In 2015, Climate Scientists Wrecked Their Own CO2-Forced ‘Polar Amplification’ Narrative

CO2 emissions exert no detectable effect on Arctic, Antarctic temperatures. The Arctic region is no warmer in recent decades than it was some 80 years ago, or before CO2 emissions began rising significantly.

Graph Source: Mikkelsen et al., 2018

According to the IPCC, the Arctic and Antarctic regions warm more than the rest of the globe — a phenomenon branded as polar amplification.

Further, it is conclusively stated (with “high confidence”) that this enhanced polar warming occurs largely in response to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Image Source: IPCC AR5 

A 2015 Scientific Paper Affirms CO2 Forcing Is ‘Weak’ To Negligible At The Poles

In late 2015, four climate scientists published a groundbreaking paper (Schmithüsen et al.,[2015]) in the highly-regarded Geophysical Research Letters scholarly journal.

Although obligatorily insisting their research did not undermine the main tenets of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory at one turn, the authors nonetheless landed a devastating blow to the conceptualization of a CO2-amplified polar climate – and thus to the narrative that says the ice sheets and sea ice are melting primarily due to increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Schmithüsen and colleagues reached the conclusion that CO2-forcing is rather smalland even weak at the poles.  They found the planet’s tiniest warming signal from CO2 occurs for central Antarctica; they characterized the CO2-forcing for the Arctic region as “comparatively weak”.    For example, quadrupling CO2 concentrations over the Antarctic Plateau is poised to yield a net radiative forcing value of just 1 W m-2.

The authors even assert that increasing CO2 concentrations causes atmospheric cooling in some areas above the Antarctic continent.  They characterize this as a “negative greenhouse effect” due to the “increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system”.

Key points from the paper are highlighted below.


Schmithüsen et al., (2015)

 

 

Warming From Increased CO2 Is Comparatively Weak For The Arctic Region

‘Polar Amplification’ From Increased CO2 Not Detectable For Antarctica

Consistent with the conceptualization that “polar amplification” from increasing human CO2 emissions has gone unrealized, the temperature records for the Antarctic continent do not suggest warming has occurred in recent decades.

Graph Sources: Climate4you, Miles et al., 2013, Turner et al., 2016

Increasing CO2 Emissions Has Exerted No Detectable Effect On The Arctic Region

Consistent with the conceptualization that “polar amplification” from increasing CO2 has gone unrealized, the temperature records for the Arctic region also do not suggest a discernible net warming has occurred in response to the rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the mid-1940s.  The Arctic region is no warmer in recent decades than it was ~80 years ago, or before CO2 emissions began rising significantly.  This would support the conclusion that CO2 emissions increases have exerted no detectable effect on the Arctic region’s temperatures.

Graph Source: Hanhijärvi et al., 2013

Graph Source:  Hanna et al., 2011

‘Weak’ To Negligible CO2 Forcing At The Poles Lands A Devastating Blow To AGW Alarm

If the warming effect from increasing CO2 concentrations is only “weak” to negligible for both the Antarctic and Arctic regions, then the justification to endorse the most alarming tenets of the anthropogenic global warming conceptualization may be thoroughly undermined.

For example:

1. The decline in Arctic sea ice since the late 1970s may no longer be predominantly attributed to CO2-induced Arctic warming.

2. Mass ice losses for both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets in the modern era may no longer be predominantly attributed to CO2-induced polar warming.

3. The net ice melt contribution to sea level rise from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets in the modern era may no longer be predominantly attributed to CO2-induced polar warming.

4. The post-1980s temperature warming for the Arctic region (that has significantly affected the overall global warming trend) may no longer be predominantly attributed to CO2-induced Arctic warming.

In sum, affirming the Schmithüsen et al.,(2015) analysis leaves little room for continued insistence that rising CO2 emissions are a profound and existential planetary threat.


Update: A just-published paper, Flanner et al., 2018, cites the negative CO2 greenhouse effect conceptualization introduced by Schmithüsen et al.,(2015).  At no time do the authors challenge the relatively quite weak radiative forcing values (~1 W m-2) for the CO2 greenhouse effect in the polar regions as depicted in the colorized graph above.  Instead of challenging these very small CO2-forcing values for polar regions, the authors only challenge the less consequential concept of whether or not a cooling would occur at the poles in response to increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) in general, and not CO2 in particular.   It would appear the weak CO2 forcing (W m-2) values for the polar regions as determined by Schmithüsen et al., (2015) are accepted by mainstream climate science.

