THIRTY YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING CAUSED BY A "GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM"

[iapennell]

Hello folks and Happy New Year to you all.  I just want to throw something up which might be very interesting because I have just read a book called "Dark Winter" written by John Casey.  John Casey heads up the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) in the USA, he has done extensive work studying Sunspot Cycles.  We are all familiar with the 11-year Sunspot Cycle (known as the Schwabe Sunspot Cycles), but there is also a 206-year cycle and a 1200-year cycle.  It is Dr Casey`s conclusions that these cycles conspire to produce a 30-year spell stating after 2015 when the Sun will be very, very quiet, that the proportion of the short-wave energy from the Sun that reaches the surface and lower atmosphere will fall by 1% compared to recent years as a result.  As a consequence there will be global cooling caused by changes in the Sun`s output and we will have conditions in Britain as cold as they were in the early 1800s when Frost Fairs were held on the Thames.

 

Dr Casey, and a number of respected scientists working independantly from around the World, concur with this prediction that the energy reaching the Earth`s surface is about to drop leading to a global cooling of 1 to 1.5C.  Neither Dr Casey nor the scientists whose work he cites believe that the global climate is as sensitive to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere that either the IPCC or other scientists who are government-unded would have us believe.  As for myself, what matters is independant scientific opinion and findings built up through the rigorous application of science, and then taking all the parameters into consideration before cpmong to conclusions about the future direction of our climate.

 

Six years ago I started writing a thesis (almost finished- but other things cme along and I have not actually completed it):  This thesis analysed the effect of a 2C global warming from the mean global temperatures in the 1970s on the climate in different parts of the World, my contention was that as the Arctic ice continued to shrink and the oceans warm that the main weather belts (subtropical high, Westerlies and subpolar depression tracks) would shift poleward a few degrees and that the Westerlies strengthen slightly- leading to warm and dry summers in southern Britain but wetter, milder and stormier winters across the countrz and wetter, warmer summers in Scotland.  This certainly ties in with the weather-patterns of late 2013 and 2014 and (earlier) most of the 1990s and 2000s.  In recent years I have read plenty of material (I have read Christopher Booker- he of the Sunday Telegraph- his book "The Real Global Warming Disaster") and now this book written by John Casey of SSRC.  He has also written a book called "Cold Sun" though i do not have and have not read it.  Meanwhile the BBC and those at the Met Office and (of course) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) who in their fifth report maintain that the serious threat in the future is from manmade Global Warming (AGW it is referred to).  All these organisations maintain unless stronger concerted action is taken to stem rising CO2 levels the World will reach a "tipping point" by mid-century.  With these conflicting accounts of the future climate globally (and regionally) it is best to go back to science and do theresearch and maths from everything that we can find.

 

As a meteorologist you will (probably) have come across the book "Atmosphere, Weather and Climate" (Barry and Chorley, latest Ed. 2003).  I have used this a lot to try and make sense of where we are going and to make regional\seasonal predictions.  It is very thorough and covers the global circulation, treatment of the Sun, cloud and local microlclimates:  All of the content is rigorous and well-researched and it has stood the test of time.  The first edition came out in the 1960s.  There is a dedicated chapter on Climatic Change and reference is made to the likely effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere compared to pre-industrial times.  There is the consensus in the scientific comunity that doubling CO2 levels would cause a 3.5C warming of the global climate (compared to pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm).  That means that when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches about 550 ppm by volume the World would get 3.5C warmer than it would with CO2 level at 280 ppm.  This is according to the Global Circulation Models that already take into account feedback effects (and I must emphasise this point).   The publication just referred to also makes detailed references to the initial "forcing" effect of doubling CO2 levels from pre-inductrial levels being about 6 to 8 Watts per aquare metre of extra heat being trapped in the radiation emitted to space by the Earth`s surface.  Using Stefan`s Law on radiation, given the effective black-body temperature of the Earth being about -18C, this would lead to a global temperature rise of just 2C (and can I emphasise that the feedbacks will only come into play to push the Earth up to 3.5C warmer if this is the only forcing influence on the global climate- it is not!).  

