Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is the Better Climate Change Indicator

Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University

Global warming theory predicts that rising levels of CO2 will gradually warm the air and cause an increasing loss of sea ice. As temperatures rise, ice nearer the equator was predicted to be the first to disappear and over the coming decades ice closer to the poles would be the last to melt. However that is not the reality we are now observing. Antarctic sea ice is mostly located outside the Antarctic Circle (Figure 1) and should be the first to melt due to global warming theory. Yet Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and expanding towards the equator contradicting all the models. As Dr. Laura Landrum from the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote, “Antarctic sea ice area exhibits significant decreasing annual trends in all six [model] ensemble members from 1950 to 2005, in apparent contrast to observations that suggest a modest ice area increase since 1979.”10 (see Figure 2)

clip_image002

In contrast, most of the Arctic sea ice exists inside the Arctic Circle and should be last to melt. However during the Arctic’s coldest winters, Barents Sea ice still melts deep inside the Arctic circle. While cold March air temperatures maintained maximum ice further south in the Hudson Bay and Bering Sea, much of the Barents Sea has been ice-free. In 2012 the more southerly Bering Sea ice set records for maximum extent, similar to the maximum sea ice currently observed in the Antarctic. Clearly global greenhouse gases cannot be the cause of melting inside the Arctic, while simultaneously sea ice is expanding in the Bering Sea and the southern hemisphere. However ocean currents and natural ocean oscillations readily explain such behavior. Counter to the media hype, it is Antarctic sea ice that should be the most sensitive indicator of climate change caused by greenhouse gases because the Arctic sea ice is affected by too many other confounding factors.

clip_image004

Arctic vs Antarctic sea ice

1) Sea ice melts deep inside the Arctic Circle during the coldest of winters because warm water from the Atlantic and the Pacific intrude and melt the ice from below. During the past two decades scientists have observed an increase in the volume of warm water penetrating deep inside the Arctic Circle, which then preconditioned the polar ice cap for a greater loss of summer ice.3,8 Changes in the North Atlantic/Arctic Oscillation affect how much heated water is driven into the Arctic, which then causes the widespread melt seen in the Barents Sea and adjoining Kara Sea. Similarly the warm phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation drives more warm water through the Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea.2,5,8

clip_image006

In contrast for millions of years the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) has created a formidable barrier that prevents any similar warm water intrusions. (The ACC is discussed further at the end of this essay). Therefore changes in Antarctic sea ice are not confounded by warm water intrusions, making Antarctic sea ice a better indicator of the effects of rising CO2 concentrations.

2) Any trend in the degree of summer melt in the Arctic is further confounded by the fluctuating concentrations of thin first year ice. Because continents surround the Arctic Ocean, Arctic Sea ice undergoes cycles of accumulating or reducing the amount of thick, multi-year sea ice that resists melting.2 When the winds pile sea ice against the Arctic shoreline, thicker multi-year ice accumulates. When the winds shift, that thicker ice is blown out past Svalbard into the north Atlantic, and is replaced by thinner, first-year ice that more readily melts each summer. The amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic is controlled by the direction of the winds and the Arctic oscillation.2 It was not warmer temperatures that removed the thickest Arctic Ice, but sub-freezing winds blowing from the coldest regions in the northern hemisphere.4,5

Due to the constraints of the continents, the maximum extent of Arctic sea ice in 1979 covered about 15 million square kilometers. In contrast, Antarctic sea ice is unconstrained by continental boundaries and each winter winds blowing from the cold Antarctic interior push the sea ice much further towards the equator. By September the sea ice covers 16 to 17 million square kilometers of the Antarctic Ocean, nearly 40% of the southern hemisphere’s ocean surface. Because sea ice is less likely to be piled against a shoreline to form thicker multi‑year ice, most of the Antarctic sea ice is relatively thin, first‑year ice.

(Measurements of sea ice extent differ depending on what concentration of ice cover is used as the threshold between ice and “no ice”. For example, by using a lower concentration, some authors report that Antarctica’s maximum coverage reaches 20 million km2. Here we use statistics supplied by the University of Illinois’ website The Cryosphere Today to allow an accessible comparison of the Arctic and Antarctic)

Despite more extensive winter ice, each summerAntarctic sea ice retreats much more rapidly than Arctic sea ice. Antarctica’s first-year ice can quickly shrink to a less than two million square kilometers. Even during the Arctic’s “historic” summer lows of 2007 and 2012, the Arctic still retained more sea ice than the Antarctic.

