Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2445  2446  2447  2448  2449  2450  2451  2452  2453  2454  2455  2456  2457  2458  2459  2460  Next

Comments 122601 to 122650:

  1. Berényi Péter at 08:20 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    #33 Albatross at 04:41 AM on 10 March, 2010 "I have downloaded the sea ice area data from NSIDC for Antarctica" Could you publish the link?
  2. Philippe Chantreau at 08:18 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Steven Goddard talks about debating science and describes John's blog as "this Wonderland, where down is up and up is down." I take offense from that. Since the post has been left by moderators, I believe it should be addressed. For a quick comparison, I want to remind readers that WUWT is a place where the existence of natural deposition of carbonic snow on Earth was discussed as a serious possibility, a post done by Stephen Goddard. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/ This is somewhat on topic with our thread since it is about Antarctica. The ensuing comments contain variations and apparently a partial recant on the original intent and meaning (i.e. the idea that Antarctica acts as a carbon sink because of deposition). Fortunately, some posters pointed in the right direction, and despite the overall confusion on phase changes apparent in the comments, an update later appeared. Even a cursory read of Skeptical Science will reveal the higher scientific standards that would prevent such a post to happen here in the first place.
  3. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    If you like science take a look at this article, it is in terms a reasonably knowledgeable person can understand. http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/page7209.html It is a geologist point of view about ice shelf break up. I do not see how the Antarctic is melting when the temperature rarely gets of freezing, except on the Antarctic Peninsula and the shore. So how is Antarctic ice melting. (Hint, it has to move to where it is less cold than freezing). I believe interest in polar caps is due to the hype about rising ocean levels if said ice cap do melt all at once(unlikely). At the current rate it would take hundreds of thousands of years to melt away, assuming no more snow accumulation. we can breathe easier knowing we are safe from catastrophic polar melting, no matter what Al Gore shows in his movie. As for whether ice extent is due to warming, we can see that wind and ocean currents are the biggest operator in whether sea ice extent grows or shrinks. In the Arctic, NASA says that ocean currents and wind pushed out sea ice to warmer waters during the '07 record. And in the comments we see that the circumpolar winds an currents play a big part in expanding the range of the sea ice. Lastly, sea ice extent in the Arctic and in the antarctic are both within 2 standard deviations of satellite records, so what the big deal is, I do not know.
  4. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Hello. Just to let you know I'm a genius in my own mind, and in the minds of my grandchildren. Because of that sometimes I will speak to elementary school children about weather, sun, and planets. Now what I see is that there are several variables with whats happening. Even though the cyclonic flow may have a lot to do with whats being observed, I would like to look at the fresh water vs salt water aspect. Since fresh water freezes at a higher temp than salt water, in very elementary terms I would like to explain it like this: If I put an ice cube on a plate and put it in a freezer, turn the temp up so it partially melts the water spreads out. Then I turn the temp down and it freezes further out. I could continue doing this till the ice cube is gone. So my question is would I be wrong to use this in an elemntary way to show a possible cause for the increase in ice extent. Thanks
  5. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    Okay, first of all I think that evaluating the impact of CO2 by comparison to the metabolism of Australian livestock is not necessarily the optimal way to visualize it. Kind of like weighing yourself and then converting to units of ladybugs based on a sample weight of a ladybug in grams found somewhere on the internet. But, since you asked ... Tadh writes: Why then is it inappropriate for an individual to calculate the total increase in heat or energy over a period of time (a year) based on the length of time given in the definition of a watt? Actually, it's not at all inappropriate in the right circumstances. My monthly electricity bill reports usage in kilowatt-hours. That is appropriate for a quantity that fluctuates over time, like household electrical usage. In this case, it's not necessary, since for both the animal metabolism and climate radiative forcing data we have just an annual average. When Mizimi writes "... a daily heat emission of 315 x 10E9 watts ..." that's not "daily" ... it's 315 x 10E9 watts full stop. When she/he multiplies that by 365 to get "114 x 10E12 watts per annum" that's actually "114 x 10E12 watt-days per annum", though Mizimi doesn't seem to understand the meaning of these units. Now, doing that conversion merely complicates things unnecessarily, since "114 x 10E12 watt-days per annum" is exactly the same as "315 x 10E9 watts" (ignoring leap-years). However, the real problem is that Mizimi converted the metabolic data to "watt-days per annum" but didn't convert the radiative forcing to the same units. In other words, one side of the comparison got multiplied by 365 but the other side didn't. Hope this helps. Let me know if it's still confusing...
