From the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the department of unverifiable forecasts in our lifetime comes this model based projection.
Researchers say Ross Sea will reverse current trend, be largely ice free in summer by 2100
Antarctica’s Ross Sea is one of the few polar regions where summer sea-ice coverage has increased during the last few decades, bucking a global trend of drastic declines in summer sea ice across the Arctic Ocean and in two adjacent embayments of the Southern Ocean around Antarctica.
Now, a modeling study led by Professor Walker Smith of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science suggests that the Ross Sea’s recent observed increase in summer sea-ice cover is likely short-lived, with the area projected to lose more than half its summer sea ice by 2050 and more than three quarters by 2100.
These changes, says Smith, will significantly impact marine life in what is one of the world’s most productive and unspoiled marine ecosystems, where rich blooms of phytoplankton feed krill, fish, and higher predators such as whales, penguins, and seals.
VIMS professor Walker Smith in Antarctica.
Smith, who has been conducting ship-based fieldwork in the Ross Sea since the 1980s, collaborated on the study with colleagues at Old Dominion University. Their paper, “The effects of changing winds and temperatures on the oceanography of the Ross Sea in the 21st century,” appears in the Feb. 26 issue of Geophysical Research Letters. Smith’s co-authors are Mike Dinniman, Eileen Hofmann, and John Klinck.
Smith says “The Ross Sea is critically important in regulating the production of Antarctica’s sea ice overall and is biologically very productive, which makes changes in its physical environment of global concern. Our study predicts that it will soon reverse its present trend and experience major drops in ice cover in summer, which, along with decreased mixing of the vertical column, will extend the season of phytoplankton growth. These changes will substantially alter the area’s pristine food web.”
Researchers attribute the observed increase in summertime sea ice in the Ross Sea—where the number of days with ice cover has grown by more two months over the past three decades—to a complex interplay of factors, including changes in wind speed, precipitation, salinity, ocean currents, and air and water temperature.
But global climate models agree that air temperatures in Antarctica will increase substantially in the coming decades, with corresponding changes in the speed and direction of winds and ocean currents. When Smith and his colleagues fed these global projections into a high-resolution computer model of air-sea-ice dynamics in the Ross Sea, they saw a drastic reduction in the extent and duration of summer sea ice.
The modeled summer sea ice concentrations decreased by 56% by 2050 and 78% by 2100. The ice-free season also grew much longer, with the mean day of retreat in 2100 occurring 11 days earlier and the advance occurring 16 days later than now.
Also changed was the duration and depth of the “shallow mixed layer,” the zone where most phytoplankton live. “Our model projects that the shallow mixed layer will persist for about a week longer in 2050, and almost three weeks longer in 2100 than now,” says Smith. “The depth of the shallow mixed layer will also decrease significantly, with its bottom 12% shallower in 2050, and 44% shallower in 2100 than now.”
The extent and duration of ice cover in the Ross Sea depends on a complex interplay of factors, including changes in wind speed, precipitation, salinity, ocean currents, and air and water temperature.
For Smith, these changes in ice, atmosphere, and ocean dynamics portend major changes in the Antarctic food web. On the bright side, the decrease in ice cover will bring more light to surface waters, while a more persistent and shallower mixed layer will concentrate phytoplankton and nutrients in this sunlit zone. These changes will combine to encourage phytoplankton growth, particularly for single-celled organisms called diatoms, with ripples of added energy potentially moving up the food web.
But, Smith warns, the drop in ice cover will negatively affect several other important species that are ice-dependent, including crystal krill and Antarctic silverfish. A decrease in krill would be particularly troublesome, as these are the major food source for the Ross Sea’s top predators—minke whales, Adélie and Emperor penguins, and crabeater seals.
Overall, says Smith, “our results suggest that phytoplankton production will increase and become more diatomaceous. Other components of the Ross Sea food web will likely be severely disrupted, creating significant but unpredictable impacts on the ocean’s most pristine ecosystem.”
The authors were supported by the National Science Foundation grants ANT-0944254, ANT-0838948 and OCE-0927797.
