Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Inspired by this thread over at Bishop Hill’s excellent blog, I thought I’d write about sea ice. Among the many catastrophic things claimed to be the result of “global warming”, declining sea ice is one of the most popular. We see scary graphics of this all the time, things that look like this:
FIgure 1. Terrifying computer projections showing that we may not have any Arctic sea ice before the end of this century. Clearly, the implication is that we should be very concerned … SOURCE
Now, what’s wrong with this picture?
The problem with the picture is that the earth has two poles. And for reasons which are not well understood, when one pole warms, the other pole cools.
Looking at just the Arctic sea ice is like looking at someone who is pouring water from one glass to another and back again. If we want to see how much water there is, it is useless to observe just one of the person’s hands. We need to look at both hands to see what is happening with the water.
Similarly, to see what is happening in the frozen parts of the ocean, we need to look at global sea ice. There are several records of the area of sea ice. One is the Reynolds Optimally Interpolated dataset (Reynolds OI V2). A second is the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) record. Finally, we have the Hadcrut Ice and Sea Surface Temperature dataset (HadISST1). All of them are available from that most marvellous resource, the KNMI data portal .
It turns out that the NSIDC and the HadISST1 records are nearly identical. The correlation between the two in the Arctic is 0.995 (1.0 is perfect agreement), and in the Antarctic it is 0.999. So in Fig. 2, I have not shown the NSIDC dataset, but you can imagine that there is a third record almost identical to the HadISST1 dataset. Here is what has happened to the global sea ice area from 1982 to the present:
FIgure 2. Global Sea Ice Area 1982-present. Data from satellite observations.
As you can see, while it is certainly true that the Arctic has been losing ice, the Antarctic has been gaining ice. And the total global sea ice has barely changed at all over the period of the record. It goes up a little, it goes down a little, it goes nowhere …
Why should the Antarctic warm when the Arctic cools? The short answer is that we don’t know, although it happens at both short and long time scales. A recent article in Science Magazine Online (subscription required) says:
Eddies and the Seesaw
A series of warm episodes, each lasting several thousand years, occurred in Antarctica between 90,000 and 30,000 years ago. These events correlated with rapid climate oscillations in the Arctic, with Antarctica warming while the Arctic was cooling or already cold. This bipolar seesaw is thought to have been driven by changes in the strength of the deep overturning circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean, but some have questioned how completely that process can account for the fine details of Antarctic warming events.
Keeling and Visbeck offer an explanation that builds upon earlier suggestions that include the effects of shallow-water processes as well as deep ones. They suggest that changes in the surface salinity gradient across the Antarctic Circumpolar Current were caused by the melting of icebergs discharged from the Arctic, which allowed increased heat transport to Antarctica by ocean eddies. This mechanism produces Antarctic warming of the magnitude observed in ice core records.
However, not everyone agrees that this is the full explanation. Henrik Svensmark adds another factor to what may be happening:
The cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis therefore predicts that temperature changes in Antarctica should be opposite in sign to changes in temperature in the rest of the world. This is exactly what is observed, in a well-known phenomenon that some geophysicists have called the polar see-saw, but for which “the Antarctic climate anomaly” seems a better name (Svensmark 2007).
To account for evidence spanning many thousands of years from drilling sites in Antarctica and Greenland, which show many episodes of climate change going in opposite directions, ad hoc hypotheses on offer involve major reorganization of ocean currents. While they might be possible explanations for low-resolution climate records, with error-bars of centuries, they cannot begin to explain the rapid operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly from decade to decade as seen in the 20th century (figure 6). Cloud forcing is by far the most economical explanation of the anomaly on all timescales.
Regardless of why the polar see-saw is happening, it is a real phenomenon. Ignoring it by looking just at the Arctic leads to unwarranted conclusions about what is happening to sea ice on our most amazing planet. We have to look at both hands, we have to include the other side of the ice, to see the full situation. The real answer to what is happening to global sea ice is …
Nothing.