137 responses to “In 2015, Climate Scientists Wrecked Their Own CO2-Forced ‘Polar Amplification’ Narrative”

  1. SebastianH

    Wow, this whole article is demonstrating just how little you understand about the greenhouse effect and what polar amplification is. This whole piece reads like you think CO2 ought to cause direct warming of the air at the poles, even though you recognize that the greenhouse effect is pretty weak at the poles and can even be negative (can you explain how that works, I bet not).

    Let me need if you need countering of any non-arguments brought up here, or if it is obvious why the claim that the paper discussed (Schmithüsen et al 2015) “wrecked” anything, is wrong and likely based on a deep misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the mechanism.

    Repeating a graph that shows human CO2 emissions so we can visually compare the lack of correlation is an attack on the intellegence of your readers.

    Sorry Kenneth, if you feel the need to delete this comment, go ahead. But please finally learn how the mechanisms work, so you can see how weird this claim of yours and your conclusion is. Thank you.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      This comment is welcome, as it demonstrates that you have nothing of substance to offer in response to the article. All you offer is your usual you-don’t-understand-what-polar-amplification-means or you-don’t-understand-how-the-mechanism-works counter “argument”.

      But it’s good to see that you acknowledge that “the [CO2]greenhouse effect is pretty weak at the poles”. That’s progress.

      1. SebastianH

        Kenneth, the article itself has no substance. We discussed this many times now. And you? You act like it’s surprising that the GHE is weaker at the poles (or generally where it is cooler). Even seems you think that acknowledging it somehow validates your contrarian belief. It can’t get any weirder at this point.

        1. AndyG55

          Seb, Your comment has NO substance, it is like every other of your post.

          You continue to be unable to produce one iota of empirical eveidence of CO2 warming, yet you still “BELIEVE” fanatically.

          It can’t get ANY weirder than that. !!

          1. Bitter&twisted

            Tempting as it is: DNFTT!

        2. Kenneth Richard

          “You act like it’s surprising that the GHE is weaker at the poles”

          According to the IPCC, the poles warm more than the rest of the globe primarily “in response to changes in the CO2 concentration”. And yet (a) Antarctica hasn’t been warming for decades despite dramatic increases in CO2 emissions, (b) the Arctic/Greenland is no warmer now than in the 1930s and 1940s despite dramatic increases in CO2 emissions, and (c) it is acknowledged that the weakest warming from CO2 concentration increases occurs at the poles — which is the opposite of what the conceptualization of CO2-dominated “polar amplification” phenomenon says should happen. In other words, the conceptualization that says the polar climates are predominantly affected by CO2 changes is not supported.

          But it’s not surprising that you believe otherwise.

          1. SebastianH

            According to the IPCC, the poles warm more than the rest of the globe primarily “in response to changes in the CO2 concentration”.

            If the IPCC reports are too hard to understand, try the Wikipedia article about polar amplification. The change in CO2 concentration increases the GHE, the resulting heat gets transported polewards. That is why the poles warm. Not because the CO2 GHE at the poles increases so much …

            And yet (a) Antarctica hasn’t been warming for decades despite dramatic increases in CO2 emissions,

            Oh yes it has

            (b) the Arctic/Greenland is no warmer now than in the 1930s and 1940s despite dramatic increases in CO2 emissions

            No it isn’t

            it is acknowledged that the weakest warming from CO2 concentration increases occurs at the poles — which is the opposite of what the conceptualization of CO2-dominated “polar amplification” phenomenon says should happen.

            No, no, no. Please look up what polar amplification is, then try to argue against it. Don’t just invent what you like it to be.

            But it’s not surprising that you believe otherwise.

            Can’t tell if you are trolling or if this is really what you believe/think. Of course I believe otherwise, because what you tell people is not true. It’s made up, you ignore half of the story!

          2. SebastianH

            SebastianH, the water vapor concentration reduces from 40,000 ppm in the tropics to <1,000 ppm at the poles. Water vapor dominates the GHE.

            We actually had that discussion several times now. Water vapor dominates, but water vapor is also not something that we emit and cause a concentration increase of, isn’t it?

            Likewise, the +0.000001 change in CO2 over the course of a year in the tropics is not going to compete with the variability inherent in 40,000 ppm H20 gas.

