Weather

ANTARCTICA

The record breaking Arctic sea ice minimum recorded this summer (based on satellite data) was well documented in the media and on this blog.

Conversely, at the other end of the world, little mention was made of the Antarctica ice extent which approached a record high in September, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC).

According to new research conducted by the British Antarctic Survey, published in Nature Geoscience, changing wind patterns around Antarctica are thought to have caused the increase in ice, with wind flows pushing sea ice outwards helping to increase its extent.

Climate models have failed to reproduce this overall increase in sea ice.

The new research says that sea ice is not able to expand by the same mechanism in the Arctic because if winds push the ice away from the pole it quickly hits land, as the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by a continent - whereas because Antarctica is a continent surrounded by water, ice can expand.

But according to the British Antarctic survey, the Arctic is losing sea ice five times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it.


Latest Global temperatures

Global temperatures in October remained at elevated levels.

According to the UAH satellite measure the global temperature was 0.331C above the 30 year running average in October.

Adjusted to the standard 1961-1990 measure, global temperatures were 0.584C above average, making it the 2nd warmest October globally since the start of satellite data in 1979.

These warm global conditions are despite temperatures in equatorial Pacific areas remaining neutral.

In fact, a continuation of neutral temperature conditions (neither colder La Nina nor warmer El Nino) are now favoured during the Northern Hemisphere winter, and the El Nino watch has been cancelled.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 117. Posted by ukpahonta

    on 19 Nov 2012 23:19

    'Maybe we should double pensions then and pay for it with an income tax rise.'

    Or maybe we should cut down the number of public employees and actually give the money to the pensioners instead of the bureaucracy.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 117: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 117: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 116. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 19 Nov 2012 19:42

    #114. - quake wrote:
    "Maybe we should double pensions then and pay for it with an income tax rise."

    Maybe we should introduce some real competition into the energy supply industry, so that retail prices reflected genuine wholesale prices again.

    With the present system, we would be better off re-nationalising the retail supply companies and avoiding the multiplication of administration costs which we have to pay for as customers and the waste of time having to change suppliers every year, in a futile attempt to find a lower tarriff for electricity and gas.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 116: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 116: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 115. Posted by John Marshall

    on 19 Nov 2012 15:07

    #94 Lazarus/
    When the BBC launched this discussion it was explained that these people were experts in climate change. Well now the list has been published we know there were no climate experts there only a bunch of activists and people out to gain from the climate alarmism.

    I would like to apologize to Dr. Bob Spicer who I accused of going over to the dark side because his name appeared in the ''expected list'' of attendees. He was not there according to the actual list. Perhaps he should have been since he has a vast knowledge of past environmental change something the BBC would be advised to explore.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 115: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 115: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 114. Posted by quake

    on 19 Nov 2012 14:23

    "It would be funny if it wasn't for the thousands of pensioners on a fixed income having to make a choice Now between food or heating - exacerbated by the massive hikes in energy bill costs all courtesy of this mad theory"

    Maybe we should double pensions then and pay for it with an income tax rise.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 114: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 114: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 113. Posted by openside50

    on 19 Nov 2012 13:15

    It's when I hear people on here claim that the revelation of who was on that 28gate list is meaningless, I know then that they will never admit to any failing any error any subterfuge no matter how blatant committed in the name of their cause

    This isn't reason it's religious zeal

    It would be funny if it wasn't for the thousands of pensioners on a fixed income having to make a choice Now between food or heating - exacerbated by the massive hikes in energy bill costs all courtesy of this mad theory - a choice that is literally killing some of them

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 113: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 113: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 112. Posted by ukpahonta

    on 19 Nov 2012 12:38

    Another piece of substantiated and evidenced opinion from the clearly un-ideological Andrew Orlowski:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/19/the_virus_that_ate_the_bbc/

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 112: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 112: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 111. Posted by Lazarus

    on 18 Nov 2012 20:58

    ukpahonta wrote:

    "Booker on the Beeb:"

    Thanks for that. This proves my point exactly. Just like Delingpole, here we have a blogger with an agenda acting as a echo chamber in trying to create a 'Gate', and people who want their biases confirming will want to take this as an acceptable standard of journalism.

