Advancing Antarctic Sea Ice at Record Levels

As a nod to the point-counter-point style of the site in the days of old (what was that, about 18 months ago?). - Promoted by Specter

As we frequently hear from various sources, the levels of sea ice in the arctic are currently at or near record lows. This is the common refrain from the man-made Global Warming proponents. The melting sea ice in the Arctic is a catastrophe, they say. What is much less clear is exactly why it is a catastrophe, assuming that it is one at all. They never seem to clearly state exactly what the catastrophe is going to entail. "

Sea level raise? No, the sea ice is floating and so when it melts it doesn't contribute to sea level rise at all, and the Ice Caps in the interior of Greenland and Antarctica are growing.

Plight of the polar bears? No, it seems we have so many Polar Bears in the Arcrtic that they are nearing historic population highs :

18) Update - September 14, 2007: A soon to be released survey finds Polar Bear population rising in warmer part of the Arctic.
Excerpt: Fears that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says [Arctic biologist] Mitchell Taylor, the Government of Nunavut’s director of wildlife research. “I think it’s naïve and presumptuous,” Taylor said. < > The Government of Nunavut is conducting a study of the [southern less ice region of the] Davis Strait bear population. Results of the study won’t be released until 2008, but Taylor says it appears there are some 3,000 bears in an area - a big jump from the current estimate of about 850 bears. “That’s not theory. That’s not based on a model. That’s observation of reality,” he says. And despite the fact that some of the most dramatic changes to sea ice is seen in seasonal ice areas such as Davis Strait, seven or eight of the bears measured and weighed for the study this summer are among the biggest on record, Taylor said. “Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears. It's not safe to camp there. They're fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape,” Taylor said, according to a September 14, 2007 article. (LINK ) [EPW Blog Note: In a classic case of observed reality versus unproven computer model predictions, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs.’ ]

Opening new shipping routes? Oh wait, that's a good thing!

Well, whatever the problem with shrinking sea ice is, it must only be a problem in the Norhtern Hemisphere. What we typically don't hear about is the "other pole" and it's sea ice levels. Satellite data going as far back as 1979 currently confirms that the Antarctic sea ice has advanced to record levels:

Click image to enlarge.

Mysteriously, when confronted with this observation the man-made Global Warming proponents don't seem to miss a beat. They simply try to purport that:

Melting sea ice in the NORTH = man made global warming.
Advancing sea ice in the SOUTH = man made global warming.

And somehow they say this with a straight face. You gotta admire someone that can do that.

Melting ice? Advancing ice? It doesn't matter, it all spells catastrophe ... somehow. It's gonna be really, really bad ... we're just not sure how or when. Oh, and it's all man's fault ... except when it isn't.

Fortunately there are still some sane voices in the scientific community. On the issue of the man-made global warming signal in the Southern hemisphere:

Antarctic Temperatures Disagree With Climate Model Predictions

Science Daily — A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

[ ... ]

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available -- there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica."

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.

Last year, Bromwich's research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn't increased in the last 50 years. "What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down," he said.

[ ... ]

Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.

Note: This story has been adapted from material provided by Ohio State University.

Submitted by GoRight on Tue, 2007-10-02 13:47

-->

GoRight's diary
Login or register to post comments

Tags:

Environment

Comments :

Exactly

and predicted by climatologists as a consequence of global climate change.

Your assumption is that the two poles are the same (hmm, grouping again?). They are not. There is too much variation on Antarctica itself to make such a broad statement.

The increased precipitation is due to a higher temp. in the antarctic. It can only snow (which causes the increased ice levels) when the temperatures are at a higher than normal level.

Let's look at the evidence:

British Antarctic Survey: Climate Change - Our View
Few continuous observations of Antarctic climate are available before the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. Since this time, surface temperatures have remained fairly stable over much of Antarctica, although individual station records show a high level of year-to-year variability, which could mask any underlying long term-trend. The majority of stations in East Antarctica, including the two long-term records from the high plateau of East Antarctica (South Pole and Vostok) show no statistically-significant warming or cooling trends(1). By contrast, large and statistically-significant warming trends are seen at stations in the Antarctic Peninsula. Over the past 50 years, the west coast of the Peninsula has been one of the most rapidly-warming parts of the planet, with annual mean temperatures rising by nearly 3°C and the largest warming occurring in the winter season(1,2,3). This is approximately 10 times the mean rate of global warming, as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Upper ocean temperatures to the west of the Peninsula have also increased by over 1°C since 1954(4). The east coast of the Peninsula has warmed more slowly and here the largest warming has taken place in summer and autumn(3).

So basically there is variation on the continent, but much of it is warming significantly. The article continues:

If we make assumptions about how greenhouse gas emissions are likely to change, we can use climate models to predict how Antarctic climate may change over the coming century. Models predict a warming of a few degrees celsius over much of continental Antarctica. However, as mean temperatures over most of the continent are well below freezing, even this warming will not greatly increase loss of ice from the continent through melting. Indeed, increases in snowfall resulting from a warmer atmosphere (which can hold more water vapour) may actually thicken the Antarctic ice sheets.

So, increased temperature in this part of the world means more precipitation increasing the ice.

I recall the National Review and CEI attempting this same tactic, and they were properly called out by the scientist they attempt to use as the basis for their argument.

Realclimate agrees :

However, Johanessen et al. were not able to measure all of the coastal ranges. Indeed, the thinning of the margins and growth in the interior Greenland is an expected response to increased temperatures and more precipitation in a warmer climate.

One more for good measure from Anatarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition :

Future enhanced greenhouse warming will affect the mass balance of the ice sheet. Oceanic warming could increase basal melting of the floating ice shelves, whose thinning could result in faster flow of the ice into the ocean, contributing to sea-level rise. On the other hand, atmospheric warming and reduction in sea-ice cover almost surely will give rise to increased precipitation over the continent, thereby contributing to sea-level.

