Georgia Tech on: "the paradox of the Antarctic sea ice"

“climate models predict” blah blah blah
This basically says “it will get hotter and the Antarctic will obviously have to melt” and completely ignores the fact that supposedly it’s already gotten hotter and it’s not melting.

So first the warming caused more ice. But soon it will cause less ice. Makes perfect sense, and I am glad that they took the time to explain it.
One little thing, though. When will the warming know that it is time to stop causing more ice and start causing less ice? Is there a “tipping point”? I am dying to read predictions of tipping points, and this would be as good an example as any.

Increased warming of the atmosphere is expected to heat the upper ocean
Air heating water… challenging. Fellow ought to try warming his bath water with a hair dryer (take care not to drop it). Then try the reverse, fill a tub with warm water to heat the bathroom. Which do you suppose will change the temperature of the other 1 C first?

‘The most resilient parasite is an idea planted in the unconscious mind’
– Inception
We see that constantly with people who have been infected by fear of CO2.

One of the more charitable figures for this comparison, climate models predict ~3.2C of warming. We have seen ~0.8C. One quarter of that figure. CO2 has a logarithmic effect. If Trenberth doesn’t find that missing heat soon, we may be undoomed!!! What do the models look like when sensitivity is multiplied by 0.25?

personally, i’m still awaiting the first description of an experiment where IR heating from above is used to boil water.
Considering that only visible light – incoming solar – can penetrate the surface of the water and that more cloud cover is going to reduce this incoming power, one really has to contort their views to believe it’s going to warm. More ghgs in the atmosphere means more downward radiation which doesn’t penetrate – what can it do but evaporate more water, causing more convection and creating more cloud cover?

Is Antarctica melting?
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=242

“We wanted to understand this apparent paradox so that we can better understand what might happen to the Antarctic sea ice in the coming century with increased greenhouse warming,”
When a model fails to reflect the data it is not a paradox. A paradox is when to two equally true things are mutually exclusive. There is no paradox for a broken model to exist right along with contradictory data.

pat
Temperatures in Australia have been running well below normal.
At least the alarmists in this country have finally learned to pick a hot week when they present their case.

Haven’t these people bothered to even LOOK at the temperature???
South Pole Anomaly 1957 – 2007
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/south-pole-temp-1957-2007.jpg
Deviations from minus 55.5C at Vostok
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsVwd55PJ8I/AAAAAAAABKY/52SrhXN4C3c/s1600-h/Vostok-10Kd.jpg
Statistics: http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/index.shtml
” Temperatures on the Polar Plateau range from -115°F to +6°F; the mean temperature is -56°F. Winter wind-chills can plummet to -148°F.
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)”

“For the last half of the 20th Century, as the atmosphere warmed, the hydrological cycle accelerated and there was more precipitation in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica. This increased precipitation, mostly in the form of snow, stabilized the upper ocean and insulated it from the ocean heat below. This insulating effect reduced the amount of melting occurring below the sea ice. In addition, snow has a tendency to reflect atmospheric heat away from the sea ice, which reduced melting from above.”
Is this really what happens in the Antarctic? Although it might make sense in the Arctic, the Antarctic is a different animal, in that the sea ice is forming around a land mass and extending northward each winter, and then melting (in most cases nearly back to the land mass) in the summer. The dynamics of sea ice being pushed around by winds and growing thicker year by year, as happens in the Arctic, doesn’t really occur in the Antarctic to an appreciable extent, does it? The idea that the little bit of snow that falls in the winter somehow insulates the sea ice at the outer fringes so that doesn’t melt “below the sea ice” doesn’t seem to make much sense. We’re not talking about multi-year ice in the vast majority of the Antarctic, and an increase in thickness in those areas that do have multi-year ice would have no meaningful effect on the single year ice that freezes and melts every year.
Also, how does snow falling on top of the ocean “stabilize it from the ocean heat below”?
Something isn’t adding up in the way they describe the processes. Might just be a problem with the press release as I assume the Antarctic is faithfully modeled in their actual work . . . ?

Mike says:
August 16, 2010 at 8:53 pm
“Is Antarctica melting?”
Sure is, Mike. In a few years it’ll be like Hawaii. And I’ve got a couple islands down there for sale if you are interested. The only catch is that you have to wear lead boots in the low grav conditions, but that shouldn’t affect any plans you might have to build or farm, gravity should be back to normal around 2012. Then you can plant your first palm tree!
Contact me for terms of sale through “theresafoolborneveryminute.com”. Discounts on all summer swimwear and suntain oil available as well for a limited time only.

Yin, yang. I could be wrong, but it is apparent to me, the earth seeks a balance. Polar ice isn’t the only instance.