 

CONTINUED)   

[reef]

Moved to the climate section as its probably a better home for it.

 

Cheers.

[knocker]

Very kind reef but are you sure?

 

In case anyone isn't familiar with the Space and Science Research Corporation.

 

http://www.spaceandscience.net/

Edited January 14, 2015 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm still of the belief that the sun's role is overstated in the publication ( as shown by NASA over the past few years) and that, as a percentage forcing, AGW carries far, far more strength?

 

More of a concern is surely the ongoing CH4 releases ( and acceleration in releases) seen since 07'? with between 50 and 5,000 gigatonnes ( conservative estimate)  stored across the east Siberian shelf sea surely the next 30yrs of climate should be looking there for 'future shocks'? ( currently we have 5 gigatonnes of CH4 aloft)......... mainstream science appears to be coming alert to just this over the past 2 years?

 

EDIT: Thanks knocks! , hadn't realised its 'breeding' as it were?

Edited January 14, 2015 by Gray-Wolf

[iapennell]

GLOBAL COOLING AND "GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM" (CONTINUED)

 

In their chapter on Climatic Change Barry and Chorley also make reference to industrial activity adding extensive fine aerosols to the atmosphere.  This is still happening at an alarming rate in countries like India and China and they estimate that the total forcing effect of the fine aerosols added to the atmosphere globally is for an extra 1 to 2 Watts per aquare of energy from the Sun to be intercepted and preveted from warming the surfasce and lower atmosphere with no a fractional rate of cooling for the Earth Atmosphere system as a whole.  The upshot is a significant cooling of the Earth`s surface (this matters most to us, the ice sheets, etc) but a mild warming of the upper atmosphere and stratosphere.  The slight warming of the high atmosphere will increase the temperature of the "radiative top" of the atmosphere causing more radiative heat to be lost to space and therefore nullifying some of the effect of rising CO2 levels.  It is interesting to note that this would reduce the total effects of a CO2 doubling considerably and Barry and chorley in their publication show research that indicates that even with CO2 continuing to increase above a doubling from pre-inductrial levels that when the effect of aerosols is included global warming is still only 2C above pre-industrial times (and 15 years after CO2 doubling is reached) once positive feedback effects are taken into consideration.  Just by doing the math I can see that once the cooling effect of aerosol pollutants is considered that the initial forcing of doubling CO2 levels from pre-inductrial levels falls to just five Watts per Square Metre (only enough to warm Earth by about 1.5C).

 

We have not, alasm even begun to consider the effects of the Sun or possible other influences such as a major volcanic eruption, yet according to Dr Casey there will be a drop in the Solar energy reaching the Earths surface by over 1%.  The total forcing effect of that sort of change amounts to a cooling initial forcing (given thedistribution of clouds, etc) of 2 to 3 Watts per Square Metres.  That wipes out most of the initial forcing of five Watts per Square Metres for CO2 doubling-plus-aerosols considered by Barry and Chorley.  The warming they consider is from pre-industrial times and the global warming already considered to happen to date from rising CO2 levels (this is in "Atmosphere Weather and Climate") is already 0.6C.  That means that from where we are today that the overall impact of a CO2 doubling from pre-industrial times will probably be cancelled out by the effects of the "Grand Solar Minimum" that is coming (bearing in mind, of course, China and India will be belching pollution into the air for some decades).

