From the UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON comes this desperate piece from Eric Steig of RealClimate and the “Antarctica is warming but now busted” department.

Via Eurekalert:
Will more snow over Antarctica offset rising seas? Don’t count on it
Many factors related to warming will conspire to raise the planet’s oceans over coming decades — thermal expansion of the world’s oceans, melting of snow and ice worldwide, and the collapse of massive ice sheets.
But there are a few potential brakes. One was supposed to be heavier snowfall over the vast continent of Antarctica. Warmer air will hold more moisture and thus generate more snow to fall inland and slightly rebuild the glacier, according to climate model projections.
Not so fast, says a University of Washington study published in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The authors looked at evidence from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide ice core to get a first clear look at how the continent’s snowfall has varied over 31,000 years.
“It’s allowed us to look at the snow accumulation back in time in much more detail than we’ve been able to do with any other deep ice core in Antarctica,” said lead author T.J. Fudge, a UW postdoctoral researcher in Earth and space sciences. “We show that warmer temperatures and snowfall sometimes go together, but often they don’t.”
For example, the record includes periods before 8,000 years ago, as Earth was coming out of its last ice age, when the air temperature went up by several degrees without any boost in the amount of snowfall.
“Our results make it clear that we cannot have confidence in projections of future snowfall over Antarctica under global warming,” said co-author Eric Steig, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences.
The plateau of East Antarctica, the site of most previous ice cores, is relatively high and dry. About 80 percent of the continent’s precipitation falls on the lower, stormier edges, like where this core was drilled in 2006-2011. (To prepare scientists for conditions during a West Antarctic snowstorm, Fudge notes, researchers had to practice navigating outside with a bucket over their heads.) The 2.1-mile, or 3.5-kilometer, ice core preserves climate history in enough detail to show individual snow years.
Many climate models predict that warming temperatures will mean more snow in Antarctica in the future. When more snow falls inland at the upper edge of the flowing ice sheet, it counteracts mass lost to melting or calving at the edges. This extra snowfall would reverse 2 to 4 centimeters, or about 1 inch, of global sea-level rise by 2100, researchers said.
“It’s not a huge component,” Fudge acknowledges, “but if you live close to sea level, centimeters certainly matter.”
The new study, however, shows that temperature is an unreliable predictor of Antarctic snowfall.
“Depending on what part of the record you look at, you can draw different conclusions,” Fudge said. “During some of the more abrupt climate changes, from when we had ice sheets to our current climate state, there’s actually no relationship between temperature and snowfall.”
The large variation seen in the historical record probably reflects shifts in atmospheric patterns and how storm tracks reach Antarctica, Fudge said. Research is increasingly showing that winds play a big role in Antarctic temperature, sea ice and weather patterns, especially on shorter timescales, and that the gale-force winds that whip around the continent are connected to weather patterns in the tropics.
“For sea-level rise, we’re not really interested in what happens over thousands of years,” Fudge said. “We’re interested in what happens over the next few hundred years. At that shorter timescale, the variability in how the storms reach the continent matters much more than a few degrees of warming.”
The snowfall record may help to understand how winds affect Antarctic weather, and how atmospheric connections with the tropics influence the amount of relatively warm ocean water that laps at the frozen continent’s edge.
“By getting models to better capture the variability in our snowfall record, we actually will get a better idea of how the warm ocean is going to interact with the ice sheets at the edge, and those will have an even bigger impact on sea level, eventually,” Fudge said.
###
The study, published online April 28, 2016 was funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA. Other co-authors are UW doctoral student Bradley Markle; UW faculty members Edwin Waddington, Howard Conway and Michelle Koutnik; Kurt Cuffrey at the University of California, Berkeley; Christo Buizert at Oregon State University; and Kendrick Taylor at Nevada’s Desert Research Institute.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fudge said. “We’re interested in what happens over the next few hundred years. …”
We are? Are we? Why?
Well I guess it’s a pity he didn’t tell that to the Department of Oceanography at the University of Washington before they built a new teaching block down by the waterfront at 1503 NE Boat Street.
That area is above sea level already. The Ballard locks stabilize the whole Canal in that area, including both Lake Union and Lake Washington.
As a matter of fact d18O data, are actually available for the WAIS divide borehole. The dataset is here:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/AGDC/nsidc0629_steig/Steig_WAIS_Divide_Ice_Core_WDC06A_Oxygen_Isotopes.txt
and the curve can be seen here:
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/42660/BrookEdwardJCEOASOnsetDeglacialWarming.pdf?sequence=1
So why using the less reliable borehole data? I think the answer is here:
http://clim-past.net/11/153/2015/cp-11-153-2015.pdf
A paper on the dating of the WAIS borehole, that uses i. a. accumulation rate and borehole temperature for “wiggle matching” to derive the age of the core. Check the co-authors, they inclyde Steig and Fudge.
So essentially they simply took data from a previous paper they had co-authored, made deliberately misleading diagrams from it and then made a big CAGW song-and-dance number about it. They would seem to be skirting plagiarism rules fairly closely by the way.
Incidentally the diagrams in the paper above (page 156) shows that the correlation between temperatures and accumulation is actually quite remarkably good all the way back to 68,000 years ago, except for a few thousand years at the very end of the glaciation. So the rule that accumulation increases with temperature seems to hold good both during interglacials and glacials, but not during the transition between the two climate states.
“They would seem to be skirting plagiarism rules fairly closely by the way.”
Too many “scientists” are copycats who dont know what they are doing unfortunately.
Very interesting, tty.
Nice work digging that stuff out tty.
“Incidentally the diagrams in the paper above (page 156) shows that the correlation between temperatures and accumulation is actually quite remarkably good all the way back to 68,000 years ago, except for a few thousand years at the very end of the glaciation. ”
Well it seems from p156 that there is a markedly different ratio between temp and accumulation during the glacial and interglacial periods. There is a notable break from simplistic linear correlation at the end of de-glaciation. None of that should be surprising.
It is well established that the climate shows two quasi-stable states with fairly rapid swings from one to the other.
That climate models do not reproduce this shows fundamental flaws in the construction of the models.
Thanks to Fudge et al for pointing this out, espically to those who actually thought climate models where of any use to start with.
T.J. Fudge???
Fudge: Present or deal with (something) in a vague or inadequate way, especially so as to conceal the truth or mislead:
Nuff said.
Nominative determinism.
Poor guy didn’t have a choice but to work in climate science.
Well, at least his initials are not E.L.:
http://www.prestofreshgrocery.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/800×800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/0/3/030100558224_1_1.jpg
I’m missing the updates on Arctic sea ice this year. Melt season is underway and NSIDC is not the only source for data. No interest?
BTW, here’s the link to the study if anyone cares to read it.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068356/full