UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
CREDIT: BEN ADKISON
In the Southern Hemisphere, the ice cover around Antarctica gradually expands from March to October each year. During this time the total ice area increases by 6 times to become larger than Russia. The sea ice then retreats at a faster pace, most dramatically around December, when Antarctica experiences constant daylight.
New research led by the University of Washington explains why the ice retreats so quickly: Unlike other aspects of its behavior, Antarctic sea ice is just following simple rules of physics.
The study was published March 28 in Nature Geoscience.
“In spite of the puzzling longer-term trends and the large year-to-year variations in Antarctic sea ice, the seasonal cycle is really consistent, always showing this fast retreat relative to slow growth,” said lead author Lettie Roach, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral researcher at the UW and is now research scientist at NASA and Columbia University. “Given how complex our climate system is, I was surprised that the rapid seasonal retreat of Antarctic sea ice could be explained with such a simple mechanism.”
Previous studies explored whether wind patterns or warm ocean waters might be responsible for the asymmetry in Antarctica’s seasonal sea ice cycle. But the new study shows that, just like a hot summer day reaches its maximum sizzling conditions in late afternoon, an Antarctic summer hits peak melting power in midsummer, accelerating warming and sea ice loss, with slower changes in temperature and sea ice when solar input is low during the rest of the year.
The researchers investigated global climate models and found they reproduced the quicker retreat of Antarctic sea ice. They then built a simple physics-based model to show that the reason is the seasonal pattern of incoming solar radiation.
At the North Pole, Arctic ice cover has gradually decreased since the 1970s with global warming. Antarctic ice cover, however, has seesawed over recent decades. Researchers are still working to understand sea ice around the South Pole and better represent it in climate models.
“I think because we usually expect Antarctic sea ice to be puzzling, previous studies assumed that the rapid seasonal retreat of Antarctic sea ice was also unexpected — in contrast to the Arctic, where the seasons of ice advance and retreat are more similar,” Roach said. “Our results show that the seasonal cycle in Antarctic sea ice can be explained using very simple physics. In terms of the seasonal cycle, Antarctic sea ice is behaving as we should expect, and it is the Arctic seasonal cycle that is more mysterious.”
The researchers are now exploring why Arctic sea ice doesn’t follow this pattern, instead each year growing slightly faster over the Arctic Ocean than it retreats. Because Antarctica’s geography is simple, with a polar continent surrounded by ocean, this aspect of its sea ice may be more straightforward, Roach said.
“We know the Southern Ocean plays an important role in Earth’s climate. Being able to explain this key feature of Antarctic sea ice that standard textbooks have had wrong, and showing that the models are reproducing it correctly, is a step toward understanding this system and predicting future changes,” said co-author Cecilia Bitz, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences.
Other co-authors are; Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, a UW research assistant professor in atmospheric sciences; Ian Eisenman at Scripps Institution of Oceanography; and Till Wagner at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Roach is currently a research scientist with the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K.-based Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.
###
JOURNAL
Nature Geoscience
DOI
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
Not applicable
ARTICLE TITLE
Asymmetry in the seasonal cycle of Antarctic sea ice driven by insolation
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
28-Mar-2022
HT/Zoltan
I think it is deliberate that arctic ice cover listings are cut off at the late 1970’s. While that was the start of dedicated satellite coverage, it is also the high point in coverage that century.
There were earlier satellite imagery, which is not used, as well as ship or aerial and ship reports, which are also not mentioned.
You peed in runts rice bowl again, Tom! How very naughty of you.
We have new area metric, Manhattan and Delaware are out, we are now in big numbers ‘Russia’ = 0.3 Mega ‘Manhattan’
How many “football fields is 0.1 Mega Manhattan?
Just asking for a friend.
” … it is also the high point in coverage that century. ”
Oh… really? Where do you have that from?
Source
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
1 degree grid data. Nice to process!
so what has changed with solar output this year? The arctic sea ice is lowest yet
sorry cut off key from image
You realize this site indicates antartic sea ice is actually growing?
Talk about a malignant cherry-picked graph !
