A spurious jump in the satellite record: Is Antarctic sea ice really expanding?

[LocoAko]

A spurious jump in the satellite record: is Antarctic sea ice really expanding?

I. Eisenman¹, W. N. Meier², and J. R. Norris^1
1Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
²NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA

Abstract. Recent estimates indicate that the Antarctic sea ice cover is expanding at a statistically significant rate with a magnitude one third as large as the rapid rate of sea ice retreat in the Arctic. However, during the mid-2000s, with several fewer years in the observational record, the trend in Antarctic sea ice extent was reported to be considerably smaller and statistically indistinguishable from zero. Here, we show that the increase in the reported trend occurred primarily due to the effect of a previously undocumented change in the way the satellite sea ice observations are processed for the widely-used Bootstrap algorithm dataset, rather than a physical increase in the rate of ice advance. Although our analysis does not definitively identify whether this undocumented change introduced an error or removed one, the resulting difference in the trends suggests that a substantial error exists in either the current dataset or the version that was used prior to the mid-2000s, and numerous studies that have relied on these observations should be reexamined to determine the sensitivity of their results to this change in the dataset. Furthermore, a number of recent studies have investigated physical mechanisms for the observed expansion of the Antarctic sea ice cover. The results of this analysis raise the possibility that this expansion may be a spurious artifact of an error in the satellite observations, and that the actual Antarctic sea ice cover may not be expanding at all.

Citation: Eisenman, I., Meier, W. N., and Norris, J. R.: A spurious jump in the satellite record: is Antarctic sea ice really expanding?, The Cryosphere Discuss., 8, 273-288, doi:10.5194/tcd-8-273-2014, 2014.

 

http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/8/273/2014/tcd-8-273-2014.pdf

[blizzard1024]

Of course there is a problem with this dataset. It is showing that the Antarctic sea ice is expanding.

Now global sea ice is ABOVE normal by at least 1 million square kilometers last I checked. Wait....

This does not jive with the current theories of CO2 warming. So we have to find a way to adjust that

dataset now too. I think they need to look at the Arctic sea ice datasets from prior to the satellite era to find out

what it was really like. It is strange that the warmth of the 1930s in the high Arctic did not have much sea

ice loss in the summer versus the more recent warm period. But wait...that could show the current loss of sea ice

in late summer is cyclical and related to the AMO. Nope. That dataset is "robust" because CO2 causes warming

so it has to  be right /sarc. The Antarctic has to be wrong it does not jive. So let's fix it.

 

Show me one adjustment to a  dataset that actually shows that the warming is less or the cooling is more. The UAH/RSS

are two datasets  with minor adjustments both ways. But aside from these I would like to find another one that shows that less

warming is occurring after an adjustment. there could be one. But all datasets that I have seen are adjusted to show

1) colder in the past and warmer now 2) more ice in the past, less now   3) more snow cover in the past less now. These

are what the adjustments do to  exaggerate trends.

 

I am not a "conspiracy" theorist(sorry you can't discredit me that way) but I know how the current state of climate science (and other sciences too) works in such tight fiscal environments. You will never see any climate research institute proclaim that

it isn't as bad as we thought.  The ship is sinking on this whole "CO2 drives the climate theory". Its a minor part of the whole

climate system. I can't wait to see what happens in the next 10 years or so.... it will be fun to watch this whole charade unravel. Yet our cost of energy will be skyrocketed because of the restrictions in place on fossil fuels and natural gas.

[ORH_wxman]

Interesting paper...though it would nice to have the final version to see the graphs they refer to.

 

I had previously read of a spurious jump around 1990 but not the one around 2007-2008. This explains it well. Though neither explains the strong upward trend since 2010.

[AvantHiatus]

I think there is a positive bias in the dataset. However, it is interlaced with a true slow upward trend, which is why it has been undiscovered until recently. When you account for this, Antarctic sea ice expansion is explained away by simple natural variation with no significant importance.

