By Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 2 March 2015
Climate models can be good tools for predicting future sea ice levels — unless, of course, they are completely wrong. In the case of Antarctica, the climate models were dead wrong, according to a new study by Chinese scientists published in the journal Cryosphere.
The study found that most climate models predicted Antarctic sea ice coverage would shrink as the world warmed and greenhouse gas levels increased.
The opposite happened. Most climate models analyzed in the study predicted Antarctica would shrink between 1979 and 2005, but instead south pole sea ice levels increased during that time. Going a step further, sea ice levels have only increased since 2006, hitting all-time highs for sea ice coverage in September of last year.
“For the Antarctic, the main problem of the [climate] models is their inability to reproduce the observed slight increase of sea ice extent,” researchers wrote in their study.
“Both satellite-observed Antarctic [sea ice extent] and [satellite measured] Antarctic [sea ice volume] show[s] increasing trends over the period of 1979–2005, but [climate models’] Antarctic [sea ice extent] and [sea ice volume] have decreasing trends,” researchers added. “Only eight models’ [sea ice extent] and eight models’ [sea ice volume] show increasing trends.”
Chinese scientists only looked at sea ice projections until 2005. Had they kept going, they would find more than a trend of “slightly increasing” sea ice levels. Last year was the first year on record that Antarctic sea ice coverage rose above 7.72 [million] square miles.
By Sept. 22, 2014, sea ice extent reached its highest level on record — 7.76 [million] square miles. Antarctica is now in its melt season, but even so, sea ice levels were very high for late December and early January.
The same can’t be said for Arctic sea ice coverage. The Chinese study notes that for the Arctic “both climatology and linear trend are better reproduced.” Climate models predicted Arctic sea ice extent and volume would decrease as the world warmed, which it has.
Circulation in the Arctic is a dipolar, according to the shape of the polar vortex and magnetic field.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f72.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_nh/500gz_anomalies_nh.gif
Should be “Million square miles”?
Climate models are political action tools. Nefarious intent in, wealth redistribution justification out. It is actually a simple program. All results yield doom and gloom which is what made me a skeptic years back. All that doom and gloom was so perfectly choreographed and consistent…well, until the actual data appeared.
Now we know why Al Gore was in such a panic to turn the world economy into a carbon based exchange. He knew that the models were rigged and the books were cooked and he knew that it was only a matter of time that the general public would find him et al out.
Well, now we know.
Interesting fact that Antarctica is the coldest place on earth. And it is the coldest of the coldest now.
Can this be tied to the tilt, orbit, and solar radiation level?
The IPCC is aware of the failure of the models to project the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. Their confidence is being shattered by reality.
You give Al Gore waaay too much credit! He’s too ignorant and arrogant to have known anything about the models, except that they were tailor made for his own self-aggrandizement. Ok, he might have known the scheme had a limited shelf life as well, but not exactly why.
…except that they were tailor made for his own self-aggrandizement….
yep…He would not have cared had they been made with Crayola crayons, so long as they fit the gloom and doom narrative. He was a major investor into a carbon exchange. On the other hand… I could have referred to anyone of 1000 panic stricken AGW hype artists. Pick your favorite! Hanson, Jones, Mann, etc
My money is on “orbit”.
Antarctica is the closest place on Earth because of altitude. Ascend from sea level from any place on Earth and it will get colder as the air gets thinner. The arctic is at sea level so it is warmer. Simple
Coldest not “closest”. Mistype on a small iPhone touchscreen and auto spell correct takes over for unwanted results
There were four possibilities:
Both down
Arctic ice up, Antarctic ice down
Antarctic ice up, Arctic ice down
Both up
I guess their pin just hit the wrong one.
Close though.
Computer still useless?
0 0
1 0
01
11
Oops … just forgot a minus sign. All better.
lol
Well, the authors of this paper should expect to be savagely “Soon-ed” for their traitorous attack on the AGW -ISIS mullahs.
Oh How could we be so wrong; Then what does this bode for sea levels. Lets have the truth? Have sea levels fell or have they rose? Oh what a tangled web?
And yet Lui Andres Henao and Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press published an article just a few days ago (date varies from paper to paper) saying “if experts are right, and the West Antarctic ice sheet has started melting irreversibly, what happens here will determine if cities such as Miami, New York, New Orleans, Guangzhou, Mumbai, London and Osaka will have to regularly battle flooding from rising seas.“
New Orleans is a lost cause due to Ground subsidence over the next century.