 

Of course, R Barry and G Chorley were a bit more circumspect about the total impact of Grand Solar Minima but they did assert that the Maunder Minima (50 years of quiet Sun which led to the coldest phase of the Little Ice Age in the 17th Century) saw total Solar Output fall by 0.25% (this intiial forcing slone would wipe out 20% of the CO2-doubling-plus-aerosols, more like 40% if the starting point is today).  But (and this is very important) Barry and Chorley stipulatede that the fall at UV wavelenths would be 3% and that the visible radiation that reaches the ground would fall more than the infrared solar output: We are therefore looing at a drop of 2 to 3 Watts per Square Metres in what reaches the ground.  So then,the overall impact of our CO2 doubling from pre-inductrial levels (once we take into account the effect of aerosols and once we consider some 0.6C warming has already happened) will still global temperatures little changed from todays.

 

Nowm this historic drop in Solar output predicted by John Casey is due to be happening by 2020- and CO2 levels will not have reached 450 ppm (let alone 550 ppm) by then.  It is therefore my assertion that (on balance) there will be 15 to 20 years of Global Cooling (by about 0.4C) starting roughly next year before rising CO2 levels (combined with the demise if the Grand Solar Minima) lead to sharp warming from about 2035 onwards.  And we have not even considered the possibility of major volcanic eruptions adding so much dust and sulphur to the stratosphere that global temperatures take a further drop of 1.0C.  Tough times lie ahead with (for Britain) cold winters like we had in the 1980s!

 

Ian Pennell

 

Now then     

[knocker]

I have had a copy of the book about ten years and a it's fine book regarding meteorology.

[Hocus Pocus]

Its a good read and something I think is a likely probability separate from the role of CO2 and its net warming effect. The great thing is we'll soon find out.

[iapennell]

I'm still of the belief that the sun's role is overstated in the publication ( as shown by NASA over the past few years) and that, as a percentage forcing, AGW carries far, far more strength?

 

More of a concern is surely the ongoing CH4 releases ( and acceleration in releases) seen since 07'? with between 50 and 5,000 gigatonnes ( conservative estimate)  stored across the east Siberian shelf sea surely the next 30yrs of climate should be looking there for 'future shocks'? ( currently we have 5 gigatonnes of CH4 aloft)......... mainstream science appears to be coming alert to just this over the past 2 years?

 

EDIT: Thanks knocks! , hadn't realised its 'breeding' as it were?

 

@ Grey Wolf

 

Methane is certainly a big unknown, it is also 20 to 25 more potent as a greehhouse gas than is CO2.  That said, its residence time in the atmosphere is only about ten to 15 years compared to hundreds of years for CO2.  However, the permafrost of Siberia will only continue to thaw and release its methane (along with the methane clathrates under the cold Arctic seas) with significant further warming.  This is why there is concern in the scvientific community about this 2C global warming tipping point:  This is when the permafrost would start thawing on a massive scale and the Arctic warm enough so that methane clathrates are released, it is also the point whereby the Greenland Ice Cap would commence on a runaway melting leading to global sea rises (in due course) of several metres.  However the melting of reflective ice and snowcover leading to more warming and the release of methane (also leading to more global warming) are positive feedbacks that are dependant on rising CO2 levels causing more warming in the first place.  If this does not happen (because of declining Solar activity) there will be no positive feedback effects causing further warming.

 

If the falling Solar Constant does cause an overall cooling (despite rising CO2 levels) the feedbacks may well be reverse; colder oceans absorbing methane and CO2 to help reduce the greenhouse effect and increased reflective snow and ice causing further cooling (and much steeper seasonal and average annual temperature declines in higher latitudes).

[Catacol]

Call me Mr Sceptical - but the website reeks of bias, and any book published in late 2014 talking about a sudden temperature drop starting in 2015 has my hackles up already. I'm a historian by trade, and my spidey sense is jangling like mad.

 

That said I still suspect that our understanding of the sun's impact on global climate has a way to go yet. When I first started reading on climate, and frequenting online forums that discussed it, the impact of the sun was rather ridiculed by the more established community as being of little consequence. There does seem to have been a change in that interpretation, and it is true that our current solar cycle has fallen well below NASA estimates in terms of its peak. 

 

So - I'm not in the least convinced by this announcement but I remain intrigued to see where research on solar forcings will take us.