            Nothing competes with the variability of the day and night cycle or seasons. Does that explain away that it is getting warmer? 😉

            The CO2 concentration increase slowly adds up. The imbalance causes the heat content of the system to increase and over time that causes higher temperatures where we live.

            And, of course, the surrounding Southern Ocean has cooled too, by -0.4 C (annual mean) since 1979.

            I see, that must be why the grounding lines retreat then … cooler water? 😉

            And even the adjusted instrumental record shows no net warming in the Arctic since the 1930s and 1940s.

            http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/704.png

          3. AndyG55

            “cause a concentration increase of,”

            Which plants LUV.

            Zero evidence CO2 causes warming of any sort.

            “Does that explain away that it is getting warmer?”

            You do know that not that long ago the world was in the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, don’t you ???

            Do you want it to stay FREEZING COLD???

            And as you may be AWARE of by now, the slight warming in the last 40 years has come from OCEAN events, which means that it CANNOT have come from any human influence. Purely NATURAL.

            No warming in the Arctic since 1930s/40s seb

            Get over it..

            NOAA chart , .. that not adjusted, that is fabricated.

            Real data (your enemy) shows the Arctic probably slightly below 1930s/40s temperatures.

            “The imbalance causes the heat content of the system to increase and over time that causes higher temperatures where we live”

            And there’s the UNPROVABLE NONSENSE/FAIRYTALE of the AGW mantra , yet again. !!

            Just chant it , seb. all you can do,. !!

            We are all STILL WAITING for empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has any effect apart from enhanced plant growth

            You are TOTALLY EMPTY in this regard.

            an UTTER FAILURE.

          4. SebastianH

            While CO2 is increasing by 1 part in 10,000 over the course of 80 years, H2O, the main GHG, dramatically drops by orders of magnitude more than the CO2 concentration increases the further one gets away from the tropics (40,000 ppm in the tropics, 100 to 1,000 ppm at the poles). […] The water vapor differences for the poles vs. tropics destroys your “polar amplification” narrative. As do the non-warming trends.

            Kenneth, it is not “my” polar amplification narrative and I strongly suggest you google what it actually means. Then we can talk … doesn’t make sense when you continue to tell a story of how the GHE (whether it be from water vapor or CO2) is weak over the poles and how temperatures aren’t increasing.

            Yep. It’s increased by a whopping 1 part in 10,000 since the 1920s-1940s. And since that time, there’s been no net warming trend for Greenland or the Arctic.

            One more time. Warming at the poles comes from heat transfer from lower latitudes. And the second part, well … Pierre said we should make our point and let it be. So I’ll ignore that you continue to bring up the “it’s not warming at the poles” line.

          5. SebastianH

            One reply in spam?

          6. AndyG55

            “tell a story of how the GHE (whether it be from water vapor or CO2) is weak over the poles “

            Its weak to non-existent EVERYWHERE, seb

            Its “not warming” in MANY places., and those where it is warming are a direct consequence of ocean effects, cycles etc

            Since CO2 CANNOT warm oceans, it must be something else that has caused the slight but highly beneficial warming since the LIA.

            ie THE SUN.

          7. SebastianH

            Grounding lines retreat predominantly in areas where there is high geothermal heat flux. In areas where there isn’t high geothermal heat flux, the ice sheet is stable/advancing.

            how convenient, how much heat does this geothermal heat flux contribute exactly?

            Cooler sea surface temperatures is why the Southern Hemisphere’s sea ice extent has been growing since the 1970s.

            Don’t confuse sea ice extent with what a retreat of the grounding lines means.

          8. SebastianH

            Enough to pose a “great threat” to the regional stability of the ice sheet due to “a widespread increase in ice loss” for these high geothermal flux regions.

            You misread that … the author means that ice loss (not caused by volcanism) can trigger increase in volcanism because the ice wouldn’t compress the surface as much as before then.

            By comparison, how much does the forcing from CO2 concentration contribute?

            For this we need to know a few things:
            the volcanism below the WAIS didn’t just start to exist a few decades ago, right? So did it change recently? By how much? How much of it was caused by decompression?

            The forcing from CO2 for the whole planet for double the concentration would be 3.7 W/m². As you correctly noticed it would be far lower at the poles, but also higher at the equator. It now depends on how much of the resulting increase in heat content gets transported toward the poles to determine the contribution from CO2 concentration change.

            See, it’s not as simple as you make it out to be.