Michael – I recently read that the W. Antarctica glacier is melting due to AGW and the U.S. is to blame. (I’m still trying to get my head around that one.) For me this begs a couple of questions:
IF AGW is causing the W. Antarctic to melt, what’s happening in the rest of Antarctica? It’s GLOBAL, right? And:
What about the geothermal activity under the ice in W. Antarctica?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/09/uh-oh-study-says-collapsing-thwaites-glacier-in-antarctica-melting-from-geothermal-heat-not-co2-heat-effects/#more-111163
The key fact is that overall Antarctica is cooling, not warming. The melting seen in West Antarctica is due to the geothermal heating there. But the much larger East Antarctica is cooling:
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response – Nature
http://www.nature.com › Journal home › Archive › Letters to Nature
by PT Doran – 2002 – Cited by 406 – Related articles
Jan 13, 2002 – Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response. Peter T. Doran1, John C. Priscu2, W. Berry Lyons3, John E. Walsh4, Andrew G. … The average air temperature at the Earth’s surface has increased by 0.06 °C per …
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html
That climate scientists are disregarding this fact seriously undercuts their credibility. The fact that the ONLY reason why they don’t acknowledge it is because it disagrees with their theory makes it even worse.
However, what is a contributing factor to climate scientists not acknowledging this is the poor coverage by temperature stations there. Why is that? You mean we can have the Rosetta spacecraft travel in the near absolute zero temperatures of outer space for ten years unattended and wake up in just the right time to observe the comet, and we can’t figure out how to have unattended weather stations in Antarctica? The same problem is also true in the Arctic, which seriously affects the reliability of global temperature measurements when the Arctic is so poorly covered.
With all the billions being spent on climate change research a key focus should be on developing automated weather stations that can operate in the polar regions and on insuring that both poles are well covered.
Bob Clark
Sorry but this is a silly thought. If it was true about 30% of my homecountry the Netherlands wouldn’t be in existence other than as a shallow sea bottom. We started fighting the sea centuries ago with nothing more than dikes built with manual labor and pumping out the water with windmills. There is so much more that can be achieved today with modern techniques. Glimmering example are the Deltawerken in the province of Zeeland and movable dams to protect the port of Rotterdam and in the Thames Estuary. And such protecting measures are costing only a pittence compared to the trillions and trillions now thrown away in efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.
there’s a “million” term missing in several spots in the text above.
For Mr. Clark: I think if you look on the Sea Ice page, you will notice the ice in the Arctic is floating and moving. It might be rather challenging to locate long term permanent stations there, and even if you put some there, they might all sink to the bottom of the sea, once all the ice melts at some future still to be determined date. The more I learn, the less I know. Dan Sage
” … 7.72 square miles.” — penultimate paragraph.
“… 7.76 square miles” — last paragraph.
Missing a scaling factor, presumably “million”.
This is a blatant misuse of innocent models. Model results should only be compared to other models, never to reality.
ROTFLMAO!!! Yes, let’s compare apples to apples. Models against other models. Believe it or not, I am imagining watermelon scientists thinking that we have come up with a valid point.
Yes, please be fair. Models are the “gold standard” of some rather shoddy scientists and the mainstream media. As people have said here, it is much like astrology in content … manipulation, deceit, just so stories, and obfuscation. Seems really almost to be the opposite of science!
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
Look at the sea surface temperatures around Antarctica( below normal )which explains why Antarctic Sea Ice is above normal . It is not due to the convoluted reasons AGW enthusiast keep trying to convey which are in a word absurd.
Reblogged this on News With a Catholic View and commented:
First they tried to scare us with global cooling. Then they tried to scare us with global warming. Whats next, global climate stagnation?
LOL! OMG, you mean we’re stuck with the climate we have right now … forever? Arrrrrrrghhh! 😉
Living in the northeast (North-Central PA) with all the cold and snow this winter (and last) that IS a scary thought! I’d think it would have folks in Boston dirtying their undies.
By Sept. 22, 2014, sea ice extent reached its highest level on record — 7.76 square miles.
Only 7.76 square miles? is that a typo?. Can that be correct?
Simply take the difference between reality and models, filter it to make it smooth, chart it as AMO and PMO…
I think the units in sea ice extent are wrong. 7.76 square miles are shy by six orders of magnitude or so.
Please add the word “million” somewhere in there.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/#.VPXlFPnF98E
[The lost “million” has been found and is now inserted, thank you. Usually, the site prefers to stay with metric terms for consistency across languages and units. Here, the original used square miles. .mod]
There is one additional occurence in the preceding paragraph that also needs a “million” inserted.
[Done. .mod]
Michael Bastasch
I believe you mean “MILLION” square miles
The wonderous thing about New Age Climate Pseudoscience is its practioners can cherry pick those few climate models whose results projected more Southern Ocean sea ice to affirm to their faithful all is well with Climate Change theory.
drat…”practitioners”
Perhaps models are used by proctioners considering where some of the results seem to be pulled from.