[knocker]

Although I think research into solar influence is important I've read some of Casey's stuff before. He's really not worth spending time on. I started watching this video but I've better things to do. I got as far the last cycle was at the beginning of the 19th century so I assume the sun was to blame for the Tambora eruption. He had to get some volcanic nutters on board otherwise his ravings would have been blown out of the water immediately.

[Gray-Wolf]

To me the positive PDO for the past year ( ending in Dec's whopping 2.51!) , and the continuation of the warm horse shoe has me a tad concerned that the naturals are on the move? We still await the El nino ( forecast the past 12 months though attaining threshold values?) that appears set to break and , should the PDO be our guide , then this year appears more likely to see one develop than last year ( though I fully expected one then?)?

 

Should we see the current conditions spawn another massive KW then I really do doubt that the trades will squish it, come June/july ( as we have seen in recent years) if the naturals are in a period of reorganisation? We are far more likely to see atmospheric cooperation develop and what then of this anomalous 'warm pool' out to the west? Will , robbed of the support of anomalously strong Trades, it collapse in total spreading back east bringing us a massive nino??? And what of recent global ocean temps? 2014 post record, or near record global temps because of elevated global temps. Has the overturning of the oceans lessened allowing warming to remain at the surface ( and so have enough time to warm the air above?). And, if so, what of that warmed 'upper 700m' of ocean warmed over the past 18yrs??? Do we expect that to, in part, be released back into the atmosphere above?

 

 Personally I have greater concerns of a very real threat of a sudden acceleration in warming rates ( so threatening CH4 releases) than I am of a small reduction in incoming solar driving any 'cool down'!

[KyleHenry]

Just one point if no moderate/strong El Niño shows soon the AMO will go negative meaning Arctic ice expansion past Svalbard.

One of the two theories will fail and it will be known within next 10 to 20 years.

[Gray-Wolf]

Agreed but I do not think there is a Nino dependence any more? As time rolls on the impacts of AGW will eat away at negative natural forcings and enhance positive ones? As such how can we gauge the next AMO until we are in it ( so better not hang on it as some 'instant fix' for the Arctic eh?).

 

As for the Arctic I struggle to think of anything undoing the changes we are currently seeing ongoing ( early and extensive snow melt, ice loss, permafrost melt , wildfires, algal blooms,CH4 emissions ?)

[Lettucing Gutted]

Just one point if no moderate/strong El Niño shows soon the AMO will go negative meaning Arctic ice expansion past Svalbard.

One of the two theories will fail and it will be known within next 10 to 20 years.

I think the chances are judging by how far gone things have got in the last 30 years (especially with rainforest destruction and arctic ice melt and further increases in greenhouse gases), that even if the AMO goes negative it will merely just slow the next stage of global warming or at best delay it or reverse it for a few decades, similar to the 1940s-1970s temporary cooling but perhaps bottoming out at a higher baseline.  The extent and magnitude as well as longevity of any cooling effect from the Cold AMO phase and solar minimum will also be dependent on the phasing with cold La Nina favoured (on multi decadal timescales) ENSO and PDO phases and a cooler Indian Ocean.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Craig Evans

[iapennell]

I think the chances are judging by how far gone things have got in the last 30 years (especially with rainforest destruction and arctic ice melt and further increases in greenhouse gases), that even if the AMO goes negative it will merely just slow the next stage of global warming or at best delay it or reverse it for a few decades, similar to the 1940s-1970s temporary cooling but perhaps bottoming out at a higher baseline.  The extent and magnitude as well as longevity of any cooling effect from the Cold AMO phase and solar minimum will also be dependent on the phasing with cold La Nina favoured (on multi decadal timescales) ENSO and PDO phases and a cooler Indian Ocean.

