warmer air temps mean more antarctic sea ice

[bluewave]

Because it fits the agenda LOL.

What is the agenda?

[nzucker]

It been in the news, but the changes in the Arctic are more of an immediate concern for us.

http://www.utexas.ed...ic_ice_shelves/

http://www.utexas.ed...5/10/ice_sheet/

These articles mostly talk about fracturing ice shelves, and aren't mentioning much about the sea ice increasing.

[bluewave]

These articles mostly talk about fracturing ice shelves, and aren't mentioning much about the sea ice increasing.

Different geography between the two poles.

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/antarctica_is_losing_ice_sheet.asp

Science says: While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.

It's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:

• Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
  
• Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
  

[nzucker]

Different geography between the two poles.

http://www.wundergro...g_ice_sheet.asp

Science says: While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.

It's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:

• Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
  
• Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
  

The Southern Ocean sea surface temperatures have been decreasing quite rapidly in recent years:

Thus, the argument that the warming causes more sea ice doesn't make much sense. The lowest years for Southern Hemisphere sea ice were in the 1980s, when the climate was distinctly warmer there than it is today...you can check out the graph on Cryosphere Today:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

[bluewave]

The Southern Ocean sea surface temperatures have been decreasing quite rapidly in recent years:

Thus, the argument that the warming causes more sea ice doesn't make much sense. The lowest years for Southern Hemisphere sea ice were in the 1980s, when the climate was distinctly warmer there than it is today...you can check out the graph on Cryosphere Today:

http://arctic.atmos....nteractive.html

The decrease is not surprising with the very strong blocking pattern that has been in place there.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The Southern Ocean sea surface temperatures have been decreasing quite rapidly in recent years:

Thus, the argument that the warming causes more sea ice doesn't make much sense. The lowest years for Southern Hemisphere sea ice were in the 1980s, when the climate was distinctly warmer there than it is today...you can check out the graph on Cryosphere Today:

http://arctic.atmos....nteractive.html

If the average temp of the Antarctic region is say -22C for the year and over decades it rises to -20C. It's still very cold, but the warmer it get's the higher moisture content and precipitation thus adding fresh water to the regions oceans top layer. Another way is the calving glaciers that fall into the ocean and melt adding more freshwater as well.

In the last 10 years according to Grace Antarctica land ice has lost roughly 1500GT of land ice mass.

I am not sure if that is enough to help make a difference but it's still an influx of fresh water(for the most part) to the top layr of the Southern Ocean.

[nzucker]

If the average temp of the Antarctic region is say -22C for the year and over decades it rises to -20C. It's still very cold, but the warmer it get's the higher moisture content and precipitation thus adding fresh water to the regions oceans top layer. Another way is the calving glaciers that fall into the ocean and melt adding more freshwater as well.

In the last 10 years according to Grace Antarctica land ice has lost roughly 1500GT of land ice mass.

I am not sure if that is enough to help make a difference but it's still an influx of fresh water(for the most part) to the top layr of the Southern Ocean.

Right, but it hasn't actually been warmer over the Southern Ocean. And if you believe the O'Donnell et al study, most of interior Antarctica has been cooling since the late 1970s.

[Snow_Miser]

Right, but it hasn't actually been warmer over the Southern Ocean. And if you believe the O'Donnell et al study, most of interior Antarctica has been cooling since the late 1970s.

Bell et. al 2011 would confirm O'Donnell et. al, since they found thickening of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, as would Munneke et. al 2012, as they found no change in Antarctic Snowmelt, and a statistically insignificant decline in snowmelt in Antarctica, likely indicating cooling in this region.

[rygar]

The decrease is not surprising with the very strong blocking pattern that has been in place there.

Can someone explain, in lay terms, why weather patterns can explain temperature difference in the Antarctic but not the Arctic?

I am certain it has been discussed here before but can't seem to find it.

[Snow_Miser]

Can someone explain, in lay terms, why weather patterns can explain temperature difference in the Antarctic but not the Arctic?

I am certain it has been discussed here before but can't seem to find it.

Because the Warmers don't want to concede that natural factors can have a large role to play when temperatures go up, only when they go down. And if short term natural factors can create warming, then we may have to consider the fact that multidecadal trends upward in temperature may be caused by natural factors as well. Goodbye AGW funding.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Can someone explain, in lay terms, why weather patterns can explain temperature difference in the Antarctic but not the Arctic?

I am certain it has been discussed here before but can't seem to find it.

Well beyond that the major difference is albedo amplification. antarctica is 98% covered in 1.6km ice with a year round albedo around 80%. Since it's always sourrounded by sea ice, the solar insolation goes into melting that so there isn't much left for heating at this point.