==============================================================
For the most current data on Antarctic sea ice, see the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
“If it disagrees with experiment (i.e. reality), it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess (model) is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” – Richard Feynman
“…global climate models agree that air temperatures in Antarctica will increase substantially in the coming decades, with corresponding changes in the speed and direction of winds and ocean currents. When Smith and his colleagues fed these global projections into a high-resolution computer model of air-sea-ice dynamics in the Ross Sea, they saw a drastic reduction in the extent and duration of summer sea ice.”
The only thing this study proves conclusively is that the authors are not scientists. No real scientist would use falsified model projections as input for a subsequent model. Ray (in comment #1) nails it.
JDN:
Thanks. With a touch of wishful thinking I was hoping that we could start a new series of blonde jokes with climate scientists because ridicule is the only think they deserve.
How much is this pile of crap going to cost the US Taxpayer?
The faith that too researchers put into models which have demonstrated no ability to model what they claim they are designed for is fascinating.
The money wasted on studies like this, based on the failed modeling system is annoying.
The transparent attempt to distract from the Arctic, the growing list of failed AGW predictions and to offer yet another target fro fear and hype is quite cynical.
That they seem to claim it is air temperatures and not ocean currents that do most of the melting of pack ice raises questions as to if the authors are even serious.
Hunter says:
They don’t have to have faith in the models.
What they have faith in is the ability to extract more money from the system by using the term “model”. No one cares that they’re wrong.
It’s like the switch that the rat learns to hit to get more food. It doesn’t know anything about electricity, or switch, but he DOES know that if he hits the switch, more food comes out.
Jim
The Antarctic ice cover has been increasing for 30 years, yet it has had no adverse or substantial effect on flora and fauna. However, all of a sudden, a predicted reduction in ice cover will have a massive adverse effect on said flora and fauna. I smell yet another rat in really poor grade school writing.
Similarly if the UK became covered in ice, it would not require much cenc to state that such an event woud have an adverse effect on cows and sheep living in the UK.
They get paid for that stupidity,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Give him his due. He hasn’t been so stupid as to actually go there. People who do that are liable to get trapped by non-existent ice. At least he stayed warm and at home, where he ran absolutely no risk of his prediction being even a little wrong.
Researchers attribute the observed increase in summertime sea ice in the Ross Sea—where the number of days with ice cover has grown by more two months over the past three decades—to a complex interplay of factors, blah, blah-blah, and blahbitty blah blah. In other words, coincidence.
Londo says:
February 28, 2014 at 2:51 am
I was hoping that we could start a new series of blonde jokes with climate scientists
=========
what do you get when you stand a room full of climate scientists ear to ear?
a wind tunnel
The Polar See-Saw
Headline Grabbing Climate Scientists are being fundamentally dishonest when they ignore the Polar See-Saw. They know full well that today’s observations of a warming Arctic and cooling Antarctic are completely consistent with natural variability going back tens of thousands of years.
The timescale of the Polar See-Saw matches the natural 1000-1500 year climate cycle observed by many researchers.
Modelling the bipolar seesaw
North Atlantic temperature changes are mirrored by equal amplitude South Atlantic changes of opposite sign.
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/research/climatechange/modelling_dynamics/bipolar_seesaw/
Applying the model to the data of GRIP and Byrd, we demonstrate that maximum correlation can be obtained using a timescale of about 1000-1500 years.
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/publications/papers/abstracts/abstract167/
Study Projects …. The two loosest words in quasi-scientific literature.
“Coach Springer says:
February 28, 2014 at 5:52 am
Study Projects …. The two loosest words in quasi-scientific literature.”
“Study Project & Models…”
Fixed it for ya
Jim
Grey Lensman says:
February 28, 2014 at 4:47 am
“They get paid for that stupidity,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Exactly, there are actually a lot of savings option, the more such bs study projects come the more it is clear how big a waste is. And to think it is done on borrowed money…
{ Our study predicts that it will soon reverse its present trend and experience major drops in ice cover in summer, which, along with decreased mixing of the vertical column, will extend the season of phytoplankton growth. These changes will substantially alter the area’s pristine food web.” }
So are you suggesting that this has never happened before, or that the ice loss then was not pristine?