Unfortunately for the AGW’ers the ACTUAL temperatures in NH ARE NOT RISING
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php this explains the fact that ice is returning to normal (+winds and ocean current situation)
Willis Eschenbach (18:50:42) : Sorry, Willis. I read as far as the part that I quoted and stopped.
Your paragraph before Figure 2 reads, “It turns out that the NSIDC and the HadISST1 records are nearly identical,” but Figure 2 is a comparison of OI.v2 and HADISST Sea Ice data.
You replied, “Despite that, the ‘polar see-saw’ is a well recognized phenomenon, as shown by my quotes.”
Your references are discussing polar variability over millennia, while your graphs in Figures 1 and 2 represent data on century and decadal bases. Two different beasts. The data available over the period of the instrument temperature record contradicts the “polar see-saw”:
NCDC LST+SST:
http://i43.tinypic.com/a4wiu8.png
UAH MSU TLT:
http://i43.tinypic.com/34ijlao.png
GISTEMP:
http://i40.tinypic.com/n4fhpw.png
Here is a graph showing the long term cyclicality of Arctic ice, in one case going back to 1900–figure 2.16, pdf page 47.
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?
Willis Eshenbach, you write : “The problem with the picture is that the earth has two poles. And for reasons which are not well understood, when one pole warms, the other pole cools.”
I suppose the following might partly explain this:
Assuming Solar theory is correct, we have diffences in cloud variation as response to Solar variations.
Why different effect from clouds on temperastures for SH and NH?
– and thus opposite trends between Nh and SH?
Clouds has 3 big impacts on temperature:
1) Cooling: Low albedo
2) Warming: Effective insulation effect.
and..
3) Cooling: SNOW. Snow reaches the land surface and thus lowers albedo WITHOUT a big insulation effect.
its the SNOW that creates the different trends of warming cooling on the 2 hemispheres.
SH: The whole Antarctica is practically always snow-white. So not really any snow-effect here. This leaves only the TINY areas of New Zealand, Tasmania, Argentina etc. for the SNOW effect to affect temperatures on SH.
So on SH, the 2) WARMING insultating effect – is much bigger compared to the cooling effects 1) Cloud albedo and 3 ) Snow albedo.
So on SH, high kosmic rays intensity is not likely to induce that much cooling. (Perhaps the warming effect is bigger??)
On the countrary, on NH, We have a huge land area to make the cooling effect of 3) SNOW take effect. Therefore, the NH is much more likely to cool down during high kosmic ray intensity.
When you compare NH and SH trends you will see exactly the NH is much more chaning in trend than the more smoothly evolving SH temperature graphs.
AND: Even under effectful El Nino, as we have now, the effect in the Arctic is in fact low. The CLASH between low Solar activity that creates – 3) SNOW-COOLING in the north, and then the El Nino that warms the globe in general results in a warmer globe, but still growing ice in the Arctic.
nice 🙂
I might add the recently the solar wind stopped for a few days.
This happens when we are part of an alternating current electrical circuit.
Do the research folks, it’s all there just waiting for some of you to connect the dots together.
Harold Ambler (20:27:22) : There are different timespans being discussed in this post. The graphs and the portion I quoted appear in a discussion of century and decadal data, which is what I was addressing, while, as you note, the references are discussing data on millennial bases.
Louis Hissink (04:36:26) :
I might add the recently the solar wind stopped for a few days.
This happens when we are part of an alternating current electrical circuit.
The solar wind never stops.
And we are not part of an alternating electrical circuit. The Earth extracts a few percent of the energy in the solar wind, which in turn is about a millionth of the heat and light we get from the Sun. Any currents are generated locally as a result of the interactions. All of this does not provide enough energy to influence the climate in any significant way.
pdcant (21:13:42) : ” A full cycle is ~24,000 years. In my lifetime, the tilt has changed almost 1°.”