When the Arctic Oscillation shifts and blows thick multi-year ice out into the northern Atlantic, the Arctic is dominated by first year ice that behaves just like the rapidly melting Antarctic sea ice. A season of rapid summer melt is normal wherever first‑year ice predominates, whether it occurs in the Arctic or Antarctic, and is not an indicator of rising air temperatures. For example off the coast of Alaska, climate scientists reported a more rapid summer melt even though air temperatures were colder than average, simply because the winds had removed the thicker multi-year ice which was replaced with more rapidly melting first year ice.

Climate scientists acknowledge that due to Arctic Oscillation’s natural variability, “detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming [is] most difficult.”3 Therefore because the confounding percentages of trapped multi-year ice fluctuates greatly in the Arctic, trends in Antarctica’s sea ice are again a much cleaner indicator of global climate change.

3) There is so much warm, salty Atlantic and Pacific water lurking just 100 meters below Arctic Ocean’s surface, that it could melt the winter ice completely several times over. As climate scientists noted, ““There are arguments in support of an important role for oceanic heat in shaping the Arctic pack ice. They are often keyed to the presence of warm intermediate-depth (150–900 m) water of Atlantic origin” 3 Sea ice insulates the ocean surface from the stirring effects of the wind that will raise those warmer waters from intermediate depths. However once the insulating layer of ice is removed, the formation of thicker ice is delayed because the winds will now stir and raise warm subsurface waters. For example even when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifted to its cool phase and the volume of intruding Pacific water was reduced, the stirring effect of the winds still caused greater summer melt.6

4) When the effects of ventilating heat are removed, air temperatures show little warming. Most of the warming in the Arctic has not been caused by CO2‑warmed air from above, but from the ventilated warmth from Atlantic and Pacific waters. In addition to raising warmer water from below, thinner ice also allows more heat to ventilate than thicker ice. In fact before the insulating ice cover was blown out of the Arctic, climate scientists in the 1980s and 90s had measured a cooling trend writing, “In particular, we do not observe the large surface warming trends predicted by models; indeed, we detect significant surface cooling trends over the western Arctic Ocean during winter and autumn. This discrepancy suggests that present climate models do not adequately incorporate the physical processes that affect the polar regions.”1

Similarly if we examine winter air temperatures over the South Pole where heat from the ocean is not a factor, again there is no warming trend (Figure 4). In fact there is a slight cooling during the months of April May and June, which is consistent with the increasing Antarctic sea ice.

clip_image008

A Natural Experiment Has Begun

In 2010 Michael Mann and 8 other climate scientists wrote to Secretary Ken Salazar suggesting climate change had imperiled the polar bears stating, “Scientific studies and observations indicate that climate change is more rapid and pronounced in the Arctic than in other areas of the world. Data and modeling studies repeatedly document that the geography, ice albedo feedback and cloud feedbacks make this region extremely sensitive to climate forcings. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) found that the Arctic has warmed at twice the rate of the rest of the globe on average, and some areas have warmed even faster. Mean annual temperatures in Alaska have increased by 1.9 degrees Celsius in the past 50 years, almost three times the global average over the same time period, and by 3.5 degrees Celsius in winter, as reported by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.” They predicted, “Under current greenhouse gas emissions trends, Arctic summer sea ice has been projected to disappear in the 2030s or before, as reported by several recent studies.”

Oddly, Mann did not address the changes in intruding warm water or the Arctic Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). It was the greater volume of warm water that had passed through the Bering Strait that had caused the extensive loss of sea ice in the Chukchi Sea in 2007 resulting in the historic summer low. But all that is now changing. Mann’ alarming trend of rising Alaskan temperatures has already reversed with the shifting to the PDO cool phase and Alaska is becoming the most rapidly cooling region on the globe, cooling by 1.3°C for just the recent decade.9 As the PDO trends to its cool phase and less Pacific water enters the Chukchi Sea, its sea ice is also recovering.

clip_image010

Likewise the Barents and neighboring Kara Sea are most affected by warm intruding Atlantic water, but as the Arctic Oscillation trends negative, less Atlantic water is pumped towards the poles. The 2013 increase of Kara Sea ice is likely a result. Unlike the Arctic, Antarctic waters are not so affected by cycles of intruding warm water, and its growing sea ice suggests that rising greenhouse gases exert a very trivial effect.