Err, isn’t this part of the Earth’s ‘wobble’?
That is, the earth wbooles on its axis, so that sometimes the artic is relatively closer to the sun and melts slightly, while the Antarctic is relatively further away and freezes more water. The other end of the cycle has the reverse occurring.
I thought that was Polar ice 101?

What’s the difference in bare ice vs. snow covered ice between yesteryears and recent years? Also, is it really a strange notion to have snow in Antarctica?

However, the climate models predict an accelerated warming exceeding natural variability with increased loading of greenhouse gases in the 21st century.
And this is where science and empirical data get off.
Until the climate models link up with the real world, they are just models, no different than any unproved theory.
One could just as easily have a model that predicts an accelerated cooling exceeding natural variability with decreased loading of greenhouse gases in the 21st century.
Well, where is the testing of the opposing theory?
You are brave to put this out there, Dr. Curry.
Dig us up some opposing theory/models and let’s get this PNS behind us.

Eric Anderson says:
August 16, 2010 at 9:29 pm
There is a possibility that there is no continuance to warming, or even a plunge to cooling.
Note the lopsided nature of the Sea Ice that forms around Antarctica.
Keep that imbalance growing and you could make an argument for the wobble of the Earth to increase, nudging the axial tilt of Earth to what climactic end I dare not say.
Just another theory to toss on the barbie.

GeneZeien says:
August 16, 2010 at 8:27 pm

Increased warming of the atmosphere is expected to heat the upper ocean
Air heating water… challenging. Fellow ought to try warming his bath water with a hair dryer (take care not to drop it). Then try the reverse, fill a tub with warm water to heat the bathroom. Which do you suppose will change the temperature of the other 1 C first?

I’ve tried to make that point with all sorts of high-falutin’ terms like “Heat Capacity” and “Density”, only to get blank looks or derision. Your analogy is perfect – thanks!

Given that there is both sea ice and blue ocean, neither phase has the upper hand. If there is some swing one way or the other in the volume of ice vs blue ocean, would that really surprise anyone? Makes me want to slap my forehead and say “duh”. So I will.
Why is normal not seen as normal for these people? Maybe we should try the old trick of shouting of “Hey! The climate is variable!” Might knock them off their roosts long enough to take a few reading for a few decades to discover the trends, long and short.
I can’t help but wonder how damaging it is to rational thought that the satellite record began only in 1979 and not 1650. I’m certain that there is an entire generation that believes that time frame defines “normal” for polar ice. Does anyone really know what the actual tonnage of polar ice should be for August, 2010? I think not.
The good news is, in 30 years people around then will look back and wonder why we thought we had any say in their world. For perspective, how much sway does Hirohito, Stalin, Mussolini, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, or De Gaul, have today? Zip, maybe? I think so, and yet they were running the world in their day. How dated. Hansen will fade to a bullet point in a high school paper soon enough.

Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 16, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Your video caused me to search Newell, and I found this:
“Reginald E. Newell, Jane Hsiung, and Wu Zhongxiang of MIT,
along with colleagues from the “British Met,” as they call it,
have collected and analyzed these data. MIT Press intends to
publish them in the Global Ocean Surface Temperature Atlas. One
of the most striking results suggested by the data is that there
appears to have been little or no global warming over the past
century.”
(1989)
http://www.fortfreedom.org/s47.htm
Quite a difference from CRU
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Phil must know more about temps 1900-1989 than the MIT guys did in 1989…or

SSam says:
August 16, 2010 at 10:17 pm
For anyone that cares… using the numeric keypad [ALT] 248 yields ° as in 30°C and [ALT] 247 yields ≈ as in ≈0.3°C.
This public service announcement was brought to you by Water™.

Sorry, but may I suggest a correction to your ANSI codes? My ANSI sheet says and yields the following. ALT+0176=° [degree symbol]; ALT+0248=ø; and ALT+0247=÷

This is one way to get aligned with what will likely happen, and still pretend to believe in warming for a few decades.
“increasing slightly” ………. let’s just say it’s in a “Life Spiral”

I read this article earlier. These people are idiots. Get them off the stage.

Try a little empiricism F.Ross, they both work, but SSam’s method saves keystrokes. 😉

“More ghgs in the atmosphere means more downward radiation which doesn’t penetrate – what can it do but evaporate more water, causing more convection and creating more cloud cover?”

sarc on! Did you not know? the CO2 molecules created by man’s evil are imbibed with a mystery knowledge, probably created and harnessed by the illuminati, which means that they prevent cloud cover during the day and that creates extra heat during the day which is stored in the upper layers of the oceans and then that creates the clouds at night. which traps the heat. The clouds then magikally dissipate in the next day’s heat to allow more sunlight in to warm the oceans further, creating more evening and night time cloud trapping more and more heat.
It is ONLY the CO2 created by man’s evil as part of an illuminati plot to turn this planet into a Venus like dessert suitable for the illuminati lizard masters to inhabit.
/sarc off!
Sorry, could not resist having a pop at the ridiculous CO2 alarmism again. Yes more heat will create a bit more cloud which will cool the surface. It is part of the earth’s natural thermostat.

