From the “no matter what happens it is climate change” department. So, according to this, when the Arctic loses ice it is due to climate change ‘global warming’ when the Antarctic gains ice it is due to ‘climate change’ and is just as bad. WUWT readers may recall that a few years ago NASA concluded that wind patterns were a major factor in Arctic sea ice loss, pushing the mobile sea ice further south where it melted. Here’s their press release form 2007. Now from the British Antarctic Survey and NASA JPL comes a similar but opposite conclusion for the Antarctic.
I’ve downloaded the time lapse and converted it to YouTube for everybody’s benefit since all the folks at BAS offer is an FTP link with this press release that few will visit. See the video I inserted below.
Why Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change
The first direct evidence that marked changes to Antarctic sea ice drift have occurred over the last 20 years, in response to changing winds, is published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience. Scientists from NERC’s British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena California explain why, unlike the dramatic losses reported in the Arctic, the Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change (they neglected to mention natural variation here – Anthony).
Maps created by JPL using over 5 million individual daily ice motion measurements captured over a period of 19 years by four US Defense Meteorological satellites show, for the first time, the long-term changes in sea ice drift around Antarctica.
Lead author, Dr Paul Holland of BAS says: “Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon, using computer models of Antarctic winds. This study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change. The total Antarctic sea-ice cover is increasing slowly, but individual regions are actually experiencing much larger gains and losses that are almost offsetting each other overall. We now know that these regional changes are caused by changes in the winds, which in turn affect the ice cover through changes in both ice drift and air temperature. The changes in ice drift also suggest large changes in the ocean surrounding Antarctica, which is very sensitive to the cold and salty water produced by sea-ice growth.”
“Sea ice is constantly on the move; around Antarctica the ice is blown away from the continent by strong northward winds. Since 1992 this ice drift has changed. In some areas the export of ice away from Antarctica has doubled, while in others it has decreased significantly.”
Sea ice plays a key role in the global environment – reflecting heat from the sun and providing a habitat for marine life. At both poles sea ice cover is at its minimum during late summer. However, during the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above.
The new research also helps explain why observed changes in the amount of sea-ice cover are so different in the two Polar Regions. The Arctic has experienced dramatic ice losses in recent decades while the overall ice extent in the Antarctic has increased slightly. However, this small Antarctic increase is actually the result of much larger regional increases and decreases, which are now shown to be caused by wind-driven changes. In places, increased northward winds have caused the sea-ice cover to expand outwards from Antarctica. The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land, so changed winds cannot cause Arctic ice to expand in the same way.
Dr Ron Kwok, JPL says, “The Antarctic sea ice cover interacts with the global climate system very differently than that of the Arctic, and these results highlight the sensitivity of the Antarctic ice coverage to changes in the strength of the winds around the continent.”
There has been contrasting climate change observed across the Antarctic in recent decades. The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed as much as anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere, while East Antarctica has shown little change or even a small cooling around the coast. The new research improves understanding of present and future climate change. It is important to distinguish between the Antarctic Ice Sheet – glacial ice – which is losing volume, and Antarctic sea ice – frozen seawater – which is expanding.
This research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The paper ‘Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea ice motion’ by Paul R. Holland of British Antarctic Survey and Ron Kwok of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California, USA is published in Nature Geoscience this week.
Issued by British Antarctic Survey
h/t to WUWT reader “Forrest”
Bertram Felden says:
November 12, 2012 at 9:30 am
“Monty, Im sure you would find a lot more to your liking if the sceptics could have even just a little slice of the $60bn and rising funding that the AGW mob has received.”
Folks – people like “Monty” show up here regularly in order to justify the continued flow of Climate Ca$h to the greedy climate scientists. Remember – in climate science, there are NO recessions, no huge national budget deficits, no unemployment! Party on, NASA/NCAR/NSF/DOE/NOAA!!
