Holy Crap Tine E, look at the Antarctic Sea Ice Extent!

[flacaltenn]

The global data from the same source.

And mind you the theorized process is that offshore winds are pulling warm, deep water up under the ice sheet. The ice sheets are not being thinned by surface waters so the theory does not contend warming of the Southern Oceans surface waters - though the graph above certainly shows it will take place eventually.

Select dataset: display plot

You're getting all Gumby about what AGW predicted here. I showed you the temperature history of the Southern Ocean. There has been no increase in AArctic precipt, and BullWinkle --- we're not talking about a theory predicting THINNING of ice.. Your contention is that AGW science PREDICTED BUILDING ice at the AArctic due to Ocean Warming and increased precipt.. KABOOOOOOM.. Never happened...

And if ice gets thinned by water at the AArctic, draw me a picture of how it's NOT surface water temps doing the thinning.. Just give it up before Gumby gets hurt..

 

[mamooth]

Meanwhile, air temp anomalies.

Southern Polar, land -- +1.81C (Dec 2013), +1.44C (Jul-Dec 2013 avg)
Southern Polar, ocean -- +1.08C (Dec 2013), +0.51C (Jul-Dec 2013 avg)

Source, UAH data set
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

Air temps over both land and water were significantly higher than average, yet there was more ice. Denialist theory fails hard at explaining that, while AGW theory pegged it on the nose. Again.

 

[Abraham3]

Climate scientists have predicted that warming ocean waters would lead to more precipitation at the poles but I fully admit that has not (yet) taken place. Perhaps the problem is the same process mentioned the other day in the paper about reduced cloud formation from dehydration of low altitude air layers. Perhaps instead of increased precipitation, we're going to see more warming of the Southern Ocean from a reduction in cloud cover.

The growth of sea ice in the Antarctic is not due to increased precipitation. I never said it was. I'm saying it is from spreading of thinned ice sheets and increased glacial flow coming off the shoreline.

The rise of warm deep water UNDER the ice is not a sea surface phenomenon. Those sheets extend for kilometers. By the time the upwelling water reaches open sea, it will have undergone significant cooling.

 

[SwimExpert]

Climate scientists have predicted that warming ocean waters would lead to more precipitation at the poles but I fully admit that has not (yet) taken place.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k8craCGpgs]Journey - Don't Stop Believin' (Audio) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Meanwhile, air temp anomalies.

Southern Polar, land -- +1.81C (Dec 2013), +1.44C (Jul-Dec 2013 avg)
Southern Polar, ocean -- +1.08C (Dec 2013), +0.51C (Jul-Dec 2013 avg)

Source, UAH data set
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

Air temps over both land and water were significantly higher than average, yet there was more ice. Denialist theory fails hard at explaining that, while AGW theory pegged it on the nose. Again.

So instead of being 20 below it was 19 below....and you wonder why there's more ice?

 

[mamooth]

Pay attention, Frank. The kook raving here on the topic has been of the type "There's more Antarctic sea ice, so Antarctica must be colder, so AGW is a scam!".

Yet Antarctica is ... warmer. Imagine that. Those durn egghead scientists went and measured the temperature. Not fair, using facts and data like that.

Hence, your 'tard mantras fail.

 

[flacaltenn]

Meanwhile, air temp anomalies.

Southern Polar, land -- +1.81C (Dec 2013), +1.44C (Jul-Dec 2013 avg)
Southern Polar, ocean -- +1.08C (Dec 2013), +0.51C (Jul-Dec 2013 avg)

Source, UAH data set
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

Air temps over both land and water were significantly higher than average, yet there was more ice. Denialist theory fails hard at explaining that, while AGW theory pegged it on the nose. Again.

No Sir Mammy.. You do not get to pull a SINGLE MONTHLY number out of your ass and pretend that your AGW Prophets predicted ICE building at the AArctic..

Those are MONTHLY numbers.. You want to go BACK a few months??

0.98 1.06 1.01 1.04 -0.11 -0.60 0.07 -0.63 -0.76 -1.04
0.49 0.84 0.48 -0.18 1.05 (South Pole Ocean) 15 months PRIOR to this month..

There was NO WARMING TREND in the Southern Ocean.. NOT THERE in the sat readings and NOT THERE in the historical chart I posted...

No warming trend in the Southern Ocean -- No INCREASE in precipt --- NO prediction.. You need to cough up that hairball. Been there WAAY too long.. Starting to stink like all wet cat..

 

[SAYIT]

And why do you think it's doing that?

Not because the place is getting any colder. Perhaps because of a warmer ocean surrounding the place.

My work once had me assessing a client in a psych ward for a whole day......a DD kid.....and while there, I bumped into a guy who thought he was Jesus Christ. Talked incessantly about the FBI and the CIA. Guy has an answer to everything and was invariably confident and decisive about any topic.......100% certain of his opinion. Evidence to the contrary did not matter whatsoever. Fascinating shit on some level.

