want to see if the positive anomaly (should it occur in the arctic sea ice) last more than just a year, is I believe the recent long and deep solar minimum and la nina certainly had some effect on the arctic, as well as the very negative AO index this winter. So though we may not see a new record low for arctic sea ice this summer, if we actually begin to see positive anomalies for an extended period of time, this would be very damaging to the AGW hypothesis.

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 7:15 am

R. Gates,
How could we be “on track” for a record warm year in early March?
GISS showed 2007 warmer so far, and that turned out to be a cold La Nina year. You don’t have enough information to make statement like that.

MookyMoose
March 9, 2010 7:34 am

In a recent article concerning record drought in SW Australia, they explain that record snowfall at Law Dome in Antarctica is unprecedented in 750 years is likely tied to the drought. I had not read about that before but googling “law dome”+750 produces lots of results. I’ve learned (I think) that the anomaly has been going on for decades and it is this decadal +ve anomalous snowfall that breaks the 750 year record.
So, if sea ice is increasing, and snowfall (in parts) is at record levels, why does some warming in the west dominate the news? WUWT? What is the truth?

PeterB in Indianapolis
March 9, 2010 7:46 am

It looks like the sun has gone to sleep again, official sunspot number = 0. Not sure how long that will last this time, as it at least appears that the sun was trying to become a bit more active. Still it is interesting that we are back at 0.
This is probably upsetting to the people who perversely want a “barbeque summer” this year just to resurrect some AGW hysteria among the general public, but as even they should know by now, nature does not always cooperate with human desires.
On a slightly different topic, has anyone studied the correlation between surface temperature and tropospheric temperature to see how well they correlate? I would like to see that if it has been done.
So far it looks like the only thing that has passed a tipping point and gone exponential is the number of hits per day on Anthony’s site here, which is a good thing!

R. Gates
March 9, 2010 7:48 am

Steve Goddard said :
“R. Gates,
How could we be “on track” for a record warm year in early March?”
January and February running far above the 20 year average in tropospheric temps at all levels, with much of the time spent above the 20 year record highs for tropospheric temps. Every day in March has been above the 20 year record high for tropospheric temps at 14,000 ft for example. So my projection is based on the current trend, which if it continued, would make 2010 the warmest on instrument record. The only mechanism to cool the year would be a Mt. Pinatubo type eruption, or a sudden and strong la nina developing. In this regard, I agree with the Met office, who also still predicts 2010 will be the warmest year on record.

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 7:49 am

R. Gates,
Again, Antarctic sea ice forms at lower latitudes, elevations and temperatures than continental ice. If sea ice is expanding, then temperatures are getting colder in Antarctica, as UAH and NSIDC have confirmed. Glacial ice will not melt under conditions where sea ice is growing.

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 7:56 am

I loved the SkepticalScience article. He conveniently forgot to attribute the cooling/expanding ice statements to NSIDC.
Scummy blogs like that are why people are losing interest in their religion.

David Segesta
March 9, 2010 8:02 am

michael hammer (21:28:42) :
“The radius of Earth is 6400km so the surface area is 3.14*4*6400^2 or 5e8 sq km. if 70% is ocean thats 3.5e8 sqkm of ocean surface. 100 cubic km of ice per year will raise the sea level by 100/3.5e8 km = 2.9e-7km which equals 0.29mm per year.”
Excellent work Mr Hammer. Putting some numbers on the warmers claims certainly puts things in perspective.

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 8:04 am

R. Gates,
Again, GISS surface measurements show 2007 so far warmer than 2010, and that turned out to be a cold year. I’m still waiting to hear why satellite data shows huge spikes during ENSO events that are much smaller in the surface record.

Gail Combs
March 9, 2010 8:20 am

Willis Eschenbach (22:59:29) :
For those talking above about a warming arctic and about sea ice, see my analyses here (in the Updates).
Reply:
A super summation, thanks. I missed it the first time round but now I have it bookmarked.

R. Gates
March 9, 2010 8:22 am

I guess to put all this in perspective, one should really compare the two anomaly charts between the arctic and the antarctic. First look at the arctic chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
And then compare it to the antarctic chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Now ask yourself, which, just as a casual observer, appears to show a more dramatic slope up or down? If you said the arctic you’d be right, and furthermore, the arctic has not has a positive anomaly since 2004, whereas the antarctic had a NEGATIVE one just a few months back, which is hardly indicative and any dramatic sea ice growth for the region, and that is exactly the case– the year-to-year sea ice growth in the antarctic is not dramatic, but certainly merits monitoring. I think once more, this is a case of over-hyping the case, when a more moderate “interesting but not dramatic” stance is warranted.

Gail Combs
March 9, 2010 8:24 am

Wren (23:00:13) :
Steve Goddard (22:29:04) :
Wren,
Suppose for a moment that the NASA claim of 24 cubic miles per year was correct. It would take 300,000 years for the ice to melt.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/03/nasa-still-spreading-antarctic-fud/
================
Who said it’s all going away soon?
Reply:
Isn’t that what Al Gore has been trying to tell everyone in all his talks about sea level rising and flooding cities???

March 9, 2010 8:26 am

Southern Hemisphere annular mode – SHAM.
How ironic.

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 8:29 am

I just posted this over at skepticalscience:

Steve Goddard at 03:27 AM on 10 March, 2010
What an amazing article! You selectively edited my sentences, and forgot to attribute the claims of cooling and expanding ice to NSIDC and UAH. BTW – UAH data shows South Pole oceans cooling, not warming.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
“Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region.”

March 9, 2010 8:33 am

MaxL (22:20:07) : Whenever displaying linear regressions it should be mandatory to give both the standard error of the estimate and the correlation coefficient (r).
Bravo! Furthermore there should be a estimate of the autocorrelation of the residuals. Time and time again these climate “anomaly trend” charts exhibit linear regressions onto what appear to be manifestly autocorrelated time series. When the series is autocorrelated any temporal trend has a much larger error bar than that for independent and identically distributed data (which is what linear regression is designed to work on).
And while we’re at it, can we stop these ad-hoc moving averages (8 years? 13 months? why?) that are supposed to “illustrate” the underlying trend.

Veronica
March 9, 2010 8:33 am

PeterB
I WANT a barbecue summer… because I like barbecues!
We haven’t had a good summer in England since 2003. Cut us some slack here.

Gail Combs
March 9, 2010 8:41 am

wayne (00:03:55) :
“Why does no one mention the very possibility that Antarctica could be subsiding 0.7 mm/year instead of assuming loss of ice over the continent? Or could it possibly be a combination of both? The satellite is measuring height. That 0.7 mm would, over 14,000,000 km, equate to 100 cubic kilometers of ice loss also but would mean no ice has actually been lost. Can the Grace satellite’s instruments measure to this incredible precision. That is to 9 or 10 digits. Don’t know, will have to read the Grace instruments user, calibration, and specification manuals and procedures; NASA usually makes these public. And Grace was launched in 2002 which is when the ‘trend’ began. What? That questions immediately a possible secular drift. Just don’t foolishly accept statements tossed without concrete backup.”
There is also sublimation and compaction due to age… The amount of Ice is dependent on how much it snows vs how much melts due to warm temperatures, compacts, sublimates or melts due to the weight of the ice. To me the amount of continental ice would be a function of how much snow falls and the data says not much snow does fall at least in the interior.
From the Antarctica Connection Website
Coldest Temp:
-129°F (-89°C) on July 21, 1983
Location: Vostok Station
Warmest Temp:
+59°F (+15°C) on Jan 5, 1974
Location: Vanda Station
Mean Temps:
Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C)
Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C)
Why is Antarctica so Cold?
Several factors combine to making Antarctica one of the coldest and least hospitable places on the Earth:
* Unlike the Arctic region, Antarctica is a continent surrounded by an ocean which means that interior areas do not benefit from the moderating influence of water.
* With 98% of its area covered with snow and ice, the Antarctic continent reflects most of the sun’s light rather than absorbing it.
* The extreme dryness of the air causes any heat that is radiated back into the atmosphere to be lost instead of being absorbed by the water vapor in the atmosphere.
* During the winter, the size of Antarctica doubles as the surrounding sea water freezes, effectively blocking heat transfer from the warmer surrounding ocean.
* Antarctica has a higher average elevation than any other continent on Earth which results in even colder temperatures.
Blizzards:
Blizzards are a typical Antarctic phenomenon in which very little, if any, snow actually falls. Instead the snow is picked up and blown along the surface by the wind, resulting in blinding conditions in which objects less than a meter away may be invisible….
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/index.shtml

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 8:46 am
Stephen Singer
March 9, 2010 8:54 am

Here’s the most recent UAH anomaly map I’ve found so far.
http://climate.uah.edu/map_thumb/1208.jpg

March 9, 2010 9:00 am

R. Gates (08:22:32) : “I guess to put all this in perspective, one should really compare the two anomaly charts between the arctic and the antarctic. First look at the arctic chart:.”
Thanks for that. I was going to agree with you until I superimposed both graphs and realised that the difference at the beginning is very similar to that at the end. In anycase the overall variation is still well within the decadal noise margin so it really isn’t possible to come to any really meaningful conclusion.
Another decade at the current trends and I think you will have a case, but until then let’s just wait and see!

Don B
March 9, 2010 9:03 am

Once again, global sea ice area is at the 30 year mean.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

March 9, 2010 9:03 am

Leif Svalgaard (06:14:30) :
“…..No, it is not possible. The electric currents induced by weak conductor of sea water moving through the Earth’s magnetic field is MUCH to weak to have any effect…..”
But of course one cannot totally exclude possibility that you also could be wrong. As this diagram shows there is a definite correlation between the ocean transport index and GMF variation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm

Gail Combs
March 9, 2010 9:03 am

D. Patterson (01:37:51) :
“As water goes through a phase change from a gaseous vapor to a liquid and from a liquid to a solid snow and ice, it liberates an extraordinary amount of thermal energy. When this phase change from a warmer water vapor or liquid to a colder solid snow and ice occurs in the troposphere, a certain amount of that thermal energy must be radiated into space….. In other words, when the Earth is cooling it must radiate elevated levels of thermal energy to space where the satellite instruments can record the thermal emissions resulting from the cooling.”
In other words when Dr. Roy Spencer showed high satellite temperature records in January 2010 it is actually show the earth is COOLING down by radiating more thermal energy thanks to the record snow and rainfall. Is that correct?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/04/january-uah-global-temperature-warmest/

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 9:11 am

Stephen Singer,
Thanks for the map. What I am really looking for is the long term trend map, not the monthly anomaly map.

March 9, 2010 9:22 am

R. Gates (07:48:54) :
“How could we be ‘on track’ for a record warm year in early March?”
January and February running far above the 20 year average in tropospheric temps at all levels, with much of the time spent above the 20 year record highs for tropospheric temps.
From NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, January 2010 — my emphasis:
* The global land surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F)—the twelfth warmest January on record. Land areas in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record for January. In the Northern Hemisphere, which has much more land, comparatively, land surface temperatures were 18th warmest on record.
* The worldwide ocean surface temperature for January 2010 was the second warmest—behind 1998—on record for January, 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F). This can be partially attributed to the persistence of El Niño across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC), El Niño is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
February’s data isn’t posted yet, and the archives only go back to 1998 — but it appears that the *surface* temperatures don’t justify a prediction that we’re in for “a record warm year.”

R. Gates
March 9, 2010 9:23 am

Gail said:
“In other words when Dr. Roy Spencer showed high satellite temperature records in January 2010 it is actually show the earth is COOLING down…”
??? Now that is an interesting twist. Higher temps=cooling. I can see why so many people are confused…”these are not the droids you’re looking for” or “this is not the higher temps you think they are”. Very funny!

Gail Combs
March 9, 2010 9:42 am

RockyRoad (04:22:37) :
NASA says
“The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.”…..
————–
Reply:
That’s a rather weird sentence; melted ice isn’t ice at all; it is water.
Should Antarctic ice loss be factual, I see several possibilities:”

Two other commentors have pointed to this article from the Geological Society that addresses the science. http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/page7209.html
The really interesting point made is
“It is also worth noting the geometry and age of the great icecaps. The Greenland, East Antarctica and West Antarctica ice sheets occupy kilometre-deep basins, and the ice cannot possibly slide downhill – it has to flow uphill. ..”
And yes they do consider ice a “rock” with plastic characteristics
“The threshold boundary between non-flowing ice and flowing ice marks the yield stress level. The brittle upper ice in an alpine glacier is a solid being carried along on plastic ice beneath.”