          9. AndyG55

            “The forcing from CO2 for the whole planet for double the concentration… blah, blah…”

            Yet another load of scientifically unsupportable nonsense.

            There is NO INCREASE IN HEAT from CO2.

            It is a FANTASY..

            … which you are turning into a DECEIT.

            There is ZERO empirical evidence that CO2 has any effect whatsoever on warming of anything.

            It is that simple.

      2. AndyG55

        “CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times.”

        So , it starts with a scientifically unsupportable claim, to get passed the gatekeepers !!

        ie.. it preaches the mantra.

        Then it gets down to proving basically ZERO CO2 effect at the poles, totally destroying the “polar amplification” myth.

        Your point is???

    2. AndyG55

      “how little you understand about the greenhouse effect”

      What “greenhouse effect”, or is it unicorn farts???

      Please show us measured empirical data about this mythical “greenhouse effect”

      Show us the empirical data that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming of anything.

      Its FANTASY, and a FAIRY-TALE, seb.

      YOUR empty, mindless, mantra rhetoric comments are an attack on your own intelligence.

      “deep misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the mechanism.”

      How can one not understand a ZERO-science, fantasy, nonsense mechanism…. is that what you are wondering, seb ??

      Just take the climate kool-aide and forget about any actual real science.. Like you have.

  2. Stephen Richards

    Could not be more obvious. No effect at all especially when you remember that IPCC scientists :)) say that the effect should be amplified.

    1. SebastianH

      Increasing CO2 Emissions Has Exerted No Detectable Effect On The Arctic Region

      While finding the cause of warming can be difficult, both poles are losing ice mass and both poles are warming despite you trying to tell a different story. Quite a detectable change …

      Arctic:
      http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236
      https://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-engineering-and-polar-meltdown-how-long-has-it-been-going-on/5497738
      https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-2017-focus-region-european-arctic

      Antartica:
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268036325_New_Reconstruction_of_Antarctic_Near-Surface_Temperatures_Multidecadal_Trends_and_Reliability_of_Global_Reanalyses
      (overall trend 0.11°C per decade for Antarctica)

      And yes, it is even expected that sea ice extent increases with warmer temperatures. Grounding lines are however retreating: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0082-z

      1. SebastianH

        Oops, wasn’t meant es a reply to Stephen Richards.

      2. AndyG55

        Oh dear.

        You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. seb.

        first one

        “which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age.”

        Yes, we know it was warmer before the LIA, and that it has THANKFULLY warmed after that COLDEST period in 10,000 years. Thanks for the tiny step forward, seb.

        second one.

        Uses GISS, and a NOAA fabrication, basically says nothing. An Empty piece of zero-science propaganda rhetoric., you would like it.

        Third one.

        Yes, we have had warming as part of the natural cycle of the AMO since 1979. You do know that the late 1970s was a short period of COLD and extreme levels of sea ice in the Arctic, don’t you , seb?

        Latest from the Russians on sea ice…

        https://s19.postimg.cc/hcmhnqak3/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Alekseev-2016-as-shown-in-_Connolly-2017.jpg

        And as we all know, Arctic sea ice is still well within the top 10% of the last 10,000 years.

        https://s19.postimg.cc/vgdnb299v/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Holocene-_Stein-17.jpg

        fourth one.

        Ocean driven melting, it says,

        So absolutely NOTHING to do with CO2 or human influence. Just solar.

        Meanwhile temperatures in the Antarctic have been falling for a long time.

        https://s19.postimg.cc/nn6qmzrb7/antarcticacooling.gif

        Thanks for the nonsense, seb.

        We expect nothing more.

        We certainly don’t expect any empirical proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes anything except enhanced plant growth.

        We all know that sort of proof is BEYOND you.

    2. tom0mason

      Indeed Stephen Richards,

      This article show so well that the CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect is pure bunkum and is NOT observed in reality. These studies powerfully show that as atmosphere CO2 levels rise from being a very, very, very rare gas in the atmosphere, to just a very, very rare gas, NO warming effects are evident.

      Polar ice is currently safe, sea level rise is NOT accelerating, nowhere on the planet has the temperature move out from normal variability.
      The UP-IPCC’s supposition is a nonsense!
      The sun is control, and all the UN-IPCC’s flimflam is distraction from the more realistic prospect of a coming cool period.
      This AGW rubbish is wasting people’s lives, wasting time, and is a waste of money.

