At last, warming creates more ice

For years we’ve been fed the propaganda that only warming causes less ice (and oh, what a shame!) and now we learn that it causes more ice as well (and oh, what a shame!).

Whether the warmists predict more ice or less ice, it’s still all caused by warming. Amazing.

More ice is bad, it’s caused by our evil kind of warming and our punishment is to give all our toys to the poor people living near the sea. Or far from the sea, so long as they’re poor. The old ice that sinks the earth’s crust into the magma which requires thousands of years to rebound after melting is not evil ice. But this ice is evil. Nor was that old ice caused by warming. But our evil ice is.

Amazing. I’m almost speechless.

Story from Seth Borenstein at the AP, via the Herald, a few hours ago.

This subtle growth in winter sea ice since scientists began measuring it in 1979 was initially surprising, they say, but makes sense the more it is studied.

Translation: we’ve had time to cook up some theories.

“A warming world can have complex and sometimes surprising consequences.”

Of course.

The “scientific” description of how warming creates more ice is non-existent. This story is bunkum, yet the Herald gives it some antipodean mileage. Shame on them. Shame.

University of Colorado researcher Katherine Leonard, who is on board the ship with Maksym, says in an email that the Antarctic sea ice is also getting snowier because climate change has allowed the air to carry more moisture.

That makes no sense considering the absence of global warming this century.

84
Leave a Reply

avatar
14 Comment threads
70 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
MagooRichard C (NZ)Richard TreadgoldbillMike Jowsey Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy
Guest
Andy

Climate Depot’s take on it

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Central Antarctica only gets the water equivalent of 50mm snow per year, making it a desert. Auckland gets about 1,240mm, for reference. The ice sheet here is about 4,000m thick (yes, that’s 4km!). 90% of the planet’s ice is bound up here.

Antarctica is normally well below zero, and it’s been cooling slightly over the last 50 years. So the increase in sea ice wasn’t caused by more snow arising from more water vapour due to a “warmer” atmosphere.

The warmists claim the Southern Ocean is warming up, so it should be melting the sea ice, no? After all, that’s apparently what’s happening in the Arctic.

So in the North, the warmer ocean causes less ice.

But in the South, apparently the same warmer water causes (insert rapid arm-movements here) more ice.

Who’da thunk it?

Simon
Guest
Simon

Antarctica’s climate is more complex than you imagine and there is still more to learn. http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/25-3_maksym.pdf

Andy
Guest
Andy

Well of course climate is more complex than we imagined.

However, everything can be explained by “global warming”. This is written in the scriptures according to the Prophets Mann and Hansen.

Behead those who mock the prophets Mann and Hansen!

Andy
Guest
Andy

By the way, this drivel by Sorenstein doesn’t really do ‘The Cause” any good. Most people can see it is male bovine excrement

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Such a considered analysis, Andy; I can see that you are a well-practiced onanist and coprophiliac.

[Your word, Rob Taylor, to behave well is not to be trusted. Goodbye, you filthy man. – RT]

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Our old mate Richard Christie cannot see the inherent contradiction in assigning opposing effects to the one cause. He says cleverly:

For years we’ve been fed the propaganda that it is only the engine that propels an automobile forward (and oh, what a shame!) and now we learn that it causes the car to go backwards as well (and oh, what a shame!).

Whether the mechanics predict forward or backward, it’s still all caused by the engine. Amazing.

This website is a joke.

He’s happy to see warming as a cause both of melting and of freezing, though it’s illogical. The proper analogy is with a gearbox: the engine will go in any direction. But I can’t make it work — how could global warming behave as a gearbox? Anyone?

Comparing climate scientists with motor mechanics is unrealistic, since it attributes them with far more knowledge of their subject than they claim for themselves.

Andy
Guest
Andy

The issue is not whether CO2 can cause warming or cooling. It may be possible to come up with plausible hypotheses to explain these phenomena within the framework of CO2AGW

The issue is how does this fit in with what we call “the scientific method”?

The IPCC never claimed that CO2AGW would increase sea ice in Antarctica. They claim the exact opposite in fact (see my link to climate depot above)

When the likes of Borenstein try to shoehorn every phenomenon into their AGW-centric viewpoint, it is not science, it is religion.

A more honest viewpoint is to say “sure, there are lots of unusual and unknown parts of the climate system we are trying to learn about. We think CO2 and other human induced actions might have an effect, but we are not sure of the scale of those effects at this stage”

We rarely hear this point of view, which is unfortunate because I think more people would be likely to listen to them than to the zealots

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”When the likes of Borenstein try to shoehorn every phenomenon into their AGW-centric viewpoint”

Also ‘Tabloid Climatology’

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/11/tabloid-climatology-may-be-the-real-reason-for-the-marcel-leroux-william-connolley-wikipedia-dustup/

And ‘Climate spin is rampant’ (Roger Pielke Jnr)

http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_21752735

Pielke Jnr’s article addresses the Munich Re findings.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Pielke Jr writes:

Such scientific findings are so robust that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded earlier this year that over the long-term, damage from extreme events has not been attributed to climate change, whether from natural or human causes.

So if the science is so clear on this subject, why then are companies and campaigners, abetted by a willing media, engaged in spreading misinformation?

and then goes on to say

But leading scientists and scientific organizations that contribute to a campaign of misinformation — even in pursuit of a worthy goal like responding effectively to climate change — may find that the credibility of science itself is put at risk by supporting scientifically unsupportable claims in pursuit of a political agenda.

Which brings us nicely back to the subject of the post

Andy
Guest
Andy

Richard North picks up on this too

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83227

It’s me and the penguins….