PeterB in Indainapolis
March 9, 2010 9:48 am

Veronica,
How about sunny and 25C for at least half of the days in summer both there and here in the Midwest of the US. Not so hot that the alarmists will bother us, but warm enough to barbeque and perhaps play a little golf. Sound good?
Since some “scientists” claim that humans can control the weather, I think they should get right on that for us!

March 9, 2010 9:49 am

vukcevic (09:03:35) :
But of course one cannot totally exclude possibility that you also could be wrong.
You can make the calculation and show me wrong. The correlation means nothing.

March 9, 2010 9:49 am

R. Gates (08:22:32),
As Don B shows a few posts up, global ice cover is at its long term average, debunking your anomaly chart. Since the alarmist scare is global warming, not Arctic warming [which is offset by Antarctic cooling], your claim is contradicted by the chart of global ice extent. And the chart in the article here shows steady growth in Antarctic ice.
Want more? Didn’t think so, but let’s look anyway. This chart compliments the chart in the article: click
And here’s NASA’s own chart showing global ice cover rising above its long term average: click
Here’s a picture of Antarctic ice cover showing the increase over the past three decades: click. [Note the figures showing the increase]
Finally, here is a picture of the past three years of summer Arctic ice cover by the University of Bremen. A close inspection shows that Arctic ice cover is actually increasing: click. Makes you wonder if the NSIDC is fudging the numbers like NOAA does.
Since the alarmist claim is that there soon may be no Arctic ice at all is debunked like all the other global warming scares, maybe it’s time you moved on to the scare du jour, methane. That scare will be debunked too, because there is nothing unusual happening with the planet – despite what Romm, tamino, Schmidt and the rest of the rent-seeking tax suckers want you to believe.

March 9, 2010 9:57 am

So, as we know from our observations of the sun, global cooling is coming. I noticed here in Pretoria, South Africa that last winter was colder than usual; in fact one of our solar panels froze up. Freezing weather is strange for Pretoria. I will let you know if this winter will be colder than usual again.

Cassandra King
March 9, 2010 10:05 am

Steve Goddard,
Thanks for the reply to my post, it puts the whole thing in perspective when the margin of error is many times the supposed anomoly. In my mind that isnt measurement its guess work, a 0.1 degree measurement with a three degree margin of error means that the anomoly map is little more than a politically motivated stunt.
A useless map to gauge a useless differential with no other use than to scare children and reinforce a belief system.
Btw what possible scientific use is a 0.1 degree change in an average temperature, what pysical changes will this tiny fractional change have on such a massive enviroment?

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 10:28 am

Cassandra,
The bottom line with Antarctica is that it is not doing what Hansen predicted in 1984, in fact it is doing the opposite of what he predicted.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf
Why can’t they just admit that they are wrong, instead of making increasingly ridiculous claims about future sea level rise?

maksimovich
March 9, 2010 10:30 am

Some interesting questions arise when from the POV of an observer that antarctic glacier recession seems to have been occurring when the SH temperatures in the 19th century were “supposedly” colder then present.
Notes from transactions of the Royal society of NZ 1910.
Note on Glacier-Recession, By T. V. Hodgson.
A great deal has been said and written about the retreat of the ice from north to south, and the glaciers from low to the higher levels. This has been based upon the fact that the edge of the Great Ice Barrier is some miles further south than it was when seen by Ross in 1839–40.
The various sledge parties encountered many glaciers the extremities of which do not reach the sea, or even come within reasonable distance of it. One fact must impress the Antarctic explorer, and that is the thinness of the ice-sheet and the large proportion of exposed rock. The thickness of the ice on the inland plateau is purely conjectural, and with the appliances of the average sledge party it would be impossible to measure it. Theoretical calculations have shown that ice cannot exist at a greater thickness than 3,000ft., and one feels—for one can do nothing else—when in those regions that there is no reason to believe that it might possibly be more than this.
I would ask, what right have we to accept so readily the assumption that the temperature-conditions are becoming less severe, and that therefore the ice-cap is receding? It appears to me that the evidence is very weak at the best.
To begin with the Barrier, the amount of recession is small compared to its enormous area. It is greatest on the eastern side, where we have absolutely no knowledge whatever as to the source of supply. As compared to the mountains of the west, King Edward VII Land, from the little that has been seen of it, is low-lying country, and if such should ultimately prove to be the case it may also prove to be the larger feeding-ground

http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/image/rsnz_43/rsnz_43_00_0523_0494_ac_01.html
http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/image/rsnz_43/rsnz_43_00_0524_0495_ac_01.html
Sometimes these things just happen in a random sort of way,and exhibit historical behavior without being recurrent.

R. Gates
March 9, 2010 10:37 am

Smokey,
Don B.’s chart doesn’t “debunk” anything I posted. Arctic sea ice has been in a year-on-year decline for many year, and the anomaly chart I posted, here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Is the absolute best way to see this decline. We’ve not see a positive anomaly in the arctic sea ice since 2004, and no amount of verbal cleverness or manipulation of short term data will change that either. And despite the attempts at both sides of the issue to spin data for their own interests, I only care about the truth of the situation. Even more to the point, I have openly said that if the arctic truly starts to show long term freqent positive anomalies, then I would seriously begin to doubt my own current belief that AGW is likely a correct hypothesis. However, when either side pushes and manipulates that data, it reminds me of the used car salesman approach, and I never buy used cars from them, simply because they are so seedy.

Jaye
March 9, 2010 10:49 am

We have a winner my faith in the AGW hypothesis will be diminished.

TJA
March 9, 2010 10:53 am

Hey, I bet the cold is coming from the SOUTH OF FRANCE.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8557570.stm?ls

D. Patterson
March 9, 2010 10:55 am

Gail Combs (09:03:39) :
D. Patterson (01:37:51) :
[….]
In other words when Dr. Roy Spencer showed high satellite temperature records in January 2010 it is actually show the earth is COOLING down by radiating more thermal energy thanks to the record snow and rainfall. Is that correct?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/04/january-uah-global-temperature-warmest/

Does it (A) “actually show the earth is COOLING down,” or does it (B) show a single factor which “contributes” to a cooling of the Earth among many other confounding factors contributing to the warming and cooling of the Earth?
It does demonstrate that the Earth is radiating extraordinary levels of infrared energy from the regions of the troposphere where water condensation takes place in the cloud systems, and those extraordinary levels of infrared energy are emitted into space from the vicinity of the cloud tops and the inversion layer in the mid-upper troposphere. The quantity and the location of these infrared emissions in the mid-upper troposphere are especially noteworthy when they occur in correlation with extensive precipitation of frozen rain and snow.
If you look at the energy required in a phase change to freeze and thaw water , you’ll see what a great difference there is between water vapor and liquid water versus frozen water. Consequently, whenever you see extensive precipitation of frozen water such as frozen rain and snow, you must expect to see a much greater release of energy than you usually see with only liquid water such as rain. It is this substantial disparity of energy absorption and emission between phase changes of water which is responsible at least in part for the Earth’s natural thermostat and limitations in temperature ranges.
R. Gates points to the satellite observations of these thermal energy emissions from the mid-upper troposphere and makes the hugely over-simplistic and erroneous conclusion and impression these satellite observations constitute evidence of the whole Earth radiating at warmer levels.
First, the 14,000 foot level is the place in the Earth’s atmosphere from which much of the Earth’s thermal energy is dumped into space by the convection of the water cycle, thereby contributing to cooling of the planet. Condensation of frozen rain and snow at about 14,000 ft. greatly enhances this transport of thermal energy to space.
Second, if R. Gates’ simplistic and erroneous assumption/s about the satellite observations were the only factor involved in determining the thermal state of the Earth, then the warmth in the troposphere would be an indication the Earth is cooling and not warming. In the real world, however, his assumption/s are utterly wrong, and the satellite observations of the 14,000 ft warmth is only an indication that precipitation events are “contributing” to cooling of the Earth at extraordinary levels. It is, however, a bridge much too far to assert this one factor predominates all of the other confounding factors to result in an overall warming or cooling of the Earth. It is what it is, just another contributing factor in an unclear overall equation.
Suffice it to conclude, R. Gates fails to understand and comprehend the information he is reading and citing, deceiving himself and others.

March 9, 2010 11:30 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:49:19) :
“You can make the calculation and show me wrong. The correlation means nothing.”
There is more to it than just correlation. Circulating saline water (electric conductor) in magnetic field will generate emf, electric current, new opposing magnetic field etc; result slowdown in circulation and reduction in the GMF.
On the other hand one could claim it is an irrelevant coincidence that there is dip in the Z field coinciding with centre of Beaufort Gyre, the largest and strongest gyre in the Arctic Ocean.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC15.htm

Urederra
March 9, 2010 11:30 am

Sorry but there is no Ozone hole. The ozone layer is thinner at the poles, that’s all. And if you read about how stratospheric ozone is formed, it is logical that the ozone layer is thinner at the poles, there is less ozone forming radiation at the poles.

Roger Knights
March 9, 2010 11:40 am

The wind doth blow
By which way
NOAA doth know
All above, all below

March 9, 2010 11:41 am

vukcevic (11:30:51) :
Circulating saline water (electric conductor) in magnetic field will generate emf, electric current, new opposing magnetic field etc; result slowdown in circulation and reduction in the GMF.
Do us all a favor and use simple high-school physics to actually calculate the current and the heating and the Lorentz force, and show how insignificant they are. I have done it here before, but this time you do it, to convince yourself, so you can stop this nonsense.

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 11:41 am

Over time, the earth radiates out the same amount of energy as it receives, plus heat derived from radioactive decay. This is due to the first law of thermodynamics.

Romanoz
March 9, 2010 11:43 am

The Scientific Committe on Antarctic Research (SCAR) in its report “Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment” Dec 2009 http://www.scar.org says that “the sea ice extent shows a positive increase of 1% per decade”. So why would NASA say otherwise? Remember this report came out in Dec 2009!!
Also, snowfalls have remained immune to climate change being static since 1957. Temperature is also unchanged except for the Western Antarctic, which has been warming since 1800!
Nothing scary here, no pun intended!

Roger Knights
March 9, 2010 11:43 am

Here’s my most fine-tuned version yet:
The wind blows
In which way
NOAA knows
All above, all below

SandyInDerby
March 9, 2010 11:44 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:49:19) :
vukcevic (09:03:35) :
But of course one cannot totally exclude possibility that you also could be wrong.
You can make the calculation and show me wrong. The correlation means nothing.
Not wishing to divert a private discussion, but what about unknown unknowns?

D. Patterson
March 9, 2010 11:53 am

I work for kings
Give me wings
I’m a CRUdude
I need blings

Gail Combs
March 9, 2010 11:57 am

D. Patterson (10:55:31) :
Gail Combs (09:03:39) :
D. Patterson (01:37:51) :
[….]
In other words when Dr. Roy Spencer showed high satellite temperature records in January 2010 it is actually show the earth is COOLING down by radiating more thermal energy thanks to the record snow and rainfall. Is that correct?….
“It does demonstrate that the Earth is radiating extraordinary levels of infrared energy from the regions of the troposphere where water condensation takes place in the cloud systems, and those extraordinary levels of infrared energy are emitted into space from the vicinity of the cloud tops and the inversion layer in the mid-upper troposphere…..”
Thank you for the clarification. I am well aware that this is just one of many factors in a very complicated system. As Bob Tisdale and many others have pointed out the earth is 70% water and we can not ignore its effect on climate.

Wren
March 9, 2010 12:02 pm

Steve Goddard (08:46:56) :
Wren,
Hansen says it is “going away soon.”
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/news_repository/will-oceans-surge-59-centimetres-this-century-or-25-metres
==========
I read the cited article, and didn’t find Hansen quoted as saying it (antarctic) is “going away soon.”

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 12:15 pm

“Prof. Hansen and his colleagues argue that rapidly melting ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland could cause oceans to swell several metres by 2100 – or maybe even as much as 25 metres, which is how much higher the oceans sat about three million years ago.”
Reminds me of the 1960s.

