|
Most Recent Climate Change
Photos in the News… |
You wouldn’t think so if you read recent press reports. Just like this time last year, the global press is bombarding the public with alarming reports coming from the bottom of the world. From the Discovery Channel on April 28th, 2009 “Huge Ice Shelf Breaks From Antarctica, Fractures.” From National Geographic News on April 30th, 2009 “Giant Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses.” From Reuters on April 28th, 2009, “New York City-sized Ice Collapses off Antarctica.”
Exactly one year ago, similar stories circulated, and if anything, they were more alarming. On March 25th, 2008, the BBC reported “Antarctic Ice Hangs by a Thread,” a result, they stated, of “unprecedented global warming.” But these reports, both last year and this year, are talking about the same ice shelf – the Wilkins Ice Shelf, an insignificant bit of floating ice that is located on the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Didn’t it break up last year? How many times do we recycle the alarm over the seasonal melting of the same few thousand square miles of floating ice (ice that floats cannot contribute to sea level rise), off a continent that exceeds five million square miles in area?
Apparently over and over. An excellent analysis posted on April 17th, 2009 by Ron de Haan entitled “The Antarctic Wilkins Ice Shelf Collapse: Media recycles photos and storylines from previous years,” documents how the Wilkins Ice Shelf has been reported by the mainstream media to be ominously collapsing every year now since 1999. Haan also provides satellite photography back as far as 1993 showing the end-of-summer thaws and mid-winter maximums for the Wilkins Ice Shelf. Not much has changed over the past 15 years. Thank goodness for the blogosphere to help us accurately assess the cryosphere!
The assumption in all these stories that report on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, and other melting ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, is that global warming is the cause, and that they are representative of a general melt occurring throughout Antarctica. And if this were true, this would be alarming, since 90% of the world’s land based ice is in Antarctica. So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarctica’s overall total mass decreasing?
GLOBAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY – APRIL 2009 |
 |
| As of April 2009, sea surface temperatures surrounding Antarctica are mostly colder than average. (Image: NOAA) |
The answer to both of these questions is almost certainly no. As this recent imagery from NOAA indicates, the southern ocean is actually colder than average. Except for a few areas directly south of the Indian Ocean, and in the area south of Patagonia and surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula, the rest of the ocean surrounding Antarctica – virtually all of the South Pacific and South Atlantic – is cooler than average. This data indicates no reason to believe ocean temperatures are causing overall loss of ice mass in the Antarctic; with the exception of the insignificant quantity of ice on the Antarctic Peninsula, they suggest the opposite.
CURRENT SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEA ICE AREA |
 |
| As of May 2009, sea ice surrounding Antarctica is about 1.0 million square kilometers greater than average. (Image: University of Illinois) |
What about the ice mass of Antarctica? Along with land based ice, which can raise sea levels when melted into the ocean, another significant indicator of polar temperature is the extent of floating sea ice. As the above table prepared by researchers at the University of Illinois indicates, the actual sea ice surrounding Antarctica is well above average. The black line represents the last 12 months of sea ice area, based on satellite data. You can see the sea ice reached a peak of 15 million square kilometers around September, during the peak of the southern winter. You can see it dropped to a low of 2 million square kilometers in mid-February, at the height of the southern summer. Currently the sea ice surrounding Antarctica is 7 million square kilometers and rising. The red line, however, is what is significant, because the red line indicates whether or not the sea ice is above or below the historical norm. And as you can see, as of May 2009, Antarctic sea ice is about 1.0 million square kilometers above normal.
Just like last year, to assist in the research for this post I contacted Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist at the University of Colorado whose blog www.climatesci.org is one of the most balanced forums and respected sources of technical information on global climate anywhere. In response to my inquiry, he wrote the following: “The sea ice around the continent is far above average (ref. UIUC). Also, note the colder than average sea surface temperatures around Antarctic (ref. NOAA). If the media is going to discuss the Wilkens Ice Shelf, they should also discuss this other data. The expansion of the sea ice coverage implies a cooling.”
Related Posts:
Reforesting Reduces Droughts
Global Warming & Greentech
Pessimistic Reporting, Optimistic Data
How Much for a Degree?
Climate Science
Antarctica’s Ice Mass
Aquabirds & Aquabuoys
Arctic Cooling on Schedule
Greenland’s Ice Melting Slowly
Greenland’s Ice Cap
Antarctic Ice
Comment by larrydalooza
April 30, 2009 at 10:43 am - #
These facts are heresy to the AGW religion.
