NSIDC Reports That Antarctica is Cooling and Sea Ice is Increasing

OPPS should read statistical not significant .
doh!

I’m thoroughly convinced climate scientists absolutely positively don’t know much of anything with any degree of certainty except that they are uncertain.

FLASH!!
NSIDC confirms RealClimate conclusions of a cooling Antarctica and ice increasing!

Darn it! How is the ocean going to rise 20 feet and flood everthing per Al Gore if Antarctica doesn’t hurry up and melt! Maybe Al should spend some of his carbon credit booty spreading soot over the Antarctic ice cap so that he can actually be right about something for once in his life.

While this increase in Antarctic sea ice is interesting, it as strong an upward slope as the downward slope in the Arctic sea has been since 1978 or so. Still, in merits watching. Every AGW model shows that at some point, Antarctic sea ice will follow along with the Arctic sea ice and show a decline by sometime later this century. The Ozone hole issue may be causing some of this growth, or it could be something else entirely. I will watch the Antarctic sea ice closely in the next few years, and if the increase continues, or the Arctic Sea ice begins to grow again (on an annualized basis), over several seasons, my faith in the AGW hypothesis will be diminished.
Meanwhile, at 14,000 ft. in the troposphere, global temps have set new 20 year record highs every day in March, and 2010 remains on track to be the warmest year on instrument record. Along with the long term condition of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, these kinds of troposheric records I watch closely. I’m sure AGW skeptics would say it is all El Nino related, for it certainly isn’t a super-active sun. But it is exactly in line with AGW models, so this too, must be considered by an honest observer.

The radius of Earth is 6400km so the surface area is 3.14*4*6400^2 or 5e8 sq km. if 70% is ocean thats 3.5e8 sqkm of ocean surface. 100 cubic km of ice per year will raise the sea level by 100/3.5e8 km = 2.9e-7km which equals 0.29mm per year. Since 2002 is 8 years so a total rise of 2.3 mm.
I realise the initial report is countermanded by the later one but even if it were correct the rise of 60 meters at the rate indicated would take a while:- say about 200,000 years!!!!
Seems a shame they missed that little tidbit.

NASA’s Explanation
January 12, 2010
“There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent’s giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as “proof” that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.”
For more on the subject, see
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=42399

The hits keep on coming — a regular hits’ parade.
Antarctica is getting cooler and ice is expanding.
AGW is melting like the wicked witch of the West in the Wizard of OZ.
And all it took was a pale of water — in this case facts and evidence — who would have thunk it…

Isn’t most of the ice in Antarctica land-based, not sea-ice? So, isn’t it more important to monitor the mass of the land-based ice.? How has that been changing?

Sea ice also freezes at lower temperatures than freshwater continental ice.

“A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region”
Is this a joke? The ozone hole was ‘discovered’ in the late 1970’s through early satellite data. Are we to assume, therefore, that prior to discovery by man the ozone hole did not exist or did not affect atmospheric circulation?

So…the man-made CO2 would have killed off all the penguins, but the man-made hole in the ozone layer saved them. Man giveth and man taketh away. Man is a powerful deity! Worship services to be held at ten o’clock Sunday morning at the “Tabernacle of The Mercenary Missionaries”.

Actually Artic might be gettin colder too
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
even clicking on each year I dont discern any trend do you?

Don’t forget those Antarctic volcanoes!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/
There is a good reason for the West Antarctic to be warming.

MaxL,
If you object to the NSIDC graph and their statements about sea ice growth, you should let them know. They are very responsive to queries.

Still summer in Antarctica, and temperatures at Vostok are minus 60 F, forecast to hit minus 79 F later in the week.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=-78.44999695,106.87000275

Steve Goddard (22:06:34) :
Sea ice forms at lower latitudes and lower elevations (i.e. warmer places) than the continental ice, which exists at colder places closer to the pole and at higher elevations.
This article is about sea ice, but it should be apparent that it would be impossible for a region of sea ice to be growing and nearby continental ice to be melting.
=====
NASA says
“The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.”

NASA had might as well said that the answer was 42. What difference does it make that ice can flow without melting?

