While the Antarctic is making new records for more ice this week, we have another press release with “could” science in it.
Image: National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC)
Timing is everything I guess, but I really have to wonder how “…warming waters in the Southern Ocean are connected intimately with the movement of massive ice-sheets deep in the Antarctic interior.” Oh wait, it’s modeling, never mind.
From the University of New South Wales:
Warming ocean could start big shift of Antarctic ice
Wednesday, 19 September, 2012
Alvin Stone
Fast-flowing and narrow glaciers have the potential to trigger massive changes in the Antarctic ice sheet and contribute to rapid ice-sheet decay and sea-level rise, a new study has found.
Research results published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveal in more detail than ever before how warming waters in the Southern Ocean are connected intimately with the movement of massive ice-sheets deep in the Antarctic interior.
“It has long been known that narrow glaciers on the edge of the Antarctica act as discrete arteries termed ice streams, draining the interior of the ice sheet,” says Dr Chris Fogwill, an author of the study and an ARC Future Fellow with the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre.
“However, our results have confirmed recent observations suggesting that ocean warming can trigger increased flow of ice through these narrow corridors. This can cause inland sectors of the ice-sheet – some larger than the state of Victoria – to become thinner and flow faster.”
The researchers, led by Dr Nicholas Golledge from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, tested high-resolution model simulations against reconstructions of the Antarctic ice sheet from 20,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum.
They used a new model, capable of resolving responses to ice-streams and other fine- scale dynamic features that interact over the entire ice sheet. This had not previously been possible with existing models. They then used this data to analyse the effects of a warming ocean over time.
The results showed that while glacier acceleration triggered by ocean warming is relatively localized, the extent of the resultant ice-sheet thinning is far more widespread. This observation is particularly important in light of recently observed dynamic changes at the margins of Antarctica. It also highlighted areas that are more susceptible than others to changes in ocean temperatures.
The glaciers that responded most rapidly to warming oceans were found in the Weddell Sea, the Admundsen Sea, the central Ross Sea and in the Amery Trough.
The finding is important because of the enormous scale and potential impact the Antarctic ice sheets could have on sea-level rise if they shift rapidly, says Fogwill. “To get a sense of the scale, the Antarctic ice sheet is 3km deep – three times the height of the Blue Mountains in many areas – and it extends across an area that is equivalent to the distance between Perth and Sydney.
“Despite its potential impact, Antarctica’s effect on future sea level was not fully included in the last IPCC report because there was insufficient information about the behaviour of the ice sheet. This research changes that. This new, high-resolution modelling approach will be critical to improving future predictions of Antarctica’s contribution to sea level over the coming century and beyond.”
===========================================================
Related – over at Bishop Hill he explains how the pooh-poohing of the current Antarctic ice surplus really doesn’t hold up when you look at past IPCC predecitions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sometimes the only thing you can do where speculation is involved is ignore it. Since most speculation is irrational no rational discussion is possible.
well…. Arctic is slightly lower… and the Antarctic triples that loss in ice creation…
this could make yo think that the earth is capable of balancing itself… despite man…
who would of thought that?
Time and again research has found that, going back in time, when the arctic melts the antarctic ice increases (most of the time), seems that history is repeating itself (again).
Not that warmers would want to read that sort of stuff. No money in concluding that it is “business as usual”.
Here in Australia, we have a Carbon Tax and the Government (your grant has been approved because you agree with us) needs to constantly push the Global Warming CO2 BS to justify it. It’s obvious that reality is not matching the models; solution, new models.
I recently read an article that stated that a huge chunk of sea ice could break off from Antarctica and cause increased sea level rise. I have searched for it a few times to copy the URL but haven’t been able to relocate the article. The link was from one of the alarmist sites or a link from a link.
The point is how silly it is to consider that a melting iceberg would cause an increase in sea level.
Pull out the Duck Tape…. My head is about to explode….
When will this silliness end? Will it take the UN being under 1 KM of ice…. (wait a minute… I think we’re on to something here…) before all these insipid CAGW models are deleted from the hard drives of “academia” and from the memories of a thinking and rational public?
Yo, ADRIAN!! The Antarctic gained 1.1 MILLION KM^2 this year (about the size of EGYGT!) and ice mass is GROWING at 49GT/yr and yet these *sigh*entists are STILL talking Warmageddon…
Oh…right… the ice extent growth is all “thin ice”…. Got some news for you acolytes: the ONLY “thin ice” is what CAGW modelers are skating on.