As the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation shift to their cool phases and solar activity wanes, natural climate cycles predict that Arctic sea ice should recover within the next 5 to 15 years. Climate models have demonstrated that Arctic sea ice can recover in just a few years after the winds change.7 Allowing for a lag effect as subsurface heat ventilates and thicker multiyear ice begins to accumulate, recovery could be swift. If so, CO2 advocates like Mann and his allies who have based their political and scientific authority on predictions that Arctic Sea Ice will disappear by 2030 will likely suffer embarrassing unprecedented scientific and political repercussions.

Antarctic Circumpolar Current

Antarctic Circumpolar Current’s (ACC) oceanic barrier was first established when continental drift separated Antarctica from the other continents several million years ago. This allowed an unimpeded flow and the ACC became the world’s greatest and most powerful current, moving a hundred times more water than the all the earth’s rivers combined. As it strengthened and isolated the seas inside the ACC, Antarctic waters cooled dramatically. Inside the ACC species requiring warmer water soon became extinct, and the ACC still maintains a formidable thermal barrier that has thwarted invasions by cold-blooded marine species. Since its establishment, true sharks, true crabs, and some families of barnacles are uniquely absent inside the ACC, and many of Antarctica’s remaining cold-blooded species are found nowhere else. In contrast, the Arctic Ocean has been invaded by many North Atlantic and Pacific species that can persist at lower depths in warmer subsurface waters that circulate throughout the entire Arctic. The ACC’s thermal barrier is also why the Antarctic pack ice symmetrically extends far beyond the Antarctic Circle (Figure 1).

Literature Cited

  1. Kahl, J., et al., (1993) Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years. Nature 361, 335 – 337.
  2. Venegas, S. A., and L. A. Mysak, 2000: Is there a dominant timescale of natural climate variability in the Arctic? J. Climate, 13, 3412–3434.
  3. Polyakov, I., et al., (2010) Arctic Ocean warming contributes to reduced polar ice cap. Journal of Physical. Oceanography, vol. 40, p. 2743–2756. doi: 10.1175/2010JPO4339.1.
  4. Rigor, I.G. and J.M. Wallace (2004), Variations in the Age of Sea Ice and Summer Sea Ice Extent, Geophys. Res. Lett., v. 31, doi:10.1029/2004GL019492.
  5. Rigor, I.G., J.M. Wallace, and R.L. Colony (2002), Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation, J. Climate, v. 15, no. 18, pp. 2648 – 2668.
  6. Shimada, K. et al. , (2006) Pacific Ocean inflow: Influence on catastrophic reduction of sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L08605, doi:10.1029/2005GL025624.
  7. Tietsche, S.,et al. (2011) Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 38, L02707, doi:10.1029/2010GL045698.
  8. Woodgate, R., et al. (2006) Interannual changes in the Bering Strait fluxes of volume, heat and freshwater between 1991 and 2004. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L15609, doi:10.1029/2006GL026931
  9. Wendler,G., et al. (2012) The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2012, 6, 111-116
  10. Landrum, L., et al. (2012) Antarctic Sea Ice Climatology, Variability, and Late Twentieth-Century Change in CCSM4. Journal of Climate, vol. 25, p. 4817‑4838.

Adapted from Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
107 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 23, 2013 12:39 pm

Phil. says:
“…the CT data is area not extent.”
What Phil really means is volume, not extent. Because area and extent are pretty much synonymous, no?