Duster (00:29:39) : “Actually, it would put him in his 70s. The pole moves 50.3 seconds of arc a year and a degree every 71.6 years. ”
I think you are confusing obliquity with precession. It is my understanding that the variation in the tilt of the Earth’s axis (obliquity) is between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees away from the orbital plane. The full cycle takes approx 40,000 years. That means a shift from 22.1 to 24.5 in 20,000 years, about 1 degree of shift every 8333 years or as Dr S said, 1/8 degree in about 1,000 years. So pdcant would indeed be “very old”. The obliquity is currently 23.5 degrees. Now, let’s go back 8333 years to the year 6323 BCE and we find that the obliquity was at max, 24.5 degrees, and the precession had the northern hemisphere summer solstice just past perihelion. Any wonder why Earth had just come out of glaciation?
BBC – 29 March 2010
Why won’t nature cooperate with AGW?
“Climategate” blow fragments corporate response to global warming
The survey, which was sponsored by the Carbon Trust, IBM, Hitachi and software company 1E, found that just over half of respondents believe the “jury is still out” on the urgent need to tackle climate change, while 32 per cent of companies polled said they do not yet have a coherent strategy in place to address energy use, an increase of seven percentage points on last year.
Moreover, just 12 per cent of businesses said they were introducing new green products to keep up with rivals, and seven out of 10 respondents said that carbon reduction policies are primarily driven by public relations issues.
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2260372/climategate-blow-fragments
Oops is that another wheel I see falling off the global warming bandwagon!
Louis Hissink (03:45:59) :
I’ve read a paper that was previously linked in comments expounding the idea you’re hinting at. It’s interesting and in some ways it seems intuitive, however I’m a little uncomfortable with the way that some of its proponents hold up everything as proof of the idea. I think concept is worth further study – if for no other reason than to demonstrate whether it would work.
I also think that it’s better to wait until the AGW paradigm has been demolished before bringing up the topic too often. It’s very easy for the AGW proponents to cherry-pick such things as “crackpot theories” that they can use to rubbish the entire concept of sceptical enquiry. After all they’re very good at cherry-picking.
Richard Holle (23:35:11) :
K-Bob (23:06:21) :
“Where does the pre satelite data come from?”
Pics Gary Powers took? The USA and the USSR had a lot of planes in the air with good cameras on board for years before satellites went up with publicly known cameras.
The photo shoots were strictly for military surveillance, and they were pretty much limited to land installations — easier to interpret using known sizes and distances.
The sea ice data was gathered by the US military during the entire course of the Cold War — no pun intended — and some of it still is. The Air Force and Army both deployed teams of weather-guessers onto the ice for months in order to gather both met data and ice coverage and average thickness. The Navy sent subs on ice-mapping missions using sonar.
The weather observations went to SAC for the bomber crews, the ice data was consolidated by The Organization That Doesn’t Exist™ and passed to the CINCs controlling the boomers. They were looking for both the conditions needed to form polynyas — open water (or water covered with thin ice) surrounded by sea ice and their frequency. The boomers needed to find a polynya and surface in order to launch their SLBMs.
In the interest of full disclosure, I still retain plausible deniability for what may or may not have been any participation or non-participation on the part of an individual who may or may not have borne a superficial resemblance to me.
Anu (23:19:11) :
About that “rotten ice” spin. As anyone who lives in an area where there is a lot of ice can tell you, melting ice is *always* rotten, and always has been. That’s why you should be very careful going out on the ice in springtime, it can be quite unreliable even if it’s two feet thick.
However in contrast to wood or meat, ice doesn’t *stay* rotten if the weather gets colder. It refreezes and becomes as good as new.
Why not be honest and admit that the Arctic september average falls exactly within the predicted (decreasing) range? Why focus on the global and antarctic extent, despite the fact that scientists didn’t predict its decline?
