Sea Ice South (1): A little geography
Sea Ice South (1): A little geography
My last entry was on the decline of sea ice in the Arctic and how this is forming an entirely new environment in the Arctic. It’s an environment of open water in the summer and a freezing sea in the winter - perhaps, a little like the Great Lakes. Now I am going to start a series on trying to untangle the difficult subject of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere.
As many know the sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been increasing for the past few years. Here is a picture from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Figure 1: Areal extent of April sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere from 1979 – 2011. (figure from National Snow and Ice Data Center)
This figure shows a plot of April monthly averages of the area of the ocean covered by ice. There is a lot of variability from year to year, and if you take an average of all the years, the amount of ocean covered by sea ice has increased in the last three decades. From 2006 to 2011 the variability is high, and it will be interesting to see if the apparent oscillation continues over the next five years.
This increase of sea ice has entered the political discussion in different ways. Most notably, it has been paired with the Arctic sea ice in plots to show that the global sea ice is remaining approximately constant. The political argument goes - hence, there is not trend; hence, the climate alarmists have isolated their attention on the Arctic to carry forward a political argument. This pairing of North and South to conclude that sea ice decrease is inconsequential is a deceptive political argument. It mixes northern summer with southern winter; hence, warm season and cold season in a way that is, from the point of view of the physical scientist, incorrect. It also dismisses the vast impact on ecosystems and regional climate that is occurring in the Arctic. The processes that determine the energy budget of sea ice in the northern and southern hemisphere are quite different. This series is my attempt to break down this complexity well enough that I can understand it.
In both my dynamics class and my climate change class, I constantly remind students of the geography of the Earth. The weather and climate of the Earth is largely determined by the energy received from the Sun, the rotation of the Earth, and the distribution of land, water, ice and air. Of special importance is the height and location of mountain ranges. Here’s an old map I like looking down on the South Pole.
Figure 2: Map of the South Pole and the Southern Ocean from the year 1894. (figure from Perry-Castañeda University of Texas Library Map Collection)
The first thing to note is that the South Pole is in the continent Antarctica, which is land (and ice). Compared with the oceanic North Pole, the ocean cannot carry heat all the way to the pole. The second thing to note is that Antarctica is high and steep. This strongly influences atmospheric storms. These two geographical facts mean that the atmosphere and ocean might carry heat to the edge of Antarctica, but the center of the continent is, perhaps, a bit isolated or protected.
There is another critically important aspect of the geography, which is suggested on the map by the dashed line labeled “average limit of floating ice.” Also note the parts of the ocean labeled “Antarctic Drift.” This section of ocean completely encircles the Earth with no land barrier. It gets narrow at the tip of South America. It is especially notable at, say, the tip of Africa the way the Agulhas Current gets swept away in the Antarctic drift. Remember, this map is from 1894 – I think it makes my points solidly.
We see here in the Southern Hemisphere, atmospheric storms that start in the warm north and propagate southward towards Antarctica. They travel through this open water around the continent, Antarctica. They are steered and broken up by the steep edge of Antarctica. The stress of these storms on the surface of the ocean causes the ocean to “drift” from west to east. This is a far different situation from the Arctic, where there is no land at the pole and a mix of land and ocean around the edge of the Arctic ocean. (see another old map at this old blog )
So this is the set up - the geography makes the northern and southern poles distinctly different places. How, then, do we think about the formation and destruction of sea ice? We have to think about energy, just like in the last blog. The atmosphere and ocean bring and take away heat. There is fresh (light) and salt (heavy) water. There is rain and snow (energy and fresh water). There is ice melting in Antarctica. And there is, in fact, a fundamental difference in the radiative forcing – ozone. In the Southern Hemisphere there is the ozone hole. Often we forget that ozone is, in fact, an important greenhouse gas. With all of this - is there any reason to expect sea ice to behave the same in the northern and southern hemisphere? With all of this - is it at all scientifically honest to mash together sea ice observations from the north and south, summer and winter, and talk about them as one?
OK – I think that is a reasonable foundation.
r
Useful links
Recent sea ice trends
Sea ice data
Rood’s Blogs on Ice
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index
Or ounces,tons or pounds.
Oh Yeah! Galatic Cosimic Rays! I forgot about those.Those can heat my pot of Coffey one degree over a billion years! LOL!
It may need to be slightly portable.
Gulf Stream Slowed During Little Ice Age
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full /2006/1129/2
By Phil Berardelli
ScienceNOW Daily News
29 November 2006
A slowing of the Gulf Stream--the Atlantic Ocean's massive warm-water
current--may have been responsible for a minor ice age that occurred
between 1200 and 1850 C.E. If true, the finding could have implications
for tracking future climate change in the northern hemisphere.
Ocean currents can influence weather on a continental scale. Witness
the impact of El Niño, the building up of warm water in the western
Pacific Ocean, which causes droughts and severe storms across North and
South America. Similar effects can happen with the Gulf Stream, which
carries tropical waters from the southeastern United States to
Scandinavia--and thereby provides western Europe with a more temperate
climate than its latitude would justify. A team of scientists hoped to
get a better handle on the Gulf Stream's climatic influence by studying
its history during the Little Ice Age. Between 1200 and 1800 C.E.,
average temperatures in Europe dropped about 4° Celsius.
It turns out that as temperatures chilled in Europe, the Gulf Stream
decelerated. The team, led by David Lund, now at the California
Institute of Technology, came to this conclusion by analyzing ocean
sediment cores going back 1000 years from two widely separated sites in
the Florida Straits, where the Gulf Stream originates. In particular,
the researchers charted the chemical composition of foraminifera,
microscopic creatures whose fossilized shells contain evidence of
salinity. From the shells of the forams, as they are called, Lund's
team deduced a spike in salinity at the water's surface, suggesting
cooler temperatures and a slower current. The team's calculations,
reported tomorrow in Nature, indicate the Gulf Stream slowed by about
10% just about the time the Little Ice age began, and resumed its
current speed around 1850.
Link
Um... no... that's not how Cosmic Rays control climate. When GCRs impact with particles of air, they produce aerosoles. These aerosoles are "seedlings" for Cloud Cover to form. If there is more of a Solar Wind from a more active Sun, then the GCRs get diverted from Earth, and there are less clouds, which mean that Earth is overall, warmer.
Don't need to be portable just turn cooling phase off if needed while still producing electrical power.
You are aware, I'm sure, that even if every station in the U.S.--or in the world--was sited in such a way that a warm bias was demonstrated (which they're not), the fact that the vast majority of them show continuous warming is what's most important. Of course, as has been proven, the majority of stations in the U.S. that are off actually show a cool bias.
Despite attempts by denialists--such as failed small-market TV weathermen like Watts--to ignore reality and physics, temperatures continue to go up around the globe. How utterly frustrating it must be for them to always be on the wrong side of science. It's understandable, if not forgivable, that they cling so desperately to any little tidbit that might bolster their illusions and fantasies; I might do the same if I myself were working against the truth.
Viewing: 401 - 412
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index