Steve Goddard (22:37:15
I don’t find the Ozone hole story very convincing,
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/ozoneap.jpg
Why would summer temperatures in Antarctica be affected?
Transport inbound due to an enhanced polar vortex.
and because it is getting smaller each year
1979-2009 DU minimums.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/anacticozoneduanomalies.jpg
There is some interesting studies in causal mechanisms eg Callis et al 1998
Sinnhuber et al 2006 have some discussion on this.
Abstract. Long-term measurements of polar ozone show
an unexpectedly large decadal scale variability in the midstratosphere
during winter. Negative ozone anomalies are
strongly correlated with the flux of energetic electrons in
the radiation belt, which is modulated by the 11-year solar
cycle. The magnitude of the observed decadal ozone
changes (20%) is much larger than any previously reported
solar cycle effect in the atmosphere up to this altitude. The
early-winter ozone anomalies subsequently propagate downward
into the lower stratosphere and may even influence total
ozone and meteorological conditions during spring. These
findings suggest a previously unrecognized mechanism by
which solar variability impacts on climate through changes
in polar ozone.:
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/Sinnhuberetal.jpg

Geoff Sherrington (00:13:54) :
Wren (21:37:09) :
“NASA’s Explanation about Antarctic ice volume changing, ‘The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting’.”
It can also flow without much heat change. So what is the importance of ice extent measurements anyhow?
It can also disappear without melting. Good ol’ sublimation happens in dry air, and when fresh snowfall doesn’t replace the sublimated ice, the result is — a net loss of ice volume.
Question: Does NASA track annual total snowfall in Antarctica?

The “Global Warming” Machine Just Keeps Running…
The world will almost certainly fail to draw up a new treaty on climate change this year, the minister in charge of last year’s Copenhagen summit has admitted, delivering a heavy blow to hopes for a swift global ­settlement.
Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister who masterminded the summit of world leaders on global warming last year and is now the European commissioner for climate change, says negotiations were not progressing fast enough for a treaty to be signed soon. She also gave warning that pushing too hard for a treaty this year could be counterproductive.
“To get every detail set in the next nine months looks very difficult,” she said. “Europe would love that to happen, and I would love that to happen … but my feeling is that it is going to be very difficult to get a treaty.”
Governments had been hoping to forge a final treaty at a global conference this December in Mexico, after failing to do so in Copenhagen. However, Ms Hedegaard said this was more likely to happen at a follow-up meeting next year in South Africa. That would still allow governments to meet their self-imposed deadline of forging a new agreement before the end of 2012, when the current provisions of the world’s only existing treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, the 1997 Kyoto protocol, expire.
Ms Hedegaard defended the Copenhagen summit, which attracted loud criticism, especially for the chaotic way in which it finished. She said that calling world leaders to the long-running negotiations had ensured rapid progress towards the end, when for the first time developed and developing countries mutually agreed limits on their emissions. But she said there would not be another Copenhagen-style summit. “You can do such a thing one time,” she said. The price of failure, if diplomats attempted to force an agreement this year, was too high, Ms Hedegaard said. “People would say let’s skip that idea, let’s skip the UN thing,” she said.
She also defended climate scientists, saying the handful of flaws in the 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the e-mails in which scientists talked of concealing data did not affect the large body of scientific evidence amassed over decades.
The UN climate talks have been going on since 1992, when world governments signed the first legally binding treaty aimed at avoiding dangerous levels of climate change. The Kyoto protocol failed because it did not impose obligations on developing countries and was rejected by the U.S.
***************************************************************************
If the majority of political leaders are stupid enough to still believe in all the lying propaganda about man-made global warming, then maybe it’s time for the cockroaches to have a go.

Antarctica “has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002”

Spread over the 14 million km2 of Antarctica, that amounts to an average reduction of ice thickness of just over 0.7 mm. Anyone who believes it is possible to accurately measure so small a loss of ice from a satellite is kidding themselves IMHO.

It can also disappear without melting. Good ol’ sublimation happens in dry air, and when fresh snowfall doesn’t replace the sublimated ice, the result is — a net loss of ice volume.
The argument is not whether the Antarctic is losing ice. It is whether it is getting warmer.
Adding extra sea ice is pretty much contradictory to it getting warmer. If you want to show warming, then you need to answer this directly, not change the subject to another area.
Speculation of sublimation causing the loss of shelf ice doesn’t do that. It may well be that because it is colder, in general, that less snow is falling, as the air passing over is less moist. Which means the losses to wind are not being replaced. So losses of shelf ice to sublimation could well be proof of cooling. You need to show otherwise, not speculate.
(BTW the vapour pressure of water at Antarctic temperatures is pretty low. I bet more actually just blows off.)

