Isn't there ever any good news (that doesn't come from the oil industry)?

Interesting news story on CNN.com today, about a Russian Arctic research station that is being abandoned early this year because of rapidly melting sea ice.

While the Northern hemisphere sea ice is melting, it seems that the southern hemisphere is actually well above the average & that taken together we're only slightly below the 1979-present mean. (per Cryosphere Today - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/)

Am I reading this wrong?

Does the southern hemisphere ice extent not matter (and why wouldn't it if we're talking about global climate change)?

And in any case, even if there is some scientific rationale for why above average southern hemisphere sea ice is consistent with AGW, why does it never even seem to be dealt with by people talking about the northern hemisphere? As a semi-skeptic, it just increases my skepticism to constantly hear about how melting ice at the north pole means doomsday is around the corner when a quick google search shows that Antarctic ice is almost offsetting the northern hemisphere melt. As an untrained person, it just looks like the southern hemisphere is being conveniently ignored.

Please enlighten me. I've asked these same questions multiple times here, but usually well after the post came up first so I don't think I've seen an answer yet.

Andrew,

It appears that the sea ice extent (while melting at a rate that is faster than the long-term mean) is beginning to depart from the 2007 average. Here is a more real-time plot:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

For several reasons I'd be surprised if this year is as severe as 2007, but we'll see.

One effect of melting sea ice for this area could be BAD NEWS for D.C. snow lovers: Because the Arctic takes a longer time to cool off, the threat of snow at lower latitudes such as D.C. is diminished, and consequently the D.C. snow season is shortened or eliminated altogether. We may already be seeing this effect. We have far fewer winter days with a max. temp. below 32 F. than we used to in the 1980's to early 1990's. In fact during recent years we've rarely seen the thermometer stay below freezing for 24 hours or more. Our cold days are usually marked by highs in the thirties whereas I can remember several winters back when we used to have highs in the twenties or even occasionally the teens on several midwinter days. "Long-john weather" has been an EXTREMELY RARE event during recent Washington winters--and our total winter snow accumulations have suffered as a result!

NovaHoo,

There are sound dynamical reasons, consistent with global climate change, why ice in interior Antarctica would increase, while ice near the perimeter (i.e. the Peninsula) decreases. Because the Southern Hemisphere has a lack of land (more ocean) the circulation operates slightly differently than in the Northern Hemisphere and thus "feels" the influence of increased CO2 differently. Here is one techinical study that describes the disparity between interior Antarctica and the perimeter:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5569/895

Here is a nice sumary of the current literature:

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/antarcticfactsheet

Q. Did the climate models that predicted Arctic Sea ice melt also predict falling temperatures around the globe?

A. No.

Q. Did the climate models that predicted Arctic Sea ice melt also predict the slight cooling that has taken place with the oceans?

A. No.

Since the climate models got those two factors completely wrong, why should anyone believe that the fact that they got the Arctic Sea ice melt correct, as anything more than a fluke? After all, there were only three possibilities; less melt, more melt, no change. That had a one in three chance of getting it right no matter what they predicted.

Prof. Freeman Dyson, one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Prof. Freeman Dyson also believes that directing money towards fighting global poverty and providing medical aid will bring greater benefits to society than attempting to combat climate change.
"They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases,.."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

---begin quote---
Smut is a bigger problem than greenhouse gases in polar meltdown.

Belching from smokestacks, tailpipes and even forest fires, soot--or black carbon--can quickly sully any snow on which it happens to land. In the atmosphere, such aerosols can significantly cool the planet by scattering incoming radiation or helping form clouds that deflect incoming light. But on snow--even at concentrations below five parts per billion--such dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming.
---end quote---

Source of quote -
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=impure-as-the-driven-snow

Did those climate models take the soot into consideration when they predicted Arctic Sea ice melt?

Mr. Q.

I am in favor of nuclear power plants. I would like to see us get a minimum of 80% of our electricity from nuclear power. Nuclear power does not release soot or CO2 into the atmosphere.

Mr. Freedman, since nuclear power would result in HUGE reductions in our CO2 output, do you advocate building nuclear power plants?

If not, what do you propose for reducing CO2 emissions?

Mr. Q.

NovaHoo,
There is some more perspective on the Antarctica story here.

CapitalClimate

And by the way, Greenland, which has potential direct impact on sea level, as opposed to the Arctic Ocean, is still melting.

CapitalClimate

Fyi, thanks for the updated chart, that does appear to show a departure from the 2007 trend, although it's significance for where the ice ends up is unclear. I had taken the other chart from the update issued on July 2, and wasn't aware of a more current chart. As the NSIDC has stated, a lot will depend on the cloud/weather conditions this summer.

NovaHoo, Andy Revkin over at his DotEarth blog recently wrote about the disparity between North and South Pole sea ice trends. In general, the Arctic and Antarctic are not expected to respond to climate change in the same way, and what is happening with global sea ice statistics is not inconsistent with the effects of climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Andrew,

The updated chart shows just how important real-time conditions are. Instead of the melt accelerating in July like it did in 2007, it actually seems to be melting SLOWER than the normal seasonal melt rate (eyeballing the chart), even though current ice cover is roughly half way between 2007 and the average line. Wouldn't all the data about less multi-year ice mean that whats there should melt quicker than the normal seasonal trend, not slower? Perhaps there are other factors that the models are missing. Any idea?

This summer is much cooler than last in the sub-arctic regions, and in the Bering basin we started the spring with a record extent of new ice due to the cold winter. This is why the extent of open water will not reach what it did last year.

If the Pacific Decadal Oscillation maintains negative values for several winters, the erosion of arctic ice in this corner of the world will slow considerably. Negative PDO equates to a depressed Aleutian Low, and thus a depressed southerly, warm flow into the Bering Straits region.

Newer sea ice is weaker and more susceptible to melting. It would take a couple of consecutive below-average years to build-up multiyear sea ice. Unfortunately below-average years are in short supply these days. Thus the overall trend is one of melting, not growing. If this year is not a record, it should not be held up as a cause for celebration:

http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20071001_septembertrend.jpg

­ Climate scientists from the Alfred Wegener Institute present their own prognosis for the first time ( http://www.ipy.org/index.php?/ipy/detail/development_of_arctic_sea_ice_cover/)

Bremerhaven, July 7, 2008. "The ice cover in the Arctic Ocean at the end of summer 2008 will lie, with almost 100 per cent probability, below that of the year 2005 ­ the year with the second lowest sea ice extent ever measured. Chances of an equally low value as in the extreme conditions of the year 2007 lie around eight per cent."

IMPORTANT:

"It has to be added, .... even with perfect models, however, ..... these forecasts will always be about probability, and not exact prognoses."

And, this last sentiment will ALWAYS be true - advances in observations and modeling can only decrease levels of uncertainty, NEVER totally eliminate it. But,at any point some things are more certain (e.g. global climate change trends) than others (e.g. regional trends).

I have always wondered about these models and the programmers behind them. The data input would only have to be slightly skewed to make for devastating long term projections, and the people we have doing the data input could have their own agenda. I also wonder about the natural dynamics of the Earth as it self regulates itself. Doesn't more water usually lead to more cloud cover, hence less sunlight on the Earth's surface? And what about the rise of the sea level? Is Manhattan going to be under water by 2050? What is the current level of the ocean doing in the last 25 years? I am a strong believer in the fact that the Earth was once much warmer than it is now ie.. dinasaurs and is currently getting back to where it once was after a long recovery period.