By Paul Homewood
It is commonly known that the Antarctic Peninsula has seen substantial warming in the last few decades. Jim Steele wrote a guest post for WUWT a couple of days ago, “The Greatest Climate Myths of All”, which contained these observations about Antarctica:
As seen in NASA’s map of regional warming, the Antarctic Peninsula is another unusual “hotspot”, but relative to other climate dynamics, the contribution from CO2 is again not readily apparent. Stronger winds from the positive phase of the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) increased regional temperatures without adding heat via 2 mechanisms.
First stronger winds from the north reduced sea ice extent by inhibiting the expansion of sea ice along the western Antarctic Peninsula and Amundsen Sea. As in the Arctic, more open water allows larger amounts of stored heat to escape, dramatically raising winter temperatures. Accordingly, during the summer when sea ice is normally absent, there is no steep warming trend.
The eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula behaves in a contrary manner. There sea ice was not reduced and surface temperatures average 5 to 10° cooler, and the steep winter warming trend was not observed. However there was a significant summer warming trend. Previously during the negative phase of the AAO, weaker winds are typically forced to go around the mountainous peninsula. However the positive AAO generated a wind regime that moved up and over the mountains, creating anomalous foehn storms on the eastern side of the peninsula. As the winds descend, temperatures adiabatically rise 10 to 20 degrees or more due to changes in pressure without any additional heat.
I cannot comment on the science behind this, but I can show how the actual temperature records support what Jim says.
Let’s start with the western side, where we have two long running stations, the two British Antarctic Research stations of Rothera and Faraday.
Rothera 67.34S 68.08W
Faraday 65.15S 64.16W
First, winter temperatures, using GISS data. There is a clear and sizeable upward trend.
And now summer. The trend at Rothera is slightly down, and at Faraday slightly up. (Note, though, the differences in scale to the winter graphs – at Faraday, for instance, we are only looking at a trend of less than half a degree in summer.)
Crossing to the other side of the Peninsula, we find the station of do Marambio on the eastern side.
do Marambio 64.24S 56.62W
In stark contrast to Rothera and Faraday, winter temperatures at the Argentine station of do Marambio are actually declining.
Whilst in summer temperatures are increasing.
The numbers certainly support Jim Steele’s arguments, and suggest that it is regional factors that have led to recent warming there.
Sources
Temperature data is from SCAR datasets (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research), available via GISS.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
checking back of Jim’s post yesterday he proves this unreferenced pic:
?w=301&h=275
Here we see where extra heat is coming from.
Rising air cooling adiabatically and causing condensation into cloud which to and extent rains out. Latent heat is released as becomes sensible heat. The air descends and warms up adiabatically ending up warmer than when it started. Thus it contains _more heat_ , that is what hotter means.
The source of that _extra heat_ was the condensation of water vapour contained in the air as it come off the ocean. More wind, more evaporation. So the heat came from the ocean surface.
Now I’m sure that some warmista could pop up and say that the ocean surface was warmer because of back radiation caused by CAGW. 😉
Whichever way you play it, you can’t warm something “without adding heat “.
Hi, I don’t mean to comment off topic, but is anyone else aware of the new comments policy at Scientific American? Apparently they are allowing only one point of view to be seen.I’ve been kicked out under two pseudonyms (I’m no quitter) for comments so innocuous it left me scratching my head. This is actually portentious of their demise. They got aboard the good ship Climate Change when the getting was good and now are forced to go down with all hands…..
Jim: “As the air goes up moisture condenses and releases latent heat that did not raise temperatures not on the windward side. ”
Yes it did, but because there is adiabatic cooling it does not get hotter, just less cool than it otherwise would.
bw says:
August 6, 2014 at 1:53 pm
What are the SSTs on the west and east sides of the peninsula??
________________
The East coast is enshrouded in ice, while at least part of the West Coast just has pack ice, but SST is about the same. Here are some looks at S.H. SST:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/navo/antarcsstnowcast.gif
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-51.72,-73.54,1173
Greg Goodman says “his argument about winds compacting the sea ice is spurious.”
Greg you are obviously unaware of the Antarctic’s climate and suffering from great cognitive dissonance. I can back up every claim with peer reviewed studies, and I suggest you do the same before you spout more ignorance.
Read Massom, R., et al. (2008) West Antarctic Peninsula sea ice in 2005: Extreme ice compaction and ice edge retreat due to strong anomaly with respect to climate. Journal of Geophysical Research , vol. 113, C02S20, doi:10.1029/2007JC004239.
“In September–October 2005, the juxtaposition of low- and high-pressure anomalies at
130W and 60W, respectively, created strong and persistent northerly airflow across the
West Antarctic Peninsula (WAP). This had a major impact on regional sea ice conditions,
with extreme ice compaction in the Bellingshausen and East Amundsen seas
(60W130W) but divergence in the West Amundsen and East Ross seas. This resulted
in the former in a highly compact marginal ice zone and ice cover, mean modeled ice
thicknesses of >5 m, and an earlier-than-average maximum extent (mid-August).”