Experiment in alt + numeric nos. Alt + 248 = ° ALT + 0176 = ° So they both work.

Climate Watcher says:
There could be another explanation – the additional CO2 is cooling Antarctica.
Yes, cooling.
See:
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookhwk7-1.gif
In the tropics and mid lat(top two plots), CO2 presents a ‘dip’ in the emissions.
CO2 emits to space from the stratosphere at a lower temp than the surface, thus reducing loss to space.
In the Antarctic ( bottom plot ), CO2 presents as a ‘bump’ up in emissions.
CO2 emits to space from the stratosphere at a higher temp than the cold Antarctic
surface, thus INCREASING the loss to space – cooling the Antarctic.
Incidentally, the same principal pertains to high clouds:
http://www.mathstat.dal.ca/~folkins/Cloud-LWspectrum.jpg
Cooling from high clouds and the Antarctic may be what’s limiting heating elsewhere.
—————————–
I think you are misinterpreting what these charts are showing. The actual situation is very simple.
The radiation emitted by CO2 at wavelengths between 13 and 18 micron is emitted from within or just below the tropopause. This is because CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and it is not until you get to these rarified levels that the radiation has a chance to reach space without being reabsorbed. The temperature of the tropopause is 220K everywhere e.g. over the poles and over the equator or tropics. So the radiation at these wavelengths will always be on the 220K line as the charts show.
The thing that is varying is not the CO2 radiation but the radiation at other wavelengths relative to CO2. This radiation will come from the surface and lower troposphere. Clouds will reduce this radiation and so will a very cold surface with high albedo (as in the case of the poles relative to the tropics). In both these cases the radiation characteristic of CO2 will be greater than the background so will appear as a “bump”. There is nothing surprising about this.
Incidentally the statement:
“In the Antarctic ( bottom plot ), CO2 presents as a ‘bump’ up in emissions.
CO2 emits to space from the stratosphere at a higher temp than the cold Antarctic
surface, thus INCREASING the loss to space – cooling the Antarctic”
is just wrong.
The tropospause is always colder than the surface although in many places the mountains reach close to the tropopause (which is only at about 8Km at the poles) and so the temperatures will come very close. CO2 is cooling the Antarctic but no more than at any other lattitude.
The issue that these charts raise is one that I have raised before. The concept of global warming depends on reducing the amount of energy radiated into space by CO2. These charts clearly show that this radiation is being emitted from the coldest layer in the atmosphere. The only way that radiation can be reduced further is for the temperature of this layer to reduce. I am unaware of any good evidence that this is happening.

“Here’s how it works. Increased warming of the atmosphere is expected to heat the upper ocean..”
Yeah, and then the tail will start wagging the dog.
Southern ocean is, despite expectations, cooling during last few decades.
http://i38.tinypic.com/344s36a.jpg
Antarctic is cold area with minimum humidity, so 30% increase in CO2 should mightily increase the “GH” effect there. Alas, it is cooling.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itlt_0-360E_-60–90N_na.png
Explanations about snow are nonsense. Antarctic is covered with glaciers miles thick, so additional snow can not increase the reflectivity much. More, this effect should work during the southern summer, but the cooling is equal both in polar day and polar night.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tsitlt_0-360E_-60–90N_nseason.png
More, additional snow is attributed to fictional warming, which is not the case neither in case of southern polar atmosphere, nor surrounding ocean. Admit it, you are clueless.

Would the phenomena of warming Arctic/cooling Antarctic switching to cooling Arctic/warming Antarctic not just be a product of ocean circulations?
The PDO has switched to it’s cool phase, the AMO is about 10 years behind that in this cycle, and both of these are Northern Hemisphere phenomena.
As the PDO continues cooling we will see increasing Arctic ice and stasis in the Antarctic. Then, once the AMO goes negative, we will see further increases in the Arctic, but actual reduction in the Antarctic. We only have satellite records for ~30 years, so this would not have been picked up by them yet, as the PDO seems to be a 60 year cycle and the AMO about 70 years.

Don’t be too hasty in thinking this is an all bad paper. There is a big silver lining to it. Most everyone that I talk to that are not CAGW “groupies” like we are, has had it ingrained in their head that the reason the drastic measures to cut CO2 are necessary, is because “the poles are melting faster than we thought”. This paper from a top university clearly shows that the South Pole(where 90% of the ice is) is NOT melting. Very few people actually know that! And it doesn’t use alarmist language terms such as certainly will start melting, or is predicted to start melting soon, etc. It just says perhaps, or could occur, which it could. Dispelling this myth of Antarctica melting is worth its weight in gold, as far as I am concerned. Rising seas that will flood coastal cities is the number one answer I get (by far) when I enquire why someone thinks we need to stop emitting carbon.