Pingback by Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » “Antarctic Ice Increasing” - A Weblog Post By Ed Ring Of Ecoworld
April 30, 2009 at 11:32 am - #
[...] Ring of Ecoworld has posted today (April 30, 2009) an excellent weblog titled “Antarctic Ice Increasing”, which provides some much needed balance in the discussion of climate science. I am correctly [...]
Comment by Robert Way
April 30, 2009 at 12:31 pm - #
Notice that the graph utilized in this graph illustrates sea-ice data and not antarctic ice sheet data. The West Antarctic Ice sheet (as measured by “grace” gravity measurements, “Icesat” altimetry measurements and “Radarsat” InSAR measurements) is losing more ice than the eastern antarctic ice sheet is gaining. Overall the mass balance of ice in antarctica which has implications for sea level rise, shows a reduction in ice by 25 cubic kilometers of ice each year. Temperature anomalies over all of Antarctica indicate warming and the antarctic peninsula (where the wilkins is located) has warmed by 4 degrees in the last century. Contrary to what the writer states, ice shelves are very important in that they restrict glacier flow into the ocean(contributes to sea-level rise), and when an ice shelf dissapears, glacier flow into oceans increase. I can provide references for all this information. Maybe the writer should research a little more before spreading disinformation.
Comment by Robert Way
April 30, 2009 at 12:36 pm - #
One other note, having been to Antarctica within the last year, I had access to regions where sea-ice had been just years ago and does not exist today. It is true that sea-ice is gaining in antarctica, however on the Antarctic peninsula sea-ice is dissapearing alarmingly fast comparable to ice shelves. This region is in danger of destabilization and ice shelves are very important to ensuring the region remains stable. Finally accumulation in the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet is increasing, but for the reason that it is a higher elevation region which is warming, allowing the air to have a higher moisture content and precipitate more.
Comment by Ed Ring
April 30, 2009 at 12:38 pm - #
Disinformation indeed, Robert. You state “Overall the mass balance of ice in antarctica which has implications for sea level rise, shows a reduction in ice by 25 cubic kilometers of ice each year.”
The total ice mass of Antarctica is well over 20 MILLION cubic kilometers. Your statement regarding 25 km3 of net ice loss is phrased as though this is a large amount of ice and therefore we should be concerned. But even if Antarctica is displaying a net loss of 25 km3 per year, this is a negligible quantity – it is well within margins for error. It is such a minute quantity of ice relative to the total ice mass of Antarctica that it has no significance whatsoever.
Similarly, you ignore the fact that where limited sea ice melt is occurring, along the Antarctic Peninsula, is obviously not going to facilitate some massive slide of land-based glaciers (should that theory even hold up), since this sea ice recession is along a narrow peninsula not connected in any meaningful way to the major formations of land based ice on the Antarctic mainland.
You are welcome to provide additional data here to support your claims, but I remain convinced most of the “misinformation” is coming from the alarmist community.
Comment by Robert Way
April 30, 2009 at 1:06 pm - #
The 25 km3 of ice is a conservative estimate using the full error associations with each method of measurement first of all. Secondly though you say it is negligible, the loss of 25 km3 of ice represents roughly 20% of all sea-level rise which is currently occuring. Furthermore, you keep saying that sea-ice is essentially the important factor in antarctica whereas it is not. Antarctic sea ice varies extensively from 18 million km to roughly 4 million km during the summer. When it is at this minimum is when the important climate change dynamics such as ice shelf melting occurs. Sea-ice is nowhere near as important as ice shelves in holding back glacier ice, as ice shelves themselves are just outwards extensions of these glaciers basically. Below are two papers which illustrate that after ice shelf collapses surging glaciers occur, which discharges more ice into the ocean.
Angelis & Skvarca (Science, 2003)
-5/6 Glaciers feeding larsen A ice shelf surged into the ocean after Larsen A collapsed in 1995
Scambos et al. (2004)
-4/4 Glaciers feeding Larsen B Ice shelf parts which collapsed in 2002 surged, rapidly increasing flow into the ocean
Comment by Robert Way
April 30, 2009 at 1:16 pm - #
Also note that the amundsen sea embayment, which holds the pine island glacier and the thwaites glacier has seen dramatic reductions in sea-ice extent and this region is quite important because it represents 10% of global sea level rise.
Thomas et al. (2004)- This region is discharging 250 km3 of ice per year into the ocean because it is not restricted by ice shelves, and sea-ice reductions have occurred.