  6. Rob Honeycutt at 07:58 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    To Steven Goddard... What gets me about your articles, such as the one regarding sea ice extent, is the fact that you are purposefully selecting out small aspects of weather and climate (which I'm sure we both would agree are highly complex systems) that potentially show cooling and hold them up as examples to prove a point you want to make. But all the while you IGNORE the preponderance of evidence that show exactly the opposite! Literally, what you do is tantamount to trying to convince an expedition of climbers to Everest that it's "down hill all the way" by pointing out only the times when they're going downhill while ignoring all the climbing!
  7. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Thanks Ned, I'm reading the preprint as the published paper is not accessible for me.
  8. Tenney Naumer at 07:12 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    re: #30 Sorry dude, but Greenland's ice sheet is melting so badly that anybody can see it happening even from the low resolution satellite photos available at MODIS rapidfire. Be sure to check it out this July and August. We are talking snowcone at the ballpark in July.
  9. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Geo Guy at 07:00 AM on 10 March, 2010 Your argument is incomplete. You need to account for the GRACE data shown above and in any case the single year you cite is inadequate as a suggestion that the Antarctic ice sheet is trending upward in mass. Also, would you mind providing a citation for your quote?
  10. We're heading into an ice age
    There are a number of issues that affect a possible ice age - the sun (and related wobble to the earth) being one. The others include the melting of the arctic ice cap. With the ice in place, the climate is arid; with the ice melted, there is a source for water vapor - necessary for precipitation to happen. During the last major ice age, a portion of the arctic ocean remained open, thereby providing for a source of water for the snowfalls that covered North America (Russia on the other hand escaped glaciation). The third issue to be considered is a change to ocean currents - specifically the interchange of waters from the North Atlantic and the Arctic waters. It was noted in a number of studies in the 1930's that the arctic ocean was showing signs of warming.
  11. Peter Hogarth at 07:02 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    The satellite record for Antarctic Sea Ice has been extended back to late 1972 (see below), there is also evidence from even earlier satellites back to 1966 but work is needed to process this data. There are some intermittent series of vessel observations prior to this (used in the HadISST record), plus evidence from extensive records of positions of whale kills which indicates that sea ice was somewhat higher than present times prior to 1960s. Work is ongoing to reconcile modern vessel based estimates and satellite observations in order to check older records. Antarctic Sea Ice data: The Nimbus 5 ESMR data covers the early period from December 1972 to March 1977, with the Nimbus 7 SMMR combined with the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program's (DMSP) Special Sensor Microwave Imagers (SSMI) on -F8, -F11, and -F13 satellites providing data from October 1978 to December 2002. The small gap is filled using NSIDC data. This latter satellite Data set (1978 onwards) is most often seen in “Antarctic” charts and is now in a version (V2) compatible and calibrated with the 2002 onwards AMSR-E on the AQUA satellite, basically so that the data sets can be "spliced". The early satellite record is interesting because it shows higher sea ice extents than today, but from what I've read it is probable that there was an anomalous peak in the Antarctic sea ice extent in the early 1970s due to local "decadal" Ocean cycles. I'll do my best to get references for these points lined up but am at Oceanology conference...
  12. Antarctica is gaining ice
    It is difficult to consider that the land ice mass is melting when indications are that snow is accumulating on the land at an unprecedented rate: Surface snowmelt in Antarctica in 2008, as derived from spaceborne passive microwave observations at 19.35 gigahertz, was 40% below the average of the period 1987–2007. The melting index (MI, a measure of where melting occurred and for how long) in 2008 was the second-smallest value in the 1987–2008 period, with 3,465,625 square kilometers times days (km2 × days) against the average value of 8,407,531 km2 × days (Figure 1a). Melt extent (ME, the extent of the area subject to melting) in 2008 set a new minimum with 297,500 square kilometers, against an average value of approximately 861,812 square kilometers.” This evidence suggests that Antarctica, where 90% of the land based ice in the world resides, is increasing in mass.
    Response: The bottom line is satellite gravity measurements of Antarctica find that the continent as a whole is losing mass. Not only that but losing mass at an acclerating rate. I will repeat the graph showing the total mass loss from Antarctica as the empirical data doesn't seem to have sunk in yet:



    You're also correct in pointing out that snow accumulating in the East Antarctic interior is increasing, presumably due to increased precipitation caused by more humid conditions caused by warming air. That Antarctica is losing mass at an accelerating rate while gaining mass in the interior is a testament to the sensitive nature of ice sheet dynamics - ice sheets are proving more sensitive than previously realised and are sliding into the oceans at a faster rate.