Never before in human history have so many world leaders come so close to looking like total prats. They all know this climategate affair came within a hair’s breadth of becoming the biggest scientific and political scandal in world history and one which would forever stain the hands of those who went to the Jokenhagen Circus. Think about it! 50 trillion dollars being thrown away on the say so of a few “scientists” so incompetent they threw away vital data and couldn’t e.g. answer simple FOI requests. And these world leaders got to walk away into the snow storm without serious collateral damage.
Who was really responsible for the mess at the CRU and US meddling? It was Brown and Obama, and if the sceptics had really been the superb big-oil backed lobby machine, these two wouldn’t been held directly accountable for the mess their governments created and more than likely one or the other would have been forced to resign.
They know they got away with it by the skin of their political teeth, and they know they probably will not get away so lightly next time!

Well, as long as I am still awake… from Wikipedia again “Greenland ice sheet covers 1,755,637 km2 (677,676 sq mi) (81%) and has a volume of approximately 2,850,000 cubic kilometres” and “The Antarctic ice sheet… covers an area of almost 14 million square km and contains 30 million cubic km of ice.” then 30,000,000 divided by 2,850,000 = 10.52 times as much ice on Antarctica as Greenland. So, we would have to melt 73% of the ice on Antarctica and Greenland to get a 197 ft rise in sea level, if and only if everyone with beach front property built a levee of 200 ft height. The conclusion is Earth Observatory needs an editor who can distinguish the difference between 100 cu km of ice and 23,980,500 cu km of ice.

Shona is right on. What do 40 years or so of observations of weather say about climate? Only that the pace of “change” (I prefer the term evolution) is well within the historical proxy parameters of the last 2,000 years, ie the natural variability that brought us the LIA, various minimums and the MWP.
This, in and of itself, is counter to the implications of the AGW hypothesis which predicts unprecedented warming MUST be occurring since circa 1950 well outside of historical precedents…rationally, that this is not the case is reason enough for falsification.
What does one call a hypothesis whose forecasts are not confirmed by observed events?

Even Hollywood snubs Global Warming
“HOLLYWOOD, Calif., March 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The month of Avatar versus Hurt Locker Oscar predictions came to a close on March 7th with the Hurt Locker overtaking Avatar for Best Picture and Kathryn Bigelow trumping James Cameron for Best Director, causing environmentalists to see red. If you are one of the dozen people who haven’t seen Avatar yet, the environmental message shines through the jaw-dropping special effects – the dangers of global warming, respecting Mother Nature, and environmental resource management.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/oscars-avatar-snub-sparks-voting-frenzy-at-green-globe-film-awards-87099587.html
I heard the news and it didn’t twig until afterwards – particularly as I’ve not seen Avatar. But when it gets pointed out: environment versus war movie, and the war movie won!! There’s even a book out with some maniac climate scientists as the baddy. What next? A film of climategate whereby some weatherman saves the world from the clutches of man and evil scientist hell-bent on taking over the world?

Weather!
What makes Antarctic land ice grow? Snow and rain!
What makes it move? Gravity!
What makes it melt? Warming!
What makes it to freeze? Cooling!
So how does the boring disregarded weather affect both ices. Cooling for sea ice! Snow and temperarutres below zero for land ice.
Weather made arctic ices disappear 2007 strong long similar winds transported the ice out of the straight.
Do we now how much the weather increased/decreased the landice in Antarctica? No! Do we now how long the “delay in or more rapid movement is conected with landice? Wheather plays an extreme important role in how the poles changes. The proof is at hand in the Arctic this year!
Can anyone remeber the time long long ago before the “climate hype” when observations of the weather ment anything and explanined everything?
Now adays tables are turned…”Climate” is explaining weather? Climate is supposed ti explain shifts in the poles.Its time to go back to basics! Weather is basic!