One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don’t do anything at all
Go ask Alice
When she’s ten feet tall
And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you’re going to fall
Tell ’em a hookah smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call
Call Alice
When she was just small
When men on the chessboard
Get up and tell you where to go
And you’ve just had some kind of mushroom
And your mind is moving slow
Go ask Alice
I think she’ll know
When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen’s “off with her head!”
Remember what the doormouse said;
“Keep YOUR HEAD
_______________
Keep your head”

R. Gates
March 9, 2010 12:18 pm

D. Patterson said:
“(R. Gates)…makes the hugely over-simplistic and erroneous conclusion and impression these satellite observations constitute evidence of the whole Earth radiating at warmer levels.”
Nope, never said the “whole earth” once, and would never say the whole earth is radiating at warmer levels, as that would be a nonsensical and erroneous statement. The troposphereic temperature data is exeptional useful and important, and my whole point in even mentioning it is because it is diplaying exactly what we’d expect in January, February, and now into March 2010, if, as the Met Office has stated, and I also believe, there is a good chance that 2010 will be the warmest on instrument record. A warm troposphere is exactly what AGW models predict, as that is where the “action is” so to speak in terms of GH forcing…i.e. that’s where the GH gases do their business. LIkewise, in the same satellite data we see the Stratosphere is cooling, and that is exactly what AGW models predict. If the troposphereic temps were falling, or the stratospheric temps rising, it would not be a good sign for the AGW hypothesis.

Phillep Harding
March 9, 2010 12:27 pm

“09 03 2010 Alan the Brit (01:54:20) : Question: I have heard Ian Plimer et al claiming that the ice on Greenland and that in Antarctica is in a basin.”
Maybe so, maybe no. All that ice is heavy, and depresses the crust in the area. Removing the ice would result in crustal rebound. The amount of rebound would be a whole ‘nother discussion.

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 12:35 pm

R Gates,
The average temperature of the atmosphere at 14,000 feet is warm because of El Nino.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1978/plot/rss/from:1978
Two years ago it was low because of La Nina. Seems simple enough?

EdP
March 9, 2010 12:38 pm

Leif Svalgaard
There are a lot of bright people posting on this site. I am not one of them. I try to read all the posts and discern something new and factual from them. There are many on both sides of the debate who offer interesting views and there are others who are just agenda driven. What I don’t get is that just about 100% of your posts end up with either a condescending or derisive comment. Your posts indicate a very high level of specialized knowledge, usually I have no clue what you are talking about but I think it’s time for you to lighten up.
EdP

JonesII
March 9, 2010 12:39 pm

Wren (12:02:50) : That expression “going away soon” perhaps refers to the possibility of Hansen going somewhere else in his coal trains…
Anyway, Bon voyage!

March 9, 2010 12:39 pm

SandyInDerby (11:44:09) :
what about unknown unknowns?
To qualify the things would have to stay unknown, no?
But here is some known knowns about that:
http://www.geomag.us/info/Smaus/Doc/ocean_encycl.pdf
The secular variation is 1000 times slower than the [small] daily and hourly variations calculated in the paper and its effect dB/dt is thus a thousand times smaller still. Vuk’s case is particularly sad, as he should know better, but sometimes people get so enamored by their ideas that common sense [and engineering education] goes out the window.

JonesII
March 9, 2010 12:41 pm

vukcevic (11:30:51) : As logic teaches, he who denies a denier it’s a believer!!☺

JonesII
March 9, 2010 12:48 pm

correction:,,,is a believer

mamapajamas
March 9, 2010 1:01 pm

@Wren (23:06:35) :
“NASA says
“The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.” ”
========================================
Wren, you’re faith in what “NASA says” is astounding. At this point in time, if NASA said the sky was blue, I’d go out side and look.

D. Patterson
March 9, 2010 1:05 pm

[….]
Nope, never said the “whole earth” once, and would never say the whole earth is radiating at warmer levels, as that would be a nonsensical and erroneous statement.

You did say “far above the 20 year average in tropospheric temps at all levels.” The troposphere is wrapped around the whole Earth last time I looked out the window. Let me look again….wait for it….yes, still there. You did say “at all levels”, so that appears to indicate the whole of the Earth’s troposphere AT ALL LEVELS. So, which is it, you did or did not mean the whole Earth’s troposphere at all levels?

January and February running far above the 20 year average in tropospheric temps at all levels, with much of the time spent above the 20 year record highs for tropospheric temps.

I suppose you are correct in observing that “The troposphereic temperature data is exeptional useful and important” when you are trying to convince readers that “it is diplaying exactly what we’d expect” in anything, contrary to the real world abhorrence for any perfection in human miscalculations. Of course, when you assert every positive and negative event is proof of Global Warming and Climate Change caused by mankind, it makes it kind of easy to claim “it is diplaying exactly what we’d expect” in anything.

UK John
March 9, 2010 1:09 pm

I think R. Gates makes an interesting point about AGW models.
It is his contention that the models are correct, so following this logic the record warm Troposphere temperatures in Jan, Feb and March actually corresponds with a very cold Northern Hemisphere on the ground.
So if the Troposphere temperatures are “as expected” by the AGW models then following his logic, all in the NH must prepare for very cold weather in the future.
Is this what the AGW models predict? certainly sounds catastrophic!

Bruce M. Albert, Ph.D., PDRA
March 9, 2010 1:11 pm

Dear Sirs,
I might be worth noting that according to Peter Huybers (presently Harvard Earth Sciences, I think) Ph.D. Thesis under Carl Wunsch, a lead-lag study of 018 (isotopic temp. proxy) values in ice cores from both poles show a syncopation of 018 signals at CENTURY-level time-scales through the later Pleistocene, based upon Greenland and Antarctic data (Peter Huybers models a 210 y Antarctic lead in this, the thesis is well-written, readable, and available on-line). The point is that under NATURAL conditions, differences between arctic and antarctic temps. are perhaps usual rather than unusual (perhaps because of mechanics of Global, and esp. N. Atlantic deep-water formation and other oceanographic factors?). The present pole/anti-pole situation would appear to conform with expactations of non-anthropogenic climate change mechanisms. Much empirical work still needs to be completed by the British Antartic survey, but my gut feeling is that natural agencies will be seen to be primary factors, once climate science returns to reason. This site does a good job on that score.
Bruce M. Albert, Ph.D., PDRA, Durham University, UK

Sharon
March 9, 2010 1:14 pm

wes george (21:38:17) wrote:
What does one call a hypothesis that fails to yield useful predictions of observed data?
*********************************************
Well, I think a “Climate Change Scientist” (h/t to rob @ 03:28:33) would call it “Results!”

Dave Andrews
March 9, 2010 1:16 pm

How good are these satellite measurements of Antarctic ice gravity loss? We’ve been in situations before where errors were found in satellite measurements. GRACE has only been going for 8 years, so how do they even know if they are in any way accurate?

JimAsh
March 9, 2010 1:21 pm

Remember what the doormouse said;
“Keep YOUR HEAD
Actually he said “Feed your head”, but that’s ok.
I have now canceled my order of a castle in the sky at 14,000 ft.
Thank you all.

Bruce of Newcastle
March 9, 2010 1:22 pm

I look at the 25 year UAH anomaly map and I see 3 ‘hot’ areas in the Arctic.
Each is fairly close to the three biggest sources of industrialisation in the the last 25 years: US/Canada, Europe, Japan/S Korea. One big feature of this period is the rise of transportation and in particular (sic) the use of diesel.
Methinks a few 10 micron particulates surveys might be in order. On the other hand there ain’t much black soot in Antarctica.

March 9, 2010 1:27 pm

SandyInDerby (11:44:09) :
Leif Svalgaard (09:49:19)
“Not wishing to divert a private discussion, but what about unknown unknowns?”
Not private at all, very public ..
Whatever any calculations may show, and there are number of unknowns, one fact is well known: the GMF Z component today at the centre of the Beaufort gyre is about 17% less today (57.1 micro Tesla) than it was around 1650 (at deepest LIA, 68.5 micro Tesla), hence any possible effect would change accordingly.

Anu
March 9, 2010 1:29 pm

Hey, thanks for the link to UAH satellite datafrom the linked story, “NASA Still Spreading Antarctic Worries”. I hadn’t realized the North Pole ocean warming trend was 0.50 deg C/decade – that’s worse than I thought.
I wish UAH and RSS would resolve their differences in data processing – they use the same NOAA polar orbiting satellite data, but come to different temperatures. RSS also makes clear that the satellite coverage is only to 82.5 deg latitude, south and north – UAH just calls the data South Pole and North Pole.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TTS_Anomalies_Land_v03_2.txt
Too bad the satellites can’t overlap some of the temperature stations at the South Pole below 82.5 deg latitude (and corresponding latitudes in the north)
http://blackmaps.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/antarctica-map.jpg
And both UAH and RSS use the same baseline period of 1979-2000 for their temperature anomalies – then why does RSS, for the month of Feb 2010, get a temperature anomaly of 0.151 for Land, -82.5 to -60 deg latitude, and UAH gets 1.05 deg C for the “South Pole land” ?
And for the North Pole ( 60 to 82.5 deg latitude), RSS gets 3.481 deg C anomaly, and UAH gets 1.91 deg C land temp. anomaly ?
I think the problem is not NASA’s, but one of the groups analyzing the satellite data. Hasn’t UAH been fixing a lot of errors recently ?
http://nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.05Mar2010

Phil M
March 9, 2010 1:37 pm

Another absolute butchering of scientific data.
First off, Steven, you’re comparing NSIDC sea ice “extent” to NASAs “mass”. Two different metrics, obtained by different scientists, using different methods.
Second, NSIDC merely mentions a study that proposed an ozone hole-related cooling process. Conveniently, you ignore the entire FAQ section in which NSIDC clearly explains the scientific consensus (inclusive of NSIDC) on Antarctic sea ice, warming, cooling, etc. Here’s a particularly illuminating line:
“In terms of sea ice, climate model projections of Antarctic sea ice extent are in reasonable agreement with the observations to date. It also appears that atmospheric greenhouse gases, as well as the loss of ozone, have acted to increase the winds around Antarctica. Perhaps counter intuitively, this has further protected the Antarctic from warming and has fostered more ice growth.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#wintertimeantarctic

Richard Sharpe
March 9, 2010 1:46 pm

R. Gates (12:18:14) said:

D. Patterson said:
“(R. Gates)…makes the hugely over-simplistic and erroneous conclusion and impression these satellite observations constitute evidence of the whole Earth radiating at warmer levels.”
Nope, never said the “whole earth” once, and would never say the whole earth is radiating at warmer levels, as that would be a nonsensical and erroneous statement. The troposphereic temperature data is exeptional useful and important, and my whole point in even mentioning it is because it is diplaying exactly what we’d expect in January, February, and now into March 2010, if, as the Met Office has stated, and I also believe, there is a good chance that 2010 will be the warmest on instrument record. A warm troposphere is exactly what AGW models predict, as that is where the “action is” so to speak in terms of GH forcing…i.e. that’s where the GH gases do their business. LIkewise, in the same satellite data we see the Stratosphere is cooling, and that is exactly what AGW models predict. If the troposphereic temps were falling, or the stratospheric temps rising, it would not be a good sign for the AGW hypothesis.

There is an alternative explanation: That the energy to heat up the troposphere is coming from the oceans …

JimAsh
March 9, 2010 1:55 pm

“In terms of sea ice, climate model projections of Antarctic sea ice extent are in reasonable agreement with the observations to date. It also appears that atmospheric greenhouse gases, as well as the loss of ozone, have acted to increase the winds around Antarctica. Perhaps counter intuitively, this has further protected the Antarctic from warming and has fostered more ice growth.”
So it is not melting, they know it is not melting, and even if was melting it would take most of forever to do it.
So why do they keep coming out with all those estimates of how much
water would be over everything if did melt and inundate us all ? Isn’
the whole thing rather disingenuous ?
The next time some numbskull starts railing at me about how Pittsburgh and Denver will be coastal cities by August I will spit on their shoe, and say
“Are you drowning yet ?” or “I refute it thus”.

