By Steven Goddard,
From The Vancouver Sun, a survey of leading climate scientists.
“More than half the experts think there is a more than 10 per chance we’ll get five degrees C warming under that scenario,” he says. “And five degrees C is gigantic,” says Keith, noting it is enough to “knock out” the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The meltwater would eventually raise sea level by as much as 100 metres.
The experts seem to be having a little difficulty with their maths. Temperatures have risen a whopping 0.7C over the last 120 ppm CO2 – but just for fun, let’s pretend that the next 150 ppm increase really did raise temperatures by 5C. What would that do to Antarctica? As you can see below, it would move the summer 0°C line inwards maybe 50 miles. At least 95% of the ice sheet would remain below freezing all year round. Ice does not melt below freezing. Warmer winter temperatures would mean more snow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic_surface_temperature.png
The video below shows in green the areas of Antarctica which would move above 0C in summer with 5C warming.
Ah – but what about Polar Amplification? While the earth has warmed 0.7C, Antarctica has warmed about 0.0c. That gives us an amplifcation factor of zero.
Must be the Ozone? I’m curious how one gets to be a “climate expert.”
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”
– Richard Feynman
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ron Broberg
Instead of making pathetic ad hominem attacks, how about acting like an adult and challenge the science?
stevengoddard says:
July 2, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Ron Broberg
Instead of making pathetic ad hominem attacks, how about acting like an adult and challenge the science?
You’re asking for the impossible, Steven.
stevengoddard: You replied, “Read Hansen’s 1988 paper about polar amplification, instead of Wikipedia.,” and provided a link to a 22-year-old paper, noting that I should refer to Plate 4. ”
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is a poor resource? Because you used them as a reference in your post. Also, please identify where Polar Amplification is discussed in the paper.
You concluded with, “He forecast symmetrical warming at both poles.”
Do you perceive that 22-year-old paper to be the final word, the last study, the ultimate resource for information about Polar Amplification? Do you think that maybe in the 22 years that followed there might have been updates to that Hansen et al (1988) study, Steven, or possibly other studies? Did you try the links on the Wikipedia webpage about Polar Amplification, which isn’t quite so old? Or did you try Google scholar? A search of “polar amplification”+Antarctic brings 532 returns.
Also, here’s the Zonal Mean Plot from GISS that accompanies the trend map you presented in the post:
http://i46.tinypic.com/smsowo.jpg
The rise from 60S to 75S is the much-discussed warming of the Antarctic Peninsula. There’s no Antarctic Polar Amplification shown in the Zonal Mean Plot of the GISS data you provided as a reference in your post.
I’m missing the “pathetic ad hominem attack.”
Controversy is popular means to an increase audience.
And why should I challenge the science before I have a decent understanding of it? I would think that learning the territory before issuing challenges would be the wiser course.
Phil. wrote, “Interesting considering UAH can’t make TLT measurements there.”
It is my understanding that MSU measurements are made south of 70S and that RSS elects not to use them because of perceived problems due to continental boundries and Antarctic altitude. I’d have to search for the study (sometime around 2003), but that’s my recall.
sod says:
July 2, 2010 at 1:44 pm
“…….you simply have ignored many facts about the measured temperature. regional averaging, daily averaging, location choice for thermometers and the shadow offered by the weather station allow melting of snow and ice, long before the thermometer will rise above 0°C.
most of us have experienced melting at below 0°C and extremely resilient snow in the shadow, at temperatures above 0°C.”
sod, your argument goes both ways, as you point out. I’m not sure what you mean by “long before the thermometer will rise above 0°C.” I suppose that’s relative. It’s not like you’re going to observe melting at -10 C at normal atmospheric pressure. True, you may see snow and ice recede, but that’s not melt, that’s an entirely different dynamic. Most of the H2O you see isn’t distilled, so yes, the freezing and melting points are slightly off of the 0.01 degree C melting point, one way or the other. Regarding sea ice, 27 degree F is the coldest observed natural water melt that I know of.
True, if the days average is 0 C, then some of the day was warmer than 0, where melting would occur. However, if that is true, then some of the day was also colder than 0 where ice formation would occur. Likely, for a net zero change or close to it in total ice. However, 0 isn’t the daily average for the interior of the Antarctic, it is -30. (See one of my prior posts.) So, you point is moot, unless you’re asserting that we can observe ice melt in those temperatures.
It is also true that the temp sitings may give us an altered view of the reality of the local temperatures, but, if we insist they’re not accurate(which I don’t have an issue with) then this entire discussion is moot. I wouldn’t have an issue with that statement, either.