The ice compaction was the reason for the worst breeding collapse for Adelie Penguins. UNlike Emperors, Adelies will abandon a site of they must walk more than 2 km.
Also from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University read Stammerjohn, S., et a., (2008) Sea ice in the western Antarctic Peninsula region: spatiotemporal variability from ecological and climate change perspectives. Deep Sea Research II 55. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.04.026.
“Large perturbations in the seasonality of the marine habitat occur in association with ENSO
and Southern Annular Mode (SAM) variability. The local atmospheric response to these climatemodes is largely a strengthening of the meridional winds during spring-to-autumn, which in turn affect the timing of the sea-ice retreat and subsequent advance. These perturbations are embedded in overall trends towards a later sea-ice advance, earlier retreat and consequently shorter sea-ice season”
I know it must be disappointing but warmer temperatures and less sea ice along the western peninsula were not caused by CO2 warming, but the later-advance and earlier-retreat caused by northerly winds. And I’ll guarantee you can not disprove those facts. It is you comments that are spurious. You seem to be one of those Merchants of Doubt that confuse real climate science.
Jim: “But moisture is not always needed. In “Foehn Winds in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica: The Origin of Extreme Warming Events” Speirs et al (2012) write “Foehn-induced warming frequently exceeds 40C within several hours at valley surfaces in the MDVs during winter”
No. clearly water vapour is the key element in this kind of phenomena.
Foehn winds, like the Chinook are extremely dry because the air lost most of its water at altitude. When it descends and gains 10-20 deg C its relative humidity plummets. By the time it gets to low altitude it is a parchingly dry, hot wind. Perhaps that’s why the McMurdo Dry Valleys are dry 😉
You’ve clearly been doing some research for all this and digging out references but it seems you have not fully understood what you are reading.
Greg Goodman says “Whichever way you play it, you can’t warm something “without adding heat “.
You words betray you, and you confuse temperature and heat. The argument is that “temperatures can rise without adding heat”.That is basic physics. The argument is the warmer temperatures on the eastern peninsula are not caused by an increased accumulation of heat due to CO2 or the sun, but due to dynamics that raise temperature adiabatically.
“This resulted in the former in a highly compact marginal ice zone and ice cover, mean modeled ice thicknesses of >5 m”
Then it was clearly reducing ice AREA, which like I said would expose more water and could produce the effect you were suggesting. Preventing ice from “spreading out” in EXTENT as you said, would not. Again you have not understood what you have read, or carelessly used the wrong term.
Jim: “The argument is the warmer temperatures on the eastern peninsula are not caused by an increased accumulation of heat due to CO2 or the sun, but due to dynamics that raise temperature adiabatically.”
The “dynamics” are simply the mechanism. This cannot violate the conservation of energy. Quite clearly the origin of the heat energy, as I explained in detail, comes from the ocean surface. which ultimately means it is from the Sun, with a little extra help form CO2 if you wish.
Jim. “The argument is that “temperatures can rise without adding heat”.That is basic physics. ”
It is possible to extract or add heat without changing temperature if there is a phase change but it is not possible to increase temperature without adding heat. In your compression igniter example, physical work is done in compressing the air thus increasing its heat energy and hence its temperature.
change in heat energy = heat capacity * temp. change.
Heat capacity is a fixed physical property of an object. Hence you cannot change temperature without adding heat.
QED.
Greg you quibbling and being disingenuous. Your first statement that evoked this argument was “Temperature is a measure of heat energy. It does not matter how something gets hotter, but if it gets hotter it contains more heat.”
And that statement is absolutely and demonstrably wrong no matter how you quibble.
Here is an experiment you can do at home so we can settle this nonsense. Put a pot of water on the stove and boil it. Simultaneously turn your oven to 212F . Both the oven and the water have the same temperature and by your argument both should have the same amount of energy.
Now place one hand in the oven and the other in the boiling water and then tell me that both temperatures have equal energy.
Jim it seems you are misunderstanding the term adiabatic, which means without exchanging heat _with the surrounding_. As I said in my initial comment, on the way down, the additional heat energy comes from conversion of gravitational potential energy. It is gravity which doing the compression.
However, this must apply equally on the way up as on the way down. There no free lunch in the conservation of energy.
You seem to be under the impression that this “dynamic” is magically creating heat from somewhere where it did not exist in the first place. As I explained in detail, the magicians trick is in some slight of hand at the top of the mountain involving latent heat. This enables the leeward wind to be warmer because there was some additional heat in the form of latent heat that got added.
The air is warmer and contains more heat, That heat came from the ocean.
Why does anyone care about that peninsula? It’s just “one site”.
jim Steele says “Greg you quibbling and being disingenuous. Your first statement that evoked this argument was “Temperature is a measure of heat energy.It does not matter how something gets hotter, but if it gets hotter it contains more heat. ”
I’m actually being very patient and trying to explain something to you but you are so sure of yourself that you are not willing to listen and think about what I’m saying.