“So many models, So little time…”
Reminds me of the old story (probably apocryphal) of the student who went to his advisor one Friday for help fitting his observational data to theory. The following Monday the advisor told the student, “Well most of the data was easy. These few points here were a real problem, but I was able to make them fit nicely with a little work.” To which the student replied, “OMG, no! That’s not part of the data, those are the legend!”
It is like having 48 broken clocks and picking the one that is showing the closest time.
Well, the Arctic is melting because the developed countries generate more CO2.
The current Arctic sea ice anomaly is largely due to large ice free areas in the Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea. The rest of the Arctic is at near seasonal averages. Multiple plausible reasons for those 2 anomalies can be put forward without any need to invoke manmade CO2 caused Arctic amplification.
Francisco
And, so, if mankind’s CO2 emissions are well-mixed, as CAGW theory requires, and if the Arctic sea ice is melting because of man’s CO2 release, and if man’s CO2 release is causing the Arctic to warm more than the rest of the planet’s natural warming since 1650, why is the Antarctic setting all-time satellite record high values for anomaly, extents, and area? The Antarctic continental air temperatures are going down!
And, it’s not “Antarctic land ice is melting” either: The average Antarctic land ice never gets above freezing -> The land ice down south cannot be melting across the whole continent across all seasons of the year uniformly around the whole continent – which is where the Antarctic sea ice is uniformly increasing at every longitude.
Either you left off the /sarc tag or you are just another idiot troll. Eighteen years of minute or no temperature increase with rising CO2 levels. The Warmist theory is busted.
Not according to the last OCO2 graph . The next one is eagerly awaited.
– supposed to be this month.
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCO-2/data-holdings/oco-2
It is meant as sarcasm!!!!!! Don’t chew me off!!! (hit too soon!)
Ad hominem attacks are the favored tool of the climate change faithful. Not here at WUWT. Ignorance can be cured with education, but the affliction affecting AGW faithful is typically more pathologic.
joelobryan,
Wow. What blog have I been reading then?
and so Gates weighs in with an ad hominen sneer against the whole of us.
I’m very sorry if people have been unkind to you, Brandon. By the way, have you noticed that global sea ice extent is about average and Antarctic sea ice extent is at record levels?
…Gates weighs in with an ad hominen sneer against the whole of us.
It’s all he’s got.
I didn’t say ad hominem attacks are not employed here. I implied they are not the favored tool to correct a climate alarmist. Sometimes all the alarmist suffers from is naiviete of the state of climate science and observational data. Given the complicity of many media outlets, this is not surprising.
So first, AGW adherents who comment here and offer unsupported views, they usually get presented with factual and data-based arguments. When they reject the data that disproves their view in favor of failed model outputs (or can’t see anything wrong with adjusting temperature records in a demonstrably biased manner), then they expose themselves as “trolls on a mission” and deserve any and all ad-homs hurled at them.
Brandon Gates, I’ve taken a few attacks here for my political views but I have tried not to reply in kind.
We are all responsible for own conduct. I am responsible for mine.
Yet I am still allowed to speak here even though I am considered wicked and evil by some of the regulars (even some who try to be nice and cheerleadery).
My point? That I am not censored here but I am censored elsewhere.
And that’s not for my aggression or lewdness.
Brandon Gates March 3, 2015 at 9:49 am
I note and appreciate your comment.
It seems to me that there has been an increase in ad hominem attacks [from a low level, for sure] over the years I have been reading and, occasionally, commenting on, WUWT.
In a big way – I find it a turn-off.
An occasional smart comment – well, I’ll smile!
And I am well aware that blogs, etc., by the Defined and Verified Religion are not noticeably in favour of less-than-admirational-and-credibility-affirming comment.
But I’m not sure that we need to emulate ‘Them’.
Us & Them.
Are we not all seekers after truth? Mods – MUST I add /sarc?
Auto
Crikey, if you can’t spot sarcasm, what hope is there for you?
cant undertand the repeated attacks on Brandon Gates. I dont often agree with him but his arguments are reasoned and he is always responsive. It doesnt surprise me that he gets touchy himself when so many attack him for anything he says no matter how innocuous.
To say WUWT does not do trolling and then to attack the man not the idea is at the least showing a degree of being lacking in self awareness.
I like the fact that all comers unless completely OTT or continuously off subject or seriously tedious get to speak here and I would like to think that anyone who keeps to the rules is welcome.
Or perhaps BG’s detractors are after hijacking this blogsite for their own private echo chamber
mwh:
Gates has nothing to add here but cut & paste CAGW boilerplate.
Do you find that interesting?
His sneers and jeers against skeptic points of view are regular, see above for an example. And you defend that? And pile it on behind Gates?
