First, we pointed this out quite some time ago. See: Winds are Dominant Cause of Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet Losses and also NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
Second I’m pleased to see the Guardian finally catching on.You can watch wind patterns in this time lapse animation:
From the Guardian:
Wind contributing to Arctic sea ice loss, study finds
New research does not question climate change is also melting ice in the Arctic, but finds wind patterns explain steep decline.
Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region’s swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.
Ice blown out of the region by Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent in the region since 1979, the scientists say.
The study does not question that global warming is also melting ice in the Arctic, but it could raise doubts about high-profile claims that the region has passed a climate “tipping point” that could see ice loss sharply accelerate in coming years.
The new findings also help to explain the massive loss of Arctic ice seen in the summers of 2007-08, which prompted suggestions that the summertime Arctic Ocean could be ice-free withing a decade. About half of the variation in maximum ice loss each September is down to changes in wind patterns, the study says.
Masayo Ogi, a scientist with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology in Yokohama, and her colleagues, looked at records of how winds have behaved across the Arctic since satellite measurements of ice extent there began in 1979.
They found that changes in wind patterns, such as summertime winds that blow clockwise around the Beaufort Sea, seemed to coincide with years where sea ice loss was highest.
Writing in a paper to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the scientists suggest these winds have blown large amounts of Arctic ice south through the Fram Strait, which passes between Greenland and the Norwegian islands of Svalbard, and leads to the warmer waters of the north Atlantic. These winds have increased recently, which could help explain the apparent acceleration in ice loss.
…
read the complete story at the Guardian
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bad press coverage and scare tactics take their toll.
Media industry ad revenue declined 12%
http://bit.ly/aIXDD8
George E. Smith (12:02:59) :
Re: “General Chemistry by some chap called Linus Pauling”
It is nice to know that in this virtual world there are still people who prefer solid printed book to CRT, LCD or whatever some of us stare for a few good hours on weekly if not daily bases.
Despite everything Google occasionally still deserves some praise:
“General Chemistry” by Linus Pauling is available (or most of it) now in the Google books library:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EpxSzteNvMYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=General+Chemistry++Linus+Pauling.&source=bl&ots=PHSGmpC0Q-&sig=JJB-jWIYj2EIBFPbGNWIJiCvvPA&hl=en&ei=FuGnS46lOMOOjAelp8CjDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Since I mentioned CRTs, LCDs etc may also add :
To Dr. George Elwood Smith of the CCD fame, I am evermore grateful for ending (part of) 15 tedious years of my working life; setting the operating parameters of plumbicon, leddicon and saticon tubes. My thanks, gratitude and greatest respect for Dr. George Elwood Smith.
But, according the other alarming article posted on WUWT now, all this wind is apparently causing the flowers on the ice cap to lose their scent!
Its catastrophic for the polar bees. Call the EPA ASAP!
R. Gates (13:45:16):
Now for the deconstruction:
Scientific skeptics are not “true believers.” Skeptics simply ask for the data, code and methods showing that a conjecture or hypothesis explains reality better than an alternative conjecture or hypothesis.
In the case of the CAGW hypothesis [sorry, it’s not a theory], the only folks 100% certain of their beliefs are the true believers. Skeptics simply want access to the original raw data, the code and the methodologies used to support catastrophic AGW, so they can reproduce the results claimed. That’s how the scientific method works.
But the methods and raw data/evidence are kept secret, so other scientists are unable to reproduce and test the hypothesis. That information should be publicly archived on the internet, a much easier task than in Einstein’s day.
Instead, every impromptu excuse is employed to avoid letting other scientists test the CAGW hypothesis through replication.
Since the Climategate emails show that CRU scientists gave the requested information to their pals, but refused the same information to others on various, shifting grounds, the only plausible conclusion is that the CRU scientists [including Michael Mann] knew that either their conclusions would be promptly falsified, or that their work was so sloppy and incompetent that it would be disastrous to open it to the public that paid for it. Probably both.