Nuff said

Billy
Guest
Billy

Hey you guys,I have faith in these scientists,so I’m going to put my beer in the oven to get cold.Oh, and I have a leg of lamb in the fridge cooking nicely.Many years ago I served my time as a motor mechanic.(1962)and only today I learn that by draining all the coolant from the engine it will actually run cooler.All those years and study working with marine engines and making sure they were kept at their ideal operating temps.to find out that I should have let them run out of coolant,and they would have frozen in no time.Have a good night,Have to go check the cold/hot leg of lamb.Keep up the good work RT

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

That makes no sense considering the absence of global warming this century.

Makes no sense according to whom, RT? Yourself, a scientific illiterate who cannot distinguish between heat and temperature?

NZCSC, who recently executed a massive public face-plant in the High Court?

Or the usual mishmash of failed meteorologists, fossil fuel geologists, aging loons and paid-for journalists bellowing on the internet?

It’s not about persuading anyone but themselves. RT provides an environment where everyone shares the same world view, where the denizens can indulge in mutual back-slapping and support…. Their epistemic closure is complete, and can’t tolerate challenge.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/prat-watch-7-5-no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion/#comment-34808

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Rob,

No global warming has occurred this century, so it has not allowed the air to carry more of anything for about 15 years.

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

No global warming has occurred this century, so it has not allowed the air to carry more of anything for about 15 years. RT, it only takes a few seconds to disprove this fatuous claim, given that the 2 warmest years on record are 2005 and 2010, and that, of the 12 warmest years on record, only one was in the 20th century (1998). The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 11 years (2001–2011) features as one of the 12 warmest on record. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record Here are the figures – read them and weep! 20 warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean) Year Global Land Ocean 2005 0.6183 0.9593 0.4896 2010 0.6171 0.9642 0.4885 1998 0.5984 0.8320 0.5090 2003 0.5832 0.7735 0.5108 2002 0.5762 0.8318 0.4798 2006 0.5623 0.8158 0.4669 2009 0.5591 0.7595 0.4848 2007 0.5509 0.9852 0.3900 2004 0.5441 0.7115 0.4819 2001 0.5188 0.7207 0.4419 2011 0.5124 0.8189 0.3970 2008 0.4842 0.7801 0.3745 And that’s just the atmospheric temperature anomaly; the upper ocean heat anomaly is even more striking: http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/ So, will you withdraw this egregious falsehood and apologise to… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

I think most of us can figure out the difference between a trend and absolute values.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Oh hang on, we have a paper submitted to Physics Letters that shows us that “global warming continues”, by those well-known activists climate scientists Dana Nuccitelli, Rob Painting and John Cook.

Andy
Guest
Andy

This article also introduces a new term for the lexicon: “pre-bunked”

Our original draft blog post noted that DK12 had effectively been “pre-bunked,” as several recent studies have reconciled global heat content data with top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance measurements with no evidence of a long-term slowdown in global warming.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

There’s all sorts of fishhooks turning up re Josh Willis/OHC and Levitus et al 2012 that have the potential to blow up in the faces of Nuccitelli, Way, Painting and Cook. I don’t think they know what they’ve got themselves into. Examples:- A) Josh Willis has been discarding ARGO floats that are “impossibly cold” (too cold compared to models) without actually retrieving the floats and checking the calibration. See Willis testimony ‘Correcting Ocean Cooling’:- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/ That was for the last round of OHC update. If it turns out that in the current round even more floats are returning data that’s “impossibly cold” what’s he going to do? Toss them out too? Or do some calibration tests on the offending floats? If calibration tests found the floats where in-spec, wouldn’t he have to reinstate what he had discarded previously? B) David Stockwell had an April 2012 post ‘Levitus data on ocean forcing confirms skeptics, falsifies IPCC’:- ———————————- What commentary on Levitus do we hear from the alarmists? Skeptical Science ignores that the IPCC has been exaggerating the net forcing, and attempts to save face: http://landshape.org/enm/levitus-data-on-ocean-forcing-confirms-skeptics-falsifies-ipcc/ ———————————— Followed up by Roger Pielke Snr ‘Comment On… Read more »

bill
Guest
bill

Of course, we all look forward to the publication of your forthcoming ‘How I Proved Everything Was Actually Caused by Cosmic Rays and Hitherto Unidentified Submarine Volcanoes and Was Home in Time For Tea’ paper, Dixie.

I mean, if that lot can do it, it must be easy. Oh, I forget, the SkS boys have the advantage that not only does the team have, um, qualified people in it, they also read the papers they cite. Almost cheating, really…

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

I love this part:

…as several recent studies have reconciled global heat content data with top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance measurements…

Oh yes? And which measurements would those be? CERES? You know, the one that measured -6.4W/m2?

In fact, nobody measured the radiative imbalance, it comes simply from a modelled result in Hansen (2005), based on Hansen’s guess at climate sensitivity of 0.75 ± 0.25°C per W/m2.

And also, while we’re on the subject, it would be nice if Mr Cook could explain why his value of the radiative imbalance in the years around 2005 is so at variance with Hansen’s (0.5W/m2 versus Hansen’s 0.9W/m2).

And if the radiative imbalance is in fact only about half as great as Hansen’s 0.9W/m2, what does that say about the climate sensitivity in Hansen (2005)? Surely it must be significantly lower, which means Hansen’s model in his Fig. 1. is shot to pieces.

