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.
###
“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