[Jonger]

Lol

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

Lol

 

Yep, too funny, this one even made me laugh. Blizzard1024 said it best.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's unraveling alright.

 

Argo folks need jobs gotta be in on it.

 

 

 

 

[blizzard1024]

It's unraveling alright.

 

Argo folks need jobs gotta be in on it.

 

 

 

 

 

Since 2003 the 0-700 meter OHC has gone up by maybe 4 x 10 exp 22 J which according to Levitus et al. 2009 Table 1 equates to a whooping .04C increase in temperature. Wow. That really is a lot. The 0-2000 m data looks suspect because how can CO2 warm the deep ocean? In fact, increased downwelling of IR does not heat the ocean below the first mm. It is the sun that heats the ocean through a deeper layer. So there is either something wrong with the 0-2000 m data or it is showing natural variation from changing ocean currents that always occur. In any event, OHC changes are very small and equate to less than .2C over the long term.

 

Try again heat miser....     

[FloridaJohn]

Since 2003 the 0-700 meter OHC has gone up by maybe 4 x 10 exp 22 J which according to Levitus et al. 2009 Table 1 equates to a whooping .04C increase in temperature. Wow. That really is a lot. The 0-2000 m data looks suspect because how can CO2 warm the deep ocean? In fact, increased downwelling of IR does not heat the ocean below the first mm. It is the sun that heats the ocean through a deeper layer. So there is either something wrong with the 0-2000 m data or it is showing natural variation from changing ocean currents that always occur. In any event, OHC changes are very small and equate to less than .2C over the long term.

 

Try again heat miser....     

 How much energy is required to heat the ocean by 0.04C? How much energy is required to heat the atmosphere by 0.04C? Answering those two questions may give you some insight into how large OHC temperature changes are.

 

As far as transporting the heat into lower depths of the ocean, you need to take into account ocean currents to understand how heat is transferred into the ocean. Reflected IR energy can heat the ocean just as direct sunlight can. Also, warmer nights due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere can limit how much heat captured during the day can escape back out at night.

[Msalgado]

Of course there is a problem with this dataset. It is showing that the Antarctic sea ice is expanding.

Now global sea ice is ABOVE normal by at least 1 million square kilometers last I checked. Wait....

This does not jive with the current theories of CO2 warming. So we have to find a way to adjust that

dataset now too. I think they need to look at the Arctic sea ice datasets from prior to the satellite era to find out

what it was really like. It is strange that the warmth of the 1930s in the high Arctic did not have much sea

ice loss in the summer versus the more recent warm period. But wait...that could show the current loss of sea ice

in late summer is cyclical and related to the AMO. Nope. That dataset is "robust" because CO2 causes warming

so it has to  be right /sarc. The Antarctic has to be wrong it does not jive. So let's fix it.

 

Show me one adjustment to a  dataset that actually shows that the warming is less or the cooling is more. The UAH/RSS

are two datasets  with minor adjustments both ways. But aside from these I would like to find another one that shows that less

warming is occurring after an adjustment. there could be one. But all datasets that I have seen are adjusted to show

1) colder in the past and warmer now 2) more ice in the past, less now   3) more snow cover in the past less now. These

are what the adjustments do to  exaggerate trends.

 

I am not a "conspiracy" theorist(sorry you can't discredit me that way) but I know how the current state of climate science (and other sciences too) works in such tight fiscal environments. You will never see any climate research institute proclaim that

it isn't as bad as we thought.  The ship is sinking on this whole "CO2 drives the climate theory". Its a minor part of the whole

climate system. I can't wait to see what happens in the next 10 years or so.... it will be fun to watch this whole charade unravel. Yet our cost of energy will be skyrocketed because of the restrictions in place on fossil fuels and natural gas.

I have no idea how you are as a forecaster, but from every post you've made in this subreddit it seems to me that you're an absolutely terrible scientist.  Not once do you address the paper linked above but instead immediately delve into BS generalities that are neither substantiated nor are they relevant.  