What “warming waters in the Southern Ocean”?
Judging by real data, the reference must be to something imaginary.
“against reconstructions of the Antarctic ice sheet from 20,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum.”
Using a reconstruction of the behavior of the ice sheet during a glacial maximum to baseline a simulation of the behavior of the ice sheet during an interglacial???
In the best tradition of Gergis, Karoly, Lewandowsky, etc, more embarrassment from Australia’s academia.
Subtle. Antarctic ice is in record territory. Just in case anyone notices, they have this story to trot out to downplay it.
There ought to be a name for it. When it was warming they used “Global Warming” all the time. It gets cold and they call it “Climate Change”.
So now we have records low ice in the Arctic and the opposite in the Antarctic.
How long before they come up with a name for it that somehow makes it bad and our fault?
Maybe it will be a headline something like, “Our Unbalanced Poles Demand Action Now!”?
Note that they say ‘warming oceans’. Perhaps we should give a little credit for good programming. After all, the oceans are presently cooling and the ice thickness is increasing. Logically if the oceans were warming the ice sheet thickness would start reducing, right? So the article may be completely accurate, just not applicable to this planet at this time.
It is also true that if the oceans were boiling it would increase the water vapour level in the atmosphere. This is also not applicable to this planet at this time. There are quite a number of other theories that are not applicable at this time. Rapid polar heating from CO2 comes to mind.
Thank you very much for reprinting the media release here and for those who have shown interest in it. There are a few points I would like to make to clarify a few issues.
* I intentionally used “could” because I personally don’t like making definite and dire predictions. Alarmist predictions do a service to no one. That said, if the oceans around the Antarctic continue to warm they undoubtedly would cause the ice sheets to shift dramatically. Maybe I should have been more definite.
* While I helped write the media release – which is part of my job – it was done with one of the authors of the paper. My job is just to make the science understandable. I get a byline for it but that is all. As a former editor I am long past being thrilled by bylines. I have nothing to do with the science.
* As I understand it from one of the authors, the modelling was used to confirm observations already coming from the Antarctic. The model was designed to reproduce those observations as closely as possible in an effort to better understand the processes beneath the ice sheets. It worked remarkably well and it is very likely the processes it reproduces are likely to be close to the reality.
* While there has been some cooling of the ocean in the Southern Hemisphere – and there continues to be quite a bit of research around this – basal melting around the Antarctic ice shelves has continued as a result of a warming waters close to the Antarctic, as shown in this Nature paper from April this year – http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7395/full/nature10968.html
* I regularly engage with sceptics in a polite way on a Facebook page, which I have set up to get a sense of where the doubts lie. it is fascinating to be constantly challenged by them and on occasions they find intriguing areas in the science that require further investigation. I have the distinct luxury of being able to ask climate scientists about these and, where I can, I try and reproduce their answers for those who visit the page.
Thanks again to you and all your followers for taking note of this paper and for the commentary of all on this page.
Kind Regards
Alvin Stone
Alvin
Correct, at the end of summer in the south the waters will be warmer then what they were at the beginning of the southern summer.
At this stage though, it seems that the waters around the antarctic are cooling in general and this results in the currently seen growth in ice.
Nothing new really.
If the sea ice around Antarctica has decreased close to the continent then why is this decrease not seen in the Antarctic sea ice minimum.just more BS supported only by peer review.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png
Alvin Stone says:
September 20, 2012 at 9:42 pm
* I regularly engage with sceptics in a polite way on a Facebook page, which I have set up to get a sense of where the doubts lie.
===========================================================
Me: Perhaps you didn’t mean it to this way but this sentence sounds like you believe the science is settlled and skeptics just need to be shown that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alvin Stone: It is fascinating to be constantly challenged by them and on occasions they find intriguing areas in the science that require further investigation.
===========================================================
Yes. The science is not settled and does require further investigation before we regulate our economy, both personal and national, into a cesspool of speculation based on “mights” and models.
(And the word of those who think it should be a crime to not believe them.)
Bruce C says:
September 20, 2012 at 5:37 pm
…
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/grace-satellite-data-shows-antarctica.html
_____________________________________________________________
You need to notice that these GRACE data do not say Antarctica is gaining ice mass. They say Antarctica is gaining mass.
The second thing you need to notice is that Antarctica is not a continent – it’s a set of islands covered by ice, connected by ice, and with ice all the way down to the bottom of the sea.
And the third thing you need to notice is that given volume of undersea water has greater mass than the same volume of undersea ice.
