Institute for Basic Science
New research, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, has found that Antarctic icebergs can weaken and delay the effect of Global Warming in the Southern Hemisphere.
Unabated Global Warming threatens the stability of the Antarctic ice sheet. Recent observations reveal a rapid thinning of the Pine Island and Thwaites glacier regions in Antarctica, which can be attributed partly to warming oceans. These findings have raised concerns of an accelerated ice loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet and potential contributions to global sea level rise. Ice loss can occur in the form of melt-induced (liquid) freshwater discharge into the ocean, or through (solid) iceberg calving.
With a projected future retreat of the Antarctic ice sheet, scientists expect an intensification of iceberg discharge. Icebergs can persist for years and are carried by winds and currents through the Southern Ocean until they reach warmer waters and ultimately melt. The melting process cools ocean waters like ice cubes in a cocktail glass. Furthermore, freshwater discharge from icebergs impacts currents by lowering ocean salinity. Whether this “iceberg effect” can slow down or alter future climate change in the Southern Hemisphere has remained an open question.
Climate researchers from the University of Hawaii (USA), the IBS Center for Climate Physics (South Korea), Penn State University (USA) and University of Massachusetts (USA) have now quantified for the first time this effect of Antarctic iceberg calving on future Southern Hemisphere climate. The team ran a series of Global Warming computer simulations, which include the combined freshwater and cooling effects of icebergs on the ocean. The size and number of icebergs released in their model mimics the gradual retreat of the Antarctic ice sheet over a period of several hundred years. By turning on an off the “iceberg effect” in their climate model, the researchers discovered that icebergs can significantly slow down human-induced warming in the Southern Hemisphere, impacting global winds and rainfall patterns.
“Our results demonstrate that the effect of Antarctic melting and icebergs needs to be included in computer model simulations of future climate change. Climate models currently used in the 6th climate change assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not account for this process.” says Dr. Fabian Schloesser, lead author of the study in Nature Climate Change.
Dr. Tobias Friedrich, coauthor of the study, adds: “To melt the icebergs released over the 21st century in one of our extreme Antarctic ice-sheet retreat scenarios would require 400 times the current annual world energy consumption. Global sea level would rise by about 80 cm, impacting many coastal regions and communities worldwide.”
Recent studies have suggested that the impact of Antarctic meltwater discharge on the ocean could lead to further acceleration of ice sheet melting and global sea level rise. The present study paints a more complex picture of the underlying dynamics. Including the cooling effect of icebergs largely compensates for the processes that were previously thought to accelerate Antarctic melting.
“Our research highlights the role of icebergs in global climate change and sea level rise. Depending on how quickly the West Antarctic ice sheet disintegrates, the iceberg effect can delay future warming in cities such as Buenos Aires and Cape Town by 10-50 years.” says Prof. Axel Timmermann, corresponding author of the study and Director of the IBS Center for Climate Physics.
The research team plans to further quantify the interplay between ice and climate and its effect on global sea level with a new computer model that they developed.
###
PSU.. computer models.. yawn..
Mann, are they useless!
If I get this right, they just realised that putting lumps of ice into water stops it warming up as quickly.
They needed a massive computer model of the world climate to discover this. Hey, maybe we could apply this astounding new discovery to keep our beverages cooler longer !
Now since climate models are all running fool proof, well understood “basic physics” , how can it be possible that they are not accounting for the cooling effect of melting ice? After all, the “basic physics” has been known for a long time. Does that mean that they are not programming basic physics of ice properly and that is why the models all run too hot ?
Apparently glaciers from Greenland don’t have the same affect.
Consider how much, by volume, of ice it takes to cool a drink.
Then consider the ocean/seas surrounding the Antarctic.
To cool the ocean/seas around Antarctica is a small part of the South Pacific or South Atlantic oceans.
After that, those Antarctic icebergs are supposed to cool the entire Earth south of the equator…
When the Antarctic glaciers extend that far, maybe the alarmists feigning second sight will finally wake up. Besides, they should be well into the 23rd century believing their 200 year model results, by then.
