'The recent trend of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent — seemingly at odds with climate model projections — can largely be explained by a natural climate fluctuation, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The study offers evidence that the negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), which is characterized by cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures in the tropical eastern Pacific, has created favorable conditions for additional Antarctic sea ice growth since 2000.

The findings, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, may resolve a longstanding mystery: Why is Antarctic sea ice expanding when climate change is causing the world to warm?'

'To test if these IPO-related impacts were sufficient to cause the growth in sea ice extent observed between 2000 and 2014, the scientists first examined 262 climate simulations created by different modeling groups from around the world.

When all of those simulations are averaged, the natural variability cancels itself out. For example, simulations with a positive IPO offset those with a negative IPO. What remains is the expected impact of human-caused climate change: a decline in Antarctic sea ice extent.

But for this study, the scientists were not interested in the average. Instead, they wanted to find individual members that correctly characterized the natural variability between 2000-2014, including the negative phase of the IPO. The team discovered 10 simulations that met the criteria, and all of them showed an increase in Antarctic sea ice extent across all seasons.'

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/121622/expanding-antarctic-sea-ice-linked-natural-variability

Not melting ice? Oh, NO.

10 out of 262 models? More Oh, NO's.

lee wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 7:25pm:

'The recent trend of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent — seemingly at odds with climate model projections — can largely be explained by a natural climate fluctuation, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study offers evidence that the negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), which is characterized by cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures in the tropical eastern Pacific, has created favorable conditions for additional Antarctic sea ice growth since 2000. The findings, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, may resolve a longstanding mystery: Why is Antarctic sea ice expanding when climate change is causing the world to warm?' 'To test if these IPO-related impacts were sufficient to cause the growth in sea ice extent observed between 2000 and 2014, the scientists first examined 262 climate simulations created by different modeling groups from around the world. When all of those simulations are averaged, the natural variability cancels itself out. For example, simulations with a positive IPO offset those with a negative IPO. What remains is the expected impact of human-caused climate change: a decline in Antarctic sea ice extent. But for this study, the scientists were not interested in the average. Instead, they wanted to find individual members that correctly characterized the natural variability between 2000-2014, including the negative phase of the IPO. The team discovered 10 simulations that met the criteria, and all of them showed an increase in Antarctic sea ice extent across all seasons.' ucar.edu/atmosnews/121622/expanding-antarctic-sea-ice-linked-natural-variability Not melting ice? Oh, NO. 10 out of 262 models? More Oh, NO's.

Was that 87 studies that showed that?

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cd/be/9f/cdbe9ff2600376b69a7c30be5fc15025.jpg

Squire wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 7:37pm:

Was that 87 studies that showed that?

Do you suffer from cognitive dissonance?

What has this study to do with some 87 studies? I am not a mind reader.

Quote:

'The recent trend of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent — seemingly at odds with climate model projections — can largely be explained by a natural climate fluctuation, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

I have no issue with this study.



lee wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 7:25pm:

Not melting ice? Oh, NO. 10 out of 262 models? More Oh, NO's.

Lee's reaction would suggest that he doesn't understand it

Interesting post Lee.

Keep up the good work.

lee wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 8:27pm:

Squire wrote on Jul 5th, 2016 at 7:37pm: Was that 87 studies that showed that? Do you suffer from cognitive dissonance? What has this study to do with some 87 studies? I am not a mind reader.

Thank goodness you are not a mind reader because you would leave the minds you read in disarray as well.

The UK Ministry of Funny Walks issued a study which contradicts all your arguments.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 11:28pm:

Interesting post Lee. Keep up the good work.

;D

Squire wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 11:50pm:

Thank goodness you are not a mind reader because you would leave the minds you read in disarray as well. The UK Ministry of Funny Walks issued a study which contradicts all your arguments.

I am glad that the Ministry of Funny Walks disagrees, that would make me probably right.