      1. SebastianH

        These studies? This article is about one paper. A paper that confirms the GHE and does a very good explaining it. So what study up there shows what you think it shows?

        Do you honestly think that the existence of a negative GHE is “wrecking” the usually positive GHE?

        1. AndyG55

          It does not “confirm”, it gives tacit recognition, with zero-proof.

          Then shows its effect is basically undetectable at the poles.

          Just like warming from CO2 is undetectable anywhere else.

          Your ineptitude at presenting one piece of empirical evidence of enhanced atmospheric CO2 causing warming of anything, shows the GHE to be a MYTH.

          Better switch to the REALITY of the gravity/thermal regulatory effect, seb.

          1. Jack Dale

            [-snip. This reader has had his commenting privileges revoked due to trolling, childish behavior]

          2. AndyG55

            ROFLMAO.

            The troposphere warms from ocean based solar energy. Would have exactly the same effect.

            NOTHING to do with CO2. Zero proof that it is.

            You obviously don’t have the slightest clue what typifies empirical evidence.

            You do know that even in RSSv$, the only warming comes from the El Ninos.

            No warming from 1980-1997

            https://s19.postimg.cc/kr0uu9cz7/RSS_V4_before_El_Nino.png

            No warming from 2001-2015

            https://s19.postimg.cc/jcuv319ir/RSS_V4_2001_-_2015.png

            Just El Ninos, so ZERO effect from CO2

            Still the total lack of empirical evidence of enhanced CO2 doing anything but enhance plant growth.

            ZERO evidence that “heat” is trapped by so called radiative gases.

            That is probably the most idiotic, anti-science piece of garbage ever hoisted on the UNAWARE and gullible public.

            They actually act like a conduit for cooling, but lets not confuse you will too many facts.

            Remain perpetually UNAWARE, Jack.. its your choice in life.

          3. tom0mason

            @Jack Dale 17. April 2018

            Your plots only show the temperatures are changing, so what?

            That is not evidence that it was CO2 wot done it, now does it?

          4. SebastianH

            Your plots only show the temperatures are changing, so what?

            That is not evidence that it was CO2 wot done it, now does it?

            You are right, it’s not. It only indicates that it can’t be the Sun.

          5. AndyG55

            It indicates NOTHING of the sort, seb

            You are suffering deeply of imaginitis.

      2. tom0mason

        And if you feel that there is any merit to the UN-IPCC ideas, and superstitions about the enhanced greenhouse effect just remember this — in a real greenhouse the hottest part is near the roof of the building, in the atmosphere (specifically the troposphere) the warmest part is close to the ground (it gets colder as you ascend).

        So what has the temperature of atmosphere to do with the heating effect of greenhouses — NOTHING!

        1. AndyG55

          Yep, the words” greenhouse effect” are a total anti-science misnomer.

          The radiative greenhouse warming effect has never been measured anywhere. It is a MYTH.

          What they should be calling the atmospheric warming effect, is the “gravity/thermal effect”, a proven, measured effect that works on all planets with a viable atmosphere.

          1. tom0mason

            Indeed AndyG55,
            And here’s a couple of images you may recognize

            To help those that need it Antarctica is quite large.

            Antarctic Ice loss and volcano correlation.

          2. tom0mason

            My selected quotes from the guy that found some of the volcanoes aroung the Antarctic

            “We found 180 cones, but discounted 50 because they weren’t matched with the other data,” says Bingham.

            They settled on a final tally of 138 beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet, which includes 47 volcanoes already known because their peaks protrude through the ice – leaving 91 newly discovered. The volcanoes range in height from 100 to 3850 metres, with 29 higher than 1 km.

            Bingham suspects that more volcanoes may lurk beneath the neighbouring Ross ice shelf, for which ground-penetrating radar information is sparse. If so, it could mean that the West Antarctic ice sheet and the adjoining area hide one of the world’s largest volcanic systems, comparable with the largest known – the East African rift system.

            The team now wants to deploy instruments to find out how active the volcanoes are.
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Then some people think that ice destabilization and ice loss is due to ‘Gloabal Warming’ — LOL.

        2. John F. Hultquist

          Regarding “greenhouses” – – –

          Real ones where plants are grown require continual introduction of CO2. In natural conditions, say a growing field of corn, wind is needed to bring new supplies of CO2 to the plants.
          The 1,000+ ppm of CO2 in a greenhouse allows for better growth.