Anthony, thank you for your interest in our paper. I will check in periodically to see if there are any questions about the paper. I glanced through the questions so far, didn’t see any questions that were specific to the paper. If you have any, pls put my name “Curry” in your message, I will search for these messages. Thank you for your interest.

These simpletons try to find false answers, to keep their agendas from failing. It’s all due to the oceanic oscillations. Yes, the Antarctic sea ice will melt in the next 30 years, but Arctic ice will increase. That’s why Antarctic Sea Ice hit a record low in 1980, and the Arctic hit a record high in 1980.
When you get a cold PDO and AMO, it distorts the Global Heat Budget to favor cold overall, and cools the Northern Hemisphere (if you’ve taken geography, there’s more land in the NH.) And when you get cool continents, folks, that surround the Arctic, what happens to the Arctic Sea Ice? It increases. The SH cools more slowly than the NH, as the PDO and AMO are cool in the NH. Antarctic temperature records, showed that it warmed very substantially from 1950-1977 (the cold PDO) then began to cool after that, solidifying my claim.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Antarctic1903-2004.gif

Since we have the ear of Judith Curry I would like her views on this point:
Where her paper seems to go wrong is not seeing a locally faster hydrological cycle as a sign of generally speeded up global hydrological cycle that accelerates energy to space separately from any radiative mechanisms.
The models propose that the atmosphere becomes more humid and STAYS more humid but that can only be so if the speed of the hydrological cycle remains constant despite increased humidity. So that paper’s acknowledgement of a speeded up hydrological cycle fails to take the logic to it’s proper conclusion which is that the models are not reliable and will not be reliable until they factor in that change of speed of the hydrological cycle on a global basis.
Since the models are admitted to have no adequate treatment of cloud and water vapour variability they cannot yet accommodate changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle netted out globally.
If they were right about increased humidity then the optical depth of the atmosphere would have changed over the past 60 years yet apparently it has not.
So the only possible logical scenario is that the extra evaporation caused by more CO2 translates into a faster hydrological cycle and that faster cycle ensures that total global humidity does not rise and indeed that the rate of energy transfer to space is enhanced by non radiative convective processes to result in no additional warmth from more CO2. There may well be more energy passing through and being exhausted from the system but it will be in the form of latent heat until it reaches higher levels with no change in thermometer readings from that particular cause. The increase in radiative energy out is likely to be drowned by the noise of natural variability.

I learned one thing here. Ignore Judith Curry!

Stephen Wilde, our assessment and interpretation of the basic physical mechanism relies on data sets and also the coupled climate model simulations for the 20th century. There isn’t sufficient data in the Antarctic to rely only on the data to do this analysis. We selected two climate models, NCAR and GFDL, that do the best job among other models relative to the observations that we do have of the Antarctic climate. The models show that both evaporation and precipitation are increasing in the region, but on balance the increase in precipitation is greater. This agrees generally with observations in the region, although determination of satellite derived evaporation fluxes in the Antarctic is problematic; Jiping Liu and I have a NSF grant to figure out how to do a better job of this and we are using some new data sets from the International Polar Year and also some historical data from Chinese ships to test our satellite derived methods. We will publish a paper on that sometime in the next two years. But in the mean time, the information that we do have to analyze this is from the weather model derive reanalysis products and the coupled climate model simulations. Since we are interested in the dynamics of the atmosphere/ocean/sea ice interaction, the coupled model simulations are the best tool we have to analyze this.
Your question seems to be about the global hydrological cycle and its acceleration in the context of atmospheric humidity. There is substantial debate and discussion on that topic, which our paper does not go into.

These folks at Georgia have no clue how Climate works. As the globe warms the precipitable potential arriving to the poles decreases; the perturbations that turn that potential into precipitation become weaker. And as usual, no mention of the upward migration of the rain/snow threshold in a warming scenario.
The media and these unscrupulous “scientists” try to deceive the public day by day with things like this. When will it all end?

The “CO2 is a pollutant” scientists remind me a lot of the “fat and cholesterol are killing you” scientists. Both take substances essential to life and demonize them to the point where the substances’ irreparable harm reduced to an assumption. Odd that these very same people believe themselves to be the protectors of the environment.

We may see, on a time scale of decades, a switch in the Antarctic, where the sea ice extent begins to decrease,” said Judith A. Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech.
This is as useful as the following forecast: “In the next 12 months we may see some clouds, but also some sunshine, and some rain, as well as some snow. It will be windy sometimes, too. But not all the time. I think.”
Are these people scientists?

“Our finding raises some interesting possibilities about what we might see in the future. ”
Are “findings” here that of intrepid explorers on the sea ice or the GCMs and their intractable CO2 viruses.

