Sea Ice South (1): A little geography
Sea Ice South (1): A little geography
My last entry was on the decline of sea ice in the Arctic and how this is forming an entirely new environment in the Arctic. It’s an environment of open water in the summer and a freezing sea in the winter - perhaps, a little like the Great Lakes. Now I am going to start a series on trying to untangle the difficult subject of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere.
As many know the sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been increasing for the past few years. Here is a picture from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Figure 1: Areal extent of April sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere from 1979 – 2011. (figure from National Snow and Ice Data Center)
This figure shows a plot of April monthly averages of the area of the ocean covered by ice. There is a lot of variability from year to year, and if you take an average of all the years, the amount of ocean covered by sea ice has increased in the last three decades. From 2006 to 2011 the variability is high, and it will be interesting to see if the apparent oscillation continues over the next five years.
This increase of sea ice has entered the political discussion in different ways. Most notably, it has been paired with the Arctic sea ice in plots to show that the global sea ice is remaining approximately constant. The political argument goes - hence, there is not trend; hence, the climate alarmists have isolated their attention on the Arctic to carry forward a political argument. This pairing of North and South to conclude that sea ice decrease is inconsequential is a deceptive political argument. It mixes northern summer with southern winter; hence, warm season and cold season in a way that is, from the point of view of the physical scientist, incorrect. It also dismisses the vast impact on ecosystems and regional climate that is occurring in the Arctic. The processes that determine the energy budget of sea ice in the northern and southern hemisphere are quite different. This series is my attempt to break down this complexity well enough that I can understand it.
In both my dynamics class and my climate change class, I constantly remind students of the geography of the Earth. The weather and climate of the Earth is largely determined by the energy received from the Sun, the rotation of the Earth, and the distribution of land, water, ice and air. Of special importance is the height and location of mountain ranges. Here’s an old map I like looking down on the South Pole.
Figure 2: Map of the South Pole and the Southern Ocean from the year 1894. (figure from Perry-Castañeda University of Texas Library Map Collection)
The first thing to note is that the South Pole is in the continent Antarctica, which is land (and ice). Compared with the oceanic North Pole, the ocean cannot carry heat all the way to the pole. The second thing to note is that Antarctica is high and steep. This strongly influences atmospheric storms. These two geographical facts mean that the atmosphere and ocean might carry heat to the edge of Antarctica, but the center of the continent is, perhaps, a bit isolated or protected.
There is another critically important aspect of the geography, which is suggested on the map by the dashed line labeled “average limit of floating ice.†Also note the parts of the ocean labeled “Antarctic Drift.†This section of ocean completely encircles the Earth with no land barrier. It gets narrow at the tip of South America. It is especially notable at, say, the tip of Africa the way the Agulhas Current gets swept away in the Antarctic drift. Remember, this map is from 1894 – I think it makes my points solidly.
We see here in the Southern Hemisphere, atmospheric storms that start in the warm north and propagate southward towards Antarctica. They travel through this open water around the continent, Antarctica. They are steered and broken up by the steep edge of Antarctica. The stress of these storms on the surface of the ocean causes the ocean to “drift†from west to east. This is a far different situation from the Arctic, where there is no land at the pole and a mix of land and ocean around the edge of the Arctic ocean. (see another old map at this old blog )
So this is the set up - the geography makes the northern and southern poles distinctly different places. How, then, do we think about the formation and destruction of sea ice? We have to think about energy, just like in the last blog. The atmosphere and ocean bring and take away heat. There is fresh (light) and salt (heavy) water. There is rain and snow (energy and fresh water). There is ice melting in Antarctica. And there is, in fact, a fundamental difference in the radiative forcing – ozone. In the Southern Hemisphere there is the ozone hole. Often we forget that ozone is, in fact, an important greenhouse gas. With all of this - is there any reason to expect sea ice to behave the same in the northern and southern hemisphere? With all of this - is it at all scientifically honest to mash together sea ice observations from the north and south, summer and winter, and talk about them as one?
OK – I think that is a reasonable foundation.
r
Useful links
Recent sea ice trends
Sea ice data
Rood’s Blogs on Ice
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index
U.S. on record pace for high-cost weather disasters
The USA has been hit with five weather disasters costing more than a billion dollars each in 2011, setting a modern record for the most high-cost weather events so early in a year, according to insurance estimates and government records.Tornadoes, floods and storms have inflicted unusually high costs because of their severity and their location, hitting populous areas such as Memphis, Raleigh, N.C., and Tuscaloosa, Ala. The severe damage could affect people nationwide, increasing insurance rates and draining taxpayer-supported disaster-relief funds.