DISCLAIMER! I don’t speak for Steve Goddard. These are simply my views on the current discussion. I’m not an expert in anything related to climate art-craft. But I’m fairly sharp on basic math and algebraic equations.(temps are numbers and sine waves aren’t very complicated.) So maybe I’m more of an expert than, say, the CRU. I know I’m way better at data retention than they are. I’m simply a guy(like most of us) forced to seek knowledge because of a few pinhead’s unreasonable and irrational fear of a molecule and the political exploitation of the mentioned fear.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 2, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Phil. wrote, “Interesting considering UAH can’t make TLT measurements there.”
It is my understanding that MSU measurements are made south of 70S and that RSS elects not to use them because of perceived problems due to continental boundries and Antarctic altitude. I’d have to search for the study (sometime around 2003), but that’s my recall.
MSU TLT measurements can be made north of ~82ºS, however high altitude ice causes interference is also a problem, hence RSS doesn’t present data south of 70ºS.
There’s an even better quote in the story:
“[…] substantial probability of the climate warming eight to 10 degrees C” — a heat wave that Keith says would be “stunning.””
I encourage everyone to read the article – it’s not long:
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Magnitude+global+warming+uncertain+survey+finds/3212837/story.html
Bear in mind that Vancouver is David Suzuki’s town and that BC has had a carbon tax for long enough that people seem to have forgotten about its existence.
Note to others in jurisdictions that don’t yet have a carbon tax: That’s what happens — people make a fuss when it’s new – and then Stanley Cup playoffs, plans for the weekend (…or whatever) come along, wiping minds clean, much to the delight of politicians who are busy implementing the next tongue-in-cheek joyriding scheme (currently “HST” here in BC). All you need is a severely ineffective & disastrous opposition (in the legislature) to set the stage (for a bold ruling party to be able to get away with pretty much anything they want).
By this stage it’s hard to miss the comedy. One irony is I wouldn’t mind at all *IF* they spent the tax revenue on pursuits matching my ideology — parks, natural forests, reduction of toxic pollution – stuff like that [but nevermind this nonsensical climate freak-out-ism stuff (based on anthropogenic computer fantasies, which are based on untenable assumptions – a practice which is disrespectful of nature)].
Phil. says: July 2, 2010 at 5:00 pm: Thanks for confirming that TLT meaurements are made south of 70S and that Antarctic altitude is a problem.
GISS takes a different approach to the poles from UAH. They use little or no data, and extrapolate out 1200 km.
stevengoddard says:
July 2, 2010 at 6:49 pm
“GISS takes a different approach to the poles from UAH. They use little or no data, and extrapolate out 1200 km.”
Well ya, how else would we “know”? You surely wouldn’t expect them to be able to put a thermometer out there, would you? I mean, why? They only get a couple of billion dollars a year. Think of all the money wasted if you put a thermometer out there when all you have to do is extrapolate and know what the temps are. I like burnt orange on my maps!! If we put a real thermometer out there, then our maps might have to change to that yucky blue or some such horrible colour!
stevengoddard says:
July 2, 2010 at 6:43 am
Wren
What do you get if you multiply5C by 0.0?
====
I like your way of thinking.
Having passed age 50 without dying (50 x 0 = 0), I should be able to pass age 100 without dying(100 x 0 = 0).
@Steven Goddard 9:25 am and passim
@James Baldwin Sexton 2:10 pm
Both you and Steven Goddard appear to be having problems seeing what I thought was a simple point about the statement “AGW Mathematics : -30 + 5 = 0”. Mr Goddard has already accused me of writing a long-winded criticism: it looks as though is wasn’t long-winded enough. Frankly, I’ve lost patience with this thread, but here are the steps of the argument for anyone who still cares.
1- The Vancouver Sun article is bunkum. In its hipy-dippy way it talks of a temperature rise of 5°C, by which we can only assume that a rise of 5°C in the global average temperature is meant.
2- It is however incorrect, even just for sarcastic effect, to then paraphrase this as “-30 + 5 = 0”. The first term is a point temperature, the second term an average change and the result is a point temperature again. There are an infinite number of series (sloppily expressed, because it really depends on the permitted limits of the series) that can be constructed that will have a particular arithmetical average. If you don’t believe me, open a spreadsheet, put in a few numbers and set a function to calculate the average. You can easily pass the time until the gin and tonic is due by changing numbers in the series in such a way that the average stays unchanged.
3- So it is possible to conceive of a series that gives an average global temperature rise of 5°C which contains some values that are +30°C (or anything in fact). The sarcasm doesn’t work and in fact it seems that it is Steven Goddard is the one who is having difficulty with his maths. That was my point.