I see you are new here. I hope you get over your "newness" and come a member who can debate an issue rather than like some of the others on this forum.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 10:14pm:

Quote: 'The recent trend of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent — seemingly at odds with climate model projections — can largely be explained by a natural climate fluctuation, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). I have no issue with this study. lee wrote on Jul 5th, 2016 at 7:25pm: Not melting ice? Oh, NO. 10 out of 262 models? More Oh, NO's. Lee's reaction would suggest that he doesn't understand it

The Barnacles reaction suggests he hasn't read it.

.....lee is in big trouble now folks, up against the ropes after Barnacle's relentless blows of logic which have exposed lee's pathetic flat earth defense and hatred of the world's future generations of children.

I would say "Well done The_Barnacle" but on this occasion your opponent is lee so there really wasn't much of an even and genuine contest.

Nevertheless The_Barnacle certainly "stuck" it up lee big time didn't he ladies and gentlemen.

Only an written apology and self ban can save lee from his deranged sense of putrid moral insanity and innate soul contamination.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 12:47pm:

.....lee is in big trouble now folks, up against the ropes after Barnacle's relentless blows of logic which have exposed lee's pathetic flat earth defense and hatred of the world's future generations of children. I would say "Well done The_Barnacle" but on this occasion your opponent is lee so there really wasn't much of an even and genuine contest. Nevertheless The_Barnacle certainly "stuck" it up lee big time didn't he ladies and gentlemen. Only an written apology and self ban can save lee from his deranged sense of putrid moral insanity and innate soul contamination.

Delusions of adequacy, again?

May I have the readers digest version please?

Is there more sea ice in the Antarctic, if so why so?

Is it a change in ocean currents?

miketrees wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 3:22pm:

May I have the readers digest version please? Is there more sea ice in the Antarctic, if so why so? Is it a change in ocean currents?

There is more sea ice in the Antarctic.

The reasons are really unknown. Earlier suggestions was that it was meltwater from Antarctica, however later studies suggested Antarctica was gaining ice mass. Now in this latest study it is just natural variation.

'The study offers evidence that the negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), which is characterized by cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures in the tropical eastern Pacific, has created favorable conditions for additional Antarctic sea ice growth since 2000.'

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/121622/expanding-antarctic-sea-ice-linked-natura...

lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 1:46pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 6th, 2016 at 12:47pm: .....lee is in big trouble now folks, up against the ropes after Barnacle's relentless blows of logic which have exposed lee's pathetic flat earth defense and hatred of the world's future generations of children. I would say "Well done The_Barnacle" but on this occasion your opponent is lee so there really wasn't much of an even and genuine contest. Nevertheless The_Barnacle certainly "stuck" it up lee big time didn't he ladies and gentlemen. Only an written apology and self ban can save lee from his deranged sense of putrid moral insanity and innate soul contamination. Delusions of adequacy, again?

that is very pathetic and yet predictable way to get yourself off the ropes and mount some sort of credible defense for the deceptive speeches you have delivered in her lee

apologise

lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 3:46pm:

miketrees wrote on Jul 6th, 2016 at 3:22pm: May I have the readers digest version please? Is there more sea ice in the Antarctic, if so why so? Is it a change in ocean currents? There is more sea ice in the Antarctic. The reasons are really unknown.....

...a possible explanation

Why has the sea ice cover surrounding Antarctica been increasing slightly, in sharp contrast to the drastic loss of sea ice occurring in the Arctic Ocean? A new NASA-led study finds the geology of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are responsible.


http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/study-helps-explain-sea-ice-differences-at-earths-poles

Yes, another possible explanation.


lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 3:46pm:

The reasons are really unknown.

So it could be fresh water melting from the land and freezing at higher temps than sea water?

Ocean currents changed? so less warm water from the mid latitudes are mixing?

None of the links have opened for me so I am riding blind here.

My top link works. The second doesn't. I know the nasa one didn't for me so I googled the first four words.

My one again

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/121622/expanding-antarctic-sea-ice-linked-natural-variability

or google ucar antarctic and search for the last week.

The melt theory doesn't really meld with an increasing Antarctic ice mass.

lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

Yes, another possible explanation. lee wrote on Jul 6th, 2016 at 3:46pm: The reasons are really unknown.

....unlike your general posture in these chat rooms which dismisses all AGW causal drivers coupled to fossil fuel combustion and de-forestation.