    This is also borne out by paleo studies that have looked at ice sheet and sea level behaviour in the past and found sea levels to be over 6 metres higher than current levels when temperatures were only 1 to 2 degrees warmer than now. Multiple lines of evidence point to the same answer - the ice sheets are sensitive to warming temperatures and are going to cause significant sea level rise over this century (and beyond).
  13. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Steve Goddard at 06:05 AM on 10 March 2010 Assertion is not argument, Steven. I'm left to conclude you have no useful response to Tamino's disintegration and disposal of your hypothesis w/regard to snow cover and model predictions. How you care for your credibility is of course a personal choice for you to make. As to Watts' site, if you prefer a location that is more tolerant of misunderstanding that too is your choice, but I'm won't be joining you there. I've really come to appreciate the scrupulous moderation here as well as the site's firm attachment to science.
  14. Berényi Péter at 06:55 AM on 10 March 2010
    Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
    #73 Jeff Freymueller at 03:04 AM on 10 March, 2010 "melting is the dominant effect" Of course it is. But melting is only driven by air temperature if there is a hot turbulent wind. Even then 260 m3 of air should be cooled down by 1°C to melt 1 kg 0°C snow. Not very effective. Also, it depends on how thick the snow is. If wind cannot blow through, surface area for heat exchange is severely limited. Actually it is worse than that. If wind blows through loose snow, air gets saturated by water vapor. At 0°C saturation absolute humidity of air is 4.84 × 10-3 kg m-3. If air in wind would be at 80% relative humidity, it means that on top of melting 1 kg snow, about 0.25 kg meltwater should be evaporated as well. As evaporation requires 6.76 times more heat than melting (per unit mass), the actual drop in air temperature is 2.7 times greater (or more air is needed). Otherwise, heat conduction of air being rather low, just a thin layer above snow cools down to 0°C and that's it. Melt interrupted. If sky is cloudless and air is dry, snow being a pretty good black body in IR, radiative cooling to space kicks in. Black body radiation at 0°C is 315 W m-2. Even with the narrow atmospheric window it can get quite large if air is dry. On the other hand if there is some soot in snow, albedo decreases to 80% (2 ppm soot is more than enough) and sun is shining faintly, let's say it gets 100 W m-1 irradiation, the 20 W m-1 absorbed is enough to melt 1 kg m-1 in less than five hours (provided radiative cooling is not taken into account). If snow is darker or sun is brighter, melt is accelerated proportionally. As melt is started, snow albedo decreases even with no soot whatsoever. And most of soot is not washed away by meltwater immediately, it tends to get enriched in upper layer (at 220 ppm soot albedo drops to 25%, rather dark). But, beyond doubt, the most effective agent is lukewarm rain.
  15. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Steven Goddard says: "Why are you ignoring this NASA map? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/6000/6502/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg" Your question is more appropriately directed to yourself. Take a look at the map. Notice the warming trend in the oceans around Antarctica, you know, where SEA ice is located.
  16. iPhone app version 1.1 - now with search, image viewer and Twitter!
    From the Discovery interview, I found this to be a gem of particular clarity: We can have the most confidence in scientific results when we have multiple lines of measurement showing the same thing. With global warming, there are multiple lines of evidence that all point to humans being the main contributor. For starters, we know exactly how much carbon dioxide is being added to the air. We can double-check that by measuring carbon isotopes in the atmosphere. We can triple-check that by measuring the amount of oxygen in the air to see if the amount of oxygen is falling in line with the fossil fuel burning. So we know we’re causing the rise in CO2. Now the next step is: What are the effects of all the CO2 in the air? And we can measure that by satellites that measure how much radiation is escaping from Earth out into space. And what they are observing is that there is less radiation escaping at the very wavelengths that greenhouse gases absorb energy. So that’s the human fingerprint, that CO2 is trapping heat. Another confirmation of this is that surface measurements also measure the amount of radiation that is coming back down from the atmosphere, and they find the same thing: That there is more radiation coming back down at the very wavelengths that greenhouse gases trap heat. So there are multiple lines of evidence that CO2 is trapping heat. In this interview John refers to the trap of minutiae, how easy it is to get lost scrutinizing iota. Plot and scenery in this drama are dominated by bulky, confirmed physical effects, poor fodder for argument, so folks who reject basic physics are left to make the little objections they have seem as big as possible. The range of those small objections is itself narrow, so we hear variants of various quibbles endlessly repeated. At the end of the day if nothing else it's boring to hear this stuff spinning endlessly like a prayer wheel on a windy day.