Antarctic ice pack animations now available:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice_animation_ant_max.html
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice_animation_ant.html
Arctic ice pack animations available for some time:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice_animation.html
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice_animation_max.html
Quoting Kazinksi (18:50:18) :
“I wonder why they picked 2007 to end the data series? I think we all know. ”
Commenting:
Some may not know.
This is from the arctic sea ice widget on the right margin.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Note than 2007 (dark green line) is the low extreme of the minima since 2002.
Note also that minimum of 2009 is about one million square kilometers (i.e. ~25%) MORE than 2007.
Use this graph when you respond to statements like “If there’s no warming then how come the arctic is melting…?”
I think it is time to ask for the “computer model code” from these people, especially as a string relates to the process of freeze, melt, and transport. I have a hunch several of the folks here would find many calculation errors in how ice freezes and melts in the Arctic after controlling for wind and current. The temps needed to freeze salt water are more than low enough even if increased CO2 directly overhead might re-radiate the measly amount of infrared that gets to the ice. Ice melting in place, again controlling for wind, current, and increased re-radiation of infrared also takes a very, very long time. The only variables that change this to the drastic levels depicted by IPCC are currents and wind. Free the ice codes. Free the ice codes.
Anu (23:42:26) :
“Might as well breath normally until October – that’s when they determine if a new record summer melt has occurred”
There is just so long the Warmists can keep kicking the ball down the road and claiming that catastrophe lies just over the next hill. Will you please return here in October to celebrate a middling Arctic minimum with us?
“And you might as well get used to waiting – the Arctic probably won’t be ice free in the summer for another decade”
I am not sure if you know, but I am actually an accomplished amateur sea ice modeler. Leveraging a highly robust linear model of sea ice change and this data set:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
I have been able to predict that Global Sea Ice Area will remain average forever, and leveraging this data set:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
I have been able to predict that within 92.3 years Arctic Sea Extent will grow to cover the entire world… Sadly my forecasting model and predicitions are as robust as the one you cited…
My crystal ball and Jedi powers beat that and say all ice will melt in 5 years. We will burn and drown at the same time. Just check my hologram for evidence of my superpowers.
You quoted Svensmark stating that Antarctic temperatures moved opposite to Arctic temperatures, but you didn’t state the WHY. I recall reading that Svensmark’s explanaton was the Albedo of Antarctica as opposed to the albedo of clouds. When the earth cools as a result of more clouds, the albedo of the Arctic INCREASES- the clouds reflect more than the Arctic ice. In contrast, the albedo of ANTARCTIC clouds is LESS than the Albedo of the relatively pristine Antarctic snow and ice.
By the way, the Arctic ice behavior has acted all year long as a somewhat disconnected group of micro-climate zones, each with its own unique set of parameters. So I will say again, as I have said many times before, you cannot lump the zones together and say something about ice area, extent, or volume, as if your statement or theory equally applies then to all areas.
Fresh on the heels of my concern for the corruption of democratic processes, James Lovelock says “It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while” in “the fight against climate change”.
“…I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,” said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. “The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.”
One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while….”
He also declares that “Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change” in the Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change
Thank you so much for your opinion of everyone who isn’t you being “too stupid” (i.e. not agreeing with your every utterance), Prof., but I prefer to live my life with as much freedom as I can, and what you are proposing is a world-wide green dictatorship, or to put it more accurately, a prison run by so-called “environmentalists”. No thanks, and by the way, your Gaia theory is total rubbish, and as any six year-old would tell you.
Willis, sorry about this but it seems U of Colorado disagrees with you:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/f595fae00e6b451d4016ab9a43a049f8.html
Anu,
“He believes the ice, which has been a permanent feature for at least 100,000. . .”
So which ancient people had satellites 100,000 years ago? The Neandethals perhaps, or could it have been the Clovis people?
Funny how nature has a way of making a fool out of…. umm… well… fools.