 Craig Evans

 

This coming cooling, which I believe will occur, will be temporary and will last from 2015 to about 2035:  After 2035 the effects of the Sun (eventually) returning to current levels of output combined with CO2 doubling reached around 2060 (at current rates) there will be a sharp warming and conditions around 2060 will indeed be warmer than today.  It is my contention that mean global temperatures will be 1 to 1.5C warmer than today (2C warmer than the early 20th Century) by then given that the effects of aerosols will reduce the thermal forcing towards warmth.  Overall, however I certainly do not think that over the next 20 years there will be warming; both the PDO and AMO are going into a colder phase together in the next ten years and the Solar Constant will drop by up to 0.25% overall (with a bigger fall off in the shortwave UV and visible segment that reaches through to the surface and lower atmosphere).  Taken together all this will overpower the effect of rising CO2 levels that are liable to take place between now and 2035.

 

None of this, of course, precludes the possibility of other influences making an unexpected turn.  A massive outpouring of methane from the tundra would cause substantial warming if it happened in the next 20 years BUT once the methane in the permafrost is depleted this gas does not have a big residence time in the atmosphere and its level will drop in time to catch the tail end of our coming Maunder-style minimum andthere would then be a sharp drop in global temperatures to something close to todays.  Alternatively a couple of major volcanic eruptions in the next decade would block out a few percent of the Sun`s heat reaching the ground to add to the "Grand Solar Minimum" cooling to massively overpower the effects of rising CO2, in which case we will be looking at Little Ice Age like conditions in the late 2020s to 2030s.  High rainfall and melting ice off the Greenland Ice Cap freshening up the North Atlantic (due the recent warming) could result in the Gulf Stream shutting down and causing a cooling not unlike the Younger Dryas at least in the vicinity of western Europe, that could have very serious implications indeed!

[iapennell]

It is worth noting that whilst the Arctic has been warmer than usual with reduced seasonal sea ice extent the Antarctic sea-ice has been consistently above long-term seasonal and annual norms over recent years:  It is significant because the reports about global warming included in the IPCC, the Met Office and other sources factor in positive fedback effects of melting ice leaving more darker surfaces to absorb more of the Sun`s heat and so amplify the warming.  Recently there has been rather more highly-reflective ice-cover around Antarctica not less; the Sun in the Southern Hemisphere summer is some 6% more intense than in the Northern Hemisphere in its summer so Antarctic ice and snow cover is more important than Arctic snow and ice cover.  This means that, over recent years, the overall impact of snow and ice cover on this planet has not been magnifying CO2-induced warming anything like as much as the IPCC predictions would have us believe.  Indeed with Arctic ice cover not so much below normal as in 2012 and 2007 and with snowy winters across much of North America in recent years, combined with Antarctic ice being well above normal (bear in mind the Southern Hemisphere Summer Sun is stronger due to Earth`s orbit taking us slightly closer to the Sun in January) the impact of snow\ice anomalies may even have been a cooling.  If this is so then the coming "Grand Solar Minimum" could have dire implications for the North with much colder winters, spring and autumn frosts and some cold wet summers!  

[knocker]

It is worth noting that whilst the Arctic has been warmer than usual with reduced seasonal sea ice extent the Antarctic sea-ice has been consistently above long-term seasonal and annual norms over recent years:  It is significant because the reports about global warming included in the IPCC, the Met Office and other sources factor in positive fedback effects of melting ice leaving more darker surfaces to absorb more of the Sun`s heat and so amplify the warming.  Recently there has been rather more highly-reflective ice-cover around Antarctica not less; the Sun in the Southern Hemisphere summer is some 6% more intense than in the Northern Hemisphere in its summer so Antarctic ice and snow cover is more important than Arctic snow and ice cover.  This means that, over recent years, the overall impact of snow and ice cover on this planet has not been magnifying CO2-induced warming anything like as much as the IPCC predictions would have us believe.  Indeed with Arctic ice cover not so much below normal as in 2012 and 2007 and with snowy winters across much of North America in recent years, combined with Antarctic ice being well above normal (bear in mind the Southern Hemisphere Summer Sun is stronger due to Earth`s orbit taking us slightly closer to the Sun in January) the impact of snow\ice anomalies may even have been a cooling.  If this is so then the coming "Grand Solar Minimum" could have dire implications for the North with much colder winters, spring and autumn frosts and some cold wet summers!  

