Patrick Michaels, author of Meltdown, is yet another global warming skeptic. How can Ian Lowe, President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, in his new book, A Big Fix, claim there are only five global warming skeptics in the whole world! 😉
Michael Duffy interviewed Michaels on ABC Radio National last night on climate change issues, click here for the transcript. The interview will be replayed tonight at about 9pm.
I was interested in Michaels comments on sealevel change and also snow and ice at the Arctic and Antarctic:
Michael Duffy: Patrick, let’s turn now to some of the alleged effects of global warming: are the ice caps melting?
Patrick Michaels: The North Pole ice, at the end of summer, is definitely on its way down. Remember though, when the sun goes down on the first day of fall at the North Pole it starts to refreeze very, very quickly. It’s really kind of misleading to say the polar ice caps are melting. What you really need to say is that there’s a big degradation of ice at the brief end of Polish summer… this is the North Pole. Having said that, remember that there is a raft of scientific literature that shows that from about 4,000 years before present, on back to at least 8000 and some of them go back to about 11,000 years before present, the northern Arctic was warmer than it is today by a couple of degrees.
Antarctica is a different story. For all the news stories you hear about the warming of Antarctica, every story that says Antarctica is warming is wrong. There is a small area in Antarctica, the Antarctic Peninsula, that little land that juts out towards South America that shows warming. But if you average across Antarctica
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Interaction of stratospheric ozone depletion and troposheric greenhouse warming speeds up the circumpolar vortex – about what you’ve got !
Might even have something to with rainfall decline in Australia ??
So warming might mean regional cooling – what a wonderful non-linear world – almost enough to make you develop a computer model of the interactions….
A fascinating list of papers on related topics http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ResPapers/SHAM.html
But the coup de grace is …
Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
David W. J. Thompson,1* Susan Solomon2
Science, Vol 296, Issue 5569, 895-899 , 3 May 2002
Climate variability in the high-latitude Southern Hemisphere (SH) is dominated by the SH annular mode, a large-scale pattern of variability characterized by fluctuations in the strength of the circumpolar vortex. We present evidence that recent trends in the SH tropospheric circulation can be interpreted as a bias toward the high-index polarity of this pattern, with stronger westerly flow encircling the polar cap. It is argued that the largest and most significant tropospheric trends can be traced to recent trends in the lower stratospheric polar vortex, which are due largely to photochemical ozone losses. During the summer-fall season, the trend toward stronger circumpolar flow has contributed substantially to the observed warming over the Antarctic Peninsula and Patagonia and to the cooling over eastern Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau.
1 Department of Atmospheric Science, Foothills Campus, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
2 Aeronomy Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 325 South Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305, USA.
Even more interesting is the reversal under stabilisation from our dear friends at CSIRO.
The Response of the Antarctic Oscillation to Increasing and Stabilized Atmospheric CO2
Issn: 1520-0442 Journal: Journal of Climate Volume: 16 Issue: 10 Pages: 1525-1538
Authors: Cai, Wenju, Whetton, Peter. H., Karoly, David J.
Article ID:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)0162.0.CO;2
ABSTRACT
Recent results from greenhouse warming experiments, most of which follow the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) IS92a scenario, have shown that under increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) exhibits a positive trend. However, its response during the subsequent CO2 stabilization period has not been explored. In this study, it is shown that the upward trend of the AAO reverses during such a stabilization period. This evolution of an upward trend and a subsequent reversal is present in each ensemble of three greenhouse simulations using three versions of the CSIRO Mark 2 coupled climate model. The evolution is shown to be linked with that of surface temperature, which also displays a corresponding trend and reversal, incorporating the well-known feature of interhemispheric warming asymmetry with smaller warming in the Southern Hemisphere (smaller as latitude increases) than that in the Northern Hemisphere during the transient period, and vice versa during the stabilization period. These results indicate that once CO2 concentration stabilizes, reversal of the AAO trend established during the transient period is likely to be a robust feature, as it is underpinned by the likelihood that latitudinal warming differences will reduce or disappear. The implication is that climatic impacts associated with the AAO trend during the transient period may be reversible if CO2 stabilization is achieved.