March 9, 2010 1:56 pm

vukcevic (13:27:40) :
Z component today at the centre of the Beaufort gyre is about 17% less today (57.1 micro Tesla) than it was around 1650 (at deepest LIA, 68.5 micro Tesla), hence any possible effect would change accordingly.
So, any [negligible] effect today would be even less than in 1650. Do yourself a favor then, and study the material I have provided. Here is another study of this: http://www.leif.org/EOS/JC076i015p03476.pdf

Wondering Aloud
March 9, 2010 1:59 pm

Wren
If you won’t answer the simple question… than lay off. We know you want to take one possible piece of data from one source and pretend it has some huge meaning above all other observations. We get that, enough already.
The supposed loss of continental ice is a rediculously small trend and is NOT enough to validate the models or show any warming at all it is less that would be expected during an interglacial and so small it is doubtful that it exists at all.

March 9, 2010 2:09 pm

EdP (12:38:16) :
I don’t get is that just about 100% of your posts end up with either a condescending or derisive comment.
I hope my comments are illuminating the errors and fallacies committed and sometimes even providing positive and factual information. I only comment [or try to, at least] on things that I know something about and there is a lot of nonsense dished out on this [and other blogs], and I call that as I see it. That you see many negative comments from me is perhaps a [sad] measure of the degree of nonsensical speculation that comes this way. Vuk’s latest [which he peddles regularly] is a sterling example.

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 2:14 pm

Phil M,
Very nice straw man post. You are arguing with yourself, not my article.
I have a homework assignment for you.
1. Essay question (50 points) Propose a physical model where sea ice is freezing and adjacent continental ice is melting. Since you seem to believe it can occur.
2. True/False (25 points) NSIDC says Antarctic sea ice is increasing.
3. True/False (15 points) UAH says Antarctica is cooling and the NSIDC sea ice news explains why.
4. True/False (10 points) Sea level will rise 2-25 metres this century as Hansen has forecast.
-79F in Vostok on this fine summer day.

Billy Liar
March 9, 2010 2:46 pm

NSIDC: ‘It also appears that atmospheric greenhouse gases, as well as the loss of ozone, have acted to increase the winds around Antarctica.’
– that’s a joke isn’t it?

Barry Kearns
March 9, 2010 2:46 pm

Ryan Stephenson (02:56:07) : Sea ice is floating on warm water, the base of the ice being in thermal equilibrium with the sea water. If that water gets just a little bit warmer, you’re going to get a lot more melting, with the floating ice turning into more water.
Warm water? Remind me to never ask you to draw a bath.

Stephan
March 9, 2010 2:55 pm

note:Phil and De Witt Payne are two that just cannot wait to see sea ice melt. LOL I would say 100% belief in AGW. Everytime the graph goes down they suddenly appear here or at CA ice thread. I of course appear when it goes up! A bit of a farce indeed! I am a very proud D#####r LOL.

Phil M
March 9, 2010 2:58 pm

My argument, Steve, is with you intentionally and repeatedly miscasting the data. I’ve pointed out your errors and missteps numerous times. All this talk about cherry picking – here’s a good line from NSIDC, which you inadvertently overlooked, I suppose:
“Wintertime Antarctic sea ice is increasing at a small rate and with substantial natural year-to-year variability in the time series. While Antarctic sea ice reached a near-record-high annual minimum in March 2008, this does not indicate a significant long-term trend.”
That’s quite an important point you left out there, son. Maybe it’s you that should be doing homework, if you’re not too busy counting pixels somewhere.

March 9, 2010 3:00 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:56:23) : “So, any [negligible] effect today would be even less than in 1650.”
You got that wrong way around (effect in 1650 would be, if linear 17% greater than today
“Do yourself a favor then, and study the material I have provided. Here is another study of this: http://www.leif.org/EOS/JC076i015p03476.pdf”
Thanks for the link: maths is mind boggling, and as Tesla said tendency of scientists to substitute maths for science. However I noticed following:
“The present analysis shows that the induced electric field can be a complicated function of the velocity field. The electric field responds to both the local and large-scale character of the flow. Presently it is easier to make electric, as opposed to magnetic, field measurements for long periods.”
In mean time let’s put some simple facts together:
– GMF Z component has a dip in the exact area of the strongest polar (Beaufort) gyre
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC15.htm
I suggest this is due to counter MF created by electric currents generated by gyre’s circulation in the strong Earth’s MF of the area.
– There is a proven correlation between the ocean transport index and GMF variation (be GMF small or large).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm
– one fact is well known: the GMF Z component at the centre of the Beaufort gyre is about 17% less today (57.1 micro Tesla) than it was around 1650 (at deepest LIA, 68.5 micro Tesla), hence any possible effect on slowing down gyre’s circulation would change accordingly.
– Beaufort gyre regulates flow of the transpolar curent into Labrador Sea.
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/dfino/2007/2/ArcticCurrents-labels_41043.jpg
The warm water current branching of the North Atlantic Current and combination of the transpolar current create Labrador Sea current; this tightly governs the strength of the Subpolar gyre’s circulation, which is the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean.
Result: Strong correlation between GMF of polar regions and North Atlantic temperature anomaly.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC8.htm
I wish you good night.

Stephen Wilde
March 9, 2010 3:09 pm

Richard Sharpe (13:46:23)
“There is an alternative explanation: That the energy to heat up the troposphere is coming from the oceans.”
Absolutely right but only for so long as the current El Nino lasts.
And also only while the sun’s surface remains quiescent. From 1975 to 2000 the run of strong El Ninos was largely offset by the active sun which allowed a faster venting of the oceanic energy to space. Now with a quiet sun and an El Nino the excess energy from the oceans is restrained from being vented fast enough and some of that energy is being redirected downward in the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations to give cold mid latitudes and heavy snowfalls.
Leif Svalgaard ( 14:09:312)
Leif, as you should know I regard you as the master in all matters solar. However I think you are as adrift as anyone else when it comes to recognising the variety of interactions in the Earth’s processing of that solar energy.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think you see the Earth system as a black body radiating out to space at the appropriate rate for a body at some so called global temperature.
I don’t think you have a grip on the internal variability of the Earth system which is composed of numerous layers in both oceans and air all of which introduce their own variations in the rate of energy flow back out of the system once it has been received from the sun.
It’s not just a matter of radiative physics straight in and straight out. There are the matters of convection and conduction and the irregular block transfers of energy upwards and downwards by the phase changes of water and the albedo variability introduced by changes in cloudiness and snow/ice cover.
As you must accept, the thermosphere can warm or cool whilst other layers change in the opposite direction. The stratosphere seems to warm and cool opposite to the troposphere and the oceanic energy content increases as the troposphere cools and vice versa.
All those phenomena can only be explained by varying rates of energy transfer between layers.
Bob Tisdale is right with his concept of discharge and recharge between sun sea and air but I would extend that globally and over centuries and possibly millennia.
Willis’s thermostat hypothesis is right but I would also extend that globally and over centuries and millennia.
Some of the ideas from tallbloke, Erl Happ and Svensmark are on the right lines as regards the energy flow effects of chemical changes in the atmosphere but personally I think that is a second order effect compared to oceanic variability.
I wouldn’t even entirely exclude the ideas of vukcevic and those who support length of day and gravitational effects because they could influence the oceanic variability that the observational evidence strongly supports.
It really doesn’t seem right for you to be so dismissive of thoughts and ideas that relate to internal Earth system variability on the basis of your undoubted solar expertise.
I think that is why we have not been able to have a full meeting of minds.

R. Gates
March 9, 2010 3:19 pm

Richard Sharpe said:
“There is an alternative explanation: That the energy to heat up the troposphere is coming from the oceans …”
Indeed, and much of it likely is, especially in an El Nino year, and that’s why you look at long term trends, for there is only so much energy to be released during any given El Nino period, but over time, you’d expect the average global temperatures from one El Nino period to the next (according to AGW Models) to increase, and that’s one reason that the Met office and others are projecting 2010 to be the warmest year on instrument record, we have an El Nino going on, plus we have a greater CO2 concentration than 1998, the last big El Nino year– though that year was a stronger El Nino. 1998 was also at a different point at the beginning of solar cycle 23, with a more active sun, and though this effect is marginal, it gave 1998 even more warming potential.

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 3:20 pm

Phil M,
You are again arguing a straw man. This article is about the March 3 Sea Ice News, which says the paragraph below. If they have inconsistent statements somewhere else on their web site, what does that have to do with this article? I quoted exactly what they said, in it’s entirety.
“Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region.”

peterhodges
March 9, 2010 3:44 pm

“the original 1956 South Pole Station suffered the same fate of snow buildup and has long since been crushed under 30 feet of ice.”
“eight inches of snow continues to accumulate every year”
http://www.ferrarochoi.com/casestudies/southpole/index.html

March 9, 2010 3:48 pm

vukcevic (15:00:23) :
Leif Svalgaard (13:56:23) : “So, any [negligible] effect today would be even less than in 1650.”
You got that wrong way around (effect in 1650 would be, if linear 17% greater than today

Typical of your logic that you think that 17% less today is different
from 17% greater in 1650
Thanks for the link: maths is mind boggling, and as Tesla said tendency of scientists to substitute maths for science.
Nonsense, science today is mathematical, and the math is elementary.
I suggest this is due to counter MF created by electric currents generated by gyre’s circulation in the strong Earth’s MF of the area.
And I tell you that calculations show that the effect is minuscule.
There is a proven correlation
A proven correlation is one that is backed up by matching calculation of the effect, and this is not the case.
Stephen Wilde (15:09:18) :
However I think you are as adrift as anyone else when it comes to recognising the variety of interactions in the Earth’s processing of that solar energy.
Solar work involves being an expert in radiative effects.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think you see the Earth system as a black body radiating out to space at the appropriate rate for a body at some so called global temperature.
What nonsense is that? Black body or grey body makes no difference. And it is well-known that because of the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface temperature is several tens of degrees higher than the black body temperature. What is a fact, is that the radiated energy from the Earth equals that coming in from the Sun.
It’s not just a matter of radiative physics straight in and straight out. There are the matters of convection and conduction and the irregular block transfers of energy upwards and downwards by the phase changes of water and the albedo variability introduced by changes in cloudiness and snow/ice cover.
I spent the first five years at the University in Copenhagen studying Geophysics and Atmospheric physics and worked four years at the the Danish Meteorological Institute, so I do know something about all that. [This is my real field – the solar bit came later]
As you must accept, the thermosphere can warm or cool whilst other layers change in the opposite direction.
The thermosphere is so thin and the total energy up there so minuscule that it is totally irrelevant what happens there [as we have discussed so many times].
I wouldn’t even entirely exclude the ideas of vukcevic
That is because you [and he] do not understand the physics
and those who support length of day and gravitational effects because they could influence the oceanic variability that the observational evidence strongly supports.
the cause and effect go the other way [ice skater lowering and raising her arms].
It really doesn’t seem right for you to be so dismissive of thoughts and ideas that relate to internal Earth system variability on the basis of your undoubted solar expertise.
My solar expertise is a sideshow as i have explained.
I think that is why we have not been able to have a full meeting of minds.
If you cannot understand the facts, then meeting of minds is hard.

kim
March 9, 2010 4:08 pm

Leif @ 15:48:59
“What is a fact is the radiated energy from the earth equals that coming in from the sun”. Well, minus the energy sequestered underground in hydrocarbons and carbonates, plus the energy conducted from the interior of the earth. I know, picky, picky.
==========

Anu
March 9, 2010 4:10 pm

Steve Goddard (22:06:34) :
This article is about sea ice, but it should be apparent that it would be impossible for a region of sea ice to be growing and nearby continental ice to be melting.
—————-
The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=42399
What do they call an Antarctic glacier once it flows into the ocean ?
Sea ice ?
The oceans surrounding Antarctica have been warming, so Schodlok doesn’t doubt that the ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water being brought up from the depths. But he admits that it hasn’t been proven rigorously, because satellites can’t measure underneath the ice.
Wouldn’t melting ice shelves, flowing continental glaciers, increased sea ice, and Antarctica losing ice at an increasing rate (GRACE satellite data), with surface temperatures seen by satellite being basically constant (with a small noise signal superimposed) all be consistent ?
Could 100 cubic kilometers of ice flowing off of Antarctica into the surrounding oceans every year be consistent with less sea ice ?

kim
March 9, 2010 4:11 pm

I wonder if the earth varies its rate of sequestration of that energy in response to some rhythm of the sun. That might magnify but not lead to a runaway.
=============

POUNCER
March 9, 2010 4:21 pm

I know it’s not THIS simple, but could somebody help me wrap me head around this.
Disconnect the atmosphere from the Antarctic ice cap for a minute.
The atmosphere is 5 x 10^21 grams of air, with specific heat of around 1 Joule per gram degree K, and a projected temperature rise over some time of 5 degrees Kelvin, so the total energy in question is about 3 x 10^22 Joule.
The ice cap is 15 x 10^6 square kilometers in area, 2 km in depth, with a specific density of 1. We’re looking at 3 x 10^21 grams of ice. The specific heat of solid ice, below freezing is about 2 Joule /gK, and the ice at the pole is about – 50 degree K below freezing. The heat of fusion of ice is about 333 J / gram. Adding the heat necessary to raise the ice to “merely” zero, and adding the heat of fusion, we need about 1.3 x 10^24 Joules to melt the icecap.
That is, all the heat in all the world, by air temperature, is about 2 percent what it takes to raise sea level by whatever Al Gore is telling us.
This is a pretty big difference.
Why does the atmosphere heat up, at all? Why don’t we see long centuries where the heat all goes toward raising the temperature of that giant icecap from fifty below freezing to a toast warm ten below freezing?