I’m disappointed none of you have seen the desperate plight of the penguins suffering from dizziness with all this climate change swinging them round the Antarctic.
“However, this small Antarctic increase is actually the result of much larger regional increases and decreases, which are now shown to be caused by wind-driven changes. In places, increased northward winds have caused the sea-ice cover to expand outwards from Antarctica.”
—
So some regions have increased and some have decreased, but the overall trend is a slight increase in ice extent. Are they saying that AGW is regional and not global? How does global warming increase the wind in some areas and decrease it in others? And how can you distinguish natural variations in wind from that caused by AGW? I just don’t see how they can make any connection to global warming here.
Here you go Monty.
The impacts are being felt far quicker than we previously thought.
So the bottom line is that Anthony is not going to write a scientifically-argued rebuttal. Didn’t think so. The reason that you ‘skeptics’ aren’t taken at all seriously is that you almost always fail to engage with science in a coherent way. Writing hysterical blog posts just doesn’t cut it. If you think that this paper is another ‘nail in the coffin’ of AGW then you have to show it. BTW every other week the ‘skeptics’ loudly pronounce another ‘nail in the coffin’ and every other week no-one believes you.
What you have to realize is that climate science is complicated. We don’t know everything (if we did there wouldn’t be any point being a scientist) and the world is full of surprises. But the basic science for AGW is settled.
Thanks.
Monty says: November 12, 2012 at 8:50 am
“After all, this is how science is done with hypotheses being challenged in the peer-review literature.”
Monty old fellow, did you trouble to copy this to Al Gore, or are you simply trying it on us after being told it was too much of an inconvenient truth for him to stomach?
“So the bottom line is that
AnthonyMonty is not going towrite a scientifically-argued rebuttalread the WUWT archives to learn something. Didn’t think so.”There. Fixed it for Monty. No charge.
Monty says: “But the basic science for AGW is settled.”
No, it is not. I challenge Monty to provide empirical, testable evidence showing an AGW signal. Show the cause and effect.
Monty is one of those gullible people who believes, since he has no evidence. His belief is enough. But it is not enough for skeptics. Show me proof of AGW. Belief is not sufficient. Belief only works with witch doctors and fortune tellers. We need verifiable empirical data proving AGW. But so far, there is none.
Monty says:
November 12, 2012 at 10:55 am
Once again Monty the IPCC has long documented this whole thing… they clearly state that BOTH poles MUST warm and will warm greater then any other place. Why should Mr Watts write a study that has already been written 10x over and been approved by 97% of “climate scientists”.
Are you saying the IPCC is not a valid source of research? If so then I could see your argument however please state that clearly.
Monty says:
After all, this is how science is done with hypotheses being challenged in the peer-review literature.
No, sweetie. “Peer-review literature” is not necessary to science. “Peer-review literature” is not a component of the scientific method, and in many cases “peer-review literature” operates in direct opposition to scientitifc principles. With respect to science, “peer-review literature” is at best a convenience, typically a nuisance, and often anathema.
It’s pretty clear that he won’t do this and so his criticisms are, as usual, worthless.
Uh, no. Criticism stands on its own merits. The worth of criticism is in its content, not the venue in which it is communicated. That is one of those scientific principles that is often undermined by “Peer-review literature” and the idiot’s tendency to build fallacious ad verecundiam arguements therefrom.
BTW, Monty: The IPCC says this in its latest report:
Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.
But it ain’t. One does not need “peer review” to point out the fact that ‘global warming’ is an unfalsifyable political/religious conjecture. It ain’ t science. Shrinking ice – its global warming! Same old ice – its global warming! Growing ice – its global warming!
Monty says:
November 12, 2012 at 10:55 am
“So the bottom line is that Anthony is not going to write a scientifically-argued rebuttal.”
Monty [sigh] – you are in fact the one who is looking very foolish right now. You talk about “hysterical” blog posts, yet we’ve endured endless “hysterical” newspaper articles and crud like Al Gores “An Inconvenient Truth”.