/S
. . . and this from the Institute of Basic Science, no less.
I guess knowing about the latent heat of fusion of water is now reserved to graduate-level education.
Exactly.
They “found” nothing. They “discovered” nothing. Want they did is create quantification of their theories, of their projections, by running their theory as a computer program. That’s okay if done honestly….if they then say, “our quantification of our theory with allow us to test our theory against future temperature measurements in the real world”. That would be science.
There is an old use of the word, “projectors”. It meant schemers, as in con men.
The new research DOES create a possible mechanism to allow for a cooler Southern Hemisphere during what would otherwise be a Global MWP. The MWP could very well have been a global phenomenon just moderated in the southern hemisphere by the Antarctic Ice Sheet and extended calving.
But..but…the new research “found” the results.
I typed my theory into my federally funded computer and it gave me back my theory.
There you have it, proof of CO2 generated global warming. I had it peer stamped and now its off to committee to provide authorization for the federal government to institute regulations to ruin your life and strip you of your liberty.
And a rough translation of the last paragraph looks, from here, like “Send more money”!
Auto – astonishingly unsurprised.
Unless they are using some new definition of ‘iceberg”, icebergs are free floating ice.
Free floating ice cannot add to sea level rise.
How did they calculate the sea level rise? volumetric increase due to temperature rise?
Model predictions out to 2200?
Ah yes the when 100 year predictions are just not far enough you can always go for 200 give the hockeysticks room to really work.
Their 1st CYA was the claim that the “anthropogenic heat” was hiding in the deep ocean and prevented their claimed “global warming”.
But no one really believed that “junk science” claim.
So now, their 2nd CYA is the claim that the “iceberg effect” will delay their dastardly dangerous near-surface atmospheric “warming” by 10-50 years.
So, no matter what the “climate” does, those phony Climate Scientists think that they are “safe” for the next 50 years.
The Ice Berg Effect could explain why the MWP Warming effects weren’t shown to be extended into the Southern Hemisphere proxy data.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment, but:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/12/more-evidence-that-the-medieval-warming-period-was-global-not-regional/
Exacatically
Just need some fancy iceberg data to stick into the computer models to explain the Pause and that will shut them up.
When they predict stuff 200 years in advance it is instructive to go back in time and check what happened then.
1815 – Napoleon Bonaparte defeated at Waterloo (204 years ago)
1871 – The first socialist experiment — Paris Commune — failed (148 years ago)
1819, July – A cabinet meeting is convened by British Prime Minister Robert Jenkinson to discuss an investigative report of an adulterous affair, involving the wife of George, Prince of Wales and regent for his ailing father. Despite reports that Princess Caroline is involved with her servant, Bartolomeo Pergami, the cabinet concludes that the trial of Caroline for adultery would be an embarrassment to the nation.
I suspect that 2 centuries into the future today’s climate model predictions would be footnotes of history belonging to the same category as aforementioned adulterous affair meeting.
S/
Of course!
Every alarmist knows that just because the models can’t predict this year, or next year accurately; that doesn’t mean the Model’s 80 years into the future prediction is inaccurate.
Indeed, alarmists are convinced that once their predictions are into the next century, their models will become fully valid.
Also, in today’s news;
Hades freezes over, souls no longer tormented.
Sus scrofa develop wings, farmers upset.
/S
The reason the southern hemisphere hasn’t warmed, is because the cooling causing pollutants (like SO2) which we pumped out in the 1970s and which led to a depression of global temperature … when the 1970s clean air acts got rid of them, it obviously had no effect on the non-industrialised areas of the southern hemisphere.
What do Eskimos get from sitting on the ice too long? Polaroids.
Go up to the top of the web site and find the Main Menu. Select “About” and then “Policy”.
I have made a link to the policy page for your convenience.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/policy/
As I have mentioned before, there are rules here, and this site is not your personal playground. And, no, you do not have a right to carry on any way you want.