Antarctic is a dynamic system, like australia it is a desert with only about 100mm of ice per year accumulating at the pole up to 1m at the coast , up .45 m of ablation occurs annually due mainly to wind blown ice particles flowing into the oceans.
” A database of accumulation values for 5365 gridpoint locations with 50 km spacing is interpolated from the isopleth map, giving a bulk accumulation of 2151 Gt a−1 and a mean of 159 kg m−2a−1 for an area of 13.53 × 106 km2. Following the implementation of deflation and ablation adjustments applicable to sectors of the coastal zone, the accumulation values are reduced to 2020 Gt a−1 and 149 kg m−2a−1.”
glacial ice flows move glacier ice to the oceans at rates up to 2m per day so between ice flow & ablation for the antarctic ice sheet to remain static 2100 gigatons of ice has to flow off the continent each year. ie 2100 billion cu m.
the coastline of the antarctic is about 15000 km.
thats a lot of icebergs say 300 sq km per annum at 100m thick.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2000/00000031/00000001/art00028
http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/kees99-1.pdf

Shona (01:05:34) :
And I would like to know how people are already saying that 2010 will be record hot, when it’s only March. Are they astrologers or something?
You don’t think that “or something” has anything to do with the fact that “they” have their fingers controlling the machines measuring what defines what “hot” is? You’ve got a good question, how do they already know ten months in advance?

Sea ice is floating on warm water, the base of the ice being in thermal equilibrium with the sea water. If that water gets just a little bit warmer, you’re going to get a lot more melting, with the floating ice turning into more water. Big deal, the displacement remains the same so sea level doesn’t rise significantly.
Ice on land is not in thermal equilibrium with anything that is above melting point so the same rules don’t apply. During the winter the sun doesn’t reach Antartica at all for 6 months. It is also high up. Consequently winter temperatures are -60Celsius. But the Summer only gets as warm as -30Celsius. SO HOW CAN THE LAND ICE MELT!!!!
It can’t. The earth would have to warm enormously for ANY of the land ice at Antartica to melt at all. But notice how the doom-merchant scientists are all so happy to conflate melting sea ice with the concept of rising sea levels due to melting land ice. It’s nonsense, and this hokum is just designed to pull the wool over the eyes of those that are suggestible and easily hoodwinked by the snake-oil salesmen. Why they are doing it I can only guess, but these “scientists” are not to be trusted.

R. Gates wrote: “Meanwhile, at 14,000 ft. in the troposphere, global temps have set new 20 year record highs every day in March, and 2010 remains on track to be the warmest year on instrument record. Along with the long term condition of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, these kinds of troposheric records I watch closely.”
Are these record temperatures because increased cloud cover below 14,000 feet is reflecting more heat upwards or at least preventing it from going downwards? In other words is the widespread cold/cloudy/snowy N. Hemisphere winter producing this heat upsurge at higher levels?
This would fit with the theory of more clouds when the sun is quiet. It would also fit the observations that heat discharge from the sun does not change a great deal (why AGW supporters reject it as a major cause of warming I think).
Similar heat volume coming in from the sun but less heat reaching the ground = higher temperatures higher up in the atmosphere. The heat has to go somewhere. It is simply that more of it is blocked off from reaching the ground.
So ironically could it really be that ‘hottest year/month on record’ = coldest year month on record’ but in a different place, i.e. at a different altitude?

Clearly the 30 year Antarctic trend is increasing. Another hit to GW.
By the way, :), are there readers here who could give Donna Laframboise a hand?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/03/help-audit-un-climate-report.html
Hope you WUWT does not mind my recruiting here. If so, just delete this post.
I think it would be interesting to check some references. This way the IPCC will never again think nobody is ever going to take the time to check them out.

D. Patterson (01:37:51) : (responding to R. Gates (21:19:02)) As water goes through a phase change from a gaseous vapor…
Enlightening, D. Patterson! Thank you.

Anthony,
I am about to show you why understanding the mechanics of what is happening in the antartic and planet is important.
We have been studying this planet as a circle and not a rotating body. The factors of a rotating body are much more different.
The axis of the planet runs through this area. Now because the planet rotates, the equator has a much larger measurement of distance in circumference. As you go to the poles the planet is smaller and smaller in distance in circumference.
The prevailing winds would always be moving one way. Notice the ice build up is consistant to forming on the side where least wind and waves would break them up.

