Bishop Hill A la Southern Annual Mode
Jun 7, 2014 Climate: Surface As I understand it, GCMs say that ice extent at both poles should be reducing as global warming hits the poles in advance of the rest of the planet. The increase in Antarctic sea ice is therefore another question mark over the veracity and trustworthiness of climate model output.
That's the way I understand it, anyway. According to this article at The Conversation, I'm completely wrong. The increase in extent is due to changes in the Southern Annual Mode, a sort of El Nino of the Antarctic.
Here’s the kicker: the strengthening of SAM over recent decades has been directly linked to human activity. Since the 1940s, ozone depletion and increasing greenhouse gases have caused the westerly winds to intensify and migrate south towards Antarctica. The net effect of this drives sea ice further north and increases its total extent.
There is still plenty of great work ahead to improve our understanding and modelling of Antarctica’s climate, but a basic message is emerging. Far from discounting climate change in the Southern Hemisphere, the apparent paradox of Antarctic sea ice is telling us that it is real and that we are contributing to it.
So this means that the models don't recreate the Southern Annular Mode then?
Reader Comments (80)
"So this means that the models don't recreate the Southern Annular Mode then?"
Why would they? The job of the models is to er......replicate, no......er......create, no...that's not right either, erm.......manufacture.....nope, ah......predict warming.
The models predict warming even without the Southern Annular Mode so it isn't necessary to include it. Anyone who says otherwise is anti-science, and a big oil shill.
Praise science.
Entropic man
"at the expense of ice, ocean, atmosphere, ozone, energy flow and all the other factors involved."
Involved in what?
This is the one I use.
I don't see the problem with global ice coverage.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
It's easy. hot air rises therefore the North Pole will melt first. That will be followed by the tropical seas boiling off and lastly by Antarctica melting. Of course, by then, the North Pole will be molten lava. We might as well face it: We're toast.
Oh God Jimmy...Noooooooooooo.................
I'd rather be boiled than toasted so I plan to go for a swim at a local beach when I see it begin to simmer.....
.
It's all bloody farcical isn't it?!!!
I really do find myself wondering whether the AGW crowd will ever free themselves of this bollo*ks and rehabilitate in the next five to ten years when the edifice really does come crashing down around their ears?
My guess is a new (but already formulated) potential catastrophe will be dusted down and wheeled out....acidifaction/bio-diversity....etc...
They will not be allowed to forget these times though...
Jun 7, 2014 at 9:53 PM | Entropic man
My, my ... herein lies your problem, Em ... truth and politicians are diametrically opposed forces.
Troll comments and follow-ups removed.
We are on the verge of 'black carbon' as the new demon. Long live CO2!
'Black carbon' melts polar ice and kills Americans via asthma and heart attacks.
"Stop focusing on surface temperatures at the expense of ice, ocean, atmosphere, ozone, energy flow and all the other factors involved."
I'm only focussing on surface temperatures because they're what the IPCC did. While they appeared to be in lock step with rising CO2 that is. Now they're not we're supposed to forget about them and look at other things.
As for energy flow the diagrams are complete nonsense. There is no way that they can calculate 342w/m^2 can leave excess heat of 0.6/m^2 in the system. Every single parameter in the diagrams is a natural variable. How can they say anything with any accuracy a change of 0.5% in TSI (surely not a constant) is a +/-1.7W/m^2.
Sherlock 1 : "Where are Bird and Fortune when you need them..?
(Yes - I do know that sadly John Fortune has died, but you get my drift - John Bird confidently waffling absolute drivel while John Fortune blinks with incredulity...)"
Sadly, I rather doubt that Bird and Fortune would have challenged the consensus. The person speaking absolute drivel would have been a climate sceptic, and the sensible, bemused interviewer would have been spouting the government line (as endorsed by 97% of scientists).
occams razor applies asuch:
------------------------------------------
People write for money
Money is provided for warmish alarmist sceance
People write for warmish alarmist sceance
Streetcred
Sorry, I should have included a /sarc tag for the less subtle.
I plan to do a post on this. It has some of the worst analysis that I've ever seen in multiproxy studies. It's hard to summarize.
Ptw
People write for money.
The Koch brothers provide money,
Lobbyists write climate denier bullshit.
@ EM
The Koch brothers funded BEST. Is that "climate denier bullshit"?
Anything is possible
"The Koch brothers funded BEST. Is that "climate denier bullshit"?
The Koch brothers helped fund BEST on the assumption that the other temperature records were part of the climate conspiracy, and therefore wrong. An independently produced temperature record with input from sceptic scientists was expected to show no warming.
When BEST produced the same warming trend as all the others, the Koch brothers and other sceptics dropped it like a hot brick.
Cos it used essentiallythe same basic assumptions and used essentially the same basic homogenization strategy, thus contained essentially the same biases.
entropic sissi :
true that. I wouldn't dispute it , I do not know the Koch brothers, so I presume it true if YOU say so (lol).
So the only thing left here is find out how much is spent on each side
I estimate leftard govfunding for anything alarmish to be publicized at about 100 billion
Why because thats the amount of other people's money they rake away for their own pockets, it needs a lot of PR and
other people's money to justify this THEFT.
And anyway it flows to parked buddies of theirs anyway doesn't it.
Your turn for a peer reviewed warmish estimate, bwahahaha
Now we know about the futility in this propaganda war, why not leave it all to the open market place eh
EM is it my imagination or is the BEST project still in existence? They still publish press releases. If so, who is funding it, if not the horrible Koch bros?
Of course, the climate "defence" team will no doubt furnish you the approved answers when you ask them.
zdb
why would money need to be spent on consensual climate research ? The science is supposed to be settled.
Would all that money not be wiser spent on mitigation? eg reduce a few nannystate institutes to make economies more
efficient..seeve out the chaff
minutiae being short-hand for errors
so what is the difference between CliSci and Astrology?
Well at least Astrology, when done right, might get you laid......
oh wait, maybe that's what a lot of the CliSci rock stars are looking for too, that's why they have groupies....
1 Its not well known
2 Yet more computer modelling drivel
... Richard Lindzen? Is that you?
Have you noticed how, the moment that EM gets a whiff of wotsername's hate-driven insanity, he goes off his rocker too?
anonym: Who are you quoting from and from where?
Richard Drake:
Our mate ZDB said it in a now-deleted comment on this thread. Everyone really is a lukewarmer now, it seems.
EM,
The KOCH Brothers and so called big oil funding is a massive red herring, surely you can do better than smears.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/14/blame-on-heartland-cato-marshall-etc/
Jack Cowper,
If EM could not rely on red herrings and straw man arguments, he would only have ad hom left to offer.
Jun 8, 2014 at 10:23 AM | Unregistered Commenter Billy Liar
We can't demonise "black" carbon. That might be 'politically incorrect'...