Oops.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Just to emphasize how silly Cook et al. are to suggest that satellites could have measured the TOA energy imbalance, I refer you to none other than James Hansen:

The notion that a single satellite at this point could measure Earth’s energy imbalance to 0.1Wm−2 is prima facie preposterous. Earth emits and scatters radiation in
all directions, i.e., into 4 steradians. How can measurement of radiation in a single direction provide a proxy for radiation in all directions? Climate change alters the angular distribution of scattered and emitted radiation. It is implausible that changes in the angular distribution of radiation could be modeled to the needed accuracy, and the objective is to measure the imbalance, not guess at it. There is also the difficulty of maintaining sensor calibrations to accuracy 0.1Wm−2, i.e., 0.04 percent. That accuracy is beyond the state-of-the art, even for short periods, and that accuracy would need to be maintained for decades. There are many useful measurements that could be made from a mission to the Lagrange L1 point, but Earth’s radiation balance is not one of them.
-Hansen (2011)

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

So we know that Cook’s “top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance measurements” were not made by satellite.

I wonder what made those measurements, then?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

That’s at TOA Bob, and it doesn’t get any better down in the ocean. Nucitelli et al 2012 (N12, I missed Church previously):- Abstract A recent paper by Douglass and Knox (hereafter DK12) states that the global flux imbalance between 2002 and 2008 was approximately −0.03±0.06 W/m2, from which they concluded the CO2 forcing feedback is negative. However, DK12 only consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase from 0 to 700 meters, neglecting the OHC increase at greater depths. Here we include OHC data to a depth of 2000 meters and demonstrate this data explains the majority of the discrepancies between DK12 and previous works, and that the current global flux imbalance is consistent with continued anthropogenic climate change. Relevant highlights ► DK12 did not consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase below the upper 700 meters. # # # Firstly top-down. Levitus et al 2012 came up with a radiative imbalance of 0.27 Wm-2 per unit area of earth’s surface. We had Krivova, Vieira and Solanki, 2010 saying 1.25 W/m2 solar forcing (IPCC 0.12 W/m2). So the solar ocean forcing alone (if KV&S10 is anything to go by and applying Hansen’s losses… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Lorbacher et al 2012 use the following range of points for hmix c, d, and pbl ocean depths:-

0 – 15m, 115,000 – 10,000,000
25 – 100m, 1,100,000 – 1,400,000
100 – 200m, 120,000 – 1,200,000
200m – 1160m, 10,500 – 10,600 (c and pbl), 110,000 – 1,000,000 (d)

Clearly, 0 – 200m contains the most datapoints (ocean depths). To use 700m (Douglass and Knox) as the representative level from which to obtain the flux at the surface is questionable, to use 2000m (Nuccitelli et al) is OUT of the question.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Lorbacher et al page 25:- 5 Characteristics of ECCO simulated mixed layer depth relative to hmix=c ECCO uses the “K-profi le parameterization” (KPP) for near-surface vertical di ffusion coefficients (Large et al., 1994). The KPP scheme diagnoses an “oceanic planetary boundary layer depth” (hpbl) that is de fined as that depth where the “bulk Richardson number” exceeds a critical value (>0.3) (Menemenlis et al., 2004). This is the “depth of mixing due to turbulent velocities of unresolved eddies” (Large et al., 1994). Below this depth, in the ocean interior, the K-mixing profiles of the KPP-model depend on a number of processes which are: shear instability, background internal wave activity, and static instability. These processes enhance the mixing coefficients and therefore may lead to larger hmix than predicted by hpbl alone. Thus ECCO model computes the time evolution of vertical profi les of upper ocean temperatures both from assimilation of the instrumental observations, like T/T-array data, and from the direct application of the KPP upper ocean mixing scheme. # # # The Lorbacher paper is a process of refinement to determine realistic hmix depths. The hmix depth is calculated by a MATLAB routine (reproduced below) in the appendix… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

A primer on the evolution of ocean surface flux modeling from the ECCO report series (Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean):-

http://www.ecco-group.org/report_series.htm

Stammer, D., K. Ueyoshi, W.G. Large, S. Josey, and C. Wunsch: Global sea surface flux estimates obtained through ocean data assimilation. Report No.13, November 2001.

http://www.ecco-group.org/pdfs/reports/report_13.pdf

Fig. 2: Top row: The mean net surface heat (left) and freshwater flux fields to/from the atmosphere (right) as they result from the optimization over the period 1992 through 2000. Middle row: Mean changes in net surface heat exchange relative to the prior NCEP fields estimated over the one-year period 1993 (in W/m2; left panel), and for the net freshwater exchange (in W/m2; right panel). Bottom row: Mean difference LN01 – NCEP net surface heat flux from 1993 (left panel) and for fresh water flux (right panel).

Fig. 3: Zonally integrated heat (top) and and surface fresh water fluxes (bottom), evaluated globally (blue curves) and over the Atlantic, Pacifi c and Indian Ocean sectors (green, red and magenta), respectively.

# # #

Next, ECCO2.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

ECCO2 To increase understanding and predictive capability for the ocean’s role in future climate change scenarios, the NASA Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction (MAP) program is funding a project called Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean, Phase II (ECCO2): High-Resolution Global-Ocean and Sea-Ice Data Synthesis. ECCO2 aims to produce increasingly accurate syntheses of all available global-scale ocean and sea-ice data at resolutions that start to resolve ocean eddies and other narrow current systems, which transport heat, carbon, and other properties within the ocean. ECCO2 data syntheses are obtained by least squares fit of a global full-depth-ocean and sea-ice configuration of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology general circulation model (MITgcm) to the available satellite and in-situ data. ECCO2 data syntheses are being used to quantify the role of the oceans in the global carbon cycle, to understand the recent evolution of the polar oceans, to monitor time-evolving term balances within and between different components of the Earth system, and for many other science applications. http://ecco2.jpl.nasa.gov/ Manuscripts & Publications [selection of relevance to surface flux] 2012 A. Chaudhuri, R. Ponte, G. Forget, and P. Heimbach, 2012: A comparison of atmospheric re- analysis products over… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Questions begging re the 2 part series:

‘Combining ARGO profiles with a general circulation model’

1) Do these guys discard any floats as Josh Willis has?