Lars P.
July 23, 2013 12:41 pm

FAH says:
July 22, 2013 at 10:57 pm
I have poked around googlescholar for references on ocean heat budgets and the like without much success, but I am not even a climate scientist, much less an ocean specialist.
Jo Nova had some posts about – see here ARGO data against models:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-700m-models-argo.gif
Bob Tisdale several, just search on his site.
There are some other calculations but the ARGO data is the sole relative reliable measurement we have – funny thing, it needed some special calibration, as before it, it was showing cooling :).
Sea surface temperature is showing… nada:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/global-microwave-sst-update-for-may-2013-0-01-deg-c/
And sea surface temperature is the key, no matter what warmista try to invent. I haven’t seen any reasonable explanation anywhere to how the DLR would heat the oceans without warming the sea surface.
The warming of the oceans through long-wave infrared is such an impossible story, it is also nicely explained here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html
In a nutshell, to warm the oceans through infrared, the downwelling infrared needs to increase the sea surface temperature in order to reduce the negative temperature gradient that exists at the surface of the oceans.
Only the sun is warming the deeper levels (deeper then 10 microns) of the ocean.
Of course the warmista say there is mixing of the water etc, etc, but mixing of the water does not transfer additional heat that cannot be measured by temperature? The water at the surface should be warmer and then through mixing the heat would get down 🙂
Oh yes, “the ocean ate my global warming” I love junkscience for this sentence, not sure if it originated there but it tells what it has to tell…

July 23, 2013 12:41 pm

jim Steele says:
July 23, 2013 at 11:06 am
@Sedron L says: In fact, increased Antarctic sea ice with moderately increased CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991.
It wasn’t actually predicted, and in fact he suggested initial surprise. Manabe then suggested an increase in freshwater as the best explanation for his modeling results writing, ” It is surprising, however, that the sea-ice thickness in the G integration increases significantly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent despite the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is consistent with the slight reduction of sea surface temperature mentioned earlier (Fig. 10a). It will be shown in section 9a that, owing to the intensification of the near-surface halocline caused by the increased supply of water at the oceanic surface, the convective mixing of cold near-surface water with warmer, underlying water becomes less frequent, resulting in the increase of sea ice and slight reduction of sea surface temperature.”

That he was surprised by his prediction doesn’t make it less of a prediction.
If we look at real life observations, the freshwater “explanation” for growing Antarctic ice is not supported as we find the freshest water by far is in Arctic. Here’s a link to the global salinity from the NASA’s Aquarius project: http://www.earthtimes.org/newsimage/nasa-aquarius-satellite-maps-salinity-
His prediction that the sea around Antarctica will become fresher than it formerly was isn’t connected with the Arctic waters being less salty than the Antarctic. In any case it would be more relevant to look at the Antarctic in the austral fall not during the boreal fall.
http://aquarius.nasa.gov/images/SSS_composites/2013/Mar/Q20130602013090.SSS.MO.Mar.moll.4096×2048.png

July 23, 2013 12:45 pm

dbstealey says:
July 23, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Phil. says:
“…the CT data is area not extent.”
What Phil really means is volume, not extent. Because area and extent are pretty much synonymous, no?

No, I meant what I said and they aren’t synonymous, a record in one does not necessarily mean a record in the other.

July 23, 2013 12:56 pm

Wrong again, Phil. Here’s why:
I didn’t say that area and extent are synonymous. Did I?
No, I didn’t.
I was just needling you, and you took the bait.☺

July 23, 2013 12:59 pm

jim Steele says:
July 23, 2013 at 11:31 am
Like Dan Shectman who just got the Nobel for quasi-crystals, he was labeled a quasi-scientist by Linus Pauling and thrown out of his research group for not recanting his observation of a quasi-crystal, and the science of crystals does not even approach the politicization of climate science.

Which research group was he thrown out of? Granted that Pauling didn’t accept the idea but many others replicated the results after the publication of the paper. His host at NBS where he made the discovery was a co-author.

Lars P.
July 23, 2013 1:00 pm

Dr. Deanster says:
July 23, 2013 at 9:06 am
Gail … it is an intriguing study indeed. Particularly the observation by Satellite of a “decrease in OSW! As we all know, SW is visible light, and a decrease in OSW would be indicative of a decrease in albedo. GHGs play no role in SW radiation, only longer wave IR.
Couple that with the fact that SW penetrates the oceans, and you get an increased deposit of heat in the subsurface layers of the ocean .. which then can be carried away to other parts of the globe.

Interesting indeed. I remember Earthshine project had also some interesting results about it:
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/science_may28.html

July 23, 2013 1:01 pm

dbstealey says:
July 23, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Wrong again, Phil. Here’s why:
I didn’t say that area and extent are synonymous. Did I?
No, I didn’t.
I was just needling you, and you took the bait.☺

You said that I meant ‘volume’ which I did not, thanks for admitting that you’re a troll.