So the similarities claimed between the CAGW true believer cult and skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist] is false. Skeptics demand that the scientific method must be followed, while the alarmists — who have raked in enormous amounts of grant money by peddling their alarmism — refuse to abide by the scientific method.
As Dr Richard Feynman repeatedly made clear, scientists proposing a hypothesis also have the obligation to show how and why it might be false. Has anyone ever heard the promoters of CAGW give reasons why the climate could be entirely explained by natural variability? Or given other reasons that their catastrophic predictions might be false?
A good example is the current arm-waving over Arctic ice cover. Two things clearly falsify the alarmism implicit in focusing exclusively on the Arctic: first, the fact that the Antarctic doesn’t support alarmism about the Arctic; neither does global ice cover. It’s all Arctic, all the time. And second: because natural variability in the Holocene shows that the current climate is nothing unusual. In fact, the current climate is extremely benign.
There are additional reasons to suspect the CAGW hypothesis, but no contrary reasons are ever proposed by the alarmists. They reject the scientific method because they are paid to do so. There is little grant money available to scientific skeptics — who are not skeptical of a human influence on the climate, but rather, they question its importance and extent.
The evidence points to the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 being significantly less than one, meaning that there is little to be concerned with rising CO2. In fact, the planet bears this out. And if CO2 is in reality an insignificant factor in the climate, then there is no reason to throw more money at something that is minor, and which could well be beneficial.
Scientific skeptics are generally immune from the cognitive dissonance that plagues alarmists, because skeptics have no hypothesis or belief system to promote. Skeptics simply want to be able to validate the conclusions of those pushing CAGW. They want to see exactly how the conclusions were arrived at. But because they are refused access to the methods, code and raw data employed [if it even exists], skeptical scientists are prevented from doing their job, and the scientific method has been relegated to the trash bin.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124906102&ft=1&f=1001
Hmmm, seems Climate Change is good afterall. It forged humans 🙂
Re VeryTallGuy (12:15:38) :…
Hello, anyone read the article ?
“Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent”
ie the other two thirds is due to warming.”
Yes tall guy, (related to tall bloke?) the warming that normaly comes in the summer!! We can all make assumptions. How much of the melt came from changing ocean currents?
Somewhat O/T.
We frequently hear about how much colder the climate would be if it weren’t for the greenhouse effect. I’m curious as to how much warmer it would be if it weren’t for all the water and the subsequent water cycle.
————–
And what caused the warming? Co2, aerosols, other factors or a combination?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
And all this from a pro-warming agency!!!
Smokey (14:54:45) presented R. Gates (13:45:16) statement:
“True Believers on both sides of the AGW issue, “warmists” and “skeptics” alike, in as much as they are 100% certain of their position, that certainty is the tyrant within.”
And, then proceeded to deconstruct the statement.
Smokey, that was one of the best deconstructions (or should I say “demolitions”) I’ve read here.
An absolute smack-down in my humble opinion.
I’d be curious what R. Gates response is to your deconstruction (as I’d be interested in his response to my request).
Smokey, I have to hand it to you — your demolition was much better than my inquiry into R. Gates split personality — oops — I mean split intellect 🙂
Re R. Gates (13:45:16)
____?True Believers on both sides of the AGW issue, “warmists” and “skeptics” alike, in as much as they are 100% certain of their position, that certainty is the tyrant within.”