I have every right to to what I want to do and you heave no right to dictate to others what to do.Tony,you’re full of bologna. (Snipped the rest of the personal attack that quickly got nasty) SUNMOD
About 20 years ago I told a fellow co-worker that the contracted IT technician would be showing up in the next few weeks to clear up a few bugs … and that since he may show up at any time we needed to have a note on each computer noting the needed correction.
I gave Bob a sticky-back and told him to write “this machine has an ‘I’ ‘D’ ’10’ ‘t’ operator problem that needs to be corrected”. He wrote it down and stuck it on the corner of his monitor. It was there for two weeks, staring at him. He was clueless.
Somebody finally enlightened him about the note. He realized he had been clueless, but he left the note on the monitor for another few months; taking the note down (admitting to his ignorant dull nature), would have been harder on him than actually being part of a long bad long running joke.
You can’t change some people (from a distance).
Reminds me of when we used to say that are having BCK problems again.
Between Chair and Keyboard.
The Adam and Eve computer virus: takes two bytes out of your Apple.
I personally have enjoyed Dan’s corny jokes in the threads.
They are almost always moderately related to the scientific topic.
I am sure others (like TonyL) will disagree. However, Dan is playing on Mr. Watts lawn. You really have to be a crusty curmudgeon to be yelling, “You kids get off of that other guy’s lawn.”
(I didn’t have a problem with his joke, what I have a problem with, is the overreaction to it and the nasty personal attacks in reply, lets cool it and get back on topic) SUNMOD
Great, you pillage and you are an idiot. Thanks mate for your sage advice!
Only idiots make false accusations and name calling towards others.
I love Science.
Ice keeps things cold!
“The melting process cools ocean waters like ice cubes in a cocktail glass. Furthermore, freshwater discharge from icebergs impacts currents by lowering ocean salinity. Whether this “iceberg effect” can slow down or alter future climate change in the Southern Hemisphere has remained an open question.”
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Size of Thwaites glacier is 300000 km^2. If it is 1km high then that makes 300000 km^3 of ice. 1 gigaton of ice = 1.09 km^3 therefore it contains ~ 275000 gigatons of ice. When it melts the mass is the same. So therefore we have 275000 GT of water added to oceans. NOAA says there is ~321 million miles^3 of water or 1.347 billion km^3 in oceans or 1.37 x 10^21 kg . 1 metric tonne = 1000 kg therefore the oceans have 1.37 x 10^18 metric tonnes of water . We are adding 2.75 x 10 ^ 14 tons of melting water to it. So that is equivalent to adding one ice cube into a bucket of water at 17 C which contains 411kg . An imperial gallon weighs 4.546 kg. Therefore you are adding 1 ice cube into a bucket that is 90 Imperial gallons in size. And that assumes that the whole Thwaites glacier will melt at once. Estimates are that it will take anywhere from 200 to a 1000 years to collapse according to a 2014 U. of Washington study. Have climate scientists passed grade 4 arithmetic?
Dear Mr. Tomalty- Thank you. Thank you for the mathematical simplicity of basic physical science instead of the flummery of ‘models’. Sad commentary that facts never make as many headlines.
Just my pedestrian opinion, sir.
THere is an active volcano under the Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers. This often gets omitted from claims of water temperature anomalies in the area.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3
https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/dunbar/research/wais.html
“There is an active volcano under the Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers.”
That is definitley worth mentioning in this regard. Unfortunately, the authors attributed any increased heat to CAGW rather than to volcanic activity. They don’t have any evidence for CAGW, but there is evidence of volcanic activity in the area.
Good find first study. Seawater helium isotope ratios. Sweet. They need to get in there and measure the temp and salinity gradients moving towards land. They have the technology, do they have the will?