That is exactly the way it is with these climate OCD's.......it is called "thought process disorder" in my field or "psychosis" in TV shows/movies. Lay people call them nuts. Mind you, this is not at all an intelligence issue ( I never call these people morons or retards)......its a thought processing issue. Big difference. The former has no fix......the latter can be sufficiently corrected with pharmacological aids in some cases. When you have fucked up serotonin levels, there are lots of issues with the thinking. SSRO meds significantly alter the rumination of thoughts dynamic that exists in these folks......increase in serotonin uptake at the synapse has a profound impact on peoples ability to process their thoughts. If that ice cover were double the size displayed above, it would not alter the thinking of these people.......lol......like trying to reason with a guy who thinks hes Jesus Christ.

Funny you can spot all that in others and not in yourself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Pay attention, Frank. The kook raving here on the topic has been of the type "There's more Antarctic sea ice, so Antarctica must be colder, so AGW is a scam!".

Yet Antarctica is ... warmer. Imagine that. Those durn egghead scientists went and measured the temperature. Not fair, using facts and data like that.

Hence, your 'tard mantras fail.

Look Bodey, they just showed how much "Warmer" it was, but it wasn't above the melting point of ice, or, follow closely, the ice would have melted!

 

[mamooth]

No Sir Mammy.. You do not get to pull a SINGLE MONTHLY number out of your ass and pretend that your AGW Prophets predicted ICE building at the AArctic.

Which is specifically why I showed the average for the last 6 months as well. Are you just that effin' stupid, or were you deliberately lying? I also specifically used the UAH data set, because it's associated with a denialist hero, therefore denialists can't handwave it away as being forged.

Back to the issue. Temps for Dec 2013, and the average temps for the last 6 months, were both way above average in the Antarctic.

Hence, you got some 'splainin to do. You say sea ice levels depend mainly on temps, but temps were very warm. Hence, your theory says warm temps lead to more ice. Can you explain the physics behind that?

Seriously, it's okay to just admit your theory was debunked by the hard data. It won't kill you. And it will salvage some of your credibility. But I'm going to guess you'll wave your hands around and declare that 6 months of relative heat wasn't enough to make a difference. So, according to your theory, what's the lag time between ice levels and temp? Give us a concrete number, one that can be tested.

But most of all, stop using truncated data. Be honest, use the most recent data, and explain why we should buy your theory when the data contradicts it.

 

[Pennywise]

Warmer ocean = more evaporation into a warm atmosphere that has a higher vapor pressure = more unstable as the parcel of air wants to raise = condensing into more clouds = more snowfall into atmosphere still below freezing.

Except the Antarctic is drier than most deserts and has remained that way. There HAS BEEN NO INCREASE IN HUMIDITY IN THE ANTARCTIC.

FTW!!!!!!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

No Sir Mammy.. You do not get to pull a SINGLE MONTHLY number out of your ass and pretend that your AGW Prophets predicted ICE building at the AArctic.

Which is specifically why I showed the average for the last 6 months as well. Are you just that effin' stupid, or were you deliberately lying? I also specifically used the UAH data set, because it's associated with a denialist hero, therefore denialists can't handwave it away as being forged.

Back to the issue. Temps for Dec 2013, and the average temps for the last 6 months, were both way above average in the Antarctic.

Hence, you got some 'splainin to do. You say sea ice levels depend mainly on temps, but temps were very warm. Hence, your theory says warm temps lead to more ice. Can you explain the physics behind that?

Seriously, it's okay to just admit your theory was debunked by the hard data. It won't kill you. And it will salvage some of your credibility. But I'm going to guess you'll wave your hands around and declare that 6 months of relative heat wasn't enough to make a difference. So, according to your theory, what's the lag time between ice levels and temp? Give us a concrete number, one that can be tested.

But most of all, stop using truncated data. Be honest, use the most recent data, and explain why we should buy your theory when the data contradicts it.

Anomaly numbers in isolation --- EVEN AS a 6 month average don't give you the picture you need to PROVE that your Preachers were prescient.. Anomaly or NOT --- that 6 months you CHOSE was not warmer than the recent past for that area of ocean.. I gave you the Graph -- NO SOUTHERN OCEAN WARMING.. ACTUAL COOLING over the past few years..

Those numbers you crapped out were 0.5deg over the TWENTIETH CENTURY average.. Actually meaningless when you look at the more complete data I provided. Youre stone stupid anyway if you think your heroes are forecasting sea ice building "due to increased precipt" --- because precipt (especially less than a couple inch/year) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BUILDING SEA ICE !!!! Maybe LAND ice..