"This has been an incredibly active start to the year," said Steve Bowen, a meteorologist who tracks weather disasters at AON Corp., the world's largest global insurance broker.
A new report by Bowen lists three billion-dollar disasters in April alone, which excludes the ongoing Mississippi River flooding and a blizzard that walloped the Midwest and Northeast from Jan. 31 to Feb. 2. Both are expected to cost more than $1 billion, the amount the federal government uses as the threshold to highlight the most severe weather disasters.
STORY: Mo. farmers return to lands ruined by blown levee
STORY: Aid pours into Alabama town hit hard by tornado
Storms this year have "produced significant damage, disruption to business and closures and increased car accidents," said Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, a leading research group supported by insurers.
The 2011 costs follow three record-setting years in which thunderstorms and tornadoes alone caused an average of about $10 billion in annual damage, according to an institute study. "It looks like 2011 is perhaps going to set perhaps a new record," Hartwig said, adding that insurance costs have risen in areas that have been hit hard by weather disasters in recent years.
A record nine billion-dollar weather disasters hit the U.S. in 2008, according to National Climactic Data Center records dating to 1980. Only two of those disasters hit by mid-May.
The center tallies disaster costs using information from insurers, state emergency-management centers and federal agencies.
Bowen estimated that a powerful spring storm in the Midwest and Southeast from April 3 to April 5 cost $2 billion, and that a similar storm in the same area a week later cost $2.25 billion.
Link
Good Afternnon.
No, I believe you did not read that wrong. This is a feedback that cancels the "tipping-point" run-away positive feedbacks that people like Hansen have formulated. The increased OHT due to warming creates a negative feedback- increased clouds near the equator.
With the feedback that I said overthrows GHG warming, that is increased Water Vapour condensing and turning into clouds.
Then again, Hansen thinks that we should go into a strong El Nino by this summer....
You are incorrect! They are well below the 1979 to 2000 average. You know more than NASA? Then tell us all where they are wrong.
No, Cyclonebuster... you didn't look at the context of what I said...
"Cyclone, a lot of those regional Arctic Sea Ice anomalies are pretty close to normal, yet it is "not acceptable..."
The map you presented was the National Snow and Ice Data Center's Map, not NASA's.
LOL big difference!
About NSIDC: Sponsors
Our supporters fund data management and scientific research at the project level. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) supports the NSIDC Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) and funds the production and distribution of remote-sensing data sets. The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides data management for scientists doing polar research. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides support for management of NOAA data sets at NSIDC and has funded many of the center's data-rescue activities.
NASA, NOAA and NSF, as well as additional sources of funding, support NSIDC scientists and outreach activities through competitive grants and contracts
NSIDC is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The University and CIRES provide a collaborative environment and support for our research.
Link
So tell us again how is it you know more than they do?
But not the 1979 to 2000 average. Don't believe it ask NOAA!
Reuters Article...
Zoom in on the image and you can see that Arctic sea ice extent is equal to 2007's, above that of 2006 and 2004, and below that of 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, and 2010. And, as cyclonebuster noted, it's well below the 1979-2000 average. Now, if sea ice being slightly greater in extent (if not thickness) than it has been in just two of the last 33 years is the best "evidence" there is that the planet's not warming, why, then, it probably is warming, don't you think?
It's right in the middle of the pack, so I'd say it's within 100,000 km² of the ten year mean, well within in fact. It's true that it's below the thirty year
averagemean, but it has been for some time now. Even if it were to begin to recover, it would likely take many years to make it back to those levels.As far the ice being evidence of warming, well I would certainly say that it's warmer now than 33 years ago so I would expect less ice over that period.
Edited to specify mean; I would consider that more telling than the median that you were referring to myself.
And time will tell about the el nino.
If some scientists say that the world is going to heat up and others say it is going to cool down what do you do? Perhaps the best course is to watch and see instead of running in the opposite direction from where you need to go. Making policies and taking steps that will only exacerbate future conditions seems to be a bit extreme. Personally I hope the AGW proponents are correct, the benefits of a warmer world out weigh the negatives, though you seldom hear this side of the discussion.
Dr. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov: Russian Academy of Scientists.Comment: RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006:
“Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century – when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland – could start in 2012-2105 and reach its peak in 2055-2060….He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today….â€
Now this is climate change, 130k ago, AGW since we
been around for a couple of Million years.