This is not some holocene retreat either as the WAIS rate of retreat since Last Glacial Maximum is ~100 m yr-1 which makes it too slow to represent these losses.
Comment by Robert Way
April 30, 2009 at 1:18 pm - #
Overall AIS losing 24 Gt year-1, equivalent to +0.07 mm year-1 s.l.
EAIS = +20 Gt year-1
WAIS = -44 Gt year-1
Chen, J.L. et al. 2008. Antarctic regional ice loss rates from GRACE. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 266, 140-148.
Rignot, E., and Thomas, R. 2002. Mass balance of polar ice sheets. Science, 297, 1502-1506.
Comment by Robert Way
April 30, 2009 at 1:31 pm - #
I think the real issue I have with this article is that you give the impression that sea-ice is the indicative feature with regards to warming or cooling in the antarctic whereas I would argue ice sheet losses, glacier losses and ice shelf losses are much more important variables for indicating warming. I would argue this because sea-ice in antarctica rarely reaches multi-year stage and is very receptive to yearly variabilities in weather patterns and temperature. Whereas Ice shelves, glaciers and ice sheets are receptive to long term trends such as warming. Therefore the variability assoiciated with sea-ice growth can indeed be representative of yearly patterns but overall when it comes down to a rate of 1.3% growth in sea-ice per decade in antarctica, that is not as important an indicator as ice shelves been lost which have been there for thousands upon thousands of years.
I believe you are being a bit disingenious by saying ice is increasing without showing the importance of the different elements of the cryosphere and how certain other ones outweigh sea-ice growth.
Comment by DeWitt Payne
April 30, 2009 at 1:40 pm - #
Maybe I’ve dropped a decimal point or two, but with the current estimated sea level rise rate of 0.0018 m/year, 25km3 of ice melting/year explains about 4 % of that increase, not 20%.
Comment by Robert Way
April 30, 2009 at 2:00 pm - #
The current rate is 1.8 mm per year since 1960. Church et al. (2004), and 3.1 mm per year since 1993 (Cazenave and Nerem, 2004; Leuliette et al., 2004).
–Glacier and ICe cap losses equivalent sea level change of 0.77 ± 0.22 mm per year. Dyurgerov and Meier (2005)
This represents a 24% amount of sea-level rise due to glaciers and ice cap losses
Comment by Robert Way
April 30, 2009 at 2:08 pm - #
Also Consider each GT of gains on the EAIS does not represent the same amount of sea-level lowering as a GT of losses represents sea-level rising. Some accumulation is not directly coming from the ocean onto the ice sheet. moisture from land regions can be carried and precipitate on the east side. Whereas when Ice calves into the ocean it does relatively fully contribute to sea-level rise.
Comment by Ed Ring
April 30, 2009 at 2:38 pm - #
Robert: You’ve thrown out a lot of information in your many comments today, and I thank you. But I would like to return to the calculations of sea level rise per cubic kilometer (or gigaton, one cubic kilometer of water is one gigaton) of land based ice melt.
There are 361 million square kilometers of ocean. If you distribute 25 cubic kilometers of melted ice into this area, you will distribute 0.000006925% of a gigaton (or cubic kilometer) of water onto each square kilometer of ocean. This factor is calculated simply by dividing 25 by 361 million.
If you multiply this percentage by 1.0 million, which is how many millimeters there are in a kilometer (1,000 meters x 1,000 millimeters per meter), you will get the amount, in millimeters, that 25 cubic kilometers of new water will increase sea level. And that calculation yields 0.06925 millimeters, which is to say, a rise of 6.9 millimeters per century.
It is therefore profoundly misleading for anyone, anywhere, to suggest that 25 gigatons of melted ice entering our oceans per year is cause for alarm.
These are indeed complex issues, but failing to address every nuance and every theory does not make one disingenuous when their opinion differs from yours. For example, one may bring up the possibility that loss of sea ice will cause land based glaciers to slip into the ocean. But most of the sea ice loss is on the Antarctic Peninsula, where, once again, there is a proportionally minute quantity of land based ice. One might also suggest that increased glacial slippage into the ocean is not due to a loss of sea ice, but due to greater precipitation and consequently greater ice formation in the interior. And if one is truly concerned about glacial slippage into the polar oceans, one also needs to assess the topography of the land mass upon which these ice caps rest. Unless it is a smooth ramp, it is unlikely these ice caps will be liable to slip into the ocean en-masse. I’m sure you will agree these are only a few of the additional variables we would have to consider.