          There are “radiatively active gases” (and it is a very interesting subject), but these seem to have very little or nothing to do with enhanced “global warming.”

        3. Jack Dale

          [-snip. Sorry Jack but you’ve been booted from this forum. You can have your fun at your own.]

          1. AndyG55

            Yep, should be the gravity/thermal regulatory effect.

            Nothing to do with CO2 what-so-ever.

            ZERO empirical proof, just non-validated models and anti-physic ASS-umptions.

          2. AndyG55

            “Duh! “Greenhouse” is a metaphor”

            Shows just how little science is actually involved, doesn’t it. Can’t even use correct terminology.. DOH !!

            Even the fantasy of CO2 warming has basically zero resemblance to a greenhouse.

            DUMB !!!!

          3. tom0mason

            @Jack Dale

            Now the word ‘greenhouse’ was not deliberately chosen so that ordinary folk got the wrong idea about how the atmosphere actually works? Maybe, maybe not.
            Of course one of the earliest a prolific user of the word was James Hansen. As IIRC he was one of the first to keep blathering on about it in relation to climate and it variations. In doing so he was giving it more recognition than it deserved.
            As you can see here, in his 1988 testimony to the US Senate, he litters the script with reference of ‘greenhouse warming’, ‘greenhouse effect’, ‘global greenhouse signal’, ‘greenhouse impacts’ and even a ‘greenhouse mechanism’.
            I note he never bothered to explain what any of those phrases meant.

      3. tom0mason
  3. Controlling for H2O and Urban Heat Island Effect; Greenland Validates CO2 Doesn’t Drive Warming – CO2 is Life

    […] Continue Reading […]

  4. Pochas

    20 W/M^2 of greenhouse forcing in the tropics? Really?

  5. tom0mason

    New research by British Antarctic Survey shows that Antarctica paradoxically saw a 10 percent increase in snowfall on the continent. Researchers in the Antarctic have recently shown that while estimates for ice loss is approximately 125 gigatons of ice per year [between 2002 and 2016], evidence from 79 ice core samples collected across the continent, allows the researchers to estimate an increase in snow represents about 272 giga tonnes of frozen water.

    Said lead author on the study, Dr. Liz Thomas

    “When ice loss is not replenished by snowfall then sea level rises…Our new results show a significant change in the surface mass balance [from snowfall] during the 20th century. The largest contribution is from the Antarctic Peninsula, where the annual average snowfall during the first decade of the 21st century is 10 percent higher than at the same period in the 19th century.”

    Dr. Thomas echoes the advice of Tim Naish, who acknowledged that the Antarctic is an important factor in climate change, but still a poorly understood one:

    “There is an international effort to create computer simulations of future sea-level rise in a warming world. It is complex and challenging for scientists to fully understand and interpret changes in the ice that we see happening today. We know that the two major influencers affecting change—the mass gain (from snowfall) and the mass loss (from melt)—are acting differently from one another. Our new findings take us a step towards improving our knowledge and understanding.”

    Antarctic’s total volume of ice and snow, and whether it’s trending up or down is a dynamic entity. Hopefully, scientists will achieve a better understanding within the next few decades or so.

    1. SebastianH

      Care to provide a link? I suspect you imagine that the measured ice mass loss doesn’t include mass gains from snowfall. Correct?

      1. tom0mason

        I think your suspicions are utterly imaginary, I understand the difference.

      2. Jack Dale

        [-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]

        1. tom0mason

          Jack Dale —

          Just for you

          “There is an international effort to create computer simulations of future sea-level rise in a warming world. It is complex and challenging for scientists to fully understand and interpret changes in the ice that we see happening today. We know that the two major influencers affecting change—the mass gain (from snowfall) and the mass loss (from melt)—are acting differently from one another. Our new findings take us a step towards improving our knowledge and understanding.”

          As it can not be repeated too much!

    2. Jack Dale

      [-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]

    3. Jack Dale

      You also omitted this comment from Dr Thomas

      “Put another way, “the increased snowfall in Antarctica approximately offsets the contribution to sea level caused by the melting Patagonian ice fields in the past 200 years,” Thomas said.”

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/world/antarctica-snowfall-increase-wxc/index.html

      1. tom0mason

        Jack Dale

        I did not get my quotes from there so never saw that line.
        But I have seen plenty of other quotes she made that I left out.

        When picking cherries I prefer the big sweet juicy ones.

        Enjoy.

