Does tremendous Antartic Ice growth counter balance Sea level rise from Artic melt?

[The Eagle]

Thought this would be interesting to bring up. You hear alot nowadays about potential sea level rise as the result of Ice melt in the Artic but is the Antartic Ice growth in effect countering any such expectations? (another hole in the AWG argument? I think so) The Antartic Ice Cap has increased expodentially in the last decade. One of natures balancing acts? Where does this leave the sea rise claims?

Edited October 16, 2007 by Darkman

[Mr Sleet]

Thought this would be interesting to bring up. You hear alot nowadays about potential sea level rise as the result of Ice melt in the Artic but is the Antartic Ice growth in effect countering any such expectations? (another hole in the AWG argument? I think so) The Antartic Ice Cap has increased expodentially in the last decade. One of natures balancing acts? Where does this leave the sea rise claims?

Darkman - I don't think so.The proportionate loss in the north is much greater than the gain in the south.

In absolute terms the deficit is about 1 million sqkm.

[Gray-Wolf]

Firstly;

The loss of massive chunks of shelf ice over the past 5 years (for those patches to be 'replaced' with thin,yearly ablating, sea ice) How do you reconcile this with this 'explosive' growth?

The Peninsula area (and now Pine island) remaining near ice free over the winter months , how does this figure in your claim?

The acceleration of glacier snouts in various parts of the continent, and their extension over winter into the ice pack, how does this fit in with your claims?

As far as I can gauge (from my personal observation over the last 5 years) there is an ever earlier 'peak ice' date (late Aug} and thereafter rapid 'fragmentation' of the sea ice (prior to equinox) and then a 'relaxation' of the shattered pack as the off shore, Katabatic winds from the continent drive it seawards. Ice re-formation is also delayed by around 3 weeks compared to the 1980's giving even less time for this record 'expansion'.

However I look at it the sudden 'growth' at the end of each freeze season (from late Aug to mid Sept) never seems to correspond with condition conducive the the expansion/growth of ice around the continent but does seem to reinforce my observations of fragmentation and drift.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Bobby]

Most of the arctic ice loss is sea ice loss isn't it? This wouldn't raise sea levels anyway, only melting ice on land raises sea levels. Land ice loss from the arctic still probably overshadows any gains in the antarctic.

Why is this a hole in AGW? First of all, climate models predict initial ice growth in the antarctic due to warmer seas producing more precipitation. It's evidence of global warming if anything. Secondly, Antarctica is a region of the Earth. Global warming is about the whole globe. One can take nothing from the global picture from one particular region without looking at the rest of the Earth.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Magpie

[BrickFielder]

There are some research papers which show that the deep water formation points tend to seesaw between the north and southern Atlantic.

Earths Climate SeeSaws

The key may well be in the shifts in formation of Antartic bottom water.

Global ocean circulation

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Brickfielder!

We must always remember that past events had no componant of 'human forcing' and so it would be difficult, if a new and novel set of drivers are at play, to predict from the past, 'natural' events how things may pan out this time around.

[Stratos Ferric]

Thought this would be interesting to bring up. You hear alot nowadays about potential sea level rise as the result of Ice melt in the Artic but is the Antartic Ice growth in effect countering any such expectations? (another hole in the AWG argument? I think so) The Antartic Ice Cap has increased expodentially in the last decade. One of natures balancing acts? Where does this leave the sea rise claims?

Darkman, can I just check that you know what exponentially means, and that you've cross-referenced that description with actual data?

[Stratos Ferric]

Hi Brickfielder!

We must always remember that past events had no componant of 'human forcing' and so it would be difficult, if a new and novel set of drivers are at play, to predict from the past, 'natural' events how things may pan out this time around.

There's something in the point G-W, but the oceans are essentially a huge gyroscope with energy drawn from the earth's own kinetic energy. I'm no physicist, but my guess would be that the energy from this transfer is a lot bigger than the energy from solar radiation (which doesn't penetrate the sea very far anyway) and conduction (water isn't a greater conductor either), and that, therefore, whilst warming will have some impacts on flow the main THC will persist, and therefore some of the climatic flip-flopping will continue (a swing in the mean location of the NAD has been suggested in the past as being a driver of the little ice age).