NO warming, NO precipt, NO Prediction, NO points.. Cough it up.... Not even certain your tea reading Priests were talking about sea ice anyway..

Only chance you have of saving your 9th life is to plot out SEVERAL YEARS of Dr. Roy's data and show me that it's DIFFERENT from the Reynold's graph I posted for the Southern Ocean..

PS.. The 13 month numbers I gave you back in Post 67 are from UAH.. And if you LOOK.. LAST MONTH was no different from the PREVIOUS December.. Why didn't your voodoo science work LAST YEAR? OR the YEAR BEFORE?

 

[flacaltenn]

I aint got time to fool around with a dishonest cat.. Here's the UAH data for the South Pole OCEAN plotted from end to end.. If you want to pretty it up yourself --- be my guest.. Took me 4 minutes to plot.


No trend. No warming. No Dice.. No prediction. No Heroes. No Theory. No Catnip...

I have NO CLUE as to whether NOAA (Reynolds) uses the same extent for the Southern Ocean or how they chunk out the Land portion..
Take your pick...

 

[Abraham3]

Does that look to you like it's getting colder?

 

[flacaltenn]

Does that look to you like it's getting colder?

noooo... This is another reason I don't do ice.. Ice isn't SOLELY about air temp or water temp.

We don't know WHY the sea ice is growing in AArctic. Say it with me BRO... We DON'T FREAKING KNOW..

But if I DID DO ICE --- I'd think that stuff like WIND SPEED, SEA STATE, CURRENTS, and CLOUDS would have just as much to do with sea ice formation as temperatures when it's already below freezing most all the time. Go look for any intelligient peer reviewed paper, bonded, certified AGW science to answer the question of WHY --- OR

Find yourself a grizzly looking, weather beaten, ships' captain with a High School education that knows Antarctic waters without PEER review.
I'll take the later in a heartbeat for the explanation..

Bet those N.Zealand researchers learned A LOT about ice formation from the crew of the rescue vessel... :LMAO:

 

[Abraham3]

Or thinning from warm water melting or accelerated glacial flow.

 

[mamooth]

Surface water cooling due to freshening was correctly predicted way ahead of time by AGW theory, along with rising air temps. Hence, flac's data confirms AGW theory was correct.

Remarkable, isn't it? AGW theory predicted both the surface water cooling and rising air temps years ago, and has been proven to be spot-on correct. But according to denialists, being proven correct again means AGW theory was totally wrong. Go fig.

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/boning2008.pdf
---
In the thermocline north of the PF, above the layer of minimum salinity defining the core of Antarctic Intermediate Waters (near gamma=27.3) widespread cooling has occurred, with a trend of -0.012 +/-
0.005 C/yr at gamma = 27.1 to 27.2 (equivalent to a freshening of -0.045 +/- 0.020 /yr). The observed warming/cooling (or, equivalently, salinization/freshening) pattern on density surfaces across the ACC is similar to the trends obtained in model simulations of climate change during the past century, which were identified as a ‘fingerprint’ of anthropogenic changes in the air–sea fluxes of heat and fresh water.
---

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh Yeah.. There's an AGW prediction for everything aint there? So when ONE crutch gets' knocked out, just retrieve the NEXT one.. My fave is the increased renal output of juvenile Koalas being predicted because of foraging diffs due to Global Warming. And today -- damn me if baby koalas aint pissing a little bit more because of AGW..

 

[Abraham3]

Where are the predictions/projections/forecasts based on no AGW that have come to pass?

For that matter, where are the successful model runs that don't use AGW? Didn't I ask for those quite some time back? In fact, repeatedly. What's the hold up dude? If you're right, the models will certainly show it. Right?

 

[flacaltenn]

Where are the predictions/projections/forecasts based on no AGW that have come to pass?

For that matter, where are the successful model runs that don't use AGW? Didn't I ask for those quite some time back? In fact, repeatedly. What's the hold up dude? If you're right, the models will certainly show it. Right?

Nobody's paying just to learn how the climate works.. All that actual knowledge of how stuff works is irrelevent.. Aint a UN crisis is it?? It's happening in places.. Where CO2 isn't the primary control knob for the climate system.

Hey NOAA --- Give me $10Mill to show you a flat-lined temperature line? What do you want to be demonstrated? Temperature IS NOT a Climate System.. A Climate System is when you can follow the gradient of the Tropics/Poles thermal path and account for stuff like PDOs, AMOs, and Ocean Storage. When you KNOW something about the heat gets to 500meters and WHEN it matters again (if ever) to the surface climate.. A REAL climate description would explain delayed transfers of heat to the poles and cooling oscillations of the oceans due to loss of ice in strategic Polar locations..

Judith Curry is on the case --- go read her stuff.. She actually has a multi-disciplinary team working on that..