        1. Jack Dale

          So what was your source? I posted two.

        2. Jack Dale

          [-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]

          1. tom0mason

            Keep digging, that’s not it, hopefully you’re reading them all and getting educated!

        3. Jack Dale

          [-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]

          1. tom0mason

            Reply in the spam bin?

          2. Jack Dale

            [-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]

          3. SebastianH

            Do you agree with Thomas et al.(2017) that the mass changes for all of Antarctica (including shelves) have led to a net reduction in sea levels since 1800?

            They haven’t … read the introduction of that very paper.

            Ice sheet mass
            balance is currently estimated in three ways: […] (3) Surface mass balance (SMB) and solid ice discharge can be individually estimated and subtracted (Rignot et al., 2011).

            Did you decide to omit this finding for the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole in favor of your selections of quotes about the meltwater equivalent contribution to sea level rise for some regions of West Antarctica? If so, how would you characterize this selection of quotes in light of your accusation above?

            No, he actually understood what the paper is about. You didn’t. You use it anyway to claim that Antartica somehow is not losing ice mass … that claim is wrong and it has been explained several times now.

          4. SebastianH

            This is about sea level rise/fall. The Antarctic continent contribution to sea levels since 1800 was negative, a net sea level reduction.

            You really do not understand what the authors of that paper are writing there, od you?

            How can anyone conclude that the contribution to sea level is negative from the following paragraph?

            The total Antarctic SMB increased at a rate of 7 ± 1.3 Gt decade−1 between 1800 and 2010 AD and 14 ± 1.8 Gt decade−1
            since 1900 AD (Fig. 9). The annual average SMB for the AIS was 272 ± 29 Gt yr−1 higher during the first decade of the 21st century compared to the first decade of the 19th century. This equates to a relative reduction in sea level of 0.02 mm decade−1
            since 1800 AD and 0.04 mm decade−1 since 1900 AD, with the increased SMB acting to mitigate sea level rise as predicted under future warming scenarios (Palerme et al., 2017). The estimated sea level reduction resulting from the increased snowfall since 1800 AD is comparable with the estimated mass loss and subsequent sea level contribution from the southern Patagonian ice fields (Glasser et al., 2011).

            The authors are specifically writing about the SMB and it’s contribution. That is NOT the net ice mass change of Antartica.

            You are ignoring half of the story … the important part. And yes, the increase in SMB is even expected in a warming world.

          5. SebastianH

            …to sea level reduction. Again, the Antarctica-wide SMB changes have contributed to a reduction in sea levels since 1800.

            No, they didn’t. The SMB increase contributed to a reduction of the total sea level increase contribution of Antarctica. If we stick with your 0.06 mm per year trend of the past and not the 0.27 mm per year current trend, then this trend would have been 0.02 mm higher without the SMB increase. As figure 9 of that paper also clearly shows, the SMB began to significantly increase in the 1960s and was pretty stable before. Wouldn’t you agree?

            Nothing unusual is happening here, SebastianH.

            Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

            It’s not even close to being outside the range of natural variability. Antarctica is still colder today than it was for most of the last 2,000 years.

            Why not 10000 years? A million years? A billion years?

            Where is the CO2 signal?

            The warming and ice loss is there. CO2 causes the heat content in lower latitudes to increase and this heat is partly transported poleward. Too obvious of a mechanism? Are you still arguing that the weak GHE at the poles can’t cause warming there while completely ignoring that basically all ocean and wind currents transport heat towards the poles?

            Analogy time: it’s basically like saying it can’t be the gas heater/burner that is causing the living room to warm up, because there is not heater/burner in that room while ignoring the (water) pipes coming from the heater/burner into your radiators.

          6. AndyG55

            ” CO2 causes the heat content in lower latitudes to increase “

            OMG, still with the interminable UNPROVABLE AGW mantra.

            Prove it empirically…

            …. or GIVE IT UP. !!

            There is absolutely ZERO way in which atmospheric CO2 can cause oceans to warm.

            It DOES NOT stop convective cooling.

            Supposed DWLWR cannot penetrate the surface, does NOT cause warming, causes evaporation.

            Evaporation causes COOLING of the surface.

            KNOWN, MEASUREABLE FACTS, seb..

            ….. not mindless AGW mantra rhetoric. !

        4. Jack Dale

          < [-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]

          1. tom0mason

            Because with all the references you’ve given it quite unnecessary.

