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.
Surely this is a very important paragraph:
“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”
Denialist ice.
I suspect that weasel words are in play when describing the model as ‘robust’. If called to account, the authors will no doubt explain that what they meant was that the model runs smoothly without glitches i.e. it is robust ….. It is just unfortunate if readers misunderstood this and took it to mean that the output of the model was scientifically robust and meaningful. Just unfortunate and unintended ……….. we are climate ‘scientists’ and would never set out to mislead …..
Maybe they fed the computer a really strong cup of tea… 🙂
http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Infinite_Improbability_Drive
hunter says: @ur momisugly January 23, 2014 at 1:21 am
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually the solar changes- ozone-weather pattern connection is not too far fetched. Changes in the amount of solar UV and E-UV wave lengths as well as the solar winds changing the Cosmic Ray flux lead to destruction or formation of ozone.
Here are a few papers/articles on the subject:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Ozone/ozone_2.php
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/31/ozone-depletion-trumps-greenhouse-gas-increase-in-jet-stream-shift/
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ozone-holes-shifting-winds-may-be-sapping-major-carbon-sink-15530
Atmospheric ionization and clouds as links between solar activity and climate, in Solar Variability and Its Effects on Climate
Robust = Really ‘orribly bust
If you buy my Y10K insurance policy you’ll be eligible for a 99% reduction in the premium to protect against the greenhouse gas explosion of 2100.
Don’t you know. All the ice is slipping off Antarctica into the Ocean. More and more rapidly according to this model over here. That’s the only possible reason that explains both the models and what we see. /sarc
“Robust modelling evidence” i.e. authoritative climate theologians have deemed that the models are robust sources of truth.
“the issue is reconciling the observed expansion of Antarctic sea ice extent “. If the precedents set by other climate theologians are followed, then ‘reconciliation’ means that the bad data will be improved until it matches the robust model truth.
Idiots et al peer reviewed, and published, another excuse, this time it is ozone hiding global warming. So is the missing heat hiding in the deep ocean? or has it been overcome by ozone.
These people some how have no logic, or capacity to think out side a cocoon of their own making. Maybe they are just a few sheep short in the top paddock.
Just thinking out loud here, but when the climate castle crumbles people like these will need help to cope with reality.
The climate business has its own scientific terminology: modelling evidence, computer experiments. You’d think that once you grow up and maybe do a little science it would dawn no you that there is a difference to that and real evidence and actual experiments.
A physical observed change requires a physical explanation. The Antarctic sea ice extent abruptly changed post 2007 and again post 2011. The following is an explanation as to what is happening and what will happen in the immediate future.
For the entire 35 year period for which there are detail observations of Antarctic sea ice, sea ice extent oscillated about the mean. Post 2007 the Antarctic sea started to increased during Southern hemisphere winter to a record maximum but then melted to normal during the Southern hemisphere summer.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Post 2011, the Antarctic sea ice extent is now reaching record levels (two sigma above the 1981 to 2010 average) for every month of the year.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png
The warmists and media have screamed from the roof tops the fact that the planet has warmed. They have completely hidden the fact that lower latitudes have not warmed which disproves catastrophic AGW. They have hidden the failure of CAGW theory by focusing on the polar warming (Arctic) and calling the polar warming amplification with no comment that the polar warming is not predicted by the general circulation models (GCM) and Antarctic ice sheet with the exception of the Antarctic peninsula has cooled rather than warmed. The warmists also remained silent concerning the fact that this same peculiar pattern of warming has occurred cyclically in the paleo record. The past warming events were not caused increases in CO2. There are two puzzles. 1) Why does the increase in CO2 not cause warming? and 2) What caused the peculiar pattern of warming? (Solar magnetic cycle changes is the answer to both 1 and 2. The explanation for 1 is the same explanation as to what causes the spiral galaxy rotational anomaly, the abrupt geomagnetic field anomaly, and so on. More on that when we start to experience unequivocal cooling.)