Where is 2017 (which it is well above), and 2019 (which it is pretty much equal to).?
Significantly faster than average growth the last 2 weeks, (for same two weeks of year)
2017 was 2.18 min
2022 was 2.14 minimum
is this growing?
We are talking current levels, runt.
That’s how quickly 2022 is growing , well above 2017, basically level with 2019.
Have you ever heard of “weather events”? or do you sit in your basement all day and night thinking of stupid things to say. !
Did you even look at this graph?
This graph only shows events in the last 20 years, and has lines that represent several years within the last 20 where the sea ice had reached the highest extent ever. This year just doesn’t happen to be one of them.
I think ghalfrunt is a bit irritated or so, thus let’s help him a bit.
Arctic sea ice 2022:
Antarctic sea ice 2022:
I dropped 2012 off the list a while ago, but it is worth being displayed here (the thick magenta line).
Remember? That was at the end of the last bigger La Niña (2010-2012).
We are now in a similar, though somewhat weaker situation.
*
” You realize this site indicates antartic sea ice is actually growing? ”
Sounds, in comparison to 2012 (known to everybody rather as the year with lowest September extent), like a bad joke.
*
Source
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
There is a browser-compatible source somewhere else.
Perhaps you need to get some reading glasses or zoom in on your browser. LOL
Sorry ghalfrunt, you say arctic ice and you post a graph of antarctic ice. There’s a whole world of difference between them!
Makes me wonder how much thought goes into your comments.
Hey the drink bleach guy appears. You still telling people to drink bleach to stop Covid?
“The arctic sea ice is lowest yet”
Assuming you meant Antarctic sea ice….
WRONG ! 2017 was lower.
Um, that’s a graph of antarctic ice extent. Do you want to try again?
So, we have to shut off the Sun to save the climate. Got it.
Oh, the horror of it all. Could that ‘Global Warming’ isn’t global?
The sins of trying to run a straight line average.
Actual ice levels have gone up, down and sideways over the last 50 years. Over the last 5 to 10 years, arctic ice levels have been stable to growing.
This cannot be right. The strength of the sun is too weak to melt the ice in climate models.
Tourist polar bears in penguin chasing safaris breathing out too much CO2?
How many volcanoes exist under that ice ??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raR5YgFcIQQ
Over 100 in Western Antarctica.
Why is it that the Climate Change propagandists have never noticed that the snow on the driveways of homes on the North side of the street melt considerably faster than the homes on the South side of the street? I often see trickles of water on my south facing snow covered drive with temperatures below ZERO F.
Have they not noticed steam/water vapor rising from the snow on the south facing roofs even though it is below Zero degrees F? Easily seen when the Sun is in the right angle to show the steam.
One would think they would want to know what caused these things to happen and factor that into their Climate Change Models.
In the NH. And Climate Change proponents don’t actually observe nature – they just look at computer output.
“– they just fabricate computer output.”
Fixed that for you Jim
I work for a bank that kept putting the drive-ups on the north side of the buildings in the North Dakota. Between ice and froze ATM it was a mess. Of course BestBuy in Fargo also put it main entrance on the northside after it moved from Moorhead to Fargo, that worked out well.
No, the Climate Change “Models” are designed in very specific ways; otherwise…
“Unlike other aspects of its behavior, Antarctic sea ice is just following simple rules of physics.”
What other aspects? They do not say.
“The researchers investigated global climate models”
And wasted everybody’s time as well as their own.
They then realised that the Sun has quite a lot to do with it.
The climate itself also follows simple rules of physics like Conservation of Energy and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, yet the IPCC mentions neither as a contributing factor that controls the surface temperature. Instead, they misapply linear feedback amplifier analysis to create energy out of thin air which is the only way they can invent the Joules necessary to offset the emissions from the higher temperatures they claim will occur.
co2isnotevil: “The climate itself also follows simple rules of physics like Conservation of Energy and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, yet the IPCC mentions neither as a contributing factor that controls the surface temperature.”