 

This really isn't good enough. If you are arguing, as I assume you are, that the increase in Antarctic sea ice minus the decrease in Arctic sea ice is increasing the planetary albedo to such an extent that it may be even cooling you need to back this up with some evidence. I'm a bit stuck here as I'm not sure what it's  cooling but I'll assume global temps.

 

So first taking a clear sky scenario and then the addition of clouds how much will your suggestion alter the current accepted figures for planetary albedo used in the calculation of radiative forcing?

 

And on another point. You are suggesting Antarctica is cooling because of increasing sea ice so could you produce some evidence of this cooling and why do you disagree with this paper by Steig et al which concludes the opposite?

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/antarctic-warming-is-robust/

Edited January 15, 2015 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

we had another paper looking at mass loss ( and its acceleration) from Antarctica today ( Ted Scambos ?) which really doesn't point to any cooling? We know the bottom waters around Antarctica are warming ( thanks to our elephant seals in bath caps) and that this warming is eating back the grounding line of ice shelfs allowing for rapid calving and shelf collapse.

 

As for 'albedo' increases? I think if we take a snapshot at any date of the year 'ice albedo' will be less than it was 30 years ago? ( loss of land ice over the period will far outweigh any relaxation of Antarctic sea ice back toward historic values) The ice max in Antarctica is ,of course, under the glare of the Antarctic night so is negligible in impact? 

 

As for AMO/PDO........ doesn't AMO follow temps and not drive them? Hasn't PDO been negative since 99'? ( and looks to be flipping positive now with the past 12 months showing positive values.... the longest positive run since 98').

 

As I am witnessing things the past ,ENSO neutral, year has pushed global temps so high as ocean surface temps impacted the atmosphere above. This hints at the process of burying heat in the upper 700m of the oceans is now ending so we ought to expect both ocean surface temps now warming the air above ( and no longer being buried) whilst some of the past 18 years of accrued heat leaches out from the waters below?

 

As I said up thread I am more concerned about a renewal of an AGW 'warming spurt' than any 'cooling'? I am more concerned about CH4 'burps' than sunspot numbers.

[Essan]

Nothing new

http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm

(Landscheidt died in 2004)

Mind, I have also seen predictions that CGC would kick in in 2000 and 2010....  ....Still waiting

[iapennell]

This really isn't good enough. If you are arguing, as I assume you are, that the increase in Antarctic sea ice minus the decrease in Arctic sea ice is increasing the planetary albedo to such an extent that it may be even cooling you need to back this up with some evidence. I'm a bit stuck here as I'm not sure what it's  cooling but I'll assume global temps.

 

So first taking a clear sky scenario and then the addition of clouds how much will your suggestion alter the current accepted figures for planetary albedo used in the calculation of radiative forcing?

 

And on another point. You are suggesting Antarctica is cooling because of increasing sea ice so could you produce some evidence of this cooling and why do you disagree with this paper by Steig et al which concludes the opposite?

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/antarctic-warming-is-robust/

 

Having read the article I see that much of the data was collected from West Antarctica where there has indeed been strong warming between 1950 and the 2000s- mean annual temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula went up by 2.5C during this period.  The East Antarctic Ice Sheet has actually cooled slightly in recent years. However the sea ice increases have mostly occurred in recent years, I note this paper was published in early 2009 and some of the big increases in sea ice have happened in the last few years.

 

You may be interested in the following paper which is recent, that explains East Antarctica has undergone some cooling: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/8703/20140825/mit-scientists-explain-why-global-warming-temporarily-cooling-antarctica.htm

 

Also take a look at this map of average temperature changes 1981 to 2007: West Antarctica warms but the interior\east does not.  Bear in mind too that this was 2007 and rather more sea ice has occurred since then.