    Response: You know, I read that excerpt from the Discovery interview and think "man, I say the word 'and' a lot!" But then I've always been a glass-half-empty kind of person :-)
  17. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    Ned, i am interested in your refute of Mizimi's calcualations in post #86. I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. I am no where near the level of discussion on this board. Your first point has to do with the definition of a watt. A watt is equal to one joul/s. The definition of a watt includes a specific amount of energy over a specific period of time. j/s. Why then is it inappropriate for an individual to calculate the total increase in heat or energy over a period of time (a year) based on the length of time given in the definition of a watt? Second, my understanding of radiative forcing is limited. I beleive it is defined as the change in irradiance at the tropopause. It is determined relitave to a base period (usually 1750). The IPCC defines radiative forcing as follows: "Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square metre (W/m2).":36 Neither my previous definition nor the IPCC definition refer to change per unit of time. As such how and why would Mizimi have to calculate radiative forcing-years? sure one year may have an increase in radiative forcing, and another a decrease, but they are all relative to 1750 and are not necessarly cumulative. To better explain myself and my understanding of radiative forcing i will use simplified means. Say year XXX1 has a radiative forcing value of +1. this would mean that it is +1(w/m2) over 1750. Assume year XXX2 has a reading of +1 as well, year XXX 3 has a reading of +2, the cumulative radiative forcing is + 2 not +4, right? Love this series of posts, sorry if i am dumbing it down too much.
  18. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Steve Goddard writes: You must have missed the fact that winters during the past decade were the snowiest on record in the Northern Hemisphere. Actually, that and much more are discussed in great detail in John's post that Doug linked to, elsewhere on this site: Does record snowfall disprove global warming? I'd second Doug's remark encouraging you to check out that page, and comment if you see fit. Goddard continues: If you want to discuss science, come do it over on WUWT. No, thanks. Many of us have had more than ample negative experiences with WUWT. I'm honestly not trying to be insulting or dismissive, but there's very little actual science there. As far as I can tell it's primarily about entertainment. If you stick around here, you'll quickly find more substantive discussion and better food for thought. Ultimately, real science is more interesting than fake science. Cheers, Ned
  19. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Steve Goddard @47: I'd appreciate an answer to my question @44: "I am curious then why you chose to post the incorrect image here at #32, and not the same (and correct) image you used in your report at WUWT?" Do you also now agree, after reading the links to Turner et al. (2009) and Ned's comments, that Turner et al. (2009) did not claim that Antarctica is cooling? In the spirit of honesty and correctness, I would suggest that you correct your blog at WUWT to reflect the science (from the scientific literature) and other facts presented to you here concerning the southern oceans and Antarctic sea ice. We all make mistakes, one true test of scientific integrity is admitting to having made them and then promptly correcting them. PS: I'm sorry but, with respect, WUWT is not a science blog.
  20. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Sordnay writes: omeone could help me locating that Section 2c? thanks That's referring to section 2(c) of the preprint of Mears & Wentz manuscript about the TLT channel posted in the same folder on the RSS website. See pages 9-10 of that pdf ("Construction of the RSS V3.2 lower tropospheric temperature dataset from the MSU and AMSU microwave sounders"). The manuscript was published as Mears & Wentz 2009 in the AMS's Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. You might want to refer to the published version rather than the preprint (I'm not sure whether there were any changes).
  21. Steve Goddard at 06:05 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Hey Doug, You must have missed the fact that winters during the past decade were the snowiest on record in the Northern Hemisphere. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/2001-2010-was-the-snowiest-decade-on-record/ Tamino hinted that winter snowfall might be declining, but he just couldn't prove it yet. (Declining to a record maximum is an interesting concept.) If you want to discuss science, come do it over on WUWT. I've spent enough time in this Wonderland already, where down is up and up is down.