Warm currents moved up to the Arctic, thinned the ice a bit, then a large storm broke up that ice.
Now the warm ocean currents in the Arctic are loosing heat to the atmosphere rapidly.
The southern oceans are also colder than they have been for quite a few years.
The sun has almost gone to sleep this cycle.
The heat that was in the system because of a few of decades of high TSI, is leaving the system.
Many northern hemisphere countries have decimated their electricity supply systems by decommissioning coal and putting in useless wind turbines and solar.
Good luck northern countries.. have a pleasant winter !!
One of the most basic errors you can make is to quote figures to a greater precision that the error in the measurements. I was taught that as a teenager in high school ( The advent of electronic calculators often allowed lots of meaningless decimal places to be quoted).
Scaling that up to “high resolution computer models” seems to me to be making the same mistake if the precision of the model data has not improved, just using a much bigger and more expensive.
Alvin, for me what is missing in such report as as quoted here is any indication of the errors in both the data and the results of the model. Otherwise it is just computer gaming……..
Want to have a good chunder over yet another academic scaremonger? Check this one out in today’s edition of the Age.
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/climate-change-the-inside-story-20120921-26ahf.html
This time it is Monash University that is having an “how embarrassment” moment.
Plant physiologist. Let me guess, before the climate change funding arrived, whenever he spoke to an engineer and a doctor they said “two cappuccinos please.”
Australian universities: doggedly determined to slide down the international ranking scales.
Fixating on winter Antarctic sea ice would seem to show a certain amount of confirmation bias, since:
a) The Antarctic anomaly is much smaller than the Arctic anomaly (e.g. the sea ice area anomaly in the Antarctic is a surplus of 1 million square km, whereas the Arctic has a deficit of 2.5 million – compare these graphs, for instance http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png)
b) The Antarctic anomaly has been much more short-lived than the Arctic anomaly so far.
c) Summer sea ice extent contributes more to albedo, and hence has greater potential to affect the climate.
Fixating on winter ARCTIC sea ice would seem to show a moronic amount of confirmation bias, since:
Arctic ice has been way lower in the not too distance past.
Low Arctic ice levels means that ocean warmth can more readily escape to the atmosphere as a VERY negative feedback.
mods.. if you can fix it winter (first line) I meant to change to “summer”
The magnitude of the variance seems to be approximately the same tho Paddy, which makes one wonder if they are linked by some system.
Dr. Paul Mackey says:
“One of the most basic errors you can make is to quote figures to a greater precision that the error in the measurements.”
In hydrology, rainfall/runoff estimation.. etc we can assume an error of up to 50 % , or more !!!
look at ARR (Australian Rainfall and Runoff) sometime. its just guesstimation, but the best we can do with limited information, even with lot of lovely log-pearson fitting, the data is limited.
In dam construction, a safety factor of “times 3 or 4” is often adopted.
even steel construction uses errors of 10%+
ie.. we are so LACKING in information and precision…….. because we just don’t know !
and climate science is far , far worse… mostly pure assumption. !!!
the use of “precise models” for anything to do with climate is a total w**k !
computer models can all do calculations very accurately and quickly, but the junk “info in” kills ANY sense of precision, and the climate non-scientists just don’t realise it, because they are just so ignorant, yet full of themselves.
sorry for lack of caps, .. working mostly one handed ;-(
350 PPM the Tipping Point
Prof Beeb Steeveen University of Acturus
It was observed on the 4th planet of the star system 4516LG (75.7 light years from Sol) that the tipping point for CO2 in the atmosphere is 350 PPM. The mechanism seems to be that increased CO2 causes plants to thrive thus giving off more oxygen. Simultaneously Nitrogen is taken out of the atmosphere to fertilize the ground. The proportion of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere increases and thus the atmosphere becomes more volatile. Spontaneous combustion becomes more common thus heating the atmosphere and of course oxidation of metals increases. At the poles as the atmosphere spontaneously combusts the ice melts thus increasing sea levels. The inhabitants of this planet burned and drowned. The final phase was the oceans boiling away.
Your Earth bound Climate Scientists are rightly correct to see catastrophe at 350 PPM CO2 and should be worshipped as Gods.
This Peer reviewed paper can be viewed at the Prestigious University Library at Sirius 4 for a cost of 1.2 Million Galactic Units.
Footnote: There were some objections of this paper by some so called skeptics who actually believe that it was 4516LG went Nova. They were of course laughed out of the building.