4- I’m not saying these numbers are real or to be expected or anything else. I’m not discussing ‘polar amplification’ or the seasonal variations of Arctic or Antarctic temperatures. The fact that Goddard could even write “-30 + 5 = 0” as a summary of the source article – whether sarcastic or not – leads us to be suspicious of some of the other stuff he put in the post.
5- He writes, for example, that the polar amplification is zero because “while the earth has warmed 0.7C, Antarctica has warmed about 0.0c. That gives us an amplifcation factor of zero.”, later condensed in various responses to 0.7 x 0.0 = 0. Just think about it a moment: a zero amplification of 0.7 produces 0.7, there is no change. To reduce a change of 0.7 to 0.0 we have to apply a negative amplification, i.e. an attenuation.
I can’t be bothered with this anymore: If Goddard were a waiter I’d count my change very carefully.
Peter Czerna
One of the nice things about wordpress blogs is that you can link back to posters comments. Reviewing yours, it is abundantly clear that for one reason or other you completely missed the discussion of Polar Amplification, and the fact that it is not occurring in Antarctica.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/agw-mathematics-30-5-0/#comment-421814
Perhaps you should start by actually reading the WUWT article, rather than the criticisms made by idiots on other blogs?
.
Steven Goddard
At what point in any of my comments did I state that polar amplification was occurring in Antarctica?
In the comment to which you refer I wasn’t even talking about polar amplification. I never got beyond the first few lines of your post.
There is clearly nothing I can write that will get you to read my long-winded criticism with any accuracy, so let’s agree to differ now before we go all ad hominem on each other. It may not sound like it, but I am on your side…
Peter
Steven Goddard
PS: I haven’t read about this topic on any other blogs and have no idea to what you are referring. WUWT and CA are the only climate blogs I track.
Peter
an interesting little tidbit here. At present, we’re about 115 ppm greater co2 than 1750 and about 155 ppm away from the mystical co2 doubling point. Using a fairly sophisticated radiative transfer program, the co2 forcing (for clear sky and wavelengths from 0.2 to 75 um) turns out to be 1.85 w/m^2 for this 115 ppm increase til now at the tropopause. The additional 155 ppm will result in an additional forcing of 1.80 w/m^2, slightly less than half of the 3.65 W/m^2 of the total doubling. That means that half of the effect has already occurred and that means the 0.7 deg C rise (or rather the fraction of the rise not associated with the co2 and feedbacks) is the vast majority of what that effect is going to be, leaving the doubling at a maximum of around 1.5 deg C average. Those long term effects promised to be coming are going to have very little effect as the heat flow involved is not sufficient to have much effect.
How much does the ocean need to warm before we start to get snowfall on the mile-high mostly-now-barren Antarctic plateau? It’s the size of the U.S. and has scars similar to those caused by mile-high glaciers seen in other parts of the world. Any of this show up in the models? Perhaps warming will lead to seas falling… 🙂 (just as CO2 is a trailing indicator of increasing oxidation/combustion/outgassing as temperatures increase.. well, ok, least in high-school laboratories where they still do experiments v. pretend computer models are real )
I have never missed a runway. But now I know someone who has. 🙂
Foley says:
July 3, 2010 at 9:28 pm
I have never missed a runway. But now I know someone who has. 🙂
Yeah, no GPS back then, tough when the lights go out.
Two small, late notes.
1) Sometime in the recent past I read about how
wonderful it would be for Egypt to take care of
that 5M rise in the oceans. An astonishing amount
of the western desert of Egypt is lower than sea level.
It is hot there, with strong evaporation. Cut a canal
and drain the Med. into Egypt. It would refill through
Gibraltar. In the mean time, the hydroelectric plant
would generate one or two gigawatts for centuries.
2) The article starts with a few nibbles at statistics, and
seems to hint at use of Gaussian analysis. Anybody that
paid attention in 2nd year calculus knows that the
underlying data must be Gaussian in nature for Gaussian
methods to be valid forms of analysis. Weather is not
solely Gaussian in nature; Gaussian analysis will not give
any valid results.
Please take a read through “The Black Swan” for a more
crushing and pithy destruction of Gaussian statistical
analysis.
The approach used by David Keith in canvassing only 14 leading climatologists in fact harms the authority of the IPCC reports since one could arbitrarily pick 14 climatologists who do not support the AGW theory for example and state that what they say is the truth. In the article published in the Vancouver Sun, David Keith states: “The “risk of rapid or extreme warming are larger than what you would get by reading the IPCC” reports”. So what is the point then of writing the IPCC reports which are based on the work of hundreds of climatologists ?