In general, I believe a debate regarding polar ice loss, sea level rise, and the general causes of climate change – such as it is – to be quite healthy. I respect your opinion and I respect your concern. The tendency on the part of the alarmist community to demonize dissenters, to invoke moral outrage, and to attempt to squelch debate is not healthy. Too bad we didn’t listen to the contrarians who – such sociopathic pessimists and cynics – who repeatedly warned us that our economic boom was built on unsustainable debt. What price will we pay, are we paying, as a consequence of global warming alarm? What freedoms will remain?
Comment by Robert Way
April 30, 2009 at 3:10 pm - #
I appreciate your candid nature on all of this but I have to say three things. Firstly i am not an “alarmist”, I do not spout that catostrophic conditions are ensuing and such, however I do support theories that i’m led to based upon research. Secondly, I once again have to say that sea-ice and ice shelves are not the same thing, and the impression you are giving is that they do the same thing, and are essentially the same. Thirdly, I did not intend on being contrite or offending the original writer of the article, however I did feel like mentioning something because I took issue with the overall impression coming from the article that Antarctica is gaining Ice when all the best science we currently have indicate that Antarctica is losing ice, though not a lot due to accumulation in the EAIS associated with increases in moisture content at high elevations because of higher temperatures. Whether or not the entire global warming issue is still debatable, taking action on something like climate change would provide society with the necessary tools to move forward towards sustainability.
Personally I find that the problem is that there is a lack of trust on both sides, in that I think you don’t believe in climate change because you see what you want to see and you think I believe in it because I am following a wave of alarmism.
There are numerous reasons to not believe in climate change, but from the research I have conducted, and the studies that have occurred recently, the conclusion that climate change is occurring is one that I feel has more evidence to support its arguments. It does not help when articles such as this one, use evidence that leads individuals to a conclusion and words things in a way to make people skeptical. I would just prefer to see some more balanced writing. It is tough to get a healthy debate going when statements such as:
“What about the ice mass of Antarctica? As the above table prepared by researchers at the University of Illinois indicates, the actual sea ice surrounding Antarctica is well above average.”
give the impression that antarctica is gaining mass, when sea-ice doesn’t even come into the budget of antarctic mass balance.
Comment by Robert Way
April 30, 2009 at 3:30 pm - #
I can’t say that I’d agree with those variables because the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is where the glacier surging is occurring due to losses of ice shelves, and this region is mostly sitting on topography which is below sea-level therefore hypothetically if enough ice is lost the entire ice sheet could destabilize. However I also have to say that the increased precipitation cannot be a causal factor because the increased interior precipitation that you are referring to is on the EAIS which is seperated from the WAIS by the Trans-Antarctic Mountains. Furthermore, much of the topography on the Antarctic Peninsula such as where wilkins, larsen A and B are located, are regions which are mountainous and very dynamic therefore the acceleration of glaciers is a real threat in this region. Finally, about the sea-level rise to which you refer, just like I said before that 25 GT is the overall mass balance of the AIS, the AIS has two components the EAIS and the WAIS, the EAIS is gaining mass due to accumulation from increased precipitation at high elevations, there WAIS is losing due to calving of ice along the peninsula and in the Amundsen sea embayment. Overall combined they equal 25 GT but the EAIS gains are not simply water coming out of the ocean onto land and freezing there. The gains in EAIS do not uniformly affect the sea level in the same manner as the WAIS.
Comment by Robert Way
April 30, 2009 at 3:35 pm - #
Finally I do have to say that yes there are some recycled photos that the media are using, but if you see the latest ASAR image taken on the 23rd of this month and compare it to other images you will see how drastic a break up this was. Anyone who wants to see this just let me know.
Comment by DeWitt Payne
April 30, 2009 at 5:07 pm - #
So if 0.77mm/year of sea level rise is coming from melting land based ice and 0.07 mm/year is coming from Antarctic based ice (25 GT/year), then ~90% of land based ice melt is coming from somewhere other than Antarctica.
“…but the EAIS gains are not simply water coming out of the ocean onto land and freezing there. The gains in EAIS do not uniformly affect the sea level in the same manner as the WAIS.”
That assertion will require a little more documentation to be believable.
Comment by DeWitt Payne
April 30, 2009 at 5:20 pm - #
Also, thermal expansion of 2.3 mm/year requires a massive increase in Ocean Heat Content (~7E16 Joules/year), which isn’t happening either, at least not since 2003.