2) If they do, are they exactly the same as those Willis discards?

3) If they don’t, why don’t they?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Nothing in the ARGO news archive about floats too cool. Just this about a pressure problem:-

May 5, 2009 Problem with SBE CTD pressure sensors on Argo floats,
recommendation to stop float deployments and return CTDs to Sea-Bird for repair

December 8, 2008 Important notice to Argo users (pressure drift in APEX floats)

If there was a problem with “impossibly cold” floats there would have been a similar notification and a recommendation for some kind of remedial action.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The Willis-cold-floats story goes back a while and is not necessarily the case at present although Dr David Evans warns:- “Don’t be surprised if the Argo data for the last few years is “revised” at some stage to show warming instead of slight cooling.” That from page 14 of:- OCEAN TEMPERATURES: THE NEW BLUFF IN CLIMATE ALARMISM by Dr. David Evans | July 21, 2009 http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/ocean_temps.pdf Quoting:- “The Argo data originally showed a strong cooling trend. Josh Willis was surprised at the results: “every body was telling me I was wrong”, because it didn’t agree with the climate models or satellite observations of net radiation flux. Willis decided to recalibrate the Argo data by omitting readings from some floats that seemed to be giving readings that were too cold. The Argo results shown above (Figures 12 and 13) are for the new, current data, after those recalibrations were made.” And, “Finally, the Argo data is extraordinarily difficult to find on the Internet: there is no official or unofficial website showing the latest global ocean temperature. Basically the only way to get the data is to ask Josh Willis (above). The graphs above come… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

A look at OHC by GODAE comparing observation climatologies. Modelers produce OHC in far more detail than the NOAA/Willis presentations – global AND regional. As was shown up-thread, 700m and 2000m are out of the range of defining parameters. Refer to the Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE) ‘List of poster abstracts’:- http://www.godae.org/PA-authors-M-O.html#46 HEAT AND SALINITY VARIABILITY OVER THE UPPER-OCEAN IN TWO GLOBAL RE-ANALYSES [1960 – 2006, 0 – 300m, 0 – 500m] S. Masina, S. Dobricic, P. Di Pietro, N. Pinardi http://www.godae.org/~godae-data/Symposium/posters/S4.36-046_S_Masina-INGV-CMCC.pdf Fig 4: Integrated Heat Content Anomaly time series, top 300m (A) and top-bottom [0 – 500m] (B) Global 0 – 300m (cyclical, 2006 at early 1960s level) Global 0 – 500m (compare (B) to NOAA 0 – 700m http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ ……..different profiles, GODAE cyclical, large differences 2000 – 2006 climatologies) North Pacific (no increase, cyclical) North Atlantic (spectacular increase) Indian (no increase since 1980) A similar but more recent paper updates that analysis:- ‘GLOBAL OCEAN RE-ANALYSIS FOR CLIMATE APPLICATIONS’ Simona Masinaa Pierluigi Di Pietrob, Andrea Stortoa and Antonio Navarraa, 2011 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377026511000145) Shown is the 0 – 700m Global Ocean (cyclical), North Atlantic (spectacular rise) and North Pacific (cyclical) differences starkly contrasted:-… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Simona Masinaa Pierluigi Di Pietrob, Andrea Stortoa and Antonio Navarraa, 2011″

Should be:-

Simona Masina, Pierluigi Di Pietro, Andrea Storto and Antonio Navarra, 2011

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Roy Spencer has a post comparing radiative imbalance by OHC change to Hansen’s GISS estimate. He gets an average of 0.2 Wm-2 but assumes (pointedly) accurate Levitus climatology and 0 – 2000m parameterization:- ‘Weak Warming of the Oceans 1955-2010 Implies Low Climate Sensitivity’ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/weak-warming-of-the-oceans-1955-2010-implies-low-climate-sensitivity/ Spencer radiative imbalance plot:- http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif Hansen radiative imbalance plot:- http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/GISS-forcings1.gif Quoting:- Let’s assume, for the sake of illustration, that Hansen is correct for all of these forcings. In that case, the average of the all-forcings curve over the period 1955-2010 is about 0.8 W m-2. Now let’s compare these 2 numbers for the period 1955-2010: Average Radiative Forcing from CO2, aerosols, volcanoes: 0.8 W m-2 Average Radiative Imbalance from increasing ocean heat content: 0.2 W m-2 Assuming the ocean heat content data and Hansen’s forcing estimates are accurate, how could the average radiative forcing be 4 times the average radiative imbalance? The answer is FEEDBACK: Radiative Imbalance = Forcing – Feedback As the system GAINS energy (and warms) from forcing, it LOSES energy from feedbacks: e.g., changes in clouds, water vapor, and most importantly the extra loss of IR energy directly to space from warmer temperatures (which is usually… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Just realized that Spencer’s forcing-feedback post did in May 2011 what Nuccitelli et al did in 2012 with their paper (Duh!). They both used 0 – 2000m OHC parameterization except that rather than prove positive CO2 feedback, a negative feedback arises using Hansen’s average forcing (0.8 W m-2) Spencer:- UPDATE (1:20 pm. CDT 5/13/11): Since the issue of deep ocean warming (below 700 m depth) has been raised in the comments section, I have re-run the forcing-feedback model for the following two observations: 1) a net 50 year warming of 0.06 deg. C for the 0-2000 meter layer, and (2) a surface warming of 0.6 deg. C over the same period. The results suggest a net feedback parameter of 3 W m-2 K-1, which corresponds to a climate sensitivity of 1.3 deg. C from 2XCO2, which is below the 1.5 deg. C lower limit the IPCC has placed on future warming. [-3 W m-2 feedback opposes Knox and Douglass’ average 3 W m-2 forcing graphed by Nuccitelli et al’s DK12 derived plot here http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0375960112010389-gr002.jpg and Hansen’s 2010 3 W m-2 GHG no-forcing feedback http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/GISS-forcings1.gif%5D Spencer further down:- If we run this model, we… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Issues relevant to Nuccitelli et al 2012 addressed by Alec Rawls (indirectly) here:- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/14/raimund-muscheler-says-that-a-steady-high-level-of-forcing-cant-cause-warming/ Solar warming and ocean equilibrium, part 4 […] It doesn’t matter that solar activity was at grand maximum levels from 1920 to 2000. Only the continued turning up a forcing can cause warming according to Dr. Benestad. Here is a list of a dozen more top consensus climate scientists all making similar statements, and as I discovered from my “expert review” of the First Order Draft of AR5, this is now the IPCC’s official grounds for dismissing a solar explanation for late 20th century warming. Would Muscheler add himself to the list? I had to give him a chance and he very graciously took it, thanking me for pointing to the obvious error in the transcription while confirming that, yes, he too looks at the wrong derivative. He should be looking at the zero derivative (the level of solar activity) but is instead looking at the first derivative (the rate of change in solar activity, or the trend). […] The hidden (and completely untenable) assumption of rapid ocean equilibration […] Last year I emailed the dozen climate scientists from… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ocean Heat Content (7 data series)