  6. Ulric Lyons

    AMO and Arctic warming happens when the solar wind is weaker. It’s a negative feedback.
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/association-between-sunspot-cycles-amo-ulric-lyons

    1. tom0mason

      Yes Ulric Lyons,

      And I wonder if anyone realizes the attraction the poles have for solar effects 😀

  7. yonason (from my cell phone)

    When discussing the Antarctic, there are far more important factors than temperature in the moisture balance.
    ftp://ftp.cira.colostate.edu/ftp/Liston/papers/first_author/2004.liston.NH.pdf

    Blaming ice loss on “warming,” when temperatures are below freezing, really should be a non-starter.

    1. tom0mason

      Indeed yonason (from my cell phone),

    2. SebastianH

      Yonason, the ground lines aren’t retreating because the water is “below freezing”. Do you agree or disagree?

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0082-z

      1. AndyG55

        So seb, you admit its ocean warming, NOT atmospheric warming

        So certainly NOT anything to do with CO2.

        CO2 doesn’t warm Antarctic air, or ocean water.

        Must be another source, like the SUN or Volcanic activity.

        Wouldn’t you agree, seb !!

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          @Andy

          A little sanity for thoughtful readers, which sadly will doubtless not be appreciated by hysterical warmists.
          http://blog.heartland.org/2014/05/glaciers-and-global-warming/

          http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_4CE_Glaciers.htm

          Avoid the rush. Plan your Antarctic vacation now.
          https://seatemperature.info/april/antarctica-water-temperature.html

        2. yonason (from my cell phone)

          PS – what our activist warmist friend doesn’t seem to understand is the basic physical science, that if sea water were to fall even a bit below zero*, then it would freeze. And it cannot rise above zero until all the ice has melted.

          As we can verify here, seawater temperature is always 32 deg C.
          https://seatemperature.info/antarctica-water-temperature.html

          *salt water freezes at a slightly lower temp, but the principle is the same as for fresh.

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            That’s 32°F/0°C. Not 32 deg C. Sorry ’bout that,

  8. John F. Hultquist

    I got to quadrupling.
    This means to make four times as great or as many .
    Say we start at 150 (dangerously low), we would get to 600.
    If we start at 280, we get to 1120.

    There is no reason to believe that 1120 ppm, or double that, will be dangerous to Earth systems.
    I think there is a lot of arm waving about CO2 and as more is learned the intensity of arm movement increases.

    1. Jack Dale

      [-snip. Jack has been booted from NTZ. All his comments will be directed to the dustbin from today on.]

      1. tom0mason

        The nutritional change in the quality of food crops is worth less than an additional half handful of lentils.

        1. Jack Dale

          [-snip, This reader is permanently banned due to trolling]

          1. AndyG55

            Poor Jack, you do know you breathe out 40,000ppm, and at night a closed bedroom often reaches 2000+ ppm.

            PANIC, little one. !!

      2. AndyG55

        Both the first papers were proven to be erroneous results based on bad scientific practice.

        There are literally thousands of papers showing that enhanced CO2 enhanced both nutrients and plant growth if the grower know what they are doing.

        Actual greenhouse produce is grown in 1000 +ppm, giving some of the best and nutritious produce available.

        You have obviously been in levels of CO2 over 10,000 ppm regularly, because your cognition is irreparably affected.

        1. tom0mason

          Cheers AndyG55 I was finding this troll more tiresome than the usual one.

        2. Jack Dale

          [-snip, sorry but your behavior is the level of children, and so better to take it to the local playground]

          1. tom0mason

            I may change my avatar to Pinocchio just for you dear Jack. You are a hoot!

      3. Bitter&twisted

        Jack, you clearly have an enquiringly mind.
        Why not try enquiring into those publications that support the AGW position?
        I’ll bet you’ll find some “inconsistencies” in that body of literature.
        In short the “science is not settled”.

  9. tom0mason

    I wonder how the American glaciers are doing the today?

    A little weather report from NOAA http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/nfdscc3.html

    🙂

  10. AndyG55

    WOW, everything is really DARK !

    LOTSA BOLD !!

  11. Mary

    Interesting we hear claims of polar amplification and “bigger and stronger” mid latitude cyclones (like the recent blitz of nor-easters. I don’t understand how you can get both considering baroclinicity. Pick one and stick with it.

  12. Greenland No Warmer Now Than The 1880s | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

    […] h/t NoTricksZone […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close