 As for the reasons why, I believe this is because of the strengthening of the Southern Hemisphere circumpolar vortex resulting from warmer oceans further north (caused originally by global warming),  The stronger vortex and more intense Westerlies encircling Antarctica stop warm air from lower latitudes penetrating into Antarctica and so permit cooling to occur; the increased sea-ice in recent years is partly due to this and the earlier melting of the (mostly West) Antarctic ice-sheet freshening up the waters in the Southern Ocean and fresh, less dense water remaining on the top of the ocean surface has a higher freezing point than salty water so freezes more easily. 

Edited January 15, 2015 by iapennell

[knocker]

Having read the article I see that much of the data was collected from West Antarctica where there has indeed been strong warming between 1950 and the 2000s- mean annual temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula went up by 2.5C during this period.  However the sea ice increases have mostly occurred in recent years, I note this paper was published in early 2009 and some of the big increases in sea ice have happened in the last few years.

 

 

Yes much of it was West Antarctica but it was much more than that.

 

 

Assessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades¹. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone². This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 Â°C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.

 

Sea ice has been increasing since the late 70s; much about the time the ozone hole appeared. Yes the paper was published in 2009 but that doesn't invalidate it. I note you quoted much from Barry and Chorley (2003). It is primarily a text on meteorology as you know and as such the principles change little and climate change is covered by just thirty odd pages. Quite a bit of CO₂ has gone up the pipe in fifteen years and climate research has progressed somewhat.

 

I still await the albedo figures.

Edited January 15, 2015 by knocker

[iapennell]

we had another paper looking at mass loss ( and its acceleration) from Antarctica today ( Ted Scambos ?) which really doesn't point to any cooling? We know the bottom waters around Antarctica are warming ( thanks to our elephant seals in bath caps) and that this warming is eating back the grounding line of ice shelfs allowing for rapid calving and shelf collapse.

 

As for 'albedo' increases? I think if we take a snapshot at any date of the year 'ice albedo' will be less than it was 30 years ago? ( loss of land ice over the period will far outweigh any relaxation of Antarctic sea ice back toward historic values) The ice max in Antarctica is ,of course, under the glare of the Antarctic night so is negligible in impact? 

 

As for AMO/PDO........ doesn't AMO follow temps and not drive them? Hasn't PDO been negative since 99'? ( and looks to be flipping positive now with the past 12 months showing positive values.... the longest positive run since 98').

 

As I am witnessing things the past ,ENSO neutral, year has pushed global temps so high as ocean surface temps impacted the atmosphere above. This hints at the process of burying heat in the upper 700m of the oceans is now ending so we ought to expect both ocean surface temps now warming the air above ( and no longer being buried) whilst some of the past 18 years of accrued heat leaches out from the waters below?

 

As I said up thread I am more concerned about a renewal of an AGW 'warming spurt' than any 'cooling'? I am more concerned about CH4 'burps' than sunspot numbers.

 

@Gray Wolf

 

The bottom waters around Antarctica may well show a warming, it would be a delayed response to the 1950s through 2000s warming of the Antarctic Peninsula\environs which I pointed out was as much as 2.5C locally.  If it causes more melting and freshening of the Southern Ocean (along with a more intense Cicumpolar Vortex around Antarctica driving deeper depressions and causing higher rain\snow over the ocean freshening up th waters further), the result may well be even more sea ice off East Antarctica.