Exactly what I keep pointing out to the doomsayers. The same is true of the Arctic.
http://www.plateclimatology.com/arctic-ocean-hot-spots-generated-by-sea-flor-geological-heat-flow-not-climate-change
“… active volcano …”
Just spotted some sulfur dioxide emissions (now=00:05UTC-15Aug) about 30 miles from the center of the Thwaites glacier, which you can see (in real time) on windy.com with the SO2 layer turned on (light-brown areas). If you look at the same area on Google Maps this inland area definitely looks thinner and darker than the surrounding areas (2019 imagery). SO2 emissions are normal around volcano and indicates proximity of magma near surface. [See usgs link below]. Increased CO2 emissions from these sites is also likely but have not found any Antarctic data or imagery for that.
https://www.windy.com/-Show-add-more-layers/overlays?so2sm,-74.802,-98.657,6
https://www.google.com/maps/@-75.0793031,-99.9811396,305133m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_types.html
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/antarctica-91-volcanoes-coincidentally-found-under-glaciers-warming-due-to-climate-change/
[See my post below for more info on this]
[MODS: why has my comment been held in moderation for over 2 hours?]
I thought this was “global” warming. Now it’s hemisphere warming???
It must be true, Sheri, because I live in Mendoza, Argentina, the center of wine production, and we are having an extremely cold winter. A few days ago I was walking uphill on a sidewalk in the shade in Palmares (the palms in English) and began a treadmill routine, walking but not going forward. There was a sheet of ice from lawn irrigation on the sidewalk. Ice and palm trees? What’s wrong with this picture? Would the proponents of global warming please step it up a little because it’s colder here.
“Ice and palm trees? What’s wrong with this picture?”
Since palms have a single apical meristem (point of growth) and will die if this freezes ice and (live) palm trees are rarely found in the same place. This is the basic reason that palms have never spread much outside the tropics.
So we should watch for the fate of palm trees in the tropics for the same reason coal miners watch for the fate of canaries in coal mines?
Sounds like a good idea. People with agendas can easily explain away thermometer readings but it would be difficult for them to explain away dying palm trees due to cold weather.
Once upon a time, scientists only created mathematical models AFTER gathering real-world data, and then validating it. Nowadays, mathematical modelling precedes or even replaces observational work.
This paper is dross, like so much climate”science”.
Worse, mathematical modeling is used to “correct” observational data.
Precisely!
What is the current trend in precipitation and temperature on the Antarctic mainland? – I can extrapolate from that myself, which I would trust more than the inferior computer models.
OT: Just today I listened to a scientist in the German TV program Nano saying that she was researching various geoengineering methods, in order to have a CO₂ free atmosphere. – She even repeated it.
“. . . she was researching various geoengineering methods, in order to have a CO₂ free atmosphere.“
A real Climate Shaker – a climate religion that will result in elimination of carbon-based life.
What kind of scientist was she? Political science?
I joined in the middle of the farce. But from her talking, it appeared she got her paycheck from a university and grant from the green mob. There are a lot of those highly educated salon-communists, who became so entangled in the green ideology, that they forgot what they most likely learned in second grade about the photosynthesis – so sad.
Of course its been a big problem for the Greenies warming lobby. They
keep saying that it “”Global Warming””, but it seems to be mostly in the
Northern H hemisphere., well sort of. .
So now we find that West Antarctica is the cause of this situation. Never mind that its where the volcanos are. There is a line of volcanos from the Wet coast pf South America, down to West Antarctica and continues to the
South Pole with Mt. Erebus.
Surprise, volcanos are hot things , so of course a little warming does take place, but what about the rest of Antarctica, how is it fairing.
Well surprise the rest which is a lot bigger than the Western bit , is getting bigger, so much for the Global bit of Global Warming.
MJE VK5ELL
“By turning on an off the “iceberg effect” in their climate model, the researchers discovered that icebergs can significantly slow down human-induced warming in the Southern Hemisphere, impacting global winds and rainfall patterns.”
Gee whiz! Adding ice to water cools it off. Huh. Who knew?
And they get paid to make these “discoveries” on computers when they could find the answer in a large glass of iced tea.
Next we’ll have the following. My computer says so.
The melting ice cools the Southern Hemisphere. The cooler, heavier southern air flows northwards and cools the Northern Hemisphere. This causes the northern ice cap to expand and we have an ice age.