July 23, 2013 1:03 pm

P.Only the sun is warming the deeper levels (deeper then 10 microns) of the ocean.
As reported by Xue,Y., et al., (2012) A Comparative Analysis of Upper-Ocean Heat Content Variability from an Ensemble of Operational Ocean Reanalyses. Journal of Climate, vol 25, 6905-6929.
In accord with the waning solar activity, the Argo data reveals dynamic changes in the ocean’s heat content. As of 2012, a consensus analysis of the oceans’ upper 900 feet determined that ocean heat “increased from 1984 to 1992 followed by a short cooling episode in 1992/93, and then increased from 1994 to 2003/2004, followed by flattening or a decrease.”
Likewise since 2003 Tisdale and Pielke reported the cooling has been observed in the surface of tropical oceans and the southern hemisphere ocean in a web post “Sea Surface Temperature Trends As A Function Of Latitude Bands.”

milodonharlani
July 23, 2013 1:08 pm

Phil. says:
July 23, 2013 at 12:59 pm
D. S. was at Johns Hopkins when he made his eventual prize-winning discovery.

Sven
July 23, 2013 1:24 pm

Phil: “Which research group was he thrown out of?”
I can only rely on wikipedia (I know, not the best or resources), but it states there:
“The head of Shechtman’s research group told him to “go back and read the textbook” and a couple of days later “asked him to leave for ‘bringing disgrace’ on the team.”[13] Shechtman felt rejected.[11] On publication of his paper, other scientists began to confirm and accept empirical findings of the existence of quasicrystals.[14][15]”

Stephen Wilde
July 23, 2013 2:03 pm

“In accord with the waning solar activity, the Argo data reveals dynamic changes in the ocean’s heat content”
TSI has not changed enough to yield such a result.
One needs an amplification factor such as my proposal that changes in global air circulation result in changes in global cloudiness so as to alter the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans.
The changes in cloudiness result from shifts in jet stream tracks. Zonal results in less clouds. Meridional results in more clouds.
The Svensmark hypothesis involving cosmic rays and the observed changes in the solar flux are not the direct cause, merely coincidental proxies for the solar changes.
The real cause is changes in tropopause heights as a result of stratosphere temperature changes induced by changes in atmospheric chemistry involving ozone when solar variability occurs.

Sedron L
July 23, 2013 2:10 pm

Lars P wrote:
Only the sun is warming the deeper levels (deeper then 10 microns) of the ocean.
Not so. Ocean currents (viz. the ocean conveyor belt) carry upper waters far down, as in the North Atlantic; the AMOC is as much as 150 Sverdrups.

July 23, 2013 2:34 pm

@Sedron “Not so. Ocean currents (viz. the ocean conveyor belt) carry upper waters far down, as in the North Atlantic; the AMOC is as much as 150 Sverdrups.”
Currents can not carry water deeper unless the water is denser. In order for warm water to sink it must be denser than its surroundings so warm water sits on the surface unless it is saltier than the water below. When tropical waters are heated and evaporation exceeds precipitation, dense warm water is created that will carry heat to lower depths. However that is a function of the tropical sun and the currents are a function of the winds. In the polar regions the brine ejected during ice formation sends the coldest waters to the greatest depths.
regards the conveyor belt MIT’s Carl Wunsch writes “it is important that anyone studying climate should be able to distinguish science from science fiction. Among the more troublesome distortions now widely accepted one must include the notion that the ocean circulation is a simple “conveyor belt” and that the Gulf Stream is in danger of “turning off.”
“The reduction of the complex turbulent flow of the real ocean to a one-dimensional steady
flow if useful would represent an astonishing breakthrough in the physics of turbulent fluids that
would be landmark in the history of fluid dynamics. Purely verbal arguments about how the
ocean circulation must change in the climate system should be regarded as science fiction.”

Lars P.
July 23, 2013 2:42 pm

Sedron L says:
July 23, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Not so. Ocean currents (viz. the ocean conveyor belt) carry upper waters far down, as in the North Atlantic; the AMOC is as much as 150 Sverdrups.
And how was that water that was carried down warmed?