You should feel more at home at HotWhopper or SKS.
MP it would seem you are incurable, I still have no idea how you make his comment an ad hominem sneer, seems you are out to get him no matter what.
Highly amused by your Hotwhopper comment though, sounds like you know the site well
@ur momisugly mwh…are you Brandon,s friend or just another sockpuppet? Brandon has been confrontational over the entire time he has interacted here at WUWT. Almost all of his comments are pointless arguments. Many of those include ad hominen attacks as a regular feature of his comments. I fully agree with mpainter,s assessment of Gates.
No not his friend, not a sock puppet, I dont agree with him. However he does provoke debate and I mean provoke. However the tone of his posts and the way he words them is generally on topic and should not elicit the ‘attack dog’ response he gets – I personally find the attacks on him and a few others unnecessary and unpleasant and I cannot see how his posting is ‘trolling’ anything. Attacks on the person however – no matter how frequent a presence one might have – I would consider is trolling or at least similar.
He doesnt tend to get personal until the attacks on him get personal.
I dont know him, I have debated with him when I think hes wrong. I just dont like te way he is treated the moment he posts
Anyway trolls on the whole are out for attention and wish to deflect the debate into a more emotive direction. If anyone thinks a poster is a troll – why engage with them at all – thats what they want, thats what they need. If a troll annoys you and you respond, he has succeeded. Dont respond – they will go away – their words just do not matter.
Also don’t think highly of attacks on B. Gates. Haven’t found anything offensive in his posts. I don’t agree with his analysis, but I welcome his input. How else do we avoid group think ourselves if we don’t welcome dissent?
This could all be avoided if Anthony would install a sarcasm font.
I think you mean 7.62 MILLION square miles… right? It is not likely to be 7.62 square miles I think.
[The 7.62 Million sq miles (19.735 Million sq kilometers) has been corrected.
By the way, that value is for the mid-September Antarctic sea ice extents, not sea ice area. Antarctic sea ice area reached it maximum at 16.808 million sq kilometers (6.48 million sq miles) on Sept 19 2014. The Sept 19 sea ice coverage was also a record-high area.
The Antarctic sea ice anomaly (difference between measured area and average area for that date) set its record high at 2.06 Million sq kilometers earlier, in June 2014. .mod]
The 2 sigma level is +/- 12 X 10^6 Km2….. Does not inspire much confidence in the measurement.
skeohane
Please explain your question, and where you see that value: The two sigma level for Arctic and Antarctic sea ice varies by day-of-year for each: Smaller at each region’s maximum (14 Mkm^2 for the Arctic, 16 Mkm^2 for the Antarctic), larger (as a measurement) at each year’s minimum extents of now 3.5 – 4 Mkm^2 for the Arctic, now 2.5 Mkm^2 for the Antarctic.) The specific two-sigma value for each region also varies by laboratory reporting the sea ice extents (or area), and whether that lab reports sea ice area, or sea ice extents.
At no time is the two sigma value 12 Mkm^2. Even 1.2 Mkm^2 is too high historically.
@RACookPE1978 thanks for responding, it didn’t make sense.
I was looking at the +/- 1 sigma bars on the left graph. Each bar is roughly 12 Mkm^2 in length. Since the dang thing is so small, I did not previously see they apply to the CMIP5 simulations, not the satellite observations. That in itself trashes the value of the models.
The great thing about CAGW is that this all actually helps prove global warming exists! Because it shows that the results of climate change are even less predictable than they previously thought (I.e it’s worse than they thought)
/sarc off
Antarctica, the current temperature.
http://oi59.tinypic.com/ej6kjn.jpg
ren
Note that, of the stations pictured on the Antarctic continental edge, half have wind direction parallel to the coastline, half show winds blowing towards the land mass away from the sea.
This is the usual case for the Antarctic as a whole: There are three very specific areas of extremely high winds flowing out away from the very high, very cold, interior land icecaps down to the sea, many thousands of kilometers of rotary winds that average parallel to the coasts to slightly inland from the coasts, and a few areas where the winds blow directly from ocean to land. Remember, on average, every gram of high-speed air blowing sea ice away from the continental area has to be matched by other winds blowing a replacement gram of air inland.
Grams in = grams out. Over time that’s correct of course, but you ignore altitude. It’s still theoretically possible for the wind to blow offshore at every point on the coast.
“For the Antarctic, the main problem of the [climate] models is their inability to reproduce the observed slight increase of sea ice extent,”
Slight? If the sea ice extent had reduced by the same amount, would they describe it as a slight decrease? One expects politicians to spin like this, not scientists.
Currently the slight increase is on the order of 20 to 25 percent.
Discussion related to sea ice extent to 2005.
Things have moved along a bit since then