Smokey answered you well and I cannot exceed his answer except in brevity. True skeptics say “We (the current state of scientific understanding) do not know the extent of AGW or the benefits vs the negative impacts, therefore we do not wish to enact worldwide political change and taxes with numerous known negative consequences.
worth reading the comments to both; never forget CAGW is a bipartisan scam:
22 March: UK Tele: Geoffrey Lean: Good news as research suggests global warming does not directly cause all the melting of Arctic ice
Yet it is very good news if indeed it proves to be true that global warming is melting the icecap less quickly (and if it does not turn out, for example, that the alterations in wind patterns are not themselves linked to the climate change). And, counterintuitively, it would strengthen, rather than weaken, the case for action to tackle it. For if the ice were indeed to vanish in summer by 2013, the inertia built in the world’s natural systems would ensure that it would already be it would be already far too late . Instead we may have enough time to stop the complete melting taking place.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100030894/good-news-as-research-suggests-global-warming-is-not-directly-responsible-for-all-the-increased-melting-of-arctic-ice/
22 March: NYT: Andrew C. Revkin: New Light Shed on North Pole Ice Trends
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/new-light-shed-on-north-pole-ice-trends/
We knew the things mentioned in this article from at least 1830 due to the (apparently forgotten) voyages of many brave captains in the Arctic area.
This original book dated 1875 illustrates that current, tides and wind were all known to play a major part in the shifting of ice.
http://www.archive.org/stream/arcticgeographye00roya#page/n7/mode/2up
tonyb
A changing current and a prolonged positive AO, would have thought it.
/sarc
Ian H (13:06:42) :
“….I seem to dimly recall some mysterious ancient maps that show the North coastline of Russia in detail. Daniken mentioned this I believe as one of his supposed relics from ancient space visitations, with the idea being that you couldn’t map this coastline because of the ice so it must OBVIOUSLY have been done from orbit by visiting friendly aliens. However I’ve been unable to dig up a modern reference to this map. Is my memory playing me false or does such a relic exist….”
I remember this map.
“..The Piri Reis map is a famous pre-modern world map compiled in 1513 from military intelligence by the Ottoman-Turkish admiral and cartographer Piri Reis. The half of the map that survives shows the western coasts of Europe and North Africa and the coast of Brazil with reasonable accuracy…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map
Ed
OT
uk media starting the routine hype for a record breaking ‘beyound 38C’ summer for 2010. ‘ Will beat 1976 heat wave.’
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100322/video/vuk-bbq-summer-predicted-for2010-49bfa63.html
Do these ‘postive weather solutions’ people have any credibility? Or is a cooked up fake company to white wash the media’s credibility in hot summer predictions?
Don’t believe the hype myself.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042460.shtml
Spread of ice mass loss into northwest Greenland observed by GRACE and GPS
Shfaqat Abbas Khan
DTU Space, Department of Geodesy, National Space Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark
John Wahr
Department of Physics and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Michael Bevis
School of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Isabella Velicogna
Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, California, USA
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA
Eric Kendrick
School of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Greenland’s main outlet glaciers have more than doubled their contribution to global sea level rise over the last decade. Recent work has shown that Greenland’s mass loss is still increasing. Here we show that the ice loss, which has been well-documented over southern portions of Greenland, is now spreading up along the northwest coast, with this acceleration likely starting in late 2005. We support this with two lines of evidence. One is based on measurements from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite gravity mission, launched in March 2002. The other comes from continuous Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements from three long-term sites on bedrock adjacent to the ice sheet. The GRACE results provide a direct measure of mass loss averaged over scales of a few hundred km. The GPS data are used to monitor crustal uplift caused by ice mass loss close to the sites. The GRACE results can be used to predict crustal uplift, which can be compared with the GPS data. In addition to showing that the northwest ice sheet margin is now losing mass, the uplift results from both the GPS measurements and the GRACE predictions show rapid acceleration in southeast Greenland in late 2003, followed by a moderate deceleration in 2006. Because that latter deceleration is weak, southeast Greenland still appears to be losing ice mass at a much higher rate than it was prior to fall 2003. In a more general sense, the analysis described here demonstrates that GPS uplift measurements can be used in combination with GRACE mass estimates to provide a better understanding of ongoing Greenland mass loss; an analysis approach that will become increasingly useful as long time spans of data accumulate from the 51 permanent GPS stations recently deployed around the edge of the ice sheet as part of the Greenland GPS Network (GNET).
Received 10 January 2010; accepted 18 February 2010; published 19 March 2010.