Domingues et al. (2008)
Ishii et al. (2009)
Willis et al. (2004)
Lyman and Johnson (2008)
Palmer et al. (2007)
NODC, Levitus et al. (2009)
Gouretski and Reseghetti (2010)

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/indicators/figures/synth_single_panel_3.png

Note the differences on the ARGO era (2003 onwards):-

Rising spectacularly – Palmer
Rising marginally – Willis, Gouretski and Reseghetti
Falling – Levitus, Ishii, Lyman and Johnson

From: Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/indicators/11keyindicators.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

After 47 comments from the SkS faithful # 48 cuts to the chase, identifying the same reconciliation issue that I did up-thread (see below). Reference:- ‘Comment on Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts Dana Nuccitelli, Robert Way, Rob Painting, John Church, and John Cook 2012 http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf ——————————————————————————————————————————– # 47 JoeRG at 18:29 PM on 14 October, 2012 Dear Mr. Nuccitelli As I understand it, the Table 1 of the paper only consists of the OHC and LAI anomalies converted into the necessary forcings. First, the link to the NOAA OHC data [11] in your paper is a dead link. It ends with the error 550: No such file or directory. Second, using the data available under http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html (I cannot imagine that NOAA hosts different data series for just one subject) and recalculating your OHC forcing brings the following results: Time 0-700 m [W/m²] 700-2000 m [W/m²] 1970-2008 0.335 0.137 1980-2008 0.276 0.187 1990-2008 0.401 0.228 2000-2008 0.450 0.217 2002-2008 0.383 0.197 Third, how can the standard errors of the greater time ranges be smaller although the standard error of the origin data for e.g. 1970 (+/-0.94*10^22 J)… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Correction, should read:-

“The assessment for the 2002 – 2008 period using the previous format is:-”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Posted this following comment at JoNova here:- http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/australian-sea-levels-have-been-falling-for-7000-years/#comment-1134500 —————————————————————————————————————————— Those quizzical of what my long winded OHC comment above is getting at, please dissect this:- Radiative Imbalance = Forcing – Feedback Using Spencer’s radiative imbalance graph http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif For 2002 – 2008: Average OHC imbalance: 0.76 W/m2 (up) (est of 7 graph points) Nuccitelli et al OHC forcing: 0.73 W/m2 (up) IPCC CO2 forcing (marine level): 0.175 W/m2 (down) Neglecting other forcings: 0.76 = (0.73 – 0.175) – Feedback 0.76 = 0.555 – Feedback Therefore, either there is a 0.205 (up) forcing to consider with no feedback, or there is a 0.205 feedback to consider with no other forcing, or a combination of both. Hansen’s GISS Radiative Forcings Estimates show no other forcings changing by 0.205 over the 2002 – 2008 period http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/GISS-forcings1.gif So the expression becomes: 0.76 = 0.555 – (-0.205) i.e. a 0.205 W/m2 feedback (down) – what is it? Nuccitelli et al say nothing of this because they do not do this calculation in their paper, they just point to other papers saying their results are “consistent” with them:- 4 Discussion DK12 noted that their results were inconsistent with a number… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Have asked for pointers at JoNova:- http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/australian-sea-levels-have-been-falling-for-7000-years/#comment-1134890 —————————————————————————————————————————– I may have CO2 forcing (assuming it exists) acting in the wrong direction, can someone help me out? My problem is that I know there’s no mechanism for CO2 LWIR to heat the mixed layer and deep ocean (not a heating agent) but even so, I’m trying to fit CO2 into the equation as Nuccitelli et al should have done. But in doing that I’ve come up with a mysterious 0.555 W/m2 OHC forcing contribution (another heating agent) that can only be solar. Given there’s not actually a 0.555 W/m2 solar forcing over the period 2002 – 2008, I cannot make sense of the imbalance equation. Going back to this:- For 2002 – 2008: Average OHC imbalance: 0.76 W/m2 (up) Nuccitelli et al OHC forcing: 0.73 W/m2 (up) IPCC CO2 forcing (marine level): 0.175 W/m2 (down) Neglecting other forcings: 0.76 = (0.73 – 0.175) – Feedback 0.76 = 0.555 – Feedback Should I instead be making CO2 forcing a CONTRIBUTION (a heating agent) to the OHC forcing so that the expression looks like this:- 0.76 = 0.73 – Feedback Where 0.73 = 0.175 CO2 plus… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