The arctic is sourrounded by land which now is seeing huge Spring and Summer snow cover deficits. Land albedo around the arctic is around 15-20%. Then the arctic is essentially a large ice covered ocean obviously as ice melts and water opens up inside the basin. That water albedo is 7% so it absorbs tons of heat combine that with the land and you have heat influx's all over.

On top of that GHG concentrations are higher in the arctic. On top of that, GHG forcing feedback is higher in the arctic because albedo's are lower.

We also might want to consider, GHG forcing has helped speed up Antarctic land ice loss from direct forcing and heating of ice. And also subsequently increasing precipitation which is snow, which will keep albedo at a max for more time of the summer insolation period, which would be a pretty strong feedback over a 98% mile wide ice sheet.

We also must consider in the last 7-8 years, Antarctica might be effected much stronger by the solar min than the arctic which has to many rapid positive feedbacks in play. The solar min down South should slightly dim the surface insolation which enhances the massive negative feedbacks in place.

Or we can be crazy and blame warmers so they don't lose funding and give ourselfs reasons to believe the sun has magical powers we have never properly observed so it fits our completely non accepted idea's.

Or we could just put on a 108 level IQ thinking cap and hammer this one home.

[bluewave]

Can someone explain, in lay terms, why weather patterns can explain temperature difference in the Antarctic but not the Arctic?

I am certain it has been discussed here before but can't seem to find it.

This first link has the differences between the two:

http://nsidc.org/cry...difference.html

Weather patterns can explain differences in temperatures in either the Arctic or the Antarctic.

While the main trend has been one of warming, there can be counter trends at a smaller

regional level locally. In the case of the Arctic, locally colder conditions last winter associated

with the Kara Block and -PDO pattern created very cold temps around Alaska with a nice

build up of seasonal ice in the Bering Sea. Unfortunately, the Arctic on the whole was very

warm especially in the Russian Arctic. Also the Bering Sea ice was seasonal which melts

out in the summer anyway. These small changes really can't do much to counter the

overall warming trend globally.

http://www.climatece...the-bering-sea/

[donsutherland1]

Because the Warmers don't want to concede that natural factors can have a large role to play when temperatures go up, only when they go down. And if short term natural factors can create warming, then we may have to consider the fact that multidecadal trends upward in temperature may be caused by natural factors as well. Goodbye AGW funding.

Of course, natural factors play a role. Natural variability won't stop even as anthropogenic forcing is growing stronger. Natural variability will occur in the context of anthropogenic changes that are producing a net addition of heat to the earth's climate system.

The continuing role for natural variability can be seen in the gap between the actual rise in global temperatures (land & sea) and the warming signal once natural factors are accounted for. As noted previously, the downturn in the PDO is likely an important, if not leading, reason that the recent warming has been less than what would be implied strictly from the growing anthropogenic forcing. Unfortunately, that's also temporary mitigation for two reasons. First, the anthropogenic forcing is growing stronger as more CO2 is being emitted than absorbed, increasing the atmospheric concentration. Second, the PDO will eventually stop declining in its current negative cycle and ultimately begin to rise. Once the PDO stabilizes or begins to rise, that natural cycle could amplify the warming driven by the large and growing anthropogenic forcing.

[tacoman25]

Well beyond that the major difference is albedo amplification. antarctica is 98% covered in 1.6km ice with a year round albedo around 80%. Since it's always sourrounded by sea ice, the solar insolation goes into melting that so there isn't much left for heating at this point.

The arctic is sourrounded by land which now is seeing huge Spring and Summer snow cover deficits. Land albedo around the arctic is around 15-20%. Then the arctic is essentially a large ice covered ocean obviously as ice melts and water opens up inside the basin. That water albedo is 7% so it absorbs tons of heat combine that with the land and you have heat influx's all over.

On top of that GHG concentrations are higher in the arctic. On top of that, GHG forcing feedback is higher in the arctic because albedo's are lower.

We also might want to consider, GHG forcing has helped speed up Antarctic land ice loss from direct forcing and heating of ice. And also subsequently increasing precipitation which is snow, which will keep albedo at a max for more time of the summer insolation period, which would be a pretty strong feedback over a 98% mile wide ice sheet.

We also must consider in the last 7-8 years, Antarctica might be effected much stronger by the solar min than the arctic which has to many rapid positive feedbacks in play. The solar min down South should slightly dim the surface insolation which enhances the massive negative feedbacks in place.

Or we can be crazy and blame warmers so they don't lose funding and give ourselfs reasons to believe the sun has magical powers we have never properly observed so it fits our completely non accepted idea's.

Or we could just put on a 108 level IQ thinking cap and hammer this one home.