Sure they do. See AR5 WG1 section 2.3.1 as an example. Also, many of the CMIP suite of models uses the RRTM radiative transfer and similar schemes which are consistent with the 1LOT and SB law.
co2isnotevil: “Instead, they misapply linear feedback amplifier analysis to create energy out of thin air which is the only way they can invent the Joules necessary to offset the emissions from the higher temperatures they claim will occur.”
I have not seen anywhere that the IPCC violates the 1LOT. Would you mind posting the report and page number where you believe they are?
Sure. The violation is in the claimed ECS. The average w/m^2 of solar forcing results in 1.62 w/m^2 of surface emissions, corresponding to about an 0.3C increase in temperature. The IPCC claims a sensitivity of about 0.8C +/- 0.4C per w/m^2 of forcing corresponding to an emissions increase of 4.4 +/- 2.2 w/m^2 per w/m^2 of forcing. Not withstanding the fact that any metric with +/- 50% is the furthest thing from ‘settled’, the simple fact is that they can not provide a legitimate source for all the extra energy required to offset the claimed increase in surface emissions. They ignorantly claim ‘feedback’ which can not tell the next Joule from the average Joule so that the next ont can be so much more powerful at sustaining surface warmth.
As I have said on many occasions. the trick they apply to fool the scientifically illiterate is to claim a contrived linear incremental effect as a consequence of temperature, rather than to acknowledge the fact that COE dictates that Joules of input are linear to Joules of output and that relative to the work required to maintain the surface temperature, all Joules are the same.
I pointed this out in my review of AR6, but of course they ignored this and the other errors I pointed out, as the scientific truth undermines everything they need to believe to support the agenda of the UNFCCC.
ECS is not a violation of the 1LOT. In fact, it is a consequence of it. The 1LOT says when a system has a positive energy imbalance the excess energy must accumulate within the system. ΔE = Ein – Eout. And because ΔT = ΔE/(cm) where c is specific heat capacity and m is the mass then when ΔE > 0 then ΔT > 0 as well. That means if Ein or Eout changes then there must be a change in T is as well therefore there must be an ECS.
I would like to the see the exact page those 0.8 C per W/m2 and 4.4 W/m2 figures come from to verify. But assuming those are correct this also complies with the 1LOT. For example, an initial imbalance on the system of 1 W/m2 will lead to 0.8 C of surface warming over a period of time (several decades). And sblaw(T+0.8) = 4 W/m2 so the 4.4 W/m2 is about right with any difference likely the result of the rectification effect. I think your criticism here may be due to a conflation of radiative force with radiative response. Those are different concepts. Radiative force quantifies the initial planetary imbalance Fin – Fout while radiative response quantifies only Fin or Fout in isolation. For example, if Fin and Fout each start at 240 W/m2 then Fin – Fout = 0 W/m2. The radiative force here is 0 W/m2. And if Fout descreases to 239 W/m2 due to 1 W/m2 of radiative force then Fin – Fout = +1 W/m2. To bring the climate system back into equilibrium a lot of different things begin changing including ice cover, cloud cover, etc. As a result both Fin and Fout will change. The final state might be Fin = 244 W/m2 and Fout = 244 W/m2. Notice that 1 W/m2 radiative force caused a 4 W/m2 radiative response due to ice, cloud, etc. feedbacks. And more importantly notice that both are consistent with the 1LOT.
You an the IPCC are missing the math and physics. The current average temp is about 288K emitting about 390 W/m^2 per the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, and is the result of about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy. 390/240 is about 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of solar forcing. All W/m^2 of solar forcing contribute equally to the result and corresponds to an effective emissivity of about 1/1.62 = 0.62 when considering the bulk behavior of the planet to behave as a gray body, which is demonstrably true.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/tp/fig2.png
The green line is the SB law with an emissivity of 0.62 and the little red dots are a month of data per 2.5 degree slice of latitude. The larger dots are the averages per slice across 3 decades of data. Note as well that there is no identifiable trend in the effective emissivity of about 0.62 and that this ratio is independent of temperature or forcing.
