Roar and Scream – Rise to that?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Among blue-water sailors like me, the ocean area from 40° South to 50° South is called the “Fifty One” because of the strength of the winds that blow there so often.

And the next ten degrees south of it? These are called “Screaming 50’s”. There, the wind can blow unimpeded throughout the world.

Figure 1. Extreme cold.

Compared to Antarctica, Arctic weather is much less complicated. The North Pole lies under the Arctic Ocean, most of the time covered with ice. On the other hand, Antarctica has a continent in between. And it’s mostly a high altitude that’s a permanently frozen block of ice. It dumps icy winds and chunks of ice into the surrounding ocean. Due to constant winds and storms, the “mixed layer” around Antarctica is deeper than anywhere else in the world.

Figure 2. Mixed layer depth.

And why should this be noted? Well, I was asked to review a recent peer-reviewed study called “20th century ocean warming simulated in the Amundsen Sea, West Antarctica“.

And where is the Amundsen Sea when it is at home? It is off the coast of Antarctica, the temperature drops below 60°S.

Figure 3. Ocean warming trends, showing the Amundsen Sea.

A short digression. Roald Amundsen was one of my heroes when I was a kid. He was a famous polar explorer. He led the first expedition to reach the South Pole. He was also the first person to sail the Northwest from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean across the top of Asia and Europe. As a young boy, I remember seeing his ship “Gjøa,” the one he used for the Northwest Passage, up the blocks of Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. Even as an inexperienced young sailor, I was amazed at how small it was, at only 70 feet (21 meters) long. Amundsen certainly has pure brass albondigas… but I digress

The press release about the study is “Researchers demonstrate new link between greenhouse gases and sea level rise“. Inter alia, it says (emphasis mine):

A new study provides first proof that increased greenhouse gases have a lasting impact on warming over the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica. Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) say that while others have suggested the link, no one has been able to prove it.

Well… in short, no. The study did not provide any evidence, not a single scrap of scrap. Instead, what it provides is the result of computer models that use another computer model as input.

Sigh. Look, if computer models were “proof”, I would be a very rich man based on a computer model based on my 1980 stock market evolution… but the results of the model Computer images are not proof. They are merely insights and, more importantly, misunderstandings of programmers that have become solid.

The study itself says:

Our simulations are performed using a general circulation model from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that includes the thermodynamic components of oceans, sea ice, and ice shelves. Here we build upon the Amundsen Sea configuration, which has been updated and re-adjusted to provide the best consistency with observations when forced to reanalyze the latest ERA5 atmosphere.

“ERA5 Atmospheric Reanalysis” is a must-have computer climate model with any data available. The model then fills in the blanks without the actual data… like the Amundsen Sea, where people just ventured very rarely, and even then only in modern times.

Let me get back to the question of the performance of climate models. This study is about sea level and ocean temperature. People keep telling me that climate models have worked well for decades. So I reviewed the first IPCC Assessment Report. Here is their sea level forecast:

Figure 4. Sea level forecast from IPCC AR1 Report.

And here’s a close-up of that number, with actual sea level rise overlaid on the graph.

Figure 5. Actual sea level rise, compared with IPCC forecast.

Professor …

Moving on to more modern models, this is a post-1981 estimated sea surface temperature (SST) model from several CMIP6 models. This is the computer output of the sea surface temperature identified in the CMIP6 models as the variable “TOS”, ocean surface temperature. Below I have compared them with the Reynolds OI SST observational dataset.

Figure 6. Modeled and observed sea surface temperature (SST) rise, 1981 – 2021

As you can see, the models… well… let me call them “much less accurate” and leave them as they are.

To get back to the Amundsen Sea, here are some of the complications that affect the weather there.

Figure 7. Amundsen Sea.

As you can see, sea temperature and weather are affected by Ocean Current, polar wind, Antarctic Slope Current, Amundsen Sea Polyna (open water) in the middle of Amundsen Bay sea ice, ocean depth change, and the sea of ​​ice is always changing. It is a complex area and the most difficult to model.

To return to RealWorld from ModelWorld, here’s a look at where and how the oceans have warmed and cooled since 1981.

Figure 8. Decay trends in sea surface temperature (SST), Reynolds OI observational dataset.

As you can see, the excise tax in the Amundsen Sea has had a bit of a cooling off during this 41 year period.

Moving on, how well do their model results agree with ERA5 reanalysis? Here are their pictures:

Figure 9. Original caption: “Time of conditions in Pacific Pacemaker Team (PACE) simulation (blue) and ERA5 simulation (red). The thinner blue lines show the 20 members of the PACE group, while the thicker blue line shows the group significance. (a) Local wind (m/s) averaged at shelf breaking. (b) The average temperature (°C) on the continental shelf of the Amundsen Sea ranges from 200 to 700 m. (c) Base melt flux (Gt/y) for the ice shelves between Dotson and Cosgrove.

YES! The models themselves don’t even initiate an approximate re-analysis of the ERA5, which is the information used as input to the models. And like Reynolds OI SST, a reanalysis of ERA5 shows slightly chilly temperatures in the Amundsen Sea, where the models claim to be warming up… bad model, no cookies!

Oh, that’s right, almost forgot. I did an analysis looking for what I call “weasel words” in their research. These are words that show that their conclusions are weak. These include “possible”, “possible”, “possible”, “possible”, “reasonable”, “likely”, “suggest” and “assumption”. Those words were used a total of 34 times in their study… no bueno.

In conclusion, the study itself says (emphasis mine);

Rapid ice loss is occurring in the Amundsen Sea area of ​​the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This ice loss is thought to be a long-term response to oceanographic coercion, but ocean conditions in the Amundsen Sea are unknown before 1994. Here, we present a study modeling the conditions of the Amundsen Sea from 1920 to 2013, using a group of ice-ocean simulations forced by climate modeling experiments.

“Simulation forced by climate modeling experiments” for a location with ocean conditions “Unspecified before 1994” … It’s models on top of models, what could happen? It is clearly destined to be a leading article in “Journal of adverse outcomes“.

I cry for the death of science.

Finally, let me mention that the Amundsen Sea covers only 0.085% of the total ocean area… it seems like what we have here are scientists with models looking for funding. Not saying it’s a bad thing, just that it can easily lead to… good… this kind of research.

Here, I just spent three days (well, semi-day, I’m retired) cutting a few acres of the steep hillside in our open forest… and today, rain, rain, wonderful. Life is good, what’s not to like?

My best wishes to all of you,

w.

AS USE: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are responding to so we can be clear on your topic.