The Eemian climate is believed to have been about as stable as that of the Holocene. Changes in the earth's orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as the Milankovitch cycle, probably led to greater seasonal temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere, although global annual mean temperatures were probably similar to those of the Holocene. The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape (which is now tundra) in northern Norway well above the Arctic Circle at 71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E. Hardwood trees like hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland.
At the peak of the Eemian, the northern hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The Hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.[1] Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago instead of only as far north as Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec, and the prairie-forest boundary in the Great Plains of the United States lay further west — near Lubbock, Texas, instead of near Dallas, Texas, where the boundary now exists. The era closed as temperatures steadily fell to conditions cooler and drier than the present, with 468-year long aridity pulse in central Europe,[2] and by 114,000 years ago, a glacial era had returned.
Kaspar et al. (GRL, 2005) perform a comparison of a coupled general circulation model (GCM) with reconstructed Eemian temperatures for Europe. Central Europe (north of the Alps) was found to be 1–2 °C warmer than present; south of the alps conditions were 1–2 °C cooler than today. The model (generated using observed GHG concentrations and Eemian orbital parameters) generally reproduces these observations, and hence they conclude that these factors are enough to explain the Eemian temperatures.[3]
Link
This confirms the suspicion that global warming was a frequent occurrence as suggested by fossil evidence from the Thames and Rhine sediments of hippopotamus bones and hyenas in Yorkshire.
Bring on the "Tunnels" copyright CB.
Well, of course, RIA Novosti is the Russian equivalent of the Weekly World News. But if we were to take them seriously, one would have to ask the question: by what mechanism(s) will the cooldown take place? The sun is already at a super low minimum, and temps are still rising, so that won't work. And it's well-established that CO2 traps heat via the greenhouse effect, and the extant CO2 isn't going anywhere. And I truly don't believe wishful thinking is going to do anything. Hmmm...
To the remainder of your SDAs, I'd remind you of the following:
1) The number of scientists predicting continued heating is vastly higher than the number of those predicting cooling. Feel free to give them equal weight if you wish, but you're only fooling yourself.
2) Watching and waiting is no longer an option. Those who refuse the science will never be swayed, and the planet's getting hotter by the second; we no longer have the luxury of just kicking back.
3) It's not so much the warming, but the rate at which it's happening. In all the geologic record, the planet has never warmed up so far and so fast without massive floral and faunal die-offs. You may be comfortable with things warming so rapidly, but the planet isn't.
You get an A+! :)
Subsurface waters are looking much less impressive for an El Nino, let alone a strong El Nino.
According to paleomap we were still in an ice age back then. How warm does it have to get before we humans die out as a species? It doesn't look as though our species were doing to good back then either and that could have been the demise of Neanderthal man.
Or we could wait for the oceanic oscillations to return to their negative states...
Worth another reference "
Scientists smeared by many of you right here
.
Seriously? The guy asked denialists whether their opinions on GW have been influenced by their funding sources and they said no? Surprising! What's he going to do next, go into prisons and ask inmates on death row whether they're guilty of their crimes, and then claim their negative answers are proof of their innocence?
Please.
Anyway, I did a little checking on a few randomly-chosen people from the list:
--Lindzen's scientific funding may come from government sources, as he claims, but he earns a healthy living as a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by ExxonMobil. Too, he's been a frequent paid keynote speaker at a range of media events and conferences held by the Big Energy darling (and ExxonMobil-funded) Heartland Institute.
--Singer, among others, earns a healthy side living as a paid speaker for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an organization funded in part by ExxonMobil.
--Idso is a paid board member on the board of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an organization funded by many Big Energy corporations--including, yes, ExxonMobil.
Basically, while none of these guys may be receiving paychecks with the ExxonMobil logo on them, they're certainly riding around with ExxonMobil cash in their pockets. It's disingenuous of anyone to claim otherwise.
(On top of which, asking whether any of these guys had changed their opinion based on their funding is a useless question; the fact is, the Big Energy money flows to them because they were already known "skeptics".)
Or we may become extinct waiting for that to happen.
Oh, you "did a little checking.." Thanks so much. We had another guy who used to do ."a little checking." His name was Simon and he was always coming back here under new monikers. He was almost as good a character assassin as you are. I guess practice makes perfect.
Hate to bust your fantasy, but I've had this login since I came to this site. It has never changed--and it's the only one I've ever had here. I doubt many here can claim the same.