At a temperature of 288.8K, as claimed to arise from the next W/m^2 of forcing, the surface emissions increase to 394.4 W/m^2 for an increase of 4.4 W/m^2. There is no physics that can make the next Joule so much more powerful than the average Joule. They don’t say this explicitly, as this truth undermines the magic they want you to believe in.
Another path to the actual ECS is the slope of the SB Law, given as 1/(4oeT^3), where T=288K, e=0.62 and o is the SB constant of 5.67E-8 W/m^2 per K^4.
You are also considering only the linearity between stored Joules and temperature and ignoring the non linearity between emissions and temperature. The thermal mass is irrelevant to the steady state which is only concerned with offsetting emissions consequential to the steady state temperature. The size of the thermal mass only determines how quickly a steady state will be achieved.
Another big error is to consider CO2 ‘forcing’ as equivalent to solar forcing, i.e. it adds new energy to the system just like the Sun. Best practices modeling requires that changes to the system, for example, changing CO2 concentrations, be modeled as a change in real forcing (solar) keeping the system (CO2) constant. Instead, they erroneously consider CO2 forcing to be incremental to solar forcing. In fact, CO2 is not a forcing influence at all and the test is whether or not it has an effect in the absence of other forcings and without the Sun, CO2 is moot. All GHG’s and clouds do is contribute to the 0.62 W/m^2 of emissions in excess of each W/m^2 of solar forcing.
co2isnotevil said: “You an the IPCC are missing the math and physics.”
The math is right. Refer to AR5 WG1 section 2.3.1.
Surface: 161 + 342 – 84 – 20 – 398 – 1 = 0
Atmosphere: 79 + 84 + 20 + 398 – 239 – 342 = 0
Top: 340 – 239 – 100 – 1 = 0
Notice that each layer is balanced and that the 1LOT is satisfied.
co2isnotevil said: “390/240 is about 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of solar forcing.”
You are violating the 1LOT here. Remember the 1LOT says ΔE = ΣEin – ΣEout. For ΣEout you only included upwelling longwave radiation and for ΣEin you only included downwelling shortwave radiation. You ignored or effectively made all of the other forms of energy just disappear when forming the ratio.
co2isnotevil said: “You are also considering only the linearity between stored Joules and temperature and ignoring the non linearity between emissions and temperature.”
Neither I nor scientists in general ignore the 4th power relationship between temperature and radiant emission. Neither are we ignoring all of the other forms of energy transmission as well.
co2isnotevil said: “Another big error is to consider CO2 ‘forcing’ as equivalent to solar forcing, i.e. it adds new energy to the system just like the Sun.”
Neither I nor scientists think CO2 increases Fin at TOA. What we accept is that it decreases Fout at TOA. It’s not we have choice but to accept this since the 1LOT says so.
Regarding non radiant emissions by the surface, to the extent that a Joule of energy that leaves the planet can trace its origin to latent heat, a Joule of surface radiation that would have been emitted must be returned to the surface to offset the lost latent heat. Trenberth’s energy balance picture is a horrible misrepresentation of reality.
Bottom line: non radiant energy going from the surface to the atmosphere, plus its return to the surface in any form, has a zero sum influence on the RADIANT balance. All this does is reorganize existing energy. In fact, GHG’s and clouds do the same and clouds are a far bigger contributor to the offset of the 0.62 W/m^2 of emissions beyond what can be offset by each W/m^2 of solar forcing.
ndgwx: BTW, if you can’t accept the fact that misapplied feedback arising from the lack of an implicit source of Joules to power the gain is the magic source of the energy required to offset all of the additional emissions, the only other possibility is perpetual motion. If you can figure out how to make that work, you will become exceptionally wealthy by solving all future energy needs.
Feedbacks do not create energy. Feedbacks cause Earth to absorb more energy from the Sun. That energy already exists. It’s just that instead of it getting reflected back to space it gets absorbed by the Earth instead.
Correct, it shouldn’t, but the IPCC requires the atmosphere to create energy to offset the additional emissions. The only thing they can point to is fake feedback.