Had another thought on this one as I have been reading the papers. If this model based thesis is true and the stratification of salinity and the temperatures is the case, then we should be seeing a shift forward in the inflection point where the maximum melting occurs during the Antarctic ice melt season. Has this shift been seen? Just looking at the NSIDC graphs I don’t see it.
The reasoning is this. Especially today with the much greater volume of Antarctic ice, the stratification effect should be amplified during the initial part of the melt season. This would tend to decrease local salinity and since mixing is reduced vertically, this should result in a retardation of the rate of melt. Therefore a shift of the inflection point of when the maximum melt period is should occur.

As soon as I see ‘might’ ‘may’ ‘maybe’ ‘could’, on the same page as models…
…….I start thinking about what to have for lunch

Judith Curry says:
August 17, 2010 at 6:26 am
Thank you for your response, Judith.
I wonder whether I made myself clear enough.
You conceded that a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle was capable of ‘insulating’ the Antarctic surface waters against the effect of AGW.
You must accept that if such an outcome can occur regionally it can also occur globally. You report a greater increase in precipitation than the increase in evaporation which suggests there is a link to an accelerated hydrological cycle outside the geographical area of study.
Thus none of your speculations in your paper can be valid if they rely on an AGW effect from more CO2. You confirmed that a regional CO2 effect can be cancelled out by a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle. Do you not realise where that must lead you ?
Furthermore you seem to accept that the models are inadequate on the issue yet seem determined to speculate on the basis of modelled outcomes.

The temperature of the tropopause is 220K everywhere e.g. over the poles and over the equator or tropics.
No. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~nese/3_12_Tropopause_Temperature.bmp
The thing that is varying is not the CO2 radiation but the radiation at other wavelengths relative to CO2. This radiation will come from the surface and lower troposphere. Clouds will reduce this radiation and so will a very cold surface with high albedo (as in the case of the poles relative to the tropics). In both these cases the radiation characteristic of CO2 will be greater than the background so will appear as a “bump”. There is nothing surprising about this.
Right. Under these circumstances, additional CO2 means more energy is leaving
earth than would otherwise occur.

Incidentally the statement:
“In the Antarctic ( bottom plot ), CO2 presents as a ‘bump’ up in emissions.
CO2 emits to space from the stratosphere at a higher temp than the cold Antarctic
surface, thus INCREASING the loss to space – cooling the Antarctic”
is just wrong.
The tropospause is always colder than the surface although in many places the mountains reach close to the tropopause (which is only at about 8Km at the poles) and so the temperatures will come very close. CO2 is cooling the Antarctic but no more than at any other lattitude.
No. During the Antarctic winter (limited to be sure),
surface temperatures can in fact be lower than the temperatures
at the level of CO2 emission as the spectrum indicates.
Look again at the emission spectra.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookhwk7-1.gif
Over the Sahara, the dip means a reduction in the energy lost to space due to CO2.
Over the Antarctic, the bump means an increase in the energy lost to space due to CO2.
Increasing the amount of CO2 should increase the width of the dip and the bump
due to band broadening.

The issue that these charts raise is one that I have raised before. The concept of global warming depends on reducing the amount of energy radiated into space by CO2. These charts clearly show that this radiation is being emitted from the coldest layer in the atmosphere. The only way that radiation can be reduced further is for the temperature of this layer to reduce. I am unaware of any good evidence that this is happening.

I believe the average CO2 emissions in the middle of the band are from higher
than the tropopause, from within the stratosphere.
And there is evidence in the RAOB data and MSU data of a decades long
cooling trend in strat temperatures as the GCMs do successfully model.
But one will notice that much of the trend comes from the resolution of
the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions – temperatures rose after the
eruption because of increased absorption by the dust/SO2.
In both cases, after the dust/SO2 settled, temperatures fell to levels much lower than
the pre-eruption levels. What caused this? Not CO2 which steadily increased.
Since Pinatubo resolved circa 1995, there is no significant trend in strat temperatures, though strat temperatures are at a lower temperature than the 1950s.
That being said, reduction in strat temperature is not the only mechanism of
GHG forcing – band broadening is a significant action as well.

Marvellous – so CO2 causes both warming and cooling
By the way, there are a couple of other important points about CO2
both warming and cooling.
1. At nearly all levels, CO2 tends to cool the atmosphere:
http://www.aer.com/images/rc/lbl_clrt_mls.gif
though less effectively than H2O tends to cool.
The distinction is that while GHGs tend to cool the atmosphere,
they also tend to warm the surface, warming which is transported to the atmosphere.
2. The ‘forcing’, at least as far as the IPCC says,
is quite different from pole to equator, and from the surface to
the ‘top of the atmosphere’.
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-2-23.jpg
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-2-24.jpg

“”” “We wanted to understand this apparent paradox so that we can better understand what might happen to the Antarctic sea ice in the coming century with increased greenhouse warming,” “””
WHAT PARADOX ??
Gaiaa doesn’t make paradoxes; she takes care to see that everything works exactly as it is supposed to; so for the last time; there is no Antarctic paradox !
If you guys (and gals) don’t know how or why it works, why don’t you say so; instead of implying that you do understand how it works; but it isn’t working that way. You and your blathering are the paradox; not Antarctica !