So, what you have here is completely consistent with what is expected to happen with global climate change.

(Edit):
I do not know if you have access to scientific journals, but here is a current scholarly source that discusses the same phenomenon:

Title: "Simulated Antarctic precipitation and surface mass balance at the end of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries"
Author(s): Krinner G (Krinner, G.), Magand O (Magand, O.), Simmonds I (Simmonds, I.), Genthon C (Genthon, C.), Dufresne JL (Dufresne, J. -L.)
Source: CLIMATE DYNAMICS 28 (2-3): 215-230 FEB 2007
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 94 Times Cited: 0

Abstract: The aim of this work is to assess potential future Antarctic surface mass balance changes, the underlying mechanisms, and the impact of these changes on global sea level. To this end, this paper presents simulations of the Antarctic climate for the end of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The simulations were carried out with a stretched-grid atmospheric general circulation model, allowing for high horizontal resolution (60 km) over Antarctica. It is found that the simulated present-day surface mass balance is skilful on continental scales. Errors on regional scales are moderate when observed sea surface conditions are used; more significant regional biases appear when sea surface conditions from a coupled model run are prescribed. The simulated Antarctic surface mass balance increases by 32 mm water equivalent per year in the next century, corresponding to a sea level decrease of 1.2 mm year(-1) by the end of the twenty-first century. This surface mass balance increase is largely due to precipitation changes, while changes in snow melt and turbulent latent surface fluxes are weak. The temperature increase leads to an increased moisture transport towards the interior of the continent because of the higher moisture holding capacity of warmer air, but changes in atmospheric dynamics, in particular off the Antarctic coast, regionally modulate this signal.

I'm sure I can find several more if you need further evidence.

by: Specter - 2007-10-04 00:39 …………

Why so touchy?

You were one-sidedly focusing on the sea ice in the northern hemisphere so I pointed out an interesting counter point from the southern hemisphere. I didn't claim what it meant either way.

If I was to suggest an implication of my post as well as your additional points concerning the increases of ice accumulation in BOTH the Antarctic and the Interior of Greenland (thanks, BTW) it wouldn't be that these are proof of global warming one way or another, but rather it would be to counter the hysteria over catastrophic sea level rise, a favorite scare tactic of the AGW alarmists.

So, Nothern sea ice is melting while Southern sea ice is advancing and ice is accumulating at both the Greenland interior and the Antarctic. The net result? (yawn) No big deal as I pointed out here: Global Levels of Sea Ice Far from Alarming.

So much for that much hoped for global sea level catastrophe, eh?

Hey, and for all the Polar Bear fans out there, this is good news. Maybe we should just relocate them all to the Southerm Hemisphere for a while! :) But we better hurry because they seem to like the warm weather up north*:

18) Update - September 14, 2007: A soon to be released survey finds Polar Bear population rising in warmer part of the Arctic. Excerpt: Fears that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says [Arctic biologist] Mitchell Taylor, the Government of Nunavut’s director of wildlife research. “I think it’s naïve and presumptuous,” Taylor said. < > The Government of Nunavut is conducting a study of the [southern less ice region of the] Davis Strait bear population. Results of the study won’t be released until 2008, but Taylor says it appears there are some 3,000 bears in an area - a big jump from the current estimate of about 850 bears. “That’s not theory. That’s not based on a model. That’s observation of reality,” he says. And despite the fact that some of the most dramatic changes to sea ice is seen in seasonal ice areas such as Davis Strait, seven or eight of the bears measured and weighed for the study this summer are among the biggest on record, Taylor said. “Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears. It's not safe to camp there. They're fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape,” Taylor said, according to a September 14, 2007 article. (LINK ) [EPW Blog Note: In a classic case of observed reality versus unproven computer model predictions, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs.’ ]

The link provided above appears to be broken. Here is a pointer to a different source for the same story: Study shows polar bear increase in Davis Strait

---------------------------------------------

* From the Senate EPW Press Blog . Your tax dollars at work (to maintain this blog).

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

by: GoRight - 2007-10-04 02:28 ………… parent •

P.S.

So, what you have here is completely consistent with what is expected to happen with global climate change.

Just so we're clear here, because I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but "is completely consistent with" is in no way equivalent to "is proof of".

I do not know if you have access to scientific journals, but here is a
current scholarly source that discusses the same phenomenon:

Hey, nice passive agressive dig BTW, you're getting better. :)

Title: "Simulated Antarctic precipitation and surface mass balance at the end of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries"
Author(s): Krinner G (Krinner, G.), Magand O (Magand, O.), Simmonds I
(Simmonds, I.), Genthon C (Genthon, C.), Dufresne JL (Dufresne, J. -L.)
Source: CLIMATE DYNAMICS 28 (2-3): 215-230 FEB 2007
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 94 Times Cited: 0

Yes, I am aware of that article. I have considered citing it myself on several occasions but I just wasn't comfortable with it as being good science. True, it does support my contention that Antarctic Ice is increasing not decreasing, but it is based on computer models using a questionable level of understanding of the physical processes at play. I prefer to stick with the actual observations for now, thanks.

I'm sure I can find several more if you need further evidence.

No need. If you are happy with this as demonstrating/predicting the accumulation of sea ice in the Antarctic then who am I to argue? So, we are agreed then? The accumulation of sea ice and interior ice in both the Antarctic and Greenland are operating is such a way as to offset any losses from the Arctic sea ice (thus mitigating, if not eliminating, any catastrophic rises in sea level?

And let us not forget: Prominent scientists condemn AP article on sea level rise.