 

There's a paper linked above.  Perhaps you'd care to offer the perspective of a degree'd meteorologist after reading it instead of the perspective of a person who can't be bothered to address the science at hand regardless of their background.  Your schtick in this subreddit has been to come in and criticize many things without providing any substance and simply relying on your degree as proof enough.  You constantly refer to it in how that gives you an understanding that the atmopshere is too complex to understand (Ha).  Well, the next time I actually see you apply that degree in an analysis will be the first time.  Its great you got past diff Eq and thermo but until you actually tell us why all those other scientists who did the same AND got PhDs are wrong then who cares?

 

And honestly, when you post things asking how CO2 can warm the deep ocean I really wonder exactly how you past thermo (or physics for that matter).

[nflwxman]

Since 2003 the 0-700 meter OHC has gone up by maybe 4 x 10 exp 22 J which according to Levitus et al. 2009 Table 1 equates to a whooping .04C increase in temperature. Wow. That really is a lot. The 0-2000 m data looks suspect because how can CO2 warm the deep ocean? In fact, increased downwelling of IR does not heat the ocean below the first mm. It is the sun that heats the ocean through a deeper layer. So there is either something wrong with the 0-2000 m data or it is showing natural variation from changing ocean currents that always occur. In any event, OHC changes are very small and equate to less than .2C over the long term.

 

Try again heat miser....     

You realize how much energy an OHC change of 0.2C is right?  The specific heat of water is nearly 5 times higher than land.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The 0-2000 m data looks suspect because how can CO2 warm the deep ocean? In fact, increased downwelling of IR does not heat the ocean below the first mm. It is the sun that heats the ocean through a deeper layer. So there is either something wrong with the 0-2000 m data or it is showing natural variation from changing ocean currents that always occur. In any event, OHC changes are very small and equate to less than .2C over the long term.

Try again heat miser....

CO^2 most certainly can warm the deep oceans, because they're a fluid..and all fluids under the influence of gravity contain vertical circulations/heat transport at all "depths"..

A slight increase in surface winds on Earth can force more vigorous vertical overturning in the oceans, hence greater heat transport to the deep oceans, and more upwelling of colder waters to the surface. That could in theory explain the observations..

[LocoAko]

I have no idea how you are as a forecaster, but from every post you've made in this subreddit it seems to me that you're an absolutely terrible scientist.  Not once do you address the paper linked above but instead immediately delve into BS generalities that are neither substantiated nor are they relevant.  

 

There's a paper linked above.  Perhaps you'd care to offer the perspective of a degree'd meteorologist after reading it instead of the perspective of a person who can't be bothered to address the science at hand regardless of their background.  Your schtick in this subreddit has been to come in and criticize many things without providing any substance and simply relying on your degree as proof enough.  You constantly refer to it in how that gives you an understanding that the atmopshere is too complex to understand (Ha).  Well, the next time I actually see you apply that degree in an analysis will be the first time.  Its great you got past diff Eq and thermo but until you actually tell us why all those other scientists who did the same AND got PhDs are wrong then who cares?

 

And honestly, when you post things asking how CO2 can warm the deep ocean I really wonder exactly how you past thermo (or physics for that matter).

 

I wish there was a 'like' button on this board (not to open that whole debate again ). 

 

When the final paper comes out, assuming it is accepted, I'll be very interested to read it. Interestingly, despite the claims from skeptics that everyone just goes along with the "mainstream" science to keep on getting funding, a finding like this would potentially discredit a lot of already accepted work. I realize that because it might imply that Antarctic ice isn't increasing that people are going to assume it is biased and roll their eyes, but if this isn't an example of making splashes in the field and trying to improve the quality of work being done I don't know what is... 

[StudentOfClimatology]

I personally won't make judgements on the paper until I get the chance to read it.