On to the matter at hand: do you wish to defend the ExxonMobil-paid "skeptics" in that list?
Convicted perpertrators and Climate Skeptics are two completely different things... then again, I found This Website that wants to throw Climate Skeptics in jail. Just when I thought some Global Warming Advocates couldn't get any more nasty...
With this Greenpeace Researcher trying to make these remote connections, it gives me the impression of desperation.
For example, with Professor John Christy:
"The connection between industrial interests and me is given by describing me as a "Marshall Institute expert". I spoke at a luncheon sponsored by the Marshall Institute, free of charge, to about 30 people. My remarks were incorporated into a booklet. That is the extent of my connection - hardly evidence to accuse one of being an industry spokesman."
It seems to have crossed the normal line.
I believe that's what I said: that those "skeptics" likely attracted Big Energy dollars since they were the very few with any scientific credibility to firmly adopt a "skeptical" stance. That drew oil company CEOs like flies to a cow patty, and once that cash spigot gets turned on, it's difficult for anyone to step away from it--especially scientists willing to sell their degrees for a sackful of shekels.
Given that climate scientists who support AGWT outnumber by 97 to 3 those who don't support it, the law of supply and demand would suggest that those willing to speak out against it could command roughly 32 times as much money from people on their side. Perhaps, then, some of those tens of thousands of "warmist" scientists--getting by on a pittance and obviously willing to sell their credibility to the highest bidder, according to many denialists--should make the switch to the high money side. What's holding those idiots back?
Arctic ice extent is below the average, and in fact below the standard deviation--and still shrinking.
This old earth, she is a-warming, ain't she?
97 to 3? The 97% figure came from a sample size of only
7977 self-described climate scientists.Seventy-nineSeventy-seven people can't outnumber anyone 97 to 3.The actual study is linked below:
Link
Edited: The 79 figure I originally posted is from the first question. I thought it was kind of funny that while only 76 of the respondents thought that the earth had warmed from pre-1800s levels, 77 thought "human acivity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".
Nice try.
The survey was of 3,146 accredited earth scientists, of which 5% were climatologists (157), while 8.5% (267) had published papers on climate change. Now, from the paper (to which you linked):
"The most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered [that mean global temps have risen since the pre-1800s], and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered [that, yes, human activity is a significant contributing factor to those temperature increases]."
And, of course, of the 3,146 respondents--all of them credible and published--a full 90% of them agreed that the planet was warming, while 80% of them agreed that it was at least partially our fault.
In short, the more knowledge of how the climate works a person has, the more certain he or she is to support the basic tenets of AGWT. But is that really any surprise to anyone but Fox News viewers?
...And only a handful of self-selected Earth Scientists were asked to participate in this survey.
And as Professor Michael Hulme points out, even if there was a consensus, it does not change whether they are right or wrong.
My point is valid. The 97% figure came from a very small sample. Is it representative of climatologists in general? Heck, what even defines a climatologist anyway? Here, respondants were simply asked if they were climatologists; certainly few institutions are offering degrees in "climatology". What steps were taken to ensure a scientifically valid sample? What is the margin of error?
Actually, looking at the two questions that were asked:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
I would say that they have risen.
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Is human activity a significant contributing factor? Well, the question doesn't even specify AGW here, one could answer yes here with the idea that the urban heat effect significantly contributes to warming and would still be included in the consensus. My personal view is that human activity could contribute as much as half of observed and recent warming, and I guess that sounds significant, so I would probably answer yes there too.
Does this mean I am part of the consensus? If so, I can tell you that not everyone in the consensus fully supports all of the hypotheses concerning feedbacks and future warming, future predictions and consequences, etc. In short while I agree with some of the tenets of AGWT, I think that to say that I "support" the theory is a bit misleading.
The results? It is shown in this experiment, that Cosmic Rays do in fact produce aerosoles when interacting with particles of air. In fact, those aerosoles are the "seedlings" for Cloud Formations. Cosmic Rays are the main driver of GCC, and play a significant role in the Global Climate System.
But the all powerful sun is what is driving the Cosmic Rays.
Not only does the sun drive the Cosmic Rays, which drives GCC, but it's Sunspot number also has a huge influence on the Climate, making the Sun one of the most dominant natural players in Climate Change.
I was wondering where in the link the prediction was. I didn't see the graph at first; I'm not sure if you added it after the initial post or it just didn't load right away.
Clearly, you must think that whatever science work he did for them would have to be skewed in the direction that Ford is good, yes?
Viewing: 201 - 251
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index