“But the basic science for AGW is settled.”
Could you explain that “basic science” for us, Mr. Monty? Show us heathens the fine art of scientific rebuttal…(this should be good…). If you don’t reply, then I’ll take that as a sign that you are just another manic, mind-numbed CAGW robot…
Addendum to my last post: AGW may exist. I am keeping an open mind. But without confirming evidence showing conclusively that CO2 is the direct cause of any global warming, AGW remains a Conjecture: the first step in the Scientific Method hierarchy, prior to a Hypothesis. AGW is neither a Hypothesis nor a Theory, both of which are falsified if they cannot make accurate predictions. What has AGW predicted?
AGW is not testable or measurable at this point. There is no verifiable cause and effect. AGW is a conjecture based on radiative physics — but AGW is not the same thing as radiative physics. There is too much we do not know. And the planet has been deconstructing the AGW conjecture for the past sixteen years. I think the planet is telling us something. It is certainly causing great consternation among AGW true believers.
Finally, the catastrophic AGW [CAGW] conjecture is deconstructed by the climate Null Hypothesis.
D Boehm. That’s why you people aren’t really skeptics.
Pat. George Monbiot wrongly accuses a former Conservative treasurer of being a pedophile. And is in deep trouble.
_______________________________
Monbiot could not tell a Sir from a Lord (Sir McAlpine and Lord McAlpine), and so keen was he to denigrate the Conservatives (he writes for the Grauniad) he jumped on the wrong bandwagon. This is rather similar to his jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon, which was again cased by a poor understanding and political motivation.
.
Monty says:
“That’s why you people aren’t really skeptics.”
Of course we are. The only honest kind of scientist is a skeptic. Otherwise witch doctors would still be around.
The purveyors of CAGW are not skeptics. The are true believers in their evidence-free conjecture. You seem to be one of those non-skeptics.
I challenged you to produce testable, empirical evidence of AGW. You avoided that, because your Belief is enough. But belief is not enough for scientific skeptics. We require data. Produce data — or everyone will know you have only a belief system. There is no credibility in that.
Monty:
Your post at November 12, 2012 at 11:23 am says in total
No, D Boehm’s comments to you demonstrate that he understands the scientific method and, therefore, he recognises pseudoscience when he sees it.
Please reflect on what that indicates about you as revealed by your posts.
Richard
I see that “Monty” can’t explain “basic settled science” to us heathens.
[Note – the quality of our trolls is definitely declining. Monty shows up and just throws some ad homs around for his own amusement..].
Monty has it right, from the believers perch, there is nothing global warming can’t do. Every request for the “Overwhelming evidence of CAGW” is followed by… crickets… or frantic arm waving and name calling. Circular reasoning is theology not science.
“Monty,”
You’re exhaling way too much CO2.
So, according to this, when the Arctic loses ice it is due to climate change ‘global warming’ when the Antarctic gains ice it is due to ‘climate change’ and is just as bad.
———
Not sure that this is true.
The arctic is the sea area plus some surrounding land. As far as I know the sum total of ice is trending down.
The Antarctic is the land area plus some surrounding ocean. The ocean ice area is going up slightly (but a fraction of the arctic ice loss), while the land is loosing ice faster at the margins and gaining some in the interior as a consequence of greater snowfall. Offhand I don’t know what the sum total actually is.
Kevin-in-UK says
you perhaps ought not to try to read about it – as most folk with only half a brain can and do understand that AGW is largely a made-up scam and can interpret the good science from the bad.
———
Hi Kevin, as a comedian I might suggest you rephrase that.
Monty
You say that we don’t know everything. Exactly. We don’t know enough to commit trilliions of dollars, the degradation of Western economies and the permanent impoverishment of the 3rd world for schemes that will neither reduce CO2 nor provide energy. The skeptical position is simply that. If you want us to run, lemming-like, off the cliff of economic insanity, you have to show us that there actually is a mountain lion stalking us and that this is the only viable alternative.