That said, I'm somewhat skeptical, mainly because the AA extent increase is (as of now) corroborated not only by numerous satellites but also by SSTs over the Southern Ocean. But I look forward to reading the publication, nonetheless

[donsutherland1]

It's great to see scientists continually asking questions to be sure that the data they are using are accurate. The possibility, as the abstract put it, that either the previous record or current record are in substantial error has profound implications. Without such inquiry, science would have achieved far fewer breakthroughs than it has and human knowledge would be much less expansive than it is. I look forward to the paper when it becomes available.

[Snow_Miser]

It's an interesting paper. It's unfortunate that some here are dismissing this paper without any counter evidence that the paper's conclusions are wrong. I think if there is a potential problem, it should be addressed, and this is exactly what this paper set out to do. 

[user13]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

[ORH_wxman]

It's an interesting paper. It's unfortunate that some here are dismissing this paper without any counter evidence that the paper's conclusions are wrong. I think if there is a potential problem, it should be addressed, and this is exactly what this paper set out to do. 

 

 

I'm sure it will be scrutinized thoroughly...it hasn't been accepted for publication yet, so it will go through the peer review process if/when it gets published.

[Jonger]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

 

 

Judith Curry has become the go-to moderate on AGW.

[FloridaJohn]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

Lots of problems with that article. See here for an analysis:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/07/antarctic-sea-ice-latest-global-warming-distraction

[ORH_wxman]

Lots of problems with that article. See here for an analysis:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/07/antarctic-sea-ice-latest-global-warming-distraction

 

 

No offense, but those guys you linked are the alarmist equivalent of Goddard. (ok maybe not THAT bad, but not far off) The article has erroneous and irrelevant information. Actually both articles do.

 

They claim the oceans around antarctica are warming when the best data indicates it is cooling. Then they go mentioning the whole "the earth accumulates 4 hiroshima bombs of energy per second"...fairly meaningless without context.

 

It is the classic mudslinging from the extremist positions of the climate debate that unfortunately end up getting the most press. Interestingly, those guys thought the satellite error theory was unlikely.

[FloridaJohn]

No offense, but those guys you linked are the alarmist equivalent of Goddard. (ok maybe not THAT bad, but not far off)

LOL. OK, if you say so.

Perhaps this critique is more to your liking:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/07/factcheck-what’s-the-significance-of-a-record-high-in-antarctic-sea-ice/

[blizzard1024]

CO^2 most certainly can warm the deep oceans, because they're a fluid..and all fluids under the influence of gravity contain vertical circulations/heat transport at all "depths"..

A slight increase in surface winds on Earth can force more vigorous vertical overturning in the oceans, hence greater heat transport to the deep oceans, and more upwelling of colder waters to the surface. That could in theory explain the observations..

 

Downwelling of IR does not directly heat the ocean. that's was I was saying. Not downwelling ocean currents.

[ORH_wxman]

LOL. OK, if you say so.

Perhaps this critique is more to your liking:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/07/factcheck-what’s-the-significance-of-a-record-high-in-antarctic-sea-ice/

 

 

I wasn't really commenting on the significance of the antarctic sea ice gain...just the useless (and incorrect) info those guys threw in their article. I don't think we know the significance of it yet.

 

Opinion pieces about climate change from newspapers or other media outlets are generally horrible anyway with a few exceptions. Unfortunately, I think they get read more than the actual literature.

[tacoman25]

I wish there was a 'like' button on this board (not to open that whole debate again ). 

 

When the final paper comes out, assuming it is accepted, I'll be very interested to read it. Interestingly, despite the claims from skeptics that everyone just goes along with the "mainstream" science to keep on getting funding, a finding like this would potentially discredit a lot of already accepted work. I realize that because it might imply that Antarctic ice isn't increasing that people are going to assume it is biased and roll their eyes, but if this isn't an example of making splashes in the field and trying to improve the quality of work being done I don't know what is... 

 

Sure, but "discrediting a lot of already accepted work" and "making a splash" isn't as big a deal when it ultimately conforms to and supports the mainstream view. It would be a much bigger surprise and almost certainly cause a bigger uproar in the scientific community if a paper came out saying that the Antarctic trends represent a negative feedback loop we may see spread to more parts of the globe, for example.