They are clueless. Happily it seems their co2 pseudoscience has only a few years life left.

“What means “the hydrological cycle accelerated”
When I use the term it means more and faster evaporation leading to more and faster convection with cloud forming sooner than it otherwise would have done with rainfall heavier than it otherwise would have been.
The energy budget result is faster transport of energy from the surface to higher levels in the atmosphere. However no rise in humidity occurs as per the steady optical depth of 1.87 over the past 61 years. The increased speed of the cycle prevents the increased evaporation from adding to total global humidity.
Note that because water vapour is lighter than air an increase in evaporation results in more convection without any need of a higher surface temperature.
The concept of a variable speed for the hydrological cycle is essential for an appreciation of why and how climate changes occur.
Once an AGW proponent concedes that a variable speed for the hydrological cycle is possible (and without a rise in surface temperature) then that provides a mechanism for negating any attempt at surface warming by GHGs over water.
There will be warming over land though but on Earth that will be negated by our 70% ocean surface as oceanic air flows into and out of continental areas. Furthermore warming over land by day is swiftly lost at night whereas diurnal differences are much reduced over water.
Judith has exposed AGW’s most vulnerable flank.

Summary: They don’t know WTF is going on in Antarctica with any certainty what-so-ever….

Wow reality trumping fiction as snowing in antarctica is now considered a paradox.
Wonder what they calla an normal warm day in sahara, a freak of nature?

Tom in Texas says…
“…a switch in the Antarctic, where the sea ice extent begins to decrease…”
About the same time the Arctic sea ice extent begins to increase?
———
Yep. That’s something the alarmist media “forgot” to mention… 🙂

“For the last half of the 20th Century, as the atmosphere warmed”
I thought the recent warming started in the 70’s. Last 30% doesn’t sound as impressive, but it does sound (1) more accurate and (2) like half of a PDO 🙂

Jim Clarke,
The follow statement is correct:
“While Arctic sea ice has been diminishing in recent decades, the Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing slightly.”
It is a qualitative statement. You can talk about the increase/decrease in terms of sq km or in terms of % area.
The observed sea surface temperatures in the Southern Ocean shows an overall increase during the period 1960-present. Yes, there are short term ups and downs, and regional variability. But overall, the surface temperature has increased in the Southern Ocean. Note, the trend for the Southern Ocean is different from that of the Antarctic continent.
In summary, I don’t see that either of these statements are inaccurate or misleading. Any statement is of course open to misinterpretation, but that is in the eye of the beholder.
The paper does not assume anything about the attribution of the 20th century warming. The paper then discusses the scenario whereby CO2 would increase surface temperatures, and investigates how the processes and balances would change in a warmer climate.
I don’t think this paper has any particular importance for the debate over AGW theory. It is an interesting paper that unravels some physical mechanisms that explains why the Antarctic sea ice is increasing in spite of a warming climate. The main significance in the AGW debate is that some skeptics use evidence of growing Antarctic sea ice as evidence that there is no AGW. Such an increase in Antarctic sea ice cannot be used as evidence against AGW given the arguments we have put forth.