Please don’t tell this to Justin Trudeau, he’ll raise the carbon tax.
Sarc off, but the gang greens will believe the above
Sincere Question: Do climate computers have a SUV effect? (s)
When an iceberg sucks heat energy out of water, it magically disappears.
And so does the iceberg. Maybe there’s a connection.
I think we need to get to the bottom of this. It’s a travesty that we don’t know where the heat goes.
“Unabated Global Warming threatens the stability of the Antarctic ice sheet.”
But didn’t Willis recently show us very recently that, according to the satellite record, there really has not been any “global” warming in the entire Southern Hemisphere? (Compared to what Charney et al. have been predicting for years.)
In fact, the surface of the Antarctic is below freezing. It can’t melt.
But the Climatists will reply it’s not the surface. It’s deep underwater warm currents, caused by Global Warming, melting the Antarctic Ice Sheet. (Always stated, as quoted above, in a manner to suggest the whole continent is melting.)
The Antarctic continent is indeed unique that is surrounded by the Southern Ocean, the largest ocean current on the planet, which circulates uniformly, more or less, around the entire continent. Unique in the sense that is unobstructed by any landmass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current
But if you think that current was getting “too warm” by green-house gases, or whatever, would not the entire edge of the continent would be melting, more or less, uniformly?
But it seems to be melting only a few ‘hotspots’, such as the Thwaites Glacier which, coincidentally, lies above a subterranean volcano:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Island_Glacier#Subglacial_volcano
In fact, the entire continent is divided into two by the West Antarctic Rift System (WARS), which conveniently runs approximately along the Prime Meridian, such that you may correctly label the pieces “West Antarctic” and “East Antarctic” because they respectively reside mostly in those hemispheres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Rift
In fact, you can actually view some this volcanism (sulfur dioxide emissions) yourself in real time using your browser and the Czech-developed Windy.com weather/climate tool:
https://www.windy.com/-Show-add-more-layers/overlays?so2sm,-74.807,-104.355,3
Twaites Glacier is located in the center notch. You can see the sulfur fumes emitted by King George Island (near the undersea volcano Orca) on the right. On the left you can see emissions from Mount Erebus, the southern-most volcano in the world, over 12,000 feet in elevation. Routinely, other emissions will frequently be seen, such as from near Thwaites and also from Deception Island, in the Bransfield Straits not far from King George Island (not fuming at this instant as I am writing).
oops, forgot the citation:
But didn’t Willis recently show us very recently…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/21/the-charney-report-revisited/
Nature Climate Change formed in 2011 as the continuation of Nature Reports Climate Change, itself established in 2007.
Peer review for data modelers! Who would have thought soothsayers would get their own publication!
Definition of soothsayer
: a person who predicts the future by magical, intuitive, data modeling or more rational means : prognosticator
Synonyms for soothsayer
augur, diviner, forecaster, foreseer, foreteller, fortune-teller, futurist, prognosticator, prophesier, prophet, seer, visionary, lair, deceitful, deceptive
So absence of evidence that it is happening, is really just evidence that it has only been delayed?
These”scientists” are the people the psychologists should really be studying.
If you don’t like data in Climate Science you just blend it out. Mosher was only saying the exact same thing the other day if you don’t like a reading on a site you just blend it out from neighbouring sites because you really want your data to be consistent.
Doesn’t Mosher still believe in this scam?
So, in summary…
1. They ASSUME “human induced” warming, without empirical evidence (as usual).
2. This will be the latest excuse for the lack of warming in the southern hemisphere.
2. This will be the latest excuse for the lack of “global” warming – and suddenly “northern” hemisphere warming will become the “climate” poster boy (with of course all that talk about how meaningless temperature changes that supposedly aren’t “global” being conveniently forgotten), while they explain away the lack of warming over HALF OF THE EARTH with this “ice berg delay” bullshit.