A look at how Nuccitelli et al justify using 2000m OHC data which is far below the planetary boundary layer (pbl) and not used by O-GCM modelers to compute upper layer internal flux. Nuccitelli et al justify it thus:- Recent research has determined that all radiative forcings [3] and heat content of the entire ocean, at all depths must be considered to reconcile these two quantities [4], including the upper 2,000 meters of oceans in particular [5]. [4] M.D. Palmer, D. J. McNeall, and N. J. Dunstone, Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 (2011) L13707, doi:10.1029/2011GL047835. [5] N.G. Loeb, J.M. Lyman, G.C. Johnson, R.P. Allan, D.R. Doelling, T. Wong, B.J. Soden, and G.L. Stephens, Nature Geoscience (2012), doi:10.1038/ngeo1375. # # # Roy Spencer did exactly the same exercise of using 0 – 2000m in a blog post a year prior (May 2011) to the Nuccitelli et al 2012 paper except that Spencer’s exercise was the result of requests in comments for him to do so – not by any supposed justification from literature. Nucciteli et al cite Palmer et al and Loeb et al as their justification but let’s look at what a couple of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

A look at Palmer et al – one of Nuccitelli et al’s justifications for 0 – 2000m – in view of Nuccitelli et al’s criticism of Douglass and Knox (page 6):- “The CO2 feedback is effectively a constant value, and thus should not be calculated using such a short timeframe when data over a longer period are available. The DK12 feedback calculation is invalidated by focusing on noisy short-term data and failing to account for all radiative forcings at work, as well as all heat reservoirs, in particular the oceans below 700 meters” Now their justification for 0 – 2000m and a longer time-frame than D&K’s 2002 – 2008:- ‘Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal changes in Earth’s radiation balance’ Palmer, Douglas, McNeall and Dunstone, 2011. http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/sst-et-temp-mondiales.pdf Page 2:- “This large internal variability in SST could easily mask the anthropogenic warming signal for a decade or more, consistent with the findings of previous studies [Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Knight et al., 2009]. Conversely, trends in total energy are typically an order of magnitude less than the 1.1 ± 0.4 W m−2 estimated radiation imbalance for the period 1970–2000 [Murphy et al.,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Rob painting has stumbled upon my Nuccitelli et al critique at JoNova here:-

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/australian-sea-levels-have-been-falling-for-7000-years/#comment-1138421

Rob Painting
October 17, 2012 at 6:54 pm

Richard C2 – our paper is somewhat removed from the topic of this post. Maybe when a relevant post arises, and I happen to be around, it can be discussed then.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

How the Skeptical Science team: Dana Nuccitelli, Robert Way, Rob Painting, John Church, and John Cook (with the prior 2011 assistance of Roy Spencer), by the publication of their 2012 paper, effectively ended the notion that OHC (and TOA imbalance inferred from it) is anthropogenically forced. Nuccitelli et al reference Palmer et al 2011 who suggest that “under [an anthropogenic] global warming scenario, we would expect to see a more monotonic increase in total energy”. Total energy required being 0 – 2000m OHC (at least) instead of the 0 – 700m layer that Douglass and Knox applied. Nuccitelli et al stipulate 0 – 2000m as the appropriate depth to ascertain radiative imbalance – OK fine, we’ll do that. Nuccitelli et al dictate that D&K’s 8 yr time-frame was too short and the D&K data was “noise”. Nuccitelli et al instead stipulate a longer time-frame and 5 yr smoothing – OK fine, we’ll do that too but with 10 yr smoothing. Refer Roy Spencer’s 10 yr smoothed radiative imbalance inferred from OHC:- http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif Our period is 1961 – 2006 (46 yrs). Now to calculate Palmer et al’s “more monotonic increase in total energy” as… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

Exactly. So even though there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years (which is a short enough time period to be affected by cyclic variations), the mean temperature is at its highest level for hundreds if not thousands of years.
If you publish a paper in a reputable scientific journal you can call yourself a scientist in my book. What’s happened to Watt’s paper?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”If you publish a paper in a reputable scientific journal you can call yourself a scientist in my book”

Does that include Lewandowsky et al and Gergis et al?

And will it include Dedekind et al if ‘Statistical Audit’ is published?

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

I think most of us can tell the difference between the observed truth and a foolish lie, Andy.
At least, that’s the way I was raised.

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

So, Treaders, are you lost for words,, or will you withdraw your egregious falsehood and apologise to your readers, in line with your stated aims – or is that too much to expect?

we aim to be a credible voice in the global warming wilderness. We bring a simple message: listen, ask for evidence, trust reason and avoid conclusions not justified by facts.

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/about/

Andy
Guest
Andy

Apologise for what?

Simon above repeated the statement that there has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years (with the usual caveats)

This is quite different to statements about “the warmest year on record”

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Are you Treader’s minder now, Andy?

Here’s his falsehood again:

Richard Treadgold says:
October 11, 2012 at 9:34 pm

Rob,

No global warming has occurred this century, so it has not allowed the air to carry more of anything for about 15 years.

If there has been no global warming this century, Andy, then why have 11 of the 12 warmest years on record happened this century?

Why has this century seen the two warmest years on record?

Why has the ocean heat content kept on breaking records this century?