  22. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    About RSS TLT Channel, there is something that bothers me, it's the only channel that is not registered to Latitude -80º it only reaches to -70º so almost the whole Antarctica is not measured. It's also noticeable the difference between version 3.2 and 3.1 the difference is greater than the anomaly registered at Antarctica or better, near Antarctica. see last figure at http://www.remss.com/data/msu/support/Changes%20from%20TLT%20Version%203.1%20to%203.2.pdf "We reduced the systematic bias that occurs due to spatial-derivative effects in the TLT extrapolation process that can be large at high latitudes. The effects of this bias are particularly large near Antarctica. (see Section 2c in the preprint for a discussion)" Someone could help me locating that Section 2c? thanks
  23. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    There is only one very brief note in Turner 2009 about temperature trends. Under Results, they say: "[14] The increase in southerly flow will give lower air temperatures, and will help maintain the polynyas along the coast. Combined, these will lead to greater ice production [Comiso, 2000] and also promote enhanced ice advection northwards." That's all. In the context, it's not even clear whether this is suggesting that the increased southerly flow associated with the stratospheric ozone hole will make air temperatures over the Southern Ocean cooler than they were previously (i.e., an actual cooling trend) or just cooler than they would be without the ozone hole (i.e., not necessarily actual cooling over time). Regardless, however, this is irrelevant. The proper place to determine whether the Southern Ocean is currently warming or cooling is to look at actual measurements, not at the results of climate model experiments like Turner 2009. Actual data show the ocean is in fact warming. What's interesting about Turner 2009 (and it is interesting ... I'd encourage you to read the whole paper) is that it discusses the mechanisms of how and why sea ice in the Southern Ocean behaves as it does. If you're only interested in the bottom line ("Will sea ice extent increase or decrease over the course of this century?") here's what Turner 2009 concludes: "Projections of the climate for the rest of this century using the AR4 models suggest a large decrease (approximately 30%) in Antarctic sea ice by 2100 [Arzel et al., 2006; Bracegirdle et al., 2008] as stratospheric ozone levels recover but greenhouse gas concentrations rise. We can therefore expect to see a gradual slow down in the rate of increase of SIE before the reduction takes place later in the century. Many of the models used within the AR4 exercise incorporate an estimated recovery of stratospheric ozone amounts during the spring, with the ozone hole recovering by the second half of the century. This would tend to reduce the wind speeds around the continent and presumably result in a reversal of the trends in SIE that we have examined here."
  24. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Goddard,re #29. I am commenting on what John posted in his article, and limiting my discussion to the science being discussed here on this thread. That said. I am curious then why you chose to post the incorrect image here at #32, and not the same (and correct) image you used in your report at WUWT. I am "ignoring" that map because it has been superseded by a superior product. The science has advanced. And, if you stick around long enough, I think that you will find this site intellectually stimulating rather than "sloppy".
  25. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    It does seem a bit strange to refer people to either the older version or the newer version of that graphic as evidence of cooling in the Southern Ocean. Both versions actually show the ocean warming; the only large differences involve the temperature trend over land (formerly cooling, now warming).
  26. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    @7: "Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing (for whatever reason) and the trend is significant." @32 (Quoting NSDIC) "Through the austral summer, the total extent of sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent has remained within two standard deviations of the 1979 to 2000 average." These statements are contradictory. If the extent of the ice has remained within 2 standard deviations of the mean, then it cannot be significant at the 5% level. Phil Jones could explain it to you, don't ask teh Daily Mail.
  27. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Ned at 04:55 AM on 10 March, 2010 Ned's advice is good. Especially, never forget that you're writing for a silent audience most of whom have no notion of past issues or why patience may be wearing thin. Despite the fact that Steven has been wrong so often in the past and has left so many challenges to his accuracy unanswered, it is best to treat each new mistake individually.
  28. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Steve Goddard, the image that you refer people to from EarthObservatory is incorrect. The actual source of the image that you provided is: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502 Below that image they state that: "(Editor’s note: This image was first published on April 27, 2006, and it was based on data from 1981-2004. A more recent version was published on November 21, 2007. The new version extended the data range through 2007, and was based on a revised analysis that included better inter-calibration among all the satellite records that are part of the time series.)" They even provide a link to the correct image at: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239 Of note is the marked warming evident over the polar oceans. I have provided a caveat about the temperature trends over the continent itself. Also, please read the actual report by Turner et al. (2009), nowhere do they state that Antarctica has cooled. They state: "a. The loss of stratospheric ozone has intensified the polar vortex, a ring of winds around the South Pole, altered weather patterns around the continent, and increased westerly winds by about 15% over the Southern Ocean in summer and autumn. b. This has resulted in the Antarctic becoming more isolated and there being little change in surface temperature across the bulk of the continent over the last 30 years." And, "a. The waters of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (the largest ocean current on Earth) have warmed more rapidly than the global ocean as a whole." And, "a. While sea ice extent across the Arctic Ocean has decreased markedly over recent decades, around the Antarctic it has increased by 10% since 1980, particularly in the Ross Sea region. b. This increase is a result of the stronger winds around the continent, changes in atmospheric circulation and the isolating effect of the ozone hole. c. In contrast, there has been a large regional decrease of sea ice to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula, because of changes in the local atmospheric circulation." Report summary at: http://www.scar.org/publications/occasionals/ACCE_top_10_points.pdf I encourage readers here to read the report.