3. The likely cause (undersea volcanoes, NOT “global warming,” is the most likely cause of WAIS melting and/or shedding of ice chunks/bergs) is conveniently overlooked, because they can’t blame it on human fossil fuel use or human meat consumption or human farming practices.
4. They assume, as usual, that “stability” of the Antarctic ice sheet is (a) “normal”, (b) beneficial, and (c) has anything to do with human activities, specifically the burning of fossil fuels.
5. They manage to conclude – with a straight face – that this will BOTH “cool ocean waters” AND make sea level rise WORSE.
5. They assume the ice sheet will continue to retreat for “several hundred years.” LMFAO – They have no clue what will happen in several DOZEN years, much less several HUNDRED.
6. They have “quantified for the first time this effect of Antarctic iceberg calving on future Southern Hemisphere climate,” WITHOUT any actual real-world study, any real world data, any understanding of natural climate variation and its drivers, or any acknowledgement of undersea volcanoes that are probably the biggest drivers of any WAIS “destabilization.” Because they have a computer. And a bunch of assumptions.
“Nature Climate Change” should change its name to “Nature Climate Propaganda.” It would at least be a more honest label for the garbage they publish.
I love when Warmist scientists “discover” negative feedbacks. It’s so cute.
I agree – but you notice they NEVER refer to them as such – it’s always something that “delays global warm…” – er, I mean “climate change,” never something that OFFSETS any such postulated “change.”
Is it not ”Temporarily Delaying Climate Emergency Crisis Disaster’ nowadays?
Or am I confused by their ever-changing efforts at frightening the population?
The Mencken quote – referencing ‘hobgoblins, mostly imaginary . . .’ springs to mind.
Again.
Auto
I looked it up: –
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
I didn’t know it came from his book (1918) ‘In Defense Of Women’ .
We now have the data we need to calculate the trajectory of Global Warming research.
As others have noted, their models have discovered that ice cools things down. This is a breakthrough for them as we can see by the fact that several universities were involved and the work was deemed suitable for publication.
Whats Next:
The models will discover the heat capacity of water, the latent heat of melting, then the heat of vaporization. After a delay, the models will discover that heat can be turned into useful work. At this point, the models will charge, Full Steam Ahead, into the discovery of Thermodynamics and a full model of an Industrial Revolution. After about 80 years or so, the models will substitute internal combustion engines for steam engines, and so will enter the modern age. It will still be at least an additional 100 years before the models start modeling the climate.
A Hazard:
When the models start modeling Climate Science, the first thing they may discover is that ice keeps things cold. At which point we are in for another modeled model of the rediscovery of Thermodynamics and the Industrial Revolution.
When programming their models, they should have taken care that their model could not enter an infinite loop.
Is it me or does Charles the Moderator subtly reinforce the AGW fraud?
Charles just copied and posted the report as is.
You always find that it is better to go to the paper itself instead of the journalist’s own recycled version of the research. The paper is usually much more rational and specific. The journalist will subtly add spin and predjudice and the obligatory OMG global warming homily. They regularly make alarmist statements claiming they come from the research when they do not. Ignore the “science” journalist, go straight to the paper itself or at least the abstract if it’s behind a paywall.
By declaring the falsehood of AGW as ‘settled’ ctm would sink to the level of the Climatists. Free and open discussion must be allowed on all sides to make progress in science.
‘The research team plans to further quantify the interplay between ice and climate and its effect on global sea level with a new computer model that they developed.’
Oh goodie, that should help…
The entire southern ocean is cold – look at NOAAs ocean anomaly map:
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/
And it’s been like that through their winter. Also it looks like Antarctica is set to resume its sea ice extent growth: there appears to be a 5yr cycle to the growth pattern but the general trend has been upwards throughout the satellite era.
I’ve been commenting on this abundance of cold water since the unconventional El Nino which developed in fits and starts over two years. When NOAA predicted a 2019 yearend weak El Nino, disageed because of the effect of masses of cold water in both hemispheres slanting equatorward instead of simple upwelling of cold water in the eastern Pacific. We have both these conditions now and we are going to dive down quickly into big La Nina conditions. It was 15C overnight here in eastern Ontario. We’ve had a cool summer across Canada. I’m dreading another record cold winter that we have been suffering the past two years.