And how does Treaders reconcile his obvious falsehood with his pious words on the intro to this site, namely:

It’s difficult wading through the science, it’s tough keeping your head in the hothouse of argument and it’s especially difficult to know whom to trust. So we aim to be a credible voice in the global warming wilderness.

Yeah, right!

Andy
Guest
Andy

Bob D kindly provided a graph that can, I hope, reconcile the statement that there has been no warming and certain years are “the warmest on record”

Andy
Guest
Andy

Matt Briggs also explained the “safe but misleading” statement about the warmest year on record

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

I’m almost speechless. lol

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Cheeky 😉

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Spare me the weasel words, guys, Treadgold’s statement was unambiguous:

No global warming has occurred this century

This is a completely and utterly false, as any child can see:

The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 11 years (2001–2011) features as one of the 12 warmest on record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

C’mon, Treadgold, front up and apologise to your readers, and retain whatever shreds of credibility you might have left – at least until you come up with another schoolboy howler like this one!

Richard Treadgold
Guest

So, Taylor, instead of making much of how warm it’s been this century, you can tell us when it warmed and by how much, please.

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

********************************

[When did it warm, and by how much? – RT]

Simon
Guest
Simon

NASA GISTEMP data of combined land-surface air and sea-surface water temperature anomalies: 2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Bob D
Guest
Bob D

No global warming has occurred this century

This statement is correct. The warming stopped in the late 1990s, and the trend this past decade is negative.

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Nonsense, Bob, as you well know:

The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 11 years (2001–2011) features as one of the 12 warmest on record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

You seem to have reading comprehension problems, Rob. Once again the statement

No global warming has occurred this century

is entirely correct. I suspect you’re getting confused by the term “this century”. In English, when we refer to “this century” we mean “since the turn of the century”, not “over the last one hundred years”.

Confusing, I know. Still, you’ll pick it up sooner or later.

By the way, your real problem is explaining why there has been no warming in the last 15 years, as Hansen (1997) quite clearly predicted that this past decade would be the period when, in the absence of a large volcanic eruption, the increasing greenhouse effect would cause the planetary energy imbalance and ocean heat storage to rise above the level of natural variability.

In other words, there should have been no doubt whatsoever about the warming trend. You know, the trend we’re seeing that’s negative?

Oops.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

By the way, Rob, love the links to Wikipedia!

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

So, Gareth was right about you all along, Treadgold:

It’s not about persuading anyone but themselves. RT provides an environment where everyone shares the same world view, where the denizens can indulge in mutual back-slapping and support. When Rob and others turn up there to challenge them, all pretence at politeness and rationality is dropped and they turn on the interloper. It’s exactly what happens at µWatts, but on a much smaller scale. Their epistemic closure is complete, and can’t tolerate challenge.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

When did it warm, and by how much?

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Are you, perhaps, incapable of clicking on the links I have provided?

Here they are again (hint: the trick is to move the mouse onto them before clicking):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Noaa:-

“Recent estimates are based primarily on Argo profiling CTD float data”

After Josh Willis has thrown out the floats reading too cold for his liking.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

What are you trying to do? I must admit that it’s an uncommon technique of inquiry to treat your respondent with such deep contempt. You encourage nobody, you praise nobody, you treat everyone with derision. People are filling with this contempt and feel nothing else for you. So, what are you trying to do?

I already saw the graphs you linked to. They don’t support your assertion of warming in the 21st century. I’m uncertain about the estimates in Lyman et al. (2010) of ocean heat content down to 700 m (the data for which is now 4 years old) because we’re talking about temperatures. Perhaps the rise in heat content from 1997 to 2003 was some kind of lagged response to earlier AGW, which has, as you know, stopped this century? But there’s this graph from the CRU that shows actual sea surface temperature. It’s clear that, since about 1999, there’s been little, if any, warming.

Now provide a reference to support your assertion of warming this century. You expect it of us, so you should expect it of yourself.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

When Rob and others turn up there to challenge them, all pretence at politeness and rationality is dropped and they turn on the interloper… Their epistemic closure is complete, and can’t tolerate challenge.

This is quite wrong. Some commenters become agitated and angry at your unscientific taunting, but not all of them. Some are happy to respond and do respond to your challenges, as far as they can be responded to and are not completely ad hominem attacks. It is incorrect to characterise us here generally as intolerant.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Gareth:- “Their epistemic closure is complete, and can’t tolerate challenge” Hmmm. Richard C2 October 5, 2012 at 8:49 am I challenge you Gareth, to produce a correlation of the anthropogenic component of DLR to any climate metric you choose e.g. SAT, mid/upper troposphere AT, SST, OHC, PDO, AMO, ENSO etc that betters Zhong’s Gleissburg cycle/OHC450 correlation of 0.6 or an SAT/PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral correlation of 0.96. The meaningless SAT/CO2 concentration correlation is only 0.4 – 0.44 but concentration alone is useless unless corroborated by empirical observations of DLR. That hasn’t turned out so well (Francis and Hunter, Gero and Turner) but feel free to come up with something yourself Gareth October 5, 2012 at 10:36 am Sorry mate, you don’t get to issue challenges based on your worldview. http://hot-topic.co.nz/prat-watch-7-the-unbearable-rightness-of-being-wrong/#comment-34710 When you’ve got nothing and accept – as he puts it – “the mainstream view, based as it is on 150 years of scientific research” (the cutting-edge radiative heat transfer physics of the 1800s – “luminiferous aether”, “carbonic acid”, and a misunderstanding of Fourier by Arrhenius), it is wise not to brook challenges. But in doing so he adopts his characterization of us as his… Read more »

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Richard C:

…he adopts his characterization of us as his own self-epithet, apparently unwittingly.