Isnt that right lee? These cannot even be POSSIBLE explanations for the enhanced thermal retention rates measured on the planet that stand on.

So that leaves lee with only one question to answer

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 7^th, 2016 at 1:35am:

So that leaves lee with only one question to answer

And you reckpon the answer to all questions is...CO₂


Quote:

unlike your general posture in these chat rooms which dismisses all AGW causal drivers coupled to fossil fuel combustion and de-forestation.

And yet I have never denied de-forestation causes climate change. Also I have said "all other things being equal increased CO₂ will cause some warming. Are all other things equal?" "How much warming?"

Sea ice minimum sets new record.

washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/07/weve-never-seen-anything-like-this-arctic-sea-ice-hit-a-stunning-new-low-in-may/


Quote:

The 2016 race downward in Arctic sea ice continued in May with a dramatic new record. The average area of sea ice atop the Arctic Ocean last month was just 12 million square kilometers (4.63 million square miles), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). That beats the prior May record (from 2004) by more than half a million square kilometers, and is well over a million square kilometers, or 500,000 square miles, below the average for the month. Another way to put it is this: The Arctic Ocean this May had more than three Californias less sea ice cover than it did during an average May between 1981 and 2010. And it broke the prior record low for May by a region larger than California, although not quite as large as Texas. This matters because 2016 could be marching toward a new record for the lowest amount of ice ever observed on top of the world at the height of melt season — September. The previous record September low was set in 2012. But here’s what the National Snow and Ice Data Center has to say about that: Daily extents in May were also two to four weeks ahead of levels seen in 2012, which had the lowest September extent in the satellite record. The monthly average extent for May 2016 is more than one million square kilometers (386,000 square miles) below that observed in May 2012. In other words, for Arctic sea ice, May 2016 was more like June 2012 — the record-breaking year. Going into the truly warm months of the year, then, the ice is in a uniquely weak state. “We’ve never seen anything like this before,” said Mark Serreze, who directs the center. “It’s way below the previous record, very far below it, and we’re something like almost a month ahead of where we were in 2012.”

Squire wrote on Jul 7^th, 2016 at 12:27pm:

Sea ice minimum sets new record.

Ah, The Arctic, as opposed to the Antarctic. You do realise they only work on post-1978, right?

You may not have heard of Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld, who sailed the Arctic Circle in 1878.

' Sailing from Tromsø, Norway, aboard the steam vessel Vega on July 21, 1878, he reached Cape Chelyushkin, Siberia, roughly the midpoint of his journey, on August 19. From the end of September until July 18, 1879, the ship was frozen in near the Bering Strait. Resuming its course, the Vega reached Port Clarence, Alaska, on July 22 and returned to Europe by way of Canton (China), Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and the Suez Canal. '

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adolf-Erik-Baron-Nordenskiold

And all without modern shipbuilding techniques, modern engines, modern navigation aids and modern icebreakers.

Are you really so sure it is a record? Or merely a modern record?

The current Arctic Ice map

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

lee wrote on Jul 7^th, 2016 at 12:12pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 7th, 2016 at 1:35am: So that leaves lee with only one question to answer And you reckpon the answer to all questions is...CO2 Quote: unlike your general posture in these chat rooms which dismisses all AGW causal drivers coupled to fossil fuel combustion and de-forestation. And yet I have never denied de-forestation causes climate change. Also I have said "all other things being equal increased CO2 will cause some warming. Are all other things equal?" "How much warming?"

some warming?

...but nothing for the fossil fuel scam industry to worry about

it can continue gouging over 500 billion dollars world wide in tax payer funded subsidies as well as fuel wars and drive political destabilisation across the planet.

what a convenient posture you erect in this forum.

Your list of overdue apologies is growing by the day lee.

you should be utterly ashamed of yourself. Just because your mate Mal was skinned alive in last week's election doesnt mean you can take out your frustration and deceptive verbal vitriol on the good folk of Ozpolotic.com

Now apologise and self ban for at least 48 hours

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 7^th, 2016 at 2:58pm:

some warming?

