antarctic sea ice at all time record

can anyone address the authors of the article? are they trying to mislead, or is this just a case of facts being reported and distorted?

 

I am less interested in your current work as much more interested in agricultural experience. The reason is wing, paw, and seed were one of the earliest indications of tropical and temperate migrations to Northern latitudes faster than evolutionary changes. Pests both flora and fauna normally killed off by a week of hard freeze seem to be moving North.

So my question about agriculture is to see if there might be some common ground about agricultural pest control. For example, armadillos in more Northern areas or game whose pelt patterns have changed.

Bob Wilson

 

Since you are both choosing to go the route of personal attacks, you not only prove my point about the corrupted nature the debate about climate change, but you've shown that any further discussion on this topic with you is pointless.

Regrettably, I'll be ignoring this discussion any further. I'm disappointed to say the least that this is the result.

 

Uh huh.

Tell me, when someone knocks on your door and says " I am a skeptic, and would like to politely and respectfully debate the 'Flat Earth Truth' with you," how do you respond ?

 

Assuming that not everyone will ignore this discussion, I reiterate some points made previously. Evidence for recent changes in the following categories (at least) can be found in the scientific literature:

Air temperature
Atmospheric temperature distributions
Ocean heat content
Sea level
Grounded ice and sea ice
Global hydrology
Agricultural productivity
Plant phenology
Plant and animal range shifts

For some I have previously presented citations. The IPCC presents many, but has been accused of excluding contrary examples. So, a combination of search approaches might be required for best results. Other summaries can be found on the web, but some of those are in affinity websites that might be considered biased. Doesn't matter, just use them as a basis to structure your own exploration of the literature. One example might be the website 'CO2 science'. While they provide interpretations that sometimes disagree with those of the study authors, they do a very good job of compiling literature citations. That at least is useful.

It may be that few or no PC readers are inclined to pursue them all, but there it is. Take it or leave it, but please do not suppose or proclaim that no evidence has been presented.

Only then do we get to the controversial stuff. To what extent has increased atmospheric CO2 contributed to the trends? Even more so, with what confidence and they be projected into the future along different paths of CO2 increase? In these, there is plenty of room for discussion and I hope further refinement of the studies.

To dismiss it all, out of hand, certainly benefits those who profit from the burning without concern for extenalities. Perhaps other groups as well, I couldn't tell ya.

On the other hand, to suppose that the worst-case scenarios are accurate might not benefit anyone, because (a) the world needs energy (and more in the future), and (b) non-carbon energy sources are not presently developing rapidly enough to take over.

From this perspective, PC discussions seems sometimes fruitful and other times not. But it's an open forum... I would agree that personal attacks are unproductive, but not that a personal attack should make me take my marbles and go home. That is equal to saying 'that I have been insulted is more important than anything I might contribute to the discussion'.

We might go forward without insulting each other, or Al Gore, or John Christy, or whomever. ya wanna?

 

I've been thinking of trying to audit one of his courses. It used to cost only $60 and would give me a chance to hear him lecture. The problem is auditing means 'no questions.'

Bob Wilson

 

Here is a pretty good article on this. Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming? | Environment | theguardian.com

For those who are really interested.

 

Interesting quote from article:

I find it hard to believe the climate models don't include Ozone layer effects. Regardless, CryoSat reports Antarctic land-based, ice has declined. If part of the melt or sublimated ice is displaced to sea ice, no problem.

Bob Wilson

 

Sometimes people need to 'take a break', a vacation. Participation in PriusChat and this thread is voluntary and his reasons for taking a break are his own. I am sympathetic because I too took a break when my posting practices about Prius accidents ran into moderator criticism(*).

I am more curious about the OP:

A first post with no follow-up even after some excellent follow-ups with facts and data makes me wonder 'why bother?'

Bob Wilson

* - I have seen a second report of a fatal, Prius-pedestrian accident that involved: a left-turn; normal daylight weather; pedestrian in a walk-way, and; the Prius driver did not see the pedestrian. I am becoming more aware that the driver-side, windshield support in a left turn gives a large and long lasting 'blind spot.' The driver-side, A-pillar is closest to the eyes so a larger arc is obscured. In a left turn, this blind-arc covers a stationary or slowly moving area in the path of the turning car. This effect is not unique to the Prius. So I too once took a break from posting Prius-accidents at PriusChat but did not lose my interest in Prius safety. I just don't bother to share source reports like I had in the past.

 

I've come to realize many 'news' reports are re-worked, press releases and even press releases are often worse than Cliff Notes. Sad to say, reporters are often light-weight in technology yet have a requirement to produce 'words.' So I'm with Doug in seeking the source reports and when possible, dialog with the author.

There are propagandists who seek to omit and distort what is going on while also lying about being 'fair and balanced.' But they often trip over themselves to my amusement.

Bob Wilson

 

thanks bob, i'm more concerned with the actual statements by the scientists. but i see how they can be distorted when taken out of context.

 

The melt at the end of a glacial stage seems very perplexing and I am dissatisfied with my own level of understanding of it. There are ways in which CO2 levels are said to be involved, but how does it work, really?

Surely one would expect ocean circulation patterns to be different, both from extensive ice cover and lower sea levels. So maybe that allows more CO2 to exit the waters.

More ice cover also means (?) that less fresh minerals are being exposed to the atmosphere -> less mineral weathering -> less CO2 consumption.

The balance between photosynthesis and decomposition (both on land and at sea) is disrupted, favoring decomposition (CO2 release to the atmosphere).

Evidence for one or more of these might be strong but it is not known to me. At their worst. all three could look like facile, goal directed arguments.

A really good climate model ought to be able to ice, or de-ice the earth driven externally by the few parts per thousand change in irradiance (Milankovich) , amplified internally by CO2 (or whatever), and predict geochemical or other proxy signals that can actually be found. Then we'd be on the road to understanding long cycles in the earth system. The ones we are sure have happened.

Lacking that, models of faster changes will simply remain unsatisfying, and I think it is an entirely fair criticism.

 

My interest is more often directed at the technology, especially the Argo mission:

Source: WikiPedia

While reviewing the Wiki entry, I found this curious note:

I'll have to get the paper to fill out the abstract: Ocean Salinities Reveal Strong Global Water Cycle Intensification During 1950 to 2000

This is the type of model that appeals to me because it treats the earth as a 'heat engine' that transports water:

Increase the heat and the engine runs faster. The dry areas get dryer and the wet areas accumulate water. So how does this relate to Antarctic sea ice?

My understanding is Antarctica loses ice by sublimation. The polar land area is a freeze-dry environment. But when this cold air reaches the sea, there is all this water to freeze. In contrast, the Arctic has no polar land mass.

The nearest Arctic land masses are Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Russia. It looks like the northern shore of Greenland and Canada are the anchors for the oldest ice accumulations. We know Greenland is losing ice yet has this persistent sea ice:

In effect the northern shores of Greenland and Canada function like a slice of the Antarctic sea ice coverage:


Divide the Antarctic into pieces of a pie and it looks a lot like the northern shore of Canada and Greenland:

This is a crude example:

Just using quadrants of a circle, a 'model' polar island can be constructed surrounded by sea ice just like Antarctica. Use a pie slice, the land-to-sea ice ratio can be made that looks closer to Antarctica.

The model is simple:

• very cold, dry, polar land mass . . . with sublimating and melting ice loss
• bordered by water to freeze from the leaking, cold air off the land

It looks like a heat engine that could be modeled by a mechanical engineering student.

Bob Wilson

 

Bob,

Could you please explain? I don't see why dry areas getting drier and wet areas getting wetter necessarily follows a warming scenario, even if you consider the earth's atmosphere as a 'heat engine'.