This is all good information, Friv, but I don't see how any of it directly answers the natural question that arises from this study: if warmer SSTs make freezing of salt water easier due to less mixing to the top, why wouldn't that same effect be seen in the NH?

[tacoman25]

THERE IS NO PLACE ON EARTH WHERE YOU CAN GO WHERE YOU CAN BREATH NATURAL AIR. EACH BREATH YOU HAVE TAKEN IN YOUR LIFE HAS EXTRA CO2 METHANE FLUOROCARBONS AND OTHER CHEMICALS MADE BY MAN. THIS IS TRUE OF EVERY LIVING CREATURE ON EARTH. THIS CONDITION STARTED 110 YEARS AGO. BEFORE THAT WAS 4.5 BILLION YEARS OF NATURAL AIR. EVERY PHOTON FROM THE SUN PASSES THRU THIS CRAP. EVERY PLANK PHOTON THAT LEAVES EARTH PASSES THRU IT.

QUIT FARTING IN OUR SPACE SHIP.

Um, CO2 is a completely natural part of the composition of our atmosphere. GHG are not "unnatural chemicals", they are what naturally allow us to even live on earth. There is simply a slightly higher concentration in our atmosphere now than there was 100+ years ago.

And you do realize that GHG levels have been elevated in the past as well, right?

[PhillipS]

Um, CO2 is a completely natural part of the composition of our atmosphere. GHG are not "unnatural chemicals", they are what naturally allow us to even live on earth. There is simply a slightly higher concentration in our atmosphere now than there was 100+ years ago.

And you do realize that GHG levels have been elevated in the past as well, right?

Yo've posted nothing but strwman arguments. Mercury and arsenic are natural, too - does that mean that they are beneficial, or that we can dump them into the environment without serious consequences? And nobody has ever claimed that GHG weren't higher in the distant past. We aren't living in the past (well, at least most of us aren't) and we know with high confidence that the GHGs we are dumping into the atmosphere is pushing the Earth's climate into conditions not seen for ages.

[tacoman25]

Yo've posted nothing but strwman arguments. Mercury and arsenic are natural, too - does that mean that they are beneficial, or that we can dump them into the environment without serious consequences? And nobody has ever claimed that GHG weren't higher in the distant past. We aren't living in the past (well, at least most of us aren't) and we know with high confidence that the GHGs we are dumping into the atmosphere is pushing the Earth's climate into conditions not seen for ages.

What "strawman argument" was I posting? I just posted facts in response to a ridiculous post.

[Jonger]

Yo've posted nothing but strwman arguments. Mercury and arsenic are natural, too - does that mean that they are beneficial, or that we can dump them into the environment without serious consequences? And nobody has ever claimed that GHG weren't higher in the distant past. We aren't living in the past (well, at least most of us aren't) and we know with high confidence that the GHGs we are dumping into the atmosphere is pushing the Earth's climate into conditions not seen for ages.

Not "seen" for ages.... I agree with that.

[Snow_Miser]

The Southern Ocean appears to be losing heat, according to this new study, which may explain why ice has been expanding there.

The Southern Ocean is a key component of the global climate system: insulating the Antarctic polar region from the subtropics, transferring climate signals throughout the world's oceans and forming the southern component of the global overturning circulation. However, the air-sea fluxes that drive these processes are severely under-observed due to the harsh and remote location. This paucity of reference observations has resulted in large uncertainties in ship-based, numerical weather prediction, satellite and derived flux products. Here, we report observations from the Southern Ocean Flux Station (SOFS); the first successful air-sea flux mooring deployment in this ocean. The mooring was deployed at 47°S, 142°E for March 2010 to March 2011 and returned measurements of near surface meteorological variables and radiative components of the heat exchange. These observations enable the first accurate quantification of the annual cycle of net air-sea heat exchange and wind stress from a Southern Ocean location. They reveal a high degree of variability in the net heat flux with extreme turbulent heat loss events, reaching −470 Wm⁻² in the daily mean, associated with cold air flowing from higher southern latitudes. The observed annual mean net air-sea heat flux is a small net ocean heat loss of −10 Wm⁻², with seasonal extrema of 139 Wm⁻² in January and −79 Wm⁻² in July. The novel observations made with the SOFS mooring provide a key point of reference for addressing the high level of uncertainty that currently exists in Southern Ocean air-sea flux datasets.

[PhillipS]

The Southern Ocean appears to be losing heat, according to this new study, which may explain why ice has been expanding there.