  29. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Steve Goddard writes: They are very intelligent and thoughtful people, and don't partake in the same intellectual sloppiness as people over here I understand why you might feel less than thrilled about this thread, but I hope you'll stick around and explore more of the site. John Cook and others have put a lot of effort into creating what's clearly one of the best climate science blogs anywhere. The emphasis on exploring the peer-reviewed literature, and clearly and concisely summarizing the best current understanding of elements of the global climate system, is pretty much unmatched.
  30. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Steve Goddard, first it doesn't matter how many times you quote that passage... the Turner paper which the NSIDC is there referring to DOES NOT include data showing that Antarctica is cooling. It doesn't exist. Because that isn't what the NSIDC web page was saying. You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting them, but in any case... there is no data whatsoever supporting what you are claiming. As to the other NASA map you cite... who is ignoring it? Looks like it shows the warming of the southern oceans just fine to me. See all that red?
  31. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Steven, as you're here and we're talking about solid state water, do you have any remarks about Tamino's destruction of your hypothesis about NH snow cover? Here it is: Cherry Snow There's a recent thread here on snow cover, Does record snowfall disprove global warming where you might want to get your thoughts on Tamino's writeup on the record, so to speak.
  32. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Someone needs to contact NSIDC to tell them that their summary of Turner et al. (2009) is not quite correct.
  33. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    This thread is getting very contentious very fast. Let's try to keep in mind John Cook's Comments Policy. In particular, it's usually better to say "Ned is mistaken when he claims ..." or "Ned's claims of ... are not borne out by the facts" and leave out the speculation about Ned's motives and personal moral failings. As much as possible, it's also best to avoid snide remarks and stay on topic. I know that when I think somebody is wrong about X it's often tempting to drag in issues Y and Z as a way of demonstrating that she/he is a complete idiot rather than simply mistaken about the issue currently under discussion. That tends to lead to threads full of the same emotional charges and counter-charges seen on pretty much all the other climate science blogs. Sorry for the editorializing. I've had my own comments deleted here (as have many others) for failing to follow the comments policy, and I'm just trying to spare others the embarrassment. :-)
  34. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Berényi Péter at 04:22 AM on 10 March, 2010 Easier units on Greenland loss, w/error range: "Using time-variable gravity measurements from the Gravity Recovery and ClimateExperiment (GRACE) satellite mission, we estimate ice mass changes over Greenland during the period April 2002 to November 2005. After correcting for effects of spatial filtering and limited resolution of GRACE data, estimated total ice melting rate over Greenland is – 239 ± 23 km3/year, mostly from East Greenland. This estimate agrees remarkably well with a recent assessment of – 224 ± 41 km3/year, based on satellite radar interferometry data." Satellite Gravity Measurements Confirm Accelerated Melting ofGreenland Ice Sheet Doubtless we can get lost in a myriad of details about GRACE, how it works, what are the system limitations, but of course those will have to account not just for this particular GRACE result but also all other GRACE applications and results of which there are many with plenty of external consistency.
  35. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    @7 "Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing (for whatever reason) and the trend is significant." Can you elaborate and quantify this generalized statement? Are the trends stat. sig.? If so, at which level of confidence? Also, for which months are you talking about? OK, I have downloaded the sea ice area data from NSIDC for Antarctica for Feb (minimum) and September (maximum) between 1979 and 2009/2010. For Feb: positive trend is not significant at 99%, 95% or 90% level of confidence, p-value is 0.132 (N=32). So trend stat. sig. at only 86.8% level of confidence. For Sep: positive trend is not significant at 99% or 95% level of confidence, p-value is 0.065 (N=31). So trend is sta. sig at 92.5% level of confidence. In my line of work at least, one typically only accepts a trend as being 'significant' if the p-value is <0.05 (95% level of confidence).
  36. Steve Goddard at 04:40 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    CB, NSIDC's complete discussion of Antarctica is below. There is no ambiguity in the discussion - sea ice is increasing and temperatures are cooling. They are very intelligent and thoughtful people, and don't partake in the same intellectual sloppiness as people over here. Why are you ignoring this NASA map? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/6000/6502/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg "While our analysis focuses on Arctic sea ice, we note that Antarctic sea ice has reached its summer minimum extent for the year, at 2.87 million square kilometers (1.11 million square miles). This was 88,500 square kilometers above the 1979 to 2000 average minimum. Through the austral summer, the total extent of sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent has remained within two standard deviations of the 1979 to 2000 average. Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region."