Now you have descended into being insulting where you can stay. I’ve had enough of your belligerent ignorance.
Before you try any more “myth busting” I suggest you learn what temperature means: It is rather a key concept when talking about global warming. Check out conservation of energy too if think “dynamics” can create it from nowhere.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/temper.html
Temperature
A convenient operational definition of temperature is that it is a measure of the average translational kinetic energy associated with the disordered microscopic motion of atoms and molecules.
Goodnight and good luck with your studies.
Greg, You are friggin amazing. You said something very wrong, then repeat what I said to defend yourself and say I am wrong.
The argument has never ever been that energy appeared magically. That is your gross misinterpretation. The argument from the get-go has been temperatures rose without adding energy to the system “via 2 mechanisms.” And none of those mechanisms violate the laws of energy conservation.
1. I argued that less sea-ice allowed more heat to ventilate from the ocean thus warming the air. Alarmists claim it is global warming due to CO2 trapping energy.
Which argument do you agree with? Why do you try to slander me by suggesting I think energy appeared magically??!!
2. Winds shifted so that air currents rose and then descended warming the eastern side much more than when winds did not rise and descend, but went around the peninsula. No heat was added to the system. The heat was simply experienced and measured differently. I simply argue that the higher temperatures are not an indication that CO2 has trapped “more energy.”
Alarmist argue the rising temperatures on the eastern side is due to rising CO2 trapping more heat. Which side do you agree with??
In Oklahoma and the high plains, meteorologists are very aware of the effects of down sloping winds on temperatures. Many of the high temperature records, especially in the winter and early spring, occur under such a regime. So, while not a meteorologist myself, I find the article quite credible.
jim Steele says:
___________________
Greetings Mr. Steele.
Since the loss of ice along the Western peninsula coast has allowed the slightly warmer deep ocean upwelling to reach the surface closer to the coast, does that add another factor to the discussion?
An additional remark:
As previously stated, I am indeed no scientist, but have enough educational background and accumulated knowledge over the years to enjoy the science based discussions here – at least those that aren’t way over my head. That being said, I am disappointed at some of the criticisms directed at Mr. Homewood’s and Mr. Steele’s assertions which, imho, amount to little more than semantic pettifoggery and not up to the standard of what I would usually expect to see at WUWT. Ok, I said it.
Lank is flannergasted says:
August 6, 2014 at 1:55 pm
How can anyone discuss temperature variations on the Antartic Peminsula without consideration of the active volcanic activity?
It could be summarised by the phrase
IT’S VOLCANIC YOU MORONS.
Alan Robertson says:
“Since the loss of ice along the Western peninsula coast has allowed the slightly warmer deep ocean upwelling to reach the surface closer to the coast, does that add another factor to the discussion?”
It is indeed a factor, but for other dynamics.
In the winter the cold katabatic winds blowing from the south(interior), push ice equator-ward and away from the coast. That process creates open water regions known as polynya which are dominant ice factories. There is considerable upwelling in polynyas.
Northerly winds associated the AAO oppose the continental winds, which causes a reduction in sea ice extent (and area). When those winds compress ice against the coast, it is typically associated with downwelling. Still the loss of ice allows greater ventilation of heat.
There are considerable amounts of upwelling of relatively warm CIrcumpolar Water onto the shallow ice shelves of west Antarctica where many of the receding glaciers are grounded. That warmer upwelled water has been responsible for melting those glaciers from below. The earliest explorers noted that around the peninsula and the Amundsen Sea, those glaciers exhibited a concave surface profile suggesting melting from beneath, and papers were published in the 70s suggesting the glaciers in this region were very unstable and would continue to shed ice faster than any other place.
El Nino events and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation have been increasingly associated with changes in upwelling of this warmer water, and krill production in this region, as well as changes in the rate of glacier melting near their grounding points. But as has become commonplace, these long-term cyclical dynamics have been hijacked to suggest CO2 is causing the loss of Antarctica’s continental ice and krill dependent penguins.
old44 says “IT’S VOLCANIC YOU MORONS”
Volcanic activity indeed adds to the issue, but only in a limited area and a very limited degree. The other dynamics must be considered if we are to explain the majority of changes.
jim Steele says:
August 6, 2014 at 5:48 pm
———
Thank you, Sir.
but that’s a beautifull example of cyclibal behavior WITHOUT outer forces: ‘over’extended sea ice breaks down MECHANICALLY under its shear mass.
Open sea ‘yealds’ warmth/heat to winds that transport the heat to other sites – A NEW EQUILIBRIUM IS ESTABLISHED,
until the next onset of INNER forces / no climatologie needed.
And thanks to the Foehn mechanics!
brg – Hans
read: ‘thanks for showing the Foehn mechanics’.
Thx – Hans
Greg Goodman says:
August 6, 2014 at 2:57 pm
“or carelessly used the wrong term.”
——————————-
You win, now can you give us the answer ?
There was a question, right ?