Steve Goddard
March 9, 2010 4:28 pm

Anu,
Ice flowing outward into the ocean is a sign of an expanding glacier. A retreating glacier moves away from the ocean. Icebergs form when an expanding glacier breaks off a chunk into the ocean.
The GRACE data is probably meaningless wrt to ice mass. The small changes they are seeing are likely due to isostasy or plate tectonics. The only bedrock reference points they have are around the margins – i.e. they have no reference points across most of the continents. It is in fact remarkable that they would make claims of ice mass to such fine precision without an adequate set of control data.

John Whitman
March 9, 2010 4:34 pm

It would help clarity if all these articles by NSIDC (which is suppported/funded by NOAA, NASA, NSF), would include a simple matrix (excel format)summarizing findings. In a 5 sec look you could get the essense, instead of slogging through weasely summary verbiage. Verbiage in scientific communications is not the optimum way to show info.
Clarity in science maybe should be second only to integrity?
John

March 9, 2010 4:46 pm

kim (16:08:32) :
I know, picky, picky.
And you can be more picky, and include friction caused by lunar tides, energy released in nuclear power plants. hot air blowing from Al Gore’s mouth, etc. A hallmark of a scientist is to concentrate on what is relevant.
I wonder if the earth varies its rate of sequestration of that energy in response to some rhythm of the sun.
It does depend on the erosion rate which in turn depends on the luminosity of the Sun. As the Sun heats up over the next several billion years, erosion will increase and sequestration will remove almost all CO2 from the atmosphere leading to extinction of plant life [and thus all higher life]. The first 4 billion years only microbes could live on Earth, and in 0.5 billion years time, again only microbes can live on Earth. Higher life is only possible during that window of 1 billion years in which we are halfway through.
POUNCER (16:21:50) :
Why does the atmosphere heat up, at all? Why don’t we see long centuries where the heat all goes toward raising the temperature of that giant icecap from fifty below freezing to a toast warm ten below freezing
Because that icecap reflects most of sunlight [96% in visible and 68% in infrared] falling on it which isn’t much anyway because of low angle of incidence.

March 9, 2010 4:47 pm

kim (16:08:32) :
I know, picky, picky.
And you can be more picky, and include friction caused by lunar tides, energy released in nuclear power plants, hot air blowing from Al Gore’s mouth, etc. A hallmark of a scientist is to concentrate on what is relevant.
I wonder if the earth varies its rate of sequestration of that energy in response to some rhythm of the sun.
It does depend on the erosion rate which in turn depends on the luminosity of the Sun. As the Sun heats up over the next several billion years, erosion will increase and sequestration will remove almost all CO2 from the atmosphere leading to extinction of plant life [and thus all higher life]. The first 4 billion years only microbes could live on Earth, and in 0.5 billion years time, again only microbes can live on Earth. Higher life is only possible during that window of 1 billion years in which we are halfway through.
POUNCER (16:21:50) :
Why does the atmosphere heat up, at all? Why don’t we see long centuries where the heat all goes toward raising the temperature of that giant icecap from fifty below freezing to a toast warm ten below freezing
Because that icecap reflects most of sunlight [96% in visible and 68% in infrared] falling on it which isn’t much anyway because of low angle of incidence.

March 9, 2010 4:55 pm

R. Gates (10:37:07),
The canard that global ice extent is falling has been repeatedly debunked. Here is another chart from the same source: click. If you can’t see that global ice extent is what matters when discussing global warming – well, everyone else can.
From the IPCC’s AR-4, Sea Ice Extent, Southern Hemisphere: click. As everyone else can see, this chart shows a rising trend in Southern Hemisphere ice extent: click
From NSIDC – referenced in this very article – Southern Hemisphere ice anomalies [+3.1% per decade increase in ice extent over the last thirty years] : click. As we know, charts are often altered, as this sea ice extent blink gif shows: click
To repeat: global ice cover is what matters when discussing global warming. And global ice cover is not declining: click. That’s a NASA anomaly chart, which debunks the claim that the planet is losing ice. Cognitive dissonance won’t allow you to accept that obvious fact. But everyone else can see it.

phlogiston
March 9, 2010 5:09 pm

OT – but heavy snow and blizzards on the Mediterranean coast:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8557570.stm

Barry Kearns
March 9, 2010 5:10 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:56:23) : “So, any [negligible] effect today would be even less than in 1650.”
vukcevic (15:00:23) :
You got that wrong way around (effect in 1650 would be, if linear 17% greater than today
Leif Svalgaard (15:48:59) : Typical of your logic that you think that 17% less today is different from 17% greater in 1650

Sorry, gentlemen, but I think you’re both wrong. Leif, there is a difference between the two, but vukcevik still stated it wrong.
Assuming a linear response, and values of 68.5 in 1650 versus 57.1 today, we could say that the effect today is about 17% less than it was in 1650 (actually about 16.64% less), but that is not at all the same thing as saying that the effect in 1650 was 17% greater than today’s effect. To be accurate, you would have to say that the effect in 1650 was 19.96% greater than today.
To get only “17% greater than today” back in 1650, the value would have to have been about 66.81 instead.
It’s as maddening for me to see things like this as it is for people to talk about the price of something being “reduced 150%”. Just once I’d like to get someone to live up to that advertisement, and actually pay me 50% of what the previous sales price was for the favor of taking something off their hands.

Arthur Glass
March 9, 2010 5:14 pm

” I can’t believe I’m among the first to comment!
Cooling Antarctica? Warming Arctic? So what? Perhaps we should just take the “Global” out of “Climate Change” and “Warming”, then we could all agree that climate does change, and warming can occur, but at different times and rates in different places. Climate is regional.
A good slogan might be- Climate Change- not new, not much, and not scary!”
Well-said!
This is, if I do not misread him, one of the themes of Roger Pielke, Sr. , who, along with Bill Gray, should be considered by President Romney for a Presidential medal, in honor of their fearless and lonely fight for the integrity of climate science.
Who says I’m always living in the past?
We are constantly exhorted not to take ‘weather’ for ‘cimate.’ But weather is what actually happens in a given place and a given time; it is the primary, phenomenal reality, and is what affects human life. Climate is a secondary, statistically abstracted reality.
Globally, January 2010 was the warmest in the 30-year satellite record. Yet the most populated and prosperous regions of the Northern Hemisphere from China through Western Europe, where at least one-third of the human population of the planet live, had the bitterest winter, all things considered, in thirty years. It was weather that disrupted daily human life in these areas, not the artefact (however useful) of a ‘global’ heat wave.
Weather is Hurricane Katrina, or an F-4 tornado flattening a town, or a lovely late April afternoon with the lilacs in bloom. Why should we have only to account for destructive events?
An increase or decrease in the number and /or intensity of landfalling hurricanes or of tornados, or of the frequency of rare days in June would be climate.
It seems to me that one general truth in play in all this AGW brouhaha is that atmospheric scientists should, at this stage of knowledge at least, beware of Grand Narratives. Isaac Newton apparently had an ego as broad as the heavens, but toward the end of his life, he said something to the effect that he felt like a child throwing pebbles into the limitless ocean and watching the ripples.
What a man! Mathematician, physicist, crackpot, alchemist, crackpot Biblical hermeneutician, proto-Whig and political actor in the crisis of 1688, director of the mint–and he felt but a child!

March 9, 2010 5:17 pm

Barry Kearns (17:10:28) :
It’s as maddening for me etc
You are, of course, correct, but when the change is small enough [e.g. less than 20%] it does not make any difference to the argument as Nature is messy enough for this not to matter within the uncertainty of the physics. Now, when it comes to money, that is a different matter 🙂

wayne
March 9, 2010 5:22 pm

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/mollsat_ir_an.gif
Try this IR view of the globe I look at frequently, it is continually updated with the last 36 hours in 3 hour steps. But look at the storms skirting Antarctica and how most go right over the peninsula. No wonder it is much warmer.
Look at this every few days for a month or so and you may end with a different view of storms and clouds on a planet scale. The storms circulating Antarctica were basically constant over the last 4 months though about 5 degrees closer to the equator. Except for the horizontal daily stepping of the storms, every day looks basically the same as the day before, at least it has for the last four months.

March 9, 2010 5:35 pm

wayne (17:22:34)
But look at the storms skirting Antarctica and how most go right over the peninsula. No wonder it is much warmer.
I think it is an artifact of the processing or imaging that the polar regions have no clouds.

peterhodges
March 9, 2010 6:47 pm

western antarctica gaining ice as well
A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529.shtml
“The Gomez record reveals a doubling of accumulation since the 1850s, from a decadal average of 0.49 mweq y−1 in 1855–1864 to 1.10 mweq y−1 in 1997–2006, with acceleration in recent decades.”

Pamela Gray
March 9, 2010 7:06 pm

No paywalled paper with correlations to atmospheric oscillations. Sweet.
http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0717-65382004000300054&script=sci_arttext

Anu
March 9, 2010 7:17 pm

Steve Goddard (16:28:56) :
Anu,
Ice flowing outward into the ocean is a sign of an expanding glacier. A retreating glacier moves away from the ocean. Icebergs form when an expanding glacier breaks off a chunk into the ocean.

———-
It seems that glaciers speed up and thin out on the way to dumping their ice into the ocean, after the ice shelf damming them breaks.
They’ve seen this with the dramatic Larsen B ice shelf breakup in 2002:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20040921_acceleration.html
In the wake of the Larsen B Ice Shelf disintegration in 2002, glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula have both accelerated and thinned en route to the Weddell Sea. The findings indicate that ice shelf breakup may rapidly lead to sea level rise.
http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/2007/2007_larsen.html
“In both Greenland and Antarctica we’re seeing over and over again that when an ice shelf disintegrates, glaciers behind it accelerate abruptly, and begin to draw down significant volumes of ice and put it into the ocean.” The Larsen B shelf was about the size of Connecticut, but Antarctica’s largest ice shelves, the Ross and Ronne, are each nearly the size of Spain. If the Ross shelf collapsed, for example, the resulting flow of glacial ice could eventually raise global sea level by up to five meters (sixteen feet).
Accelerating glacier ice is an unwelcome ingredient in the recipe for global sea-level rise, making it important for scientists to understand the factors behind ice shelf breakup. As long as the massive Antarctic ice sheets remain locked away behind ice shelves, doled out in an occasional iceberg, sea level may remain stable. But if warming and melting trends persist, more ice shelves may begin to show the same signs of weakness observed in the Larsen B ice shelf before it disintegrated. “This problem of sea-level rise is a real one,” says Scambos. “It’s likely to happen, and the steps could proceed more rapidly than we thought.”