[Thundery wintry showers]

The Antarctic is a strange one, in that the peninsula has warmed but the interior has cooled, and the summers have got significantly colder, and the winters significantly warmer. Originally I thought it was a modelling error on the NOAA site, but in fact a recent Weather article suggests that this is indeed true.

Not sure about the doom and gloom scenarios about the Antarctic- it may have been ice-free during warmer periods of the past, but in those times it was not cut off from the "Roaring Forties" depressions and oceanic currents in the way it is now. It would probably take a warming well outside of the IPCC range to make a substantial impact on that ice cap.

The Arctic ice loss is far more of a concern. As it's ocean based it would be unlikely to cause significant sea level rises, but there would be large implications on Northern Hemisphere climate (what these are, I don't know, but it's very likely to have some effects). Sea level rises may result from the melting of Northern Hemisphere glaciers, however, as these are land-based.

[Gray-Wolf]

There's something in the point G-W, but the oceans are essentially a huge gyroscope with energy drawn from the earth's own kinetic energy. I'm no physicist, but my guess would be that the energy from this transfer is a lot bigger than the energy from solar radiation (which doesn't penetrate the sea very far anyway) and conduction (water isn't a greater conductor either), and that, therefore, whilst warming will have some impacts on flow the main THC will persist, and therefore some of the climatic flip-flopping will continue (a swing in the mean location of the NAD has been suggested in the past as being a driver of the little ice age).

Hi S.F. I thought the fleet of 'Argo' buoys were bust measuring from surface to 100m throughout the Atlantic basin (North and South) and finding increases throughout the column (one of the reason for the probes range of depths was to drop them beyond what was thought to be the zone directly affected by sunlight).

I believe you are correct in that it takes an amazing amount of heat absorption to raise the whole columns temps but you have to wonder , once raised, how this will impact. Not just in weather but also the thermal expansion of this layer of ocean (which again was not modelled to these depths).

My main understanding of thinning ice at both ends of the globe is the ablation caused by the warm waters below ( hence the Polynya's that opened in the arctic ocean facing the Bearing straights in 2006 and features like the Weddell polynya in Antarctica). If it's taken this long for the 100m column to get up to temp then even if forcing stopped tomorrow how long would it take for the oceans to shed this heat (and so what hope for summer ice in the Arctic or ice shelf maintenance in the south?

[Gray-Wolf]

. It would probably take a warming of several degrees to make a substantial impact on that ice cap.

That said how do we account for the melting, up to 1mile above sea level that NASA have been monitoring

Ta NASA

This is an image of the 2005 melt which, to me is of particular significance as the mountains that back the Ross embayment seem to be taking quite a bit of the melt, which as I understand things, is very bad for the prospects of maintaining the embayment.

Thanks again NASA

and above is the recorded melt areas since 87'. As i've said up to over 1 mile high in the antarctic circle. You'll also note the amazing melt levels around Pine island and East and west Getz, quite a way from the Peninsula and the next area primed to catastrophic collapse....if we believe the lead authorities.

You'll note that the last major collapses of the ice shelves were not at the end of rapid global warming events (like at present) but came after a prolonged period of gradual temp rises. As I've said elsewhere ,we may be foolish basing our predictions on past events that do not correlate with todays conditions!

Edited October 16, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Chris Knight]

Sea ice changes make no difference whatsoever to sea level changes.

Fill a glass full of water, add salt if you wish to make it isotonic with seawater, add as much ice as you like. Mop up the mess you make. By the time the ice has melted, the glass will not be overflowing. Prove it yourself, send in your pictures.

[Stratos Ferric]

Sea ice changes make no difference whatsoever to sea level changes.

Fill a glass full of water, add salt if you wish to make it isotonic with seawater, add as much ice as you like. Mop up the mess you make. By the time the ice has melted, the glass will not be overflowing. Prove it yourself, send in your pictures.

That's true, however it's a tad unlikely that if it's warm enough to melt ice the only ice melted will be sea ice.

[Gray-Wolf]

In an attempt to gain a clearer picture of last seasons ice growth/extent that all sections of the NW community can agree on I E-mailed William Chapman (Cryosphere today) to have his input on the C.T. site's claim for an ice extent record last season (and not an early start to this years 'melt' and subsequent relaxation of the fragmented pack outwards on the winds blowing off Antarctica).