Are all other things equal?

lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 3:46pm:

miketrees wrote on Jul 6th, 2016 at 3:22pm: May I have the readers digest version please? Is there more sea ice in the Antarctic, if so why so? Is it a change in ocean currents? The reasons are really unknown.

Not according to your opening post Lee.

Mike: The study in the opening post has found that the recent trend of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent can largely be explained by a natural climate fluctuation.

So this fluctuation will come and go over time (much like the El Nino does) but in the background global warming will continue.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 7^th, 2016 at 9:32pm:

Not according to your opening post Lee. Mike: The study in the opening post has found that the recent trend of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent can largely be explained by a natural climate fluctuation. So this fluctuation will come and go over time (much like the El Nino does) but in the background global warming will continue.

As I pointed out to Mike- increased ice melt and increased ice mass balance  don't appear to meld really well. If we have increased ice melt, we have to have more precipitation, to achieve not only ice mass balance, but more to increase ice mass balance.

'A Desert is defined as a region that has less than 254 mm (10 in) of annual rainfall or precipitation. Antarctica can be classified as a desert by this definition. In the interior of the continent the average annual precipitation (in *equivalent of water) is only about 50 mm (about 2 in), less than the Sahara.'

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/antarctica%20environment/whats-it-like-in-Antarctica.php

There does not appear to be any major increase in precipitation.

Nothing unusual about the arctic losing its ice every year.

September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40%
http://i41.tinypic.com/2w6yrlg.jpg

May 1947 - arctic melting
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/22429983?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=

November 1922 - arctic melting
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adolf-Erik-Baron-Nordenskiold
http://i68.tinypic.com/2dtuk2g.jpg

Some undeniable facts.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

CO2 does contribute to global warming buts its very minor.

CO2 is a trace gas and occupies 0.04% of the atmosphere.

CO2 the amount of this gas in our atmosphere is controlled by the temperature of the Earth and what our sun is doing, not to mention cosmic rays from space and many other local factors.

CO2 most of it in our atmosphere is NATURAL not man made.

CO2 Has been much much higher than today's 400ppm, in the past it has reached 7000ppm and there was no runaway greenhouse effect.

CO2 is not pollution, we drink it in our beer and soft drinks, that's what those bubbles are, no CO2 in beer and soft drink and we call it flat.

CO2 is part of the air we breathe in and out.

CO2 has never correlated with temperature.

CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth.

Not in our past or our present. There have been times when CO2 was high and temperature low and there have been times when temperature was high and CO2 low.


If you cant be bothered watching it all go to the 53 minute mark and watch this video for the Earth's energy budget.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc

lee wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 11:37am:

As I pointed out to Mike- increased ice melt and increased ice mass balance  don't appear to meld really well. If we have increased ice melt, we have to have more precipitation, to achieve not only ice mass balance, but more to increase ice mass balance.

Only if you assume that the extra sea ice is coming from the break up of Antarctic glaciers.

The article in the opening post (which you clearly haven't understood) is saying that the negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation has created favorable conditions for additional Antarctic sea ice growth since 2000. That's sea ice made from sea water, not from precipitation.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 11:21am:

Only if you assume that the extra sea ice is coming from the break up of Antarctic glaciers.

Nope, why would it come from only there?

If you have a net ice gain, that means you are getting more precipitation than you are losing to water.

If you can provide a theory on how to get increased net ice AND increasing icemelt, I would be happy to consider it.


The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 11:21am:

That's sea ice made from sea water, not from precipitation.

So you are saying it is now colder in Antarctica and there is no ice melt? That would mean the the extent of the sea ice is based on an ocean temperature of about -2ºC.

http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.7.7.2016.gif

looks unlikely. Though the data doesn't go far enough south.

lee wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 1:00pm:

If you have a net ice gain, that means you are getting more precipitation than you are losing to water.

No it doesn't.
Precipitation has nothing to do with sea ice. Sea ice is a result of the seasonal freezing of sea water.


Quote:

Sea ice arises as seawater freezes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 1:06pm:

Precipitation has nothing to do with sea ice

Well maybe.. It has everything to do with Antarctic net ice gain.