And if you want the bees knees on Antarctica trends:
http://south.aari.nw.ru/publication/climate_change/climate_change.pdf
Only 5? Well there are at least 6 – 🙂 I add myself to Ian Lowe’s list of politically incorrect gadflies.
But only 5 scary ones…
Oh, I though being scary means that e incantations and spells are thrown at scary types to frighten them off.
Given this fact, I must truly be very scary.
Hi can you post this – it got rejected for questionable content again
“It’s really kind of misleading to say the polar ice caps are melting.”
Is it now!!!!
Thining of Arctic Sea-Ice Cover
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/pscweb2002/pubs/Rothrock_Thinn.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10583953&dopt=Citation
“Satellite Evidence for an Arctic Sea Ice Cover in Transformation.
Johannessen OM, Shalina EV, Miles MW.
Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Edvard Griegsvei 3a, 5059 Bergen, Norway. Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen, 5007 Bergen, Norway. Nansen International Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Korpusnaya ulitsa 18, 197110 St. Petersburg, Russia. Department of Geography, University of Bergen, Breiviksveien 40, 5045 Bergen, Norway.
Recent research using microwave satellite remote sensing data has established that there has been a reduction of about 3 percent per decade in the areal extent of the Arctic sea ice cover since 1978, although it is unknown whether the nature of the perennial ice pack has changed. These data were used to quantify changes in the ice cover’s composition, revealing a substantial reduction of about 14 percent in the area of multiyear ice in winter during the period from 1978 to 1998. There also appears to be a strong correlation between the area of multiyear ice and the spatially averaged thickness of the perennial ice pack, which suggests that the satellite-derived areal decreases represent substantial rather than only peripheral changes. If this apparent transformation continues, it may lead to a markedly different ice regime in the Arctic, altering heat and mass exchanges as well as ocean stratification.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996GeoRL..23.1677M&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=
“Title:
Recent decreases in Arctic summer ice cover and linkages to atmospheric circulation anomalies
Authors:
Maslanik, James A.; Serreze, Mark C.; Barry, Roger G.
Journal:
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 23, Issue 13, p. 1677-1680 (GeoRL Homepage)
Publication Date:
00/1996
Origin:
AGU
AGU Keywords:
Oceanography: General: Climate and interannual variability, Oceanography: Physical: Ice mechanics and air/sea/ice exchange processes, Oceanography: General: Arctic and Antarctic oceanography, Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Polar meteorology
Abstract Copyright:
(c) 1996: American Geophysical Union
DOI:
10.1029/96GL01426
Bibliographic Code:
1996GeoRL..23.1677M
Abstract
Sea ice data from November 1978 through September 1995 for the Arctic Ocean and peripheral seas indicate that summer ice coverage has been below normal in recent years, with extreme minima in 1990, 1993, and 1995. The net trend in summer ice cover over the 17-year period is -0.6% per year, with the extent of the perennial ice pack reduced by 9% in 1990-1995 compared with 1979-1989. The reductions are greatest in the Siberian sector of the Arctic Ocean. Linkages are proposed between these ice anomalies and a sharp increase since 1989 in the frequency of low pressure systems over the central Arctic.”
http://www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch/events/Suscho05/Teaching%2520material/KN09/Comiso%25202002.pdf
A rapidly declining perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic
JC Comiso – Geophysical Research Letters, 2002 – nccr-climate.unibe.ch
Page 1. A rapidly declining perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic … needed to avoid
an irreversible change in the Arctic ice cover and its environment. …
Stephen Gloor
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Stephen,
Jennifer’s (if it was Jennifer) initial comment that your post was inappropriately designated was quite accurate.
Neither of the two papers that you refer to appear to have anything to do with a polar ice cap, but rather with floating sea-ice. On such niceties does science turn.
Also, I am puzzled by your closing adjuration to “consider the environment” before I print your message.
If I did that, should I check to make sure that I have paper rather than plastic sheets in my printer, paper being by definition one of humanity’s most useful sustainable products?
Or am I missing your point here? Would you rather I hand-copied it onto a slate?
Cathy – Arctic sea ice is thinning and thinning quite quickly yet this person is saying that they are not in face of the evidence. The Arctic is ALL sea ice.
