Zwally was right

“Projections of Antarctic SMB changes over the 21st century thus indicate a negative contribution to sea level because of the projected widespread increase in snowfall associated with warming air temperatures (Krinner et al., 2007; Uotila et al., 2007; Bracegirdle et al., 2008). Several studies (Krinner et al., 2007; Uotila et al., 2007; Bengtsson et al., 2011) have shown that the precipitation increase is directly linked to atmospheric warming via the increased moisture holding capacity of warmer air, and is therefore larger for scenarios of greater warming. The relationship is exponential, resulting in an increase of SMB as a function of Antarctic SAT change evaluated in various recent studies with high-resolution (~60 km) models as 3.7% °C–1 (Bengtsson et al., 2011), 4.8% °C–1 (Ligtenberg et al., 2013) and ~7% °C–1 (Krinner et al., 2007). These agree well with the sensitivity of 5.1 ± 1.5% °C–1 (one standard deviation) of CMIP3 AOGCMs (Gregory and Huybrechts, 2006).” – AR5
Zwally did a study that said AR5 was right, but of course, he is the outlier. And he’s wrong. He found global warming and of course it’s not true because I’ll say, Antarctica is gaining ice sheet mass on land.

Oceans absorb excess warmth

Jones and Ricketts:

“We propose that there is negligible in situ atmospheric warming and that almost all of the added heat trapped by anthropogenic greenhouse gases is absorbed by and stored in the ocean. It Jones and James H. Ricketts is subsequently released through the action of oscillatory mechanisms associated with regime shifts. Most heat (long-wave radiation) is trapped near the ground or ocean surface and much of that is radiated downwards (Trenberth, 2011). The atmosphere as a whole has little intrinsic heat memory and does not warm independently of the surface.

This is supported by observations on land where the overpassing air mass takes on the characteristics of the underlying surface, achieving energy balance within a 300 m distance (Morton, 1983). When passing from land to water, this will see all of the available heat energy taken up by water if the temperature of the air mass exceeds that of water (Morton, 1983, 1986), with the temperature of the overpassing air mass reaching equilibrium with the water beneath within a very short time. Very little of the heat trapped over land can be absorbed by the land surface, but will be transported from land to ocean within a few days to a few weeks, where it can be absorbed (the high latitudes being an exception).”

New ‘Karl-buster’ paper confirms ‘the pause’, and climate models failure

Weather weirding

My lake near Lake Minnetonka of about 140 acres in size and with 8 feet of average depth went ice out on March 7th. Wind speeds were at least 30 mph for a sustained time. My lake is now ice in. I do not recall this happening in the past 2 decades. I typically see 2 regime changes per year. Looks like will have double that amount for 2017. I’d say the high winds forced a regime swap removing lake insulation. The lake wanted its ice back and got it.

I’ve also seen another rare occurrence. Typically the creek/ditch outletting to Lake Minnetonka stops doing that before and during Winter. The creek is dry. It will flow all Winter this year as it did a year ago. Back to back occurrences means what? There has not been unusually high levels of precipitation. Call our recent Winters milder. Cold decreases water flow. With global warming, farmland may drain more in Winter. The farmers can get into the fields earlier. They may need less tile. There may be less Spring Flooding in Fargo. Perhaps it’s the case that a sped up hydrological cycle is better.

Arctic sea ice adapts

“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”

Arctic sea ice retreat does allow some additional warming of the Arctic Ocean during some months of the year. Then each year Fall and then Winter arrives and it retakes most of the area it lost earlier.

The Arctic Energy Budget

The Arctic Energy Budget:

‘https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwim14nEz43SAhXD6YMKHdwOAPIQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.colorado.edu%2Fgeography%2Fclass_homepages%2Fgeog_5241_f09%2Fmedia%2FClass_Notes%2Fweek_2.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE9iAqaIDDrlZ-ex7PYBSqmaaFvZw&sig2=3b6VYa1-DvAJ1DE8wt3YcQ&cad=rja 

Does a lack of sea ice in the Arctic increase Northward ocean heat transport?

Is there a climate equilibrium, a strange attractor?

Here I respond to popesclimatetheory:

Week in review – science and policy edition

“This is how ice cycles work. Warm and Cold periods must alternate, there is no stable equilibrium in between. When temperature is in between, it is always a time of advancing or retreating ice.”

I am not disagreeing with you. What if there was an equilibrium? That was constantly being overshot by the climate. The equilibrium would be the strange attractor. The climate would orbit the attractor alternating between warm and cool. On the glacial/interglacial scale the orbit would be elliptical. Like a comet’s. As glacials last longer.

Wandering down another road, The Earth is closest to the Sun on about January 4. A water planet is suggested to store heat in its oceans during the closest approach to the Sun and release some of it slowly thereafter. The Southern oceans would arguably warm each year and store some of that. Seems good for capturing energy. The NH might not do so well with that if the closest approach was during July with so much more land when compared to the SH. All things being equal, a water planet would do better with more elliptical orbits.

Here I expand one a possible equilibrium:

I think there’s an average temperature going back say 400,000 years. Through a number of long cycles. This average could be thought of as the value of the strange attractor assuming no changes during this time frame. One can make an equation where most values converge on the equilibrium as they spiral into that or one where they orbit the same point that the equilibrium sits at. Like Lorenz did. The Earth orbits the Sun. Its average position is what? I’d say pretty close to the Sun or in it, though I may be torturing the definition of average. What is the equilibrium position of the Earth? We could say there is none. Or there is one and the Earth will not reach for a more than a billion years because of the vector arrow that all stable orbiting bodies have, its forward speed. There is this place the Earth is trying to get to but one of its vector arrows prevent that. This place is our Sun.

Lopsided PDF and CMIP5 ensemble means

brandongates linked to this:

cmip3-52bvs2bobs

For 16 years everything stayed below the CMIP5 ensemble mean. What is that called? You have your about 95% and you stay in the lower half for that long. Think of a PDF. Better yet, think of the PDF changing with a regime change. Rotate it 180 degrees with the a regime change so it is now its former self’s mirror image. El Nino periods would then be out there in the long tail or when PDF has flipped.

Look at CMIP3 on the plot. In about 1998 the two CMIPs diverge. About 0.1 C is added to CMIP5. CMIP 3 provides much more reasonable and useful information.