The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 1:06pm:

Sea ice is a result of the seasonal freezing of sea water.

'Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier, Parkinson said. Or changes in water circulation patterns, bringing colder waters up to the surface around the landmass, could help grow more ice.

Snowfall could be a factor as well, Meier said. Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow – leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice. This new, thicker ice would be more resilient to melting.'

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Snow is precipitation.

Meanwhile in a new paper on the decline of th Adelie penguin -

“Penguin colonies near Palmer Station on the West Antarctic Peninsula have declined by at least 80 percent since the 1970s,” Cimino said. “Within this region we saw the most novel climate years compared to the rest of the continent. This means the most years with warmer than normal sea surface temperature. These two things seem to be happening in the West Antarctic Peninsula at a higher rate than in other areas during the same time period.”

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-change-may-shrink-adelie-penguin-range-by-end-of-century

Warmer SST's should mean less sea ice.

lee wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 3:53pm:

Warmer SST's should mean less sea ice.

How much warmer?

Are all things equal or have you swapped your baseline again depending on what sermon you are delivering from your temple of carbon combustion ?

Apologise lee

Apologise then self ban - for your own sake

think of the world's children

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 4:46pm:

How much warmer?

You tell me. or The Barnacle he's the one saying sea ice is merely salt water freezing.


Quote:

Are all things equal or have you swapped your baseline again depending on what sermon you are delivering from your temple of carbon combustion ?

You need to get your facts straight - NOAA/NASA/GISS changed the baseline.

lee wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 9th, 2016 at 4:46pm: How much warmer? You tell me. or The Barnacle he's the one saying sea ice is merely salt water freezing.

it's your statement lee, let me refresh your memory mate

Warmer SST's should mean less sea ice lee

Why are you dragging poor old Barnacle into your mess? He has conducted himself with great integrity without detesting future generations of children. You will need to get yourself off the ropes without help from people who have the runs on the board and havent peddled deceptions and fossil fuel corporate profit spin.

Now lets go through this thing once more lee.

How much warmer?

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/20365505/3/stock-photo-20365505-serious-monkey-face.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 11:00am:

How much warmer?

How much warmer is the earth proven  due to CO2?

lee wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 2:58pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2016 at 1:06pm: Precipitation has nothing to do with sea ice Well maybe.. It has everything to do with Antarctic net ice gain. The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2016 at 1:06pm: Sea ice is a result of the seasonal freezing of sea water. 'Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier, Parkinson said. Or changes in water circulation patterns, bringing colder waters up to the surface around the landmass, could help grow more ice. Snowfall could be a factor as well, Meier said. Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow – leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice. This new, thicker ice would be more resilient to melting.' https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum Snow is precipitation.

The the negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation affecting sea ice has nothing to do with precipitation.
And after all thats what this thread is about

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 12:44pm:

The the negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation affecting sea ice has nothing to do with precipitation.

So you think expanding sea ice is only due to one factor?

BTW you are the one that made the blanket statement "Precipitation has nothing to do with sea ice ".

lee wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 12:55pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 10th, 2016 at 12:44pm: The the negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation affecting sea ice has nothing to do with precipitation. And after all thats what this thread is about So you think expanding sea ice is only due to one factor? BTW you are the one that made the blanket statement "Precipitation has nothing to do with sea ice ".

Of course there is more than one factor involved in the formation of sea ice but precipitation is a very minor one.
I must say that for you to randomly introduce precipitation into a thread about the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation is quite bizarre

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 1:05pm:

Of course there is more than one factor involved in the formation of sea ice but precipitation is a very minor one.

'However, it is clear that the extent of sea ice around the coast of the continent is growing. Why? The first explanation which comes to mind is that the Southern Ocean must be cooling. But on the contrary, the Southern Ocean has warmed by around 0.5°C in the three decades since satellites began measuring sea ice trends.

The true reasons for the increasing ice are a complex set of factors. One factor is an increase in precipitation over the Southern Ocean, which means more snowfall. However, this trend is expected to reverse in coming decades as the Antarctic continues to warm.'

https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice.htm

From the warmists bible.