For those of you that have been looking for that point of reference about Antarctica’s increasing sea ice in contrast to the shrinking ice in the Arctic, look no further.
A new study recently published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society says robust modeling evidence that the ice should melt (their words) predicted that Antarctic sea ice would decrease in response to increased greenhouse gases and the ozone hole. Only one problem in defiance of the “robust modeling”, the current Antarctic sea ice has been booming.
This graph from Cryosphere today via the WUWT Sea Ice Reference page shows what I’m talking about:
Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at sourceHere is the paper title and abstract:
Climate System Response to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion and Recovery
Michael Previdi1,*, Lorenzo M. Polvani1,2
DOI: 10.1002/qj.2330
Abstract
We review what is presently known about the climate system response to stratospheric ozone depletion and its projected recovery, focusing on the responses of the atmosphere, ocean and cryosphere. Compared to well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs), the radiative forcing of climate due to observed stratospheric ozone loss is very small: in spite of this, recent trends in stratospheric ozone have caused profound changes in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) climate system, primarily by altering the tropospheric midlatitude jet, which is commonly described as a change in the Southern Annular Mode. Ozone depletion in the late twentieth century was the primary driver of the observed poleward shift of the jet during summer, which has been linked to changes in tropospheric and surface temperatures, clouds and cloud radiative effects, and precipitation at both middle and low latitudes. It is emphasized, however, that not all aspects of the SH climate response to stratospheric ozone forcing can be understood in terms of changes in the midlatitude jet.
The response of the Southern Ocean and sea ice to ozone depletion is currently a matter of debate. For the former, the debate is centered on the role of ocean eddies in possibly opposing wind-driven changes in the mean circulation. For the latter, the issue is reconciling the observed expansion of Antarctic sea ice extent during the satellite era with robust modeling evidence that the ice should melt as a result of stratospheric ozone depletion (and increases in GHGs).
Despite lingering uncertainties, it has become clear that ozone depletion has been instrumental in driving SH climate change in recent decades. Similarly, ozone recovery will figure prominently in future climate change, with its impacts expected to largely cancel the impacts of increasing GHGs during the next half-century.
Bl**dy Nature!
“Robust modeling evidence”.
Gee, I think I see what their problem is.
Either reality or the model is wrong.
We can’t do anything about reality so we have had to work on the model.
Therefore the model will be closer to perfection than reality.
QED: Reality is wrong.
Were the authors of the study advisors to the recent ‘Spirit of Mawson’ tourist (cough) cruise to the Antarctic that got trapped in the ice that wasn’t there?
For the latter, the issue is reconciling the observed expansion of Antarctic sea ice extent during the satellite era with robust modeling evidence that the ice should melt as a result of stratospheric ozone depletion (and increases in GHGs).
Modeling is evidence. :facepalm Only in an alternate universe, eh?
And pish on ozone depletion and ozone recovery. What proof do they have that what’s happening with ozone isn’t part of a natural cycle?
“Robust modeling evidence”???? If the models do not work how can they be evidence? Since when was climate modeling robust????
“it has become clear that ozone depletion has been instrumental in driving SH climate change in recent decades” – and the evidence for this assertion?
Blah, blah, blah
..robust modelling evidence…?????
Ay, there’s the rub
It’s all modeling for the sake of modeling and …. propaganda.
It would be better and much cheaper to let nature do what it has to do.
We don’t have any influence on on the amount of ice in the arctic and Antarctic anyhow and when it snows and freezes in the place we live all we can do is shovel.
Isn’t that a wonderful word, “robust”. Sort of guarantees reliability, accuracy, careful adherence to the Scientific Method, all hypotheses supported by solid evidence surpassing the statistical tests …
What a pity for its proponents none of it can be applied to this little piece of unsupported rubbish.
Modelling != evidence. Modelling != experimentation. Modelling is only a way to demonstrate what the hypothesis predicts, it is utterly incapable of testing the hypothesis.
The biggest mistake Climate scientists make, is believing that their models are a suitable replacement for real experimentation and observation.
Ken Hall says:
January 23, 2014 at 12:46 am
The biggest mistake Climate scientists make, is believing that their models are a suitable replacement for real experimentation and observation.