Dr. Deanster
July 23, 2013 3:06 pm

[i]Stephen Wilde says:
July 23, 2013 at 2:03 pm
“In accord with the waning solar activity, the Argo data reveals dynamic changes in the ocean’s heat content”
TSI has not changed enough to yield such a result.
[/i]
Steve … Changes in SW radiation hitting the ground is not dependent on the TSI. That is the problem with the GCM models .. they have the same perspective as you .. thinkiing something has to change in the TSI for there to be a change in SW reaching the surface.
An increase in cloudiness, thus increasing albedo and reflecting more of the sun’s “constant” TSI, would achieve the same result as if the Sun itself went dimmer.

July 23, 2013 3:12 pm

Stephen Wilde “TSI has not changed enough to yield such a result.”
I am not so confident about that claim. When computing the global average, climate scientists like to divide by 4 to average the TSI over the globe, averaging the polar regions with the tropics . However the heating of the tropical oceans is not affected by how much sunlight reaches the poles, and TSI’s effect on tropical ocean heating should not be divided by 4. Second there is no doubt the stratosphere dynamics play a role as you claim but I hesitate to suggest it is the “real cause” or state how much it serves as an amplifying mechanism. However mode water formation is a way of amplifying the ocean’s surface heat. Hot salty “mode water” sinks below the surface as it is carried away from the equator and cools slightly. It then recirculates back towards the equator where it reemerges and is re-heated.

July 23, 2013 3:14 pm

milodonharlani says:
July 23, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Phil. says:
July 23, 2013 at 12:59 pm
D. S. was at Johns Hopkins when he made his eventual prize-winning discovery.

A joint program with NBS, as I said his NBS host co-authored the paper.
Sven says:
July 23, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Phil: “Which research group was he thrown out of?”
I can only rely on wikipedia (I know, not the best or resources), but it states there:
“The head of Shechtman’s research group told him to “go back and read the textbook” and a couple of days later “asked him to leave for ‘bringing disgrace’ on the team.”[13] Shechtman felt rejected.[11] On publication of his paper, other scientists began to confirm and accept empirical findings of the existence of quasicrystals.[14][15]“

Shechtman finished his sabbatical and returned to Tel Aviv where he wrote the paper with a colleague. When he had difficulty getting it published he approached his host at NBS who suggested changes and became a co-author and it was soon published. Since he remained in Tel Aviv I wondered which lab he had been thrown out of?

FAH
July 23, 2013 3:29 pm

Lars and Gail:
Thanks very much for the references and information, even though the net result is to divert even more of my intellectual energy and time from my day (and, well, night too) job. The more I learn about climate science, the more I appreciate the clarity and control of simple experimental physics.

July 23, 2013 3:33 pm

jim Steele says:
July 23, 2013 at 3:12 pm
Stephen Wilde “TSI has not changed enough to yield such a result.”
I am not so confident about that claim. When computing the global average, climate scientists like to divide by 4 to average the TSI over the globe, averaging the polar regions with the tropics . However the heating of the tropical oceans is not affected by how much sunlight reaches the poles, and TSI’s effect on tropical ocean heating should not be divided by 4.

Well the tropics have about a 12hr day/night so it should at least be divided by 2. Since at sunset and sunrise the angle of incidence goes to zero you should use the average of cos(theta) from pi/2 to -pi/2, which is less than 1.

milodonharlani
July 23, 2013 3:53 pm

Phil. says:
July 23, 2013 at 3:14 pm
You are correct. It was the NBS program, according to his Britannica entry:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/539368/Daniel-Shechtman

July 23, 2013 4:37 pm

milodonharlani says:
July 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Phil. says:
July 23, 2013 at 3:14 pm
You are correct. It was the NBS program, according to his Britannica entry:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/539368/Daniel-Shechtman

Thanks, the story that he was kicked out of the lab seems strange since his collaborator at NBS and co-author apparently had no problems there and was in fact promoted the same year that the paper was published.

July 23, 2013 4:38 pm

It was Technion not Tel Aviv, sorry.

Robertv
July 23, 2013 4:54 pm

Michio Kaku
“We’ve past the point of no return.There is so much co2 in the atmosphere we’re gona lose the North Pole. min 1.24.00
http://youtu.be/HLP3tC92H90
This was some years ago so maybe he changed his mind

Nargun
July 23, 2013 7:30 pm

The alarmists are all over this piece on twitter – but their main response so far has just to say that it’s “wrong” without any further counter evidence. One such is Australian Government Radio Propagandist Dr Karl Kruszelnicki who seems to delight in his role as Useful Idiot Extraordinaire