Lazy T,
Kevin-in-UK is right.
But I’ll give you the opportunity to prove us wrong: produce testable real world evidence showing a direct connection between global temperature and CO2. In other words, produce falsifiable scientific evidence showing that human GHG emissions cause global warming.
They might. But I have seen zero evidence showing that CO2 has any effect on global temperature — and plenty of real world evidence that it doesn’t. And if it does have a minor effect, it is so minuscule that it just doesn’t matter. And since one of those two possibilities are obviously the case based on real world observations, then there is no reason to spend another dime on the scam. Is there?
Frank K. says:
November 12, 2012 at 11:48 am
“[Note – the quality of our trolls is definitely declining. Monty shows up and just throws some ad homs around for his own amusement..].”
O I don’t know he had a promising start until the IPCC railroaded him. Kind of hard to win an “argument of science” when your “science bible” counters your very claim.
LazyTeenager says:
November 12, 2012 at 12:18 pm
“The Antarctic is the land area plus some surrounding ocean. The ocean ice area is going up slightly (but a fraction of the arctic ice loss), while the land is loosing ice faster at the margins and gaining some in the interior as a consequence of greater snowfall. Offhand I don’t know what the sum total actually is.”
While true somewhat this still counters the global warming argument.
The problem the IPCC has always had is that thing like global are read as well global to mean the whole planet. Thing like polar are read to mean both poles.
If you read the IPCC they basically run around in circles when dealing with anything on the south side of the world. They had to put out vague all encompassing arguments for that areas because they had no clue what would happen. Since they needed to cover the whole global with info they guessed… a lot and those guesses are coming back to haunt them because they claimed they weren’t guesses.
There you are – for ‘climate change’ read AGW! This conflation is a cheap trick and nothing to do with science, models or, perish the thought, empirical evidence. It has to do with propaganda and nothing else.
Remember that the early models failed to match past records and it was hypothesised that the ‘greenhouse effect’ (a misleading metaphor) filled the gap. Since then there have been many new causal relations hypothesised and some suggested and abandoned as being too complicated (e,g, the behaviour of water in all its phases) but still the gap is attributed to human activity.
I am a scientist, though not a ‘climatologist’. I recognise a chaotic system when I see one and climate is strictly chaotic. By that is meant that although it is state-determined, such is its complexity and such is our ignorance of its past states, that prediction is impossible. Almost literally, anything can happen and to attempt to attribute causes is a futile and indeed misleading activity. Hume put it ‘anything can be the cause of anything else’. Newton before him ‘hypotheses non fingo’ – I do not feign causal explanations beyond the evidence.
Someone above is correct in saying that the onus of providing a plausible (it is too much to ask for truth) story lies firmly on the shoulders of those who advocate political action; not on any others. Carbon footprints and the greenhouse effect are simply ‘just so stories’ but they lack plausibility simply because they are not scaled to the real world. For example the proportion of CO2 continues to rise but the warming has stopped. How plausible is AGW in the face of that?
And who has demonstrated that reducing GHG emissions could possibly have any mitigating effect? The climate system is riddled with bifurcations (tipping points) from which there can be no return. The Second Law rules – OK?
Do we really think that this puny animal that belched smoke and ash for a hundred years or so could possibly have had any effect at all on the climate system? Climate has never been in equilibrium and it never will. Change is inevitable and unpredictable. To attribute it to human activity is not only foolish it is arrogant.
Unfortunately, as the alarmists make political hay and warn the world of AGW, there may well be global cooling on the way and there is no Plan B! Surely a cold climate is much more of a threat to more people than a warmer one?
The north and south poles are opposites or, are different in many ways, they behave separately and each has a different set of variables. Recently, all the man made climate change nonsense that I have read have been ignorant attempts to explain away the overwhelming evidence that changes taking place on earth are natural.