==============================================================
Ken, they done did their misdeed on purpose, so it wernt no mistake.
…and neither was my spelling of wernt.
My understanding is, if the tropics are warming due to less cloud cover, then the Antarctic will cool due to reflection of the incoming radiation by the snow and ice. It appears that any global warming is due to a lack of cloud cover, rather than increased cloud cover due to the GHG affect.
Antarctica is the globe’s area with the strongest coupling between the sun’s and the Earth’s magnetic fields
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
(In the Arctic it is less prominent because of the bifurcation of the magnetic field along the line Hudson Bay – Central Siberia )
What has that to do with the sea ice anomaly?
I don’t know, but I thought it is worth noting that at the time of the solar magnetic activity decline there is an increase in the sea ice anomaly.
It is also worth mentioning that the Antarctica’s 8 year (with 2 positive and 2 negative rotating spokes) circumpolar wave oscillation produces 4 year periodicity and would mask weaker 11 year solar oscillation, but the longer term up/down trend may indeed be related to the sun’s behaviour.
I would question their assertion that ozone is somehow responsible for what the Southern Hemisphere is doing with its weather patterns.
I think this is likely more post hoc rationalization for the failure of yet another AGW prediction.
I understand what you mean David.
“Were the authors of the study advisors to the recent ‘Spirit of Mawson’ tourist (cough) cruise to the Antarctic that got trapped in the ice that wasn’t there?”
http://tinyurl.com/p83o6vb
Sorry, hit “post” button too quickly.
Here is the tell that this is more AGW promoter excuse making:
“Similarly, ozone recovery will figure prominently in future climate change, with its impacts expected to largely cancel the impacts of increasing GHGs during the next half-century.”
Think on this: There is now a new magical climate control mechanism, stratospheric ozone. The ozone layer is amazingly tenuous, very diffuse, and concentrated at the very top of the region we call the stratosphere. Yet now we find controls the jet streams at the bottom of the stratosphere.
So the absence of the ozone in the SH- which historical evidence suggests is at least partially historic in nature- caused conditions for Antarctic ice pack to grow. But the ozone recovery will offset GHG for the next 50 years, implying that ice could continue to grow.
So ozone is nearly as magical as CO2 for the AGW believers. But more importantly we once again see that the AGW promoters do not understand how the climate works, or how powerful or weak GHGs behave in the atmosphere.
Despite lingering uncertainties, it has become clear that ozone depletion has been instrumental in driving SH climate change in recent decades. Similarly, ozone recovery will figure prominently in future climate change, with its impacts expected to largely cancel the impacts of increasing GHGs during the next half-century
Where does this cr$p come from ? I have never seen convincing evidence for that statement for for the fact that CFCs deplete the O3.
“Robust modeling evidence”. Is it 1st April?
Another Nature article composed almost entirely of falsehoods. It’s getting boring.
M Courtney says:
January 23, 2014 at 12:16 am
Either reality or the model is wrong.
We can’t do anything about reality so we have had to work on the model.
Therefore the model will be closer to perfection than reality.
QED: Reality is wrong.
==========================
Douglas Adams recognised that in H2G2:-
“The Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Tralal literally (it said “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists: instead of “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists”), they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening’s ultragolf.”
Phillip Bratby says: @ur momisugly January 23, 2014 at 1:43 am
“Robust modeling evidence”. Is it 1st April?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, I think we are now living in Orwell’s superstate Oceania and the Ministry of Truth has been busy again.
After all given the amount of truth we see in the MSM we would never know if the USA or the EU has ceased to exist.
Models are refuted by observations. Full stop. Calling falsified models “robust” is plain silly. Full stop. Citing them as “evidence” is beyond sanity. Full stop.
Antarctic sea ice is 30% above its 1979-2008 mean, which is just huge, deviation is more than 2 sigma. It is enough to make global sea ice cover linger above average for most of this year. The story is not about accelerating ice loss in the Arctic vs. moderate gain around Antarctica any more. With a change in general wind direction and the associated decrease in rate of sea ice loss through the Fram strait both sea ice extent and volume has increased dramatically in the Arctic this year, although it is still below average (by less than 2 sigma, one should add). However, the gain around Antarctica is more than enough to make up for it.
Mother nature is in the pay of Big Oil.