Almost certainly unwittingly. 😉

Richard Treadgold
Guest

For our edification, Rob Taylor tried to comment thus (but I intercepted it): What am I trying to do? Simply to keep you honest, and demonstrate to whoever ventures into this sheltered workshop of denial that magical thinking, disinformation and ignorance cannot solve the problems we face. Here is an example: you say “Now provide a reference to support your assertion of warming this century. You expect it of us, so you should expect it of yourself.” yet I have already pointed out three times that the warmest years on record are in the period 2001 to 2011, which also contains 11 of the 12 warmest years on record. Which part of being totally and completely wrong do you not understand? To which I say to him: Which part of “warming doesn’t mean warmest” do you not understand? No warming has occurred this century. That means the temperature hasn’t gone up. How can he not see that warming occurs only when the temperature actually rises? He gave links to a Wikipedia article. Examining the graphs, it’s obvious that the “20 warmest years” achieve their position by virtue of outranking other years by merely… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

Rob is getting exasperated because you are confusing trend with variation. You have intentionally chosen a high base and twelve years is probably insufficient time to establish a reasonable trend. Time to go back to Climate Modelling 101:
http://nas-sites.org/climatemodeling/page_1_1.php

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Looks like IPCC CMIP5 Class of 2012 will be coming back for Climate Modelling 101 next year:-

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon, the conventional climate period is 30 yrs. In the last 30 yrs there have been 2 climate regime shifts (statistically significant breaks), 1987 (0.1 C), and 1997 (0.25 C) giving 0,35 C over the 30 yr period:-

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ClimateRegimeShift_files/image003.jpg

Those climate regime shifts are related to the solar cycle:-

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ClimateRegimeShift_files/image005.jpg

The regime shifts over the last 30 yr climate period are solar driven – not CO2 driven.

Andy
Guest
Andy

By the way, from the “weather is not climate” department, it is sleeting heavily outside (in South Canterbury). If it carries on we won’t have to drive far for our planned ski touring mission tomorrow

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

There was a hurricane at the bottom of the Indian Ocean beginning of this week, stirred things up a bit. This in SMH:

‘Snow falls on coldest October day in 40 years’

“Snow has fallen on Melbourne’s surrounding hills in the coldest October day in 40 years”

And these comments at JoNova (appropriately ‘Man Made Global Warming Disproved’ post):

Mark
October 12, 2012 at 7:05 am #70

Well here we are on October 12 at about 8:00 am and my outside temperature sensor is telling me that it’s 7.6 deg. This is in the Illawarra region of NSW. Snow has been reported in Moss Vale as well as around Goulburn and Gunning.

Don’t ya just know how Flim-flam Flummery will sum this up.

KinkyKeith
October 12, 2012 at 7:19 am

Hi Mark

We had global warming here in Newcastle too.

It was bloody freezing before the sun rose.

Mark
October 12, 2012 at 7:35 am

Hey KK, temp. here is now 6.6.

Waaaah. Gimme back my Global Warming!

Mark
October 12, 2012 at 7:59 am

Weather update:

Seems that there has been light snow at Sussex Inlet on the NSW South Coast.

Unbelievable.

Andy
Guest
Andy

News from the “it’s worse than we thought” department

Antarctic climate facing ‘rapid’ changes: chief scientist

Australia’s chief Antarctic scientist says claims by climate experts about environmental changes in the southern continent are not alarmist.

The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) told a Senate estimates hearing today “rapid changes” taking place across the icy land mass would have significant impact on global climate.

Changes in ocean flows and shifts in Antarctic ice cap levels were occurring at rates faster than at any other time in history, chief scientist Nick Gales said.

“That’s the part that is the most dramatic about the information we’re receiving,” he told the hearing.

Scientists were detecting major changes in the circulation of deep, dense salty water off Antarctica.

This water, which drives the circulation of the world’s oceans and in turn climate patterns, was reducing, while becoming warmer and less salty.

Meanwhile, parts of the Antarctic ice caps were melting at unprecedented rates.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Interesting article on how GISS gets it’s Antarctic warming trend. You have to laugh at the people who believe Hansen and his bunch of merry men.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/roger-andrews-how-nasa-giss-manufactures-warming-in-the-antarctic/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Classic, Magoo. NIWA wouldn’t leave the Base Orcadas 1950 discontinuity (breakpoint) unadjusted but GISS does:-

http://oi46.tinypic.com/2vjpunk.jpg

TB’s helpful NIWA/NZCSET-style adjustment :-

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/3145o52.png?w=1228&h=870

GISS uses an out-of-territory station (Base Orcadas) as a proxy for the entire Antarctic. Best does the same for the first decade of its NZ record (1840s), using Hobart. But Hobart is much cooler than the composite NZ record, hence pronounced warming in the BEST NZ record.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Australia’s Antarctic supply ship icebound

Australia’s Antarctic supply ship Aurora Australis is stuck in ice near Casey Station.

The Antarctic Division’s operations manager, Robb Clifton, says it is not a problem at this stage with scientists out on the ice doing research work as normal.

Mr Clifton says the crew has until early next month to remain in their position, 80 nautical miles from the Antarctic coastline.

“It’s in very heavy ice at the moment and it’s unable to move from its current position because of that ice pack having tightened up from some very strong northerly winds,” he said.

“We expect then, when we get a little bit of southerly wind and a little bit of swell and current through, then the ice will start to move apart.

“As it does then the ship will move to the the next station for some more science activity.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-23/antarctic-supply-ship-icebound/4329708

So the ice was caused by winds? Who’d have thought?

Andy
Guest
Andy

A bit more on the Icebreaker story from Autonomous Mind

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/where-are-you-great-oden/

Post Navigation