Antarctic sea ice today from the University of Bremen, on track for a new record high this year:
From Georgia Tech’s Judith Curry:
“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…”
Resolving the paradox of the Antarctic sea ice
While Arctic sea ice has been diminishing in recent decades, the Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing slightly. Researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology provide an explanation for the seeming paradox of increasing Antarctic sea ice in a warming climate. The paper appears in the Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science the week of August 16, 2010.
“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,” said Jiping Liu, a research scientist in Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.
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.
However, the climate models predict an accelerated warming exceeding natural variability with increased loading of greenhouse gases in the 21st century. This will likely result in the sea ice melting at a faster rate from both above and below. Here’s how it works. 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.
“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,” said Judith A. Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I read this article earlier. These people are idiots. Get them off the stage.
post hoc rationalisations.
Everything becomes “consistent with” Dangerous AGW.
Try a little empiricism F.Ross, they both work, but SSam’s method saves keystrokes. 😉
“For the last half of the 20th Century, as the atmosphere warmed, the hydrological cycle accelerated.”
Well well. Just as I’ve been saying for nearly 3 years.
Now all they need to do is think through the implications of that as regards the global energy budget and the size position and intensities of the air circulation systems especially the jets and the ITCZ.
They suggest that the speeded up hydro cycle protects the Antarctic surface waters against the effects of AGW.
Why not extrapolate that globally and accept that a faster global hydro cycle protects ALL the ocean surfaces against the effects of AGW ?
They know not what they say (yet).
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.
It is evident that the decadal oscillations in the north and south are driving the high/low ice to some extent. So why is this not addressed?
It is also evident that rain is not going to fall anytime soon, just look at antarctica temperature ranges.
More muddled nonsense from a woman who seems to have, to be frank, lost the plot.
Experiment in alt + numeric nos. Alt + 248 = ° ALT + 0176 = ° So they both work.
“How dated. Hansen will fade to a bullet point in a high school paper soon enough.”
Hopefully it will be a bullet list of people whose alarmist predictions, both time and science proved wrong.
That day cannot come soon enough!
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.
“‘The most resilient parasite is an idea planted in the unconscious mind’
– Inception”
Yes I’ve planted quite a few over the past couple of years.
Such as:
Changing speed of the hydrological cycle.
Trying to heat a bath with a hair dryer.
Latitudinal shifting of the jets beyond normal seasonal variability.
Greater climate extremes regionally when the jets are more equatorward with more room to loop about.
Negative polar oscillation associated with a less active sun.
And lots more but those are the ones I have seen resurfacing most recently even from AGW proponents.
“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.
dp: August 16, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Why is normal not seen as normal for these people?
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.
Bingo.
For perspective, how much sway does Hirohito, Stalin, Mussolini, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, or De Gaul, have today? Zip, maybe?
Personal sway, you’re right — zip, zero, nada. However, the worst of their *policies* still have reverberations: Hirohito — China still hates Japan; Stalin — the Gulag Archipelago (albeit considerably smaller) still exists; Mussolini — never that big a player, except in Libya and the Horn of Africa; Roosevelt — don’t get me started on the precedents he set; Truman — still a pretty good example for politicians to emulate; Eisenhower — okay, a zip for lasting influence; De Gaulle — probably the sole reason the Sovs and WarPac never rolled through the Fulda Gap, because *nobody* would believe he’d pass on the excuse to throw a couple of megatons onto German soil.
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.
Halfwise
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.
.
This is indeed a very relevant and important comment Halfwise .
Yes , what J.Curry is telling is that there IS a tipping point and that this tipping point is ONLY function of CO2 concentration .
And she even hints that it may happen right now .
.
I have been in Antarctic (in summer) and one can make several rather common sense observations .
– there is a reason why the air temperatures are at or below 0°C most of the time even in summer . The air is in contact with thousands of km² of snow and ice which is at 0°C . So only when the wind blows from the ocean does it go , slightly , above 0 . As soon as the sky is covered and the winds blow from the continent , what is most of the time , the temperatures immediately drop below 0°C . Any precipitation happening then is always snow . Of course during any season other than summer , the temperature go far below 0°C .
– air is not a good ice melting tool . Water is much better . But the whole af Antarctic is a continent which is not in contact with water . So in order to reach the tipping point over the continent , the air temperatures whould have to increase above the continent sustainably by 10°C or more . Yet they can’t , see above . That can be nicely observed in the Antarctic peninsula where you see in summer that the shore is a VERY thin strip of rock and beyond that strip you have a sheer ice cliff between dozens and 100 m of ice . It would take centuries at very high temperatures to get this beach strip only a little wider .
– so while it is obvious that any precipitation in Antarctic is snow and it explains why more water vapor means more ice and snow , it is not clear at all when and under what condition this precipitation would become … water !
.
Indeed I would also be very interested by a prediction when this alleged tipping point will be reached .
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.
Has anyone noticed/read/commented on the following? Its already called Satellitegate: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26603
Some quotes:
>US Government admits global warming satellite sensors “degraded” – temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speak out.
In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves NOAA knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities. Key flaws with five satellites undermines global data.US Government Foresaw Satelligate Failures Mounting
But it wasn’t just a handful of skeptical climatologists sounding the alarm. The National Academy of Sciences, in its 2007 455-page report concluded that because of degradation in the U.S. satellite network, the country’s ability to monitor the climate and severe weather was “at great risk.”
By coincidence, in the same week my article led to the shut down of NOAA-16, Susan Bohan published her excellent article here in which she exposes the broader systemic failures in the wider satellite network. Among the calamities Bohan reported, “the satellite, Landsat 7, is broken. And it’s emblematic of the nation’s battered satellite environmental monitoring program.”<
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.
Judith, I’m sorry but you know this is crap. Go read Joe Bastardi. His explanation is much more believable even though he agrees with your statement that Antartic ice will likely decrease in the next few years BUT at the same time that the Artic ice increases as it has done for the last 3 years.
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
Ref – Judith Curry says:
August 17, 2010 at 4:14 am
Dr Curry:
The newsrelease states: “While Arctic sea ice has been diminishing in recent decades, the Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing slightly. Researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology provide an explanation for the seeming paradox of increasing Antarctic sea ice in a warming climate.” Jiping Liu is quoted as saying, “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.”
I take it that what you’re trying to say is: “While Arctic sea ice has been diminishing in recent decades, the Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing slightly. Researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology provide an explanation.” Jiping Liu is quoted as saying, “We wanted to understand.”
I know you’re trying to sell GT to an AGW world but couldn’t you have put this in more technical terms and not used so much Jones&Mann Steak Sauce?
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.
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.
Ocean Heat below? The amount of melting occurring below the sea ice? What warming? What heating and Melting? Why is it then that this study which Anthony covered earlier in the year could find none of that when the drilled holes and actually measured it (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/antarctic-sea-water-shows-no-sign-of-warming/), instead of trying to predict it on a computer model in some lab thousands of kilometres away?
I learned one thing here. Ignore Judith Curry!
Snowlover123 says:
August 17, 2010 at 5:32 am
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…………Antarctic temperature records, showed that it warmed very substantially from 1950-1977 (the cold PDO) then began to cool after that, solidifying my claim.
____________________________________________________________
Snowlover123, the reason why you do not get money grants for doing science is because you say it so simply and truely. You must add some spice into your statements, like “the end of the world is nigh”, or ” we re all gonna die of the heat” or later on “we re all gonna die of the cold” or ocean inundations or whatever. But saying the simple truth will not get you any money grants, sorry. You shall die of hunger before the heat gets you, while the “true” scientists shall inherit the (scorched) earth. Sarc off.
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.