I agree Gary, this is going be another bad winter even in Southern Ontario..
Gary
The Southern Ocean has had a significant cold anomaly for as long as I have been looking at climate data – more than a decade. I’ve also noticed that ocean related climate parameters tend to move in a saltatory manner, in a series of 5-8 year jumps.
“The entire southern ocean is cold”
Well, not really. Most is yes, but not all.
If you’re looking for anomalies, what stands out on that map is a far higher proportion of the northern hemisphere is anomalously warm and those anomalies are larger than any of the cool anomalies.
Linda Goodman
August 14, 2019 at 7:09 am
Is it me or does Charles the Moderator subtly reinforce the AGW fraud?
I picture CTM in tears with laughter while rolling on the floor at the crap he finds, I know I am.
This is not new; the same rationalization (melt water cooling the ocean) is dragged out when Europe has a cold winter. Why didn’t these vaunted computer models predict this before beforehand instead of coming up with post hoc explanations?
“Why didn’t these vaunted computer models predict this before beforehand instead of coming up with post hoc explanations?”
It probably has to do with funding, with the lack of funding. To reach the proper conclusion the proper amount of funding needs to be applied. The greater the funding the more proper the conclusion.
Note: The conclusion will merely approach the point of being proper; It will never reach it. To reach the proper conclusion will spell the end of the funding, hence the need for funding will never come to an end because the proper conclusion will never be reached.
They assume continuous melting until the end of time. Yet we know that ice growth and loss oscillate between the north and south pole. As one gains the other loses, then the pattern reverses.
Executive summary:
Cooling means warming.
Trust us, we’re the experts.
“To melt the icebergs released over the 21st century in one of our extreme Antarctic ice-sheet retreat scenarios would require 400 times the current annual world energy consumption.”
Say what? 400 times the current annual world energy consumption? 400 times?
Does anybody here believe the world’s energy consumption will be 400 times greater in the 21st century than it is now? Yes? No?
If “No” then that means, according to them, all the icebergs won’t melt, that the ocean temperature won’t be warm enough to melt all the icebergs, that the ocean temperature will not rise as the models predict. Hence, all life on planet earth will be saved from extinction.
“A novel method to test non-exclusive hypotheses applied to Arctic ice projections from dependent models”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10561-x
“Gobily Gook” as my grampa use to say…
No science, no scientists and not convincing.
The Institute for Basic Science is apparently a place where science of any kind is no longer tolerated!
Reality has jumped the shark, and in the words of my new guru and ascended master Weird Al Yankovic: “…everything you thought was just so important doesn’t really matter!”
Climate researchers from the University of Hawaii (USA), the IBS Center for Climate Physics (South Korea), Penn State University (USA) and University of Massachusetts (USA) …. Larry, Curly, Moe, and Shemp…. calling Dr. HOWARD, Dr. FINE, Dr. HOWARD!!!
“We apply the method to probabilistically estimate the level of global warming needed for a September ice-free Arctic, using an ensemble of historical and representative concentration pathway 8.5 emissions scenario climate model runs. We show that not accounting for model dependence can lead to biased projections. Incorporating more constraints on models may minimize the impact of neglecting model non-exclusivity. Most likely, September Arctic sea ice will effectively disappear at between approximately 2 and 2.5 K of global warming. Yet, limiting the warming to 1.5 K under the Paris agreement may not be sufficient to prevent the ice-free Arctic.”
…”gobbledy gook” x 42 … : )
…”Climate models currently used in the 6th climate change assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not account for this process.”
Two points:
1. The Climate Charlatans are desperately trying to conjure up a rationale on why the Southern Hemisphere, and mostly Antarctica, are not warming per models, i.e. southern polar amplification is not happening. Now it’s an icecube in a glass effect.