These wackos think if they didn’t see “it”, it didn’t happen.
I remember a ‘prediction’, based on models, that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013 – didn’t happen. We have seen that 95% of GCMs have been wrong about the projected increases in temperature, therefore I can say, with a 95% confidence level, that this ‘prediction’ is also wrong.
As an aside, for over 30 years I worked in the real world with engines which were projected, by the engineers who designed them, to work at efficiencies which they were theoretically capable of achieving. Never did I see one work at its theoretical limit. In my experience, the models used are designed to project the best, or worst, case scenario, and when they are applied to the real world they are almost always overly optimistic, in the best case, or overly pessimistic, in the worst case.
So, they agonize over warming over a 15 year period and say it’s short-lived and will be gone in 50 to 90 years. Ninety years is not that short-lived for alarmists that panic over every storm and hot day.
“The models agree …” is about as valuable as “the models at the 2014 Victoria’s Secret show agree …” as far as the reality of climate is concerned.
was arguing with a warmist recently and the SOB seems to think that there really is no disagreement between model output and reality. I keep asking him what the hell planet he’s from and what data he’s reading, and he procures some AGW funded piece of GIGO that claims the model output is correct.
Seems like every time, the thing was run just yesterday or something and hasnt had time for the model to break.
How does this stuff get published?
Their Abstract states:
“…We examined the effects of projected changes in atmospheric temperatures and winds on aspects of the ocean circulation likely important to primary production using a high-resolution sea ice–ocean–ice shelf model of the Ross Sea.” [my emphasis]
In other words: “We assume that forecasts made from unproven models are correct; we extract the results that we think are most useful for our hypothesis and then we use them as input into another untested model – one which is based entirely on unproven conjectures.”
RAV and DAN have been reminded of GIGO but it is actually GIGO squared or even GIGO cubed.
FFS…
Ya know , I am thinking a public global reporting of surface temps on a regular basis, charting time of day, longitude and lattitude, urban or rural environ, elevation , date and tempeture , say on sundays, daily might be a bit much, and then we cross check what is reported by the “orthodxy” be it weather channel. accuweather or NOAA etc. Could be fun and educational!
This is one of the greatest comments threads I have ever read- truly funny, LMAO funny!
In the meantime, I’m shivering in Chicago, and the Chicago Tribune (formerly, but not now, a “right-wing rag”) has this: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-27/news/ct-extreme-weather-met-20140228_1_katharine-hayhoe-climate-change-winter-chill
The article points out that the MELTING of arctic sea ice is causing our cold weather woes in the US, but fails to mention that the sea ice has grown (i.e., freezing).
Go figure…
I think we can safely predict that, computer technology in the near future will be much more advanced than it is now. So, ten years from now, we will look back at todays computers with much the same view we have now of ten year old computers. Things have improved a lot in the technology world in a relatively short space of time.
However, even though we can see huge errors and failures with past climate model predictions, they seem to be stuck in a time warp. Still intent on making the big warming predictions, despite having missed the big current pause, it looks like the only thing their models are capable of predicting, is warming regardless. In fact, you don’t need models to make these predictions into the future, just a wild guess with a large dose of bias.
Unfortunately, they don’t have to be right, they just have to get the scare out there. For a lot of people, this is good enough to convince them that this disaster, headed our way in 2050 and even worse again another 50 years after that, is a reality. No chance that they are wrong. These guys should be picking horses or the lottery numbers. Though, in this two horse race, they’ve consistently picked the runner up.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/28/over-100-published-science-journal-articles-just-gibberish/
Add one to the list.
So many climate models… so many temperature trends based on rising CO2 emission scenarios… and not one model reflected a temperature pause over the last 17 years.
And these scientists now want us to believe what they say is going to happen in 2100!!!!
Unbelievable! It’s this sort of stuff that is making climate scientists look like modern day snake-oil salesmen trying to flog a catastrophic man-made global warming potion.