Latitudinal Warming Paradox
As CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for CO2 warming is the same for all latitudes. The actual warming due to CO2 is linearly dependent on the amount of long wave radiation at the latitude in question before the increase in CO2. As most amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space is in the tropics the most amount of warming due to the CO2 increase should have occurred in the tropics. That is not what is observed as shown in Bob Tisdale graph. The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the above assertions.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
“These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing. Hint it’s the sun.)” …. …. “These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
To explain the warming in the last 70 years requires a mechanism that can warm the Arctic and warm the Southern ocean and cool the Antarctic ice sheet. That mechanism is solar magnetic cycle modulation of the cloud cover.
See Svensmark’s paper for an explanation of the polar see-saw where the Antarctic ice sheet warms when the Arctic cools and vice verse. The paleorecord shows this occurs cyclically which indicates there is a cyclic forcing mechanism. i.e. What the pattern of warming that we observed in the last 70 years has happened before and CO2 did not cause the past warming.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Based what has happened before, the mechanisms, and the fact that the solar magnetic cycle is undergoing the most rapid slowdown in 8000 year the high latitude warming is over. The planet has started to cool. The most amount of cooling will occur at high latitudes. The solar magnetic cycle change will also inhibit El Niño events. We truly live in interesting timesm
Maybe they need to get a sense of perspective on their place in things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSnJl7B_TVs
and I don’t think they have egos as big as Zaphod Beeblebrox so they may not do very well in it.
James Bull
Mods can you fish my last post out of the ether? (It has been an hour)
The term “robust” might be used here in its technical sense, a computer algorithm that is relatively insensitive to errors in the input data. In that case, its use might be justified and not a reason for scorn.
However, like everybody else, I find this abstract to be beyond parody.
Now that Europe is bailing on its green initiatives to save the world from CO2, the desperation must be palpable in the climate catastrophe industry. The politicians also seen to realize that global warming is pretty much played out with the voters. Our president now wants to raise awareness of rape on campus, and our AG wants to prevent persons of color from being suspended from school. Would you be shocked to see articles suggesting that global warming leads to higher rates of campus rape and higher rates of school suspensions?
A model is as good as the input but always need a reality check.
They must have had a “poker face” on when these scientists (Is that the right term to use?) published these results?
Now I personally think that the models are, in fact, all spot on…cos,
Bits of the Arctic are actually breaking off as it melts and are slipping down the world to the Antarctic which explains perfectly why the top bit is shrinking and the bottom bit is growing…..
Wotufink?…eh?…eh?
Will someone please get out there and tell the bloody ice to do what the models tell it to..?
Gail,
That is interesting food for thought. However, I would question the linkage of solar minimum and UV, for one thing. And the ozone hole relates to winter more than anything. Winter, when very little light is reaching the area anyway.
As an engineer, one quote I often remind people of is:
“All Models are wrong, but some models are useful.” George Box.
When the model doesn’t match reality, the model is WRONG. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Gail Combs says:
January 23, 2014 at 3:51 am
Mods can you fish my last post out of the ether? (It has been an hour)
You’ll find it next to the missing heat.
hunter says: @ur momisugly January 23, 2014 at 5:24 am
Gail,
That is interesting food for thought. However, I would question the linkage of solar minimum and UV, for one thing….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Although TSI is pretty constant the distribution of wave lengths changes. SEE:
NASA: SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise
NASA: SOLAR IRRADIANCE
NASA: UV Exposure Has Increased Over the Last 30 Years, but Stabilized Since the Mid-1990s
(Most UV is blocked in the upper atmosphere)
NASA: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low
NASA: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere
NASA: Solar Variability, Ozone, and Climate
NASA: Ozone Production and Destruction
WUWT: NASA on the sun: ‘…tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.”
And here is a real goody:
NASA: Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field Discovered
wayne Job says: @ur momisugly January 23, 2014 at 3:05 am
… These people some how have no logic, or capacity to think out side a cocoon of their own making. Maybe they are just a few sheep short in the top paddock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So THATS why I get all these extra sheep showing up every spring. I wonder which ones I should return to Mikey Mann, Gavin and Hansen…. :>)
Mean while another comment is visiting with Trenbeth’s missing heat. (That heat must be magnetic or something.)
Reality trumps fantasy no matter how robust the fantasy.
Or, to be less kind, if your model fails to match reality, then you don’t know what you’re talking about.