Stephen Wilde says:August 17, 2010 at 11:01 am
Judith has exposed AGW’s most vulnerable flank.
Perhaps, because Judith’s been twittering around trying to coalesce CAGW and skeptic groups into one great big group hug………………And then this. How does this add anything to science.
From your paper:
Increased warming of the atmosphere is expected to heat the upper ocean, which will increase the melting of the sea ice from below. In addition, increased warming will also result in a reduced level of snowfall, but more rain. Because rain doesn’t reflect heat back the way snow does, this will enhance the melting of the Antarctic sea ice from above.
1. At what temperature will precipitation change from snow to rain? Make your thesis falsifiable or you just posturing for grants and you know it. Enough of the mays, possibility, etc.
2. Does your model take into account the increased cloudiness resulting from increased rain resulting from ever increasing temperature.
3.I didn’t know that snow reflected heat. I thought it reflected sunlight. By the way, how much sun does Antarctica get? How much less snow must fall down there with low albedo. Are you sure that more rain will fall, but not more snow also.
.This increased precipitation, mostly in the form of snow, stabilized the upper ocean and insulated it from the ocean heat below. …………………Increased warming of the atmosphere is expected to heat the upper ocean, which will increase the melting of the sea ice from below. In addition, increased warming will also result in a reduced level of snowfall, but more rain. Because rain doesn’t reflect heat back the way snow does, this will enhance the melting of the Antarctic sea ice from above.
1.Your thesis on this point is that higher temps lead to more precipitation. Mostly snow now, insulating the surface water from heat below. Increasingly temps will cause more rain. So, I’m confused by the circular logic. The rain falling is bound to be cold. No tropical rain down under. What temperature is the falling rain? Does your computer model show any sleet? How about wet slushy snow. And, with increasing catastrophic temperature, the precipitation will increase even more and the area will get a greater volume of cold rain. What must the temperature of the cold rain be and what increased volume is necessary to maintain the absolute temperature of the upper ocean surface from upwelling heat from below. At what magic tipping point does the surface temperature of the water fall beneath to allow upwelling heat? Have you done an energy calculation? How much more cooling rain must fall relative to slightly colder snow to inhibit upwelling warm water?
This paper is a big disappointment. I expected a little better from you. Another paper submitted with the aid of cronyism. Similar to this one also submitted:
Solomon M. Hsiang
Temperatures and cyclones strongly associated with economic production in the Caribbean and Central America
PNAS published ahead of print August 16, 2010,
Understanding the economic impact of surface temperatures is an important question for both economic development and climate change policy. This study shows that in 28 Caribbean-basin countries, the response of economic output to increased temperatures is structurally similar to the response of labor productivity to high temperatures, a mechanism omitted from economic models of future climate change. This similarity is demonstrated by isolating the direct influence of temperature from that of tropical cyclones, an important correlate. Notably, output losses occurring in nonagricultural production (–2.4%/+1 °C) substantially exceed losses occurring in agricultural production (–0.1%/+1 °C). Thus, these results suggest that current models of future climate change that focus on agricultural impacts but omit the response of workers to thermal stress may underestimate the global economic costs of climate change.
Their thesis? When it gets hot, the islanders don’t work. Well doh. Apparently, you consider this good company.

“”” bubbagyro says:
August 17, 2010 at 11:17 am
George E. Smith says:
August 17, 2010 at 10:31 am
Evaporation from the oceans cools it and cools the adjacent troposphere in so doing. “Tropos” means change — it is where all the change, or circulation, occurs. In water vapor form, the stored energy (enthalpy) is given up to the upper troposphere through the tropopause, and beyond, eventually into space, mostly by conduction or, predominantly, radiation (the tropopause inhibits convection and conduction). It condenses into water (clouds) and gives up the latent heat of evaporation.
It coalesces (don’t say “condenses” — it already has done this) into large cold droplets (much of the heat has already been removed) which then cool the seas accordingly, adding either cold water or snow to the land and sea. “””
So here’s what i actually did say :-
“”” And what is this business of precipitation in the Southern Ocean. If tropical waters evaporate, and deposit latent heat out in the upper atmosphere when clouds form, and those clouds move south and then it rains/snows/sleets/hails in the Southern ocean, does that convey more heat south or less heat south, than simply having ocean surface currents transport warmer triopical waters south; like the Gulf stream does in reverse in the Northern hemisphere ? “””
So where was it now that I said condenses ? or any of that stuff about enthalpy. It seems I did say that the process transfers a lot of latent heat to the upper atmosphere; doesn’t matter to me where that is, it is heat removed from the ocean and ultimately deposited where at least some of it can escape to space.
And if only dry air can reach the polar regions then where does all that ice and snow come from on Antarctica? We are continually bombarded with Antarctica is the driest continent on the planet; yet some how most of the fresh water on the planet is there; and it seems that we only get fresh water as a result of either evaporation from where it is warm enough to evaporate or sublime, or from the freezing of salty ocean water. So why does Antarctica have all the fresh water ?

paulhan: You asked, “The PDO has switched to it’s cool phase, the AMO is about 10 years behind that in this cycle, and both of these are Northern Hemisphere phenomena. As the PDO continues cooling we will see increasing Arctic ice and stasis in the Antarctic.”
No reason to believe so. The PDO does not represent the SST anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N. A negative PDO represents a pattern where the SST anomalies are cooler in the east than they are in the central and western North Pacific.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/misunderstandings-about-pdo-revised.html

Ed Caryl says:
August 17, 2010 at 6:15 am
I learned one thing here. Ignore Judith Curry!
———
Good luck getting your paper accepted Dr. Curry. The establishment seems to have turned on you, as they do to anyone who stops drinking the kool air and worshiping at their altar, even if only temporarily.