When we get Mr Grubine's 'take' on the past months ice movements we'll be in the privileged position here on net weather of being amongst the first to know, from both the worlds lead authority on sea ice formation/ablation and one of his chief 'clients', as to this years Antarctic 'performance'.

[pottyprof]

Great stuff GW. Thanks for doing that.

I'm sure many will look forward to reading the input..

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi P.P.!

Maybe it'd be a way forward from the 'spatty' nature of some of these threads if folk utilised the 'contact' email at the bottom of the papers they rely on to seek further clarification from the worlds 'lead Authorities' on topics? I'm not saying that these folk are infallible but they sure know their own opinions and seem happy to share their years of experience (as anyone with a 'passion' for a thing is) with us 'novices'.

In areas of rapid change, like the poles, where we are learning (by observation) more each month about the workings of the area it is oft times pointless in relying on information over 2 years old. You can easily short circuit the lengthy process of paper composition ,peer review and publication by going straight to the 'horses mouth' with our queries.

I remember P3 'reassuring' me on my concerns over Ross (back on the mechanical erosion thread) whilst NASA were holding data that showed his knowledge to be no longer 'current' and my 'fears' to be far more 'pertinent' than public knowledge was, at the time, allowing us to understand.

Thanks again for the encouragement!

Edited October 18, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

Perhaps this could be a way forwards.

To be honest I'd encourage anyone to email the author of any paper if they need answers to questions. There is nothing like first hand material for making a point more valid in your mind. You also have extra material to back up your argument when it comes to debating.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

This is why I don't write research papers, because I'm far too busy to reply to the consequent emails.

[parmenides3]

Hi P.P.!

Maybe it'd be a way forward from the 'spatty' nature of some of these threads if folk utilised the 'contact' email at the bottom of the papers they rely on to seek further clarification from the worlds 'lead Authorities' on topics? I'm not saying that these folk are infallible but they sure know their own opinions and seem happy to share their years of experience (as anyone with a 'passion' for a thing is) with us 'novices'.

In areas of rapid change, like the poles, where we are learning (by observation) more each month about the workings of the area it is oft times pointless in relying on information over 2 years old. You can easily short circuit the lengthy process of paper composition ,peer review and publication by going straight to the 'horses mouth' with our queries.

I remember P3 'reassuring' me on my concerns over Ross (back on the mechanical erosion thread) whilst NASA were holding data that showed his knowledge to be no longer 'current' and my 'fears' to be far more 'pertinent' than public knowledge was, at the time, allowing us to understand.

Thanks again for the encouragement!

Excuse me, G-W. You are taking my name in vain, surely? On that thread, you were speculating about the likelihood of a collapse of the WAIS in terms of months, perhaps a couple of years. My argument was simply that this is probably too soon. I object to the suggestion that my material was out of date; much of it was less than three months old. Perhaps you'd like to produce the NASA data which shows your assessment to be more realistic than mine? I'll also mention here that my opinion is shared by at least one person who works for the BAS, with whom I am in regular contact.

I'll also note that, about a week after I first discussed the global average ice area on my blog, CT produced its global area graph on the front page of the site. It was probably a coincidence...

Regards,

:)P

[pottyprof]

....And thanks for clearing that up P3.

I really think that people need to check and double check before they hit that post button. It would cause far less tension on here if everyone made sure their facts were right when quoting other members.

[parmenides3]

This is why I don't write research papers, because I'm far too busy to reply to the consequent emails.

That's not what I heard.

Couldn't agree more potty. But human nature is a perverse and strange thing. OON is a classic case in point.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi P3! Sorry to have 'jerked your chain' ,and though I'm not taking your name in vain I am using you as an example of someone who tries their damnedest to be as current on 'current' issues as possible (there are others but I thought of your good self instantly!).

Though we were really talking about the E.A.I.S. ( in reality) that not the issue here. Your 'reassurances that B.A.S. didn't have concerns about 'ice sheet collapse' and their reliance on the 'then current' IPCC report (not that there is much more in the latest paper!) seems to spring to mind.

I also (from memory) recall some talk on 'catastrophic collapse' and 'imminent collapse' and ,again ,being reassured with ref.s to recent papers/articles.

I hope the chain hasn't 'chaffed' as that really was not my intention and if so I appologise!

Ian.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Gray-Wolf