2. The models do not account for many effects… melting glacial ice (heat of fusion problem) is just one of the many aspects of water phase changes that models either do not “model” or that, where they are, such as precipitation and cloud formation, they are parameterized and tuned to suit “opinion.”
Opinion is not science. They may refer to them as “informed guesses” in their choice of parameter values, but they are still guesses. Guesses based on prejudice of what they think should happen. And the modellers refuse to submit their models to empirical observations, only to compare themselves to one another, in an Emperor’s New Clothes Fashion Show. Junk science, total junk science.
Am I the only person here that has noticed that the word “robust” has not been used in this article? How can a scientific article such as this be taken seriously if the robust word is not used?
Is more research, more funding, required in order for these findings to be deemed to be “robust”?
Nothing about climate science is robust in terms of reproducibility or verification. Thus the reliance on “consensus.” Throughout the history of scientific endeavors, consensus is invoked when robustness is absent and a political outcome for policy is desired.
That in a nutshell is why all the Climate Change alarmist nonsense needs to be ignored. The Left is rushing to solve a non-problem with bad economic policy for political power. Society and freedoms always lose in that exchange.
nonononono.. climate science only needs to be speculative in order to qualify for funding. Robust? it does not even need to be plausible..
The icebergs when melted will make no difference to global sea level because they are already in the water. Has this person been confused between glaciers and icebergs? When Antarctic ice retreats the icebergs slow down or stop. How can someone get so many things wrong?
The reason why models are always wrong is because they fail to get negative feedbacks right. Water is a negative feedback in solid, liquid or gas form and the planet is not warming as expected because of this. The greenhouse gases have little or no noticeable affect on negative feedbacks including the oceans retaining stability. The little warming from oceans had been because more solar radiation reached the surface than before. When the cycle changes again with less solar radiation reaching the surface, cooling will follow. This is not expected until about 14 years time when the AMO becomes negative. Add clouds, ice and water vapor the people modelling have little idea with water cycles mechanisms. The AMOC is particularly ignored by the alarmists and contributes significantly to the Arctic ocean.
Only way to melt these icebergs would require to place them away from the cold ocean surface. No warm ocean currents reach this place so they can’t melt unlike in the Arctic ocean. These icebergs will always be there continuing negative feedback for many thousands of years to come. The greenhouse gases are having no effect on warming Antarctica because only the oceans have enough energy from the sun to be able to do this. Move Antarctica 1000 miles North and melting would soon happen with low lying areas at risk from significant sea level rises.
Gosh, I wonder if there’s anything more that we don’t know about that could ‘delay’ or ‘weaken’ Global Warming?
I’m just waiting for the paper to be published indicating that incresing CO2 and CH4 could mask the effects of Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption making it more difficult to tease out the data interpretations showing that CO2 & CH4 are the primary drivers of Global Warming/Climate Change/ Climate Disruption
Anything more?
Not mentioned is the reversal of the warmest’s position that sea water will release CO2 because it is warmer and will instead now absorb CO2 because it is colder.
Also, the position that the expansion of sea water due to warming will lead to higher sea levels needs to be reversed. Needs to be reversed, but won’t.
What next? Ice delays Global Warming?
The oddest thing about the “averaging area” on the map is that there is never, ever any icebergs in most of it. Iceberg very rarely move north from Antarctica anywhere except in the “Iceberg Alley” in the Weddell sea:
Get ready for a flurry of pseudoscience and cherry-picked real science that props the theme, “we’re lucky because of this…”
Phase 1, played out: A vengeful God will strike us down with direct warming.
Phase 2, emerging: A merciful God has given us these various secondary climate effects that just happen to delay the Judgement, which is still there but presently ‘masked’.
Phase 3: A vengeful God will strike down the unbelievers.
Phase 4: And us too, unless we mercifully commend the unbelievers’ souls first.
Fronted as a joke but it’s not funny
I can’t believe this hasn’t been mentioned yet (that I can find):
Futurama — Global Warming, or None Like It Hot!
https://youtu.be/B2LB4Up6hWc