 

You make a valid point about record sea-ice maxima occurring towards the end of the austral winter when there would be little sun to reflect away, however the record sea-ice extents have persisted through the antarctic summer too.  The Summer Sun in the Southern summer is some 6% stronger than the corresponding sunshine in the Northern summer due to the Earth`s orbit around the Sun not quite being totally circular so a given increase in summer antarctic ice cover would have a bigger effect than a decrease of similar extent in summer ice-cover over the Arctic.  That said the decrease in Arctic ice is 20,000 square miles compared to the long-term norm but the increase in the antarctic sea ice is 7500 square miles so the effect would (on the whole) be to warm the Earth (albeit slightly).  The sub-antarctic summers are cloudy anyway so this would reduce the net impact of the increase in antarctic summer sea ice.  Cloudy skies mean the earth-atmosphere local albedo is about 60%.  That said, the locations where ice-cover are decreasing in the Arctic Basin are also mostly cloudy (with stratocumulus- a total cover of this sort of cloud raises planetary albedo locally to 65%) in those locations in the summer months which rather reduces the impact that reduced Arctic ice cover on the summer heat balance in those locations. 

 

Even where summer skies are clear the albedo of the open Arctic will not fall to below 10% as is the case for waters in lower latitudes (where the Summer Sun gets high in the sky) but it will be nearer 35%; where and when the Sun does not get more than 30 degrees above the horizon at midday and is between 15 and 28 degrees elevation for most of the high Arctic´s 24-hour summer days an open water surface under clear skies will have an albedo of 40 to 50%,  Water surface albedos are high for low-elevation sunlight such as predominates the high Arctic in summer.  This reduces the warming effect of ice-cover loss over the Arctic.  In the winter months, when the Sun is absent, increased cloud cover would have a warming effect but there is little evidence of increasing winter cloud cover in the High Arctic or indeed for Antarctica in the Southern Winter, increased sea ice in the Antarctic arguably means les moisture gets into the atmosphere in winter and thus less cloud, that would lead to more wintertime cooling and more ice locally.

 

On balance I would say that the overall impacts of ice-cover changes globally are a small net warming influence, but a much smaller warming than computer models used by the IPCC would have us beleive.  Btw in the above post I stated that the ice-cover changes could be a global cooling influence, not that they probably or definitely were!

 

Ian           

Edited January 15, 2015 by iapennell

[iapennell]

@ Gray Wolf

 

On the subject of albedo changes in the Arctic you might like to look at this article from the Watts Up With That site: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/17/arctic-albedo-variations/

[knocker]

I won't go into detail about what I was going to say concerning planetary albedo but one thing to keep in mind when saying that the increase of Antarctic sea ice of 1% per year,  a very tiny amount when considering  the total amount of ice.covering the Antarctic, could lower global temperatures. Anyway without going into huge detail how the planetary albedo is calculated this is a fair article.

 

 

The albedo effect and global warming

http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm

Edited January 15, 2015 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Why would warming through the 50-70's now present at the Antarctic coast? As far I I understand the science the response to ozone depletion ( increased circumpolar winds and so current) held the generally warmed world oceans at bay? Only ingress via the deep channels isolated from the current above allowed the 'generally warmed' ocean waters to present at the coast. We first noted them around the peninsula in the early noughties ( when we deployed the seals in bath caps) and have watched progress through Thwaites and P.I.G arriving at Ross over the last 5 years.

 

This , of course, leads us to the recent paper on ocean conditions the last times we saw rapid retreat of the shelfs/ice sheet/ice sheet stanility with warm bottom /cold surface appearing to be the ideal conditions for collapse.

 

As an aside the increased circumpolars may also be at the route of the failing CO2 sink in the southern ocean by interfering with overturning of the ocean there? ( hence the massive CO2 anom this past Sept?) so our atmospheric experiment in ozone depletion has not finished with us yet?

 

As I understand the 'ocean conveyor' some of the shortest legs take around 100yrs to complete ( so waters warmed 100yrs ago and subducted are only now surfacing?) so I would be intrigued to find where this 'warmed from the 50's-70's waters arrived from? I can understand the warming of the upper surface of the ocean ( ongoing as a portion of the sea level rises we see attests too) and its ingress , via ocean floor canyons, to the coast but not any part of the ocean conveyor system?