Wren
March 9, 2010 8:19 pm

mamapajamas (13:01:17) :
@Wren (23:06:35) :
“NASA says
“The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.” ”
Wren, you’re faith in what “NASA says” is astounding. At this point in time, if NASA said the sky was blue, I’d go out side and look.
=================
I have known for a long time ice can flow without melting, but I didn’t learn that from NASA.
I’m not an anti-government idelogue

wayne
March 9, 2010 8:52 pm

Leif Svalgaard (17:35:19) :
I see what you mean. Of course that is a very course view and seems to ignore all but the strongest signals. Poles might not even be covered at all. I simply use it as an instant overview every day or two to see what might be heading my way.

Richard
March 9, 2010 9:18 pm

In the meantime blizzards have hit the Mediterranean coast on the 9th of March. Blizzards on the 9th of March? The video is pretty impressive
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8557570.stm

Bob
March 9, 2010 9:22 pm

POUNCER, Gail Combs, DocWat, MJ Penny, Alan the Brit,
You are all on the right track. Before I read the comments I did the math on my own take:
The (Not So) Melting Antarctic
The Current Antarctic “Melting”:
Surface area of the Earth (sq miles)
196,861,796.38
Ocean surface area of the Earth @ ~ 70% (sq miles)
137,803,257.47
Antarctic Ice Melt / Year (cu miles)
24.00
Ocean rise / yr from Antarctic Ice Melt (ft)
0.000920
Ocean rise / yr from Antarctic Ice Melt (inches)
0.011035
Ocean rise / yr from Antarctic Ice Melt (mm)
0.275872
Number of years to raise ocean level by 1 inch
90.62
Number of years to raise ocean level by 1 foot
1,087.46
Number of years to raise ocean level by 1 meter
3,624.88
What It Would Take To Achieve Actual Antarctic Melting?
Average Annual Temperature of the Antarctic (degF)
-58
Freezing Point (degF)
32
Degrees of warming required to move Antarctic Average Annual Temp above Freezing (degF)
90
Likelihood of Antarctic Average Temp rising to allow meaningful Antarctic melting before the Holocene ends (pct)
What are the summertime average high temperatures in Iraq? (degF)
110
Assuming distributed global temperature rise, what would be the summertime average high temperatures in Iraq have to be if the Antarctic shifted into actual average melting? (degF)
200
Inevitable resultant editorial comment: Who on earth is dumb enough to believe any of this innumerate warming drivel?
And all the usual disclaimers about the Antarctic being a bowl full of ice and so not going anywhere no matter what until plate tectonics do their damage, we don’t know the role of undersea volcanoes in the area, etc., etc.

MAGB
March 9, 2010 11:03 pm

Love this re the Antarctic: “These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic.”
Why not for the Arctic: “These overall negative trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Antarctic”

F Kassen
March 9, 2010 11:04 pm

I really think Anthony needs to stop publishing stuff by Goddard. There are, once again, a lot of fairly reasonable points being made by AGW alarmists about this latest piece, and his stuff is generally ridiculed not long after it’s posted.
I don’t buy AGW, but when I read critiques of Goddard I usually find they’re right.
Posting failed attempts at disproving AGW, and inviting mockery, doesn’t help our cause. I’m sure Anthony and others have read various sites that pick apart Goddard’s poor work. So why are they printed here among other much more legitimate points? Are we just trying to make noise or are we trying to raise strong, believable arguments? I don’t like seeing the good work Anthony is doing diluted by stuff like this.

March 9, 2010 11:42 pm

Barry Kearns (17:10:28) :
“Leif Svalgaard (13:56:23) : “So, any [negligible] effect today would be even less than in 1650.”
vukcevic (15:00:23) :
“You got that wrong way around (effect in 1650 would be, if linear 17% greater than today”
Assuming a linear response, and values of 68.5 in 1650 versus 57.1 today, we could say that the effect today is about 17% less than it was in 1650 (actually about 16.64% less)”
I agree with you. It was a bit late, rounded it off to17% , and somewhat carelessly followed Dr. S. comment, but here is my original statement:
vukcevic (13:27:40) :
Whatever any calculations may show, and there are number of unknowns, one fact is well known: the GMF Z component today at the centre of the Beaufort gyre is about 17% less today (57.1 micro Tesla) than it was around 1650 (at deepest LIA, 68.5 micro Tesla), hence any possible effect would change accordingly.

Tenuc
March 10, 2010 1:27 am

Thanks for the up-date Willis. Nothing unusual happening here.
Norsex Arctic sea-ice extent has just hit the monthly 1979 – 2006 average – bottom left graph on the Artic-Roo’s website here:-
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
Please keep up the good work.

Tenuc
March 10, 2010 1:31 am

Woops! – my above post should have been on Willis Eschenbach’s UPDATED Congenital Climate Abnormalities Thread here:-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/congenital-climate-abnormalities/
Sorry about that.

Dave Wendt
March 10, 2010 2:35 am

vukcevic (23:42:24) :
Whatever any calculations may show, and there are number of unknowns, one fact is well known: the GMF Z component today at the centre of the Beaufort gyre is about 17% less today (57.1 micro Tesla) than it was around 1650 (at deepest LIA, 68.5 micro Tesla), hence any possible effect would change accordingly.
How is it that we know these measures? The center of the BG seems to be fairly mobile. Determining it in the present would seem to be a bit of a challenge, determining it 360 years in the past would seem highly unlikely.

Gail Combs
March 10, 2010 3:17 am

R. Gates (09:23:41) :
“Gail said:
“In other words when Dr. Roy Spencer showed high satellite temperature records in January 2010 it is actually show the earth is COOLING down…”
??? Now that is an interesting twist. Higher temps=cooling. I can see why so many people are confused…”these are not the droids you’re looking for” or “this is not the higher temps you think they are”. Very funny!”

REPLY:
That was taken out of context. Read the WHOLE exchange. Oh wait you are a AGW type so taking it out of context to make fun of someone is the politically correct move. Excuse me for thinking you might be interested in the science.

Gail Combs
March 10, 2010 3:45 am

JimAsh (13:55:02) :
“….The next time some numbskull starts railing at me about how Pittsburgh and Denver will be coastal cities by August I will spit on their shoe, and say
“Are you drowning yet ?” or “I refute it thus”.”

Do not forget this article in the Geological Society publication http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/page7209.html
“…It is also worth noting the geometry and age of the great icecaps. The Greenland, East Antarctica and West Antarctica ice sheets occupy kilometre-deep basins, and the ice cannot possibly slide downhill – it has to flow uphill. In simple numbers the Greenland icecap has existed for three million years and the Antarctic Ice sheets 30 million….”
So what you would have if the glaciers melted are inland seas not the oceans rising to algorest heights. Think of the finger lakes in New York that are artifacts of the last glaciation.

Richard
March 10, 2010 3:57 am

R. Gates (12:18:14) : The troposphereic temperature data is exeptional useful and important, and my whole point in even mentioning it is because it is diplaying exactly what we’d expect in January, February, and now into March 2010, if, as the Met Office has stated, and I also believe, there is a good chance that 2010 will be the warmest on instrument record. A warm troposphere is exactly what AGW models predict, ..
Yes but R gates – correct me if I am wrong the AGW models didnt just predict the tropospheric hotspot in Jan and Feb 2010. Staistically I suppose sometime it was bound to happen and you leap in and say – aha – AGW, while in the meantime the Artic ice is normal and there are blizzards on the mediterranean coast.

March 10, 2010 4:29 am

Leif Svalgaard (15:48:59) :
“Nonsense, science today is mathematical, and the math is elementary….
That is because you [and he (vukcevic)] do not understand the physics….
I spent the first five years at the University in Copenhagen studying Geophysics and Atmospheric physics and worked four years at the Danish Meteorological Institute, so I do know something about all that. [This is my real field – the solar bit came later]”
I have looked at the paper again.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/JC076i015p03476.pdf
15 pages of maths to justify “This research was supported by the Office of
Naval Research contract N00014-66-C0241.”
But the conclusion is the most revealing :”The present results suggest that considerable new information about ocean currents can be obtained from electric and magnetic measurements.”
No actual data, just mathematical modelling, and we have come across these before,
Well, I have great respect for University of Copenhagen, since my daughter spent a postgraduate year there studding the European Union law.
Elsewhere, commenting on my pointing out at high correlation in the trends of the North Atlantic temperature anomaly (NATA) you said:
“My point was precisely that without specifying the location, your graph has no value.”
It appears that the University in Copenhagen, Geophysics and Atmospheric physics dept. and at the Danish Meteorological Institute, in view of the fact that Denmark owes a great chunk of land within the Arctic circle, have failed to familiar their students with the fact that there is a reversed proportionality between the GMF in the Arctic and the North Atlantic temperature anomaly.
This diagram may be of some help.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC16.htm
Diagram shows the GMF along the transpolar current route, main factor controling the North Atlantic temperature anomaly.
See also: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm

Gail Combs
March 10, 2010 4:49 am

Anu (19:17:23) :
“…It seems that glaciers speed up and thin out on the way to dumping their ice into the ocean, after the ice shelf damming them breaks.
They’ve seen this with the dramatic Larsen B ice shelf breakup in 2002:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20040921_acceleration.html
In the wake of the Larsen B Ice Shelf disintegration in 2002, glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula have both accelerated and thinned en route to the Weddell Sea. The findings indicate that ice shelf breakup may rapidly lead to sea level rise…..The Larsen B shelf was about the size of Connecticut…”

You quote a lot of alarmist “rapidly sea level rise” information. I have a couple of problems with it. Given the size of the Larsen B shelf there should have been a measurable effect in increase of sea ice and sea level rise to prove the theory correct.
First the Larsen B Ice Shelf disintegration took place in 2002. A look at the global sea ice variation shows no real impact. http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/global-sea-ice-area-variation-nasateam-algorithm.jpg
A look at the sea level rise at Funafuti, Tuvalu and other points around the world shows no impact. http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SeaLevelRising.htm
I notice the articles talk about “accelerated and thinned” they do not talk about the total volume of ice going into the sea per unit time. Perhaps this is why there has been no impact. The glaciers are moving faster but due to thinning the amount of ice dumped into the sea remains about the same.

Pascvaks
March 10, 2010 5:07 am

Ref – EdP (12:38:16) :
Leif Svalgaard
“…I think it’s time for you to lighten up.”
___________________________
EdP- Leif is like a smoke detector or geigercounter. He let’s us know when things might not be as they seem.
PS: TMDE (Test Measurement Diagnostic Equipment) are sensitive, do not throw, drop, beat, scratch, or expose to too much BS -lest they explode:-)

David
March 10, 2010 5:59 am

I suggest that all climate alarmists are REQUIRED to read Cliff Ollier’s article in the March issue of Geoscientist (linked by Gail Combs above).
Once again, it gives us ‘we know we’re right but not quite sure why’ sceptics an easily understood explanation as to why the ’60m rise in sea level’ predictions are so much cobblers.
Incidentally – re the Arctic sea ice – about now the extent should be decreasing – but it will be interesting to watch the JAXA chart to see whether this horrible Northern Hemisphere winter has any effect on the rate..!

March 10, 2010 6:38 am

vukcevic (04:29:13) :
the fact that there is a reversed proportionality between the GMF in the Arctic and the North Atlantic temperature anomaly.
This is not a fact of causation, but just a coincidence, and I have repeatedly pointed out that your proposed explanation doesn’t work. Read Shermer’s book: “Why People Believe Weird Things”.

March 10, 2010 6:38 am

Dave Wendt (02:35:11) :
How is it that we know these measures? The center of the BG seems to be fairly mobile. Determining it in the present would seem to be a bit of a challenge, determining it 360 years in the past would seem highly unlikely.
Of course centre of the BG can an probably does move, but since gyre is more than 1000km across, and the dip in GMF covers most of it, it may not make great deal of difference.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC15.htm
It appears that there is a reversed proportionality between the GMF in (the wider area of Arctic) and the North Atlantic temperature anomaly as can be seen in this diagram.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC16.htm
Diagram shows the GMF along the transpolar current route, one of the main factors controlling the North Atlantic temperature anomaly.
See also: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm

March 10, 2010 6:57 am

vukcevic (04:29:13) :
just mathematical modelling
I can understand that you are mathematically challenged, so we’ll try some hand waving instead:
Moving a conductor [sea water] through a magnetic field induces an electric current which heats the sea [immeasurably – but let that slide]. If the magnetic field is weaker, the electric current is weaker and the heating less. The field is some 17% weaker today than in 1650, so the heating today is correspondingly less [still apart from not being measurable].