Comment by Robert Way
April 30, 2009 at 8:43 pm - #
1961-2003 Sea level Rise
1.8mm per year total
0.42 mm per year due to thermal expansion
0.50 mm per year due to glaciers and ice caps
0.05 mm per year due to Greenland Ice Sheet
0.14 mm per year due to Antarctic Ice Sheet
0.7 mm per year unexplained
1993-2003
3.1mm per year total
1.6 mm per year due to thermal expansion
0.77 mm per year due to Glaciers and Ice Caps
0.21 mm per year due to Greenland Ice Sheet
0.21 mm per year due to Antarctic Ice Sheet
0.3 mm per year unexplained
(source *IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1)
Comment by jotham
May 1, 2009 at 12:43 am - #
Robert Way writes:
“The West Antarctic Ice sheet (as measured by “grace” gravity measurements, “Icesat” altimetry measurements and “Radarsat” InSAR measurements) is losing more ice than the eastern antarctic ice sheet is gaining.”
GRACE gravity measurements are somewhat new technology that hasn’t yet been satisfactorily callibrated and verified with observable data. Are you referring to the Villacogna study, which measures ice density for only 3 years (2002-2005)? This is too short a study to determine long-term effects. In fact, shortly after that study was published, Monaghan (2006) found that during those three years, there was an unusual lack of snowfall, which explains the lack of ice-mass they observed:
“Interannual and interdecadal snowfall variability must be more seriously considered when assessing the rapid ice volume changes that are occurring over Antarctica. With regard to interannual variability, consider a recent estimate of Antarctic ice sheet mass loss that is the equivalent of 0.4 ± 0.2 mm year-1 GSL [global sea level rise] rise for 3 years (2002–2005) from satellite-derived time-variable gravity measurements [made by Velicogna and Wahl]. Antarctic-wide annual snowfall accumulation decreased by about 25 mm y-1 WEQ [water equivalent], or about 0.86 mm year-1 GSL rise, between calendar year 2002 and 2003, suggesting that the gravity fluctuations could be heavily influenced by interannual snowfall variations.”
Also, Davis (2005) and Wingham (2006) have concluded there is mass gain in Antarctica.
Comment by Bill DiPuccio
May 1, 2009 at 3:59 am - #
One must be cautious of “end point fallacy”. Way’s data is from older studies ending in 2003. Since then, there has been some major changes in global climate as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifts to negative mode. Not only are average temperatures declining, but more importantly, there has been a decline in ocean heat since mid 2003. Every climate scientist would acknowledge that oceans drive the climate. As Jotham indicates above, newer studies seem to confirm an increase in Anarctic mass. We can probably expect more of that in days to come.
Comment by MarkB
May 1, 2009 at 11:48 am - #
There’s some kind of general law of internet message boards that says that any time a person posts three consecutive entries, they’ve becomed unhinged on the topic.
Comment by DeWitt Payne
May 2, 2009 at 8:39 am - #
The heat content change for 2.3 mm thermal expansion in #18 above is incorrect. It should be 2E22 Joules for 2.3 mm assuming all the expansion is in the upper 700 m of ocean at an average temperature of 10 C.
Comment by cmb
May 4, 2009 at 7:30 am - #
There’s nothing wrong with the GRACE measurements.
Both ice caps are losing mass, even with the (temporary) cooling influence of the PDO taken into account.
Comment by tahoe AC
May 4, 2009 at 10:04 am - #
Quick point:
Climate is measured on am uch different time scale than weather. So this year it is 1mliion above average, what about 10 years ago, or from now?
Comment by DeWitt Payne
May 5, 2009 at 7:44 am - #
Here’s an article that addresses sea level changes during the period from 2003 to 2008: http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/download/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2009.pdf
The conclusion is that 80% of the 2.5 mm/yr increase over that time period is from ocean mass increase from melting of land based ice, half from Greenland and Antarctica and half from other land based ice like mountain glaciers. The rate of loss from Antarctica was found to be 198 GT/yr. Thermal expansion is small, ~0.3 mm/year.
Pingback by The Daily Bayonet » Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, May 8th, 2009
May 7, 2009 at 8:24 am - #
[...] Antarctic ice, isn’t, and shrinking glaciers are a sure sign of global warming. Oh,wait. nevermind. shrinkage, [...]
Pingback by Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record... - Page 2 - AllDeaf.com
July 23, 2009 at 9:28 pm - #
[...] it has increasingly gotten colder, even the ocean water and continued expansion of ice on land. Antarctic Ice Increasing | EcoWorld __________________ Ya gonna complain and be a wimp, [...]