Citation: Khan, S. A., J. Wahr, M. Bevis, I. Velicogna, and E. Kendrick (2010), Spread of ice mass loss into northwest Greenland observed by GRACE and GPS, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L06501, doi:10.1029/2010GL042460.
In the Daily Mean Temperature graphs (posted by IBRAHIM, near the beginning of this thread) the area above the Melt line is very regular, varying only within a small range for a small number of days in each year, at high summer.
During the winter months, the averages vary wildly from year to year, with quite startling departures from the “norm”.
I am wondering what this pattern suggests about the way that temperature “anomalies” are popularly interpreted in the context of GW theorising?
It seems like the winter months in some years would look “abnormally warm” relative to the usual pattern, and would significantly alter the yearly average, but would not so alter the proportion of the year spent above melting temperature, either in temperature or length of time above melt.
This would feed a sense of alarm, in some obervers, even while remaining quite harmless.
You can see these wild variations in some of the oldest data presented, so linking it to anthropogenic CO2 output would be the last of your worries.
OT
Pachauri said to eat less meat to curb global warming.
“Eating less meat and dairy products won’t have major impact on global warming”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/acs-elm031010.php
Philhippos (12:43:37) :
Not directly relevant to this item but I can’t get into Notes & Tips so I ask it here.
My question is: If CO2 had a colour would we be able to see its presence in the air at its present or predicted concentrations? If, as I suspect not, then making this clear would help to convince many more people that it cannot be relevant.
Yes, just like we can see the color of the low concentration impurities in sapphires, emeralds, rubies etc. which would otherwise be colorless.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/new-light-shed-on-north-pole-ice-trends/
Ignatius Rigor bets:
“As expected from my 2002 paper, the low A.O. conditions of late have sequestered quite a bit of sea ice the Arctic, which should foster a more moderate retreat of sea ice extent this coming spring, summer and fall. So if you apply a negative sign to the figure at the bottom of http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/AO/, I would expect colder than normal spring especially in the Eurasian Arctic, less retreat of sea ice this summer, then colder than normal this fall in the Eurasian Arctic…. Based solely on how high the A.O. has been this winter, I would expect higher sea-ice extents, or less retreat across most of the Arctic seas. Of course, what happens this summer is important, but I think the sea ice is conditioned for a colder, and more extensive sea ice during the next couple of seasons. “
@VeryTallGuy (12:15:38) :
“Hello, anyone read the article ?
“Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent”
ie the other two thirds is due to warming.”
[etc]
– – – – – – – –
Decline in sea ice extent due to Arctic winds is not warming? Or did you mean to say global warming? For the other two thirds (assuming you meant global warming), you are forgetting warm ocean currents, which can warm an entire region several degrees in excess of the amount of any global warming that exists. Warming due to warm ocean currents is regional warming, and is not global.
There are maps showing Greenland as two separated islands, as it was confirmed by a polar French expedition which found out that there is an ice cap quite thick joining what it is actually two islands.
http://www.nymapsociety.org/FEATURES/TRAGER.HTM
for Columbus era maps of the new world with links. These look to have been drawn from older maps.
Looks like someone might have gone on a voyage of exploration in the Roman Warm Period and the sea around Greenland was ice free at that time.
Ed
John Ryan (13:44:22) :
“You mean the winds are changing along with the temps, sounds like climate change to me. As far as CO2, green house gases are only 2% of the atmosphere BUT greenhouse gases account for 60% of the heat trapping gases.”
John, is water vapour a green house gas?
If it is then what percentage of the heat trapping effect is it responsible for?
Toyotawhizguy said:
“Warming due to warm ocean currents is regional warming, and is not global.”
______
This is an unproven assertion, not in line with the known global circulation of ocean currents…both in depth and extent.
And, of course, they are still using 1979-2000 as a baseline. 1979-2009 is 30 years of data and would be a better sampling. That would bring current conditions even closer to “normal”, whatever that means.