    Booker starts by claiming a seminar with a clearly define objective that can be seen on the internet is a secret and then further claims that the BEEB has broken its charter when the accepted outcome from this seminar is document available as PDF download and demonstrates exactly the opposite.

    Booker then goes through a lot of innuendo and unsubstantiated and un-evidenced opinion to give the impression of a scandal without actually stating clearly what the problem is or how exactly the BBC Charter has been broken But it must be right? - Because the BBC report the science and that contradicts his ideological beliefs.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 111: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 111: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 110. Posted by greensand

    on 18 Nov 2012 17:42

    @109. newdwr54

    Now you accept that there had to be a base period one issue is resolved.

    The other aspect was simply had the claimed effect of the reduction in the natural variations had been increasing or were they linear throughout the period.

    From your reply I gather that the claimed effect had been applied as an average throughout the whole period. However you have observed that in fact the claimed effect had been increasing over the period and had continued to do so since the period end in 2010. i.e. that natural variations were having an increasing effect upon the temperature trend of this planet.

    With that I will end as I said before “Might be worth revisit if and when the issue gains any prominence or importance.”

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 110: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 110: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 109. Posted by newdwr54

    on 18 Nov 2012 16:40

    107. greensand:

    Well, we may be talking a cross purposes or something, but I can't resist one more attempt to explain what I mean, then I'll shut up, or go and bother the Delingpolians or something. (Btw, I'm aware that you already know most of this, but I'm just setting the scene.)

    The HadCRUT3 (HC3) anomaly 'baseline value' is the average of global land and sea surface temperatures taken between 1961-1990. This value would itself be the product of global fluctuations in things like TSI and ENSO, volcanic eruptions, changes in greenhouse gases and industrial aerosol concentrations, etc over that period.

    Having set the value of this baseline period to 'zero', variations from it, or anomalies, must be assumed to be caused by changes in these various 'forcings' on climate. The period 1979 to 2010 for instance was warmer than the baseline period, with a linear warming rate of +0.16C per decade.

    It's the job of climate scientists to explain why that warming occurred. They look at all the known forcings to see if changes in them might explain the warming trend. In the specific case of FR11, they looked at TSI and ENSO fluctuations between 1979 and 2010 (also volcanic aerosols, but it's already complicated enough).

    What they found was that during that time both TSI and ENSO should actually have contributed a very slight cooling effect on climate. For example the rate of TSI reduced on average throughout the period, and was much lower than it was during the baseline period. Since the net effect of TSI and ENSO between 1979 and 2010 was cooling, then clearly these cannot explain the warming that was observed over that period. One or more of the other forcings must be the culprit.

    If you cast your mind back, I made the point that over the past 17 years (with 17 years being identified as the period over which a man-made warming signal should become apparent in surface temperature records) the cooling influence of both ENSO and TSI has actually increased from what it was in the period 1979-2010.

    So the figures for the cooling impact of TSI and ENSO, as calculated by FR11, are too low to apply to the previous 17 years data. They would understate the cooling influence. Despite this, warming has continued at around +0.10C per decade in the past 17 years according to HC4. Here is a graph showing the enhanced reduction in TSI over the past 17 years relative to the period 1979-2010: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1979/plot/pmod/from:1976/to:2010/trend/plot/pmod/from:1995.75/trend

    Apologies for the length of this post.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 109: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 109: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 108. Posted by ukpahonta

    on 18 Nov 2012 14:55

    'Today’s event proved to be a constructive discussion, which highlighted the difficulties faced by all economic journalists across the media in explaining to the public the debates about the economy. Overall, participants in the discussion thought the BBC did a good job in meeting these challenges. For the BBC, the overarching theme that emerged was that questioning, challenge and explaining a lack of certainty was essential, as was ensuring that the BBC continues to reflect the span of opinion.'
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/double-standards-bbc-seminar-on-impartiality-in-economics-reporting-vs-the-climate-twentyeightgate-affair/

    'So, are we able to find the list of attendees at the economics seminar?
    Why yes, there it is, linked at the bottom of this page on the BBC website'

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/economics_seminar.html

    Obviously no message to passed on about economics!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 108: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 108: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous