Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice?

by Judith Curry

“It is very likely that the annual Antarctic sea ice extent increased at a rate of between 1.2 and 1.8% per decade between 1979 and 2012.” -  IPCC AR5 

The ship of fools fiasco brought widespread attention to the anomalously large amount of  sea ice in the Antarctic. Here is the recent history of Antarctic sea ice anomalies from UIUC:

seaice.anomaly.antarctic

Sunshine Hours points to a new paper that questions the satellite record of Antarctic sea ice increase.  The paper is written by I. Eisenman, W. N. Meier, and J. R. Norris and is titled “A spurious jump in the satellite record: is Antarctic sea ice really expanding?”   An interactive comment by P.R. Holland says:

However, doesn’t Figure S5 in the supplementary material show that whatever the source of the Bootstrap issue, there is no doubt that Antarctic sea ice is increasing in both area and extent? The trends appear significant whichever of the three time series one chooses. Even if one discards Bootstrap altogether on the basis of this paper, the NASA Team series clearly shows significant increases. These two facts imply that the title of this paper is misleading, and so is much of the discussion and abstract.

Sunshine Hours refers to this paper as a ‘hail Mary pass.’  David Appell brought this paper to the attention of Sunshine Hours, so I thought it best to preemptively mention this. In any event, the satellite sea ice extent/area since 1979 is pretty robust, although there are some methodological uncertainties.  Actually during the melt seasons it is easier to interpret Antarctic sea ice extent than the Arctic sea ice extent, owing to the confounding factor of surface melt ponds in the Arctic.

IPCC AR5

Climate models simulate a decrease of Antarctic sea ice in recent decades.  Here is what the IPCC has to say, from Chapter 10:

Whereas sea ice extent in the Arctic has decreased, sea ice extent in the Antarctic has very likely increased. Sea ice extent across the Southern Hemisphere over the year as a whole increased by 1.3– 1.67% per decade from 1979–2012 with the largest increase in the Ross Sea during the autumn, while sea ice extent decreased in the Amundsen-Bellingshausen Sea. The observed upward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent is found to be inconsistent with internal variability based on the residuals from a linear trend fitted to the observations, though this approach could underestimate multi-decadal variability. The CMIP5 simulations on average simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent , though Turner et al. (2013) find that approximately 10% of CMIP5 simulations exhibit an increasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent larger than observed over the 1979-2005 period. However, Antarctic sea ice extent variability appears on average to be too large in the CMIP5 models . Overall, the shortness of the observed record and differences in simulated and observed variability preclude an assessment of whether or not the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is inconsistent with internal variability. Based on Figure 10.16b and (Meehl et al., 2007b), the trend of Antarctic sea ice loss in simulations due to changes in forcing is weak (relative to the Arctic) and the internal variability is high, and thus the time necessary for detection is longer than in the Arctic.

Several recent studies have investigated the possible causes of Antarctic sea ice trends. Early studies suggested that stratospheric ozone depletion may have driven increasing trends in Antarctic ice extent, but recent studies demonstrate that simulated sea ice extent decreases in response to prescribed changes in stratospheric ozone. An alternative explanation for the lack of melting of Antarctic sea ice is that sub-surface ocean warming, and enhanced freshwater input possibly in part from ice shelf melting, have made the high latitude southern ocean fresher  and more stratified, decreasing the upward heat flux and driving more sea ice formation. An idealized simulation of the response to freshwater input similar to that estimate due to ice shelf melting exhibited an increase in sea ice extent, but this result has yet to be reproduced with other models. Overall we conclude that there is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due the larger differences between sea-ice simulations from CMIP5 models and to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.

NSIDC

NSIDC has a new post Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? Excerpts:

The reasons behind this increase are complex, and several recent studies show that scientists are still trying to understand them.

Part of the answer may be found in changes in atmospheric circulation linked to the Antarctic Oscillation, or Southern Annular Mode, which influences the large belt of air flows encircling the South Pole, called the circumpolar vortex. This oscillation varies on a decadal basis, alternating between negative and positive phases. Over the past few decades, it has shifted to more positive phases. “Positive phases are associated with a strengthening of the circumpolar vortex and intensification of the westerly winds,” said Jinlun Zhang, senior oceanographer at the University of Washington Polar Science Center. More intense winds have been whipping the Antarctic continent and battering the sea ice. “Ice floes converge in an area and cause an ice pile up, particularly along coastal areas,” Zhang said. More forceful collisions cause the ice to pile up along the floe edges, creating pressure ridges and producing thicker ice.

Antarctica’s windier climate may have another surprisingly distant source—in ocean currents half a world away. Researcher Xichen Li and his colleagues looked at the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a large-scale pattern in North Atlantic sea surface temperature that shifts between cool and warm phases. Similar to El Niño and La Niña, this oscillation affects temperature and rainfall worldwide, and now scientists think it is impacting Antarctic climate.

The North Atlantic is warming and staying warm, setting up far-reaching atmospheric patterns that affect the Antarctic Oscillation. In combination with the year-to-year influences from El Niño and La Niña, this pattern tends to intensify the westerly winds around Antarctica. It could also help explain regional differences around Antarctica: sea ice is increasing in some areas, while decreasing in others.

Additional culprits are the rising atmosphere and ocean temperatures around Antarctica. But how does warmer air and water create more sea ice? Overall warming alters the ocean heat flux, or the heat exchange between ocean, sea ice, and atmosphere, which typically regulates sea ice production.

As deep ocean temperatures around Antarctic rise, they increase ice shelf melt, according to a study led by Richard Bintanja. This meltwater is creating a cool layer near the surface of the ocean that promotes sea ice production. In addition, the meltwater is fresh, or much less salty and dense than surrounding saline ocean layers. So fresher meltwater floats upward, mixing with the cold surface layer, lowering its density. As this fresh layer expands, it forms a stable puddle on top of the ocean that makes it easier to produce and retain sea ice.

This growing fresh puddle changes the ocean heat flux. Zhang also studied this change, and his models showed that warming would increase sea ice, up to a point. “If the current warming continues, the increase in ice may continue for some time,” Zhang said.  But, the increase will likely not continue indefinitely. “If the warming gets stronger, there will come a point when ice growth is smaller than the ocean heat flux available to melt ice,” he said. Under those conditions, sea ice extent and volume will begin to decrease.

Liu and Curry (2010)

ShortlyIn a 2010 PNAS paper, Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice

The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century.Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall. The simulated sea surface temperature variability from two global coupled climate models for the second half of the 20th century is dominated by natural internal variability associated with the Antarctic Oscillation, suggesting that the models’ internal variability is too strong, leading to a response to anthropogenic forcing that is too weak. With increased loading of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through the 21st century, the models show an accelerated warming in the Southern Ocean, and indicate that anthropogenic forcing exceeds natural internal variability. The increased heating from below (ocean) and above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected decline of the Antarctic sea ice.

As per Google Scholar, the Liu and Curry paper has 31 scientific citations, which is pretty respectable for a paper published less than 4 years ago.  Nevertheless,the paper is not cited in the IPCC AR5 (at least in Ch 10), or in the NSIDC article.  Interesting.

Curry vs Curry (?)

In my recent Senate testimony, I quoted the following two sentences from the AR5:

“It is very likely that the annual Antarctic sea ice extent increased at a rate of between 1.2 and 1.8% per decade between 1979 and 2012.”

“There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.”

My testimony resulted in the bunnies are spitting carrots at Rabett Run  Curry vs. Curry.

So, does my citing the AR5 on Antarctic sea ice seem inconsistent in any with with Liu and Curry (2010)?  I can rarely make sense of  the bunny logic, so I won’t bother trying here

JC summary

So, from the vantage point of 2014, what is causing the increase in Antarctic sea ice?  The mechanism hypothesized by Liu and Curry seems operative to some extent, although it is not clear this the dominant process.  The Liu/Curry mechanism with fresh layer on the surface from precipitation shares some features with Bintanja’s mechanism with a surface fresh layer from ice shelf melt. Natural internal variability seems to be a strong factor; while the stadium wave analysis was for the Northern Hemisphere, there are clearly some connections with the Southern Hemisphere also.

So we have several mechanisms that seem to be operating, but we do not yet have a quantitative, predictive understanding of the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.  Hence the statement made by the IPCC seems justified:

“There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.”

Also, I stand by this statement I made in my testimony:

Notwithstanding the simulations by climate models that reproduce the decline in Arctic sea ice, more convincing arguments regarding causes of sea ice variations requires understanding and ability to simulate sea ice variations in both hemispheres.

779 responses to “Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice?

  1. Also, I stand by this statement I made in my testimony …

    Too right. Thanks for standing up for so much that has drowned out by the jealous guarders of catastrophism’s flame.

    • As further evidence, the newly repaired Cryostat satellite has just shown that Arctic ice volume increased by 50% in the past year: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/cryosat-shows-arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-from-last-year/

    • Repaired by whom?

      Right, the guardians of the Flame of Catastrophe.

    • David L. Hagen

      EPA Causing a predictable Crisis of Cold
      Joe Bastardi is predicting that the EPA’s reliance on erroneous climate models is projected to close coal power plants causing a catastrophic
      A Crisis of Cold – with far greater consequences in immediate deaths in the USA than any “catastrophic warming”.

      Now contrast that idea and the actual temperatures to the modeling the EPA is using as one of their three lines of evidence for their endangerment findings, giving them free reign to do what they are doing. From Dr. John Christy. University of Alabama, Huntsville: . . .

      Now here is what is scary to me. In talking to people in the energy industry, 89% of coal fired plants that are operating now by supplying electricity will be forced off line on Jan. 1, 2015 by EPA regulations. I want you to imagine what this winter’s energy situation would be like without those plants operating. Two weeks ago, I said the pattern between Jan. 20-Feb. 5 would be a “crisis of cold.” While we see a brief break in the East this weekend, we believe a cold stormy February is on the way for the nation. . . .
      If what I said a few years ago holds, with those sources for energy off line, next winter would make the term “crisis of cold” an understatement.

      Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm

      Note that Finland lost 1/3rd of its population in the cold snap of 1695-1697.
      Forcing coal fired power plants to shut down could cause similar massive deaths in the USA.
      Neumann, J.; Lindgrén, S. (1979). “Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: 4, The Great Famines in Finland and Estonia”. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 60 (7): pp775–787. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1979)0602.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477.

      • @David L. Hagen – while the Malthusians would celebrate such an occurrence, I wonder if the general population will stand still for it? It will be a test of the will to survive for entire societies.

    • Up from the record melts of the previous year. Consider the series

      1, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, 0.2, 0.3. Hmmm a 50% rise from the previous number to the last one

    • The mantra by CAGW fantasists has been that by 2013 the Arctic would be completely ice free in September. In reality, Arctic ice is recovering fast.

      The many basic mistakes in the IPCC ‘consensus’ have given an entirely false impression to the Public. Because the atmosphere self-corrects, there is very little CO2-AGW. There has been AGW from Asian aerosols reducing cloud albedo, but is has saturated (Sagan’s aerosol optical physics is wrong).

  2. In the CMIP3 and CMIP5 experiments, the ensemble means both predict a decrease in Antarctic sea ice.

    Ozone as a player has been used to explain the anomalies ,however a number of analysis have precluded this and suggest that O3 recovery will countervail the increases in GHG.

    Smith 2012 ,Sigmond, Michael, John C. Fyfe, 2014

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053325/abstract

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00590.1

    • Call me a denier, but when they start getting a few of these fingerprint type predictions right, and not just on the edge of the margin of error, either, I will start to believe they are getting a handle on the situation.

    • I have always loved watching the Antarctic make idiots out of geniuses. Polar temperature, ozone and sea ice extent are all related to the stability of the circumpolar vortex. In 2002 there was a rare Antarctic Sudden Stratospheric Warming event. Note the sea ice anomaly. That Antarctic is “thermally” isolated thanks to the Antarctic Circumpolar Current which increases the stability of the circumpolar vortex. If the Antarctic Convergence Zone shifts to a less stable configuration, then there is a greater chance that southern polar vortex would become less stable.

      Toggwieler nailed this with his shifting westerlies. Damn those GFDL guys are good! :)

    • Toggwieler nailed this with his shifting westerlies

      The westerlies wind belts,are continually shifting 20 degrees of latitude in the annular mode.The arguments are whether there is an anthropogenic component,and what is natural internal variation ( the limit cycle) Rodgers 2011 for example found that there is greater natural variation then at present and GCM underestimate natural variation eg.

      In this study, model simulations are used to show that Southern Ocean winds are likely a main driver of the observed variability in the
      interhemispheric gradient over AD950–1830, and further,
      that this variability may be larger than the Southern Ocean
      wind trends that have been reported for recent decades (notably
      1980–2004). This interpretation also implies that there
      may have been a significant weakening of the winds over the
      Southern Ocean within a few decades of AD1375, associated
      with the transition between the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the Little Ice Age. The driving forces that could have
      produced such a shift in the winds at the Medieval Climate
      Anomaly to Little Ice Age transition remain unknown. Our
      process-focused suite of perturbation experiments with models
      raises the possibility that the current generation of coupled
      climate and earth system models may underestimate the
      natural background multi-decadal- to centennial-timescale
      variations in the winds over the Southern Ocean.

      http://www.clim-past.net/7/1123/2011/

    • maks, “The arguments are whether there is an anthropogenic component,and what is natural internal variation ( the limit cycle) Rodgers 2011 for example found that there is greater natural variation then at present and GCM underestimate natural variation eg.”

      Toggweiler seems to believe the potential range of natural variability is quite large. Since the estimated flow rate of the ACC is ~135Sv, I have no reason to doubt that. Thanks for the link to Rogers.

    • I read the other day that Phil, the groundhog has a 39% rate of being correct. It seems the AGW scientists who keep pushing out model projections can only hope to catch up with him.

  3. Where to start.
    Cold causes ice, not heat.
    Every year in the Antarctic as winter approaches the ice grows.
    There is no heat causing this even if the claimed surface temps are higher than normal, the sea and air get colder in winter and ice forms.
    There is no “extra melt” of “fresh” water, the sea is virtually as salty 1 mm off the forming ice as it is 10 metres away.
    This is another attempt to find a cause that by physics just cannot happen.
    As the great man said, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
    Forget ozone , forget fresh puddles, forget hot water making ice,
    go with cold salty water getting cold enough to make more ice.
    Incredibly simple.
    Of course one has to wonder at the quality of the measurements of temperature in the sea and air at these locations when they run away from the reality of more sea ice.

  4. One of the great paradoxes in the climate debates. Each side can find solace in the events at the poles. Just like the American political parties.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “One of the great paradoxes in the climate debates. Each side can find solace in the events at the poles.”
      ____
      I find neither solace nor alarm in the events at the poles, but only continued strong confirmatory evidence of a climate system that continues to gain energy. The far bigger story in Antarctica is the net loss of long term glacial ice, indicating net gain in energy to the climate system.

    • @ Gates. “net loss of long term glacial ice” Do you have a link for that ?

    • David Springer

      Yeah, we’re all cooking.

      http://www.wunderground.com/US/Region/US/2xTemperature.html

      Sub-tropical Austin about to have two more days of freezing precipitation. Global warming my ass.

  5. Latimer Alder

    Because Gaia wants to puncture the hubris of buffoons like Tierney and his shipmates.

    And she’s succeeding bigtime

  6. As one gate closes another opines, we need more paleontological data here, sea ice isn’t important anyway, it’s only ocean heat content that drones on interminably.

  7. “There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.”

    Indeed, honesty tells us that is true for both polls. The simple facts are that we have no clue on what is happening in the Arctic, or the Antarctic, unless we subscribe to a ‘leap of faith” and accept a supposition as a fact. And even then it does not explain the vagaries of the ice extent in either pole.

    The brevity of the data set has a lot to do with the uncertainty. No one knows if the observed period is normal or abnormal.

    • So you think wind-driven production of sea ice in the East Antarctica polynyas is not a clue.

    • Call Maria.
      =======

    • No one knows if the observed period is normal or abnormal.
      NOT TRUE!
      According to Ice Core Data, Temperature is well inside the normal bounds of the past ten thousand years. What we have observed with increased ability to observe is the same thing that has happened many times before, when we had less ability to observe.

      Having flawed theory and models do not make earth different. People started believing Computer output and they quit thinking. Look at past data, look at current data and then think.

    • “Having flawed theory and models do not make earth different. People started believing Computer output and they quit thinking. Look at past data, look at current data and then think.”

      Reminds you of the person who was using their GPS and they drove into a lake.

    • The Long Periods is what I am talking about.

      The data shows the long periods get cold and warm and cold and warm and continue this cycle for ten thousand years in the same bounds.
      This warm period will give way to cold. Not right away, but it will happen on the same time scale that the Roman and Medieval Warm periods gave way to cold periods.

      It snows more when it is warm and it takes a bunch of years of more snow to build enough ice volume to advance and cause the cooling that always happens after a warm period.

      The alarmists say that what always has happened will never happen again and that we will only get warmer.

      They are already wrong. We will not get much warmer. The data shows the temperature bounds and the upper bound is not much warmer.

  8. Antarctica:
    The average elevation of the continent is 2500 meters.
    This generates an effective thermal barrier between the inland areas to the sea-level climate of the southern oceans.
    Global warming will only slowly chip away at the ice at the boundary.

    Have people learned how an ice-cream maker works? You mix ice-slushy salted water together and submerge a capsule of liquid in it and get it in motion.

    Is it surprising that ice grows in the capsule, while it melts in the surrounding space?
    Discuss.

    Meanwhile … MNFTIU :
    http://imageshack.com/a/img812/74/abh.gif

    • “Global warming will only slowly chip away at the ice at the boundary.”

      The ice at the boundary is growing, your theory is falsified.

    • Thanks for starting the discussion of solving a free energy variational problem.

      Start with the premise that the free energy of salty water is lower than the equivalent amount of combined free energy of salt and the free energy of water.

    • “Start with the premise that the free energy of salty water is lower than the equivalent amount of combined free energy of salt and the free energy of water.”

      Your premise is wrong. The ice at the boundary is growing. Is it really so hard to see the blindingly obvious?

      You would have been right at home on the ship of fools. I think that is a good name for the warmers.

    • The premise is that energy is conserved. The earth is warming significantly so we should figure out why the sea ice surrounding Antarctica is growing.

      The entropy increase as more fresh water freezes and spreads out compensates for the overall warming. That is how free energy is defined. It is indeed puzzling and note that I am actually interested in the physics, unlike you apparently.

    • Web wrote: The earth is warming significantly

      That is only based on climate model output.

      Actual data shows earth to be well inside the bounds of the last ten thousand years. The warming out of the little ice age was what always happens out of cold periods during the past ten thousand years.

      Temperature is following the NORMAL, EXPECTED, CYCLE.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Re home ice-cream makers “Web asks “Is it surprising that ice grows in the capsule, while it melts in the surrounding space?”
      _________

      No, it’s not surprising and that’s why the capsule needs to be water-tight.

      Web, as a youngster I thought home made ice cream was supposed to taste salty. I didn’t know a leak in our ice cream maker let some of the salt water get in the ice cream. I don’t know why my parents never noticed.

    • Heavily salted paths will often create a top level ice crust that is hollow underneath. Where is the salt concentrated and does it redistribute and create gradients?

      Notice that Tamino and Cowtan have skeptical views on this as well, and are not simply cheerleading. They have an interest in the physics, and understanding what is happening.

    • The “ice cream capsule” hypothesis sounds plausible.
      The problem is, while the slushy salted water component is situated in the vicinity of the ice shelves in summer, the ‘capsule’ component is situated hundreds or thousands of miles out to sea, and in winter.
      Reconcile that and you’re onto a winner.

    • k scott denison

      WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 3, 2014 at 8:47 am | Reply

      Is it surprising that ice grows in the capsule, while it melts in the surrounding space?
      _______________

      Uh, no. Because what’s in the capsule isn’t salt water.

    • Heavily salted paths will often create a top level ice crust that is hollow underneath.

      You can find top level crust and hollow underneath without salt. Snow flakes transform into something that is more compact.

    • David Springer

      Does not the isolation of the continent from the ocean and lack of water vapor make it the perfect experimental platforn for isolating the effect of increased CO2? The old well-mixed CO2 control knob over Antarctica got turned up just as much as anywhere else on the planet.

      Narrate for me, Webby. I could use a good climate just-so story to get me in the mood for an afternoon nap.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “The premise is that energy is conserved. The earth is warming significantly so we should figure out why the sea ice surrounding Antarctica is growing.”
      _____
      The sea ice growth in Antarctica is interesting, and Judith’s discussion of the causes does partially cover some of the ideas as to why, Wind is of course a huge factor in sea ice growth. But you are correct that the net energy in Earth’s climate system continues to exhibit strong growth, with the variability of tropospheric temperatures and seasonal sea ice rather poor metrics over the shorter time frames to show this energy imbalance and also a good chance that Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice are to be displaying opposite trends over multi-decadal time frames early in the 21st Century due to the much different dynamics that go into each of these regions.

    • “WebHubTelescope
      The premise is that energy is conserved”

      Why on Earth should it be?
      The ocean has an albedo of 0.06, sea ice 0.6 and fresh snow 0.9.
      If the clouds move, on average, from snow to ocean there will be warming, if they move from ocean to fresh snow, there will be cooling.
      in an open system there is no conservation of energy, just irreversible thermodynamics, energy comes in, is transduced, then radiates off into the cosmic background. The energy density of the Earths surface is tiny in relation to the energy fluxes.

    • And what you describe is conservation of energy. To an analyst, conservation of energy amounts to bookkeeping of energy flows.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “Does not the isolation of the continent from the ocean and lack of water vapor make it the perfect experimental platforn for isolating the effect of increased CO2?”
      —–
      No, in fact a very poor experimental platform, for reasons discussed at length here on CE.

    • David Springer

      No it’s a very good platform for the reasons discussed here on CE.

    • David Springer

      Gates wants to have his cake and eat it too. The Arctic is a good indicator of anthropogenic global warming but the Antarctic is not. Gates is neither skeptical nor objective.

    • Rgates

      We have had several long and interesting conversations about Volcanoes. It is somewhat amusing that I argue that their effect during the LIA is short lived whilst you argue their cooling effect was felt for decades or centuries due to the high level of aerosols. The reason that its amusing is that IF aerosols have been reducing temperatures it would have been warmer in the past under ‘normal’ volcanic conditions.

      You said this;
      ——
      As to how much warmer the active volcanic period that began around 1250 AD and lasted until around 1900 AD would have been this chart gives us a good idea that were it not for increased volcanic activity it would have been between .3C and .6 warmer, taking us back to the Holocene average and accounting for the general decline of that average since the Holocene Optimum. The Dalton and Maunder minimums during this time frame had more regional than global impacts, though still some global, probably shaving .3C at most off of NH temperatures, and maybe .1C off global temperatures during this period at most.
      ——–
      I have just ploughed my way through thousands of references and observations regarding the 13th and 14th Century. During this period I would reckon there to have been three or four periods at least as warm as today (I shall write about them in my next article) If you were to add back in the sort of temperatures you mention above the three or four periods would be notably warmer than today, and an additional three or four periods would be around as warm as today.
      I would be grateful for your comments.

      Tonyb

    • Volcanic activity effects in the modern temperature record are dominated by eruptions in the VEI value of 5 and 6. And since these are so sparse, it is somewhat straightforward to isolate them.

      Remember that for every index increase by 1, the explosivity increases by a factor of 10. That means Tambora at 7 in 1815 had a huge impact and that was certainly true from the accounts and records of climate at the time. Apparently that was the only known VEI=7 event of the last 1000 years.

    • HADCET rose after Tambora.

    • Yes Little Miss Sunshine, you can believe the local records while ignoring the global. Check out the Berkeley Earth results.

    • “… with the variability of tropospheric temperatures and seasonal sea ice rather poor metrics over the shorter time frames…”

      I remind you of the very first quote in the head post:
      “It is very likely that the annual Antarctic sea ice extent increased at a rate of between 1.2 and 1.8% per decade between 1979 and 2012.” – IPCC AR5

      That’s a climate timescale according to many climate scientists – >30 years. If you feel this is still too short a time, please advise what you consider appropriate and why.

    • Matthew R Marler

      WebHubTelescope: Global warming will only slowly chip away at the ice at the boundary.

      Isn’t it fair to say that everything related to global warming will happen “only slowly”?

      The premise is that energy is conserved.

      Well sure, but every defined region may have energy net inflows and outflows over defined periods of time, so the application of the principle to understanding the growth of the Antarctic ice is limited.

      As to the analogy of the ice cream maker, don’t overlook the energy used to make the ice and to move the salt to the ice bath around the ice cream mix. I think that your analogy raises more questions than it answers.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

      In addition to Tambora of course, there are two very significant volcanic events that are actually the two largest in the past 1,000 years. They took place in 1257 and 1453. These each dwarf anything that has taken place since. The 1257 eruption took place in the midst of about 50 years of much increased volcanic activity. We know that prior to the 1257 volcano, the MWP was a period of both higher solar activity and lower volcanic activity. These two forcings operate differently on both regional and global scales—both cause warming, but the solar activity causes more regional warming (mainly from jet stream shifts) in the NH than lower volcanic activity, which causes higher rates of global warming.

    • David L. Hagen

      @WHUT
      To understand ice growth/melting, you have to understand energy flows in/out, including convection, radiation, clouds, CO2 and ozone, and correspondingly ozone chemistry including impact of cosmic rays. E.g.,

      See Water flows: See the recent breakthrough due to closure of the overturning ocean flows.
      Lynne D. Talley Closure of the global overturning circulation through the Indian, Pacific and Southern Oceans:schematics and transports
      Oceanography, special issue for P. Niiler February 19, 2013

      Ozone hole vs cosmic rays.
      The orthodox position is ozone depletion is caused by halogenated compounds. However QB. Lu has been proposing cosmic rays drive the primary ozone chemistry.

    • David L. Hagen

      @WUWT
      Does Ozone depletion or CO2 cause Global Warming/Cooling?
      Compare the statistics and the predictions.
      QB Lu: CFCs, Not CO2, Key Driver Of Global Warming: Study

      “Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What´s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined — matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,” Lu said.
      “My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline.”. . .”“CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling,” he said.
      “After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere.”

      Cosmic Rays, CFCs, Ozone Hole and Global Climate Change: Understandings from a Physicist Qing-Bin Lu 2012/10/16

      For O3 depletion, it is shown that an analytical equation derived from the CRE theory reproduces well 11-year cyclic variations of polar O3 loss and stratospheric cooling, and new statistical analyses of the CRE equation with observed data of total O3 and stratospheric temperature give high linear correlation coefficients >0.92. . . . . For global climate change, in-depth analyses of the observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human-made halogenated gases played the dominant role in Earth’s climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively. Remarkably, a statistical analysis gives a nearly zero correlation coefficient (R=?0.05) between corrected global surface temperature data by removing the solar effect and CO2 concentration during 1850-1970. In striking contrast, a nearly perfect linear correlation with coefficients as high as 0.96-0.97 is found between corrected or uncorrected global surface temperature and total amount of stratospheric halogenated gases during 1970-2012. . . . (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6 ?C in 1970-2002. . . .a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5~7 decades. It is also expected that the global sea level will continue to rise in coming 1~2 decades <b?until the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar O3 hole recovery; after that, both will drop concurrently

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

      “Gates wants to have his cake and eat it too. The Arctic is a good indicator of anthropogenic global warming but the Antarctic is not. Gates is neither skeptical nor objective.”
      ____
      Or Gates has read and studied volumes of data and resarch on the differences between both the hemispheres and energy advection toward both the poles as well as the unique properties of how sea ice is formed and maintained in each region. The warming of the Arctic and the changes being seen in the cryosphere and biosphere there are far more important indicators of increased energy in the climate system than the relatively minor upward fluctuations in Arctic sea ice, as more energy in the climate system would naturally be advected toward the Arctic versus in the Antarctic. Vastly different regions and dynamics.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

      “The reason that its amusing is that IF aerosols have been reducing temperatures it would have been warmer in the past under ‘normal’ volcanic conditions.”
      ____
      Aerosol amounts were lower during the MWP while solar activity was higher compared to the period of 1200-1900. Lower aerosols plus higher solar output can explain much of the positive forcing seen during the MWP.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

    • David Springer

      I’m sure that’s a lovely narrative, Gates. You know it’s a just-so story, though, right?

    • David Springer

      You keep on missing the point, Gates. CO2 is well mixed. The Antarctic interior, being free of contamination from water vapor, free of influence by tropical currents flowing up underneath the ice, it’s an ideal platform to test CO2 warming.

      You backed the wrong horse Gates.

      LOL

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “You keep on missing the point, Gates. CO2 is well mixed. The Antarctic interior, being free of contamination from water vapor, free of influence by tropical currents flowing up underneath the ice, it’s an ideal platform to test CO2 warming.”
      _____
      This is completely wrong and incorrectly characterizes the way that increased GH gases operated to increase energy in the climate system. The amount of LW radiation from Antarctica upward is exceptionally small, and additionally, the amount of sensible and latent heat flux from the oceans near Antarctica is quite low. GH gases can’t interact with what isn’t present to begin with. This would be akin to putting a jacket on a frozen long dead body out in the snow. How much warming do you expect that jacket to provide that cold dead body? The principal effect of increased GH gases will be do reduce the net flux of energy between ocean and space. The direct observable result of this will be the observed increase in OHC content, but this increase will be particularly strong in the biggest natural pools of ocean heat on the planet, such as the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool– the expansion of which has been both predicted and observed over the past several decades. Antarctica, have very little outgoing LW– pretty much the lowest region on the planet is about the worst place to find a CO2 warming signal. Try again Mr. Springer.

    • capt.

      the date looks like feb 13th. Sorry, dependencies with some new google technology, push the date to the 13th.


    • Steven Mosher | February 5, 2014 at 12:02 am |

      capt.

      the date looks like feb 13th. Sorry, dependencies with some new google technology, push the date to the 13th.

      Is this regarding the release date of the BEST land-sea data?

      This is exciting news.

    • David Springer

      You have some strange ideas about thermodynamics Gates. Strange and totally wrong.

      Yes upwelling longwave from Antarctic is low. By exactly the same token it doesn’t take much energy to warm it from such a low temperature. Duh. The average Antarctic temperature is -36C which is continuous spectrum with 12um center frequency that feeds CO2 absorption bands at 10um and 15um.

      Try again. Maybe ask a smarter friend about the thermodynamics.

    • David Springer

      Here’s another way to correct your misunderstanding about GHG warming in the Antarctic, Gates. Climate models have the GHG physics right. They don’t get latent heat right, which is why they’re bunged up, but they’re real frickin’ good at radiative heating and cooling using transfer codes like MODTRAN. This is what makes the Antarctic such a good platform – it’s the dryest place on the planet by a long shot so there’s no confounding factor from water vapor.

      So here we go:

      http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/polar.html

      The Arctic (north of 60� N) is warmed by about 6.5K in the GFDL GCM, whereas the equivalent Antarctic region warms by only 3.5K.

      So the best physics we got says the Antarctic should be warming.

      Now try again to explain why it isn’t and don’t resort to making up thermodynamic effects that are so wrong it’s laughable.

    • David Springer

      More that Gates should know but doesn’t.

      ANTARCTIC TEMPERATURES DISAGREE WITH CLIMATE MODEL PREDICTIONS

      http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/anttemps.htm

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Record-Antarctic-sea-ice-confounds-climate-models

      An Initial Assessment of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent in the CMIP5 Models

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00068.1

      So do you get it now, Gates? According to our best understanding of GHG physics Antarctica should be warming. But it isn’t. The continent is cooling and the sea ice is growing. Hence the title of the OP.

      JC SNIP

    • R Gates,

      I’m not arguing on way or the other about Arctic/Antarctic, I don’t know enough about it. I do think that the coat analogy is a poor one. A coat would just act as a barrier absorbing and keeping warm in and absorbing and keeping cold out. Whereas CO2 radiates. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “I’m not arguing on way or the other about Arctic/Antarctic, I don’t know enough about it. I do think that the coat analogy is a poor one. A coat would just act as a barrier absorbing and keeping warm in and absorbing and keeping cold out. Whereas CO2 radiates. Correct me if I’m wrong.”
      _____
      A jacket keeps a body warm by altering the thermal gradient between your body and the cold air, but it only “warms” your body from the heat already generated by your body. CO2 only re-radiates the energy it recieves. There is very little LW being radiated upward from Antractica. Also, much of the warm in the Arctic is from the ocean bringing in warmer water, which is then transferred to melting ice from underneath and to the atmosphere over the Arctic through sensible and latent heat flux from the ocean. The amount of energy delivered near the North Pole from the ocean and atmosphere (because it is water underneath the ice, and the natural advection of greater energy toward the NH) is several orders of magnitude greaters than that which is delivered via the atmosphere to the South Pole. This is just some of the reasons why the northern sea ice is melting. Southern sea ice is growing primarily because of changing winds coming off the thick continental ice (which is declining at an increasing rate BTW.)

    • David Springer

      R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 5, 2014 at 8:39 am |

      “There is very little LW being radiated upward from Antractica.”

      I suppose if you want to call 179W/m2 “very little” then that’s true.

      Average temperature of Antarctica is -36C. Plug it into the blackbody calculator below to find radiant energy is 179W/m2 at a peak frequency of 12.2 micrometers.

      http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

      We understand that radiant emission from frigid ice is less than a liquid ocean and that as a consequence downwelling forcing from CO2 is also lower. What you don’t seem to understand is that it takes commensurately less energy to warm the colder surface. The Planck T4 law is a two way street. It takes more and more energy to achieve the same temperature increase as the base temperature rises. Conversely it takes less and less energy to acheive the same temperature increase as the base temperature declines.

      The bottom line, which you just totally blew off, is the physics I just described is built into the CMP5 models and they thus predicted a little more than half the warming in the Antarctic as in the Arctic. The reason for the lower rate in Antarctica is that water vapor amplification is depressed in Antarctica because it’s the dryest place in the world by far.

      You can take what I just wrote to the bank Gates. It’s in the models. This iis the thermodynamic reality of the situation.

      • “Average temperature of Antarctica is -36C. Plug it into the blackbody calculator below to find radiant energy is 179W/m2 at a peak frequency of 12.2 micrometers.”

        David, did you adjust the upper and lower wavelength limits? When those are set to 5u-20u, the 12.2u peak is 3.07224 W/m2/sr/µm, not 179W/m2, the whole band is 179W/m2.
        But, this also means that the 14u-16u Co2 “band” contains very little energy compared to the rest of the spectrum that is clear to space, except for the water vapor bands.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

      R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 5, 2014 at 8:39 am |

      “There is very little LW being radiated upward from Antractica.”

      David Springer: I suppose if you want to call 179W/m2 “very little” then that’s true.
      ____
      Mr. Springer:

      Your figure is so laughably off base in terms of upward LW from Antarctica that I’m am wondering just where you might have got it from. Many months of the year, there is a net negative downwelling LW (more is coming from clouds than is directed upward). Never ever does it reach the kind of level you proposed—so please check your data sources. In short, the net LW from Antarctica is mostly zero to negative (more down than up), so there is very little for CO2 re-radiate. A very bad location to check for the net effects of CO2 increases on a global basis.
      See

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450(2003)042%3C0827%3AACRFAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    • David Springer

      ordvic | February 5, 2014 at 6:43 am |

      ” I do think that the coat analogy is a poor one. A coat would just act as a barrier absorbing and keeping warm in and absorbing and keeping cold out. Whereas CO2 radiates. Correct me if I’m wrong.”

      It’s not a terrible analog but there are far better ones.

      CO2 impedes the transmission of certain infrared frequencies some which align with the frequency emitted by surfaces with temperatures typical of the earth’s surface.

      Because it’s more difficult for the infrared to be transmitted through the atmosphere something described by the Stefan-Boltzmann law takes place. The surface temperature rises and the energy emitted increases as the fourth power of the temperature. The higher the starting surface temperature the more energy it takes to raise it another degree. This non-linear response, sometimes called the Planck response, prevents a runaway greenhouse.

      The better analogy doesn’t represent the non-linear response but imagine a dam on a river with a gate at the base of the dam. As the gate opening is made larger more water flows through the gate and the water behind the dam level falls. No imagine that CO2 controls how far the gate is opened and the height of the water behind the dam is the temperature. If you close the gate a little bit and the water rises behind the pressure at the base of the dam increases forcing more water through the gate until the water rises to a point where the pressure reaches equilibrium with the size of the gate opening and the water level neither rises or falls.

    • David Springer

      R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 5, 2014 at 11:08 am |

      R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 5, 2014 at 8:39 am |

      “There is very little LW being radiated upward from Antractica.”

      David Springer: I suppose if you want to call 179W/m2 “very little” then that’s true.
      ____
      Mr. Springer:

      “Your figure is so laughably off base in terms of upward LW from Antarctica that I’m am wondering just where you might have got it from.”

      I got it at the link I provided to an online blackbody calculator.

      Here it is again since you appear to have willfully ignored it once already:

      http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

      It is indisputably correct. Simply plug in -36C, which is the average surface temperature of the Antarctic continent, press calculate, and observe the resulting radiant emittance.

      “Many months of the year, there is a net negative downwelling LW (more is coming from clouds than is directed upward). Never ever does it reach the kind of level you proposed—so please check your data sources.

      That’s net you are talking about. CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs much of that upwelling longwave and radiates it back down at the surface. That’s how the GHG effect works fercrisakes. You don’t even know how the greenhouse effect works. Do you know what a pyregeometer is? It’s an instrument that measures both upwelling and downwelling longwave to determine the net.

      How is it possible you’ve been running off at the mouth so long in this debate and you don’t even know the mechanism of the GHG effect or how to use a blackbody calculator?

    • David Springer

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer

      Fercrisakes Gates buy a frickin’ clue.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

      David Springer,

      There just isn’t much LW coming up from the ground toward the sky in Antarctica. As you get near the ocean and some of the dry valleys you can get some LW coming up, but overall, very little, and often times, much more coming down from passing clouds. So, the extra CO2 over Antarctica proper is a bit like trying to warm up a cold dead body by putting a thick blanket over it. Sorry, but you can’t tell how good the blanket is under such a circumstance. Antarctica is a terrible place to test CO2 effects. Best to look toward areas actually having some LW coming up.

    • David Springer

      Mi Cro | February 5, 2014 at 3:38 pm |

      “Actually there is close to 180W/M2 in the entire band @ -37C”

      Correct. It’s called a continuous blackbody spectrum and has a characteristic shape and power distribution about the center frequency.

      http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

      Set the lower and upper limits to say 1 and 50um and you can see most of it. Note that at temperature of 237K (Antarctic average) the CO2 primary absorption band at 15um get nailed good.

      The best spot on the planet to study GHG warming without the complication of water vapor and we find that something else going on there completely negates the CO2 warming of the second half of the twentieth century. Nobody knows the cause. It comes as a complete surprise to climate models.

      • “The best spot on the planet to study GHG warming without the complication of water vapor and we find that something else going on there completely negates the CO2 warming of the second half of the twentieth century. ”
        At ~32°F a cubic meter of saturated air hold about 1 gm of water and at 35°F on a clear sky day the temp of the sky is < -40°F. Lots of places to study how little warming from DLWR there is.

    • Matthew R Marler

      R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist: There just isn’t much LW coming up from the ground toward the sky in Antarctica.

      How do you know that? Are you throwing out the classical radiation laws (e.g. Stephan-Boltzman) altogether?

    • David Springer

      @Marler

      Gates is apparently totally ignorant of basic physics. Not once did he acknowledge Stefan-Boltzmann law. He either confuses net radiation with upwelling emission or is too scientifically illiterate to know the difference. He does not acknowledge the Trenberth heat budget cartoon which is iconic for warmists and prominently featured in ocean/atmosphere physics textbooks. I don’t what to say except that Gates is either dishonest or ignorant or both.

      Mi Cro

      I didn’t say there were no other places to study the effects of CO2 in isolation I said the Antarctic is the best place. Unless you care to argue that Antarctica isn’t the dryest climate by far on the face of the planet then by definition it’s the best place to study CO2 absent the confounding effects of water vapor.

  9. “So, does my citing the AR5 on Antarctic sea ice seem inconsistent in any with with Liu and Curry (2010)? I can rarely make sense of the bunny logic, so I won’t bother trying here” – JC

    Citing it, no.

    But then, the criticism wasn’t for citing the AR5 but saying that it “point[s] to a weakening of the case for attributing most of the warming to human influences, relative to the previous assessment”.

    Perhaps “points” being understood as a synonym of ‘handwaves’ goes some way to reconciling the competing views?

    • What it does is erode confidence that there is sufficient understanding of the climate system to credit that understanding with the power to attribute percentages of blame or causation.

      That is not hand-waving. What is hand waving is to suggest that failures to understand major tranches of the global climate has no bearing on the assessment of that understanding.

    • Michael, “But then, the criticism wasn’t for citing the AR5 but saying that it “point[s] to a weakening of the case for attributing most of the warming to human influences, relative to the previous assessment”.

      What’s wrong? Is the truth uncomfortable?

      http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jrt0901.pdf

      Pay close attention to the conclusions and the asymmetric reference.

    • Tim, “What it does is erode confidence that there is sufficient understanding of the climate system to credit that understanding with the power to attribute percentages of blame or causation.”

      Not really. It casts dispersions on linear/symmetrical assumptions of climate that eliminate the possibility of larger natural variability impacts. The three real laws of thermodynamics are KISS, FOR and ASSUME. Climate scientist assume a TOA frame of reference then try to work bottom up where the “bottom” is asymmetrical. They end up ignoring about 15% of the atmosphere by not approaching it like a “real” thermodynamics problem. There are scientists that start at the beginning, the oceans, and work their way out with a more thermodynamically sound frame of reference. Imagine that, considering the oceans on a water world?

    • of course it points to a weakening of the case.
      The logic is pretty simple.
      read harder and see if you can get it.

    • Heh, moshe, all right. The Cap’n simply has superior understanding.
      ================

    • I am not as smart as some with the ability to tease out causality from a myriad of signals, but I can use Excel, which is probably why I wouldn’t be able to get a job in UEA.

      Here is the HADSST data, with the 361 monthly rate calculated, for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres

      http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/HADSST3NH361monthrates_zpscc456473.png

      http://s179.photobucket.com/user/DocMartyn/media/HADSST3SH361monthrates_zps745c62bb.png.html?sort=3&o=6

      Now what these are telling me is that heat sloshes around the worlds oceans, and that there is a rhythm to theses heat allocations. Over the last 60 years more heat has been dumped by the waters in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern hemisphere.
      This correlates with Arctic ice melting and Antarctic ice growing.
      Based on ‘graphology’ and MkI eye-brain pattern recognitician, I would venture that ice is going to grow over the Arctic over the next 30 years or so. We should also see a similar direction in the South, but to a lessor extent.

      it would be rather nice to know what is driving these rhythmic movements of the oceans.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “Based on ‘graphology’ and MkI eye-brain pattern recognitician, I would venture that ice is going to grow over the Arctic over the next 30 years or so.”
      ____
      Exceptionally unlikely. Much more likely is the slow spiral (or perhaps fast spiral) down to a seasonally ice free summer Arctic within the next few decades. There is very strong momentum toward this already, and the continued OHC increases will affect the Arctic disproportionately higher than other areas as much of this energy is advected to the Arctic.

  10. Is it really warm enough in Antarctica to melt ice. I can see the idea of warmer sea water affecting the fast ice, but is the continental ice really melting?

    • Is it really warm enough in Antarctica to melt ice.

      Not in the last million years, or we would not have ice core data that old.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “Is it really warm enough in Antarctica to melt ice. I can see the idea of warmer sea water affecting the fast ice, but is the continental ice really melting?”
      ____
      Yes Tim, the continental ice really is melting. You should understand that around Greenland and Antarctica much of the continental ice comes down to the ocean and is actually melted from the bottom. Greenland of course sees much warmer temperatures overall then Antarctica and so sees a great deal more surface melting that can actually flow down into the cracks in the ice. Overall, both Greenland and Antarctica are exhibiting strong glacial ice mass loss, and this is both contributing to sea level growth, and displaying another more stable proxy we can use for net gains in the Earth’s climate system.

    • k scott denison

      RGates, can you show how you determined that “much of the continental ice comes done to the ocean” in Greenland? Seems to me that only a very small percentage ( < 1%?) would actually touch the ocean given that much of the coastline is free of ice, and the ratio of coastline to area is a factor of 3.5 or so.

    • k scott denison

      More importantly RGates, can you estimate how much of Greenland’s total ice mass melts from the bottom? Again, seems to me it’s a very, very small % yet your post seems to imply it is substantial.

  11. Because of the natural multi-decadal fluctuation.

  12. First one to say “I don’t know” is a scientist.

  13. The first sentence out hostess wrote is “The ship of fools fiasco brought widespread attention to the anomalously large amount of sea ice in the Antarctic.”

    This, to me, sets the whole tone for the rest of her writing. The key word is “anomalously”. There seems to be an assumption, that, because Antarctic sea ice is behaving in the opposite way the warmists think it ought to do, therefore it is behaving anomalously. And out hostess still seems to have one foot firmly in the warmist camp.

    Antarctic sea ice is not behaving anomalously. It is behaving exactly what would be expected from the laws of physics. What is wrong, is that people who call themselves “scientists” refuse to acknowledge the supremacy of empirical data, and believe that the output of non-validated models, driven by the assumption that CAGW is settled science, should be used to advise our politicians to drive us all into bankruptcy.

    • Er, on the other hand it could be because this post is discussing the sea-ice extent anomaly and that this anomaly has recently been above the preceding decadal mean anomaly and so is an anomalous anomaly.

  14. I can rarely make sense of the bunny logic, so I won’t bother trying here

    Maybe I can help.

    Four years ago you wrote a paper that provides an explanation for a mechanism whereby the ice would be increasing along with increasing temps.

    The increased heating from below (ocean) and above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected decline of the Antarctic sea ice.

    The statement is not qualified, and as such, suggests a high level of confidence. You state it as cause-and-effect. Mr. Monster is nowhere in sight.

    Now, you say that:

    …more convincing arguments regarding causes of sea ice variations requires understanding and ability to simulate sea ice variations in both hemispheres.

    Notice that Mr. Monster is now front and center.

    And you cite the IPCC, which you have consistently said is a body that employes a faulty process to produce biased and unreliable results as support for your statement.

    I’m sure that Rabbett will speak for himself, but I hope that maybe that helps.

    • Apologies. You stated a certain cause-and-effect for a decline in (projected) ice, not an increase.

    • When one “projects” something but four years later the opposite has occurred, your uncertainty will increase. At least, that would be the case if you had a wit. If your wit is highly contaminated with and dominated by nit, then you would end up where you started four years ago; smarmy and clueless.
      .

    • Ah, OK Don –

      So a matter of four years more data results in a significant alteration of Judith’s views on climate change.

      Except when it comes to Arctic temps.

      Thanks for the explanation.

    • Joshua, What does this mean?

      “If volcanic aerosols are not included, the simu-lated Southern Ocean warming in the climate model of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis is nearly doubled, implying that the human impact on Southern Ocean warming is only partially realized at present (6).”

      And this, ” As the warming extends poleward, the circumpolar westerlies are projected to intensify and shift poleward due to increasing greenhouse gases, coupled with the presence of the Antarctic ozone hole (1). The storm track as indicated by transient eddy kinetic energy also increases in magnitude and shifts poleward and upward (23). This allows more heat and moisture to be trans-ported poleward by the atmosphere, resulting in an increasing tendency of liquid precipitation, rather than snow, in the high
      latitudes of the Southern Ocean.”

      Since that paper Dr. Curry’s opinion on the quality of GCM and their understanding of direct and indirect effects of aerosols has changed and she has focus more on asymmetry. The models are simplistically symmetrical.

      From Toggweiler, ” The changes pre-dicted by climate models in response to higher CO2 are fairly small, however, and tend to be symmetric with respect to the equator. The observed changes have been quite asymmetric, …”

      http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jrt0901.pdf

      So who do you think is advancing Climate Science, Curry or Rabett?

    • You don’t have a clue about the data, joshie. You are just parroting what other Judith haters have spewed. If Judith returned to the 97% consensus reservation, she would be hailed as a climate science genius. You people are funny and despicable, at the same time.

    • notice the word both.
      that’s just for starters.

      First, as you argue elsewhere, you must try hard to make sense of the persons argument. Try HARDER, slacker.

      Next, if you think you have found a contradiction, understand one of two things is true.

      1. You’ve misunderstood
      2. You found one.

      Go back and check #1 again, because chances are that you are less smart than the writer.

      Of course if its your world view that the writer is wrong, you will always look FIRST to find something that you can construe as a conflict.
      you will work to confirm your bias.

      Getting the other side right is where most freshman fail. But after a semester maybe half improve. Guess which half you’re in

    • Cap’n –

      So who do you think is advancing Climate Science, Curry or Rabett?

      Between the two, Curry. She is a climate scientist, and he isn’t.

      I think that neither is differentially advancing the discussion of climate change that takes place outside of the related literature. I think that for the most part, the contributions of both are counterproductive in that regard (of course, I would be open to evidence otherwise).

      I had hope, when I first came to this site, that Judith would be building bridges. I see little evidence of such. Her…..um…..selectivity in her treatment of uncertainty is, IMO, not consistent with engineering principles of bridge building.

      • Joshua, I have built bridges with people all over the world. Please note, building bridges with Michael Mann and ditto head bloggers is not high on my priority list.

    • Some trolls sap, some sandbag;
      Here’s to the little one, blowin’ up the bridge.
      =================

    • Joshua, “Her…..um…..selectivity in her treatment of uncertainty is, IMO, not consistent with engineering principles of bridge building.”

      In your opinion. She can be “certain” to a degree what models imply and be equally “certain” that observations disagree with models. As Mosher keeps noting “Both” implies symmetry and asymmetry is the climate word of the day.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Don Monfort said on February 3, 2014 at 11:41 am

      “You don’t have a clue about the data, joshie. You are just parroting what other Judith haters have spewed.”
      _________

      I don’t think criticism is the same as hate. In science criticism can be more beneficial than backslapping.

    • to the okie green parrot:

      Criticism is often motivated by hate, according to Obama.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Yes, criticism can be motivated by hate, but it can also be motivated by love. When parents criticize their children, it doesn’t mean they hate ‘em.

    • Judith –

      Joshua, I have built bridges with people all over the world.

      There seems little doubt that there are people all over the world who agree with your assessment of the science.

      There seems little doubt that there are people all over the world who disagree with your assessment of the science.

      There seems little evidence that you have helped build bridges, in any significant way, between them.

      Seems to me that you take a similar approach to assessment of your bridge building skills that you do to assessing the tribalism on either side, respectively, or of the impact of Climategate, or of the influence of advocacy, or of the psychological and cognitive underpinnings of how the climate debate, like so many other controversies that intersect with ideological, cultural, and political identifications.

      It is an approach that may turn up valid results – it’s hard to say – but that clearly lacks a scientific effort to validate and quantify evidence, define terms, and I’d say most importantly, stay in discussion with Mr. Monster throughout.

    • Another very trivial contribution, maxie. Why don’t you spend some time on webby’s blog? Dennis is very lonely.

    • Steven Mosher

      thank you capt.

      But I wish you would have let Josh struggle a bit more.

      .

    • Cap’n –

      As Mosher keeps noting “Both” implies symmetry and asymmetry is the climate word of the day.

      You’re going to have to elaborate.

      I’ve given up on reading Mosher’s comments. He sometimes makes good points, but he’s so completely unwilling to be accountable for his sometimes laughably bad arguments, I see little value in trying to take the time to engage with figuring out whether what he says in any particular comment is of any value.

      On the other hand, I find it worthwhile, at least sometimes, to exchange views with you – and not only when we’re discussing the joys o’ bacon. So if you’d like to elaborate on the point, I’d appreciate it.

    • Thanks for reading, Don, as always.

      I can’t tell you how much it means to me.

    • Yes, Don –

      “Seems to me that you take a similar approach to assessment of your bridge building skills that you do to assessing the tribalism on either side, respectively, or of the impact of Climategate, or of the influence of advocacy, or of the psychological and cognitive underpinnings of how the climate debate, like so many other controversies that intersect with ideological, cultural, and political identifications”

      Got caught up in the commas and left out the main verb in the sentence…

      I kinda figured that most folks here reading it, and having read previous comments from me as you no doubt have, they’d figure out my point.

      But allow me to make it more succinct and precise, if I may.

      Judith is….um….rather …er selective in how she approaches uncertainty.

    • Steven Mosher

      Josh is selective in reading the challenges to his bias.

      go figure.

      You know rather than learn the science, as he well could, he practices avoiding an education that might alter his world view. That avoidance, like pretending he doesnt read my comments, allows him to avoid cognitive dissonance.

    • Generalissimo Skippy
    • Josh,

      Listening to you you I am reminded of the joke about the Scotsman who hand carved the beautiful teak bar top, repainted the nave of the old church, cleaned out the centuries old well so it once again supplied fresh water to the town and most importantly of all built the bridge across the river connecting two villages directly, so they no longer had to walk 2 miles to the ford and back.

      Want to guess what he’s remembered for?

    • You stole my Cappy as Irwin Corey.

      http://google.com/search?q=Irwin+Corey+site:judithcurry.com

      Can’t remove the evidence Don.

    • Steven Mosher

      Captian.

      You’d think that Josh might have noticed that Judith BOLDED the word “both”.
      You’d think a careful reader might wonder… “hmm maybe her point rests on that word?” Then a careful reader who knew nothing about the science
      might ask

      “Why does Judith bold that?”

      That’s what a seeker of knowledge would do.

      Not Josh.

      Josh has a hobby horse. A goal. Find a part of Judith’s textwhere I can find her saying something without a qualification of uncertainty.
      Now find another part of a text where were she talks about the uncertainty monster.

      Put those two together and shout “Selective”

      But what is really Selective is Joshuas ‘reading strategy’. Long ago when I studied reading strategies (we called it critical theory ) you could see folks do the same thing.every fricken time. The text was secondary.
      A deconstructionist would do X with the text. Didnt matter what the text was he could do X ( well a few of us could)
      A “new critic” would do Y
      A structuralist would do Z
      A Bloomian would do Q
      A marxist would do J
      A Freudian would do R.

      Funny story on the last, so bear with me.

      I was a TA for fiction class and the professor was a trained freudian. Practicing therapist. Anyway, I also transcribed lectures notes for spare cash. This was easy as he taught the class every year and all I had to do was update last years notes. So, I would sit there and read the notes from last year as he spoke and make marginalia and record the classs as well.
      So, the discussion turned to Portrait of the Artist as a Young man.
      I had read ahead and knew how he was going to interprete a certain scene as an oedipal scene. Really lame. Reading ahead I knew that the year before he had play a game of sorts with the students.
      He asked them to give their understanding of the scene and he shot them all down.. Kind of like “what do you think it means?” and some poor sophomore would give a sophomoric answer and he would say “Wrong”
      After 3 or 4 of these he would launch into this freudian reading.
      This was his standard teaching practice. Students always got it wrong in his world.
      Yuk.
      The first 10 minutes of the lecture were verbatim from the last year. verbatim.
      ugg.
      Then he gets to the pivotal scene. and asks the students. “what does this mean?”

      My brightest student raises her hand. Smart as hell. She launches into HIS freudian reading. And does an even better job doing that dance with the text. ( a reading is nothing more than a dance)
      He pauses.
      weird.
      And then he launches into a tirade. And complains that Freud is over used in critical theory and that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
      she was crushed.

      After class. I showed her the notes from the previous year.

      When she asked if her reading was right, I had to chuckle.
      ‘it’s more a matter of doing a good dance with the text. and you should learn many dances”

      when I watch Joshua dance with a text it reminds me of this

    • Joshua, “You’re going to have to elaborate. ”

      Nope, at least not until after Tuesday. Just think like a bacon eater Josh, not a carrot eater.

    • judy, judy

      You put up with way too much nasty abuse from these clowns and you remove too many of my relatively harmless retaliatory comments. We are presumably adults here. No need to be so wooden. I’ll give you a break. No sense in both of us wasting our time.

    • I just had a shudder when it dawned on me that Joshua and Rabbett might be the same person. He is named Josh, after all. Has anyone seen them in the same room together?

    • No Josh, you are beyond help; lets take the narration in full and split it.

      PART 1

      OBSERVATION.
      SUBSTANTIAL WARMING TREND …… ASSOCIATED WITH THE WARMING…….THAT RESULTS IN AN INCREASE OF THE ANTARCTIC SEA ICE FOR THE PAST THREE DECADES

      “The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century. Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall.”

      PART 2

      MODELS.
      b>SIMULATED SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE……. TWO GLOBAL COUPLED CLIMATE MODELS…… SUGGESTING THAT THE MODELS’ INTERNAL ……THE MODELS ……..THE INCREASED HEATING FROM BELOW (OCEAN) AND ABOVE (ATMOSPHERE) ……………RESULTS IN A PROJECTED DECLINE OF THE ANTARCTIC SEA ICE

      “The simulated sea surface temperature variability from two global coupled climate models for the second half of the 20th century is dominated by natural internal variability associated with the Antarctic Oscillation, suggesting that the models’ internal variability is too strong, leading to a response to anthropogenic forcing that is too weak. With increased loading of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through the 21st century, the models show an accelerated warming in the Southern Ocean, and indicate that anthropogenic forcing exceeds natural internal variability. The increased heating from below (ocean) and above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected decline of the Antarctic sea ice

  15. My theory is simple. The AMO. When it is high there is lower Arctic sea ice and more Antarctic sea ice when it is low it is the opposite. We get to find out in the next 15 years or so.

    • Sunshine, the AMO is a small fraction of what is going on. Difference in hemispheric sea ice extent would be due to differences in the hemispheres, asymmetry. Toggweiler et al take a more realistic approach by relating the asymmetry to shifts in the ITCZ or thermal equator. Then the AMO/PDO or any of the other Os can do whatever they like without disproving anything. What really matters is the heat distribution between the hemispheres which is isolated to some extent by Coriolis Effects requiring the Stratosphere or above the ERL at least to attempt to equalize the hemispheric imbalance. That is the Brewer-Dobson Circulation which is related to the QBO, solar magnetic cycle and shifts in the average westerlies.

      Shifts in the ITCZ aka the thermal equator, impact the stability of the Haley, Ferrel and polar cells differently in each hemisphere which doesn’t have to jive with the AMO but more likely influences the AMO which is really not an oscillation but a pseudo-cyclic phenomenon. Don’t lock yourself into failing metrics.

    • Sunshine, “I’ll go with the AMO.”

      There is a relationship between tropical and northern Atlantic SST and Antarctic Sea ice extent and there is also a relationship between the AMO and volcanic activity. So you may be saying you are going with predictable volcanic activity. Unless you “KNOW” what causes the AMO you are pissing up a rope, but that seems to be popular in climate science.

    • Why do I have to KNOW what causes the AMO before I point out the AMO explains sea ice in the poles?

      If the AMO goes negative and nothing changes you win. I really detest the deniers on the AGW side who pretend these cycles mean nothing.

    • Sunshine hours, if you are subscribed to Joe D’Aleo have a look at the video he did on October 24. he showed the reanalysis for the cold AMO vs the warm AMO and the results are almost beyond belief.

      Supports exactly what you are saying.

    • sunshine, “If the AMO goes negative and nothing changes you win. I really detest the deniers on the AGW side who pretend these cycles mean nothing.”

      The question is more will the AMO go negative or just revert to its mean.

      https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xJ_nqnPbVkk/UqENwThn58I/AAAAAAAAKvM/8MWUxwLjle4/w689-h423-no/weakly+damped+basins.png

      There is a good chance that the AMO is driven by something more complex than just orbital and volcanic forcing, like long term recovery from a previous prolonged event, like the Little Ice Age. My money is on the long term persistence unicorn which could change the range and period of what is now known as the AMO. Then today could be more like a ~1500 year Bond Event then who knows what will happen.

    • The AMO is driven by CO2

    • SSH1, in the ancient past, when the early biochemists ventured forth they were really confused. They knew that mitochondria converted succinate and also glutamate/malate into an energy storage medium and used this to make APT from ADP. However, they didn’t know how. They postulated an high energy intermediate, with some very odd properties for a chemical, and called it ‘squiggle’. For three decades they argued as to the nature of squiggle, and knew the person who hunted down squiggle to its lair would get a Nobel prize. Peter Mitchel got the prize, for showing that squiggle was an electrical potential across the inner mitochondrial membrane.
      I the investigations of the nature of squiggle made sense with this development, but were insane for a chemical intermediate.
      So, as to what is causing the warming/cooling rhythms in the oceans, I suggest we call it ‘unicorns’. If we do, that we don’t worry too much that the various observations are apparently insane, and when we finally understand the mechanism, all the various descriptions will, figuratively, make sense, including the horn, hair and hoofs.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      Capt.,

      If you throw around enough acronyms you’re bound to stumble on something that fits!

    • That’s a safe bet for Arctic. You may as well go with any other temperature index. Antarctic, I’m not sure.

    • Sunshine, “AMO / HADCRUT4 have a thing going on …”

      Yes, they do, the correlation is around 70% depending on the time frame you pick. The PDO/HADCRUT4 also have a thing going on. The AMO and PDO though can be in phase or out of phase so there are times when the correlation isn’t all that great.

      What isn’t in the average Climate Science food fight is the Indian Ocean. It has the highest and most consistent correlation with Hadcrut and giss. If you compare the northern IO with the southern IO, the difference is the combination of ENSO/AMO and PDO all in one indicator. That one spot in the world provides information on the “global” energy imbalances, meridionally and zonally.

      The problem with all the “oscillations” are they are detrended and can be “adjusted” There are currently 4 ENSO regions to try and keep track of changes. The “average” of the others changes depending on the baseline period so if there is an underlying longer term trend it gets lost and worse, assumed to be something else. Climate science needs better indexes.

      R.Gates, You can get just about anything to fit except the models :)

  16. Judith, regarding Eisman et al (2014) and Liu and Curry (2010), satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature anomalies (Reynolds OI.v2) show a sharp drop over the past 32 years, which one would expect with an increase in sea ice extent:
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/14-monthly-southern-ssta.png

    The graph is from the December 2013 update:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/december-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

  17. What?

    No mention of Bart R’s Antarctic Popcorn?

    I’m dismayed. Back of the envelope calculations show the popcorn effect of thermal expansion of Antarctic continental ice could easily account for 0.05% of the observed increase.

    Write that down!

    • caramel or ketttle?

    • Don’t tell me you’re still trying to sell your popcorn.
      Do the math!

    • phatboy | February 3, 2014 at 1:30 pm |

      Did the math. Do you have any idea how much a Hiroshima bomb expands a block of ice?

      Divide the area of the Antarctic by the area of the Earth, multiply by Hiroshima bombs/day, assume equipartition of energy over the south pole, account for the specific heat of ice, and there you have it. Popcorn.

      If you doubt the back of my envelope, furnish your own math.

    • No. It’s your hypothesis, so it’s your job to show all your workings.

    • phatboy | February 3, 2014 at 2:47 pm |

      Infinite regress. We already went over the math on a prior thread. If you can’t be bothered to look up what we said to each other then, why should I put in the same effort again to show you the same thing for a third time?

      Do you enjoy wasting people’s time repeating the same demands for things already provided over and over again?

      Are you secretly Steve McIntyre?

    • I remember the maths – where I pointed out that even in the astronomically unlikely scenario that the entire ice mass warmed up by a whole ten degrees, the diameter of the Antarctic ice disk would increase by a handful of metres – an increase which would be more than swallowed up by the crevasses in the ice.

      To which you responded with yet more hand-waving.

      Would you like me to link to those comments?

      Not to mention that whatever thermal expansion there is takes place in summer, whereas sea ice increases in winter.

    • phatboy | February 3, 2014 at 5:16 pm |

      Why is it an ‘astronomically unlikely’ scenario that the Antarctic would warm disproportionately more than the global average?

      It’s happened so far as the ice core and other paleo record shows about once every hundred thousand years for most of the past million years, coincident with every CO2 rise as large as the current one. Eight times in a row is not astronomically unlikely, it’s more like a safe bet. Moreover, disproportionate polar warming is predicted by physics, and broadly accepted. The Eocene was at one point twice as warm at the North Pole. If anything, ten degrees is a conservative estimate.

      And by handful do you mean in excess of ten thousand? Because anyone who’s ever seen an alcohol thermometer or a mercury thermometer at work knows volume increases with heat, and the radius of the Antarctic averages (based on 14 million km2) ~2100 km.

      Coefficient of thermal expansion of ice: ~5E-5/K

      I won’t bore you with the multivariate calculus required to produce the volume of a shell as a popcorn explosion*

      10K * 2.1E6m * 5E-5K ~= 1E3m.

      If the entire Antarctic warms ten degrees, the radius grows by a kilometer in a simplified model, pushing an average thickness of 2 km of ice from the continent to the ocean. That’s a volume of over 26 thousand cubic kilometers of new ice transfer from the continent to the sea.

      *Thermal conductivity of ice (near -20°C): 2.4W/mK so granted, a somewhat slow explosion, but still the math’s the same.

      But the simplified calculation discounts that ice generally weakens as it warms (see http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9902/Schulson-9902.html for some considerations) for the range of temperatures being discussed, and its crevices tend to widen (not shrink), so the Antarctic converts vertical mass to even more horizontal area, which contributes far more than the component due thermal expansion.

      Why do you believe crevices would overall reduce in volume as the ice gets warmer? That vastly contradicts my own experience of ice. Do you have experimental data that shows cracks and crevices heal themselves over the weaker ice becomes? References? Have you ever trekked ice? At all?

      How is that freaking hand-waving in any sense?

      So, yes, I would absolutely like you to link to those comments.

      Not to mention that whatever thermal expansion there is takes place in summer, whereas sea ice increases in winter.

      Tell me, that ship that was recently caught in unusual Antarctic sea ice.. was that during the Antarctic summer, or the Antarctic winter?

      Was it reportedly ice of ocean only or mixed continental/sea origin, according to first-hand observers?

    • Bart, you’re assuming the expansion of the ice is isotropic, when it’s anything but.
      When ice expands, the stresses cause it to fracture, bend and flow, all of which means that the expansion will be almost wholly upwards, rather than trying to move an average mass of half a continent’s worth of ice around it.
      So your estimate of 1E3m is around three orders of magnitude out.
      I’ll post those links tonight when I’m back home.

    • phatboy | February 4, 2014 at 7:41 am |

      So we’ll dub this “phatboy’s tall weak ice hypothesis”.

      Although it flies in the face of everything I’ve ever seen, heard or read about the behaviors of large ice masses to claim the warmer ice gets the more it tends to swell up than settle down, I’m sure you can prove the claim to the satisfaction of a skeptic.

      Tell you what, why not ask people who’ve ever seen snow what happens to it as it warms up: does it get higher, or shorter?

    • You clearly know nothing about mechanics.
      Tell you what, work out some force vectors, both near the edge of the ice, and near the middle.
      Then imagine a non-expanding metal band around the edge of the ice, preventing it from growing outwards, and calculate the force vectors again.
      What differences do you see?
      What I will grant is that gravity will eventually take over and cause the ice to move outwards, but this is an extremely slow process (glacial, in fact), and, in any case, it takes a very long time for heat to diffuse through a couple of thousand metres of ice.
      This of course means that little or no significant expansion takes place on a seasonal basis – which scuppers your theory that thermal expansion is responsible for sea ice growth.
      If you still believe that it is, then answer this one: in winter when the ice cools and shrinks, how far inland does it shrink?

    • phatboy | February 4, 2014 at 12:40 pm |

      You think ice is inelastic? BWHAHAHAHAHA!

      (Okay, sure; I get that’s not what you said, but it took you so long to explain it, I’m sure most people who bothered to read either side long ago wandered off and won’t read your fuller exposition.. which is still wrong.)

      The first rule of science is to reject unnecessary assumptions. Sure, if all the heat were instantaneously uniformly transmitted 2 km deep, the initial response of the ice might be to explode upwards as well as outwards. However, the equilibrium outcome would be a flatter, wider ice cap losing mass to the ocean after many seasons.

      But during each of those seasons until equilibrium is reached, the continent is shedding ice at a ‘glacial’ pace to the sea much, much faster than before the Antarctic warming began. So the sea must be expected to have on average more ice in every season coming from the Continent, absent a strong negative feedback or other opposite forcing.

      Which is why summer sea ice is unusual, and should be expected to remain unusual, for some centuries after the Antarctic reaches its peak temperature somewhere near 20 degrees above its average level in the 1700’s, assuming a glacial rate of perhaps one to thirty meters a year of ice advancement due Antarctic warming. Still, over fifty thousand cubic kilometers of additional sea ice spread over centuries is not insignificant, especially considering it will be an ongoing trend without much remit.

      And that’s just the popcorn. There are bound to be other significant effects as well.

    • There are bound to be other significant effects as well.

      yes the decrease in the growth rate of CO 2 in the SH is an obvious problem.The lag rate NH/SH increasing from 18 months to 48 months in the 21st century.

      Is it an obvious problem?

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v404/n6774/abs/404171a0.html

    • Bart R, ice under pressure has a different density and coefficient of thermal expansion as ice under one atmosphere.

      http://www.igsoc.org:8080/journal/3/27/igs_journal_vol03_issue027_pg568-573.pdf

      There is liquid water at the bottom of ice mountains and also liquid ice reservoirs inside glaciers;

      http://www.livescience.com/10139-glaciers-soggier-bottoms-thought.html

    • Bart, GO AWAY!

    • maksimovich | February 4, 2014 at 9:04 pm |

      Please, by all means, rather than merely handwave at an abstract, explain what you’re trying to imply. Do you agree with Britton & Keeling? Dispute? Think it applies.. how?

      DocMartyn | February 4, 2014 at 9:22 pm |

      Nice one. Ice under pressure is ‘different’. Bizarro logic aside, how does that difference scale, do you think?

      Do you imagine somehow a 10-20 degree warmer Antarctic continental ice mass with an average temperature in the range of -40C to -10C will SHRINK compared to the same mass, all other things held equal, at -50C to -30C, without substantial transport of water off the continent and into the oceans and atmosphere?

      Explain that mechanism. Please.

      phatboy | February 5, 2014 at 12:47 am |

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/03/why-is-there-so-much-antarctic-sea-ice/#comment-448529

    • Pot, Kettle, Black!

      I’ll have one more go at getting through to you, although I’m probably wasting my breath – again.

      Would you agree that the top few millimetres, perhaps even centimetres, of ice will warm by several degrees in summer?
      If so, isn’t it reasonable to assume that that top layer will take the line of least resistance and expand upwards, rather than trying to expand sidweways, competing with the rest of the ice in the same layer, all trying likewise to expand sideways, and ending up scurrying over hundreds of metres of ice?
      And even if the some ice at the edges of this layer does drop off into the sea, isn’t it reasonable to assume that, being summer, it’s far more likely to melt along with the rest of the sea ice, rather than remain still floating around and adding to the sea ice extent come winter?
      And if this is true for the top centimetre of ice, why shouldn’t the same happen to the centimetre beneath it when the heat gets through to it?
      And what about the centimetre below that? And the one below that? And each of the hundreds below that?

      Now it’s your choice whether or not you’re going to come back at me with more of your snark, just as it’s my choice whether or not to simply ignore you if you do.

    • phatboy | February 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm |

      Zeno’s Paradox? Really? (I am genuinely startled, considering all the potkettling and snark-sniping.)

      You’re talking about a single season and pretending it resets back to the original level at the end of each year or each centimeter of depth, as if by magic.

      I’m talking about long term climate, and the way things really work as seen in the real world.

      You’re making claims that are testable. Test them. I’m taking mine straight out of textbooks on the observed material properties of ice; they’ve already been tested. This is approximation by simplified principles of mechanical engineering you are arguing against.

    • I’m not making any claims, buddy, just pointing out the holes in yours.

    • phatboy | February 6, 2014 at 1:26 am |

      Again with the infinite regress shtick.

      Let me fix that for you:

      “I’m not making any claims of holes in your claims, buddy, just pointing out the holes I claim are in yours.”

      Do you start to see the problem now?

      Because my claims are straight out of the tables for thermal expansion and temperature-strength dependencies as used in engineering and the size of the Antarctic as used in geography texts, you’re not claiming holes in my claims; you are claiming the engineering or geography textbooks are wrong, and you are cycling through the same pattern of fallacies from https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division to https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque in a pointless regress, never directly addressing or even admitting the issue that every one of your claims is at its foundation simply wrong on fact.

      Materials almost universally, with the most notable exception of water and ice within about five degrees of 0C, expand when they get warmer. Ice is a material that expands when it gets warmer in the range of 60C to 10C below. The range of 60C to 10C below affects virtually the entire Antarctic continental ice cap. The Antarctic ice cap can be approximated as a disk slightly over 2100 km around and slightly under 2 km thick on average. The coefficient of expansion of this ice — holding all other things to be equal — is roughly 0.05/degree. For every degree the Antarctic warms, we must therefore expect approximately one km of ice to be pushed off the continent for the Antarctic to return to equilibrium between temperature and volume. Period. Further, there is a like effect in that as most materials warm they weaken, and weaker materials become more fluid and spread out more, losing height while gaining girth; this relationship is less straightforward, but generally greater by far than thermal expansion and can be predicted.

      Your objections were about crevices buffering the thermal expansion and friction preventing the flow of increasingly fluid ice on its base of completely fluidized liquid under pressure at the base of the over one km thick mass, both of which are CLAIMS of yours that fly in the face of how we know the real world works. Your argument has fallen to CLAIMS partitioning the Antarctic into increasingly minute layers to appeal to fallacious reasoning like Zeno, which we know to be wrong. You keep saying I’m somehow being insulting or snide or a black pot to your sterling character, but you’ve never met me, and we’re not discussing me, or you, we’re discussing claims and an argument about the material response of ice at the South Pole over climate timescale. The claims I’ve made are demonstrably true to the degree they’re in textbooks along with the demonstrations; the claims you’ve made are repeatedly and increasingly false to the degree they’re in websites cataloging fallacies.

      So when you mount attacks like threatening to ignore me — not my ideas or claims, but me — and telling me — not my ideas or claims — to go away in all caps, these puerile further resorts to fallacy do nothing but reflect how weak your reasoning and ill-considered your position.

      Winter Antarctic Sea ice conditions happen between May and September; the Antarctic Sea ice is increasing year-round relative to historic levels. This reflects a mechanism transferring ice from the shrinking continental cap to the sea. My simple, parsimonious proposal is part of the universal explanation of that observation. Your objections are nothing.

    • People like the skydragon slayers also read facts and figures from textbooks, and then either put their own interpretation on them, or apply them selectively or in the wrong context.

      And then they claim the authority of the textbooks.

      Are you sure you’re not doing the same thing?

      Your claim was:

      …the popcorn effect of thermal expansion of Antarctic continental ice could easily account for 0.05% of the observed increase.

      Now, 0.05% of the long-term increase is hardly significant in anyone’s language, so if that’s what you meant then what’s your motivation for saying it – other than perhaps to be argumentative?

      On the other hand, if you mean 0.05% of seasonal ice increases, then you’re clearly talking out of your rear.

    • phatboy | February 6, 2014 at 12:39 pm |

      Again with more fallacy, straw man and misrepresentation.

      I’m clearly talking about climate timescales, not seasonal timescales. I’m clearly talking about continental areas, not millimeters or centimeters. You seem to have trouble sticking to the topic at hand.

      Deal with the cards dealt.

      We’re way past the original statement, you don’t get a do-over now.

      Which one of the textbook statements do you dispute?

      Use valid reasoning and actual observed fact in your answer, please.

      Which of the textbook methods do you find inappropriately applied?

      Use valid reasoning and actual observed fact in your answer, please.

      My original facetious statement of “0.05% of the observed increase” was litotes (look it up). Clearly, if the >2.5C warming over the past five decades observed at Faraday-Vernadsky by 2005 is representative of the Antarctic, then we ought expect over 65 thousand cubic kilometers of continental ice in a ring nearly 2 km deep by over 2.5 km radius to have been pushed on an inevitable glacial rush to the sea surrounding the Antarctic by now, accepting a multidecadal of glacial lapse limiting the egress of ice to an average of 25 m/year (for simplification) that will reach equilibrium some four decades hence, so roughly 40,000 cubic km have already been shed to the sea as a result of AGW.

      How much has seasonal sea ice increased?

      How much has multi-year sea ice increased?

      By something like the same amount?

      Golly gee, it’s an amount that nicely scales with this thermal expansion, if you add in the coefficient of ice strength to temperature weakening the Antarctic ice cap’s ability to uphold its vertical height.

      Well, that supports the Popcorn hypothesis, and punctures theories that the Antarctic is doing anything but warming due global human activities.

      So, prove heat doesn’t make ice expand in Antarctic temperature ranges, prove ice doesn’t settle more as it gets warmer at Antarctic temperature ranges, and prove warmer ice doesn’t generally form at least as much crevice and gap at Antarctic temperature ranges as your claims are fatally incapacitated absent these three proofs which we know to be false.

    • I’m clearly talking about climate timescales, not seasonal timescales. I’m clearly talking about continental areas, not millimeters or centimeters.

      Here’s a way you can easily test your theory:
      Given that the coefficient of expansion of rock is roughly one-fifth that of ice, how much do you estimate the American continent has grown as a result of AGW?
      Do observations agree with your estimate?
      Why not?

      Clearly, if the >2.5C warming over the past five decades observed at Faraday-Vernadsky by 2005 is representative of the Antarctic

      That’s a very big if, which you seem to be taking as a given. Now all you need to do is show that the increase in average surface temperature observed at a base on an island near the tip of the Antarctic peninsula is somehow representative of an effective increase of average temperature throughout the 2Km thick mass of ice spread over the entire continent.
      Especially given the following:

      At the same time there is no evident increase of warm temperatures or in the location of the maximum of the temperature probability distribution. These findings provide evidence that at Faraday/Vernadsky, it is the change in the shape of the temperature distribution that has substantially contributed to the observed warming over the last few decades.

      - “Significant reduction of cold temperature extremes at Faraday/Vernadsky station in the Antarctic Peninsula”, Franzke, 2013

      …then we ought expect over 65 thousand cubic kilometers of continental ice in a ring nearly 2 km deep by over 2.5 km radius to have been pushed on an inevitable glacial rush to the sea surrounding the Antarctic by now

      Ever hear the expression, “lost in the noise”?
      Even if we accept the hugely unlikely premise that the entire continental ice mass has effectively warmed by 2.5C, and that the resulting annual increase has somehow managed to stick around for decades without melting away together with the other sea ice, the seasonal variation in sea ice is around 13 million Km^2, and the noise in the anomaly (seasonal variation removed) is more than 1 million Km^2.

    • phatboy | February 7, 2014 at 5:13 am |

      Lastly first, you appear to be having problems with exponents. What’s the difference between square area and cubic volume?

      Parenthetically, did you fail to look up litotes?

      Has the American continent grown as a result of global warming by thermal expansion of ‘rock’?

      An interesting question. The American continents range from north of 70 down to the southern tip of Tierra del Fuego, and has experienced non-uniform warming somewhat less than polar warming; said American continental warming we could suggest over the past five decades has been about the same as global warming, or about 2/3’s the warming of the past century. So 0.85C x 2/3 ~ 0.57C, or under a quarter the growth in Antarctic temperature for the same period.

      ‘Rock’ as you note has ‘about a fifth’ (slightly less, but who cares, in estimation), the coefficient of thermal expansion of ice. So parameterizing our estimate, we’re at under a quarter of under a fifth of the expansion rate of Antarctic icecap right out of the gate, or perhaps one twentieth. Sure, in parts the ‘radius’ of the American continents is double that of the Antarctic, but we’re still limited to one tenth at most the Antarctic Popcorn effect.

      Water — including groundwater, therefore a large component of ground (or ‘rock’) — is commonly found in the temperature range where it actually has a negative coefficient of thermal expansion over much of this range. As well, humidity has risen measurably over the past half century, removing further mass from the ground. Changes in biomass and erosion add so much noise to this signal that it’s virtually impossible to measure ‘American Popcorn’, and if glaciers move at a glacial pace, then ‘rock’ moves at a tectonic pace. When we consider the distance from the surface to the core that the additional heat due AGW would need to travel through — many times longer than it would take AGW’s heat to penetrate 2km of cracked ice — we can see that American Popcorn will be virtually imperceptible, and a fraction of a percent of the Antarctic Popcorn effect.

      Which would mean we must gather a great many more observations before we can know if they agree with the explanation in this particular case; however, it would be an act of denial of reality to claim that the continent as a whole isn’t under the same thermo-mechanical pressure to expand as applies to the material components that make up the continent under the effects of AGW, to treat temperature rise due AGW on ice and rock differently from temperature rise due body temperature on the alcohol in a medical thermometer.

      Yes, (former) Faraday Station’s temperature trend is not a reliable reflection of the actual; it’s entirely plausible that the effect is lower or higher, as we have such poor Antarctic temperature records to go by. That’s a limitation of back-of-the-envelope estimation, which I’m not claiming to be exactly precise, but merely a framework on which to proceed to actual detailed measurement and calculation. Granted. You caught me. I didn’t spend the last century sledding across the South Pole with a thermometer and surveyor’s equipment taking the measurements needed to prove that Physics works there just like everywhere else.

      Second lastly, of course much of the ice pushed off the continent into the south polar bounding seas melts. And much of the popcorn effect is lost in the apparent noise, that’s true. But we’re not discussing the size of the sea ice, rather its trend, and the difference in Antarctic Sea ice on average half a century ago and now scales well with the Popcorn explanation as part of the story.

      Sure, I think Zhang (2007)’s explanation accounts for more of the difference. I’m simply pointing out an additional marginal effect to help make the overall explanation more accurate or nearly true. You should try that sometime.

    • Firstly, I’m not at all confused by the difference between cubic volume and square area – note I did make my comparison with annualincrease.

      Secondly, I do know what ‘litotes’ means, but thanks for your concern anyway.

      Thirdly, I’m not going to try to shake your belief in your popcorn theory – it’s well-nigh impossible to change people’s deep-seated beliefs anyway – but merely bringing to your attention the fact that others might not share those beliefs.

    • phatboy | February 7, 2014 at 11:54 am |

      Yeah. If all those people with F- grades in math and science all the way through school had only thought of calling it “a different belief”, they’d have been able to graduate with honors in engineering or physics, and build America’s bridges and contributed to the space program just like those people who could actually ‘believe’ in mathematics.

  18. Global warming alarmists know it’s hard to understand but pretty easy to fix: just adjust the ‘official’ temperature data by changing the negative signs to pluses.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Waggy implies fraud. Waggy, be careful with your wording. Accusations of fraud can get you sued. You need to qualify your accusation by prefacing it with “In my imagination.”

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Yes, in your imagination.

      • I imagine it is only ignorance some don’t know about the raw data for the temperatures at an official station in the Antarctic that was corrupted by simply removing minus signs from negative numbers, introducing a warming bias where no warming existed.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Waggy, if you have evidence of wrong-doing you should present it here in detail. Tell what was done, why it was fraudulent, and who did it.

      • Read the foi2009.pdf disclosures provided courtesy of the CRUgate insider who blew the lid of the global warming hoax. When it comes to data manipulation it is not unusual to learn the raw data has, “gone missing.”

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Waggy, I will read it if it tells what was done, why it was fraudulent, and who did it, and you can provide a link for me to click.

      • If you’re interested in reading about great examples of raw data “gone missing” — such as seen in the ‘foi2009.pdf’ information — just add ‘Harry Read Me’ to your Google search.

        “Having read Harry_Read_Me and Jones’s remarks about his data retention and archiving procedures (or lack of them), I would not trust UEA/CRU to be capable of reading a thermometer on their campus correctly and report the information 24 hours later without transposing digits, inserting a negative sign or some other horror.” ~Latimer Alder

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Waggy, as I said before if you have evidence of wrong-doing present it here in detail. Tell what was done, why it was fraudulent, and who did it.

      •  
        Climategate has shattered that myth. It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their “old boys’ club”, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their “research.” Most people are aghast that this could have happened; and it is only because “climate science” exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of mere years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.

        ~John P. Costella (ClimateGate Analysis)

         
        “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool ALL of the people ALL of the time.” –Abraham Lincoln

    • “Wagathon smells” –Abraham Lincoln

  19. The big question is:

    Why does anyone believe a small Consensus Clique who say they are 97% sure that they know what will happen next?

  20. No one seems to be giving much weight to the mechanism known as, “the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators,” as explained by Nikola Scafetta.

    • blueice2hotsea

      • That would be difficult a difficult mechanism to reduce to a mathematical model, especially if we don’t know but would really need to know if one of those cans is filled with coke and the other with tomato juice and if — only when at total synchronization — it is in human terms a ‘good’ climate whereas every other state results in hell on Earth.

    • blueice2hotsea

      A mathematical model would simply represent the 2 can’s masses as m1 & m2. I’m pretty sure there are children who could describe the system in minutes using differential equations.

      the climate parallel is non-trivial. regardless, it is interesting to speculate how a seemingly miniscule forcing of independent oscillators might occasionally result in a synchronized (mini) rogue wave response.

      • Looking at the cans alone, it’s not just the mass of the cans but the sloshing effect of the contents of the cans, each comprised of a different but unknown viscosity — one of which being a substance that might explode when shaken — that even to a child may present a mathematical challenge.

    • blueice2hotsea

      Empty cans do not slosh.

    • blueice2hotsea

      yes, metronomes are the motive influence.

      • Like the metronome, we have no problem predicting a monotonic increase in CO2; and, that is all the Left needs to know about global warming. Since the Left’s real objective is to use the fear, superstition and ignorance of a dysfunctional society to take over the economy, we do not need to know about undersea volcanoes, recurring solar activity and ENSO events on decadal, centennial and millennial climate cycles, cosmic radiation as our solar system skitters through the spiraling arms of the Milky Way at the edge of the galaxy, the interaction between the Earth the big planets of Jupiter and Saturn on the Earth’s rotation, axis, magnetosphere, etc.

  21. There was a football game yesterday evening. From ESPN before the game …

    Jeff Legwold: It is the classic offense-defense matchup with a title on the line. With the rules book tilted toward offense these days and Manning’s drive all season to get to this moment will be just enough for the Broncos to win.
    Broncos 28, Seahawks 23

    Terry Blount: This will be the ultimate test for a defense that prides itself on physicality, brute strength and stunning speed to force turnovers that win games. Manning may be one of the most celebrated athletes of his era, but one man is not enough. The Seahawks are deeper, stronger and more talented than the Broncos.
    Seahawks 27, Broncos 20
    http://espn.go.com/blog/denver-broncos/post/_/id/4733/double-coverage-broncos-vs-seahawks

    And after …

    Terry Blount: [Manning] and his Denver Broncos were helpless, hopeless and hapless in a 43-8 loss to Seattle, which turned in one of the greatest defensive performances in Super Bowl history against the greatest offense in NFL history.
    http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/4363/manning-no-match-for-seattles-defense

    Why should we expect anything better from the climate forecasters?

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      The consensus is usually right, but sometimes favored teams don’t win.

    • Max,

      My wife mentioned yesterday before the game (living in Seattle, she’s a Hawks fan – living up here 25 years hasn’t changed me from being a Redskins fan) that the betting favored Denver at 67% to win. Wish I’d known that earlier. It is pretty much a tenent of football – a good defence usually wins out over a good offense. Yesterday’s game was the 5th SB matching the #1 offense in the league against the #1 defense. It now makes it 4 out 5 wins for the defensive team. While 80% isn’t quite up there with 97%, it is still a pretty convincing number.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      timg56, all the pre-game publicity about Manning’s achievements may have caused bettors to forget or downplay Denver’s home loss to a strong defense (the Ravens) in the previous AFC playoffs.

      Being a Redskin fan must not be easy. Some people think the owner is the problem. I have no opinion.

      I’m a New England fan who’s beginning to think the Patriots need a few seasons at the bottom in order to get a good draft.

    • Max,

      Also an O’s fan, which until 2 years ago, was as tough as being a Skin’s fan. As for the Pat’s – as with Payton Manning, it is hard not to like Tom Brady, unless you are a fan of a team he’s administering a beating to.

      As a Redskins fan even I am not completely sure it is Snyder’s fault. I suspect it is in large part, if just some of the stories are true. But on the other hand there is no doubt he loves the team as a true fan. Prhaps he needs to hire good people and step back.

  22. Judith

    Both poles exhibit considerable natural variation. In my previous article I demonstrated via numerous scientific papers and a limited number of anecdotal accounts that the warming in the 1920-1940 Arctic was not that dissimilar to todays.

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

    This 1932 article demonstrates that, unlike the modern era, the warming affected BOTH poles at the time, whilst highlighting the continued retreat of the glaciers generally and in Greenland and Alaska specifically;

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667?searchTerm=greenland%20%20melting&searchLimits=

    “Some great world change is taking place on the Antarctic Continent. Its glaciers are shrinking. L.A. Bernacchi, who visited the South Polar land 30 years ago, says that the Great Ice Barrier which fronts the continent with a wall of ice for 250 miles has receded at least 30 miles since it was first seen and surveyed. Sir James Ross…on the earliest Antarctic expedition of the nineteenth century, and those who followed him, left clear descriptions of this tremendous ice frontage and its position. It was a cliff 150ft. high and 1000ft. thick. But now it appears to be continuing its century-long process of shrinking; and that process may have been going on for centuries. It might imply, unless it is offset by some increase of ice in another less explored part of the Antarctic, that the climate of the South Pole is changing and becoming warmer. The shrinkage of the Alpine glaciers of Europe is a well-known and carefully measured fact. Professor Buchanan, of. Edinburgh, drew attention to it twenty years ago, and showed from old and accurate drawings of (many) that they were retreating rapidly. This led to the continuous measurement of the Swiss glaciers (and) examination of other glaciers of the Northern Hemisphere, Greenland, Alaska, and elsewhere. Prom these measurements many geologists concluded that the northern part of the globe was still recovering from the last of its Ice Ages, of which the more southerly of its glaciers in Europe were a relic. If all the glaciers of the Southern Hemisphere as well as those of the Northern are shrinking, the geologists would have a new problem to examine. It would be whether, instead of areas of cold and ice having shifted on the earth, the whole globe is growing warmer. Even if that could be shown the change might prove to be temporary.”

    Historical note on Louis Bernacchi
    “Bernacchi studied astronomy, magnetism, meteorology and physics at Melbourne Observatory and made significant contributions to science during his two Antarctic expeditions.”

    http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/history/people/louis-bernacchi

    Our knowledge of the Antarctic is very limited. Consequently we don’t know if it is usual for the poles to melt together as happened in the 1920-1940 period or for them to show opposing characteristics as is happening now.

    Natural variability is much greater than has been acknowledged up till now. However Both Phil Jones and the Met office seem to be accepting that it is perhaps greater than they had originally thought
    tonyb

    • new resource

      http://seaiceatlas.snap.uaf.edu/

      It will be interesting to see if the phrase “not dissimilar” withstands scrunity or if it hides the decline.

      data release coming…

      care to lay bets… hehe.

    • They bet on See Oh Two.
      They bet on the temps.
      Had they bet on Ol’ Earthball,
      We’d be free, these times.
      ================

    • Mosh

      The info does not appear to be available until late February and at that time will only include post 1953 material. Is that correct?

      As for ‘not that dissimilar’ as both poles were melting in the period total sea ice is the matrix to watch in order to get a like for like comparison
      Tonyb

    • Mosher, that is a great resource, have you run the “Explore” feature from 1953 to 2012.
      It is fascinating because one of the lower months in Ice terms is January and if you run it, it shows that the ice cover has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 or Global Temps as the cover is at it’s largest during the 2000s and much lower in the 50s, 60s and 80s.

    • steven mosher

      I’d be a bit leery of a data “resource” like the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy (ACCAP), which is “part of NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program, which supports climate research for decision-makers and policy planners at a regional level.”

      Sounds more like a source of propaganda to influence policy makers to me, rather than a source of unbiased scientific data, Mosh.

      But maybe I’m just being overly skeptical.

      Max

  23. Question: Why is there so much Antarctic Sea Ice?

    Answer: Because the water froze.

    Question: Why did the water freeze?

    Answer: Because it got colder.

    Question: Why did the water get colder?

    Answer: Ah, there you have me.
    =========================

    • Question: Why is there so much Antarctic Sea Ice

      Answer: Because it got colder

      Question: What is “it?” And why did “it” get colder? And what got warmer simultaneously? And what about land ice?

      Answer: Look!! Squirrell!!!

    • It is not a good five cent cigar.
      ============

    • the preening presumptuous parrot poorly makes mimics

    • Well, I’m an African Grey, reared by machines.
      ===================

    • Those are the smart parrots, kimmy. I was talking about the North American Smarmy Green Putz variety.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Shorter version

      Question: Why is there so much Antarctic Sea Ice?

      Answer: Because the water froze.

      Question: Why is there water?

      Answer: Ah, there you have me.

    • Shortest answer:

      Question: why is there so much Antarctic Sea Ice.

      Answer: Because The mean annual temperature of the interior is −57°C (−70°F) and water freezes at 32°F or 0°C.

    • Joshua

      You got it slightly wrong.

      Your question What is “it?” And why did “it” get colder? And what got warmer simultaneously? And what about land ice?” (not the answer) is a “Look!! Squirrell!!!” distraction.

      The unanswered question is still: “why did the water get colder in the Antarctic?” (i.e. “why is there so much Antarctic sea ice?” – see lead post).

      Max

  24. The seasonal/annual scale positive anomalies in ice extent occur during positive phases of the Antarctic Oscillation:
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/month_aao_index.shtml
    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/seaice-anomaly-antarctic.png

  25. They got the season wrong:

    “This particular winter, the icebound ships were also simply caught by bad weather and changes in regional conditions, according to an analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

    And :

    “Additional culprits are the rising atmosphere and ocean temperatures around Antarctica. But how does warmer air and water create more sea ice? Overall warming alters the ocean heat flux, or the heat exchange between ocean, sea ice, and atmosphere, which typically regulates sea ice production.”

    It’s interesting that the possible causes for increased Antarctic sea ice are characterized as culprits. Increased Antarctic sea ice is bad, while decreasing Arctic ice is bad, but a good thing for the AGW theory. Maybe joshie will put on his sigh-intist hat and explain why warmer air and water in the Arctic has not produced more sea ice.

  26. It makes sense when you consider that the oceans have been cooling for a long time. We have only had good data on ocean cooling with the ability to more accurately measure it using satellites. And, from that time — amazingly — global warming stopped (and, when the oceans are cooling there is no global warming). So, why have the oceans been cooling? Nominally, it’s all about the SUN.

  27. Nominally, it’s all about the SUN. That is why oceans cool–e.g.,

     1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity (LSA) – i.e., Sporer minimum
     1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity (HSA)
     1610-1700 cold – (LSA) – i.e., Maunder minimum
     1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
     1810-1900 cold – (LSA) i.e., Dalton minimum
     1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
     2010+ Possibly 3-7 decades of global cooling

    / / / /

    • OK, ‘Ol Solball’.
      ===========

    • I’ve tried several times to ask Lief S. about what looks to be this strong correlation between solar activity and climate. Unlike Joshua, which is to say as a normal, reasonable person, my strong inclination is to assume he’s right and I’m wrong. Still, seems pretty compelling to these uneducated eyeballs.

    • Steven Mosher

      sadly 1910-2000 there is no HSA.

    • David Springer

      Unsurprisingly Mosher is wrong.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum

    • David Springer

      Did I say modern maximum from 1910-2000.

      Oh dear. That really doesn’t tell it all. It’s a modern GRAND maximum from

      http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-3/articlesu16.html

      Therefore the modern active sun episode, which started in the 1940s, can be regarded as the modern grand maximum of solar activity, as opposed to a grand minimum (Wilson, 1988b).

      These periods of high/low solar activity are independently corroborated by C14 carbon isotope ratio in preserved, dated organic matter. C14 is produced in the upper atmosphere and the rate of production changes in synchronization with changes in solar magnetic field.

      Not sure why Mosher’s in denial of it. It’s just not possible to credibly deny it when the astronomical observations of sunspots over the past 400 years matches the expected variation in C14..

    • Steven Mosher

      Tough choice.

      believe david springer or Lief Svalgaard.

      internet blow hard versus solar scientist?

      tough choice.

      Actually, all you need to do is go through the data and look at the various pencil whipping that was done in the past.

      once you get clear on how past pencil whippings have corrupted the data,
      you wont even have to trust Leif. you can see for yourself.

      Springer, out of his league again

      http://www.leif.org/research/Group-Number-Backbone.ppt

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century. The Maunder minimum (about 1650–1700) was a prolonged episode of low solar activity which coincided with more severe winters in the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Motivated by recent relatively cold winters in the UK, we investigate the possible connection with solar activity. We identify regionally anomalous cold winters by detrending the Central England temperature (CET) record using reconstructions of the northern hemisphere mean temperature. We show that cold winter excursions from the hemispheric trend occur more commonly in the UK during low solar activity, consistent with the solar influence on the occurrence of persistent blocking events in the eastern Atlantic. We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect. Average solar activity has declined rapidly since 1985 and cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29): the results presented here indicate that, despite hemispheric warming, the UK and Europe could experience more cold winters than during recent decades.

      http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/fulltext/

      TSI has not declined as yet while SSN are certainly low – there might be a bit of thermal inertia there – but note the open solar flux graph from 1675 odd. I am not convinced that hemispheric warming is guaranteed.

    • David Springer

      Sigh.

      There are many citations to the literature in the material I linked. Don’t shoot the messenger Mosher.

      Wilson, 1988
      de Meyer, 1998
      Usoskin et al., 2003
      Eddy 1977
      Usoskin et al., 2007
      Usoskin et al. 2004
      Solanki et al. 2004
      Korte and Constable 2005
      Muscheler et al. (2005)
      Solanki et al. (2005)
      McCracken and Beer, 2007
      Usoskin et al., 2007
      Solanki et al., 200
      Abreu et al., 2008
      Rigozo, N. R. et al 2001

      Who ya gonna trust a plethora of literature or Lief Svaalgard’s blog?

      What’s up with that, Mosher?

    • David Springer

      Skippy makes a point I’ve made before to Mosher.

      Regardless of any criticism of sunspot counting in the more distant past it is indisputable that sunspot number dropped like a lead balloon over the past two cycles. The way we count sunspots did not change since 1990. It wasn’t “pencil whipped” downward in the past two cycles. So we are left with still more correlation between sunspot count and global average temperature. The pause coincides with low sunspot activity.

      How about that. Mosher doesn’t have the capacity to understand this I guess.

    • David Springer

      How many solar physicists in the world, Mosher?

      How many agree with Lief?

      You have to do better than one solar physicist so desperate for attention the main outlet for his ideas are blog comments on wattsupwiththat.com

      ROFL

    • David Springer

      Here’s more:

      https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS573&q=modern+solar+maximum

      Link after link after link from NASA and universities galore confirming the the modern solar maximum.

      I encourage everyone to do the search and verify for themselves.

    • “pencil whippings” vs. Steven “Adjustment” Mosher.

      Who to believe?

      Andrew

      • Thanks to the hiatus — combined with unimaginable hubris of the GCM fabricators of global warming alarmism — seeing that natural variation plays a big role in Earthly climate change is now unavoidable. But, there’s natural variation on the SUN too. Western science knows very little about what goes on under the surface of the SUN. Other that seeing and being able to count sunspots — as done for over two thousands — we don’t understand much that goes on there other than it’s so hot even metals are gases.

    • Sunspot number is not “forcing” as such, this is though:
      http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/geomag/image/aastar07.jpg

    • David Springer

      Ulric

      The article with the graph for those who don’t know what it is (which included me). The graph is major magnetic storms since 1868.

      http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/geomag/aastar.html

      Beautiful. Yet more corroboration of sunspot counts. Who ya gonna believe, Lief Svalsgaard’s power point presentation or a ton of literature, NASA, wickedpedia, and universities the world over?

      Note Mosher has tucked his tail between his legs and become unresponsive which is typical behavior after his information-free ad hom laced drive by bloggings. What a maroon.

    • “Tough choice.

      believe david springer or Lief Svalgaard.”

      Mosher, believe no one. Check for yourself. All the solar activity indices are relatively high in the 20th century.

      For example, the average solar cycle of the 19th century was ~11.5 years, compared to the ~10.5 years in the 20th century. Solar cycle frequency increased in average.

    • Springer

      How many agree with Leif?

      out of your league AGAIN.

      http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home

      “The SSN workshops are sponsored by the National Solar Observatory (NSO), the Royal Observatory of Belgium (ROB), and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). We are happy to report that Frédéric Clette of ROB has joined Leif and Ed as a Co-Organizer of the SSN Workshop Series. We view the September 2011 workshop as the first step in an effort to provide the solar community with a vetted long-term (single) sunspot number and the tools to keep it on track. This will take a lot of work and we look forward to collaborating with each of you. We held a second workshop at ROB on Brussels in May 2012 (and a third one at NSO in Tucson in January 2013, and hopefully one somewhere in Europe in 2014) and are considering a special Topical Issue of Solar Physics for the eventual joint publication of the SSN series and the accompanying historical, procedural, and scientific papers.”

      Of course many experts in the field are participating. The research has real operational bottomline impact on mission planning.

      JC SNIP you
      have to provide pictures

      http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Participants_3

      Here are a list of presentations from the last workshop

      http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Presentations_3

      JC SNIP you might want to consider a lighter version

      http://www.leif.org/research/NS-Sept-2013-Sunspots.pdf

      I’ll pull a money quote for you.

      “Two such errors in particular came to light.
      The first was in sunspot records kept by the
      Royal Observatory in Greenwich, UK, from
      1874 to 1974. Hoyt and Schatten had used
      this long-running series to calibrate other
      observers’ data, but comparison with more
      than 20 other contemporary observers reveals
      that in its first 20 years the Greenwich series
      was drifting. Equal sunspot counts do not
      necessarily represent the same level of solar
      activity throughout the record.
      The second error was in the final multiplier
      Hoyt and Schatten used to ensure their
      average sunspot count matched Wolf’s. Soon
      after starting the sunspot series, Wolf became
      chairman of the Swiss geodetic survey and
      then director of its weather service. From the
      1860s until his death in 1893 he was almost
      constantly travelling, and continued with his
      observations not with his large telescope in
      Zurich, but with a smaller, portable one with
      which he saw on average 40 per cent fewer
      sunspot groups. Although Wolf adjusted
      his own counts to keep the Zurich number
      constant, Hoyt and Schatten had calibrated
      to his raw counts”

      Now, even a JC SNIP understands that if you count sunspots with a large telescope ( that means you can see more jar head) and then you switch to a smaller telescope ( that means you will see fewer ) that your count will change. JC snip

    • Kim re ‘ol solbal':

      The dispute was rowdy, and Solbol was there,
      But the betting was heavy, on the CO2 scare.
      I bet on the carbon, I bet on the fear,
      If I’d bet on ‘ol Solbol, I’d still have a career.

      • If you take anti-Americanism and the prospect of taxation out of the picture, the real cause of global warming over the geophysical record becomes very clear: nominally, it’s the Sun, stupid. All global warming can be explained by changes in solar activity and ENSO effects, plus a residual constant amount attributable to recovery from the last ice age. Moreover, ice core data shows that increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 lags global warming by 600-1200 years. We should vote these charlatans out of money-grab business; otherwise, will even a decade or two of global cooling be enough to drag these Leftist global warming alarmists out of Plato’s cave…? Whether they want to be, or not to be, that is the question.

    • Sunspot number is really not a good proxy in any detail, there are some horrible exceptions to higher SSN equaling higher temperatures, see CET during the large solar cycles 8 and 16:
      http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl8.html
      http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl16.html
      http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat

    • February 4, 2014 at 6:48 pm…
      That should have been: large solar cycle 8 and “smaller” cycle 16.

    • David Springer

      Ulric Lyons | February 4, 2014 at 6:48 pm |

      “Sunspot number is really not a good proxy in any detail, there are some horrible exceptions to higher SSN”

      There are confounding things like volcanoes and ocean cycles which can mask other forcings. Be that as it may I understand high/low solar activity as equivalent to turning the heat up/down under a pot of water. You don’t get an instant jump to new temperature doing that.

    • David Springer

      Mosher you still don’t get it. There are a number of other independent measures of solar activity that corroborate the sunspot counts. You have simply ignored these and gone off on an ad hom laced rant about how your hero Lief thinks the counts are wrong. You (and he) must also address the following:

      Solar magnetic storms from 1868 rise dramatically beginning in 1940.

      http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/geomag/aastar.html

      C14 production is an almost perfect match with sunspot counts.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14-sunspot-1000px.png

      And finally huge fall in sunspots over the two most recent cycles. In order to have a huge fall it must start from a substantial height. Did the size of the telescope used to count sunspots change since 1990? LOL


    • Steven Mosher | February 3, 2014 at 3:37 pm |

      Tough choice.

      believe david springer or Lief Svalgaard.

      I believe in the data, and therefore Leif.

      It is clear that TSI has only a minimal and theoretically predictable effect on natural variability. Yesterday I finished a plot of contributions from various thermodynamic factors on climate sensitivity in the link below:
      http://contextearth.com/2014/02/05/relative-strengths-of-the-csalt-factors/

      Note that TSI is an also-ran as far as direct contribution, but that the fundamental harmonics that make up the Hale cycle could still have an effect in reinforcing some of the natural oscillations that may arise in the ocean dynamics.

      It appears that Springer has been pencil-whipping the data in his head to come up with alternatives to the standard model of GHG warming, which says that the CO2 control knob contributes over 90% of the variability and likely all of the secular warming trend.

    • David Springer

      Yet more…

      Solar cycle length decreased mid-20th century from 11.5 to 10.5 years.

      http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1364682698001552-gr4a.gif

      I know the telescopes used to count sunspots changed in size. Did the calendar used to measure the length of a year change too? :-)

      • I know the telescopes used to count sunspots changed in size

        The posts I’ve read of Lief’s, he’s said that they compensate for the telescope size in their counts so they will be comparable (going as far as using one of the original telescopes used to count them to compare to).

    • Springer should pencil-whip the Planck’s law equation that relates solar radiative flux to temperature to see if it can do anything more than a puny contribution to the secular rise in warming given the current TSI data.

      The favorite pencil-whipping exercise among pseudo-scientist skeptics I observe is of them INTEGRATING the TSI signal to try to establish a fake correlation. That is perfect to suit the gullible followers who don’t know any better.

      Springer always likes to write things down so is very adept at pencil-whipping. Interesting to see what he comes up with.

    • David Springer

      WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 5, 2014 at 8:37 am |

      “It appears that Springer has been pencil-whipping the data in his head to come up with alternatives to the standard model of GHG warming, which says that the CO2 control knob contributes over 90% of the variability and likely all of the secular warming trend.”

      Actually I only argued that the historical record of sunspot count is independently corroborated by Carbon-14 production rate, major magnetic storms, and sunspot cycle length. I made no mention of solar magenetic field strength driving GAT change but now that you mention it:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark#Experimental_verification

      Suggest you follow the links to the experiments too.

      CLOUD Project Experiments – “The results also show that ionization from cosmic rays significantly enhances aerosol formation”

      “Later in 2007, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen brought out a Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich which concludes that surface air temperature records used by Lockwood and Fröhlich apparently are a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes, but tropospheric air temperature records do show an impressive negative correlation between cosmic-ray flux and air temperatures up to 2006 if a warming trend, oceanic oscillations and volcanism are removed from the temperature data.”

      I’m not saying the science is settled in Svensmark’s favor I’m saying the jury is still out. It’s not TSI that causes the effect that’s the canned warmist rebuttal to always say TSI change is insufficient. It’s solar magnetic field throttling extra-solar cosmic rays which when this uber higher energy particles impact the upper atmosphere create a cascade lower energy particles which the CLOUD experiment confirmed (see link) serve as nucleation sites for water droplets.

    • There is a big difference between inducing larger oscillatory variability and actually finding the effect causing a sustained secular rise in the global temperature.

      With the CSALT model, I find the effect on trend matches that what Hansen and other climate scientists find, about 0.05C for every 1 W/m^2 change at the 1360W/m^2 background over the last century. This agrees with Planck’s Law.

      Try pencil whipping Planck’s law into submission, Springer.

    • David Springer

      I say it’s not TSI that causes the effect and you merrily keep right on going like I didn’t say it.

      What part of “it’s not TSI” didn’t you understand?

    • Springer,
      I looked at the data that is behind
      http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1364682698001552-gr4a.gif

      Go look it up and you will find that it matches the TSI data. Why wouldn’t it? Solar fluctuations lead to the disturbances as shown.

      FUD is what you and your buddy Chief peddle.

      Go look it up Springer. Pick up a pencil and put it to action — pencil-whip it into action if you will. Download the data and apply a moving average filter to it and you will see the TSI profile come into shape.

    • David Springer | February 5, 2014 at 7:14 am |

      Ulric Lyons | February 4, 2014 at 6:48 pm |

      “Sunspot number is really not a good proxy in any detail, there are some horrible exceptions to higher SSN”

      There are confounding things like volcanoes and ocean cycles which can mask other forcings. Be that as it may I understand high/low solar activity as equivalent to turning the heat up/down under a pot of water. You don’t get an instant jump to new temperature doing that.
      =================================================

      Sunspot number is not always a good proxy for the solar wind conditions, that’s the main problem in using it.
      In some regions there will be a fairly instant jump when turning up the heat, e.g. with a northerly shift in the jet stream (atmospheric). And some regions will cool over longer time scales of positive forcing, like La Nina (oceanic).

      • Pumping meaningless averages of erroneous temperature data through unvalidated GCMs that do not model variability brought about by natural cycles such as ENSO, PDO, NAO, AMO, IOD events — GCMs that continue to refuse to acknowledge the influence of solar activity on global climate change and continue to focus on the single variable CO2, the yellow doggerel of the Democrats that is at odds with global climate change on any time scale throughout the historical geophysical record — is an example of the monomaniacal pseudo-scientific sacrifice of reason and logic to the superstitious preconceptions of Leftist, global warming alarmist ideologues on their altar of stupidity.

    • David Springer

      WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 5, 2014 at 9:43 am |

      Springer,
      I looked at the data that is behind
      http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1364682698001552-gr4a.gif

      Go look it up and you will find that it matches the TSI data. Why wouldn’t it? Solar fluctuations lead to the disturbances as shown.

      ——————————————————————–

      Of course it does. TSI reliably changes by 0.1% across the solar cycle.

      What you seem to be missing is that TSI isn’t the only thing that changes. The power spectrum also changes for instance. More UV and less near infrared at cycle maximum. This changes where the energy absorbed – UV in the stratosphere or near-IR by water in the troposphere. What also changes is solar magnetic field strength which then deflects more or fewer extra-solar galactic cosmic rays from impact with the atmosphere.

      Why are you making me explain this? Surely you know it already.

    • David Springer

      Ulric Lyons | February 5, 2014 at 10:26 am |

      “Sunspot number is not always a good proxy for the solar wind conditions, that’s the main problem in using it.”

      That’s nice but I didn’t mention sunspots as solar wind proxy. I mentioned sunspots as solar magnetic field strength proxy. Pay attention.

    • David Springer

      http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/magnetic.html

      “The Sun has a strong and complex magnetic field, and much solar activity appears to be directly connected with the properties of the magnetic field.”

      “The magnetic field of the Sun can be probed in a rather precise and direct manner because in the presence of a magnetic field the energy levels of atoms (and ions and molecules) are split into more than one level. This causes spectral transition lines to also be split into more than one line, with the amount of splitting proportional to the strength of the magnetic field. This is called the Zeeman Effect, and the corresponding increase in the number of spectral lines is called Zeeman splitting.”

      “Measurement of the light from sunspots (obtained by masking off the light from parts of the Sun not in the sunspot) indicate significant Zeeman splitting of the spectral lines. Thus, sunspots are associated with strong magnetic fields.”

    • That’s nice but I didn’t mention sunspots as solar wind proxy. I mentioned sunspots as solar magnetic field strength proxy.

      The sunspot cycle is produced by an oscillation between
      toroidal and poloidal components of the magnetic field, similar to the oscillation between kinetic and potential energies in a simple harmonic oscillator ( Parker 1956)

      The Poloidal component has doubled since 1858 hence the increase in the fast solar wind from coronal holes ( until recently)

      The recent deep solar minimum has seen a interplanetary magnetic field decrease of 28% less then the previous 4 minima, a decrease of CR modulation in the antapax direction at around 60 au,

      • Easily accessible knowledge informs us that the Earth’s magnetic field provides protection from galactic cosmic rays — to a greater or lesser extent – depending on its interaction the Sun’s magnetic field. The numbers of sunspots (magnetic storms) indicate changes in the magnetic field of the Sun are taking place.
        For examples, with fewer sunspots (a more quiet Sun), the protective field around the Earth weakens and more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere. When there are more sunspots (a more active Sun), Earth’s protective field is stronger, resulting in relatively fewer cosmic rays reaching Earth’s atmosphere.
        By extension, more cosmic rays, due to a quiet Sun, results in more cooling cloud cover over the Earth (cooling because less of the Sun’s heat reaches the Earth as cloud cover increases)—i.e., the Earth cools down. Contrariwise, an active Sun results in global warming because there are fewer cosmic rays and consequently, less cloud cover.

    • David Springer | February 5, 2014 at 3:25 pm |

      Ulric Lyons | February 5, 2014 at 10:26 am |

      “Sunspot number is not always a good proxy for the solar wind conditions, that’s the main problem in using it.”

      That’s nice but I didn’t mention sunspots as solar wind proxy. I mentioned sunspots as solar magnetic field strength proxy. Pay attention.
      ======================================

      There’s a lot more to solar forcing than just EMR variability.

    • David Springer

      Ulric

      Lots of things about the sun are important. But I wasn’t making points about all of those things. I was making a point that sunspots are a reliable proxy for solar magnetic field strength.

      If you wish to dispute the utility of sunspots as a proxy for solar magnetic field then please do so. I’m not interested in them as proxies for solar wind at this time and have not looked into their efficacy for that purpose.

  28. There is a contrast between sea ice in the Antarctic increasing and sea ice in the Arctic decreasing. Warmists are constantly looking for oppostunities to knock down the Antarctic sea ice increase but are very content with the situation in the Arctic which they happily assume to be the work of the greenhouse effect. But here is a question: why is it that Arctic is the only part of the world that is still warming while the rest of the world has enjoyed a hiatus-pause for the last 16 years? I supplied the answer in my paper on Arctic warming in 2011 which the so-called “climate scientists” have chosen to ignore. This applies to all of you, not just the warmist section. In the paper I proved that the Arctic warming cannot possibly be greenhouse warming because there was no increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide when it started. And it started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, after two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. Radiation laws of physics require that if you want to start a greenhouse warming you must simultaneously increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the air because the absorbency of the gas is a property of its molecules and cannot be changed. Your education should have told you this much. Fortunately it was easy to determine what CO2 was doing from the Keeling curve and its extensions. Having eliminated the greenhouse effect as a possible cause of Arctic warming I looked around for other candidates and settled on ocean currents carrying warm water north. To explain the sudden start we must postulate a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that began to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. This is the most likely cause and fits in well with other observations. One of them is a mid-century cessation of warming that lasted thirty years. It is likely that it was caused by a temporary return of the original flow pattern of currents. I had enough to put the theory into my book “What Warming?” but as soon as it went to press a new report came out that water reaching the Arctic in 2010 was warmer than it had been anytime for the last two thousand years. This was too good to let go and that is why I wrote the paper that followed. Looking at a satellite view of the Arctic it is obvious that the warm water reaching it has melted a huge batch of Arctic ice on the Russian side of the ocean. Just eyeballing it I would estimate that clearing the Russian Arctic of ice may have melted away as much as a third of the Arctic sea ice that would have existed in the absence of warm advection currents. The warming is still going on but last year the pattern changed a bit when more ice survived than in previous melt seasons. Which brings up the question of what next. The Arctic warming history since the start of the twentieth century goes like this: 40 years warming, 30 years cooling, 44 years of warming again. Does anyone see a possible cycle here? If yes, we are due for a cooling next. If no, it’s continued warming ahead. The answer is important for Arctic shipping and exploration purposes.
    M&M 22(8):1069-1083 (2011)

    • Now that I have covered the Arctic it occurs to me that the title of this blog really should have been about the Arctic, not about the Antarctic. There is nothing really unusual about Antarctic ice except that there is a bit more of it than models predict. Their predictions have failed before and compared to their failure in the Arctic, the Antarctic failure is not a big deal. In the Arctic they fail spectacularly because Arctic warming is from two to four times faster than what the models predict. That is because they are trying to use greenhouse warming which does not exist to predict non-greenhouse warming caused by warm currents flowing north. That is the same error they make in trying to model the global hiatus-pause using models with greenhouse code in it. Just look at CMIIP5 to see how badly they miss the real temperature curve that has been flat for 17 years now. Apparently having the greenhouse code does not allow you to predict a horizontal straight line that nature has chosen to use. A case can be made from this that greenhouse warming doesn’t even exist. Here is a question: why is it that the hiatus-pause started only seventeen years ago? Is it possible that carbon dioxide woke up one day and decided that it was time to stop warming up the world? This is not how laws of nature work. If it is true that carbon dioxide today is not warming up the world it follows that it has never done this at any time. But what about all that anthropogenic greenhouse warming IPCC has been telling us about all these years? That is nothing more than natural warming, misidentified by eager pseudo-scientists as anthropogenic. All right, you say, but Hansen told us in 1988 that he discovered greenhouse warming. But did he? Do you know of any scientific review or analysis of his work? I sure don’t, but if one exists I much would like to see it.

  29. It’s the AMO what done it!

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7484/full/nature12945.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20140123

    “We suggest that the north and tropical Atlantic is important for projections of future climate change in Antarctica, and has the potential to affect the global thermohaline circulation and sea-level change”

    “I can rarely make sense of the bunny logic, so I won’t bother trying here”

    More like a White Rabbit than a simple bunny. “I’m late, I’m late……”.

  30. OK-From the simple mind of a retired high school teacher.
    1) I have long wondered why the climate science world does not look first at the graph of the total earth sea ice which has remained remarkably constant.
    2. If the total sea ice has remained constant, why not begin with visualizing what is happening in the same manner?
    3. I have marveled at why the scientific community always wants to isolate thinking and have come to the conclusion that is in part because education reduces from a broad view to some specific, but narrow island of expertise.
    4. Anecdotal records, supported by some scientific observation, state that the Arctic was warmer (with more melt) during the early 20th century and then began to cool and have a larger amount of freezing.
    5. Considering number 4, what if any records do we have, if any, of the Antarctic during the periods mentioned in number 4? In that regard the NSIDC may have been beginning to grasp the larger scope of what is happening,
    6.Coincidentally, and perhaps unfortunately, an improved method of observation began in 1979, about the same time as a climate shift occurred. If only the observations could have began about 20 years earlier there may have been a much greater wealth of information.
    7. Now to sound completely foolish, I have always envisioned the earth system of fluid motion, (atmosphere and ocean) as liken to a giant gold watch with a huge number of gears, some massive, large inertia, and slow moving, and some smaller, low inertia and fast moving. Some perturbation may cause a (stadium wave) of multiple manifestations which may take decades to move through the system. The challenge is find out how much of the perturbation is internal (which has always been happening) and how much is external (imbalance of energy flux)

    • This dude probably got more out of the box questions in a day than most climate scientists see in a year, for some, a career.
      =================

    • “I have always envisioned the earth system of fluid motion, (atmosphere and ocean) as liken to a giant gold watch with a huge number of gears, some massive, large inertia, and slow moving, and some smaller, low inertia and fast moving.”

      And as an engineer, if I too saw that type of system (as I do), I would arrange some low pass filters to split the outcomes into manageable sections and deal with them one by one :-)

    • darryb,
      Were you a science teacher prior to retirement/

      Good post. Would you like a job managing climate science funding? Just joking.

      But really, very good questions of which answers are lacking.
      Scott

    • darrylb

      The monthly sea ice record shows large seasonal swings both in the north and the south.

      Adding the two together shows very little seasonal swing and hardly any long-term (i.e. since 1979) trend.

      You write:

      The challenge is find out how much of the perturbation is internal (which has always been happening) and how much is external (imbalance of energy flux)

      Indeed!

      And, unfortunately, that’s exactly where the IPCC models have failed (by their own admission).

      And our hostess is right in writing that if the models do not understand growing sea ice in the Antarctic, they can also not explain shrinking sea ice in the Arctic.

      A dilemma.

      Max

    • Richard, What area of engineering?

      Scott, thanks, I had degrees in Physics, Math, Art and Chem. Taught mainly physics and chem. I went an extra year as an undergrad, to try get out of getting drafted, but I began to salute in ’68 anyway.
      With those degrees I am inclined to think visually and I tend to look at the ‘whole picture’ first as opposed to thinking in parts.
      So, I would like to add a few additional thoughts.

      1) The fluids receive their moving instructions from solar energy. (of course)
      2) Because of the rotation and revolution and varying atmospheric conditions of the big blue ball the perturbations are continually in flux and I would suggest the systems both regionally and as a whole are continually not in equilibrium and are continually moving toward equilibrium but never getting there. (gotta be a joke here somewhere)
      3. If some energy is being transmitted by wave motion then it is important to keep in mind that at least in part–

      A) the movement of those energies may be transparent to each other. (that is, pass through each other)
      B) Waves produce Wavelets and all will be reflected off of various surfaces depending on incidence.
      C) Various transmissions may be in phase or out of phase, I have wondered if that could be a factor in various multi year oceanic oscillations. The science community still cannot predict when ENSO or LaNina will occur. Just some thoughts
      D) So of course it is a chaotic system and now, how are we going to go about predicting the weather for next years Super Bowl !

    • darrylb: “the systems…are continually not in equilibrium and are continually moving toward equilibrium but never getting there.”

      More than a century ago, Alfred Marshall thought this was necessarily true of economies and, as a result, argued for a counterfactual definition of economic equilibrium–as the state that would eventually prevail under a stationary repetition of fixed conditions of supply and demand (which would never actually happen in the field). Then about 70 years later, Vernon Smith came along and thought “gee I can actually make that happen in a lab,” and experimental economics was born.

      I’m not optimistic about making it happen for the big blue ball, though.

    • Say, darrylbHeraclitus wern’t wrong.

    • darrylb | February 3, 2014 at 8:29 pm |

      “Richard, What area of engineering?”

      Computing. Started back in the days where it was only just out of Maths and into a Science!

      Did a fair amount of Amateur Audio stuff as well (can’t imagine why :-) ).

      “Programming – Modelling the world inside a Computer” with apologies to Larry O’Brien.

    • darrylb | February 3, 2014 at 8:29 pm |

      “With those degrees I am inclined to think visually and I tend to look at the ‘whole picture’ first as opposed to thinking in parts.”

      Try this for an engineers way of looking at the data.

      http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif

      Simple low pass filter splitting the data into ‘Climate’/’Other’ and now with Nate Drake PhD endorsed Savitzky–Golay OLS 2nd order extensions :-).

      Sure looks like the warming has stopped or even reversed but these S-G things do tend to ‘whip’ around a bit with new data whereas LP is full kernel so does not change.

    • It may be more complicated than that. In a watch, the rotation of all the gears is mechanically locked in terms of the gear meshing. This means that the same gear tooth will mesh with it’s associated meshing gear.s tooth, every time. The overall gear train is completely deterministic.

      Now, you can tell me I’m talking rubbish here, but something that’s been nagging for a while. Someone must have been looking at this already etc:

      For earth system climate, it seems that there are many oscillators of differing period, amplitude and possibly waveform. This means that there will only be peak synchonisation where the amplitude and sign are the same. Let’s take a trivial example with 3 oscillators. A = 1Hz, B = 2Hz, C = 7Hz. B will be in sync with A every 2 cycles, C will be in sync with A every 7 cycles and all three will be in sync at 14 cycles.

      Now assume that there are very many oscillators, with periods ranging from months to 1000’s of years, each contributing to the overall sum = climate, to understand difficulty of analysis, never mind predictions. To start with, do we know what all the oscillators are, their periods and amplitudes ?..

    • Chris, you ask ” To start with, do we know what all the oscillators are, their periods and amplitudes ?”

      The answer is quite clearly an emphatic NO!!!.. This is the mistake that the IPCC has been making for years. The warmists claim that natural noise will average out to zero. This is true, if and only if, the period of integration over which a signal is detected is long compared with the periods of the noise. This is clearly a load of scientific garbage, and we have no idea how much of any change in global temperatures is caused b a CO2 signal, and how much is residuals from natural noise. No idea whatsoever.

    • Jim Cripwell | February 4, 2014 at 12:24 pm |

      Chris, you ask ” To start with, do we know what all the oscillators are, their periods and amplitudes ?”

      The answer is quite clearly an emphatic NO!!!.. This is the mistake that the IPCC has been making for years. The warmists claim that natural noise will average out to zero.

      I agree. No one knows. So I start from no knowledge and look for what is there. A simple binary chop of the data into two bins, Climate (i.e. greater than 15 years) and ‘noise’ (i.e. less than 15 years).

      Then you get the plot above from HadCrut.

      As to what makes this 50-70 year ‘cycle’ I do not know. But it sure needs explaining.

    • Since you asked, I have estimates of the contributions from all the proposed climate forcing oscillators.

      Including these
      18.6 years responsible for the diurnal tides
      8.85 years and harmonics responsible for semidurnal tides.
      9 years corresponding to the sun moon earth alignment.
      22 year harmonics of the solar Hale cycle.
      11.86 and 8 year periods associated with solar cycles.

      These are all statistically significant in the temperature record, but obviously subtle effec

      The biggies are still CO2 and the slowly oscillating Stadium Wave as indicated by the LOD signal. Also the unpredictable SOI.

    • WHT: And which of those together provides the 50-70 year ‘cycle’ visible in the data?

      http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif

    • Richard, you write “Climate (i.e. greater than 15 years)”

      I am sorry, but I must be pedantic. The IPCC insists that there are such things as “forcings”, which only drive temperature in one direction. And so the CO2 forcing causes global temperatures to rise disasterously.

      But there is natural noise that has oscillations with periods that are greater than 15 years. It is these natural variations that will leave residuals when the integration time to try and measure the signal is short.

      So “climate” consists of forcings, and long term natural oscillations.

    • Jim Cripwell | February 4, 2014 at 1:35 pm |

      “I am sorry, but I must be pedantic. The IPCC insists that there are such things as “forcings”, which only drive temperature in one direction.”

      The only problem with that view is that it does not describe how we got TO the Little Ice Age.

      Nor does it describe the obvious periodicity in the temperature data sets to date.

      I accept that there may have been some additional rise from CO2. The question is, now much?

    • Wow, RLH. You’re as talented as Girma.

    • WHT: Never answering questions I note. So tell me, what combination out of all your parameters describes the 50-70 year ‘cycle’ visible in almost all of the climate data sets and Judith’s Stadium Wave paper?

    • Thanks for the replies. Looks like the annotation on the graph has red and blue swapped, or is it just plain wrong ?. The 75 year (red) cycle looks roughly sinusoidal. The 15 year signal (blue) looks very low amplitude, superimposed on a rising trend and it’s not clear if it’s cyclic. In general though, I would have thought that any low pass filter would be a pretty blunt instrument

      Mentioned before, but it seems that the only way to find all the signals is to do a spectral analysis on the data. FFT is a standard technique in other branches of the sciences and engineering, so why not in climate research ?. Perhaps not enough data. Ok, measurements have limited dynamic range, below which the signal can’t be resolved, but such low amplitude signals may have little influence and could be ignored, at least for a first pass over the data. In short, nothing quite like a spectrum analyzer to show where the signals are and their characteristics.

      Imho, the only way that the climate riddle will be solved is to understand all the major factors and more importantly, how they interact and affect each other. As the old saying goes, everything is connected. Only then can an overall map of the system be visualized…

    • Chris Quayle | February 4, 2014 at 2:51 pm |

      “Thanks for the replies. Looks like the annotation on the graph has red and blue swapped, or is it just plain wrong ?. The 75 year (red) cycle looks roughly sinusoidal. The 15 year signal (blue) looks very low amplitude, superimposed on a rising trend and it’s not clear if it’s cyclic. In general though, I would have thought that any low pass filter would be a pretty blunt instrument”

      I can post the R if you want to check but the traces are correctly identified. If you ‘see’ a cycle then that is only because the data (and averages of the data) says it is there. The red and blue traces are just simple cascaded running means (see the other thread here on JC as to why they are a good way of looking at data).

      The 15 year (red trace) is a binary chop of data into two bins. That below 15 years is in the stop band, above 15 years (all the way up to the maximum possible for this data) is in the pass band. You get what you get.

      The 75 year trace is just to remove that ~60 year signal (I moved it from 60 to ensure that we definitely skip the existing trace) and provide a reasonable ‘zero crossing’ indication for the earlier trace.

    • Jim Cripwell,

      If the signal is periodic, then it’s not noise, but perhaps of such low amplitude that it may be considered so ?. WHT gives some examples of natural oscillators above, but could there be heterodynce mixing to produce sum and difference frequencies, due to climate non linearity ?. Added to which, we have the harmonics from non linearity / distortion in the fundamental signals.

      Just rambling on here a bit. and apologies for the electronics analogies. The more you dig into any natural system, the more complex it seems to become…

    • RichardLH

      >>> I can post the R if you want to check but the traces are correctly identified….

      I program C and asm (for embedded work) and may not easily understand the R enough to analyse and verify it. Sorry to press you, but why haven’t you done a spectral analysis on the data ?. If you are looking for signals, it’s arguably the best method. You should find FFT type functions in any signal processing library. Commercially, something like Labview, or in a mainframe / supercomputer environment. There are probably many open source FFT libraries available as well if you are working alone or are on a budget

      Use all available tools and all that :-)…

    • Chris Quayle:

      I program C and asm (for embedded work) and may not easily understand the R enough to analyse and verify it.

      Me as well.
      I’ve dabbled with R a bit, but never really got into it, and soon forgot when I put it down.
      Perhaps someone should offer an online course: “R for programmers” ;-)

    • Chris Quayle | February 4, 2014 at 3:26 pm |

      “Sorry to press you, but why haven’t you done a spectral analysis on the data ?. If you are looking for signals, it’s arguably the best method.”

      Actually given the amount of noise in the signal it is not. The known problem with FTs and the like is that, if you have a large amount of ‘noise’, then then any signal peak will be spread out all over the place. This is especially true if you are at the lower frequency end of the available spectrum.

      Then there is the problem with ‘half cycle’ data where you may have a positive half of one cycle mixed in with a negative half of another. So you could have 50-60-70 in a 1:1:1 random mix as nature often does in forced, chaotically ordered, systems (i.e. not nicely tuned strings – aka sine waves). Plays havoc with using FTs to sort out what is happening, even more so on short data.

      Given that we have such a relatively short data series then the only reliable way to ‘see’ such signals is to use the very basic of tools.

      The advantage of low pass/band splitter circuits of this nature is that they are completely ‘flat’ in their response curve (well as they are Gaussian they are anyway).

      So you get two bins, one of which you can discard (the stop or high frequency) band. The lower will the display ANY frequency higher than that. So the 15 year pass band shows something in the 50-70 area. So the next analysis point is above that and we are al=ready at the end of the available data.

      I should really label the traces as ‘greater than 15 years’ and ‘greater than 75′ to make that clearer I suppose.

      • Actually given the amount of noise in the signal it is not.

        After thinking about Steven’s natural vs other comment above, and how weather actually works, is there really that much noise? Think about it, weather is driven by air masses, fronts, etc. Sure it’s non-linear and chaotic, but we can plot out weather, we can forecast air, snow, temperatures in advance. I think noise is more what we don’t yet understand than say electronic noise in circuits.

        And as an engineer, if I too saw that type of system (as I do), I would arrange some low pass filters to split the outcomes into manageable sections and deal with them one by one :-)

        Maybe, but I think it’s just as important to break the world into small enough pieces so we can find some gears and see which gears follow them. And remember in electronics you don’t see current while measuring voltage, the Climate is full of pressures and flows.

        And I think some of those causes tie back to the astrology listed as a science we need to forget. Any effect large enough to move the Sun, deserves at least a little respect.

    • phatboy | February 4, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
      Chris Quayle:

      I program C and asm (for embedded work) and may not easily understand the R enough to analyse and verify it.

      Me as well.
      I’ve dabbled with R a bit, but never really got into it, and soon forgot when I put it down.
      Perhaps someone should offer an online course: “R for programmers” ;-)

      Well you could start here.

      R for Beginners – The Comprehensive R Archive Network
      cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Paradis-rdebuts_en.pdf‎

      I was a total beginner in R myself until a few days ago. Just another language to pick up and learn. :-)

    • The periods I gave are heterodyne mixes of other frequencies. The 18.6 is the heterodyne difference of the draconic and sidereal month and the 8.85 is the diff for the anomalistic and sidereal month. Naturally the phases line up precisely with the lunar tidal cycles.

      These are real effects but they are also real small and one needs sophisticated approaches to pull them out of the climate signal. Watch this space for more.

    • Mi Cro | February 4, 2014 at 4:27 pm |

      “After thinking about Steven’s natural vs other comment above, and how weather actually works, is there really that much noise?”

      Quite a bit really. Firstly there is the added ‘noise’ from using a sub-sampled continuous MA such as Month! That ‘leaks’ the weather into the signal straight away. Then there is the weather itself. If you have ‘half’ a high or low at the Month sampling point you see half in two months. A few days of movement and it will be in one or the other. And then there is jitter. Firstly at Month 28,30,31 and at Year 365,366. All plays havoc with what we have.

      Really this all should be a continuous high frequency sampled data stream such as hourly and never down sampled from there! Then we really would have a high quality signal to deal with.

      • Quite a bit really. Firstly there is the added ‘noise’ from using a sub-sampled continuous MA such as Month! That ‘leaks’ the weather into the signal straight away. Then there is the weather itself. If you have ‘half’ a high or low at the Month sampling point you see half in two months. A few days of movement and it will be in one or the other. And then there is jitter. Firstly at Month 28,30,31 and at Year 365,366. All plays havoc with what we have.

        This because of the data you’re using for input. The daily data I’ve been working with isn’t good enough, but it’s way better than the data you find at woodfortrees (and it’s not really their fault, it’s the easy to get data). Now I agree we don’t have the data to look beyond 20ish year cycles, but we are collecting it now.

        Really this all should be a continuous high frequency sampled data stream such as hourly and never down sampled from there! Then we really would have a high quality signal to deal with.

        I work with daily data, no it’s not hourly, and it’s be nice if the specific values were all logged with Tmn and Tmx, but it’s what I could find, there are hourly sources, but I don’t think they go back very far, GSoD is full of holes prior to 1974, worse before 1950, even worse prior to 1940.
        But there’s enough there to reconstruct daily weather movements, and patterns, maybe even do a decent GAT at least for areas with stations.

        Weather is the signal.

    • WebHubTelescope (@whut) | February 4, 2014 at 4:30 pm |

      “one needs sophisticated approaches to pull them out of the climate signal.”

      Simple low pass band pass splitter drop them out with only a few lines of code. No distortions or other higher order maths to verify.

      Just averages and sums of averages.

    • True, because forcing functions such as TSI variations are not perfect sinusoids and have often a pulsed character, all the harmonics are there. So for the Hale cycle of 22 years, I discriminate cleanly the 22/3, 22/4, 22/5, etc harmonics.

      And it is true that nonlinearity in mixing is required to generate the heterodyne tidal signals, otherwise it all averages out to mush.

    • Mi Cro | February 4, 2014 at 4:51 pm |

      “This because of the data you’re using for input. The daily data I’ve been working with isn’t good enough, but it’s way better than the data you find at woodfortrees (and it’s not really their fault, it’s the easy to get data).”

      I’ve changed from the WFT to the original sources but Monthly is the only long series, large coverage set available AFAIK.

      There are some Daily sets that might be of use. I plan on doing some work on CET, as that is the most prestigious, first.

      Using LP as I do, the larger the number of samples included, the better the signal to noise ratio gets. Large numbers rule.

      I just want the accounting for the signals we can se to be done before we go looking for finer detail stuff.

    • Chris Q, at 12:05 PM You wrote: It may be more complicated than that.
      I fully agree for many reasons, First the analogy to a watch with many gears was meant to stimulate a visual image.. As described it would be a mechanism that would produce a linear result only.
      One of the faults (of many) that I find in models is that they are trying to produce a linear result from a chaotic system, without understanding many of the variables within.
      So I suppose I could try adding something to the watch to produce something other than the linear time component; that is add a multi gear transmission with several gear ranges, but for the imagery, I believe I will have already served the purpose.
      What I am happy to see in this thread is that contributors are considering
      the ‘big picture’ .
      Too often rather small studies both in area and length of time are being used to extrapolate beyond any reasonable boundary of accuracy.

    • RLH, Is your approach able to discriminate between a 8.85 year period and a 9 year period? How about 11 and 11.86?

      These doubly heterodyned signals are thought by certain skeptics to hold the key for really long term variations in the climate.

    • WebHubTelescope (@whut) | February 4, 2014 at 5:11 pm |

      “RLH, Is your approach able to discriminate between a 8.85 year period and a 9 year period? How about 11 and 11.86?”

      Why would I try to sort out the minutia when the bigger stuff is yet to be settled. First things first.

    • Mi Cro | February 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm |

      “Go have a look at NCDC’s Global Summary of Days, compared to many it’s pretty good, and it’s daily.”

      How far back does it go? url?

    • darrylb | February 4, 2014 at 5:04 pm |

      “One of the faults (of many) that I find in models is that they are trying to produce a linear result from a chaotic system, without understanding many of the variables within.”

      Its like trying to do fluid mechanics from the atoms up rather than the large down. That’s the way I see it.

    • RichardLH

      >>> Well you could start here…

      I looked at the Wiki page for R and it looks like a math / statistics / graphics visualisation oriented language, hence the interest from the climate people I guess.

      Also, thanks for the reply on the data and processing. Please post the code here, as it will be good to (try to) understand what it’s doing…

    • Darrylb

      To get even a subset of one the effects of climate in a watch style mechanism, you would need cam shaped gears to generate the functions. In the early days of analogue computing, they used all manner of cams and linkages to generate non linear functions, often to a high degree of accuracy.. One of the classics on mechanical function generators from the WW2 era is the Radiation Lab series volume “Computing Mechanisms & Linkages” by Svoboda. Last volume in the series and fairly easy to find on ABE. Worth reading just for the interest and still valid in terms of translation to later electronic or computing techniques, or just as a trigger for ideas. They did a lot of computing with not very much hardware at all in those days.

      I spent years collecting some of those volumes in hardback, but looks like most of it is online now. Good Wiki article here on the Rad Lab:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Laboratory

      Standing on the shoulders of giants, or what ?.

      Oh yes, agree about the whole system view as well. Top down, rather than bottom up approach…

    • Mi Cro | February 4, 2014 at 7:10 pm |

      “1929.”

      Interesting but not really that far back. About 100 years too short really. I will keep that for later work for now. But thanks anyway.

      • I understand, but I’m suspect that there’s not a data set that has as many types of measurements and useful coverage that goes back further. You might find 10 or so stations per continent, but I don’t see that as good coverage.

    • Chris Quayle | February 4, 2014 at 6:59 pm |

      “Please post the code here, as it will be good to (try to) understand what it’s doing…”

      Really simple stuff. I do the pre-processing of the data sources into a single column in C# which I don’t think will be practical to post here but the rest is….

      # simple moving average FIR filter
      MovingAverage <- function(x,n=5){filter(x,rep(1/n,n), sides=2)}

      #data from HadCrut already pre-formatted into single column by external c# application
      data = read.table("C:/R/Data/HadCRUT/HadCRUT4-gl-singlecol.txt", colClasses = "numeric", col.names=c("Year", "Anomalies"), fill=FALSE)

      LowPass1 = data[1]
      #cascaded triple running mean 'Gaussian' FIR filter for annual
      #using 1.2067 inter stage multiplier from V. Pratt
      LowPass1[2] = MovingAverage(data[2], 12)
      LowPass1[2] = MovingAverage(LowPass1[2], 10)
      LowPass1[2] = MovingAverage(LowPass1[2], 8)

      LowPass15 = data[1]
      #cascaded triple running mean 'Gaussian' FIR filter for 15 years
      LowPass15[2] = MovingAverage(data[2], 180)
      LowPass15[2] = MovingAverage(LowPass15[2], 149)
      LowPass15[2] = MovingAverage(LowPass15[2], 123)

      #single mean (because of record length) for 75 years
      LowPass75 = data[1]
      LowPass75[2] = MovingAverage(data[2], 900)

      #"I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 15 year data windows as per the Savitzky–Golay method.” Nate Drake PhD :-)
      sgolay_361 = data[1]
      sgolay_361[2] = signal::sgolayfilt(data[,2],n=361)
      sgolay_361[2] = signal::sgolayfilt(sgolay_361[,2],n=361)
      sgolay_361[2] = signal::sgolayfilt(sgolay_361[,2],n=361)
      sgolay_361[2] = signal::sgolayfilt(sgolay_361[,2],n=361)
      sgolay_361[2] = signal::sgolayfilt(sgolay_361[,2],n=361)

      #"I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 75 year data windows as per the Savitzky–Golay method.” RLH
      sgolay_1801 = data[1]
      sgolay_1801[2] = signal::sgolayfilt(data[,2],n=1801)
      sgolay_1801[2] = signal::sgolayfilt(sgolay_1801[,2],n=1801)
      sgolay_1801[2] = signal::sgolayfilt(sgolay_1801[,2],n=1801)
      sgolay_1801[2] = signal::sgolayfilt(sgolay_1801[,2],n=1801)
      sgolay_1801[2] = signal::sgolayfilt(sgolay_1801[,2],n=1801)

      #plot it all
      plot(data,
      main="HadCrut4 Monthly Anomalies with full kernel 'Gaussian' low pass filters of 1, 15 and 75 years\nwith 15 and 75 Year Savitzky–Golay extensions",
      xaxt = "n",
      xlim=c(1850, 2020))
      axis(1, at=seq(1850, 2020, 10))
      grid (NULL,NULL, lty = 2)
      lines(sgolay_1801, col = "cyan", lwd=4,lty=3)
      lines(sgolay_361, col = "brown", lwd=4,lty=3)
      lines(LowPass75, col="blue", lwd=4)
      lines(LowPass15, col="red", lwd=4)
      lines(LowPass1, col="green", lwd=4)
      legend('bottomright',
      c("Annual","15 Year", "75 Year", "S-G 15 Year", "S-G 75 Year"),
      lwd=4,
      lty=c(1,1,1,3,3),
      col=c("green","red","blue","brown","cyan"))
      mtext(side=1, line=3,adj = 1,"RLH Feb 2014")

    • Chris Quayle | February 4, 2014 at 6:59 pm |

      P.S. Please note the S-G extensions will ‘flick’ around with new data. The CTRM will not as that is full kernel. It also means we can ‘prove’ the parameters for the C-S as they have to overlay (or nearly so) the CRTM in their overlap period in order to be valid. No – “well it COULD be 3rd order, 4th order” or whatever. :-)

    • HadCrut data is pre-processed into the form

      1850.04 -0.690
      1850.13 -0.279
      1850.21 -0.728
      1850.29 -0.565
      1850.38 -0.322
      1850.46 -0.215
      1850.54 -0.130
      1850.63 -0.234
      1850.71 -0.439
      1850.79 -0.455
      1850.88 -0.191
      1850.96 -0.265
      1851.04 -0.295
      1851.13 -0.346
      1851.21 -0.468

  31. An interesting thing about the radiative models is that for the Antarctic winter average temperature profile, increasing co2 REDUCES the net radiance at the tropopause ( or 200mb given the lack of a distinct trop ).

    How could that be so?

    For much of the Antarctic in winter, the surface temperatures are lower than the temperatures for most of the atmosphere above. This means that as CO2 increases, more IR is leaving from a warmer ( and more energetic ) level than from the colder surface.

    An example of the South Pole in winter:

    http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=ant&TYPE=GIF%3ASTUVE&YEAR=2013&MONTH=07&FROM=1500&TO=1500&STNM=89009

    archived here: http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html

    Multiple factors are always at work, but this is consistent with other observations, and since this condition occurs only in winter, it is consistent with overall warming while at the same time increasing Antarctic sea ice.

    It does raise questions about regional cooling in the face of global warming.
    And since the Antarctic, particularly the Antarctic winter is responsible for so much of the earth’s deep water and cold air, what would amplified Antarctic winter cooling mean?

    • Invocation of a negative feedback, previously unnecessary.
      ==========================

    • Hmmm….

      regional, to be sure but not a ‘negative feedback’ but a nuance of direct forcing.

    • Eunice, CO2 appears to not know which direction it is supposed to work in. If the Antarctic effective CO2 radiant layer is lower in altitude than the poleward energy transferred, it might what to keep the “surface” cooler and send more of the upper atmosphere energy to space. If you have enough turbulent mixing then the poleward energy transfer could sneak in below the effective radiant layer where the CO2 would try to reduce the rate of heat loss.

    • I once wondered @ the Blackboard if increased CO2 somehow increased poleward transport of energy. Still stuck on somehow.
      ============

    • kim, “I once wondered @ the Blackboard if increased CO2 somehow increased poleward transport of energy. Still stuck on somehow.”

      The question should be how will increased CO2 effect poleward transport. That should boil down to the polar/higher latitude temperature inversions. If the energy slides in under the inversions, then CO2 amplifies warming, If the energy slides in over the inversion, CO2 won’t have much impact and if the transported energy disrupts the inversion, then you have a lot more heat loss.

      This is why some are focusing more on the nocturnal boundary layer (inversions), the atmospheric boundary layer (where inversions form) and variations in regional winds (they break up the inversions). The mother of all inversions is the polar vortex. It is not really an inversion, but it separates super-cold dry polar air from warmer moist sub-tropical air. The rate and symmetry of the polar energy transfer impacts the stability of the polar or circumpolar vortex which obviously has regional (hemispheric) impacts.

    • correction, “The question should be how will increased CO2 effect poleward transport.”

      That should be how will increased CO2 effect the energy transported poleward.

    • But why turbulence?
      ======

    • kim “But why turbulence?”

      Why Fluid Dynamics?

  32. Just to be clear that the models are wrong:

    Antarctic sea ice is not only modeled to be decreasing, but to be decreasing at a rate greater than the Arctic sea ice:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/modelE/modEmap/tmp.20_E3Af8aio20_1_0112_1979_2013_1951_1980-L3AaeoM20A/map.gif

    Create your plots here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/imbalance/maps.html

    The known truth is that dynamics are a big factor, but focusing on Arctic decline while ignoring Antarctic increase smacks of chasing the hypothesis.

  33. How much extra sunlight is being reflected by this increased sea ice?

    • David Springer

      Not enough to change anything. Liquid water reflects more when sun is low on horizon and down there’s it’s low or beneath the horizon most of the year.

    • “Antarctic Sea Ice is at its maximum at the equinox when there IS sunlight for 12 hours per every latitude on the planet. Further, Antarctic Sea Ice at its maximum IS exposed to strongly absorbed sunlight at solar incidence angle between 15 and 30 degrees for 10 of those 12 hours.”

      http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/impact-of-more-antarctic-sea-ice/

    • David Springer

      Simply, no.

      http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-7.htm

      Note between 60 and 90 south latitude there is hardly any shortwave energy. Less than 1% of the total on the planet easily. You cannot absorb or reflect sunlight that isn’t there.

      Write that down.

    • Thanks for links.
      David, so that graph shows that if the new ice is forming at 60 degrees latitude, then the insolation actually looks pretty large compared to the other fluxes (and then there may be largish errors to consider in those calculations), yes?

    • …that is, of the order of, maybe, tens of watts/m2

    • David Springer

      Still no, Michael. The percentage growth of Antarctic sea ice is very small and it grows in the winter when the sun is very low or below the horizon. So while the albedo of the entire south polar circle has a small influence on global heat budget the difference in average ice extent between 50 years ago and today is only a tiny fraction of the total influence.

    • David Springer

      @sunshine hours

      The surface area of the earth is 510 million square kilometers.

      The growth in Antarctic sea ice extent is less than 2 million square kilometers. So the effected surface is 0.4% of the earth’s surface.

      Assuming the increase is at 60S the average surface insolation there is less than 50W/m2.

      http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-7.htm

      while the average insolation at the earth’s surface is 198W/m2

      http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-6.htm

      So if the change in albedo of that 0.4% of the earth’s surface goes from 0% to 100% (in reality it’s about 10% to 90%) and that part of the surface only receives 25% of the average insolation of the earth’s surface then the effective change in the global heat budget is less than 0.1%.

      Give it up. There’s no smoking gun in Antarctic sea ice change due to higher albedo. It’s just about exactly cancelled by albedo change in the opposite direction at the north pole in any case.

    • I was asking mainly out of interest, not making an assertion about global effects.

  34. “Notwithstanding the simulations by climate models that reproduce the decline in Arctic sea ice, more convincing arguments regarding causes of sea ice variations requires understanding and ability to simulate sea ice variations in both hemispheres.”

    I’m having a hard time understanding what point you are suggesting by this sentence. Is it this: since Antarctica is growing in sea ice extent, the arguments about sea ice loss in the Arctic do not convince you (despite the consonance of Arctic sea ice loss and the models)?

  35. To all you AGW’ers and Judith-Haters, are you really not able or unwilling to bring yourselves to agree that:

    “There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.” and

    “Notwithstanding the simulations by climate models that reproduce the decline in Arctic sea ice, more convincing arguments regarding causes of sea ice variations requires understanding and ability to simulate sea ice variations in both hemispheres.”

  36. Generalissimo Skippy

    I would assume that there was a mechanical contribution to increased sea ice – one involving the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). This has been predominantly positive since the late 70’s – a fact that has been ascribed in equal parts to ozone depletion and global warming and to natural variability. Although as we are finding – both ozone depletion and warming has at least in part natural components.

    http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/SAM_zps14f8c980.png.html

    The positive SAM involves relatively higher pressures in sub-polar regions and relatively lower pressure over the pole. This restrains the polar westerlies to higher latitudes – in turn reducing the movement of ice from the Antarctic margins into warmer water.

    The SAM index is currently marginally negative pushing storm fronts marginally further into lower latitudes. I am expecting SAM to turn negative with the downturn in TSI.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html

    Here is an interesting picture of the record ice extent last September.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160

    In as much as the increase is caused by natural variability – sea ice growth at the margins should reverse with a more negative SAM.

  37. Svend Ferdinandsen

    Sometimes i get tired of all that “understanding”, especially relative to climate models. It seems most of the understanding is aimed at proving GW and the models, instead of real unbiased plain understanding of causes and ways it changes.
    Anyway i see no way to influence it at all and i see no reason to even try.
    Unfortunately twenty years of climate bombardement means, that we all connect every change in nature to climate, and by default find it alarming.
    We wil never see weather any more, its all transformed to climate.

  38. David Springer

    The continent itself has not statistically warmed or cooled since 1979. But since CO2 is well mixed the old control knob got turned up down there as much anywhere else. What’s up with that?

  39. Generalissimo Skippy

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/02/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/#comment-447464

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/02/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/#comment-447481

    You can get more accurate models by assuming a forcing function than relying on this spontaneous chaos spew that gets endlessly pushed here.

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/02/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/#comment-447637

    WebHubTelescope (@whut) | February 3, 2014 at 6:54 am |

    This is just so much spew.

    To which I replied that the quality of rational discourse from the dweeb bot was lacking – or words to that effect – which was deleted.

    My follow up comment was –

    Seriously Judith – delete dweeb bot and leave bizarre and spew and the rest of the insults from these two?

    Webby practices both ice cream science and an especially aggressive and abusive style.

    webby ‘Cappy is the Professor Irwin Corey of this commenting site. Google it and you will see the comparison is apt.’

    Is dweeb bot – an apt and clever conflation of two nerd words – seriously any worse than any of the juvenile nonsense that webby – and indeed maxy – spout relentlessly?

    Hence my protest here. It is all a lot tedious and pathetic.

    • I delete them as i see them. send me an email if i missed something that should be deleted

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      I suggest you check whatever the comment was responding to rather than wasting more time with emails.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      WebHubTelescope (@whut) | February 3, 2014 at 6:54 am |

      This is just so much spew.

      WebHubTelescope (@whut) | February 3, 2014 at 7:24 am |

      You can get more accurate models by assuming a forcing function than relying on this spontaneous chaos spew that gets endlessly pushed here.

      Does this add anything to rational or even civil discourse. And yet you leave it and delete dweeb bot?

      Incomprehensible.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      And I note it is still there – this is just not worth my time – even if I do still have a foot being dressed every day.

    • G.S. I can’t believe you’re crying to Judith. Like she doesn’t have anything better to do than break up nursery school fights. Your posts are also at times full of a brand of sarcasm that I find deeply unappealing.

      Maybe growing up a bit would ease the painful burden of your own imagined self-importance.

    • It’s not an ad hominem attack. I am calling the theory spew. Theories can not get their feelings hurt because they are just symbols on a piece of paper.

      If you have something to counter the fact that climate change is a response to external forcing then prove it.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      If you can find anything in the links provided but a broad and in depth discussion of science from a number of reputable sources – by all means complain. Otherwise – your comment seems particularly uninformed. I might say in the same vein that I find your comments to be not terrifically informed or informative at the best of times – but why would I bother.

      And webby defending spew as an in depth theoretical critique is pretty pathetic.

      And actual changes in toa – and solar – radiant flux I have addressed on too many occasions to want to repeat myself yet again.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_Net_zps9f7faaaa.png.html?sort=3&o=6

      Closed mindedness is the order of the day – and I get abused and insulted on a regular basis for discussing leading edge climate science that these clowns don’t begin to understand and which conflicts with their simplistic warming memes.

      Very little of this seems to register with Judith unless I do an active campaign of emailing – many emails about these people. I have just been deleting emails and have been reminded of how many. Talk about a waste of time.

      And I notice that ‘This is just so much spew’ is still up. Is there any justification at all for keeping this and deleting my comment on the lack of a contribution to rational and civil discourse by the dweeb bot?

      If science is to be discussed – by all means – but this is an utterly pathetic nonsense of ice cream and chipmunk pseudo science. With utterly pathetic, inconsistent and sporadic stabs at moderation.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Pokerguy – I have just reviewed your comments in the past few threads. Unmemorable as I expected – apart from a comment on skeptical warmist gatesy – and science free apart from a reference to WUWT. Which probably still classifies as science free.

      I have just in fact been looking at WUWT – very hard to find links to original papers. One I finally found cited at Hockeywhatever – and it says nothing like what was reported breathlessly at WUWT. WUWT? Don’t they check? Too busy spinning science? I guess I won’t bother again for a few more years.

      Btw – your WUWT link claims the paper says the Arctic was warmer 1000 years ago. This doesn’t seems likely – isn’t the subject of the paper – and is certainly not relevant to much at all.

      http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/04/21/blogs/dotkaufman.html

      So how’s that for self importance and sarcasm? At any rate – I have had enough.

    • G.S.

      No ill will. You’re obviously a talented fellow. And I’m sure there are plenty here who don’t like my style as well. That’s fine with me. If I’m going to dish it out I’d better be able to take it.

      I just don’t think trying to involve our esteemed host in our often juvenile little battles is a winning strategy.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      WebHubTelescope (@whut) | February 3, 2014 at 6:54 am |

      This is just so much spew.

      This is not about squabbles with webby – everyone knows what he is like. It is about arbitrary and haphazard moderation.

      My reply was on the lack of rational and civil discourse from the dweeb bot.

      dweeb – so what

      bot – from the habit of repeating endlessly the same comment in the same words – when not being aggressive and abusive in the same words and insults over and over again. Something he justified just yesterday by reference to some US political pundit or other on staying on message and repeating it ad nauseum.

      Yet my relatively innocent comment disappears and the filth above stays. This is not an isolated occurrence. As I say arbitrary and inconsistent moderation.

    • So you have problems with someone that follows the standard model of climate change. What else is new?

      My position is that I really can’t find much wrong with the conventional science that states what the climate sensitivity is and in what timescale it will respond.

      All I am doing right now is adding all the secondary forcing terms that skeptics have been proposing and adding those to a simple model of global surface temperature.

      I suggest that the chaotic basis underlying natural fluctuations is wildly overstated and that most of what we see we can pin down to forcing terms.

    • David Springer

      spew (verb) 1. expel large quantities of (something) rapidly and forcibly.

      dweeb (noun) 1. a boring, studious, or socially inept person.

      Saying that what an author wrote is spew is a criticism of the writing.

      Saying that an author is a dweeb is a criticism of the person.

    • David Springer

      pokerguy (aka al neipris) | February 3, 2014 at 7:33 pm |

      “I just don’t think trying to involve our esteemed host in our often juvenile little battles is a winning strategy.”

      Our host has made it known that the ad hominem rich environment in the comments here turns away professional scientists who would otherwise participate. She has also made it known she is desirous of that professional commentary moreso (to say the least) than the petty name-calling that turns it away.

      She’s therefore already involved in the ad homs and wishes it to cease.

      The least burdensome way of that happening is for the authors of the ad homs to voluntarily end the practice. Given no voluntary cooperation the second best way is to email her copies of the comments containing the ad homs with a link so it takes two clicks to delete from there. The authors might then get the message that what they’re doing is not acceptable behavior.

    • David

      You said;

      “Our host has made it known that the ad hominem rich environment in the comments here turns away professional scientists who would otherwise participate.”

      I have made that point many times. I am sure we all wish to discuss the aspects of climate science that interests us, with experts in their field, perhaps by a question and answer session on a newly published paper or on a new idea they want feedback on.

      Unfortunately, this place all too often resembles sixth formers having a food fight after getting hold of illicit wine. Often the comments here can be very funny. Alas, all to often they can be childish and hurtful.

      There’s a time and place for rumbustious behaviour-probably on open threads-and there’s a time and place for adult intelligent conversation in the dissembling of scientific ideas.

      Is it going to change? That is up to three or four individuals who are the main protagonists and instigators of the bun fights.

      tonyb

    • David Springer

      Is it going to change? That is up to three or four individuals who are the main protagonists and instigators of the bun fights.

      tonyb

      ———————————————————————-

      A lot more than three or four I’m afraid. Just off the top of my head in no particular order:

      me (I’m trying), howard, monfort, joshua, mosher, webby, skippy, gates, pokerguy, lolwot, max_ok, michael, fanomodiscose, bart

      There’s a baker’s dozen plus one. I’m sure I missed just as many.

    • David, You should write a quick app to color code names. Michael would be a hot pink warmer, Webster just plain red, GS a neutral earth tone etc. I guess Joshua should have some Polkadot or rainbow pattern?

    • David

      Many of those you list are argumentative rather than instigators of bun fights. For example I might disagree with Gates and Fan but they generally put forward reasonable arguments and I have no problem with them.

      So out of that list there are relatively few that will pick up a bun and throw it with little provocation and don’t know when to stop.

      Yes, you certainly have your moments, which is a shame as on a good day you are one of the most informative and wittiest of commentators here.

      Webby has been much better since his short self imposed exile but he and Skippy certainly rub each other up the wrong way.

      So the numbers involved in genuine disruption are very small. Its a shame as it spoils it for the rest of us. I think Open threads are the right forum for a free for all (relatively speaking) . However it would be nice to see more self control exhibited by those who can be disruptive, especially on guest posts or on subjects when experts other than Judith might feel inclined to take part.

      tonyb

    • As I have noted before, I have been participating in these sorts of “bulliten boards” for about 25 years. If you don’t like the way someone behaves, YOU can make the difference by ignoring them. If you follow this policy rigidly, that is you ignore whatever some one you don’t like writes, irrespective of the substance, a lot of our problems will disappear.

    • Some people are more attached to every word that comes out of their own mouths than parents are to their children.

      Belittling someone’s children can result in far more response than belittling the parent directly.

      So we see many writers (and not just here) get confused and feel they (or those with ideas they like) are being attacked when the ideas are criticized.

      We see people claiming they are the victims of ad hominem repeatedly, when the charge of ad personam is absurd.

      And it is coddled here, and that has to stop.

      If you think something said about your arguments, your ideas, your presentation style, your logic, your format, your behaviors in discourse, the history of a discussion involving you, or anything about the material you produce or bring to the blog is ad hominem, you are just plain wrong, and you do not demonstrate understanding of how adults resolve differences of opinion and errors of fact, falsity of argument, weakness of presentation, error of logic, or inappropriateness of behavior in those cases.

      It’s simple. Label a person as the source of an idea a demeaning term, and you are committing the ad hominem fallacy, and propagandizing on a forum that has had many discussions of propaganda and fallacy both, so your behavior will be recognized for what it is; as it happens, I’m a huge supporter of correctly done Chaos Theory, but frankly a lot of the stuff even the most adept Chaotician says will turn out to be spew due the nature of the field. That’s not ad hominem; that’s the nature of the subject matter.

      I recommend the appropriate response to ad hominem is to treat it like any other fallacy and propaganda: point it out, explain how the fallacious remark leaves the instigator’s argument invalid, and stop at the first error. If people are honest and honorable interlocutors, they will desist the behavior and move back toward the discussion. If not, who cares about what they have to say when there’s so much out there that is valid to discuss?

      If Dr. Curry moderated on invalidity rather than insult, far more professional scientists might comment on Climate Etc.

    • JIm

      I don’t think I have ever been involved in a bun fight here. I tend to ignore inappropriate remarks but sometimes I will take leave of absence for a week or two as I find the behaviour here sometimes, to be exasperating.

      The trouble is that there are a small number of individuals who goad each other and that can often infect the whole flavour of a thread so ignoring them has no effect as they are not ignoring each other. That sort of atmosphere must be putting off scientists that might otherwise be willing to participate in our debates.

      Personally I would not want this to be too sterile an environment as very often there is considerable wit displayed. I think the right outlet for a free for all is the open thread.
      tonyb

    • BartR

      You wrote an interesting post when you said this;.

      ‘If Dr. Curry moderated on invalidity rather than insult, far more professional scientists might comment on Climate Etc.’

      Can you clarify your definition of ‘invalidity’ in the context of the discussion we are having here?
      tonyb

    • She’s not likely to throw the bauble out with the seawater, a pearl worth more than her whole tribe.
      ===================

    • Tony, you write “That sort of atmosphere must be putting off scientists that might otherwise be willing to participate in our debates.”

      I suggest that that is a problem that neither you nor I can have any influence over. All we can try and do is behave ourselves. If everybody were to do the same, most of the problems would just disappear.

      I think I can claim some expertise on this issue. At the height of RCTN we had ZERO moderation, text only, no nesting, virtually no software, and we handled 250 messages per day, 7 days a week. This lasted for about 5 years. When you can cope in that sort of environment, you learn how to behave. Admittedly, 99+% of the participants were female, but I am not sure if that makes the situation better or worse.

      Leave it to our hostess to try and sort out the mess. I just plead for everyone, for all our benefit, to start behaving like adults, and not a bunch of teenagers with raging hormones.

    • Too funny, the GS character said:

      .. climate science that these clowns don’t begin to understand..

      Recall the Daystrom character from a Star Track episode:

      Twenty years of groping to prove the things I’d done before were not accidents. Seminars and lectures to rows of fools who couldn’t begin to understand my systems. Colleagues. Colleagues laughing behind my back at the boy wonder and becoming famous building on my work. Building on my work.

      You will have to look up McCoy’s response. Used to watch the Star Track when I was a kid, and wondered if people like that would exist in the future. Well, the future is now and they walk among us.

    • Bart R ( February 4, 2014 at 10:16 am ):

      Very good advice.

      I agree with avoiding ad hom behavior.

      When things degenerate to name calling the conversation gets boring and hard to wade through.

      My further suggestions:

      It cannot hurt to be polite.

      Don’t name call (I for one detest being called a denier).

      Don’t use a pet name for a person (especially if your pet name is meant to be insulting or demeaning) – use their blog name.

      I also think things would be more productive if people just said what they meant instead of trying to be cute. Make your point.

      If everybody followed these suggestions, I think the conversation would be more productive.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      It all seems so relatively simple. Any change in the energy content of the planet comes from changes in net radiant flux at toa for the most part.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_Net_zps9f7faaaa.png.html?sort=3&o=6

      Up is warming – down is cooling. This record is stable to 0.2% in SW ad 0.15% in IR per decade. In the earlier part of the CERES record there was a trend upward – but this is no longer the case over the whole record. There is no trend either way – and so the planet is not warming or cooling. That is – no more missing energy.

      There are small changes in the incoming energy from the sun. About 0.3 W/m2 change after geometric correction in the Schwabe cycle. It as currently at the high point in the cycle.

      http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png

      About 0.5 W/m2 since the Little Ice Age. TSI is currently hovering at just under 1362 W/m2 where it has been (at the Schwabe peak) for the past 60 years.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/tsireconstruction_zps0ee199b5.png.html?sort=3&o=56

      So very simple – the only warming in the past decade is from TSI in the Schwabe cycle.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Let’s step back from chaos theory. It is after all just a metatheory that very few people understand at all. It merely identifies systems as belonging to the class of systems that exhibit specific behaviours. These are complex and dynamic systems that have multiple positive and negative feedbacks and that exhibit ‘slowing down’ and ‘noisy bifurcation’ especially. These latter are critical for potentially diagnosing transitions between climate states.

      e.g. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucess21/00%20Thompson2010%20off%20JS%20web.pdf – and – http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14308.full

      But let’s fall back to physical oceanography, hydrology and biology. It is quite clear that ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns in the Pacific change dramatically and abruptly every few decades. These decadal changes involve changes in the temperature of the north-east Pacific and associated changes in the intensity and frequency of ENSO events. The changes bring with them booms and busts in global fisheries and changes in patterns of global hydrology. Real physical changes that have been traced back at least 1000 years in proxy data.

      It can be seen in ocean, hydrological and biological data in the past century. The MEI of Claus Wolter for instance. Cool SST dominant to 1976-78, warm SST to 1998/2001, and cool SST since. The 1976/78 shift is frequently known as the ‘Great Pacific Climate Shift’ – the 1998/2001 shift I will nominate as the ‘great OMG we didn’t expect that shift’.

      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

      Tell me you can’t see it?

    • climatereason | February 4, 2014 at 10:29 am |

      For a general sense of the continuum of invalid, as opposed to the continuum of invective:
      http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=valid+argument

      For a general sense of some common fallacies, which would invalidate an argument: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

      Noting that just because an argument is invalid does not mean its conclusion is false (it just means its conclusion isn’t worth bothering with given the premise), we can see how vastly improved (and shorter) the comments section would be were the only rule of netiquette, “all invalid argument will be moved to an invalid comment zone.

      Almost all propaganda is also invalid, but as some is not, I imagine a propaganda purge would be equally effective. One step at a time.

      In terms of this thread, it ought be fairly easy to see the thread wouldn’t exist at all outside the invalid comment zone, were the proposed rule enforced.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      The changes in ocean an atmospheric circulation result in changes in cloud cover – and consequently the energy budget of the planet – that are both large and evident. I gave some references here – http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/ – years ago.

      What do we know about cloud? Only what the data says.

      ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC, AR4, WG1, s3.4.4.1

      e.g. http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf

      The changes are quantified and – strong warming in SW and cooling in IR – Fig. 7 shows ERBS net and OHC increasing to 1998 and then declining in 1999.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      More complete coverage from ISCCP-FD combined with MODIS shows the following.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=80

      http://www.benlaken.com/documents/AIP_PL_13.pdf

      The critical 1998/2001 transition was captured by Project Earthshine – an entirely different method.

      http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/ – se Fig. 3

      ‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’

      So strong warming in SW to 1998, cooling in IR, a jump to increased cloud after 1998 and not much change since. That’s what the data and no amount of hypothesizing about radiant imbalances from greenhouse gases will change that.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      We get back to the periods of these warm and cool Pacific modes – which are according to the metatheory of chaos finite volumes of state space within the topology of the climate strange attractor. These persist for 20 to 40 years between shifts between state space. This suggests that the current cool mode seems more likely than not to persist for another 10 to 30 years.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.

      Pretty much tells it all.

      Max

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      It is all so much spew.

    • David Springer

      climatereason | February 4, 2014 at 10:05 am |

      ” For example I might disagree with Gates and Fan but they generally put forward reasonable arguments and I have no problem with them. ”

      Maybe find a different example. Upthread Gates just wrote that the GHG effect doesn’t work in Antarctica because it’s too cold. If you know how wrong that is you would have no respect for his knowledge of basic physics and if you don’t know then I have no respect for yours.

    • David Springer

      Bart R | February 4, 2014 at 10:16 am |

      “If Dr. Curry moderated on invalidity rather than insult, far more professional scientists might comment on Climate Etc.”

      Yeah, I did that. Serial stupidity was reason for bannination. But then she’d get a rep for censoring like on RealClimate. Ironically if she did that you wouldn’t be here to talk about it.

    • David

      Please note that I said ‘Generally.’ That is to say that they are not always wrong and not always right, but generally they put forward a coherent argument. I disagree with R Gates about the effect of aerosols from volcanoes for example, but he cites reasonable sources.

      I think there are others here who generally pick arguments for the sake of it or who get aggravated by certain other individuals.

      Collectively the main trouble makers are small in number and don’t always cause trouble.
      tonyb.

    • Tony, you write “I think there are others here who generally pick arguments for the sake of it or who get aggravated by certain other individuals.”

      IMHO, you are flogging a dead horse. If people who feel offended refuse to respond to the first assault, then the argument would never develop, bandwidth would be saved, our hostess would not be presented with any sort of a problem, and this blog would become civil within 6 months.

      The solution to rudeness etc. lies with the participants; NOT with our hostess. Judith has far better things to do, than to monitor juvenile spats between a bunch of adults who don’t know how to behave properly.

    • David Springer

      Hey Tony if you want to have science discussions about global warming with people who don’t understand the implications of the Stefan-Boltzman law which is the basis of the greenhouse surface warming that’s your business. I suggest it’s not going to be fruitful dialog.

    • David Springer | February 5, 2014 at 7:06 am |

      My bad.

      Should read: If Dr. Curry moderated even-handedly and fairly for invalidity instead of arbitrarily and inconsistently for invective..

      See how that’s different?

  40. Since most of the industry and power generation occurs in the northern hemisphere and therefore most of the heat is emitted in the air and water of the northern hemisphere. The water which was used for cooling flows into the rivers and oceans. The warmer water is carried by currents toward the colder poles. Erosion of the glaciers occurs mostly at the water-line and below causing the glaciers to “calf” and recede. Perhaps this is the reason that the melting is more pronounced at the Arctic than at the Antarctic. Just a suggestion for what it’s worth.

    • Philip Haddad

      It’s nice to conjecture about why Antarctic sea ice is expanding while Arctic sea ice is shrinking.

      I’d say it points away from global warming (because the trend is obviously not global) and hence from the effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases.

      More likely than not, both trends can be attributed largely to local or regional natural causes, which are not yet fully understood.

      I know that answer is not very satisfying to many, but it is unfortunately the most likely answer.

      Max

  41. The following is a map of the trend (1982 -2010) in Southern ocean SST from Maheswarhi etal, 2013
    http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/oceanography/2013/392632/fig4/
    The link to the paper is
    http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/oceanography/2013/392632/
    The authors conclude:
    “From both these images, a very important observation can be made; that is, the part of the Southern Ocean in the East Antarctic sector is experiencing a significant warming while the West Antarctic sector, a more significant cooling, in general. However, as a whole, the area experiencing cooling over the entire Southern Ocean is larger than that experiencing warming.”

  42. “I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it. Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history. ~John Coleman (1-29-09)

  43. “Man’s first moon landing came 66 years after Kitty Hawk. Could we have gotten there sooner by imposing a tax on any manned flight that involved a propeller?

    “… While we wait for the [alternative fuel] revolution, we may as well produce something more useful than collective guilt.”

    (Michael Smith)

  44. IPCC writes:

    Overall we conclude that there is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due the larger differences between sea-ice simulations from CMIP5 models and to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.

    Translation:

    – The Antarctic sea ice is growing (last time we said it was not changing)
    – We don’t know why
    – Our models missed it completely

    Max

    • Steven Mosher

      and lets draw Judiths conclusion.

      when internal variability is uncertain then attribution which depends on it is
      uncertain.

      Now, whether that argument really really holds is debateable.

      but calling her anti science for making it is a longer stretch than the argument she makes.
      calling her position contradictory is also a longer stretch than her argument.

      Bottom line

      The chapter on attribution is not very clearly argued or documented.
      and its not clearly squared with the rest of the document.

      more work. less posing required

  45. Judith Curry

    Notwithstanding the simulations by climate models that reproduce the decline in Arctic sea ice, more convincing arguments regarding causes of sea ice variations requires understanding and ability to simulate sea ice variations in both hemispheres.

    Very logical conclusion.

    Until we know what is causing the Antarctic sea ice to expand, we cannot understand what is causing the Arctic sea ice to shrink (regardless of what our models may say).

    Max

  46. I saw a video on atomic bomb testing which implied that the vast majority of such testing took place in the USA. Out of nearly 2000 tests world wide 80 percent?? would have been underground in USA and the largest up near the arctic in the Alaskan islands It was massive.
    Thousands of Hiroshima bombs in one.
    The Russians exploded an even larger bomb in the arctic. Coincidentally this was at a time of “global warming and arctic sea ice decrease”
    Is there a correlation between all that testing and the Arctic melt.
    That Alaskan island elevated 20 feet and registered 6 on a Richter scale
    The southern Hemisphere on the other hand has had much fewer tests,
    so perhaps the ice there is just normal?

    • David Springer

      Interesting. Correlation however is not causation. Atomic bombs detonated over non-combustible surfaces don’t produce black carbon. Only the two dropped on Japan resulted in massive ground fires and smoke. Surface and subsurface detonation over land throw up dust into the stratosphere but that’s cooling not warming and I don’t believe enough of them were conducted to seriously alter the aerosol load in the atmosphere. On the other hand slash & burn agricuture, heating and cooking with biomass, diesel exhaust, lack of particulate filters in electrical power plants and industrial flues, produces a great deal of black carbon. Black carbon can travel for thousands of kilometers but not much farther. The main sources of BC are in the northern hemisphere. Even a very light coating can change albedo enough to make significant difference in surface heating.

  47. Do we need another IGY? A period with all theories suspended, when as many useful people as possible go take a look at that messy object called the Earth. (No, Chris Turney, not you!)

    This empiricism will lead to greater bafflement, leading to more empiricism, causing greater bewilderment, requiring closer examination…and nobody will have time to publish. Win-win!

    • They will publish. That is what they do. But they will publish empirical data. Let’s creat an International geophysical year. Data is always good if it is not corrupted by corrections. What about more Argo floats and deep measures of the abyss temperatures and currents.
      Scott

    • This post and thread should greatly add to understanding and confusion, a twofer!
      =============

    • Ah, if only that were the way of it. There’s a modern phenomenon
      that Nassim Taleb calls the ‘Stiglitz Syndrome’ whereby those who
      helped bring about a disaster by what he calls ‘cheap tawk,’ later
      with convenient ammnesia write I told ya’ so books. Might be more
      difficult fer Turney, given his public exposure but.
      bts

  48. So the powers that be know why the Arctic is losing ice, but not why the Antarctic is gaining ice. Since the two are part of the same system wouldn’t not knowing about one add uncertainty to the other.

    • +1000

    • “Since the two are part of the same system wouldn’t not knowing about one add uncertainty to the other.”

      Short answer: no. Because they aren’t “part of the same system”. Poles apart, literally.

    • Lolwot suggests Antarctica is not of this earth.

    • ‘Since the two are part of the same system wouldn’t not knowing about one add uncertainty to the other.”

      no. There are substantial differences between the two which can of course lead to a situation where you understand one more than the other.

      lets just look at one difference

      Observational history. In the arctic while observations are sparse, the simple fact is the observational history is more complete and varied than
      the observational history in the south pole. Take your pick
      A) weather station records in the north are much more complete
      B) historical ice records are much more complete
      C) floating obsservation ( bouys and drifing stations) are much more
      complete.

      It’s no mystery that understanding the N Pole is likely to precede understanding the S pole. And failures in the latter do not logically entail anything WRT to the former.

    • The Antarctic averages 2500 meters in elevation so it represents an interface to the southern oceans of an atmosphere at 2500 meters and which has a relatively small differential heat capacity.

      That’s why it can be isolated easily in a climate model. The boundary acts as a thermal insulator. That’s the way I understand it.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Yet uncertainty about the MWP is resting on uncertainty on claims of it not being global.

    • Until there is a reasonably accurate big picture system model of the whole earth, how can anything be said about the future ?.

      Far too much granularity, not enough connections so far…

    • ” they aren’t “part of the same system””

      Whatever happened to teleconnections?

  49. Mark Goldstone

    Well a couple of comments:
    First to note that the Antarctic is dominated by an Ice Sheet overlying the Antarctic continent. When I popped over recently, there was very little sea ice at Casey Station, but the land mass was Covered in snow/ice. So my point is that sea ice is a smaller proportion of the overall ice cover and is the change really that big in terms of overall antarctic ice cover?

    Secondly, as I understand it there are two modes of sea ice formation – 1) Straight freezing and 2) The impact of katabatic winds across the Polynas leading to newly formed ice crystals being blown offshore and “piled up”.

    I wonder if this latter mode of formation, which I think is unique to the Antarctic had anything to do with the difference.

    Also, given there apparent re-distribution, is it possible that loss of ice on the Antarctic peninsula is due volcanism?

    As to the “ship of fools” issue, I think that it is a bit harsh to blame these people for getting stuck in ice. It’s not as if they ploughed through kilometres of pack ice to get to Mawson and then got stuck. If they made one mistake it was staying there too long when the wind started blowing the pack ice in their direction.

    • “Katabatic winds are most commonly found blowing out from the large and elevated ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. The buildup of high density cold air over the ice sheets and the elevation of the ice sheets brings into play enormous gravitational energy. Where these winds are concentrated into restricted areas in the coastal valleys, the winds blow well over hurricane force,[1] reaching around 300 km/h (190 mph).[2]

      In Greenland these winds are called piteraq and are most intense whenever a low pressure area approaches the coast.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind

      Not so unique to Antarctica

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      “As to the “ship of fools” issue, I think that it is a bit harsh to blame these people for getting stuck in ice. It’s not as if they ploughed through kilometres of pack ice to get to Mawson and then got stuck. If they made one mistake it was staying there too long when the wind started blowing the pack ice in their direction”

      OK. If we accept that going in there was not an unwise decision, the blame seems to rest squarely on the foolhardy actions of Professor Chris Turney, in disregarding the evacuation call and sending out yet another party.

    • Last time I looked the “Antarctic circle” where the ice is on sea and land together cover a much wider area than that of the small North pole. Why don’t we lump the land and sea ice down there all in together as a metric???

    • Gwynfryn Williams

      Hello Mark, I spent two winters at Casey 1991 and 1995, the katabatic winds from Law Dome regularly cleared the sea ice from around Casey even in the winter.

  50. The foi2009.pdf email, “from Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick
    of adding in the real temperatures to each
    series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981
    onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide
    the decline.

    “Those thirty-three words summarize the hoax so magnificently succinctly that the Nobel Committee should consider retrieving their Peace Prize from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore, and re-issuing it as a Literature Prize to Phil Jones.” ~John P. Costella (Climategate Analysis)

  51. “Winter ice cover on Alaska’s lakes has declined over the last 20 years, a new study has found.

    The study, published in The Cryosphere, looked at radar satellite radar imagery from lakes in Alaska’s North Slope and found a decrease in “grounded ice” — or ice frozen completely to the bottom of a lake — of 22 percent from 1991 to 2011. In all, that meant a decrease in ice cover of about 7 to 8.6 inches from 1991 to 2011 and of about 8.2 to 14.9 inches from 1950 to 2011.

    “Prior to starting our analysis, we were expecting to find a decline in ice thickness and grounded ice based on our examination of temperature and precipitation records of the past five decades from the Barrow meteorological station,” Cristina Surdu, lead author of the study, told Phys.org. “At the end of the analysis, when looking at trend analysis results, we were stunned to observe such a dramatic ice decline during a period of only 20 years.”

    The authors state that it’s changes in air temperature and precipitation that have made the most difference in the timing, duration and thickness of ice cover on Arctic lakes. That’s in line with other studies on climate change’s effect on the Arctic, which has been found to warm more quickly than other regions — as ice and snow decline due to warming, more heat is absorbed by water and land instead of reflected, causing more ice to retreat. The loss of sea ice particularly affects the Arctic’s warming, with the white, reflective ice giving way to dark, heat-absorbing ocean.”

  52. For the Antarctic, the last two years had a max and min higher than the normal since 1979, but 2011 is quite normal and comparable with years early in the record. I think it is too early to say, based on two abnormal years, that the max and min have changed in any permanent way, so until then, I think this is natural variation, not climate change. This contrasts with the Arctic where the prospects of getting back to 1980’s values look like a remote possibility at this point.

  53. “Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice?”
    It’s because Antarctic is cold.

    No kind of global warming or regional warming will affect southern sea ice-
    because Antarctic is cold.

    So perhaps the question is why did Antarctic lose some sea ice, which it’s now appears to be recovering.

    Could same question as to why the Little Ice age was cold. Or what stopping global glacier advance around 1850, and global, glaciers began global retreat which continuing today, and perhaps within 50 years all global increase in glacier ice from the Little Ice Age may have been erased..

    Anyhow it it seems rather silly to expect any global warming to have much affect upon the Antarctic sea ice. Instead reduction sea ice probably related something inhibiting the cold Antarctic air from freezing the ocean around it
    So some factor which inhibits the mixing with cold polar air mass.

  54. Judith there is an app called the Hiroshima bomb counter doing the rounds.
    Basically it is measuring the tiny amount of claimed extra heat trapped in the oceans if AGW theories were correct. Do any of your correspondents here know how much energy in terms of the same we humans release in a day or year?
    It strikes me that 15 into 2,000,000,000
    ie 133,000,000 million bombs a year or 300,000 a day is a lot more than any human effort could ever do and that we should be boiling by now.

  55. The observed upward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent is found to be inconsistent with internal variability based on the residuals from a linear trend fitted to the observations, though this approach could underestimate multi-decadal variability.

    Funny how they can find that escape hatch for thirty years of increasing Antarctic sea ice, but not for a lesser period of global average surface temps.

  56. As a layman trying to comment amongst some very well credentialed scientific individuals I humbly suggest a couple of my ideas on perhaps why the Antarctic now has so much sea ice.
    No doubt this has all been hashed over long before I thought of it but here goes in any case.
    My thoughts are simplistic at best but just maybe!

    In horticulture, agriculture, cloud research and snow making the role of the Ice nucleating bacteria “Pseudomonas syringae” is known to have a quite critical role in creating ice crystals at temperatures of about minus 4C whereas pure water in the super cooled form can still remain as a liquid down to minus 20C.
    Minus 4C is also about the temperature where serious freezing damage from the formation of ice crystals to crops and plants begins.
    “Ice minus Pseudomonas syringae” which through either natural or genetically modified means have the ice nucleating proteins missing from the bacterial coat are used in snow making to overwhelm the “Ice plus” P. syringae so preventing the man made snow from being turned into ice crystals and ultimately just Ice .

    There are other species of possibly ice nucleating bacteria which are also likely to have an impact on the climate through their abilities to change the phase of water in certain circumstances and perhaps some other aspects of so far unresearched climate influences.

    Some research has been done on the survival of colonies of various bacteria and other Sea ice life forms under the Antarctic ice shelves and ice pack but the research seems to have concentrated on the how and what of the survival of the different species during the Antarctic [ and Arctic ] seasonal changes.

    I can’t find any information on the possibility and more likely, the probability of ocean dwelling, sea ice nucleating bacteria or viruses similar in effect to the Ice plus P.syringae which I suggest might have a quite significant role in the usual bottom up sea ice formation process.

    Cycles of every type and length in every aspect of the oceans, atmosphere and even biological land based life are something I have become increasingly convinced are a major factor in the always changing global climate.

    If the Southern Ocean as a part of a long cycle, now has increased up-welling of the cold nutrient rich bottom waters around the Antarctic continent then there may well be a significant increase in specific types of bacterial populations such as ice nucleating bacteria and viruses at the expense of other bacteria and other ocean dwelling life form populations in Antarctic waters.
    Which could help at least part way in accounting for the increased production of Sea ice around Antarctica if such sea ice nucleating bacteria are a reality.

    That then leads to the question as to why there are the plethora of both known, suspected and still unknown cycles in the oceans, the atmosphere and on the land mass and even biological that can lead to a such a possibility as a periodic ocean overturning .

    An extremely simplistic suggestion again.

    The planetary climate is nothing more than a gigantic heat engine where a very high proportion but far from all of the heat energy from the Sun is turned into kinetic energy, the movement and mobility of immense amounts of oceanic and atmospheric mass on a vast scale.
    With the Solar heat / energy input and due entirely to the immense variations in solar energy input around the planet, due again to the rotation of the planet and the inclination of the planetary axis, is very uneven, then energy will flow from the highest energy levels down to lower energy levels.

    As a lot of that solar heat energy is turned into kinetic energy in the form of immense moving and highly mobile masses of air and water, it is inevitable that the “inertia” of the moving masses of air and water and their contained heat energy content will overshoot in some locations and / or aspect of the climate. Leading to a situation where the levels of kinetic / heat energy in one spot or location on the planet will have a higher than average level of kinetic and heat energy and another sector of the climate will have a deficit in the kinetic and heat energy content and so the flow will slow and then reverse back towards the lower levels of kinetic and heat energy.
    And so we get cycles of innumerable types lengths and variability all interacting and influencing one another, sometimes on a quite regular harmonic imitating cyclic frequency.

    And all those cycles are then quasi randomly modified by the changes in the entire spectrum of solar radiation in ways we do not yet understand sufficiently [ or until we understand the solar influences and cycles much better ] by the solar driven energy inflows to the planet and the differences between those solar energy inflows and the radiated energy outflows into space .

    The key to the cycles is the inertia of both kinetic and heat energy within each and all the innumerable factors and influences [ forcings ? ] that lead to the overshoots and then the compensating swing back in that cycle which then drives our constantly changing global climate.

    So is the increased Antarctic sea ice driven from the bottom up in some part by sea ice nucleating bacteria and viruses which have had a major population spurt due to the upwelling of cold nutrient rich bottom waters due to still another unknown ocean overturning cycle driven in turn by the overshoot somewhere in the climate system in the evening out of global energy levels due to the inertia of the kinetic energy in the physical mass or parts of the mass and it’s heat content of the ocean and atmosphere?

    I don’t know and I suspect that nobody else really knows either but just maybe something I have suggested might get somebody somewhere thinking about this.

    I will now retreat to the back of the cave.

    • Thanks for your diligence ROM. I like the way you approach things but lets see what the scientific denizens of Climate Etc have to say.

      My thoughts are that the presence of ice nucleation bacteria has an effect on how quickly icing occurs but the main drivers for icing and other climate change remains the prerogative of ocean currents and barometric pressure changes in the troposphere.

    • ROM

      A terrific thought provoking piece. I am certain the 22nd century scientists will be thinking in completely different ways than the scientists of today. This is one of those ideas that perhaps will push the envelope.

  57. A skeptic describes how the Cause of the Pause is explained by thermodynamic Laws :


    An extremely simplistic suggestion again.

    The planetary climate is nothing more than a gigantic heat engine where a very high proportion but far from all of the heat energy from the Sun is turned into kinetic energy, the movement and mobility of immense amounts of oceanic and atmospheric mass on a vast scale.
    With the Solar heat / energy input and due entirely to the immense variations in solar energy input around the planet, due again to the rotation of the planet and the inclination of the planetary axis, is very uneven, then energy will flow from the highest energy levels down to lower energy levels.

    As a lot of that solar heat energy is turned into kinetic energy in the form of immense moving and highly mobile masses of air and water, it is inevitable that the “inertia” of the moving masses of air and water and their contained heat energy content will overshoot in some locations and / or aspect of the climate. Leading to a situation where the levels of kinetic / heat energy in one spot or location on the planet will have a higher than average level of kinetic and heat energy and another sector of the climate will have a deficit in the kinetic and heat energy content and so the flow will slow and then reverse back towards the lower levels of kinetic and heat energy.
    And so we get cycles of innumerable types lengths and variability all interacting and influencing one another, sometimes on a quite regular harmonic imitating cyclic frequency.

    And all those cycles are then quasi randomly modified by the changes in the entire spectrum of solar radiation in ways we do not yet understand sufficiently [ or until we understand the solar influences and cycles much better ] by the solar driven energy inflows to the planet and the differences between those solar energy inflows and the radiated energy outflows into space .

    The key to the cycles is the inertia of both kinetic and heat energy within each and all the innumerable factors and influences [ forcings ? ] that lead to the overshoots and then the compensating swing back in that cycle which then drives our constantly changing global climate.

    I will likely modify the passage by ROM above and use it to describe the basis of the CSALT model used to fit global surface temperature:
    http://contextearth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/

    Too bad it doesn’t fit the skeptical agenda.

    • What are you worried about Web? Won’t “Peak Oil” take care of this whole problem so you and George Monbiot can rest easy?

    • David Springer

      You want to characterize skeptics by the worst the blogs have to offer? Okay. But fair is fair. I will characterize warmists by the ones that created the video of blowing people to bloody bits for not agreeing with the consensus. Or maybe I’ll be kinder and lump you all in with lolwot.

      That said the notion that a large proportion of solar energy is translated to kinetic is certainly true but not in the way the author states. Very little is turned into macroscopic motion of bulk matter like wind and waves. A great deal is turned into sensible heat which by definition is kinetic energy.

    • David Springer | February 4, 2014 at 9:59 am |

      “That said the notion that a large proportion of solar energy is translated to kinetic is certainly true but not in the way the author states. Very little is turned into macroscopic motion of bulk matter like wind and waves.”

      I would have thought that most of the energy goes directly into up and down motion which may then translate eventually into the horizontal motions described above. Otherwise you miss the direct conversion step.

    • Tim,
      I will put your Basic Law of Climatology to good use. Yes, temperature is but one indicator of free energy, and it is good to account for it all.

      Interesting how Team Denier has a habit of scoring own goals. I come here to pick up easy points.

    • WHT: You mostly waffle on about how a 5 point model is just SO good at predicting Climate.

      “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”. Attributed to von Neumann by Enrico Fermi.

      Trumpet anyone?

    • RLH, I didn’t pick the periods, they were chosen by Team Denier. Pick arbitrary period sinusoidal waveforms and they wouldn’t fit the data.

      Your elephant would look like an inkblot.

    • WHT: You still don’t get it do you. I do not choose anything. I only sort it into two bins. The bins then contain what they show. I am only plotting those two bins.

      So if you see a cycle, then that is what the data says is there, not me.

      Remember this is only an average of the data. No cycle fitting or other mathemagical stuff.

    • RLH,
      You yourself couldn’t disambiguate a 50-year from a 70-year cycle.


      And which of those together provides the 50-70 year ‘cycle’ visible in the data?

      What’s the frequency, Kenneth?

      I think what you are missing is the whole idea that many of these natural oscillations are locked in terms of frequency AND phase. So when you have a thermal signal emerging due to the effects of a semi-diurnal tide of 8.85/2=4.425 year period, the peaks of these will be fixed with respect to the calendar.

      All the crude filtering you do will remove the detail in the precision of the frequency and completely remove the phase information. Whereas, using the CSALT model, we can accurately discriminate the frequency as well as the phase. The upshot of this is that the strength of the matching will show a maximum for 4.425 years and will drop quickly should we choose 4.40 or 4.50 years. And if we pick the wrong phase, we will be shifted in the calendar to no longer line up with the actual maximum gravitational pull. Yes indeed, it needs t be THAT exact.

      This isn’t regular signal processing where you can assume stationarity in the origin of the signal. The origin or phase are fixed … fixed in the stars so to speak.

      You are way behind on the learning curve with respect to this model-based stuff.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 4, 2014 at 10:38 pm |

      “I think what you are missing is the whole idea that many of these natural oscillations are locked in terms of frequency AND phase.”

      I think that you over simplify a lot. In natural, chaotic but organised, systems then what happens is almost never a simple clockwork toy.

      If you want to create fractional frequency values out of a single crystal what you do is have two counters. You count one and then the other to produce an output in half wave sequences. You can now produce fractional values in ratio mathematics rather than decimal. 23/53rds or whatever. If you now feed those two counters from the output of a Bresenham line algorithm for x and y as the positive and negative halves of the cycle……

      Add a noise ‘bit’, randomly distributed, in the last place to provide a bit of detuning and away you go.

      So now you get a ‘random’ mix of half cycles that conforms to an overall fractional requirement. With forced natural system, such as those imposed by the annual cycle, this is exactly the way you would expect any long term pattern to be distributed also.

      Plays havoc with trying to find them with a large amount of extra ‘noise’ in the system when using FTs, Wavelets and the like as they are almost always run using full cycle patterns and don’t ‘see’ half cycles that well.

      I have built and sold kit based on this very simple premise. I expect to see it in Nature too. I also expect that long term averages are the only way to see it given the short data series we currently have.

      Your call.

    • David Springer

      RichardLH | February 4, 2014 at 11:19 am |

      I” would have thought that most of the energy goes directly into up and down motion which may then translate eventually into the horizontal motions described above. Otherwise you miss the direct conversion step”

      No. Most of the energy goes up as latent heat of vaporization, condenses into a cloud, and the cloud radiates it away to space. That accounts for about half of solar energy absorbed by the surface. The atmosphere is mostly heated by rain. Water has a huge capacity for latent heat which is why it’s still used today in steam turbines. So a small amount of water vapor carries an enormous amount of energy. That small amount does indeed cause horizontal motion but it’s not a large fraction of the energy involved.

      Another way that energy escapes the system is through the atmospheric window. About 20% of solar energy reaching the surface is absorbed and escapes through the window without doing any work at all.

      Yet another escape route is shortwave reflection. About 15% of solar energy reaching the surface is simply reflected straight back out into space without doing any work.

      If more than a small fraction of the energy in sunlight were converted to work we’d be living in a constant maelstrom instead of the usual light breeze and small surface waves.

    • David Springer | February 7, 2014 at 5:53 am |

      “No. Most of the energy goes up as latent heat of vaporization, condenses into a cloud, and the cloud radiates it away to space.”

      And to get from the vaporisation point to the cloud point it has to do what? Vertical movement. QED.

    • David Springer

      The point Richard, which you tried to make, is that the majority of the energy absorbed goes into creating that motion. It does not. Most of the energy is latent heat of vaporization. It appears you don’t understand either what latent heat is or its magnitude. You’re wrong. Only a small portion of solar energy reaching the earth goes into bulk matter motion.

  58. Basic Law of Climateology. The heat is somewhere.
    Theorem: A virtual thermometer can always detect heat where actual thermometers fail.
    Corollary : If a widely touted indicator goes silent on increasing heat, it was never a good indicator in the first place.

  59. Let me bring this out as a new piece.
    @@@@@
    DocMartyn | February 3, 2014 at 10:00 pm |
    Er, on the other hand it could be because this post is discussing the sea-ice extent anomaly and that this anomaly has recently been above the preceding decadal mean anomaly and so is an anomalous anomaly.
    @@@@@

    Doc, My whole point s that the anomaly is NOT anomalous. All sea ice is behaving according to the laws of physics. The point is no-one knows how these laws cause sea ice to change. Our hostess, and the rest of the warmists, seem to assume that we DO know how these laws affect sea ice.

    When you look at the ARCUS forecasting of results for 2013, you realise just how dismal our forecast capability is. We have very little idea what is going to happen to sea ice in the future. Just as it is a myth that we can get useful information on the numeric value of climate sensitivity from observed data, so it is a myth that adding CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels has an appreciable effect on sea ice.

    • CO2 is a greenhouse gas. it does have an influence. CO2 is a trace gas. it has a trace influence. it cannot be separated from the noise in the data. CO2 has a trace influence if nothing else changes. everything else changed.

      AGW is just a way to trick us into paying more taxes and not complain.

  60. Dr Curry,
    I still do not understand how increasing Antarctic sea ice calls into question attribution of the anthropogenic part of global warming. Does the cause of the warming determine the effect on the sea ice?

    • Climate models and AGW theory predict sea ice extent to decline, not increase.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Ice decline is noted as sign of warming which is diagnosed as AGW, Eric

    • The cause of the warming was the reduction of ice extent on earth. The warming oceans melt polar sea ice and that increases snowfall and that increases ice on earth. That causes oceans to get cold and polar waters freeze and snowfall decreases. That causes reduction of ice extent because more ice melts than gets replaced.

      Repeat this cycle.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

      “I still do not understand how increasing Antarctic sea ice calls into question attribution of the anthropogenic part of global warming.”
      ____
      It doesn’t. Just like the so-called “pause” does not. Looking at a tiny fraction of Earth’s climate energy system (and a fraction that is highly noisy to begin with), and suggesting that it calls into question the fundamental role of GH gases in Earth’s energy balance is absurd. What is true is that some (but not all) of the global climate models have not shown Antarctic sea ice to increase the way it has, but one needs to then look at the models and of course, the net changes going on in Antarctica with the total climate system. Growth in Antarctic sea ice seem more to do with changes going on with winds, and the net mass loss of glacial ice more than makes up for the modest rise in seasonal sea ice.

    • Dr. Curry, thank you for a response. In the post you quote, “The CMIPH5 simulations on average simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent , though Turner et al. (2013) find that approximately 10% of CMIP5 simulations exhibit an increasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent larger than observed over the 1979-2005 period. ”
      This makes me believe not all climate models predict declining sea ice. Have I misunderstood?

  61. Is the predicted decline specifically in response to anthropogenic warming or to warming no matter the cause? Does increasing sea ice call into question the cause of warming or the warming itself? Sorry for all the questions but I am unsure how this changes the attribution of the warming like you said in your testimony. Does this show there has been no GW which seems to be the insinuation?

    • Eric. Let me try again. The IPCC insists there are such things as forcings that only drive global temperatures in one direction. It is generally agreed that there is also noise, which oscillates around a value of zero.

      The question for Arctic sea ice is, what is causing the current change in extent? If the warmists are correct, it is the forcing of CO2 that is only driving global temperatures higher. The alternative explanation is that it is the noise, that just happens at the moment to be causing rising temperatures, but which will eventually produce lower temperatures, and the Arctic sea ice will then recover it’s extent.

    • There is a natural cycle. But, I repeat myself.
      http://popesclimatetheory.com/

    • Steven Mosher

      Eric. Let me try again. The IPCC insists there are such things as forcings that only drive global temperatures in one direction. It is generally agreed that there is also noise, which oscillates around a value of zero.

      The question for Arctic sea ice is, what is causing the current change in extent? If the warmists are correct, it is the forcing of CO2 that is only driving global temperatures higher. The alternative explanation is that it is the noise, that just happens at the moment to be causing rising temperatures, but which will eventually produce lower temperatures, and the Arctic sea ice will then recover it’s extent.

      ###########################

      “The IPCC insists there are such things as forcings that only drive global temperatures in one direction.”

      forcings drive temperatures in negative directions as well.
      example: cloud effects due to aerosols.
      example: solar
      example: mineral dust, nitrate, sulphate, organic carbon

      in fact there are some GHGs where the uncertainty spans zero. that is we are not sure whether it is slighly positive or negative. So, it is factually wrong
      to claim that the IPCC says there is only one direction.
      here is the graphic from Ar5

      http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg

      Bottomline: dont trust Cripwell to accurately represent the science he criticizes. Note the similarity with Joshua who doesnt get Judiths position right

      ###################################
      ‘The question for Arctic sea ice is, what is causing the current change in extent? If the warmists are correct, it is the forcing of CO2 that is only driving global temperatures higher. ”

      wrong.

      1. It is not the forcing of C02, but the COMBINED forcing of all anthropogenic emissions. See the figure above.

      2. The latest science on arctic sea ice loss suggests
      A) the loss is OUTSIDE that expected by a random process.
      B) last time it warmed (20s to 40s) we saw similar losses.
      C) heat melts ice, other factors also contribute including
      1. soot
      2. freshwater runoff from arctic tributaries
      3. changes in ocean circulation
      4, changes in wind patterns.

      The reasons for the melt INCLUDE global warming due to ALL GHGs
      but there are also natural variations in the mix.

      It is not Either or.

      You present a false dilemma. It is either ALL c02 or all noise.
      Science says its more complicated

      https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/2728/tellus_omj.pdf;jsessionid=1A18614F69598446B6F4ABC4D7AED7F5.bora-uib_worker?sequence=1

      once again Cripwell, who demands measurement, cant be bothered to actually READ the science he criticizes:

      by the second paragraph of the artcle above we can see that the issue is open to debate.

      The conclusion of that paper was simply: we cant conclude that the loss can be explained as a natural cycle. THAT is a far cry from Cripwells misrepresentation.

      Start your reading here

      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter04.pdf

      then do the primary literature

    • Matthew R Marler

      Steven Mosher: The conclusion of that paper was simply: we cant conclude that the loss can be explained as a natural cycle.

      Around the world in every locale, it is difficult to say what the natural cycles (independent of CO2) are in any detail. So it is equally true that the loss may be explainable as a natural cycle. Reading your post in its context, I think you were right to put the emphasis as you did. But I think we all should persistently remember that natural variability of the climate, in all its aspects and in every locale, is not known completely or accurately. In many cases, the Bayesian posterior distributions (of effect sizes and so forth) are dominated by the prior distributions, not dominated by the likelihoods.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

      “The IPCC insists there are such things as forcings that only drive global temperatures in one direction.”
      ___
      What? Forcings can lead to warming or cooling, depending on the nature of the forcing.

    • Steven Mosher

      mathew.

      on my view, “natural variation” remains a logically possible explanation for all phenomena. But its the emptiest explanation of all. It explains nothing.

    • Yep, nothing is yet explained.
      ===

    • Steven Mosher | February 4, 2014 at 3:26 pm |

      on my view, “natural variation” remains a logically possible explanation for all phenomena. But its the emptiest explanation of all. It explains nothing.

      I agree, but we know as little as we do of natural variation because of the manic focus on Co2.

    • Jim, thanks for the response but it doesnt address my post. Dr. Curry, in her Congressional testimony, said that IPCC statements on increasing Antarctic sea ice weakened the case for attribution of global warming to anthropogenic causes. I don’t follow how increasing Antarctic sea ice specifically weakens the anthropogenic part.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Steven Mosher: It explains nothing.

      Lots of important facts, like gravity, lack explanation. If we knew that the warming of the Earth since the LIA was independent of CO2, even without knowing all about how it has occurred, that would be important. In the absence of a convincing demonstration that the growth of Antarctic sea ice has been caused by increased atmospheric CO2 (such as a mechanism based prediction of increased sea ice, the opposite of what there was), the best thing to say now is that it is an unexplained natural phenomenon. It should increase our “confidence”, so to speak, that the theory of CO2 induced global warming is full of holes.

    • Eric, you write “Jim, thanks for the response but it doesnt address my post.”

      Sorry. I did my best. I think I understand, but I obviously cannot explain it very well.

    • Mosher: “The alternative explanation is that it is the noise”

      Thats kind of like suggesting the warming in summer is caused by random noise. It isn’t.

    • Steven Mosher: It explains nothing.

      \It can explain quite a bit. The natural variability is linked to changes in precipitation. The estimated range of latent cooling is around +/-4Wm-2 which should be close to +/- a degree. Climate scientist “claimed” that internal variability was likely not greater than +/- 0.2 C. That would appear to be a mistake.

      If you are unwilling to admit to errors, it explains nothing.

    • Steven Mosher

      captain.

      As an explanation it explains nothing. Primarily because all it does is re-name the thing to be explained.

      Suppose your weight goes up and down.

      I explain this by substituting calories ( burned and consumed) from food and excercise. I have substituted one entity ( weight) with another entity (calories) and identified two different sources. From this I can make predictions: if you increase calories, then your weight will go up.
      This is the STRUCTURE of an explanation. explanation proceeds through a system of ‘posits”. The apple falls. I explain the falling by positing a law of gravity. We posit molecules, atoms, electrons, quarks.. all manner of things that are used to explain other things.

      So we observe changes in the climate. Saying these changes are
      due to natural variation doesnt explain anything it merely RENAMES the phenomena. Explaing look like this: The change in temperature ( for example) is due to changes in forcing, both external and internal.

    • Steven Mosher, “As an explanation it explains nothing. Primarily because all it does is re-name the thing to be explained.”

      You are not using your noggin. There have always been a large variety of things that can cause natural or internal variability. Those things were assumed to be negligible. They aren’t. That is step one.

      Step two is determining if the variability is in the system or the instrumentation. “Global” average mean temperature is not an ideal metric. Take a look at the 30S-equator land surface values for giss, crappy and BEST. That represents a large portion of the surface energy and if I downloaded the data right there is about a 0.5C difference between the GHCN and CRU Ts data sets in or around 1958. You can interpolate that away, but poor data is still poor data. So let’s say you have a “real” uncertainty of +/- 0.2C in 1958 and about +/-0.1 in 2010, you can have instrumentation error providing up to 0.3C of “real” uncertainty making it difficult to accurately estimate the magnitude of the real internal variability.

      So a larger than expect range of internal variability and/or instrumentation error simply means there is a pretty fair chance that someone screwed up. That should be Occam’s first instinct. The models seem to reinforce that.

      You really don’t to “re-name” things that were simply ignored or assumed away in the first place.

    • David Springer

      Eric | February 4, 2014 at 5:21 pm |

      “I don’t follow how increasing Antarctic sea ice specifically weakens the anthropogenic part.”

      Do you follow how decreasing Arctic ice strengthens the case for global warming? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If decreasing ice strengthens the case then increasing ice must weaken the case. Duh.

    • David Springer

      Steven Mosher | February 5, 2014 at 1:37 pm |

      Suppose your weight goes up and down.

      I explain this by substituting calories ( burned and consumed) from food and excercise. I have substituted one entity ( weight) with another entity (calories) and identified two different sources. From this I can make predictions: if you increase calories, then your weight will go up.

      Yeah now suppose my weight went up and down because of how much water I drank which has no calories.

      Thanks for the perfect example of how attribution can go horribly wrong.

    • Steven Mosher

      So we observe changes in the climate. Saying these changes are due to natural variation human GHG emissions doesnt explain anything it merely RENAMES the phenomena.

      Yep.

      Agree.

      Max

    • Eric

      The problem with Steven Mosher’s explanation is his categorization of things that change our planet’s climate into what he calls “forcings” and what he calls “noise” (or “unicorns”).

      There is actually no difference between the two – it is strictly a matter of giving one or the other a name.

      Our planet’s climate has been changing far more than the recent warming blip over its geological time, from snowball Earth periods when CO2 was several thousand ppm to warmer periods when life flourished.

      To take a CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv, which is estimated to have occurred some 260+ years ago as a baseline for “anthropogenic forcing” is a fairly arbitrary decision.

      To ASS-U-ME that we know all the things that make our climate behave as it does is foolish.

      To write off the many unknowns as “noise” or “unicorns” (since they cannot be explained) is not only foolish, it is also arrogant.

      Max

  62. Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice?

    It looks very much like the forcing that drove the NAO/AO negative in 1993, and from generally 1995 onwards, and more strongly in 2008, 2010 and 2012 causing the sea ice extent reduction in Arctic, is also forcing the AAO positive at the same time, giving synchronous increases in Antarctic sea ice extent.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/month_aao_index.shtml

    • @RichardLH
      It may be tempting to attribute it to the AMO when thinking in terms of internal variations, however there is a good correlation with short term solar factors that are a far more likely candidate for driving both regions.

    • Ulric Lyons | February 4, 2014 at 5:28 pm |

      “@RichardLH
      It may be tempting to attribute it to the AMO when thinking in terms of internal variations, however there is a good correlation with short term solar factors that are a far more likely candidate for driving both regions.”

      Those may, or may not, drive the AMO. What’s the mechanism?

    • “Antarctic sea ice has not declined, but has instead undergone a perplexing redistribution”

      Do you think any climate scientist would use the term “perplexing redistribution” if the numbers were in synch with their existing prejudices?

      Things You Will NEVER READ in a Climate Journal:

      “Arctic Sea Ice has suffered a “perplexing redistribution” and … mumbo jumbo mumbo jumbo.

    • Ulric Lyons | February 4, 2014 at 6:41 pm |

      “Short term solar plasma speed:”

      That data set is so short I am not sure any reliable conclusions can be drawn from it. 50 years is less than the easily observed 50-70 year cycle in almost all the climate data sets.

      http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/GISS11575LowpassSG15_zps3d9a93bb.gif

      http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif

    • RichardLH:
      “That data set is so short I am not sure any reliable conclusions can be drawn from it.”

      It covers the years that I am discussing. It’s about what is happening in the detail that matters here, not the trend over decades.

    • Ulric Lyons | February 5, 2014 at 6:07 am |

      “It covers the years that I am discussing. It’s about what is happening in the detail that matters here, not the trend over decades.”

      But if, as JC Stadium Wave paper shows if nothing else, there are strong 50-70 year cycles in the data then looking at sections smaller than that seems to lack appropriate context.

    • RichardLH | February 5, 2014 at 8:03 am |
      “But if, as JC Stadium Wave paper shows if nothing else, there are strong 50-70 year cycles in the data then looking at sections smaller than that seems to lack appropriate context.”

      By picking apart the smaller sections we can discern what is apparently driving the ~69yr cyclicity AMO too.

    • Ulric Lyons | February 5, 2014 at 9:46 am |

      “By picking apart the smaller sections we can discern what is apparently driving the ~69yr cyclicity AMO too.”

      Certainly if we can find an appropriate mechanism for doing so. How does
      “Short term solar plasma speed” drive the system?

      • Certainly if we can find an appropriate mechanism for doing so

        You have to get the data by station, not all blobbed together into a global value.

    • Mi Cro | February 5, 2014 at 10:28 am |

      “You have to get the data by station, not all blobbed together into a global value.”

      How does that help in determining the physical mechanism by which the AMO, etc. are being influenced? What pathway is being suggested?

      • How does that help in determining the physical mechanism by which the AMO, etc. are being influenced? What pathway is being suggested?

        Specifically I’m not sure, but when I plot out day over day Tmin by continent, the drops in temp don’t happen in the same year in many cases, pus when you then blob them all together, strong local signals are muted by flat signals in other areas.
        I think there’s some value looking at smaller areas for fluctuation, much like what Dr Curry has looked into with the Stadium wave. I just haven’t done much with it yet. I’ve started to build area datasets, but introduced a bug in my reporting code that I need to fix.
        Follow the url in my name, look at how Tmin is different by continent.

    • Again…
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005802

      The NAO/AO control the poleward transport of warmer ocean to the north Atlantic and Arctic.

    • Mi Cro wrote:
      “You have to get the data by station, not all blobbed together into a global value.”

      NAO/AO/AMO by station? lol

    • Ulric Lyons | February 5, 2014 at 10:44 am |

      “The NAO/AO control the poleward transport of warmer ocean to the north Atlantic and Arctic.”

      Dayto day fluctuations ‘look like’ AMO?

      I think I will go for longer periods and larger influences.

      “Here, we show that distinct, ~55- to 70-year oscillations characterized the North Atlantic ocean-atmosphere variability over the past 8,000 years.”
      Knudsen, Seidenkrantz, Jacobsen & Kuijpers

      http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n2/full/ncomms1186.html

    • “Dayto day fluctuations ‘look like’ AMO?”

      No, regime shifts, like as in from 1995.

      • Ulric, All I can suggest is to look at the charts I created, to me it looks like they show regime change, and they are based on decades of daily measurements.

    • Ulric Lyons | February 5, 2014 at 12:40 pm |

      “No, regime shifts, like as in from 1995.”

      That appears to be the ‘zero crossing’ point for the ~60 year periodic function in

      http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif

      so we may be talking about the same thing.

  63. David Springer

    Here’s a thought on Antarctic sea ice.

    It just frickin’ goes up and down sometimes and doesn’t mean squat when it does.

  64. Matthew R Marler

    JC Summary: “There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.”

    Also, I stand by this statement I made in my testimony:

    Notwithstanding the simulations by climate models that reproduce the decline in Arctic sea ice, more convincing arguments regarding causes of sea ice variations requires understanding and ability to simulate sea ice variations in both hemispheres.

    Can anyone really argue with that?

  65. R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

    On the subject of sea ice, at the opposite side of the planet, the low Bering Sea ice pack is the subject of several newpaper articles in Alaska. Far different than last year:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.htm

    The odd “squeezing” of the polar vortex this year has had the warming side of things over the region for many weeks, with the weather pattern affecting sea ice in the Bering.

  66. “Additional culprits. . . ”

    Wow, how Freudian is that? Whens the obs don’t match the models, reality gets characterized as a miscreant. Oy vey.

  67. So it looks like Southern ocean sea surface temperatures warmed substantially in the latter half of the 20th century. That warming is associated with atmospheric changes that caused the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice since satellite records began, which is due in part to increased snowfall.

  68. Q Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice?
    A because it can.

  69. R. Gates says increasing Antarctic sea ice does NOT call into question attribution of the anthropogenic part of global warming. and the so-called “pause” also does not. Yet, decreasing Arctic sea ice is taken as evidence of AGW as is global warming, when it occurs.

    How can these two phenomena be evidence for AGW when they occur, but not weaken the case for AGW when they don’t occur? (In fact, in the case of Antarctic sea ice, the opposite is taking place.)

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

      “How can these two phenomena be evidence for AGW when they occur, but not weaken the case for AGW when they don’t occur? (In fact, in the case of Antarctic sea ice, the opposite is taking place.)”
      _____
      This is a reasonable question on the surface, but with a little knowledge of the vastly different dynamics going on between the two hemispheres, you can come to an equally reasonable set of likely answers. The Arctic and Antarctic are incredibly different in terms of sea ice dynamics based on their radically different environments. The North Pole is a relatively shallow ocean covered by ice from 2 to 5 or so meters thick, whereas the South Pole is continent covered by glacial ice up to 2 miles thick surrounded at the edges by sea ice from several meters thick. The Earth is unequal in the advection of energy from equator toward the polar regions with far more energy naturally advected from the equator toward the North Pole by ocean currents and atmospheric circulation at all levels. Because of the unequal nature of the energy advection, the multiple ways that energy can enter the Arctic, the natural positive feedbacks to warming, The Arctic has long been identified as being one of the key frontline indicators of a warming climate caused by increasing GH gases. Like ENSO can cause the bulk of short term natural variability in tropospheric temperatures, there are natural fluctuations in the amount of sea ice, but the trend is clearly down over many decades, with the cause being likely a mixture of natural variability enhanced by the forcing from anthropogenic GH gases.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      This is all very simple. Up is warming – down is cooling. No trend is no warming.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_Net_zps9f7faaaa.png.html?sort=3&o=6

      ENSO, volcanoes, ice melting, sulphide and greenhouse gas emissions, cloud radiative effects – whatever. There is no longer any missing heat in CERES.

    • R. Gates

      After reading your rather lengthy response to the question raised by David in Cal three times, I see that you have not answered his question.

      Let me restate it:

      How can these two phenomena [increasing Antarctic sea ice and decreasing Arctic sea ice] be evidence for AGW when they occur, but not weaken the case for AGW when they don’t occur? (In fact, in the case of Antarctic sea ice, the opposite is taking place.)

      Try again, Gates.

      Max

    • I see you haven’t addressed the gorilla in the room, Manacker.

  70. I think this is a pretty easy one.

    Walt Mayer found in his reanalysis of old 1963 satellite sea ice data, that in 1963 sea ice was at about the level of today.

    So, there appears to be a long term antisymmetry between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, explainable with a heat transport sea saw and in rythm with PDO/AMO etc.

    The only question remaining, is, why Arctic sea ice has declined since 1963. The difference may be black carbon, which is absent in Antarctica.

    According to Hansen, black carbon on Arctic ice has a forcing of 1.0 W/m2, but resulting in 3 times warming than the same forcing of CO2.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon

    Additionally, according to the IPCC, there is 1.0 W/m2 from black carbon in the atmosphere, which is really 2.0 W/m2 in the northern hemisphere and 0 in the southern. Total 5.0 W/m2 more forcing in the Arctic, and that may just have made the difference.

  71. Michael Sigmond and John C. Fyfe: “In most models, the historical sea ice extent trends are mainly driven by historical greenhouse gas forcing, with ozone forcing playing a secondary role.”

    This theorem is inherently contradictory (probably this work has incomplete reference): “greenhouse gas” “with ozone” are strongly linked (see below).

    “Although total solar irradiance (TSI) shows only a small variation ( 0.1% per solar cycle), significant (up to 100 %) variations are observed in the ultraviolet (UV) region of the solar spectrum. In a “top-down” mechanism, these UV changes are thought to modify middle atmospheric (lower mesospheric and stratospheric) O3 [ozone] production, thereby indirectly altering background temperatures (for a review see Gray et al., 2010). These temperature changes can then modulate upward propagating planetary waves, and amplify the solar signal in stratospheric O3 and temperatures.” (Dhomse et al. 2013 – of the above cited: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/new-paper-finds-solar-uv-varies-up-to-100-percent-during-solar-cycles-confirms-solar-amplification-mechanism/)

    “Positive phases are associated with a strengthening of the circumpolar vortex and intensification of the westerly winds,” said Jinlun Zhang “

    These explanations are most likely: Role of westerlies and thermohaline characteristics on sea-ice extent in the Indian Ocean Sector of Antarctica, M. Nuncio , Alvarinho J. Luis (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12594-011-0092-6, 2011):
    “The study revealed that sea-ice extent increased when the ocean exhibited higher stability. Low sea-ice extent was observed during 1985 to 1993, when the zonal winds and latent flux was relatively weak and when the ocean exhibited strong vertical mixing facilitated by low stability thereby, deepening the mixed layer to ∼250 m.” “Winds increased during 1996 to 2000, but due to higher oceanic stability mixed layer depth shallowed (< 200 m) leading to reduced vertical mixing of deep warmer layers with the surface water, leading to an enhancement in the sea-ice extent.”

    What is interesting this (wind) has (strongly debated eg. http://epic.awi.de/30163/, http://www.clim-past.net/9/517/2013/cp-9-517-2013.pdf ) p.CO2 links, and this may explain the large part of the reasons for the present warming and also CO2 increase in the atmosphere (?).

    Commentary sunshinehours1 has also a good link to this work: Varma et al. 2012., (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053403/abstract): “The results suggest that during periods of lower solar activity, the annual-mean SWW tend to get weaker on their poleward side and shift towards the equator. The SWW shift is more intense and robust for the simulation with varying stratospheric ozone, suggesting an important influence of solar-induced stratospheric ozone variations on mid-latitude troposphere dynamics.”

    Sun – ozone (direct effects but also long-term: cumulative, often delayed in time – intermediate) – the winds – is probably the main reason for the growth of the Antarctic ice coverage and … perhaps: part of the current warming …

  72. Here might be a reason why:
    February 2013
    Elephant seals have helped scientists unravel a 30-year-old mystery around the sources of the ocean’s deepest waters.

    Antarctic bottom water – cold, dense water that sits in the abyssal zone between 4000 metres and 6000 metres below the ocean’s surface – plays a plays a key role in global water circulation and the transport of carbon dioxide to the deepest layers of the ocean.

    The discovery of a fourth source of deep water is critical to our understanding of Antarctica’s contribution to global ocean circulation, and will improve modelling of its response to climate change, says study co-author Dr Guy Williams, of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Co-operative Research Centre.

    Williams says the Cape Darnley deep water contributes about 10 per cent of volume to the Antarctic bottom water.

    The discovery of a fourth source is like “finding a new component in the engine,” he says.

    Until recently only three sources of the deep waters were known – the Weddell and Ross seas and off the Adelie Coast.
    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/02/25/3696395.htm

  73. David Springer

    Mean temp above 80N is 10C warmer than normal!

    • Mean temp above 80N is 10C warmer than normal!

      Temps for >80N are almost all interpolations from the near by coastal stations, there’s 5 stations North of 80 with less than 65 years of data.
      So it might be warmer, or it might just be being biased from more open water during the summer.

    • Mi Cro is not entirely correct.

      The DMI record north of 80 is reliant on observations from many platforms
      including land stations.
      For GISS, its true they do a simple interpolation. However, for DMI this is not the case. Instead of a simple interpolation they use all available information
      temperature, pressure, wind speed and direction, water vapor, clouds, information from land stations, air craft, radiosones, arctic bouys and drift stations and satellites, to run a weather forecasting system to fill in the gaps. The same type of model that you see run on your nightly news.
      Even the simple interpolation of GISS is largely correct as any one who wants to compare it with data from bouys and drift stations would see.

      • Mi Cro is not entirely correct

        Steve, I think we’re making progress, usually I’m just Wrong, it’s a good day when I’m not entirely correct.

        Sometime back I did realize the data set I have was not all the data available, just what I had(which was a good match the the CRU set I compared against at the time). So I do appreciate being told there’s more to learn, with an explanation, a good day indeed :)

    • Mosh,
      Micro thinks the BEST data set is completely wrong, mainly because he did not put it together himself. Apparently only he knows how to estimate surface temperatures from the data, and neither BEST nor NASA knows how to do this properly.

      How big a reward should we give to Micro for uncovering such a monumental screwup?

      • I think linear interpolation of non – linear spatial temperatures is wrong, but sea salt is meaningless drivel. Using a temperature trend as the training input for your input trends and then using the output parameters to reconstruct the temperature trend isn’t science.
        And why would you pick SOI, you’ve never answered my question why that, and not any of the other pressure indexes, unless it doesn’t matter which one you pick.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      It is not an actual physical surface temperature but a mean of intercomparison between years.

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/documentation/arctic_mean_temp_data_explanation_newest.pdf

      The surface temperature records more generally are another problem – contaminated as they are with lapse rate variability over land and issues with upwelling over oceans. Anachronistic at best.

      It more than time to move to an energy accounting as a metric.

    • Steven Mosher | February 5, 2014 at 11:14 am |

      “The DMI record north of 80 is reliant on observations from many platforms
      including land stations.”

      Remind me again what Nyquist said about sampling intervals and recovered signals.

    • David Springer

      Off the top of my head I believe it’s called “The Nyquist Rate” and it states that the sampling rate must be at least two times the rate of the signal to be recovered. I needed to know that in order to decode serial bit streams such as RS-232 using a general purpose CPU and periodic interrupt to do the sampling without a dedicated hardware decoder such as those found in a UART like the venerable Intel 8251.

      What’s my prize, Johnny?

    • David Springer | February 7, 2014 at 6:04 am |

      “Off the top of my head I believe it’s called “The Nyquist Rate” and it states that the sampling rate must be at least two times the rate of the signal to be recovered. I needed to know that in order to decode serial bit streams such as RS-232 using a general purpose CPU and periodic interrupt to do the sampling without a dedicated hardware decoder such as those found in a UART like the venerable Intel 8251.”

      Well done. Now if you want to go hunting for signals in noise try using a 16 times the underlying bit rate clock and then run it through a 16,12,9 CTRM filter to get a much better response characteristic than a simple UART.

      Think HF radio teletype traffic and you may get the picture. I know a blank spot on the map in the West of England that did at the time.

    • David Springer

      There are as many schemes for pulling a signal out of noise as there are characteristically different signals. The rule of the thumb is that the more you know about the signal ahead of time the better you can dig it out of the noise. Adaptive noise filtering learns more about the signal characteristics as it decodes and adapts the filter algorithm accordingly. IIRC GPS receivers use adaptive filters to dig the satellite signals out of the noise.

    • David Springer

      Actually knowing anything characteristic about the noise helps as well as knowing something about the signal. The more you know about what’s to be analyzed the better. For instance 60hz noise gets all over the place in the US. I imagine it’s 50hz in Europe. I used to run class A and B devices through FCC certification. Not actually do it myself but sit with the technician and interact to identify cause of failing frequencies so I could fix it. Sometimes I could bend or slide a little metal on-site to fix something, power/unpower individual components, change running software, and things of that nature. Haven’t done that since about 1992 at the latest when I was last at a small company where I had to wear most or sometimes all the technical hats.

    • David Springer | February 7, 2014 at 9:13 am |

      “There are as many schemes for pulling a signal out of noise as there are characteristically different signals….IIRC GPS receivers use adaptive filters to dig the satellite signals out of the noise.”

      Indeed they do. The problem with adaptive is you need a relatively long series to condition them on. Something to gather a ‘normal’ to train them with.

      The problem with Climate data is that we only have a very short time series to do the work on. Hence using CTRM with its zero training period as I do.

      P.S. When I first used CTRM the cost of a DSP chip was larger than the final selling price of the 19 inch rack kit I was flogging and making a fair profit on into the bargain. Horses for courses.

    • David Springer | February 7, 2014 at 9:23 am |

      “Actually knowing anything characteristic about the noise helps as well as knowing something about the signal.”

      Or you could just use a band pass splitter circuit to go hunt for the signals/noise in question. Used to have a tuneable one of those to run up and down the low frequency part of the spectrum to see what and where the LF noise was. :-)

    • David Springer

      The first electronic filter I built was in a Heathkit shortwave radio kit in the 1960s. DSP chips didn’t exist at the time. I’m not sure they were even dreampt of at the time.

    • David Springer

      Actually the Heathkit was a multi-band receiver that went from longwave through shortwave.

      http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads9/heathkit%2Bhr%2B101166415984.jpg

    • I was playing commercially with the Z80A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilog_Z80 for the CRTM but my history in Audio goes back much further. You could say I grew up with it :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Linsley_Hood

    • David Springer

      My first job with the title “engineer” and first project in that job made the cover of Popular Science in 1983. A portable computer. It had a Z80A uP. My first computer was an Altair 8800 with an 8080 uP in it. The first program I wrote was less than 30 bytes long in 8080 assembler and was the initialization code for an Intel 8251 UART on an S100 wirewrap card that I designed and built. I had to enter the UART initialization using binary switches on the Altair front panel. After initializing the UART I could then enter code in hexadecimal format using an RS-232 serial terminal attached to the UART board. Good times.

    • David Springer

      Our fathers may have met. At the time mine was an 18-year old American boy manning the tail gun in a B-26 Maurader medium bomber. He completed 25 bombing runs over Nazi Germany. One in three Americans flying the B-26 didn’t live to complete 25 missions. I have scores of pictures of bombs exploding on the ground in Germany taken from the aircraft for damage assessment purposes. Lots of other personal photographs taken from the plane of other planes, bombs being released from them, and so forth. Some 50-cal machine gun rounds too. Those things are the biggest cartridges I’ve ever seen. I haven’t seen those picture since I was a boy myself. They’re still in a cedar chest in the attic in the old homestead in upstate New York. I served in the USMC for four years before going to college but never left the states. I was one of the first enlistees (1974) in what turned out to be the modern US all-volunteer armed forces. My 18th birthday was in boot camp at Paris Island USMCRD. Technically I was supposed to register for the draft after turning 18 but my senior drill instructor said given I was already in the service it was unlikely I’d get in any trouble for not registering. :-)

      • “Some 50-cal machine gun rounds too. Those things are the biggest cartridges I’ve ever seen.”
        One of my uncles made a lamp out of various cartridges that I had (wished I still had). The base was about 1″ from probably a 4″ shell, the center was probably the shell from an A A gun, ~2″ 16″ or so tall, and then had 2 50 Cal and 2 30 Cal rounds around the center case on the base. I’ve lost track of that lamp, but I still have a watch band ( thought it doesn’t fit, and one of the rivets has come lose) made from stainless aircraft skin.

      • @David Springer – LOL – Yea the Marines are a bit protective of their recruits!

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “David Springer | February 5, 2014 at 10:21 am | Reply
      Mean temp above 80N is 10C warmer than normal!”
      ——
      The SSW event and disruption of the vortex is the cause. Downwelling air under high pressure does a nice job warming things up. Here’s the pressure charts:

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2014.gif

    • David Springer

      Hey Gates did you figure out how to use the online blackbody radiation caculator so you can see WTF the earth’s radiation budget is all about?

      And you know, so you can understand why Trenberth’s famous heat budget cartoon shows the average upwelling longwave on the earth is 390W/m2 and how the calculator shows that be the same as saying the average surface temperature is the notoriously widely quoted 288K?

      And how you can do “what if” questions like what if the surface was a glacier with a surface temperature of 237K the upwelling longwave is 179W/m2?

      This is pretty simple schit thanks to that calculator and very straight foward. If you don’t understand the numbers and where they come from in textbook global heat budgets then you are climatalogically illiterate as far as I’m concerned and need to start learning at the bottom by being able to describe the CO2 greenhouse effect in terms of upwelling and downwelling longwave.

      Here’s the calculator again. I’ll keep reminding you until I feel you’ve taken this important first step.

      http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

    • David Springer

      Biggest live cartridges I’ve ever handled is probably better to say. I’ve seen bigger brass made into different things. Flea markets and antique malls are a good place to look for stuff like that.

  74. Roy Spencer has given the Jan 2014 temperature; 0.29 C. There is no sign that the cessation of global warming has ceased, and no sign that temperatures are starting to rise at a very high rate.

    • you realize that Roy spencer does not measure temperature.

      You realize that his data is the out put from a model.

      Here is how it works.

      At the sensor you get radiance. Not temperature, but radiance. However that radiant energy has come from all levels of the atmosphere. To guesstimate the temperature at a particular height in the atmosphere
      the team that runs the satellite runs some physics code. That code
      includes a module called : RRTM. in short they run a raditaive transfer code that does something like this: If my sensor see this in space, given the properties of C02 in the atmosphere, what did the temperature have to be to produce this energy at the sensor. The temperatures Roy reports depend EXPLICITLY on those radiative transfer codes being CORRECT.
      Those radiative transfer codes are the heart and soul of AGW. They describe how C02 works to retard the escape of IR. Those VERY SAME CODES are the codes we use to estimate the effect of doubling C02 in the no feedback case.
      In short. If you agree that Roy is measuring temperature ( really guestimating it based on physics ) then you accept the physics he uses to guesstimate it. If you accept this physics, then you are committed to the following: Those very same physics say “If you double C02, then temperature will increase roughly 1.5C, assuming zero feedbacks”

      If you want to argue for positive feedbacks, then you are a warmist
      If you want to argue for negative feedbacks then you are a skeptic
      However, you cant just wave your arms. You actually have to make an argument.

    • Steven, you write “You realize that his data is the out put from a model.”

      I am not sure why I am bothering to answer. We have gone over this so many times. There is nothing wrong with validated models. I have objections to the use of the output of non-validated models to persuade our politicians to waste billions of dollars trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

    • David Springer

      Yes Steven but the MSU-derived temperatures were validated with radiosonde data. I’m going to go ahead and guess that Jim doesn’t have a problem with models that have been validated. Is that right, Jim?

    • Steven Mosher | February 5, 2014 at 11:26 am |

      “in short they run a raditaive transfer code that does something like this: If my sensor see this in space, given the properties of C02 in the atmosphere, what did the temperature have to be to produce this energy at the sensor.”

      Nearly right. Just the wrong molecule! O2 not CO2. That is used in the other satellites.

      “Microwave temperature sounders like AMSU measure the very low levels of thermal microwave radiation emitted by molecular OXYGEN in the 50 to 60 GHz oxygen absorption complex. This is somewhat analogous to infrared temperature sounders (for instance, the Atmospheric InfraRed Sounder, AIRS, also on Aqua) which measure thermal emission by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/

    • “Roy Spencer has given the Jan 2014 temperature; 0.29 C. There is no sign that the cessation of global warming has ceased”

      There’s no sign in UAH there’s been any cessation of global warming.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:60

      Up up up

    • lolwot, you write “There’s no sign in UAH there’s been any cessation of global warming.”

      I refer to

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/another-year-another-nail-in-the-cagw-coffin-now-includes-december-data/

      UAH has been flat for over 9 years.

    • UAH has been rising at .64C per decade: 24 months and counting, and no end in sight.

      <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2014&month=02"Though this looks a lot more like La Nina than it did just a few weeks ago.

    • This just in from Werner on WUWT

      “By the way, RSS for January just came out and it shows no warming at all for 17 years and 5 months since September 1996.”

    • JCH

      UAH has been rising at .64C per decade: 24 months and counting, and no end in sight.

      Huh?

      It has been flat or cooling slightly since 2005 = 108 months and counting.

      And you’re right: there’s “no end in sight”

      Max

      PS And it is being validated, as we speak, by 4 other global temperature records, which all show an even longer period of slight cooling.

      Climate scientists call it the “hiatus” or “pause”

      Get up-to-date, JCH

    • 24 months of warming

      20th century UAH

      From the infamous abrupt climate shift in 2000, it warmed until 2010.67 at .2C per decade.

      Then there was a very strong La Nina, and it’s been warming aggressively during ENSO neutral ever since, and ENSO neutral is forecast to last until fall, 2014.

    • JCH

      Lemme get this straight.

      Are you saying there has been NO hiatus (i.e. pause) in global warming over the past 10-12 years?

      Max

    • JCH

      UAH trend since 2005

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/trend

      Other trends since 2002

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend

      Hope this helps.

      Max

      PS In case you missed it, it’s what climate scientists call a “hiatus” or “pause”.

    • In case you missed it here’s the ongoing warming with no pause:
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:60

      How can warming have stopped when the last 5 years is the warmest 5 years on record?

    • Lengthening at both ends of the hiatal time scale.
      ======================

    • We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know. I wish I were wrong about this, because warming need not be catastrophic, and cooling surely will be.
      ==========

    • JC – The temperature isn’t going anywhere that I can detect. This might be a pause before more warming or it might be an inflection before cooling. Or, it might just keep going as is for a while – errr – while CO2 continues to go up.

    • No, people can draw flat lines in the temperature series. That’s a given. If they oceans were not warming, they would really have something, but they are warming so they’ve got ZIPPO.

      The fact is in the 21st century the surface air temperature warmed .2C for the first 10.67 years, and then there was a very powerful, back-to-back La Nina event that erased almost all of that. Once that event ended, the surface air temperature has been warming aggressively, and it looks like that will continue into 2014 as all ENSO forecasts are for neutral well into the early summer, and some are indicating EL Nino in the fall, but it is far too early to put much stock in an El Nino forecast that far away.

      As J-NG argues, with warmer La NIna events, we are also seeing warmer ENSO neutral events, and it’s very possible 2014 could end up the warmest year in the instrument record absent any El Nino at all.

      We are not cooling. That is a preposterous argument to make when the earth is gaining energy on a nearly continual basis.

    • Just a poster; perhaps a proper or improper poster or imposter.
      ==========

    • lolwot | February 5, 2014 at 7:03 pm |

      “In case you missed it here’s the ongoing warming with no pause:
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:60

      How can warming have stopped when the last 5 years is the warmest 5 years on record?”

      Only an idiot would use a Linear Trend to suggest what will/might happen in the future.

      ‘Linear Trend’ = ‘Tangent to the curve’ = ‘Flat Earth’.

      Please at least use a continuous function when analysing data. You then might look like a Scientist as opposed to a Prophet.

      http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/RSS175Lowpass_zps80d2810f.gif

    • JCH | February 5, 2014 at 7:33 pm |

      “We are not cooling. That is a preposterous argument to make when the earth is gaining energy on a nearly continual basis.”

      Do you have DATA as opposed to MODELS to support that the previous upward trend is still continuing?

      Do you have DATA as opposed to MODELS to say that there is, in fact, an energy imbalance to worry about?

    • David Springer

      RichardLH | February 5, 2014 at 2:37 pm |

      “Nearly right. Just the wrong molecule! O2 not CO2. That is used in the other satellites.”

      The critical difference is almost nothing interferes with microwave transmission where all three phases of exceedingly unmixed H20 messes with IR transmission.

      You were being sarcastic, right?

    • David Springer | February 7, 2014 at 9:37 am |

      “You were being sarcastic, right?”

      I was just, nicely :-), pointing out to Steve that getting the basic facts right about the actual molecule in question for UAH temperature would make him look slightly less of a prat.

  75. ” If you agree that Roy is measuring temperature ( really guestimating it based on physics ) then you accept the physics he uses to guesstimate it. If you accept this physics, then you are committed to the following: Those very same physics say “If you double C02, then temperature will increase roughly 1.5C, assuming zero feedbacks””

    You realize that Roy Spencer, the scientist in charge of using the physics to deduce temperature, says the same thing Jim Cripwell says?
    Do you think Roy Spencer is a warmist, a skeptic or just waving his arms?

    • When it comes to measurement and estimates and sensitivity Roy is miles away from Jim. Roy actually makes arguments. They are wrong, but he makes them.

    • Do you think his “wrong” arguments are wrong because of the physics?
      I think this is interesting. The physics of atmospheric CO2 is that which is most settled and Roy Spencer is the guy who understands this so well that he can use this understanding to deduce global temperature series that appear to be well accepted.
      And he is deeply skeptical of catastrophic (heck, even harmful) AGW. That seems significant to me, though I’m sure there are others who understand the physics very well. So the question is not snark- do you think those who disagree with Roy understand the physics better than Roy or the feedbacks or both?

    • I enjoy most of Stev’s coomments but as Bertrand Russel said, “I think we ought to always entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn’t wish people to dogmatically believe anything”
      Scott

    • jeffn, you write ” The physics of atmospheric CO2 is that which is most settled and Roy Spencer is the guy who understands this so well that he can use this understanding to deduce global temperature series that appear to be well accepted.”

      I stand to be corrected, but I don’t think that this is correct. I believe that Christy and Spencer worked out how to use the intensity of one of the spectral lines of O16 to arrive at a value for the temperature at 600mb. Then they worked out how the transform this into the surface temperature.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      The physics say 1.5 degrees C?

      There is no fundamental physical relationship between CO2 and surface temperature. The calculation depend increasingly on models because of the complex interrelationships.

      e.g. ‘It should be noted that a perturbation to the surface energy budget involves sensible and latent heat fluxes besides solar and longwave irradiance; therefore, it can quantitatively be very different from the RF[tropopause], which is calculated at the tropopause, and thus is not representative of the energy balance perturbation to the surface-troposphere (climate) system. While the surface forcing adds to the overall description of the total perturbation brought about by an agent, the RF and surface forcing should not be directly compared nor should the surface forcing be considered in isolation for evaluating the climate response.’

      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-8.html

    • jeffn, you write “So the question is not snark- do you think those who disagree with Roy understand the physics better than Roy or the feedbacks or both?”

      To take on your second question. I am not sure that the differences are in the understanding of the physics, but which particular aspect of the physics is important. My impression is that warmists are prepared to accept hypothetical estimations and the output of non-validated models, and claim we know what the value of climate sensitivity is. People like myself will not accept this way at arriving at numerical values for physical quantities, and insist that such values must be measured.

      Now since it is impossible at the present time to actually measure climate sensitivity, there is a difference of opinion as to whether we know the value of climate sensitivity or not. The warmists claim we do. I claim we do not.

    • Thanks Jim. Mosher said above in reply to you that: ” in short they run a raditaive transfer code that does something like this: If my sensor see this in space, given the properties of C02 in the atmosphere, what did the temperature have to be to produce this energy at the sensor. the code uses.”

      Is that not correct?

    • David Springer

      jeffn | February 5, 2014 at 2:01 pm |

      Mosher said above in reply to you that: ” in short they run a raditaive transfer code that does something like this: If my sensor see this in space, given the properties of C02 in the atmosphere, what did the temperature have to be to produce this energy at the sensor. the code uses.”

      Is that not correct?

      That is not correct. Jim Cripwell is correct. The MSU doesn’t have phuck all to do with CO2.

      http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/AIRS/documentation/amsu_instrument_guide.shtml

      AMSU-A1 module uses two antenna-radiometer systems (A1-1 and A1-2) to provide twelve channels in the 50 to 60 GHz oxygen band for retrieving the atmospheric temperature profile from the Earth’s surface to about 42 kilometers (or 2 mb).

    • David Springer

      Not sure where I read it but my understanding of microwave sounders is that the absorption/emission band frequencies of molecular oxygen shifts with partial pressure and the power in the band varies with temperature. The MSU then samples various frequencies (the first sounders used four channels, the new ones use twelve) and measures the power in each band. The frequency correlates with level in the atmosphere and the power then indicates the frequency. This was determined empirically not from theory. The first MSUs were carried by balloons and the instruments themselves perfected by comparing the MSU-derived temperature with the conventional thermocouple temperature on the radiosondes. Back when I was a “jarhead” I was a meteorlogical equipment technician as was on loan for a while to the National Severe Storms Laboratory gathering atmospheric data in tornado alley in May and June in Norman Oklahoma. You haven’t lived until you’ve launched a 12-foot diameter radiosonde balloon into an approaching supercell. Sometimes the wind would whip those things so hard as we were filling them they were parallel to the ground and stretched out like a sausage.

    • David Springer

      Not sure where I read it but my understanding of microwave sounders is that the absorption/emission band frequencies of molecular oxygen shifts with partial pressure and the power in the band varies with temperature. The MSU then samples various frequencies (the first sounders used four channels, the new ones use twelve) and measures the power in each band. The frequency correlates with level in the atmosphere and the power then indicates the frequency temperature. This was determined empirically not from theory. The first MSUs were carried by balloons and the instruments themselves perfected by comparing the MSU-derived temperature with the conventional thermocouple temperature on the radiosondes. Back when I was a “jarhead” I was a meteorological equipment technician (Air Wing, hung out with the weather forecasters in the control tower) and was on loan for a while to the National Severe Storms Laboratory gathering atmospheric data in tornado alley in May and June in Norman Oklahoma. You haven’t lived until you’ve launched a 12-foot diameter radiosonde balloon into an approaching supercell. Sometimes the wind would whip those things so hard as we were filling them they were parallel to the ground and stretched out like a sausage.

    • Why does this keep coming up?

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/

      for a very nice explanation of how this is all done and validated.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

      David Springer:

      Are you still insisting that there is 179 w/m^2 LW coming up from the ground in Antarctica as you did in this comment earlier today:

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/03/why-is-there-so-much-antarctic-sea-ice/#comment-449144

    • Thanks Jim and David.

    • David Springer

      R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 5, 2014 at 3:17 pm |

      “Are you still insisting that there is 179 w/m^2 LW coming up from the ground in Antarctica as you did in this comment earlier today”

      I’m not insisting. A blackbody calculator is insisting that a surface with a temperature of -36C has a radiant emittance of 179W/m2.

      http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

      This is beyond dispute. The atmosphere also radiates downward towards the surface. The difference between upwelling and downwelling is the net radiation which determines the rate of radiative cooling. CO2 absorbs upwelling radiation and redirects a portion of it downward which reduces the net radiation and hence the rate of radiative cooling.

      This is how the greenhouse effect works.

      R.Gates doesn’t know how the greenhouse effect actually works. Isn’t that just precious?

      You don’t seem to understand

    • David Springer

      Such a basic misunderstanding. Incredible.

      Refer to basic heat budget diagram from Houghton et al., (1996: 58), which used data from Kiehl and Trenberth (1996).

      http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-6.htm

      Note average upwelling radiation is 390W/m2 and average downwelling is 324W/m2.

      Now let’s go look at what the blackbody calculator has to say about the temperature of a surface with 390W/m2 radiant emittance. Plug in a value of 288K (the average surface temperature of the earth). Note the calculated radiant emittance is 390W/m2.

      Now let’s plug in the average temperature of the Antarctic given at 237K. The calculated radiant emittance is 178.9W/m2.

      Holy crap. Springer knows WTF he’s talking about. He knows where and why the numbers used by Houghton, Kiehl and Trenberth are what they are in the heat budget cartoon.

      And Gates doesn’t have the first clue about it. Amazing. How long have you been at this Gates and you have not yet assimilated the above?

      • “He knows where and why the numbers used by Houghton, Kiehl and Trenberth are what they are in the heat budget cartoon.”
        Something I’ve wondered about that cartoon, the average value can’t be that high can it?

    • David Springer

      You must be just messing with me, Gates. There’s no way someone who’s been around this debate as long as you could not by now understand that the surface radiation of 390W/m2 in the Trenberth energy budget cartoon

      http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-6.htm

      is the radiant emission of a 288K surface which is ostensibly the average surface temperature of the earth. And that furthermore you aren’t perfectly capable of using an online blackbody calculator to find the radiant emission for any other surface temperture.

      http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

      Ha ha. Very funny. You got me good.

    • David Springer

      Mi Cro | February 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm |

      ” Something I’ve wondered about that cartoon, the average value can’t be that high can it?”

      If the average surface temperature of the earth is really 288K (15C) then the radiant emission must be 390W/m2. That’s law not theory. The Stefan-Boltzman law specifically. Going from temperature or radiant emission to a specific peak frequency for a continuous spectrum is called Wien’s law. It’s also calculated on the blackbody calculator I linked.

      Textbook physics discussions here:

      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/wien.html

      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

    • Steven Mosher

      You wrote:

      Roy [Spencer] actually makes arguments. They are wrong, but he makes them.

      Would you like to get more specific about Spencer’s “wrong arguments”, or were you just bloviating?

      Max

    • RichardLh

      Thanks for the link, Good explanation how temperatures are translated from the satellite by Dr Roy Spenser.
      Scott

    • Steven Mosher

      upstream springer.

      Roy uses data that has been processed. so to see the role of radiative transfer you need to study the documents that detail what happens to the sounder data upstream

      Rosenkranz, P. W., 2001: Retrieval of temperature and moisture profiles from AMSU-A and AMSU-B measurements.IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sen.,39, 2429–2435.

      see references 6 and 7

      http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=469477&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel1%2F36%2F9902%2F00469477

      for AIRs

      http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/RT%20Models/strow-hannon.pdf

    • David Springer

      Just to proactively intercept someone saying “but Dave, ice and snow isn’t a blackbody”.

      Actually it is almost perfect. A blackbody has emissivity of 1. So lets go see what some common materials are including ice.

      http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-emissivity-d_432.html

      Water 0.993 – 0.998
      Ice 0.98
      Snow 0.969 – 0.997
      Sand 0.949 – 0.962
      Granite 0.898
      Green Grass 0.975 – 0.986

      These materials are considered approximate black bodies. The earth itself, since the above covers most surfaces, is an approximate black body. But we can see how this effects the 179W/m2 in the blackbody calculator:

      http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

      It has a field where we can plug in emissivity. For rough ice (Antarctic) it’s 0.985 which produces radiant emission of 176W/m2 for a 237K (-36C) surface instead of 179W/m2.

      There are many things that are purely narratives pulled out of thin air (pun intended) in bandwagon climate science but blackbody physics is not one of them.

    • David Springer

      Steven Mosher | February 5, 2014 at 5:39 pm |

      I searched your citations for any mention of CO2. There was none. MSU uses microwave emission from molecular oxygen as I said it did which is reflected in the same citations.

    • Thanks Max and David..
      I too read Steven Mosher’s references. I am interested what specific problems he finds with Dr. Roy Spencer as Spencer seems credible to me. Easy to say in general he is wrong on a blog he does not read. I respect his work and Dr. Christy and we shall see who is right in the near term. If the pause goes 20 years is it a pause or climate change, especially if the temperature goes down?
      Scott

    • To re-open a chronic sore(yes, it shall not be resolved), Roy Spencer, in the face of very poor estimations of climate sensitivity, is attempting to measure it.
      ======================

    • Mosh

      Looks like we’ve got a “my data is better than your data” debate going on here.

      Spencer cites the source of his observation-based data.

      And he comes out with a 2xCO2 sensitivity of 1.3C when he adjusts for the late 20thC ENSO impact.

      He agrees that this is a simplification, but it sounds quite reasonable to me.

      Just eye-balling the ENSO data published by NOAA, one arrives at the conclusion that around 30% of the late 20thC warming trend could have been caused by El Nino (including the major El Nino period 1997/98, which everyone agrees led to the warmest year).

      The fact that several new observation-based studies have arrived at a similar estimate for 2xCO2 ECS, leads me to believe that Spencer may be on to something.

      Do you see this differently?

      If so, why?

      Max

      What’s your problem?

    • Scott | February 5, 2014 at 5:25 pm |

      “Thanks for the link, Good explanation how temperatures are translated from the satellite by Dr Roy Spenser.”

      No problem. I do wonder why this keeps coming up. Roy published this a long while ago to help people understand how the figures are arrived at and how they are calibrated. And still we have people who jab and poke as though this information did not exist. Talk about ‘show me your data’!

    • David Springer | February 5, 2014 at 5:46 pm |

      Steven Mosher | February 5, 2014 at 5:39 pm |

      “I searched your citations for any mention of CO2. There was none. MSU uses microwave emission from molecular oxygen as I said it did which is reflected in the same citations.”

      Mosh just sees CO2 in everything :-)

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      Mr. Springer,
      You are incredibly confused about what LW means apparently. In the LW part of the spectrum, at -36C, we get a few w/m^. You are looking at the full spectrum to get your 179 w/m2. A simple enough mistake to make, but a huge mistake to make none the less.

      As I stated quite accurately before, the is very little LW coming up from the ground in Antarctica, which is pretty easy to figure out, even if you just use common sense,

      • R, I disagree. Solar SW is from a fraction of a micron to about 2-3u, the Earth’s outgoing LW is from maybe 4 and longer(over 2-3 there isn’t a lot of energy). But remember for the same flux rate it takes 20 x the time to radiate 1000 joules at 10u as it does at .5u.
        You can see these spectums on google, there are 100s of them.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      Mi Cro,

      You can disagree all you want, but the issue was how much upwelling LW there was from Antarctica. Mr. Springer was insisting it was 179 w/m^2, which even common sense tells you is way too high. He suggested I use spectral calc to do the numbers myself using -36C for the temperature in Antarctica. When doing this (which I’ve done many times), the FULL spectrum is indeed 179 w/m^2, but we only wanted the LW upwelling that might be absorbed by the CO2 above the ground. In the LW portion, the total is just 2 w/m^2 or so, across the LW portion, which is being generous. Actual measurements from the South Pole put the net LW figure usually in negative range, as far more comes down from the clouds and clear sky than the few w/m^2 that might be coming up from the ice. Mr. Springer doesn’t seem to understand the there is no way that the ice in Antarctica could be generating 179 w/m^2 upwelling LW. it would melt itself!

      • Then I think we should be more careful with our terms, as there is indeed about 180W/M2 LWIR radiating upwards, but in the 14 – 15u range it’s only a few watts, and only a fraction of that is reflected back by Co2.

    • David Springer

      Gate’s knowledge of Stefan-Boltzman law and Wien’s displacement law is nil. The blackbody calculator I linked many times

      http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

      graphs the power spectrum. Snow/ice has an emissivity very close to one (0.98+) and the center frequency from Wien’s displacement law for a blackbody at -36C is 12 micrometers. 12 micrometers is longwave infrared and practically all the power is radiated close to that frequency.

      Gates has no understanding of basic thermodynamic principles. He doesn’t understand the difference between upwelling IR, downwelling IR, and net IR which is the difference between the two. Without that understanding he does not know the mechanism underlying the greenhouse effect.

    • David Springer

      Mi Cro | February 6, 2014 at 9:30 am |

      “Then I think we should be more careful with our terms, as there is indeed about 180W/M2 LWIR radiating upwards, but in the 14 – 15u range it’s only a few watts, and only a fraction of that is reflected back by Co2.”

      No Micro. The center frequency of interest for CO2 absorption is 15um. Shoulder broadening makes it very effective from 14 to 16um.

      Using our blackbody calculator set the temperature to 237K and the upper and lower bounds to 14 and 16um then we read band radiance at at 5.56916 W/m2/sr. To convert to W/m2 from W/m2/sr we multiply by Pi to get ~18W/m2 in that band. More than just a few Watts. Approximately half that is re-radiated to the surface or 9W/m2.

      To find out how much that should raise the surface temperature we can use our blackbody calculator to find out what the temperature is for 179 + 9 W/m2 or 188W/m2. Plugging 240K into the calculator gives us 188W/m2 so the greenhouse effect from CO2 is about 3C average in Antarctica. The anthropogenic portion is much smaller of course since the increase from 280 to 400 ppm is less than 50% increase and it’s non-linear with decreasing effect as ppm rises. We should expect to see around 0.7C from anthropogenic CO2. In fact we see none so something else in the Antarctic environment is negating the anthropogenic CO2 warming and it’s a mystery. The prime suspect is ozone.

      • DS, thanks for the correction on the W/M2.
        I think you’ve already described the reason we don’t see the temp change, self regulation of clouds shutter the open window for radiation to space.
        You don’t see an actual temperature response in any of the surface measurements. There is a change in the rate of change on a day over day warming and cooling basis, but there also looks like there’s a inflection point ~2000 but not enough data post 2000 to tell for sure yet.
        There is lots of better sampled data other than the antarctic (I agree it is the driest place, it’s just not well sampled). On cold clear sky days the zenith is 60-70°F colder than the surface (N41, W81) and when the clouds roll in its near surface temp. This can be verified with an IR thermometer, plug this into a set of SB equations and it makes sense.

        I also agree with your comment on Co2 starting the water cycle on an ice ball earth.

      • “To find out how much that should raise the surface temperature we can use our blackbody calculator to find out what the temperature is for 179 + 9 W/m2 or 188W/m2. Plugging 240K into the calculator gives us 188W/m2 so the greenhouse effect from CO2 is about 3C average in Antarctica. ”

        Oh, shouldn’t that 9 W’s already be included in the 179Ws? Now you could say the real no Co2 LWIR is 170W’s plus your 9W.

    • Micro, “Oh, shouldn’t that 9 W’s already be included in the 179Ws? Now you could say the real no Co2 LWIR is 170W’s plus your 9W.”

      It should still be ~18Wm-2. If Springer’s number are right (probably close) then CO2 interacts with 18Wm-2 of the 179Wm-2. So the surface has to be emitting 18Wm-2 more than if the CO2 wasn’t there. CO2 doesn’t send half up and half down, the surface is warmer due to the interaction of CO2 and can emit more radiation. Ideally, the surface could emit 36Wm-2 more because to the CO2 interacts with 18Wm-2. It is unlikely that it is perfectly double, but that is the limit.

      So without CO2 the Antarctic would likely be closer to 143Wm-2 total upward.

      I read one paper that indicates that due to stratospheric transport of ozone and water vapor the poles are about 50C warmer than they would be without the Brewer-Dobson Circulation in the Stratosphere. Because of the uberlow temperatures, that amounts to about 53Wm-2, so the impact of stratospheric ozone and H2O at the poles is about 53/2 Wm-2.

      So ~26.5 O2 and H2O plus ~18 Co2 is 41.5 Wm-2 at the stratosphere equivalent which should produce 83Wm-2 at the Antarctic surface which would be around -77C which is about the coldest temperature you should expect in the Antarctic.

    • David Springer

      Gates need to correct textbooks re; Antarctica and IR heat loss.

      http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-8B.htm

      As you can see in this global map of heat loss by longwave radiation Antarctic interior loses up to 74W/m2 in places which is higher than anywhere else on the planet except for desert regions which have very dry air AND very high temperatures. Gates is deeply ignorant of earth heat budget physics.

    • Springer, ” Gates is deeply ignorant of earth heat budget physics.”

      Is he deeply ignorant or selectively ignorant?

    • Ignorance can be hidden where you won’t look for it.

      Note, this is no reflection upon anyone here. It is there just for art’s sake, and al’s, of course.
      ============

    • David Springer

      This map of sensible heat flux is also revealing.

      http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-10A.htm

      There are two places in the world where the air heats the surface significantly instead of the surface heating the air: Antarctica and Greenland.

      So we find that the combination of sensible heating of the ice and solar shortwave heating of the ice

      http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-8A.htm

      gives us about 60-70W/m2 of heating for the Antarctic ice sheet which balances the net longwave emission:

      http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-8B.htm

      Use the following link to see all data and text on one page:

      http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_06.htm

      Note what makes Antarctica so well suited to isolating CO2 is this:

      http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-9.htm

      That’s latent heat flux and rounds to zero in only two places: Greenland and Antarctica.

    • David Springer

      @dallas

      No, with a surface temperature of 237K there is only 18W/m2 in CO2 absorption band from 14-16um. So it can’t possibly be interacting with twice that amount. And the rule of thumb is that the GHG reemits absorbed radiation in random directions approximatelyt half of which is back towards the surface and the other half towards space. If you can find an authoritative reference to refute that I’ll give it all due consideration.

    • David Springer

      Mi Cro | February 7, 2014 at 8:01 am |

      “Oh, shouldn’t that 9 W’s already be included in the 179Ws? Now you could say the real no Co2 LWIR is 170W’s plus your 9W.”

      Yes. Good catch. But the resulting temperature rise wouldn’t change signficantly.

    • Springer, ” And the rule of thumb is that the GHG reemits absorbed radiation in random directions approximatelyt half of which is back towards the surface and the other half towards space.”

      Right, but when you estimate a spectrum you are showing a quasi-steady state and in only one direction. The 18wm-2 you estimated should be the half up or down meaning there can be 36Wm-2 in that thin theoretical slice of atmosphere radiating isotropically, but confined to a layer so thin it is isothermal and can only emit up or down.

      To find a layer where CO2 is emitting half of 18Wm-2 you would have to find a layer where the temperature of CO2 is lower. This is the part that confuses Gates, if you estimate a 179Wm-2 spectrum, theoretically that surface is at 2X179Wm-2 and you are only “seeing” have of the total energy. That is a “feature” of a model that forces isotropic radiation into a thin isothermal disc, i.e that elusive local thermodynamic equilibrium.

      Think of it like measuring a ball of water, the skin is at the same temperature. S-B tells you how much it is capable of radiation, but you to figure out the net in every direction. By Gates logic, if you have three people measuring the ball, the ball would have three times the energy. In reality, the ball is at the same temperature no matter which way you look at it or how many people are looking.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “By Gates logic, if you have three people measuring the ball, the ball would have three times the energy. ”
      ______
      Wow, I take a few days off and suddenly I my “logic” leads to such nonsense as this? Very scary what people will have you saying when you’r not around.

    • Springer, Uof Chicago MODTRAN program has a new feature where you can look up and down at the same time.

      https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-gAfX84-s57Y/UvY6YAzjsDI/AAAAAAAAK7s/UmCYlYsUZSQ/w968-h575-no/Standard+4C+surface.png

      Looking down you see a surface at about 4C for my example, looking up you see a surface at ~210K or -63C. The main CO2 band shows the same temperature, ~ -63C degrees. At that altitude and temperature, CO2 would be emitting the same energy up or down.

      https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-4YGmQf_a_rA/UvY-a7Eh_qI/AAAAAAAAK8E/LKHjTAezj_Q/w977-h575-no/Standard+-43C+surface.png

      In this one the looking down surface is ~ 243K degrees and the looking up is around 200K, notice the temperature inversion. You could adjust the altitude so that the surfaces, up and down are at the same temperature. That should be the “Effective Radiating Layer”, which near the poles is controlled by poleward advection. With that at 200K, poleward advection should be warming the pole by about 90Wm-2. If CO2 is providing about 18Wm-2, then about 72 Wm-2 is provided by something else. So you could say that CO2 is providing about 20% of the polar GHE. If there is less advection, CO2 could provide more and with more advection, CO2 could provide less. The simple up/down radiant models don’t do very well with advection and “assuming” local thermodynamic equilibrium just evades the issue. Adding Polar surface temperatures which increase as the “Global” surface cools by poleward advection, just messes up the problem by changing the frame of reference. You are not supposed to do that in thermo. Each frame is supposed to be analyzed independently then you compare results based on different frames. If all of the frames are warming, then there is “global” warming. If some warm and some don’t, you picked the wrong frames of reference or have a lot more boring paper.

      Don’t be a Webster, pick the right frames of reference :)

      • At N41 W81, on multiple occasions in clear cold skies I’m measuring a zenith temp ~70F lower than the surface.
        I suggest low temp handheld IR thermometers make a great visual on Co2 warming.

    • R. Gates said, “Wow, I take a few days off and suddenly I my “logic” leads to such nonsense as this? Very scary what people will have you saying when you’r not around.”

      Come on now, be a man, you stated, ” Mr. Springer doesn’t seem to understand the there is no way that the ice in Antarctica could be generating 179 w/m^2 upwelling LW. it would melt itself!”

      The Antarctic ice is at a temperature that is capable of generating 179Wm-2. You can add all the blanket you like, but there is not enough energy for the ice to melt itself. That would require you blanket doubling the available energy.

      You own that comment, like it or not.

    • Wow, if my shabbas settles in does the world start warming, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know?
      ==============

    • Springer

      Lets be clear.

      1. Braswells input dataset as documented in the cdr for uah includes amongst other things the amsu level 1 brightness temperatures.
      2. Brightness temperatures are derived using radiative transfer equations. In short to calculate the temperature at the source altitude you must account for absorbtion along the path.
      This is done with radiative physics.
      3.the radiative physics that tells you how microwave transmits and is absorbed by various gases is the same physics that tells you doubling co2 will warm the planet.

      • Steve, you have to know this:
        “the radiative physics that tells you how microwave transmits and is absorbed by various gases is the same physics that tells you doubling co2 will warm the planet.”
        Isn’t all that matters, if there wasn’t any water vapor or clouds, you might have a point, but we do have clouds and water vapor.

    • All your basics are belong to us.
      ============

    • Mi Cro, “At N41 W81, on multiple occasions in clear cold skies I’m measuring a zenith temp ~70F lower than the surface.
      I suggest low temp handheld IR thermometers make a great visual on Co2 warming.”

      They do make a great visual, but since there is no “standard” they don’t make for great data. Like what exactly is a clear cold sky? Because of water vapor how clear depends on how cold and how high because there is a water vapor continuum. Because of that the “atmospheric window” is a little cloudy.

      http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/02/02/kiehl-trenberth-and-the-atmospheric-window/

      That has been one of my pet peeves from the beginning. That window determines a large part of how much impact CO2 can have at the real surface. It impacts convection and advection both of which can be negative feedbacks to increasing CO2. If CO2 warms a region at -30C by 1.5C, the “global” impact is not going to impress very many. If CO2 warms a region at -1.5C by 1.5C, alert the media.

      • Air temps in the mid 30’s or colder which holds very little water. It does make good data, you just need to collect air temp and humidity as well.
        It very visual to point at clear skies, then the bottom of a passing cloud.

    • “the same physics that tells you doubling co2 will warm the planet”

      But when the planet doesn’t warm you have to go to a different explanation.

      Andrew

    • Steven,”3.the radiative physics that tells you how microwave transmits and is absorbed by various gases is the same physics that tells you doubling co2 will warm the planet.”

      I wont argue with you, and I know of few people who would. However, radiaitve physics CANNOT tell us how much adding CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels warms the planet. The climate sensitivity of CO2 has never been measured, and any numerical value anyone associates with climate sensitivity is nothing more than a guess.

      It is a myth that anyone has the slightest idea of what the numerical value of climate sensitivity is, within limits set by an estimate of it’s maximum value.

    • Mi Cro, “Isn’t all that matters, if there wasn’t any water vapor or clouds, you might have a point, but we do have clouds and water vapor.”

      You also have advection of mass and energy and a good portion of that advection is above the “TOA” and below the “Surface”. Mosher and the warmers would like for the skeptics to explain how not including 18Wm-2 or more could possibly cause “natural variability” and “Internal variability” to be greater than estimated by piss poor models. Yet they are quite quick to dismiss arguments as “not even wrong” unless of course it applies to their argument.

    • Mi Cro, “It very visual to point at clear skies, then the bottom of a passing cloud.”

      I didn’t say it wasn’t a great visual, but we are a little past visuals and analogies. Since a doubling of CO2 should cause a 3.7Wm-2 increase in radiant “forcing” and what percent it now produces is basically unknown, somewhere between 15% and 30% or +/- 25Wm-2, we need a bit more than off the shelf non-contact thermometers and “blanket” analogies.

      • Actually I agree with you, except most people only hear what’s on the news or relayed second hand, this is something they could see and maybe realize they are hearing half truths.
        I also think we can measure the effective CS by this method. Zenith and air temp, humidity and % of clouds would give you the parameters that describe surface radiative surface temps. Then I think the effect of ocean temps/air transport would become clear(or clearer).

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      Captn. Dallas,

      I’ll stand by my contention that the ice in Antarctica is not generating 179 w/m^2 of LW radiation. It would be a very toasty environment if that was the case, and a new and seemingly infinite energy source for the planet would be discovered. Springer seems to want to hold to illogical conclusions no matter what.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      Captn. Dallas: “The Antarctic ice is at a temperature that is capable of generating 179Wm-2.”
      _____
      Quick, cancel all current power station plans and bring some ice up from Antarctica as the new power source of the future!

      • “Quick, cancel all current power station plans and bring some ice up from Antarctica as the new power source of the future!”
        Something deliciously ironic about this anti-science.

    • David Springer

      Steven Mosher | February 8, 2014 at 10:19 am |

      the radiative physics that tells you how microwave transmits and is absorbed by various gases is the same physics that tells you doubling co2 will warm the planet.

      Sorry, no. Different mechanisms between O2 and CO2.

      http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v71/i7/p413_1


      The Absorption of Microwaves by Oxygen

      Even though electrically non-polar, oxygen gas absorbs microwaves because the magnetic moment of the O2 molecule interacts with electromagnetic fields.

      https://spark.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation


      This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth’s atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

    • David Springer

      Gates, even net longwave radiation from the Antarctic is far larger than you seem to imagine. See here:

      http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-8B.htm

      The net thermal radiation is between 50 and 75W/m2 in the Antarctic.

      Your ignorance is deep and wide.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      David Springer said:

      “The net thermal radiation is between 50 and 75W/m2 in the Antarctic.”
      _____
      Oh my! Does anyone besides me see several errors in this comment? The least of which is the over-generalization of the term “Antarctic”, with coastal regions and dry valleys having much different characteristics in terms of energy budgets than the central ice sheet. Perhaps before commenting, we ought to give Mr. Springer a chance to correct and modify his statement.

    • David Springer

      Mosher seems to believe that the same physics which enables a stealth aircraft to be nearly invisible to radar must make it invisible to infrared too.

      Some very strange ideas he has. How matter interacts with electromagnetic radiation depends on both the frequency of the radiation and the structure of the matter. IR and microwave are different frequencies and CO2 and O2 have different structure. The transfer code is not the same. Not even close.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      ““Quick, cancel all current power station plans and bring some ice up from Antarctica as the new power source of the future!”
      Something deliciously ironic about this anti-science.”
      ______
      With the ice generating that 179 w/m^2 of LW that Mr. Springer insists it is, it could well be a great power source!

    • David Springer

      But just to be clear, in a perfectly dry atmosphere with no feedbacks of any kind and a uniformly illuminated blackbody surface I have no quarrel with CO2 doubling from 280 to 560ppm producing 1.1C of surface warming.

      Problems start when it’s an approximate blackbody surface on a point-source illuminated rotating sphere with any number of feedbacks and other forcings in play both known and unknown.

    • David Springer

      Gates if you insist that Stefan-Boltzmann law is wrong that’s your business. It’s as well tested as gravity. Idiot skeptics point to Trenberth’s heat budget diagram showing earth’s average upwelling longwave is 390W/m2 and say “if that were true we could use it for a power source”.

      Actually we could use it for a power source if we could build a heat engine the size of a thunderstorm. The problem is that heat engines require energy differentials and where the surface is emitting 390W/m2 the surroundings are emitting nearly as much. In order to get decent efficiency numbers from a heat engine we need temperature gradients on the order of 500C which is the exhaust temperature of steam turbines after we’ve extracted every bit of work from it above the parasitic losses in our turbine.

      How does someone as ignorant of thermodynamics as you are manage to get a passing grade in 9th grade physical science?

    • R. Gates, Funny, use humor to divert attention from your screw up.

      An object at any temperature above absolute zero is at that temperature because the motion of the molecules that make up the object are producing, generating, causing there to be, radiant energy. It may not be sustainable energy, but it is a source of energy until it reaches zero K degrees. Black body radiation and the Stefan-Boltzann law don’t consider how that energy came to be, just that it exists and is related to the temperature of the object.

      You incorrectly assumed or implied, that the term “generates” means something other than what is implied in the conversation. Then used that as a strawman in the false argument that if the Ice were generating energy it would have to melt the ice. In order for the ice to melt it would have to absorb enough energy to reach ~0C degree (316Wm-2) plus 334 Joules per gram of additional energy. That would require an external source of energy. Throwing a passive blanket over ice is not going to cause it to melt. Adding CO2 to the Antarctic is not going to cause it to melt. That is going to require adding energy. Except for a few short months in summer, that means advection will have to increase and the mass advected would have to have a temperature greater than 0 C degrees.

      You could have taken the high road and said that you didn’t like the term “generates” because it implies something else to you, but you didn’t.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      Captn.,

      Indeed, I did not like the terms, phrases, or general perspective that Mr. Springer presented in how he characterized the spectral output from the surface in Antarctica. Of course all molecules above absolute zero have a spectral output. But the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere over Antarctica is relatively minor compared to the effects over ocean areas in higher latitudes. A warmer ocean and the advection of that warmer water (and warmer air from the sensible and latent heat flux from the ocean) is the primary effect on the climate system from increasing GH gases. This warmer water and air is advected to both poles, altering the cryosphere.

      The glacial ice mass loss in Antarctica does indeed show that there is an increased energy to the Earth climate system:

      http://www.poletopolecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Figure-2.4-land-ice-sheets.jpg

      Combining this with the OHC increases, paints a picture of continual increases to the the energy of the system. Mr. Springer’s inaccurate discussion of how much energy is coming from the ground in Antarctica misses nearly all the really important dynamics going on with increasing GH gases.

      • “The glacial ice mass loss in Antarctica does indeed show that there is an increased energy to the Earth climate system:”
        No, it might show an increase in regional in energy. But that in no way links directly to Co2 .

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      ““The glacial ice mass loss in Antarctica does indeed show that there is an increased energy to the Earth climate system:”
      No, it might show an increase in regional in energy. But that in no way links directly to Co2 .”
      _____
      Except of course that there is net glacial mass loss globally and the oceans are showing a net OHC gain, globally. So this “regional” system you refer to would seem to be the entire planetary climate system. But of course, “skeptics” would like to point to the flattened rise in tropospheric temperatures, even though they are “flattened” at the highest levels on record, and suggest that proves the system is not gaining energy, even though the troposphere, even if temperatures rose several degrees globally, would only still represent a tiny fraction of the energy being accumulated in the ocean and melting cryopshere.

    • Gates, “The glacial ice mass loss in Antarctica does indeed show that there is an increased energy to the Earth climate system:”

      Actually, it does no such thing. It does show just how complex glacial dynamics are though. Glaciers mainly melt from the bottoms and edges as they flow like the rivers of ice they are. For the glacial mass to remain “stable”, there has to be just as much frozen precipitation added to the top as is lost at the bottom and the edges. Since the Antarctic glacial mass has been around in many areas for 800ka or longer and most likely survived a number of interglacials warmer than today, you would need to look at the accumulation rates to get an idea of what is going on.

      Greenland’s glaciers have a different lifespan with the oldest, deepest ice being on the order of 250ka. Some glacier experts have noted that the recent melt is a lot like another melt about 150 years ago and there are melt and/or temperature indications that there are cyclic events called Bond and D-O events with longer frequencies. there are also 4000 and 5000 year pseudo-cycles linked to the precessional and obliquity orbital characteristics.

      Globally, glacial extent has decreased from what is was 300 to 400 years ago, but “globally” all glaciers are not currently receding, some are growing or holding their own while others have melted away. The weird part is for glaciers to grow “Globally”, you need “Goldilocks” conditions. Warm enough oceans that there is plenty of evaporation and atmospheric circulation that delivers the moisture to the right places, like the Tibetan plateau and the middle section of North American, kinda like what is going on right now.

      It is a lot more interesting than some make it out to be.

    • captd, maybe you are not familiar with this. Despite all the hype to the contrary on sea ice the Antarctic is losing glacial mass.
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif

    • JimD, “captd, maybe you are not familiar with this. Despite all the hype to the contrary on sea ice the Antarctic is losing glacial mass.”

      I believe I said that growing glacial mass requires “Goldilocks” conditions and that most glacial loss is from the bottom and edges because the glaciers flow. Temperatures in the Antarctic other than near the peninsular are not high enough to melt the glaciers. If you look at the SST at the Antarctic edge, it is cooling while the sea ice is expanding. What is missing is precipitation to accumulate on the top to balance the outflow and bottom melt.

      And try linking to a reputable source in the future.

    • captd, you can look for reputable sources and find this. It is from published work and actual measurements. We notice that the loss of glacial mass may even be accelerating. It is no surprise because the edges of the Antarctic are in warmer conditions now.
      http://www.meltonengineering.com/Rapidly%20increasing%20polar%20ice%20loss%20.jpg

      • 2 Problems with those charts Jim. Even if we accept the measurements without question, it does not differentiate between sea and land. And there is no history. So we do not know if it is normal, cyclical or abnormal.

    • JimD, I am not surprised you could find a more frightening graphic.

      http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/1499/2013/tc-7-1499-2013.pdf

      That is a little bit more current. Still Ice mass loss, I never said there wasn’t, just it is a little more complicated.

    • captd, it is instructive to look at the trend and its acceleration which is 15% per year. If 1 mm of sea level rise comes from the polar glaciers melting now, you can work out that this acceleration becomes 1 meter per year in 50 years. Perhaps that is not frightening enough for you.

    • David Springer

      captdallas 0.8 or less | February 8, 2014 at 1:24 pm |

      “You could have taken the high road and said that you didn’t like the term “generates” because it implies something else to you, but you didn’t.”

      No, he couldn’t take that road because I never used the term generate, generates, generating, or anything like it. That was only used by Gates. I used the proper terminology “radiant emission”.

      Gates remains either ignorant or dishonest or both because I was perfecly correct that a blackbody at temperature -36C has a radiant emission of 179W/m2. Ice and snow is very close to a blackbody with emissivity of

      Ice 0.98
      Snow 0.969 – 0.997

      http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-emissivity-d_432.html

      So which do you think is the more responsible factor in Gates’ denial of thermodynamic law, ignorance or dishonesty?

    • JimD, “captd, it is instructive to look at the trend and its acceleration which is 15% per year. If 1 mm of sea level rise comes from the polar glaciers melting now, you can work out that this acceleration becomes 1 meter per year in 50 years. Perhaps that is not frightening enough for you.”

      Considering that 10 years ago it was supposed to be 2-3 times that much and now it may be as little as 32 cm (13 inches) by 2050, it is a comfort. Quite a few people really would rather hear the straight dope instead of the Jimmy Dee over-selling for motivation nonsense.

      Since you and most of the more dedicated warmistas tend to over-sell to the point of the ludicrous, “Science” , that collection of different approaches to describe reality, is getting lost in a tide of one approach to sell fantasy. You should try it some time. Learn to say things like, “It could be as bad as this or not a serious problem at all, you really can’t be sure at this point.” See? Not that hard is it?

      This is were James Annan’s Bayesian estimate of “climate sensitivity” is interesting. You keep track of the guesses and see that the “alarm” decreases with increased information.

    • Springer, “No, he couldn’t take that road because I never used the term generate, generates, generating, or anything like it. That was only used by Gates. I used the proper terminology “radiant emission”.”

      I stand corrected. Gates transformed your “coming up from the ground” to generates all by hisself.

    • philj, Antarctic and Greenland glaciers are land by definition, and I was pointing out that their melt rate is responsible for 1 mm/yr of sea-level rise and they say from its downward curvature that this is increasing 15% per year, a growth rate which you can extrapolate to 1 meter per year in 50 years. This is just from melt rates, not uncertain sea-level measurements, captd. I don’t expect it to reach 1 meter per year that quickly, but just showed what you get when extrapolating from measurements. 15% per year doesn’t sound much until you do that calculation.

  76. “And in many respects, I hope that I’m wrong [i.e., 20 more years of global cooling]. And the reason I hope that I’m wrong is because it’s going to cost several million people their lives if I’m right. In Third World countries where food and water are a problem right now, it’s going to get worse. Cold is way worse for humanity than warm is.” ~Don Easterbrook

    See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-who-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global#sthash.BScY1Lmp.dpuf

  77. Generalissimo Skippy

    It is all about the law of conservation of energy.

    At any time the change in energy content of the planet requires a source at top of atmosphere (TOA). That requires a change in incoming or outgoing energy.

    It is all very simple at TOA. An up trend is warming – down is cooling.

    http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_Net_zps9f7faaaa.png.html?sort=3&o=6

    There is no trend. It is a little bit warmer in the past couple of years from the TSI peak – which is at the peak value seen in the Schwabe cycle over the past few decades.

    e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_Net_zps9f7faaaa.png.html?sort=3&o=6

    All the rest is internal variability in a deterministic chaotic system – something that causes feedbacks in cloud radiative forcing amongst other things. This suggests that non-warming – or even cooling – is the order of the day for another decade to three.

  78. “CO2 by itself is incapable of causing significant climate change. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 39/1,000ths of one percent. It’s nothing. Ninety-five percent of the greenhouse effect is water vapor, and water vapor is not changing.” ~Don Easterbrook (See, Ibid.)

    • Ask Easterbrook for a reference for that 99% figure. He won’t be able to provide one as he’s just blowing air.

      Here’s an actual science reference though that water vapor contributes just 50% of the greenhouse effect:
      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

      • … although the analogy of a greenhouse is erroneous it nonetheless must be recognized where it comes from–i.e., the easily observable, inarguable fact that clouds hold heat in at night.

    • @ lolwot

      99% figure… Where?

      You should read things more carefully aside from desperate attempts to play “gotcha” with Dr. Curry.

    • lolwot

      – 50% of the purported anthropogenic greenhouse effect (in actual fact probably much lower, as the model-predicted WV feedback cited by IPCC is arguably greatly exaggerated: (see Minschwaner & Dessler, 2004)

      – A much higher percentage of the total greenhouse effect.

      Two different things, lolwot.

      Max

    • David Springer

      lolly

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Attribution_of_individual_atmospheric_component_contributions_to_the_terrestrial_greenhouse_effect,_separated_into_feedback_and_forcing_categories_(NASA).png

      water vapor 50%
      clouds 25%
      CO2 20%
      other 5%

      Radiative modeling analyses of the terrestrial greenhouse structure described in a parallel study in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Schmidt et al., 2010) found that water vapor accounts for about 50% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, with clouds contributing 25%, carbon dioxide 20%, and the minor greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols accounting for the remaining 5%, as shown in (this image).

      For the sake of argument I’m willing to accept those numbers.

      • Compared to water CO2 is irrelevant–e.g.,

        ABSTRACT

        A global-mean model is used here to elucidate possible bounds on the surface temperature of a simplified ocean–atmosphere system. Extending previous one-dimensional models, it has included as internal variables the low-level and high-level cloud covers and the turbulent wind at the surface. The main hypothesis for the model closure is that the conversion rate from the solar to the kinetic energy—or, equivalently, the rate of internal entropy production—is maximized, which has been applied with considerable success in past latitudinal models.

        From the model derivation, it is found that the surface temperature is narrowly bounded below by the onset of the greenhouse effect and above by the rapid increase of the saturation vapor pressure. Because both are largely intrinsic properties of water, the resulting surface temperature is mostly insensitive to detailed balances or changing external conditions. Even with a 50% change of the solar constant from its present-day value, the model temperature has varied by only about 10 K. The reason that the heat balances can be maintained is an internal adjustment of the low cloud cover, which offsets the solar effect. The model offers a plausible explanation of an equable climate in the geological past so long as there is a substantial ocean.

        (Hsien-Wang Ou, Possible Bounds on the Earth’s Surface Temperature: From the Perspective of a Conceptual Global-Mean Model, Journal of Climate, Vol. 14)

    • “- A much higher percentage of the total greenhouse effect.”

      Nope, by the best calculations water vapor only contributes about 50% of the total greenhouse effect.

      Nothing near the 95% Easterbrook claimed. If you ask him where he got that number he won’t be able to tell you where he got it. The 95% figure is a kind of dogma among those trying to downplay man’s role in the ongoing warming.

    • I suspect it will be very difficult to put a number on it, given the interactions of all the phase and albedo changes.
      ====================

    • David Springer

      For argument’s sake you are willing to accept (“natural” GH effect)

      75% H2O (vapor, liquid droplets/ice crystals in clouds)
      20% CO2
      5% others

      Sounds reasonable to me, although I’ve seen some lower guess-timates for CO2 (eg. Lindzen).

      Max

      • The landmark paper by Ferenc Miskolczi shows that additional atmospheric CO2 – little as it is – cannot affect global temperatures because it only replaces an equivalent amount of water vapor.

        That is why the greenhouse effect has been so constant over time. Miskolczi shows that the atmosphere could always hold more water but it doesn’t: it is always in a “saturated” state as regards its greenhouse effect of all greenhouse gases and that the fine tuning is controlled by a balancing of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere – the supply of is essentially infinite given the immensity of the oceans.

    • Manaker, “Sounds reasonable to me, although I’ve seen some lower guess-timates for CO2 (eg. Lindzen).”

      This debate has been going on for some time.

      “The estimate of the effect of carbon dioxide on temperatures made by S. Arrhenius (1903) about 40 years ago gave changes about twice as large as those shown in ‘Table VI, but he had taken the maximum energy absorption by this gas as 30 per cent, whereas the Rubens and Aschkinaas exponents give a maximum of only 15 per cent. “\

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf

    • david springer

      Let’s start with Gavin Schmidt’s breakdown of the “natural” GHE:

      75% H2O (WV + clouds)
      20% CO2
      5% others

      And do a quickie check, using IPCC’s estimate of GH forcing to date
      2.2 W/m^2 for all GHGs
      1.8 W/m^2 for CO2, IOW
      0.4 W/m^2 for “others”

      With model-predicted net feedback from H2O (WV plus clouds) resulting in a theoretical tripling of the total anthropogenic forcing =
      4.4 W/m^2 for H2O

      (and ignoring other minor feedbacks)

      Anthro GHE
      CO2 = 1.8 / 3.768 [Stefan-Boltzmann] = 0.48C

      Others = 0.4 / 3.768 = 0.11C

      H2O = 4.4 / 3.768 = 1.17C

      Total GHE (natural + anthro) breakdown does not change:

      H2O = 75%
      CO2 = 20%
      Others = 5%

      Of course, the total H2O GHE would be slightly lower if the IPCC model predictions of WV and cloud feedback are exaggerated – as is most likely, since the observed total warming (around 0.75C) does not check with the theoretical warming based on the above IPCC forcing estimates (1.8C).

      Some of this can be explained by the long lag time (observed TCR is smaller than ECS, which is basis for IPCC forcing estimates) and the rest probably a result of exaggerated IPCC feedback assumptions.

      Would you agree with this?

      Max

      • If you believe humanity’s carbon dioxide is a big control knob that trumps nature, in the real world, you’re wrong.

        Moreover, galactic cosmic ray deniers should face the facts. Certainly someday, the truth will show itself to all: “At least 40 periods of warming and cooling have occurred since 1480 AD, all well before CO2 emissions could have been a factor.” (Dr. Easterbrook)

    • David Springer

      Wagathon

      Rather than control knob I view CO2 as an on/off switch. When it’s on the ocean surface is mostly liquid and the greenhouse warming is due to water vapor with a ceiling temperture set by clouds which build up until they starve the ocean of enough shortwave energy so that no additional water evaporates to form even more clouds. When the CO2 switch is in the off position the surface is largely frozen.

      Think of CO2 as the kindling which ignites the water cycle.

      • You don’t believe energy from the Sun is capable of causing water to evaporate without any help of CO2? CO2 interferes with the evaporation of water by intercepting solar energy and radiating in all directions. But, you could slow down the process of evaporation by erecting an actual greenhouse over the ocean.

      • CO2 interferes with the evaporation of water by intercepting solar energy and radiating in all directions.

        Co2 is transparent to Solar SW IR except for a small peak at 2u.

    • wagathon, you realize that
      1. easterbrook fabricates data
      2. GCRs constitute a tinier fraction of the atmosphere than C02.
      3. C02 matters where there is no water. That was the mystery the air force
      solved in the 50s and 60s.

    • Steven Mosher

      1. easterbrook fabricates data
      2. GCRs constitute a tinier fraction of the atmosphere than C02.
      3. C02 matters where there is no water.

      1. EVERYBODY fabricates data: IPCC, GISS, NOAA, NSIDC, etc.

      2. You are on thin ice here, Mosh. The “fraction of the atmosphere” is not really what matters (CO2 is ALSO only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, right?) What is important is the effect. A small change in cloud cover has the same impact on climate as a doubling of CO2

      3. CO2 may “matter where there is no water”, but there is a helluva lot more water than CO2 and, again, what is important is the effect. Even Gavin Schmidt agrees that the effect of H2O constitutes 75% of the natural (or natural + anthropogenic) GH effect (and other estimates put this even higher).

      Max

    • Wagathon

      The landmark paper by Ferenc Miskolczi shows that additional atmospheric CO2 – little as it is – cannot affect global temperatures because it only replaces an equivalent amount of water vapor.

      Realize that the “consensus crowd” has not bought into Misolczi’s hypothesis.

      A look at the longer-term change in atmospheric water vapor since 1948 seems to corroborate this hypothesis, however. A couple of years ago I took the published NOAA data from radiosondes, etc. since 1948 and plotted it against HadCRUT3.
      http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3606945645_3450dc4e6f_b.jpg

      It shows that in short-term “blips”, temperature and water vapor go up and down together (as the Minschwaner & Dessler, 2004 short-term observations showed), BUT over the longer record, atmospheric water vapor content decreases as temperature increases.

      This is counterintuitive (and just the opposite of what the IPCC models predict), but it is what the observed data show, which would lend credence to Misolczi’s hypothesis that CO2 is “replacing” water vapor as temperature rises.

      Max

      • The surface of the ocean and the atmosphere are comprised of atoms and energy from the Sun is added. Atoms are not taken away and energy is not destroyed. And yet, a mass or body is changed—e.g., some of the water is changed from liquid to gas—a gas that rises—leaving the surface of the Earth colder than when the gas was a part of it. Is the atmosphere containing the gas the same atmosphere? Is the Earth’s surface that loses the gas the same surface? No: the energy from the Sun has created a new ocean; a colder one; and, in conjunction with the changing ocean, solar energy has created a different atmosphere: a wetter one. Did the presence of CO2 turn liquid water to water vapor? The ice of Antarctica is neither liquid nor gas and the presence of CO2 does not make the water different: it is the same solid substance with or without the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere above it.

    • Vilnius

      Without getting into whether the hypothesis of Miskolczi is correct or not, we have the radiosonde observations since 1948 which show a long-term degrease in atmospheric water vapor content over a period during which temperature increased, while pure theory (Clausius-Clapeyron) plus short-term observations of Minschwaner & Dessler 2004 would indicate that water vapor should increase as it warms.

      Care to comment as to why this is so?

      Max

      PS Please don’t say, “because the observations must be wrong”. Thanks.

  79. Jim Cripwell

    I agree with you.

    Just because models can be (and are) used in many strange and wondrous ways does not mean that their outputs should be equated with actual scientific evidence. It depends on the input to the model.

    1. Observed phenomenon => model => scientific evidence
    2. Theoretical deliberation => model => NO scientific evidence

    This is a distinction that many who work with models either fail to see or purposely blur.

    1 above is the case of the UAH temperature record
    2 above is the case of the model-oredicted 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.

    Max

    • manacker | February 5, 2014 at 2:42 pm | Reply

      “It depends on the input to the model.”

      And it usually requires a test of the outputs against the ‘Observed phenomenon’ to verify the model is correct.

      Outputs != ‘Observed phenomenon’ = FAIL.

    • manacker | February 7, 2014 at 4:50 pm |

      I am talking about the method. If you have data that water vapor decreases when CO2 and temp goes up, then it is quite okay to make hypotheses on the why. But your hero states he makes computations on the IR transparency of the cloudy air. The problem is that his computations, using a clear-sky radiative transfer code, are profoundly incorrect. It is like to calculate the transparency of a skyscraper from the top to its base as if there were no walls at all, when in reality there are floors and walls at several levels, blocking the way of the photons completely. So the number he produces, 1.87, is as meaningless as it is.

      Otherwise, any real, scientific ideas and hypotheses using correct methods against the IPCC consensus are wholeheartedly welcome.

  80. Polar bears are running out of Arctic sea ice (science tells us this is because of human CO2).

    The hapless beasts are threatened with extinction, as there very existence depends on late summer ice extent exceeding 1million square kilometers (defined by science as 0).

    But, hey, the sea ice is growing in the Antarctic.

    Why don’t we simply move the bears down south where there is a growing supply of sea ice?

    A poll has been taken among current dwellers of Antarctica, in order to see how they would react to such a proposal.

    These native dwellers (all penguins) have unanimously rejected the proposal.

    I can’t imagine why.

    • David Springer

      Penguin tastes just like chicken.

    • Penguin tastes just like chicken.

      So does polar bear (if you cook the s–t out of it and serve it with sweet-sour sauce).

    • Manacker,

      “Why don’t we simply move the bears down south where there is a growing supply of sea ice?”

      Because at the minimum there is still less total sea ice around Antarctica than there is in the Arctic, but it looks like things will change soon.

  81. O/T, but some might like to explain realities to John Cook and the audience on this supposedly “academic” (Ha! Ha!) website.

    The truth is out there – So how do you debunk a myth?
    https://theconversation.com/the-truth-is-out-there-so-how-do-you-debunk-a-myth-22641

    • Peter Lang

      I’m afraid explaining realities to John Cook would be a waste of time – he already has his mind made up that the myth is correct.

      Max

    • manacker, it’s funny you say that. John Cook apparently believes a myth of his own creation. Or at least, that’s the most charitable way to explain him repeatedly using a fabricated quote.

      And maybe the rest of his Skeptical Science team believes the myth too. After all, they’ve been having a discussion about that article of mine in their forums for a few days now, and they haven’t said anything in public or made any effort to correct their use of a fabricated quote. I hear delusions can spread.

      Or wait. Is it worse to call these people delusional or dishonest? Maybe I should go back to the latter.

    • Brandon Shollenberger

      Interesting.

      Max

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      He says Obama tweeted their message

      1. The tweet was not from Obama, but from the offshoot of his re-election group.
      2. The tweet was incorrect; the papers they chose did not find climate change “dangerous”.

      John Cook is telling yet another another porkie.

    • I misplaced a comment:

      manacker, aint it just?

      Maybe it shouldn’t be too surprising after the whole Recursive Fury fiasco he was involved in. His paper was quasi-retracted because he and his co-authors misrepresented what people said so badly even a very friendly journal wasn’t able to stand it. Is flat-out making things up that much of a leap?

      (Yes. Yes it is. I’m still shocked Skeptical Science would stand by its use of a fabricated quote.)

    • thisisnotgoodtogo, the distinction about it not being from Obama himself didn’t bother me too much (as it was an easy mistake to make), but the second point you raise is damning.

      John Cook and Skeptical Science promoted the “Obama” tweet without making any effort to correct it. They knew it exaggerated their conclusions, and they presented it to people without any words of caution. That’s falsely promoting one’s work, an obvious form of dishonesty.

      It’d have been easy to say, “The tweet wasn’t quite accurate, but it still shows….” They didn’t. One can only conclude they were more interested in promoting themselves than in actually informing people.

    • I’m reminded that Bill Clinton once called CO2 ‘plant food’, but only once. Dare the use of cooked geese persist?
      ========================

    • There is poison in the paste(patina, pastiche of science) of the livers of these fat geese, served up on high.
      ================

  82. manacker, aint it just?

    Maybe it shouldn’t be too surprising after the whole Recursive Fury fiasco he was involved in. His paper was quasi-retracted because he and his co-authors misrepresented what people said so badly even a very friendly journal wasn’t able to stand it. Is flat-out making things up that much of a leap?

    (Yes. Yes it is. I’m still shocked Skeptical Science would stand by its use of a fabricated quote.)

  83. Snowy day up in Boston and I was kicking around and found the missing heat!

    “Mpenda effect” – Hot water freezes faster than cold water. Seriously.

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/hot_water.html

    One corollary I saw was to Pope’s climate theory, where warm artic -> increased snowfall -> colder temps

    Another interesting thing is that water apparently reaches its greatest density at 4C, which might explain why the deep ocean consistently remains at that temp? Not sure it’s the same with salt water though.

    • Yes, SUT, to my meager knowledge it is different with seawater, being complex with at least three major variables, salinity, pressure, and temperature, often kinetic energy.
      ==========

    • “Not sure it’s the same with salt water though.”

      I am, it’s not.

      Seawater increases in density with increase in salinity and decrease in temperature.

  84. Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice?

    The horrid truth probably is, like with so many other Climate Science questions (and science questions in general when looked at realistically) is:

    “We really don’t know quite yet….check back with us in a few years. Thank you.”

  85. maksimovich,

    Canards?
    Serfs don’t git the math
    but can see the duck. )

    … Canard explosions …
    I like that! CO2 is so
    beneficial ter life.

    bts

    • 600 years for the temperatures to go up 1C in the 0-2000m layer.

      The next ice age will be here by then.

    • sunshine, even the ocean surface changes by several degrees up and down every year. It is easy with the forcing, and a fallacy to think the ocean doesn’t respond.

    • even the ocean surface changes by several degrees up and down every year.

      But we do not expect to see it over the transition from spring to summer in the SH ie its going the wrong way.

      Observe the Tasman sea anomaly Aus/nz

      http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDYOC059.shtml

      • Well maybe you do. I’ll use the NH so I get the months correct. Longest day of the year is end of June, warmest time is August, largest day over day increase in Tmx is April/May. Now you get some well warmed water sloshing around, and the result might not be intuitive. What you’d want to do is track the warm water back to its source. Also anomaly data hides the actual temp, that water could actually be quite cold. Note without more info I’m not saying it is or isn’t, just it could be.

    • MiCro

      Longest day of the year usually occurs in November (in the Northern Hemisphere).

      When they switch from daylight time to standard time, and the day is 25 hours long.

      Max

    • David Springer

      What percentage of the global ocean’s volume is sampled by ARGO?

      Do those buoys go under ice?

      I understand the average depth of the global ocean is 4000 meters.

      How deep do ARGO buoys dive?

    • David Springer

      The switch away from daylight savings is done at 2am so it’s actually the longest night not the longest day.

    • Under the ice? No. The US Navy does go under the ice.

      I read somewhere last night that they are considering deploying robots that will drop to 6,000 meters.

    • Depends on how you define “day”.

    • JCH

      Yeah. The Navy has been doing that for more than 50 years.

      The first submarine to surface at the North Pole during maximum winter ice was the USS Skate.

      From wiki:

      In the following months, Skate, as the first ship of her class, conducted various tests in the vicinity of her home port. In early March 1959, she again headed for the Arctic to pioneer operations during the period of extreme cold and maximum ice thickness. The submarine steamed 3,900 miles (6,300 km) under pack ice while surfacing through it ten times. On 17 March, she surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste.

      Max

    • David Springer

      JCH | February 7, 2014 at 9:32 pm |

      “Under the ice? No. The US Navy does go under the ice.”

      Yeah but any information they collect is classified.

    • There has been some sharing of US Navy data. How much U don’t know.

      The Admirals are not exactly saying they know the JPL is wrong.:

    • David Springer

      The fact of the matter remains that ARGO samples less than 25% of the ocean’s volume. It only dives to half the average depth of the ocean so that alone means 75% of the ocean is untouched by it. I’m not aware of any submarines which dive below 2000 meters either and the handful of nukes we have patrolling under Arctic sea ice doesn’t even begin to be enough to assemble a continuous temperature series for that from top to bottom even if the data wasn’t classified.

  86. Generalissimo Skippy

    testing

    • David Springer

      It’s good you’re testing the ice. Last guys didn’t and got stuck in it.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Never underestimate the predictability of trivial snark.

    • David Springer

      Neither underestimate how quickly it will be expanded upon by complaining about it.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Never mind the utter pointlessness of it all.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      I have had two comments on ocean heat disappear – presumably because of the number of links. Which were less than the nominal 5. But frankly the presence of springer, maxy, webby, etc make it all worthwhile.

    • David Springer

      I’ve never really considered blog comments to be anything much more than a high tech form of graffiti. Your complaint thus falls on deaf ears.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      JC SNIP

      But my comment on ocean heat still hasn’t appeared – lost forever it seems.

      Let’s reprise.

      This is ARGO. It shows annual to interannual variability – but how much can be read into this. How consistent is with NODC? How consistent is NODC with a recent paper by Lyman and Johnson (2013) – Estimating global ocean heat content changes in the upper 1800 m since 1950 and the influence of climatology choice, Journal of Climate? How influential is the climatology of choice?

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/fac81357-a804-4318-8f39-b680d625baf9_zps5931e362.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

      Warm water is of course concentrated at the surface – so a depth of 2000m amply samples the volume of ocean where most of the heat is. Despite springers spurious claims to the knowing a great deal more than any of the scientists involved in the design and implementation of the program.

      How consistent is it with CERES?

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_Net_zps9f7faaaa.png.html?sort=3&o=8

      This seems another area where springers spurious rejection of data substitutes for actual discovery of what it means. But that is ludicrously irrelevant as usual.

      The fact is that ocean heat follows net radiant flux at toa as it must by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Any increase or decrease in ocean heat is caused by changes in the energy coming in or going out.

      I have a little first order differential equation.

      d(W&H)/dt (J/s) = energy in (J/s) – energy out (J/s)

      I have to supply the units or springer and webby insist it is dimensionally incorrect – energy is Joules after all – except when we are looking at change per second.

      It is almost perfectly accurate – with a few minor terms such as the heat from combustion, from radioactive decay in the mantle and from the core. Energy in changes very little – but is at the Schwabe cycle peak as well as a 1000 year Grand Maxima.

      There is no trend in CERES – no missing energy anymore. It seems unlikely that the ocean is actually warming.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “It is almost perfectly accurate – with a few minor terms such as the heat from combustion, from radioactive decay in the mantle and from the core. Energy in changes very little – but is at the Schwabe cycle peak as well as a 1000 year Grand Maxima.

      There is no trend in CERES – no missing energy anymore. It seems unlikely that the ocean is actually warming.”
      ______
      Sorry, the ARGO float data combined with Jason and Topix would say otherwise. The sea level continues to rise from both glacial melt as well as thermal expansion with increasing OHC at all levels.

      This doesn’t sit well with your “upside down” analysis, trying to insist that TOA dictates or controls anything. TOA imbalance simply is a metric of the imbalance not a causal factor– only external forcings will be causal factors in long-term energy imbalance changes. The current TOA imbalance of around 0.7 to 0.9 w/m^2, varies slightly up and down mainly on the ENSO cycle on the short-term, and that imbalance is exceptionally close to the gains we’re seeing in OHC with the added energy represented by the state change of glacial ice to ocean water. The sleepy sun will also be a factor, but more in regional NH temperatures. Over the long-term, the TOA imbalance is set to continue as long as GH gases continue to rise, being the strongest single external forcing now to the climate.

    • The best way to see it is that the ocean heat content is a major integrator of the TOA imbalance since little energy is stored elsewhere. They are not independent. Integrated quantities are much easier to see signals in. The TOA imbalance itself is quite noisy and subject to measurement drifts and biases.

    • David Springer

      Generalissimo Skippy | February 8, 2014 at 3:42 pm |

      “Warm water is of course concentrated at the surface – so a depth of 2000m amply samples the volume of ocean where most of the heat is.”

      It then follows it doesn’t sample where most of the cold is.

      “Despite springers spurious claims to the knowing a great deal more than any of the scientists involved in the design and implementation of the program.”

      Where did I claim that, Skippy?

      So if the top 2000 meters warms by 0.1C and the lower 2000 meters cools by 0.1C your position is that the change in heat content in the lower range doesn’t count because the warmth is mostly in the upper layer?

      Excuse me? I do believe it takes one BTU to heat one pound of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit regardless of its starting temperature (discounting phase changes). It then follows that one pound of water less one BTU reduces its temperature by the same degree.

      Are we in agreement so far? I hope so.

      So your assertion that all the warmth is concentrated in the upper 2000 meters is meaningless drivel.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      The heat content is a balance between turbulent mixing and the buoyancy of warm water. Buoyancy dominates – hence warm water on the surface.

      http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/Seawater/depth.asp

      Other than that springers comment is a load of spew. Which is apparently acceptable discourse in this morass.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      And what have from gates and jimmy dee is the usual narrative free of any data.

      The ARGO data is not showing any increase – as it follows net CERES – as it must. The so called noise is the signal of climate variability. The change in energy content of the planet must – by the 2nd law of thermodynamics – be equal to the difference between energy in and energy out.

      Real data and not just a narrative about radiant imbalances. Always distrust someone who wants to reject hard won data holus bolus.

      The stability of CERES is 0.2% in SW and 0.15% in IR per decade.

      ‘This paper highlights how the emerging record of satellite observations from
      the Earth Observation System (EOS) and A-Train constellation are advancing our ability to more completely document and understand the underlying processes associated with variations in the Earth’s top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget. Large-scale TOA radiation changes during the past decade are observed to be within 0.5 Wm-2 per decade
      based upon comparisons between Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard Terra and Aqua and other instruments. Tropical variations in emitted outgoing longwave (LW) radiation are found to closely track changes in the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During positive ENSO phase (El Nino), outgoing LW radiation increases, and decreases during the negative ENSO phase (La Nina). The coldest year during the last decade occurred in 2008, during which strong La Nina conditions persisted throughout most of the year.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf

      There is an interesting fact about Jason. The sea level rise is given as 3.2mm/year. But the ARGO record is a steric rise of 0.69mm/year over part of the period – with some loss of freshwater content.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/vonSchuckmannampLTroan2011-fig5PG_zpsee63b772.jpg.html?sort=3&o=106

      Which is correct? I’d put my money on ARGO.

    • GS, your view of ARGO data isn’t tethered to reality. The OHC has increased significantly during the “pause”.

    • David Springer

      Generalissimo Skippy | February 8, 2014 at 4:52 pm |

      “It is not really all that deep seated springer – merely a reasonable response to serial stalking.”

      Oh you poor thing. My posting from the other side of the planet frightens you.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Yet more tedium from the Jab… – note that this is not an ad hom merely a literary allusion to springers habitual nonsense of which this is just another example. I am assuming that drivel – as used by springer in this thread – is in the same vein as spew and is therefore acceptable discourse in this morass .

      Obviously not – Jab… – like dw… bot – seems another victim of arbitrary moderation.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Graph it yourself jimmy dee – http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Marine_Atlas.html – or I will be inclined to think your comment is so much drivel and spew.

    • GS. Here it is from those pages, same as everywhere else. You were saying…?
      http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      ‘The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 7-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data.’

      So what does this source say? One line showing decrease in steric sea level rise and one showing an increase? Something much less than 3.2mm/year? Obviously not saying anything very much at all. Obviously inconsistent with von Schuckmann and Le Troan.

      What a pointless link – unless the intent is to mislead. The inconsistencies have already been discussed.

    • GS, it was a page from your link. Anyway, ARGO is already more robust than CERES, being an integrated quantity, so why you persist with that wiggly line where you can’t even see the mean, I don’t know.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Your page stops at 2008 – why not try updating. That after all seems the point of it.

      CERS data is available here – http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php

      There is zilch trend is the ‘integrated’ measure of outgoing energy anomalies. Try it for yourself.

      Change in OHC must be consistent with net changes in TOA radiant flux.

      e.g. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1375.html?WT.ec_id=NGEO-201202 – and – http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf

    • GS, maybe you are happier (?) with this one. Took a few seconds to find. I am sure there are other versions.
      http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/ohc11.jpg

    • current OHC

      Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean. (bold mine)…> – Loeb et al 2012

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Somehow the repetition of the NODC graph we started with is unconvincing. The join with earlier data is more than a little suspect.

      But of course OHC is consistent with net TOA radiant flux – as I keep saying.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_Net_zps9f7faaaa.png.html?sort=3&o=8

      There is no trend and therefore no longer any missing energy.

      And here is ARGO.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_Net_zps9f7faaaa.png.html?sort=3&o=8

      A lot of annual to interannual variation with the best yet to come – as the ARGO Atlas site says. There is minor warming over some period of ARGO and CERES – extrapolating that to premature conclusions is unwise. Especially given that the increase in CERES over the relevant period was from less reflected SW.

      e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_MODIS.gif.html?sort=3&o=159

      JCH managed to read the abstract in the link I provided – not all that impressive.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      It seems that the tedium of arbitrary snips continues. It seems I have to drop serial stalk… in favour of serial snark. Although the constant stream of trivial ‘spew’ posted after my handle by springer seems better described by the former than the latter. Are attempts at cyber bullying acceptable on CE? It seems so – and without any recourse for naming it for what it is.

  87. Steven Mosher

  88. Richard LH

    Tibet (not measured) is only “0.8% of world land surface”.

    What % of world land plus sea surface is being actually measured today?

    a. less than 50%
    b. 70%
    c. more than 90%

    What % was measured in 2000?

    Max

    • Not much, I estimated this a month a go, I think for 2013 I have data for 10,000-12,000 stations, if you think that measurement is good out to 100 miles, I think it covers 20 some % of the lands surface, less than 10% if you include oceans. This is all from memory, and subject to fog. But real numbers should be pretty close.

    • Actually the question is finer than that. Given that most of the mathemagics is done on 1*1 degree land grid cells, what percentage of those land grid cells have data (as opposed to estimates) in them at 0, 50, 100 and 150 years ago?

      Station counts and the like are nearly useless as a statistic. If confuses rather than clarifies the question.

      • I agree grid statistics over time is a better metric. But even the optimistic station area metric shows how under sampled the surface is. Much of the GAT series is an estimate.

        And the actual station measurements tell a different story(any Co2 signal is exceeding small, as to be undetectable).

    • Mi Cro | February 8, 2014 at 8:39 am |

      “Much of the GAT series is an estimate.”

      As I have mentioned elsewhere, Nyquist is hardly honoured at all!

  89. From above:

    angech | February 4, 2014 at 12:51 am |

    Last time I looked the “Antarctic circle” where the ice is on sea and land together cover a much wider area than that of the small North pole. Why don’t we lump the land and sea ice down there all in together as a metric???

    Again, quoting from above – to begin showing that Springer’s comments are incorrect –

    michael hart | February 3, 2014 at 1:33 pm | Reply

    How much extra sunlight is being reflected by this increased sea ice?

    David Springer | February 3, 2014 at 3:12 pm |

    Not enough to change anything. Liquid water reflects more when sun is low on horizon and down there’s it’s low or beneath the horizon most of the year.
    sunshinehours1 | February 3, 2014 at 5:10 pm |

    “Antarctic Sea Ice is at its maximum at the equinox when there IS sunlight for 12 hours per every latitude on the planet. Further, Antarctic Sea Ice at its maximum IS exposed to strongly absorbed sunlight at solar incidence angle between 15 and 30 degrees for 10 of those 12 hours.”

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/impact-of-more-antarctic-sea-ice/
    David Springer | February 3, 2014 at 6:03 pm |

    Simply, no.

    http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-7.htm

    Note between 60 and 90 south latitude there is hardly any shortwave energy. Less than 1% of the total on the planet easily. You cannot absorb or reflect sunlight that isn’t there.

    Write that down.
    michael hart | February 3, 2014 at 8:45 pm |

    Thanks for links.
    David, so that graph shows that if the new ice is forming at 60 degrees latitude, then the insolation actually looks pretty large compared to the other fluxes (and then there may be largish errors to consider in those calculations), yes?
    michael hart | February 3, 2014 at 8:46 pm |

    …that is, of the order of, maybe, tens of watts/m2
    David Springer | February 4, 2014 at 6:09 am |

    Still no, Michael. The percentage growth of Antarctic sea ice is very small and it grows in the winter when the sun is very low or below the horizon. So while the albedo of the entire south polar circle has a small influence on global heat budget the difference in average ice extent between 50 years ago and today is only a tiny fraction of the total influence.
    David Springer | February 4, 2014 at 6:44 am |

    @sunshine hours

    The surface area of the earth is 510 million square kilometers.

    The growth in Antarctic sea ice extent is less than 2 million square kilometers. So the effected surface is 0.4% of the earth’s surface.

    Assuming the increase is at 60S the average surface insolation there is less than 50W/m2.

    http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-7.htm

    while the average insolation at the earth’s surface is 198W/m2

    http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-6.htm

    So if the change in albedo of that 0.4% of the earth’s surface goes from 0% to 100% (in reality it’s about 10% to 90%) and that part of the surface only receives 25% of the average insolation of the earth’s surface then the effective change in the global heat budget is less than 0.1%.

    Give it up. There’s no smoking gun in Antarctic sea ice change due to higher albedo. It’s just about exactly cancelled by albedo change in the opposite direction at the north pole in any case.

    It gets involved, but you essentially have to look at each day of the year, each hour of the day, at each different latitude. Heat transfer (absorption or reflection or conduction) is an instantaneous action; and conduction, convection, evaporation, sublimation and LW radiation emission are all proportional to the instantaneous differences of temperature across a boundary layer … So, “simple averages” of anything longer than an hour are incorrect.

    So, first, WHEN and WHERE do Minimum Antarctic sea ice, Maximum Antarctic Sea Ice, Minimum Arctic Ocean sea ice, and Maximum Arctic Sea cie occur?

    Method: You agree on what are the minimum and maximum sea ice levels are at each pole, and when that minimum or maximum occurs. Then you look at those dates, at those latitudes, at the solar elevation angles at those latitudes on those dates.

    Then you can begin asking questions:

    Does a 1.0 million km^2 decrease in Arctic sea ice minimum matter?
    Does a 1Mkm^2 loss of arctic sea increase, or decrease, net planetary radiation budgets?
    Does losing 1 Mkm^2 of arctic sea cool, or heat, the planet?
    Is a 1 Mkm^2 loss of Arctic sea ice a heating influence in mid-June, irrelevant in late-August, and a cooling influence by late September?

    In 2012, the minimum Arctic sea ice extent was about 3.5 Mkm^2. If 30% of that remaining sea ice were lost in 2013 – which didn’t happen – would that loss have been as important as a mere 5% increase in Antarctic sea ice maximum from 19.0 Mkm^2 to 20.0 Mkm^2?
    Should we be even looking at “Total Sea Ice” as anything but a complete distraction?

    Is a 1.0 Mkm^2 increase in Antarctic sea ice year-round important? (If the Antarctic sea ice increase contionues at the same rate it has since May2011, when will sea traffic around Cape Horn be blocked by sea ice? 8 years? 10 years?)

    First, let us agree on areas of sea ice around each pole, and when minimum and maximum occurs.
    Minimum Antarctic sea ice occurs across several weeks in late February – late March, just after the time of the maximum solar radiation of the year on January 3. Conveniently, this ,minimum extents happens around the equinox as well.

    Last year, minimum Antarctic sea extents was 3 Mkm^62. This sea ice surrounded 3.5 Mkm^2 of antarctic ice shelves, and 14.0 Mkm^2 of land ice. Total ice at minimum = 14.0 + 3.5 + 3.0 = 20.5 Mkm^2, or the equivalent of a spherical cap extending from the pole to latitude 67.0 south.

    Using the same arithmatic, for a record-high-Antarctic sea ice maximum last October of 20.0 Mkm^2, the maximum Antarctic sea ice occurs (last year) at latitude 59.2, in late September-early October, when the earth is near “vertical” around the fall equinox.

    As at the spring equinox, this maximum occurs not when the solar year is at a maximum, but near its average condition. (Regardless, each reflection or absorption values will use the actual value of solar radiation at TOA for that day-of-year. )

    Minimum Arctic sea ice occurs in mid-September, but around latitudes 76-82 degrees north, and so the HIGHEST solar elevation possible (at times of minimum sea ice extents is only 8-14 degrees. Based on a 2012 minimum arctic sea ice extents of 3.5 Mkm^2, this would be equal to a spherical cap centered on the pole going from the pole down to latitude 80.5 north. The actual arctic ice cap is off-centered, a rough cap with a center about 4 degrees towards Alaska’s north coast. Notice that, at minimum arctic sea ice extents, virtuallty ALL of the other northern hemisphere sea ice has already melted (except a narrow band on Greenland’s east coast), and so only this little beanie cap needs be checked.

    At maximum Arctic sea ice extents, Hudson’s Bay, Bering Straits, much of the Bering Sea, some of the north sea, Norwegian Sea, Danish Straits, etc, etc have frozen over and are included in the “official” totals. For the Arctic Ocean, area 14.0 Mkm^2, this represents the sea ice of interest. That 14.0 Mkm^2 of arctic ocean sea ice also can be represented as a rough circular cap extending from the pole down to latitude 70.9.

    So, several of our answers are already apparent: ALL of the arctic sea ice is freezing and thawing closer to the pole than ANY of the antarctic sea ice: Maximum arctic sea ice goes down to latitude 70.9 and thaws back to latitude 80.5 north. The “edge” (thawing zone) of the minimum Antarctic sea ice begins at latitude 67.0 south, and it froze and thawed last year between latitude 67.0 south and 58.8 south.

    Thus, on every day of the year, at every hour of the solar cycle, every square kilometer of Antarctic sea ice is “seeing” a higher solar elevation angle, a lower air mass, and thus greater solar radiation than ANY Arctic sea ice.

    Simply comparing total sea ice areas, or even comparing “simple Arctic and Antarctic sea ice anomalies” on equivalent dates is wrong. Not unfortunate or ill-advised, looking at “total ice area” is dead wrong if you expect to compare Arctic and Antarctic sea ice albedo on global warming.

    But it is even worse than than you thought!

    Sea ice reduces heat loss as well:
    Evaporation losses from the open ocean surface are stopped.
    Convection losses from the open ocean to the wind and air currents are stopped.
    Conduction losses through the sea ice to the air are eliminated, so the open ocean has a much greater delta (Twater-Tair) than does an ice-covered water bode under the same air temperature.
    Radiation losses to the same Tsky at the same emissivity are 15% to 25% greater from an open ocean (at 275 K or 277 K) than they are from an ice-covered surface at an air temperature of -5, -10, or -15 Deg C. (268 K, 263 K, or 258 K). And, making it worse, the open ocean will increase relative humidity right over those same radiating leads and surfaces, also reducing radiation heat losses. An ice-covered surface will typically have a lower humidity, and more likely, a clearer sky to radiate into.

    1) Most simplified “arctic sea ice albedo” calculations use a simplified (Wikipedia-approved) sea ice albedo. Look up Curry’s data from her SHEBA measurements: You will see that the actual arctic “dirty” sea ice in June-July-August is significantly lower than “yearly average” values. Best fit curves show 0.46 on DOY = 206, with the lowest recorded sea ice albedo at 0.38 a bit later on DOY = 226. “Clean” new ice is higher of course: it is about 0.822 before and after the melt season, which is also different from many written values in the literature. Always use measurements.

    I’d like to go through each calculation with you as you see fit, but, bottom line over most days of the year: Except right across the hottest of the melt season in June-July-early August, increased Arctic sea ice loss on most days of the year means a cooler planet.
    Increased Antarctic sea ice on any day of the year means a cooler planet.

    • David Springer

      The discussion was about albedo and you did nothing to dispute the numbers I presented about how much of the earth’s heat budget is represented by the change in albedo of 2 million square kilometers from water at albedo 0.90 at 60 degrees latitude. Try again.

      Now that you bring up evaporation, which I’m perfectly well aware of, work through how that plays in. Higher albedo of ice tends to reduce the energy absorbed by the ocean but by blocking evaporation ice prevents latent heat loss. Adding insult to injury ice insulates the water against conductive heat loss. In reality I’m pretty sure that the higher albedo is more than offset by blocking latent and sensible heat loss.

      I hope your professional engineering is of higher quality than your comment about ice albedo here.

  90. Mi Cro

    Thanks.

    20% land and 10% land + sea seems like an extremely low percentage for establishing a meaningful global average.

    Does this mean that 80-90% of the published “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomalies” is educated guesswork?

    Max

  91. The total amount of end-summer sea ice is roughly comparable for the Arctic and Antarctic, while the end-winter sea ice is almost 50% higher in the Antarctic. However, a look at the map shows that Arctic sea ice is located much closer to the North Pole than Antarctic sea ice is to the South Pole.

    As a result, Antarctic sea ice gets a bit more direct insolation, and would theoretically have a slightly higher impact on the planet’s albedo.

    IOW a slightly smaller increase in Antarctic sea ice would offset a slightly larger decrease in Arctic sea ice.

    Has anyone done the calculation on this?

    Max

  92. Just posted this on another thread but it is relevant here as well as it gives an interesting counter point to the assertion in the first part of this article that Antarctic sea ice increased from the start of the sayellite record in 1979 up to the present day.

    Satellite records actually started in 1972 although not strictly on a like for like basis to the 1979 format. This paper demonstrates that Antarctic ice actually showed a sharp decrease from 1972 to 1979 before rebounding strongly

    http://www.meto.umd.edu/~kostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf
    Tonyb

  93. Claude Harvey

    Translation: “We said it would go down. It went up. More time and analysis (“money”) will be required to decide if “up” is inconsistent with “down”.

  94. David Springer

    This deserves a new thread I think. It’s very topical and high on the list of things that are effecting Antarctica more than elsewhere.

    David L. Hagen | February 4, 2014 at 9:15 pm |

    Does Ozone depletion or CO2 cause Global Warming/Cooling?

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=qb+lu+ozone+cosmic&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=800005&sciodt=0%2C15&cites=5955355841819509199&scipsc=

    It would be pretty funny if CFCs are the control knob, huh?

    Rolling on floor laughing in fact.

    It doesn’t have to be all or nothing though. Bandwagon climate science I think is a case of a little mistake here and a little warming bias there then pretty soon you’re talking about a monumental blunder.

  95. Let me repeat my summary above:

    Except those three months across the hottest of the melt season in June-July-early August, loss of Arctic sea ice on most days of the year means more ocean heat losses than radiation gains, and a net cooler planet.
    Increased Antarctic sea ice on any day of the year at any latitude means more reflected heat energy and a cooler planet.

    (in reply, David Springer wrote)

    David Springer | February 8, 2014 at 5:50 pm |

    The discussion was about albedo and you did nothing to dispute the numbers I presented about how much of the earth’s heat budget is represented by the change in albedo of 2 million square kilometers from water at albedo 0.90 at 60 degrees latitude. Try again.

    Thank you for the pleasure of your time spent agreeing with me in answering the above.
    But, in turn, may I ask ” Does not the above quote contradict what you had originally stated: “Give it up. There’s no smoking gun in Antarctic sea ice change due to higher albedo. It’s just about exactly cancelled by albedo change in the opposite direction at the north pole in any case. “?

    1) See, there is no equivalent area anywhere at any equal latitude that anyone can use comparing northern sea ice extent losses against southern sea ice extent gains: At every latitude, at every day of the year, ANY change in southern sea ice extents of ANY amount either reflects more energy, (or absorbs more energy into open ocean water), to a much higher level than what is absorbed or reflected in the Arctic Ocean waters north of latitude 70. (The above excludes the very small iced-over regions south of 70 north. They freeze over, and melt out, every year anyway, so the only difference could be the days “early” or days “late” that might be different from some established norm for that lake or bay or sea.)

    2) Further, if there is no detectable effect on the earth’s yearly energy budget by the loss (or gain) of 1.2 Mkm^2 of sea ice at 60 degrees north (or south) latitude – the area of one “Hudson Bay” area centered at latitude 60 north – as you claim using average radiation levels, then do you also reject the so-called “arctic amplification effect” where increased Arctic sea ice loss is supposed to create ever-warmer arctic ocean waters thus further increasing arctic sea ice loss? Now, I will not claim this “standard CAGW dogma” is correct, but it is so often repeated so many thousand times that you must at least recognize that the rest of the CAGW academic-industrial-economic-political axis believes that increased arctic sea ice loss is one of the most important “problems” caused by a warmer earth.

    3) Thus, if arctic sea ice extents loss matters, then Antarctic sea ice extent gains matter much more. If neither Arctic nor Antarctic sea ice extents matters at all over the year’s energy budget as you have twice stated, then ALL CAGW worries about Arctic sea ice loss are not only irrelevant, but deliberate deceits since the CAGW community IS using those “fears” as an ever larger part of their publicity and funding demands from the government.

    To illustrate, NOT ONE CAGW publicist and politician and actor and actress and news media or academic star has mentioned that one entire Hudson-Bay-sized INCREASE in the southern ocean’s sea ice extents anomaly occurred just last October and November. All were quick to publicize every “little” “Manhattan-sized” iceberg breaking off of Antarctic and Greenland glaciers the past ten years, but none found time to even “see” an entire Hudson Bay sized region of ice at latitude 59-60 south.

    I agree with you that latitude and day-of-year matter in any comparison of arctic sea and antarctic sea ice gain or loss. Most likely, the only valid metric is total radiation received on a horizontal surface over 24 hours, total absorbed, and total reflected into space.

    I am ready to agree that neither arctic nor antarctic sea ice extents matters, but only when EVERY CAGW publicist and academic-politician-funds granter and paper-reviewer admits also that “Gain or loss of arctic sea ice extents is meaningless.”

    4) Technically, your above quote needs correction: “the change in albedo of 2 million square kilometers from water at albedo 0.90 at 60 degrees latitude” We really cannot use that quote as a basis for continued discussion without several changes!

    4A. Using 2 Mkm^2 is meaningless. Please agree on a useable area: 1.0 Mkm^2 is convenient, but doesn’t match any “geography” people can visualize quickly. One “Hudson Bay” is a bit cumbersome at 1.2 Mkm^2, but easy to see. One Arctic sea ice extent” would be about 3.5 Mkm^2, – this could also be “an ice-free Arctic Ocean” in the popular jargon of publicity. Still, but it is hard to compare sicne few “ice-free arctic oceans” are losing sea ice or gaining sea ice on a seasonal basis. A “Hudson Bay” is probably the best of several poor answers, but – please – give me your recommendation.

    4C. Albedo of ice varies: Dr Curry has measured 0.822 in the real world from November through May in the actual Arctic. You really should use that number: 0.90 is not valid. Through the summer (June-October) I can give you the best-fit curve for actual “dirty ice” albedo. (The best-fit lowest albedo is 0.46.) Lowest measured arctic “dirty ice” albedo during the melt season is only 0.36, slightly less than that of the open ocean at low solar elevation angles (below 8 degrees) in calm seas.

    4D. Open ocean albedo measurements. Do you have the open ocean vs solar elevation angle albedo equation Dr Curry prefers in your references?

    4E. Radiation penetration through the arctic/antarctic atmosphere. What equation do you prefer for air mass at low elevation angles, and what attenuation factor do you prefer under what conditions?

    Comparing the details of absorbed and reflected radiation in the high latitudes cannot start without the basic geometry agreed upon.

    5. Other matters that will affect energy loss other than SW radiation absorption and reflection: Without an agreement on the following, no other discussion about any other energy exchanges can be started.
    Measured daily average temperature s and average daily temperature ranges in the latitudes of interest.
    Measured relative humidity readings in the altitudes of interest.
    Measured wind speeds in the latitudes of interest.
    Measured (or estimated) TSky values, and cloud coverage in the latitudes of interest. (Both strongly control long wave radiation losses (and gains) over any given 24 hour period.) If your preferred TSky is to be set by TAir and relative humidity, then that relationship needs to be cited or referenced, and the relationship agreed upon as valid.

    Most of the other variables and constants can be discussed, agreed upon, and calculated as we proceed.

    (For example, do you want to use the usual temperature-corrected values for density and heat capacity and viscosity for “water” or those specifically for “salt water”, and if so, at ?? “percent salinity”?

    • Continuing the thought from above:

      On the September equinox at noon, when the sun is striking both the Arctic and Antarctic at the same time with the same level of radiation at TOA, every square meter of the Antarctic sea ice is receiving 5x times the amount of radiation as that same square meter up at the edge of the Arctic sea ice.

      One meter of Antarctic sea ice “gain” needs to be “balanced” – not by 1.0 meter of Arctic sea ice “loss” but by 5.0 meters of Arctic sea ice “loss.”

      Or, looking at the global energy balance, gaining sea ice in the Antarctic at any day-of-year causes a net heat loss due to increased refelction.
      Losing sea ice in the Arctic any time after late August causes a net heat loss due to increased evaporation, increased convection, increased conduction, and increased LW radiation into space. (There is slight radiation gains into the Arctic ocean, but that only happens a few hours of each day, and every day after 3 July means a smaller gain.)

  96. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

  97. Antarctic sea ice is increasing because it’s getting colder down there. Just saying …

  98. ” manacker

    Penguin tastes just like chicken.

    So does polar bear (if you cook the s–t out of it and serve it with sweet-sour sauce)”

    It really is cringe-worthy to witness someone amateurishly trying to push buttons just to get their ya-ya’s out.

  99. If I am understanding correctly, one hypothesis is that warming waters are melting the underside of the sea ice giving rise to a layer of fresher water which spreads and then freezes more easily, due to the lowered salinity.
    Have any measurements been taken of salinity levels below the ice?
    Also has the salinity profile through the ice been measured?
    The reason for asking is more anecdotal than scientific. Stories of polar exploration suggest that salinity levels just below the ice could be higher than the surrounding water. Apparently freshly-frozen sea ice is still salty when melted for drinking. Over time (no idea how long) the trapped salt aggomerates into “droplets” which melt their way down through the ice.
    Obviously, if this description is correct, sea ice will get saltier the lower you go. Also the water immediately below the ice will receive all of the salt from the ice as it “melts through” so salinity might be higher rather than lower.
    Apologies if this point has already been covered in the extensive postings – I have not had time to read through them.

  100. Pingback: Climate Change Is Hiding Flt 370! | No B-S here (I hope)