Steve Goddard
March 10, 2010 6:59 am

irishspecialistnurseries,
CO2 freezes at -109.3° F. Antarctica gets down to -128.6 °F . Sorry that you don’t understand what the freezing point is, and that you feel the need to misrepresent what I wrote.

Ryan Stephenson
March 10, 2010 7:08 am

You may like to note that the highest mountains in the Alps have mean summer temperatures at -2Celsius but maximum summer temperatures of +10Celsius. Even this is not enough to ensure that the glaciers at the top of such mountains melt away to nothing during the summer. Therefore, what chance is there of such glaciers melting in Antartica where the temperatures are never greater than -30Celsius in the Summer? Very low surely. Of course, those glaciers close to the coast where the ice has a chance of slipping into the sea will melt on reaching the warmer ocean, but the vast majority of the ice is on the Antartic plateau with no obvious route to the ocean. Furthermore, the melting of glaciers in the Alps tends to be at its highest not due to warm days per se but due to warm Summer rain falling onto the glaciers – a process physically impossible in the Antartic.
I submit that it is not physically possible for significant levels of land ice in Antartica to melt and thus contribute to sea level rise as a result of AGW, even if such exists. The mean temperatures are far too low for AGW to raise the temperature up to melting point. Some ice may flow to the sea in glaciers, but it is a tiny proportion of the total, and readily replaced by precipitation inland that is always in the form of snow. We should perhaps be glad that the glaciers do indeed flow to the ocean and melt, because otherwise Antartica would act as a kind of precipitation trap, with snow falling on Antartica and staying there.

R. Gates
March 10, 2010 7:08 am

Richard said:
“while in the meantime the Artic ice is normal and there are blizzards on the mediterranean coast…”
Arctic sea ice is not normal, still showing a negative anomaly, and has not been at or above normal since 2004. Where do you get your data?
And the moisture for the the blizzards in Europe came directly from a very warm Caribbean…which I pointed out was headed toward Europe several days ago. This moisture combined with continued cold air being pushed down from the warmer than usual arctic (especially near Greenland). Warmth induced moisture + negative AO index=blizzards. The exact thing that happened to our east coast this winter happened to Europe, and has two factors:
El Nino + negative AO index
And neither of these is indicative of planetary cooling, and in fact, as we all know, the troposphere has been near, or above 20 year record temps this year.

Pascvaks
March 10, 2010 7:38 am

To no one in particular:
None of us alive today has any first hand knowledge of an Ice Age or even a Little Ice Age. What we are about is best guessing within our little present age the nature of climate change that leads to another Ice Age or the end of the Ice Ages and the beginning of a Global Hothouse Age (A’la Dino d’Dinosaur); neither of which is going to be very pleasent for anyone –but which is completely natural and unavoidable, despite anything that Jones, Mann, or Fat Albert says.

D. Patterson
March 10, 2010 7:52 am

R. Gates (07:08:42) :
So, how does the mid-upper troposphere undergo such a dramatic warming as it dumps this warmth into space from the preciptiatation of rain, frozen rain and snow without contributing to the cooling of the Earth? Oh, right, you’ve repealed the fundamental laws of thermodynamics just to satisfy your special pleading. Silly us.

D. Patterson
March 10, 2010 8:02 am

Pascvaks (07:38:45) :
You do have first hand experience of an ice age. You are experiencing it right now with the composition of the air you breathe, the experience of snow and snow cover, the presence of the ice caps at the poles, the lifeforms present in the biosphere, and so much more.
Even in other glacial periods of the other ice ages there has seldom been an ice cap at the North Pole, or an ice cap which has extended as far south as the most recent 2 million years. This is an extremely unusual and cold event and experience for the Earth this past 20-30 million years. Do not underestimate its danger with respect to a collapse of the biosphere in the event of the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere falling too low at 150ppm and less.

March 10, 2010 8:10 am

Leif Svalgaard (06:57:59) :
“If the magnetic field is weaker, the electric current is weaker and the heating less. The field is some 17% weaker today than in 1650, so the heating today is correspondingly less [still apart from not being measurable].”
You were obviously in the wrong department there (Danish Meteorological Institute).
Heating of the sea water by induced electric currents is of no consequence here, it is the reverse MF impacting on velocity.
Velocity of the gyre’s rotation controls relationship of deep saline currents (from North Atlantic and Bering Sea) and fresh surface waters inflow (from Northwest Canada and Far East Siberia).
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/halocline_18008_56197_56788.jpg
It is this relationship that has an effect on salinity on the resultant transpolar current encountering the Gulf Stream at the shores of Greenland and Labrador Sea., where the stored heath of the Gulf Stream is released into atmosphere in the subpolar gyre.
As you can see from the above illustration there are number of smaller warm water gyres in the Arctic and each of them is affecting the transpolar current, hence the graph of the GMF Z along the way.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC16.htm
The warm water current branching of the North Atlantic Current and combination of the Arctic cold currents create Labrador Sea currents; which tightly governs the strength of the Subpolar gyre’s circulation, which is the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean. This is heat absorbed in Equatorial Atlantic, and not any kind of heat due to induced currents (which indeed is negligible).

Dave Wendt
March 10, 2010 8:30 am

vukcevic (06:38:42) :
Of course centre of the BG can an probably does move, but since gyre is more than 1000km across, and the dip in GMF covers most of it, it may not make great deal of difference.
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/research_seaiceageextent.html
This paper suggests that in the late 80s the BG shifted significantly toward the Alaskan – Canadian corner of the Arctic, that the radius decreased almost a half, and that it stayed mostly in that configuration for the majority of the intervening years, confined to the area on the North American side of the antimeridian with its center well away from the center of GMP dip you linked to. From what I’ve seen the state of knowledge on the previous history of the BG is none too robust, but this type of shift seems to be viewed as not exceptional.

March 10, 2010 8:33 am

vukcevic (08:10:07) :
reverse MF impacting on velocity.
OK, so you change the story. Fair enough. So, you are now saying that the Earth magnetic field is slowing the ocean current, so a weaker magnetic field [as today] should slow the current relative to 1650. The ocean current now being slower meaning more warm water flowing to the pole.

March 10, 2010 8:46 am

Leif Svalgaard (08:33:57) :
vukcevic (08:10:07) :
reverse MF impacting on velocity.
OK, so you change the story. Fair enough. So, you are now saying that the Earth magnetic field is slowing the ocean current, so a weaker magnetic field [as today] should slow the current relative to 1650. The ocean current now being slower meaning more warm water flowing to the pole.
or do I have that backwards? it is hard to figure out what you are saying. Let me try again to explain what I think you are saying:
Electric currents induced by the gyre moving in the Earth’s magnetic field brakes the gyre. The magnetic field now being lower should mean less braking and hence stronger flow, etc.
Now, this comes down again to a calculation of the Lorentz force on the gyre and again that force is unmeasurably small and in the wrong direction. Try it: F = q * v x B, or rather dF = q* v x dB. dB is 1/1000 of B. q is the electric charge [depends on the conductivity of sea water]. B is vertical, v is horizontal along latitude, so F is horizontal along longitude. Try to explain which forces your are talking about, which directions they have, etc. Be specific.

Dave Wendt
March 10, 2010 8:48 am
Pascvaks
March 10, 2010 8:54 am

Ref – D. Patterson (08:02:52) :
Pascvaks (07:38:45) :
“This is an extremely unusual and cold event and experience for the Earth this past 20-30 million years. Do not underestimate its danger with respect to a collapse of the biosphere in the event of the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere falling too low at 150ppm and less.”
______________________
I know, it is a lot like being on the Titanic and standing at the bow with my hands stretched out like a bird and the cold North Atlantic winds chilling me to the bone. You’re right. But at the moment, I feel fine; the freezing ocean waves are a problem for another day. Tonight we dine at the Captain’s Table and dance till dawn. Hoohah!
PS: Our DNA says we’re all related so I have no doubt that some of the family will survive whatever happens. Ain’t life a beach?

Massimo PORZIO
March 10, 2010 8:56 am

Here is how NASA Satellite Grace works:
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/science/gravity_measurement.html
If the Antartic ice sheet is really 300,000,000 km3 and they can distinguish 100km3 it means they have invented an instrument capable of get a resolution of at least 1/3,000,000 of the ice sheet.
This is amazing, especially if they get it by the gravity changes.
Being the ice specific weight 917kg/m3 @0°C and water specific weight 999,8kg/m3. The difference measured should be just 82.8kg/m3, or 82,800,000,000kg/km3 which in our case gives 8,280,000,000,000kg that is 8.28×10^12kg.
But let’s imagine, the ice goes directly into the air without melting has they suppose.
So imagine the whole 917kg/m3 disappears (the ice sublimates, so I istantiate that the vapour mass is negligible respect to the ice), it means the satellites measures -9.17×10^13kg.
I both cases, I can’t imagine how they reject the whole earth mass which is about 6×10^24kg.
They must have a resolution of at least 1.526×10^-11 of the Earth mass to appreciate the change.
Note also that if the ice doesn’t melt but sublimate, the mass variation changes of sign, so how do they know if the ice is increased or decreased by the gravitational measurements?
Where I’m wrong?
Does anybody know how they do?

Dave Wendt
March 10, 2010 9:04 am
March 10, 2010 9:10 am

Leif Svalgaard (08:33:57) :
vukcevic (08:10:07) :
reverse MF impacting on velocity.
OK, so you change the story.
What a nonsense you just wrote (perhaps you should apologise). Nowhere have I mentioned heating of water by electric currents now or before. When climatologists talk about heat transfer they talk about this:
http://forces.si.edu/arctic/images/02_02_04_a.gif
http://icons-pe.wxug.com/data/climate_images/conveyor.jpg
Some time ago I wrote this:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
from which I quote again:
The warm water current branching of the North Atlantic Current and combination of the Arctic cold currents create Labrador Sea currents; which tightly governs the strength of the Subpolar gyre’s circulation, which is the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean.
“So, you are now saying that the Earth magnetic field is slowing the ocean current, so a weaker magnetic field [as today] should slow the current relative to 1650. The ocean current now being slower meaning more warm water flowing to the pole.”
Exactly oposite. Stronger field reduces more the velocity of conductor: remind yourself of your “so we’ll try some hand waving instead” try to move a conductor in stronger and weaker field: which requires more force, think of a frictionless electromagnetic brake.

Dave Wendt
March 10, 2010 9:16 am

vukcevic (06:38:42) :
I made a couple attempts to link to a more current map of the BG and TPD, but couldn’t get the links to work. I’ll give it one more try with a link to the list of maps I got the other link from
http://www.amap.no/?main=http%3A//www.amap.no/mapsgraphics/go/graphic/the-predominant-currents-in-the-arctic-ocean-and-their-major-routes-around-the-basin-edges-of-the-artic

March 10, 2010 9:23 am

Dave Wendt (08:48:04) :
Here is a link to a map that shows a more current representation of the BG and TPD
gives a ‘not found’ error

March 10, 2010 9:28 am

Dave Wendt (08:30:53) :
Thanks for the link. I do occasionally go through the Amap website. If BG moves to Canada-Alaska side it would presumably counter interact and slow down the cold Davis Strait current
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC16.htm
and so contribute to higher temp as it was case since 80’s.
You are correct, my knowledge is not that robust either (now retired electronic engineer), but it is supplanted by intuition, logic (Dr. S. may characterise it as ‘reverse’) and of cause internet. Just a hobby, no scientific reputation to defend.

Ryan Stephenson
March 10, 2010 9:39 am

Incidentally, the size of Antartica can be roughly said to be similar to the size of the US. So imagine that all the rainfall in the US that contributes to the Mississippi, the Colarado and America’s other great rivers were in fact falling as snow on the Rocky Mountains, and then compacting into ice super-frozen at -50Celsius. And this was happening every year, that huge volume of water from all the rivers of the US compacting as hard-frozen ice in the Rockies, and basically staying there because it can’t readily flow away as water.
That is basically what is happening in Antartica right now. And the AGW proponents would have you believe that the small amount of ice that gets squeezed off into the sea from the pressure of all this newly created ice inland where it then melts is going to mean London gets drowned. Let’s face it, there is no physical reason for believing that this will ever happen.