Bob Tisdale:
Great graphs Bob.
[ http://i34.tinypic.com/20s828o.jpg & http://i38.tinypic.com/2u3v0pz.jpg ]
The HADISST version of the Southern Ocean record is humorous.
Also: Great questions you’ve posted for Dr. Judith Curry.
I encourage all to consider that EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters) tell more about the Southern Ocean than anthropogenic computer fantasies based on untenable assumptions.
Here’s some reference material for those interested:
Sidorenkov, N.S. (2005). Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 24(5), 425-439.
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/09/28/0001230882/425-439.pdf
Sidorenkov, N.S. (2003). Changes in the Antarctic ice sheet mass and the instability of the Earth’s rotation over the last 110 years. International Association of Geodesy Symposia 127, 339-346.
Sidorenkov, N.S. (2005). The decade fluctuations of the Earth rotation velocity and of the secular polar motion. In: Journees 2004 – systemes de reference spatio-temporels. Fundamental astronomy: new concepts and models for high accuracy observations, Paris, 20-22 September 2004, edited by N. Capitaine, Paris: Observatoire de Paris, ISBN 2-901057-51-9, 2005, p.153-154.
http://syrte.obspm.fr/journees2004/PDF/Sidorenkov.pdf
That’s just the beginning of the story.

Dr Curry,
Not having access to the paper, I am asking some questions out of ignorance. If the added ice extent due to GW in the Antarctic is thin, even given the increased winter extent, wouldn’t the minima show either a constant value or reduction? they seem to be increasing like the maxima which would imply multiyear ice is building up. Is this explained by your theory?
Why does the NH differ from the SH? Basin vs ocean surrounded land mass? Shouldn’t the same effect apply to both? Should we expect to see greater winter ice extent outside of the Arctic Basin based on the same effect?

“Our finding raises some interesting possibilities about what we might see in the future. We may see, on a time scale of decades, a switch in the Antarctic, where the sea ice extent begins to decrease…” (From Georgia Tech’s Judith Curry)
At least on this point we are all agreed. What goes up must (usually) come down.
Dr Curry:
This “news release” is an example of modern journalism and PAO-manship at its most pathetic. Whoever put this thing to paper and on the web should have been fired a week before it was ever typed. If the intent was to be clear and concise, it was only concise. It makes GT and you and your collegues look and sound totally inept. I look forward to reading the actual study and finding out what it was your Public Affairs Office was trying to actually describe. Better luck next time!

We will get the paper posted on my website tomorrow, i will let you know the location.

Judith Curry says:
August 17, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Lucy VC, not interested in mercy. Still scanning for some thoughtful questions that I will respond to.
—————-
Bob Tisdale,
Please don’t take offence. Judith did not say that she would respond to ALL thoughtful questions.
It was good of her to spend time responding to Lucy, I thought.

Oops, I’ve also noted that the authors are not using the classical definition of the Southern Ocean, (south of 60S), but include mid latitudes of the So Hemisphere also, so my earlier graphs don’t apply to the paper.

“There isn’t sufficient data in the Antarctic to rely only on the data to do this analysis. We selected two climate models”
So much for the confession-
how about the apology and REFUND THE MONEY?

J.Curry
In addition, increased warming will also result in a reduced level of snowfall, but more rain.
Only 2 simple questions .
1) When “will” it happen ? I guess this statement applies to an average (decadal ?) then which decade will be the first one when there will be more rain than snow/hail in Antarctic ? I also guess that the statement implies that once it happens , it will repeat every dacade thereafter .
2) Where “will” it happen ?
As I mentionned I have been to Antarctica (always in summer) . I have seen often precipitations but not once rain . The thermal momentum of the ice mass is so huge that the air temperatures simply can’t get far from 0° even if the wind is blowing from the ocean . When the wind is blowing from the continent I have never ever seen temperatures above 0°C (in summer) .
So if one considers 2 situations where rain is physically impossible :
– over the continent at all season
– over the shore/sea in winter and when the wind is coming from the continent in summer
then where can it rain more than snow in Antarctic ?

“”” AndyW says:
August 18, 2010 at 12:20 am
Eric Anderson said:
August 16, 2010 at 9:29 pm
“Also, how does snow falling on top of the ocean “stabilize it from the ocean heat below”?”
Reading the paper it makes it less saline so heat is not transferred as much to the more weakly stratified layers. “””
Simply marvellous; the ocean keeps on getting less salty because snow falls in it. How long will we have to wait, until the whole ocean is fresh water so we can solve the world’s drinking water problem ?
And all these years, I have believed that the fresh water on the land; in lakes and rivers, basically comes from the oceans via evaporation and precipitation. So now it appears that the opposite is true; the land supplies fresh water to the clouds, which drop snow over the ocean and gradually turn the whole ocean into fresh water. I suppose that sublimation of ice on Antarctica and Greenland must also contribute fresh water to make the ocean less salty.
It’s totally amazing what you can learn by reading WUWT; that’s WUWT or WUTW or WWUT or UTWW or WUTW……
just in case I spelled it rong.