The Southern Ocean is a key component of the global climate system: insulating the Antarctic polar region from the subtropics, transferring climate signals throughout the world's oceans and forming the southern component of the global overturning circulation. However, the air-sea fluxes that drive these processes are severely under-observed due to the harsh and remote location. This paucity of reference observations has resulted in large uncertainties in ship-based, numerical weather prediction, satellite and derived flux products. Here, we report observations from the Southern Ocean Flux Station (SOFS); the first successful air-sea flux mooring deployment in this ocean. The mooring was deployed at 47°S, 142°E for March 2010 to March 2011 and returned measurements of near surface meteorological variables and radiative components of the heat exchange. These observations enable the first accurate quantification of the annual cycle of net air-sea heat exchange and wind stress from a Southern Ocean location. They reveal a high degree of variability in the net heat flux with extreme turbulent heat loss events, reaching −470 Wm⁻² in the daily mean, associated with cold air flowing from higher southern latitudes. The observed annual mean net air-sea heat flux is a small net ocean heat loss of −10 Wm⁻², with seasonal extrema of 139 Wm⁻² in January and −79 Wm⁻² in July. The novel observations made with the SOFS mooring provide a key point of reference for addressing the high level of uncertainty that currently exists in Southern Ocean air-sea flux datasets.

So how many of those SOFS sensor platforms do they have deployed to cover the entire Southern Ocean? Just one? How many km2 of ocean surface can it really cover? 16,000 km2 or greater?

[bluewave]

In sum, while the changes in sea ice extent and area in the Antarctic since the late 1970s are well documented, both hemispherically (Figs. 3 and 6) and regionally (Figs. 4, 5, 7, and 8), through

satellite observations, their causes are not yet fully understood. The Earth’s climate system is notably com- plex, with numerous nonlinear feedbacks; and hence climate change is continually inducing varied responses in different regions. Fortunately, the observational data base continues to grow, and models and data analyses continue to mature, so that eventually the connections between the changes in the Antarctic sea ice coverage and the changes in the rest of the global system (atmosphere, oceans, land, ice, and biosphere) should be explained, as future studies reveal more of the de- tails of the ongoing Earth-system changes and their intercon- nections.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/871/2012/tc-6-871-2012.pdf

[Alpha5]

Can someone explain, in lay terms, why weather patterns can explain temperature difference in the Antarctic but not the Arctic?

I am certain it has been discussed here before but can't seem to find it.

Also, its crucial to note that there is no land in the arctic, just open sea. Therefore, the ice is much more vulnerable to changes in climate because it has to deal with both air and sea, remember, the antarctic has a continent (and you cant melt land)....

[WeatherRusty]

Um, CO2 is a completely natural part of the composition of our atmosphere. GHG are not "unnatural chemicals", they are what naturally allow us to even live on earth. There is simply a slightly higher concentration in our atmosphere now than there was 100+ years ago.

And you do realize that GHG levels have been elevated in the past as well, right?

394ppm of CO2 is not natural. The natural level of CO2 on the currently constituded Earth is ~280ppm. The entire system was in balance with 280ppm. At 394ppm and climbing, we are disrupting the natural balance.

[tacoman25]

394ppm of CO2 is not natural. The natural level of CO2 on the currently constituded Earth is ~280ppm. The entire system was in balance with 280ppm. At 394ppm and climbing, we are disrupting the natural balance.

So previously when CO2 levels differed from 280 ppm, the earth was also out of balance?

[tacoman25]

This is all good information, Friv, but I don't see how any of it directly answers the natural question that arises from this study: if warmer SSTs make freezing of salt water easier due to less mixing to the top, why wouldn't that same effect be seen in the NH?

Haven't seen anybody directly address this yet...

[WeatherRusty]

So previously when CO2 levels differed from 280 ppm, the earth was also out of balance?

Yes, and the system had to respond to establish a new equilibrium. Whenever external forcing changes, so will the global temperature.

[Entropy]

394ppm of CO2 is not natural. The natural level of CO2 on the currently constituded Earth is ~280ppm. The entire system was in balance with 280ppm. At 394ppm and climbing, we are disrupting the natural balance.

But this begs the question as to whether any action of man itself could be characterized as unnatural, which I'm not so sure is true. Man, after all, is a part of nature. And it's probably only natural that, at some point during our evolutionary history, we should have come to burn fossil fuels as a source for energy.

[tacoman25]

Yes, and the system had to respond to establish a new equilibrium. Whenever external forcing changes, so will the global temperature.

Sounds like a natural process.

[WeatherRusty]

But this begs the question as to whether any action of man itself could be characterized as unnatural, which I'm not so sure is true. Man, after all, is a part of nature. And it's probably only natural that, at some point during our evolutionary history, we should have come to burn fossil fuels as a source for energy.

OK, let's avoid the word natural and just state that atmospheric CO2 would not have reached 394ppm absent mankind's activities.

[WeatherRusty]

Sounds like a natural process.

Of course it is. Human's didn't invent the natural thermostat, but we have been inadvertently turning the knob.