The IPCC does think the atmosphere creates energy. Don’t take my word for it. Read AR5 WG1 section 2.3.1 and do a 1LOT calculation at the surface, atmosphere, and TOA and notice that it balances. No energy is ever created or destroyed to make the budget balance.
Please cite the physics that allows the next Joule of solar forcing to offset 3-4 times more incremental emissions than the last Joule. This is such an obvious violation of COE and if you have any science credentials at all, you should be embarrassed that you accept the IPCC’s nonsensical junk science.
Also, citing anything in an IPCC report is meaningless. UN bureaucrats do not have more legitimacy than the scientific method. For example, a test of the IPCC sensitivity factor of 0.8C per W/m^2 of forcing is that if each W/m^2 of solar forcing also contributed 4.4 W/m^2 to the surface emissions, the surface emissions become 4.4*240 = 1056 W/m^2 corresponding to a temperature close to 100C and clearly, the surface is much cooler than that. It only takes one failed test and I have many more.
I’ve yet to see a “climate” “model” input gravity as a major energy source…. wolfram says its along the lines of 1×10^11 photons – seems like a valid form of input into the system.
You should take a look at global circulation models like those in the CMIP suite then. All GCMs consider gravity.
I think you may have misspelled the “jewels” of their claim…
Hey, we’ve got a breakthrough here – the sun DOES have an effect after all. The models will be showing solar influence in the Arctic any day now, and then climate science really will be settled. Well, a bit settled.
‘Because Antarctica’s geography is simple, with a polar continent surrounded by ocean, this aspect of its sea ice may be more straightforward, Roach said.’
Following this logic, wouldn’t the Arctic’s geography, i.e., with no pesky continent in the way, be even simpler to explain?
Scientists discover ice melts in sunshine.
At the same time forgets that wind can also be a factor.
And freezes when the sky goes perpetually dark for months.
South Pole currently gets the highest single day sunshine of any place on Earth. Beats the North Pole by about 30W/sq.m
So the scientists explain Antarctica ice level purely by solar radiation, and then when it drops dramatically this year they waffle: See comment by Wrigglesworth in the NY Times ascribing the sudden drop to winds:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/climate/antarctica-sea-ice-arctic.html
Didn’t The NY Times win a Pulitzer Prize for their Russia colluuuusion stories?
How low has journalism dropped 😔
…..it is the arctic seasonal cycle that is mysterious..
This is because nobody is looking or willing to look at what is happening in the arctic ocean.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/03/08/who-or-what-turned-up-the-heat/
What other rules would you expect it to follow?
BTW, they are called the laws of physics, not the rules, because they are so well established, and they are all simple.
And, to probe a little deeper into this very bizarre statement, what “other aspects” of Antarctic sea ice behaviour don’t follow the laws of physics? I assume this is just bloviating to hide the fact that the whole Antarctic land-sea-ice-atmosphere system is too complicated for simple minds and their simplistic models to understand.
Well said Smart Rock, you beat me to it. I must read the comments before adding to them in future. Having read the article I too, wondered what other options are there?
I don’t know how everyone else feels, but its a bit worrying, when a research scientist comes out and says ‘the Antarctic follows the laws of physics’. It makes you wonder what other rules they thought might be operating that affect ice cycles, wherever they might be happening?
NASA writes the laws of physics so it is a confirmation that the ice follows what NASA requires.
but..but..but.. these are U. of W. SCIENTISTS!! No Respect.
We are reasonably confident that temperatures have increased a degree since the Little Ice Age. So one should not be astonished that sea ice has declined somewhat 1 1/2 centuries later. No Crisis involved….reduction is minor considering extent of ice 90 centuries ago…
Yes. I am dismayed at those who use continued melting of ice as evidence of continued warming. Once temperatures are above the freezing point no other warming is necessary for ice melt to continue. In our case, I believe that temps have increased over the 150+ years, and may be continuing to increase by natural causes. But ice melt is insufficient evidence that the world is growing warmer.