 

Taking away the Antarctic ice expansion/cooling just takes away something that frankly kind of baffled a lot of people and didn't go along with the EVERYTHING IS WARMING AND MELTING mantra. 

[tacoman25]

It's great to see scientists continually asking questions to be sure that the data they are using are accurate. The possibility, as the abstract put it, that either the previous record or current record are in substantial error has profound implications. Without such inquiry, science would have achieved far fewer breakthroughs than it has and human knowledge would be much less expansive than it is. I look forward to the paper when it becomes available.

 

Right, as long as scientists are asking the same questions of other data sets. 

 

If you're only looking for problems with data that seems problematic to you, well, that will be the only data you find issues with.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I don't think anyone is going to accept the paper with blind faith just to maintain a hypothetical mantra..

That said, for the paper to have any success, the authors will have to:

- propose a sound reasoning/mechanism for the supposed error

- explain why this applies solely within the Antarctic domain

- explain why SSTs in the relevant domain seem to corroborate the increase in SIE

- Explain why the SIE increase is corroborated by numerous satellites

In other words, quite a tall order

[StudentOfClimatology]

Downwelling of IR does not directly heat the ocean. that's was I was saying. Not downwelling ocean currents.

Yes..it indirectly heats the subsurface via diffusion and vertical mixing..

If the oceans were static, you'd be correct. But they're not

[donsutherland1]

I don't think anyone is going to accept the paper with blind faith just to maintain a hypothetical mantra..

That said, for the paper to have any success, the authors will have to:

- propose a sound reasoning/mechanism for the supposed error

- explain why this applies solely within the Antarctic domain

- explain why SSTs in the relevant domain seem to corroborate the increase in SIE

- Explain why the SIE increase is corroborated by numerous satellites

In other words, quite a tall order

I agree. The paper will be thoroughly vetted through the peer review process and it will be interesting to see how its conclusions hold up, how it is refined, etc.

[blizzard1024]

Yes..it indirectly heats the subsurface via diffusion and vertical mixing..

If the oceans were static, you'd be correct. But they're not

 

IR downwelling does indeed heat the first micrometer. And diffusion, or more accurately conduction, does further heat the ocean. But it is extremely inefficient. From the "science of doom" website (a pro AGW site by the way), see quote for magnitude " if you had a temperature difference of 20°C across 50m, you would get heat conduction of 0.24 W/m². And with 20°C across 10m of water, you would only get heat conduction of 1.2 W/m². "  And we know that the additional small amount of heating from CO2 is nowhere near that. It is at least 2 orders of magnitude less. Its probably even less than.2C but let's say it is .2C to keep the math simple. So .2C over 10 m is .012W/m2 and .2C over 50 m is .0024 W/m2!!!  Not much heat conducting there.

 

The primary heating of the Ocean is by the Sun. Heating of the land surfaces is more impacted by GHGs and indeed a doubling of  CO2 will increase the IR downwelling by 1%. I get this from the latest IPCC report which has the total GH effect at 340 W/m2 downwelling. So a doubling is roughly a mere 1% since it equals about 3.7 w/m2. However, radiative transfer and line by line codes and overlaps etc, makes it not linear. If it were linear the GH effect = roughly 33C so a linear calculation off of that makes it .3C for a doubling. But we know that this is likely too low from the detailed radiation code. So it is 1.1C. But the TCR could smear this out over centuries from ocean heat storage so that it is minimally observed in the sensible temperature records. UNLESS these positive feedbacks that the climate models are promising, kick in dramatically soon. Its hard to imagine a 1% change in the GH effect is enough to spiral our climate system out of control. The fact that the planet is covered in mostly water which has a high specific heat capacity no doubt buffers our climate from rapid changes when the global ice volume is relatively low(interglacial). This is why life on Earth is abundant and has not gone extinct with all the volcanos and other natural climate forcings that no doubt have occurred in the eons.