BTW I sent this from my company’s email that puts these footers in the email. The company that I work for is environmentally conscious and is trying to save paper for both cost and environmental reasons.
Also Jennifer’s blog rejects some comments for no readily apparent reason so I emailed it to her.
Ender.
posting blogs on company time, tsk tsk tsk
Some interesting contrasting information from NASA
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2005/2005102020789.html
October 20, 2005
BREAKUP OF GLACIERS RAISING SEA LEVEL CONCERN
The rapid structural breakdown of some important parts of the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica is possible, has happened in the distant past, and some “startling changes” on the margin of these ice masses has been observed in recent years—raising disturbing concerns about sea level rise.
In a new report to be released Friday in the journal Science, researchers from Oregon State University and four other institutions in the U.S. and Europe outline dynamic mechanisms of glacial change that appear to be under way, could significantly speed up the melting of major ice sheets, and have not been considered in current projections for sea level rise.
A possibility, scientists say, is that the melting and collapse of floating ice shelves near the coasts of Greenland and Antarctica will continue and in the process destabilize the ice sheets behind them. This could cause a much more rapid flow of ice to the sea and lead to melting events that transcend those now anticipated due to global warming. Based on this, the researchers say that current projections of sea level rise should be considered a minimum to expect, and the levels could be much higher and happen more quickly.
And of course we are reminded that most of predicted sea level rise from GW thus far is from thermal expansions of the oceans. Which Michaels knows but conveniently has omitted mentioning. From experience with Michaels one inevitably reaches for a spinometer to gauge the vorticity of the argument.
Also of interest is the extent of Greenland now affected by summer warming – see
http://amap.no/acia/GraphicsSet2.pdf
Pages 32-34
As the earth, according to some, has expanded, while others think it is shrinking, so rising sea levels can just as easily be caused by a slight shrinkage or of the earth, and lowering sea levels without the ice factor, from earth expansion.
Geophysicist Vadim Anfiloff has suggested that intercontinental earthquakes are due to earth cooling and thus shrinking.
Given the radius of the earth, compared to the depth of ocean, an imperceptible change in earth diameter could more than explain measured sea levels changes.
As for the future in 200 years, please refer to your minister of religion – he might have more an idea of the future.
“Neither of the two papers that you refer to appear to have anything to do with a polar ice cap, but rather with floating sea-ice. On such niceties does science turn.”
Cathy – I take your nice comment to underline the point that melting of artic sea ice would have relatively little impact on sea levels as the ice floats in the sea. That together with thicking of antarctic ice implies global effects of polar ace caps on sea levels are at least somewhat ambiguous. Your quite understated witty point – quite relevant to Michaels argument starting this – seems to have been glossed over by the other postings in this thread.
Detribe – Michaels has not mentioned a few salient points – most of increase in sea level comes from an expanding warming ocean. Collapse of land based ice systems (as opposed to free floating) are discussed in above references. And just because we have a net depositional effect now doesn’t mean it will continue forever as warming increases.
Jen,
have you actually read the interview? Patrick Michaels is hardly a greenhouse “sceptic”. He projects 1.7C of warming this century which lies well within the IPCC projection. His numbers are also very closely to what scientists such as Jim Hanssen have recently suggested. He is somewhat sceptical of some of the science, but the upshot is that his projections lie within the range obtained through the concensus IPCC approach. You will find that most if not all scientists are sceptical about various aspects of the science… if they were not they would not be scientists!
He makes a couple of nice points, which need clarification. The first is the point about 1% CO2 increase. This is an old approximation used in early scenarios which reflected the equivalent CO2 increase – remember during the 1970s and 1980s CH4 and CFC doubled the effective CO2 increase from around 0.5% to around 1%. I’m suprised he doesn’t realise this…
The second point is calling 1.7C “very small”. When added to the just less than 1C already experienced this means we will accumulate nearly 3C of warming since industrialisation commenced (200 years). This is about 50% of the warming experienced at the end of the last glacial maximum, and which occured over 10,000 years. To suggest that a warming this large occuring at a rate of 20-50 times faster than the fastest rate nature can throw at us is… brave.
David