Occasionally, I gave talks to middle schoolers. When covering glaciers, I ‘innocently’ showed them that a very simple situation (drought) can result in shrinking glaciers despite a climate growing COLDER. I just hope they remember the lesson.
Re-expansion of sea ice in the central Arctic following a change in the polar vortex pattern.
Ah, ren’s cherry-picking, how nice to see it again.
What about showing us the whole Arctic instead?
Looks a tiny bit different, doesn’t it?
A strong stratospheric polar vortex at a time of increased solar activity will cause rapid ice growth around Antarctica.
“I was surprised that the rapid seasonal retreat of Antarctic sea ice could be explained with such a simple mechanism.”” Well that only a surprise if you are an educated idiot.
?????????
“global climate models and found they reproduced the quicker retreat of Antarctic sea ice. They then built a simple physics-based model to show that the reason is the seasonal pattern of incoming solar radiation.”
They seem to have unwittingly made a huge discovery about the problem with pre-existing climate models that were available before their simple one made for the
study. So anxious were they to say something nice about their colleagues’ climate models (de rigeur if you want to get a non-mainstream idea published), that they didn’t realize they were falsifying them wholesale!
Climate models are built around the CO2 Control Knob as the primary cause of warming and melting ice. Therefore, if they got the rapid retreat of ice correct, they got it with the wrong mix of parameters!
First, this should hammer home the trivial fact fact that you can get the ‘right answer’ with models irretrievably, totally wrong. I say this because they have such faith in their models as to think the model runs are data. The silly stunt of removing anthrpo emissions from the models and “finding that there is no warming” ergo blah blah human fossil burning must be the cause is childish thinking.
Second, for those who care about scientific endeavor, this wonderful simple finding re sea ice rapid retreat, actually turns on a big light inside hitherto total darkness in models. They can now reduce the GHG effect down to less than a third and resolve the problems of the recent realization by several consensus scientists that models are running a way too hot (300% too hot vs observations).
My recommendation would be to reduce it to perhaps a fifth, because all the other parameters in the model are grossly wrongly weighted (by simple deduction). Most modelers would likely want to reduce the cooling factor of aerosols which they loaded the models up with to counteract what even they believed was too much heat from GHG.
Finally, I’ve pointed out many times here, even with a brief article on WUWT years ago, that any forced changes to one or more components (say T) of an interacting multicomponent system (T, P, V, enthalpy, chem conc., pH, bio components, etc,etc, are resisted by induced adjustments in the other components such that the final effect of the perturbing component is greatly reduced.
This is known (seemingly not by physicists nor climate scientists) as the Le Châtelier Principle.
This is a real effect. Buffering action in the ocean resists acidification by increased CO2 dissolution in seawater, the Greening of the planet in response to rising CO2 sequesters much of the CO2, and being an endothermic reaction actually causes some cooling.
Big snowstorms in Europe.
For sure, ren, for sure!
1) Coming night (from 020422 to 030422)
2) Next night (from 030422 to 040422)
No more snow to see in the forecast till 150422…
And in Berlin, Germoney, there was no snow at all since…
… oh wait, I can’t recall. Mid Feb or so?
“Lettie Roach”? Um…I think if I were her, I would change my name.
“Michelle..” Yeah, that’s it, Michelle Roach..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvqT1e_XNyE
Arctic sea ice is a very complex item. The Dutch professor T. Begemann points out that the rivers in Siberia are flowing to the north. When it gets COLDER, there is more snowfall in Siberia. In the spring this snow melts and the sweet water flows into the Arctic Sea. The ice is melting from UNDERNEATH, because of the inflow of melting water. So we see that the spring ice is decreasing a lot, while the summer ice is decreasing just a little bit. Autumn and winter ice is increasing. About 100 km from the North Pole a settlement from 4000 years ago was found, and the people who lived there were living from agriculture.
” About 100 km from the North Pole a settlement from 4000 years ago was found, and the people who lived there were living from agriculture. ”
Show us some real source document confirming this, please!
The ice in the Arctic is melting very slowly this year.
Frost in all of western Europe, including Spain.
Low surface temperature of the equatorial Pacific and Atlantic.