Pascvaks
March 10, 2010 9:59 am

Ref – Dave Wendt (09:16:35) :
vukcevic (06:38:42) :
_________________________
Try this link and then click link to “The predominant currents in the Arctic Ocean and their major routes around the basin edges of the Arctic”
http://www.amap.no/?main=http%3A//www.amap.no/mapsgraphics/go/searchregion/regionid/arcticocean

March 10, 2010 10:00 am

vukcevic (09:10:10) :
Nowhere have I mentioned heating of water by electric currents now or before.
I distinctly remember having this discussion several times over the last year or so, but do not need to take the time to dig it up since you now don’t believe that anymore.
Exactly oposite. Stronger field reduces more the velocity of conductor
Vertical field, latitudinal flow: which way does the Lorentz force v x B point?

Dave Wendt
March 10, 2010 10:16 am

Pascvaks (09:59:57) :
Thanks for that. I made several more attempts which also didn’t work, so I had them deleted. The specific map I was referring to is figure 3-27. Figure 2-20 also show similar information

March 10, 2010 10:51 am

Leif Svalgaard (10:00:29) :
“I distinctly remember having this discussion several times over the last year or so, but do not need to take the time to dig it up since you now don’t believe that anymore.”
No sir, you got it wrong, not then, not before I suggested electrical heating. You got it wrong then, you kept getting it wrong, and got it wrong now. Here some extracts from my first ever posting on the matter:
(NASA now saying that a Dalton Minimum repeat is possible- WUWT )
vukcevic (12:39:16) :
….. but that is not point! Electrical heating is not the point !!!…
vukcevic (04:27:37) :
Copper plate will spin freely until you bring a permanent magnet close to it, in which case it will slow down and stop, due to induction of a counter emf ! (basic physics).
vukcevic (14:31:13) :
You cannot help putting wrong interpretation in order to supposedly ‘win’ the argument. ELECTRIC CURRENTS DO NOT DRIVE OCEAN’S CURRENTS ! Induced counter emf slows fractionally polar current down. Emf is not energy source, it acts as an electric break. Solar energy is nothing to do with Beaufort gyre, it is most of the time entirely under ice cap, and its waters are not exposed to solar heating.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/28/nasa-now-saying-that-a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-possible/
(when I get the wrong end of the stick I do say the word ‘sorry’)

Dave Wendt
March 10, 2010 10:57 am

vukcevic (09:28:44) :
I can’t say I really “grok” the subtleties of your argument with Dr Svaalgard, but I have been attending to Arctic circulation patterns since I came across the Rigor and Wallace paper I referenced above more than a year ago. One of the resources I’ve found interesting, and you might also, is the daily ice drift maps at the DMI site
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift/index.uk.php
To my eye at least the drift patterns since the beginning of the year suggest the BG may be attempting to return to a pattern closer to one on the map you linked. It’s probably too early to tell, but if that pattern does reemerge it would suggest that the uptrend in Arctic sea ice will be stronger in the future.
Personally I wouldn’t choose to go head to head with Leif on anything within his scientific purview, but as Grandpa used to say, “you can’t sharpen your knife on a stick of butter”.

Dave Wendt
March 10, 2010 11:02 am

Wow! My link even worked. That’s one in a row!

March 10, 2010 11:06 am

vukcevic (09:10:10) :
Exactly oposite. Stronger field reduces more the velocity of conductor
Gregory Ryskin believes just the opposite, namely that ocean currents are the CAUSE of the secular variation:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/11/6/063015/njp9_6_063015.html
His calculations [but you do not believe in mathematics anyway] are highly mathematical and not correct [we can go through them step for step if you like]. Ryskin also proposes [elsewhere] than methane explosions on the ocean floor “Similar, smaller-scale events could have happened since, which might explain the Biblical flood, for example, suggests Gregory Ryskin of […] it’s too important to ignore,” says Ryskin. Ryskin is usually considered a crank. You know with the usual signs: ‘conventional science opposes what I say, so there must be something to it…’.
Perhaps you could reverse your suggested direction of causation and join Ryskin’s bandwagon…

March 10, 2010 11:15 am

vukcevic (10:51:24) :
(when I get the wrong end of the stick I do say the word ‘sorry’)
I can say sorry too. What confuses me is the constant lack of clarity as to what you propose. But it is good to have on record that you do not think electric currents are heating the oceans. This is at last something concrete.
You did not answer my question about the direction of the Lorentz force.

March 10, 2010 11:29 am

Dave Wendt (10:57:27) :
Personally I wouldn’t choose to go head to head with Leif on anything within his scientific purview, but as Grandpa used to say, “you can’t sharpen your knife on a stick of butter”.
You may be right, we had ‘friendly’ exchange of views for some time now. I do not mind being flattened by someone of his stature, knowledge and experience, but however much he tries, I do not give up. I have great respect for good old doc, I value his views, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree, if I see a reason not to.
Thanks for the DMI link, I shall look it up, it looks it might have some good stuff.

March 10, 2010 11:35 am

Leif Svalgaard (11:06:11) :
Gregory Ryskin believes just the opposite, namely that ocean currents are the CAUSE of the secular variation
Without going through the mathematics [which nobody here has the patience for] a simple argument can be given why ocean currents are not the cause of the secular variation of the Earth’s field: polarity reversals. which would require the global ocean currents to flow the other way from time to time.

March 10, 2010 11:38 am

vukcevic (11:29:51) :
but however much he tries, I do not give up.
Cranks never do 🙂
We have our flock of resident cranks on this blog and they at times provide needed levity.

R. Gates
March 10, 2010 11:50 am

D. Patterson said:
“So, how does the mid-upper troposphere undergo such a dramatic warming as it dumps this warmth into space from the preciptiatation of rain, frozen rain and snow without contributing to the cooling of the Earth? Oh, right, you’ve repealed the fundamental laws of thermodynamics just to satisfy your special pleading. Silly us.”
First of all, the troposphere is a dynamic system, (like everything else on this planet) and it isn’t just “dumping warmth into space” during precipitation events. This doesn’t even make any sense from any perspective. As a dynamic system, the heat in the troposhere is constantly in flux, from oceans, solar radiation, etc. Heat coming in and going out all the time. But as we all should know, the stratosphere has been cooling over the last few decades, just as predicted by AGW models. Why? Well of course precisely because more heat has been “trapped” in the troposphere, meaning of course that the GH gases are doing exactly what GH gases do, and delaying the transfer of heat from the troposphere to the stratosphere. So there is more heat staying in the troposphere then leaving on a net basis…exactly as predicted by AGW models. The heat transfer out of the troposphere, on a net basis, is slowed down. To sugget that precipitation events in the troposphere, when looked at from a global basis, should suddenly cool down the tropopshere, would forget the fact that simultaneously heat is being transferred into it from the oceans and solar radiation…and the net heat gain, if the AGW hypothesis is corrrect, tips the scale toward warming.

March 10, 2010 12:04 pm

Leif Svalgaard (11:15:21) :
“But it is good to have on record that you do not think electric currents are heating the oceans. This is at last something concrete.”
You are trying to dig yourself out of a hole again. Perhaps you should read again the post I just put up: vukcevic (10:51:24); It was clearly explained 3 or more times as long ago as July 2009
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/28/nasa-now-saying-that-a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-possible/
I have no business with Gregory Ryskin, I have enough ‘nutty’ ideas of my own.
“You did not answer my question about the direction of the Lorentz force.”
Elementary physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solid_Faraday_disc.PNG

Caleb
March 10, 2010 12:10 pm

Considering oscillations occur in both the Atlantic and Pacific, (PDO and AMO,) I do not see why reflections of these oscillations shouldn’t be seen in both the Arctic and Antarctic.
Considering the PDO has warm and cool cycles, I don’t see why the Antarctic shouldn’t also have cycles which are either relatively warm and moist or relatively cold and dry. If the Pacific cycle lasts 30 years warm and 30 years cold, it would seem the Antarctic reflection should also have thirty years of one pattern and 30 years of another.
Now consider what the effects of thirty years of cold and dry might be. It seems it would be a drought. Just as a reservoir of water shrinks in a drought, the reservoir represented by the huge mass of Antarctic ice would also shrink.
Evaporation would be replaced by sublimation. Over a surface area as huge as Antarctica the amount of H2O turned directly from solid to gas would be enormous.
Unless a reservoir’s floodgates are completely closed, a reservoir continues to lose water even during a drought due to the simple fact water flows away downstream faster than it is replaced. There is no way to close Antarctica’s “floodgates,” which are its glaciers, and the amount of “runoff” via glaciers during a drought could easily exceed the amount added by sparse snowfall.
Using this simple way of viewing things, it is quite easy to image a drought causing the mass of Antarctica to shrink, even with the weather turning colder and drier.
There’s no need to bring up global warming at all.

Gary Pearse
March 10, 2010 1:36 pm

The Nansen Sea Ice Area and Sea Ice Extent graphs for the Arctic have swung up through the average, so both polar caps are cooling nicely.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

Anu
March 10, 2010 1:39 pm

Gail Combs (04:49:43) :
Anu (19:17:23) :
You quote a lot of alarmist “rapidly sea level rise” information.
I quoted NSIDC and NASA.
If you prefer to call scientists “alarmists”, that is your personal, emotional response. Personally, I call NFL players “spoiled, steroid-laden millionaires”.
I have a couple of problems with it. Given the size of the Larsen B shelf there should have been a measurable effect in increase of sea ice and sea level rise to prove the theory correct.
Oh, is ice shelf collapse and releasing the dammed up glacier a “theory” now ? Some parts of science are just measurements.
Do the math.
The GRACE satellite measured 24 cubic miles of ice lost from Antarctica in 2002 (see the quote above). If the Larsen B ice shelf was responsible for HALF of that ice loss (generous), how much would you expect the world’s oceans to rise ?
The world’s oceans are 141,600,000 square miles.
If 12 cubic miles of new water are dumped into it, its height will rise 0.005369 inches. Also known as 0.13638 mm
Just what do you think is causing the measured sea level rise these days ?
First the Larsen B Ice Shelf disintegration took place in 2002. A look at the global sea ice variation shows no real impact. http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/global-sea-ice-area-variation-nasateam-algorithm.jpg
What makes you think glaciers and icebergs flowing into the Southern Ocean in summer will not melt ?
http://nsidc.org/news/press/larsen_B/2002_animation.html
The oceans of the world, as measured by satellite, are rising about 3 mm/year in the last 16 years. These melting ice shelfs, which release continental, non-floating ice into the oceans to melt, are certainly part of this measured rise.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/03/scientists-track-the-oceans-rise-as-the-globe-warms.ars
I notice the articles talk about “accelerated and thinned” they do not talk about the total volume of ice going into the sea per unit time. Perhaps this is why there has been no impact. The glaciers are moving faster but due to thinning the amount of ice dumped into the sea remains about the same.
I’m glad to see your curiosity. Try to find the actual papers of research, not just write-ups, if you want to see actual volume of ice flowing per ice shelf collapse – there are studies on this.
Before the ice shelf breaks up, it is holding back the glaciers from flowing into the ocean, except for the basically steady-state condition of icebergs calving and snow falling onto the continent.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/glac/why.html
Of course, you’d need lots of ice shelves to breakup to really affect glacier flow:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html
The Wilkins is one of a string of ice shelves that have collapsed in the West Antarctic Peninsula in the past thirty years. The Larsen B became the most well-known of these, disappearing in just over thirty days in 2002. The Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Wordie, Muller, and the Jones Ice Shelf collapses also underscore the unprecedented warming in this region of Antarctica.

March 10, 2010 2:06 pm

vukcevic (12:04:04) :
“You did not answer my question about the direction of the Lorentz force.”
Elementary physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solid_Faraday_disc.PNG

Then you see that the force is radial and not retarding the rotation at all.

Steve Goddard
March 10, 2010 2:08 pm

Anu,
The glacial cycle in Antarctica is in stea