  37. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Steve, the NASA temp map is at the top of your article... where you dismiss it as incorrect based on the NSIDC's supposed statement that Antarctica is cooling... which you made up. So 'ignored' may not be the most precisely accurate word, but it is in the ballpark. Again, the NSIDC did not say that Antarctica is cooling. They did not even say that 'Turner 2009' says Antarctica is cooling. Indeed, that paper, which is linked in John's article above, doesn't even deal with temperature changes and thus certainly does not support the claims you are making of it. In short, you've dismissed NASA's data showing Antarctic cooling based on no data whatsoever to the contrary... just your misunderstanding or misapplication of a passing phrase on a NSIDC web page.
  38. Berényi Péter at 04:22 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    #9 CBDunkerson at 00:29 AM on 10 March, 2010 "The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are both melting" And how do you know that? Volume of Greenland ice sheet is 2.85 × 106 km3. Annual loss is esimated to be less than 2.5 × 102 km3. If you take it seriously, measurement precision should be better than 10-4. As for Antarctica, annual loss (from peninsula) is estimated to be less than 2 × 102 km3, while ice sheet volume is 3 × 107 km3. Precision of any kind of measurement for ice volume is insufficient to detect a less than 10-5:1 change. Therefore we simply do not know if large ice sheets are gaining or losing mass. They are supposed to lose, but just that. "It is absurdly illogical to take the trend observed in less than 1% of the planet's ice over the opposite trend seen in the other 99+%" No, it is not. You are talking about ice volume ratios. The area covered by southern sea ice is quite large compared to the rest. NH snow (summer) - 8 × 1011 m2 NH snow (winter) - 4.5 × 1013 m2 Arctic ice sheet (Greenland) - 1.7 × 1012 m2 Arctic sea ice (summer) - 7 × 1012 m2 Arctic sea ice (winter) - 1.5 × 1013 m2 Antarctic ice sheet - 1.4 × 1013 m2 Antarctic sea ice (summer) - 3 × 1012 m2 Antarctic sea ice (winter) - 1.8 × 1013 m2 In southern winter it is 43% of all snow/ice covered area on Earth, hardly negligible. Also, melt season down there is only four months and sea ice extends to pretty low latitudes (60S). Therefore it gets a lot of insolation. Having a much higher albedo than open sea water, it has a strong cooling effect.
  39. Steve Goddard at 04:21 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Albatross, You obviously didn't read my article. The NASA image you say I "ignored" http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239 is right at the top of the my article! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/nsidc-reports-that-antarctica-is-cooling-and-sea-ice-is-increasing/ Do you often comment on articles you haven't read or even glanced at?
  40. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    This is simply more distortion and obfuscation from WUWT. Steve Goddard has also chosen to ignore this image: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239 John maybe you could help an ignoramus like I am to insert the image for all to see? While one could argue that the SAT trends over the Antarctic are unreliable b/c the satellite has trouble distinguishing between clouds and ice in this region, the same is not true for the surrounding oceans. Note, these are only "skin" temperatures, but there has been clear and marked warming of the southern oceans between 1981 and 2007. The increase in "skin" temperatures are corroborated the fact that 0-700 m OHC in the southern oceans is also increasing steadily: http://i34.tinypic.com/4hpklk.png As for this claim by Goddard, "BTW - UAH data shows South Pole oceans cooling, not warming." Actually, the UAH data estimate tropospheric air temperatures, not ocean temperatures. Anyhow, Goddrad should be looking at the more reliable TLT data (lower troposphere) from RSS: http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt Look at the line graph on the RHS. Nope, no cooling. Analysis of the TLT data between 60 and 72.5 S show a negligible positive slope over the past 30-yrs, certainly not even close to being stat. sig. So one could accurately state that the TLT data show that the lower troposphere above the southern oceans (south of ~60 S) has not cooled or warmed significantly in the last 30 years John has provided some excellent references here which describe this intriguing and counterintuitive increase in seasonal Antarctic sea ice. What one also should keep in mind is that the Arctic ocean is losing ice faster than any gains being made in seasonal Antarctic sea ice, with the following net loss of global sea ice: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg And let us not forget the recent findings from analysis of GRACE data which show the WAIS and even the EAIS losing ice mass at an accelerated rate, and the fact that the PIG exceeded its tipping point in the late 90s (BAS). Perhaps this "surge" of fresh water is adding to the stratification of the southern oceans mentioned by John. IMHO, I think that this increase in Antarctic sea ice is an interim phase. In coming decades the southern oceans will have warmed enough that the northern limit of the seasonal ice extent will start to recede. One also wonders what will happen if and when the ozone hole begins to repair (circa 2050). It could be the perfect storm... PS: A caution to readers. Goddard has a history when it comes to being selective with his data: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/snow/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/cherry-snow/ Apparently defeated in trying to distort/misrepresent the N. Hemisphere cryosphere data he has now set his target on the southern cryosphere.