 

It wasn't my idea but borrowed from the Durack, Wijffels, Matear paper: Ocean Salinities Reveal Strong Global Water Cycle Intensification During 1950 to 2000 which is a free-paper from Science. But it matches my flying experience.

On-shore/off-shore winds and thermals and sinks over plowed and green fields and trees is something I have direct experience flying. If a pilot fails to see and understand whether or not they will be headed into ascending or descending air, their landings will be more exciting than necessary. So too, approaching an airstrip by a body of water is often going to require a different landing and takeoff direction after sun set. These effects are powered by the sun and characteristics of the local surfaces.

I've never had a problem with seeing these micro-weather effects expanding to larger earth surfaces. So the moisture that comes from the tropics and rained on us the last couple of days should have increased the surface salinity of the tropical seas. A warmer climate, more evaporation and higher salinity on that part of the ocean. But other areas, ocean surfaces, see variable amounts of rainfall and unlike land in developed countries, are not subject to man-made artifacts. Quoting from the paper:

So what I like about this paper is using only ocean salinity changes as a metric of earth's heat-driven weather averaged into climate time-scales. It takes away problems with agricultural changes in developed and developing countries. But there are polar areas not subject to agriculture. This led to my insights about how the Arctic ice pattern is a slice of what Antarctic sea ice is doing.

Bob Wilson

 

This discussion is moving along well on the original topic, so with some hesitation I'll expand on my #25 above. Speaking only on changing species distributions, and based on my experience in the ecology literature including as a reviewer on behalf of journals.

If you have substantial long-term data showing changes through time, it can be published. However if your data says 'no change', it is much more difficult to get published. One might forgive the journals for this prejudice, but I believe it can limit our understanding of what is or is not changing.

Recently there are exceptions. Specifically, the Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals aim to publish results without considering their 'perceived' significance. So, we may see more 'no observed change' results getting published in the future.

If anyone wants to slam the journals on this basis, I'd be inclined to agree. Yet I know they are in the business of publishing papers they think will get cited, because they want to increase their Impact Factors. This means they are looking for 'red meat'.

Science can do better - it ought to be the search for understanding patterns, whether or not they are changing. I am obliged to remain optimistic, because I cannot see useful alternatives. Warts and all.

But on Antarctic sea ice, I'd like to say this. It was originally presented here as an all-time high. In an earlier discussion of Arctic sea ice, the time frame of observations was criticized concerning an all-time low. I should prefer that such criticisms be equally applied to both areas. Otherwise, you run the risk of appearing goal oriented.

We should not be that. We should be looking for the truth.

 

Low Arctic ice has an economic effect on shipping and expanded oil and mineral exploration. It also increases solar heat capture. Thanks to Arctic human habitation, our species has a long standing interest.

In contrast, Antarctic sea ice has a minimum impact on shipping. Although its growth looks impressive but when freezing sea water, it has little impact on sea level. However, it does reduce the amount of solar heat absorbed, not that the Aussis need any more heat. Antarctica is not terribly interesting as there are no native, human populations. Still, recent, short-term less than an 11 year solar cycle, CryoSat reports of decreased, Antarctic land-based ice are interesting.

As for the subject of polar ice, I've noticed discussion of Northern hemisphere ice often leads to Antarctic sea ice posts. It never really made sense as there are substantial differences between an Arctic Ocean and Antarctic Continent. But that has changed, for me.

There is a fairly obvious mechanism that explains both Antarctic sea ice and Arctic sea ice north of Greenland and the polar Canadian islands. Cold, dry air descending over polar land mass will leave via the nearest coasts where it can freeze and preserve sea ice. Antarctica being polar centered is surrounded by sea ice. Greenland and the Canadian polar islands simply anchor the oldest Arctic ice.

Living in North Alabama, I've noticed when we have a distinct cold snap in our areas, we often find Alaska has a 'heat wave' with temperatures approaching and reaching freezing . . . even in the winter. Reducing the days of Arctic sea water freezing means thinner, sea ice and more open water during the next summer. Voila, a weather-climate link.

Bob Wilson