  41. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Steve Goddard, I'm sorry but you either KNOW that you are playing fast and loose with the facts or SHOULD. The NSIDC source you cite does NOT say that Antarctica is cooling. It says, in passing, that another source entirely (Turner 2009) suggests that the ozone hole might be causing circulation changes which in turn might cause cooling. That statement about a potential cooling influence is VERY different from a statement that the continent as a whole HAS cooled. Next you cite UAH satellite records as proof that oceans around Antarctica are cooling... unfortunately those readings are taken of conditions about 4.5 KILOMETERS (i.e. higher than the Rocky Mountains) above the ocean and thus tell us precisely nothing about ocean temperatures.
  42. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Sordnay wrote : "Are those state-of-the-art models the same as GCM used for IPCC AR4 proyections?" I doubt it : are you using the same computer/computing power/programs that you were using about 5 years ago (considering the length of time to gather the data used for the reports released in 2007) ?
  43. Steve Goddard at 03:57 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Tenney, Look closer at the graph above. It is labeled "Southern Ocean Surface Air Temperature." Do you really think then surface air temperature is measured "below the ocean's surface?" The author of this piece is lumping a large area of Southern Ocean together. Look at the ocean near Antarctica - it is cooling. http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg My piece on WUWT is titled "NSIDC Reports That Antarctica is Cooling and Sea Ice is Increasing" http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/nsidc-reports-that-antarctica-is-cooling-and-sea-ice-is-increasing/
  44. Tenney Naumer at 03:44 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    re: #22 How can satellite measurements show the temperatures below the ocean's surface? Duh!
  45. citizenschallenge at 03:35 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Unfortunately, In this debate considering the sock'em clown "arguments" that contrarians are endlessly circulating - you have every right (& cause) in the world for a little rehashing. PS. Fantastic blog and thank you so much for the bulletins your emailing. Very Helpful.
  46. Steve Goddard at 03:27 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    What an amazing article! You selectively edited my sentences, and forgot to attribute the claims of cooling and expanding ice to NSIDC and UAH. BTW - UAH data shows South Pole oceans cooling, not warming. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html "Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region."
  47. Jeff Freymueller at 03:20 AM on 10 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    The first thing I would point out is that some people here need to look at the y-axis on the temperature graph. The average temperature has changed from -12.7C to -12C. Both of those temperatures are well into the range where sea ice is going to be forming. The roughly 5% change in temperature would mean less sea ice, if all other things were constant, but it would not be hard for some other factor to compensate for it. And as far as that goes, I've got more confidence in the peer-reviewed work than the blog comments.... #8 Berényi Péter, you assert that Comiso (2003) is not peer reviewed because it is a book chapter. However, many such books are peer reviewed (most, I would say). Do you make this assertion based on knowledge of the situation or an an assumption.
  48. Jeff Freymueller at 03:04 AM on 10 March 2010
    Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
    #72 Berényi Péter, I don't dispute that sublimation can be locally important. It's just that in the majority of the area that gets covered by snow in the winter, melting is the dominant effect, not sublimation at T < 0C.
  49. Berényi Péter at 02:58 AM on 10 March 2010
    Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
    Jeff, I have found the answer to the clock synchronization question. Amazing. Relativity in the Global Positioning System by Neil Ashby However, I am still interested in how it works in practice. Looks like precision of position measurement is several centimeters. How do you measure velocity signals on the order of 10-10 m s-1 and frequency below nHz range immersed in a high frequency noise of much bigger amplitude?
  50. Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Tenney, the graph shows the average annual extent. As you said, each year most of the sea ice around Antarctica melts away. Even that remaining ice coverage at the Summer minimum point has increased slightly (though it is down this year), but the primary change has been increased ocean area covered by ice at the Winter maximum.

Prev  2445  2446  2447  2448  2449  2450  2451  2452  2453  2454  2455  2456  2457  2458  2459  2460  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us