NASA says
“The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.”
————–
Reply:
That’s a rather weird sentence; melted ice isn’t ice at all; it is water.
Everybody knows glaciers don’t stop moving in their wintertime. Solid rock flows all the time–at sufficient P & T it becomes plastic and deformation ensues. Most of the earth below the crust (called the Mantle) is plastic. Note: glacial ice is actually a “rock”; it meets the definition of a monomineralic rock; individual ice crystals in continental or glacial ice qualify as individual mineral entities.
Should Antarctic ice loss be factual, I see several possibilities:
1. There is actually a “tipping point” in ice flow; a warming of ~1 degree increases the rate of plastic deformation.
2. The Antarctic ice sheet is being warmed from beneath by an increase in subsurface continental heat flow. (Recent studies indicate some of the valleys in the Antarctic continent are actually filled with liquid water.)
3. The earth is suddenly spinning faster, causing centripetal forces to push ice to the periphery of the continent.
However, as Ryan Stephenson pointed out above, Antarctica is way below freezing in the summer months and much colder in the winter months. Besides, what warmth is imparted to the surface of the Antarctic during the summer isn’t going to penetrate that vast ice mass very deeply.
There may be some validity to my point #2 above, but the others are unsubstantiated. And I don’t see how ice loss in the Antarctic can be tied to the moderate warming the earth has experienced since the last Little Ice Age.

Steven (and other experts):
Interesting, but I have a question regarding the role of the ozone layer. The NSIDC claims that the Antarctic sea ice increased because of cooling due to the ozone hole and refers to a report by Turner. I have been reading parts of that (very lengthy) report and it states that in recent years there was no further decrease (perhaps even some recovery) of the ozone. So how can the ozone hole be held responsible for the continuing 3% yearly increase of sea ice there?? As far as I can see the ice increase has certainly not flattened since let’s say 1995.

It’s obviously not temperature doing it,
so it must have something to do with moisture in the air.
Isn’t AGW supposed to put more moisture in the air?

Applying my climate theory this is what should be happening:
i) Normally the Arctic will warm and the Antarctic will cool during a period when the climate system is gaining energy. Vice versa when the climate system is losing energy as now. Pointing to a relatively warm troposphere is not relevant here because a warm troposphere is generally an indication of net overall system cooling as energy leaves the oceans faster on it’s way to space.
ii) The reason for the two poles behaving differently is that one is an ocean surrounded by land and the other is land surrounded by ocean as I have explained elsewhere.
iii) I consider that the climate system entered a cooling mode around 2000 as evidenced by the start of a shift in the air circulation systems equatorward. That would be consistent with the Antarctic interior starting to become lesss cold.
iv) During a cooling period the air circulation systems wander more latitudinally than during a warming period because the expansion of the tropics does not constrain their latitudinal movements so much. Consequently one sees more flows of air into and out of the polar regions than occurs during a warming period.
v) So now what is happening is a slightly less cold Antarctic interior probably resulting in greater sublimation (but not melting) of ice in the interior but at the same time the outflowing cold air over the surrounding oceans is creating more sea ice.
Remember that the Antarctic is not a single climate zone. The interior is a climate zone of it’s own but the sea ice areas around it are an entirely separate zone.
Furthermore during a global warming period one would expect the sea ice to reduce as the interior becomes colder because the faster and tighter wind flow around the Antarctic will eat away at the margins of the sea ice constantly and the sea ice will not be renewed by so many cold outflows from the interior.
Thus both reports could be correct (though I doubt the suggested scale of the ice loss in the interior) and in accordance with my climate description. It is merely the interpretations that are wrong.

I should mention that the situation is rendered more complex when the speed of the outward flow of energy to space is contrained as possibly is now happening with the less active sun but that’s for another day and is explored more fully elsewhere.
I can envisage queries on my post (05:41:44) unless that factor is taken into account.

So. It seems that Nature, at one time, allowed scientific debate:
Brief Communications
Nature 432, 290-291 (18 November 2004) | doi:10.1038/432290b; Published online 17 November 2004
Atmospheric science: Early peak in Antarctic oscillation index
Julie M. Jones1 & Martin Widmann1
The principal extratropical atmospheric circulation mode in the Southern Hemisphere, the Antarctic oscillation (or Southern Hemisphere annular mode), represents fluctuations in the strength of the circumpolar vortex and has shown a trend towards a positive index in austral summer in recent decades, which has been linked to stratospheric ozone depletion1, 2 and to increased atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations3, 4. Here we reconstruct the austral summer (December–January) Antarctic oscillation index from sea-level pressure measurements over the twentieth century5 and find that large positive values, and positive trends of a similar magnitude to those of past decades, also occurred around 1960, and that strong negative trends occurred afterwards. This positive Antarctic oscillation index and large positive trend during a period before ozone-depleting chemicals were released into the atmosphere and before marked anthropogenic warming, together with the later negative trend, indicate that natural forcing factors or internal mechanisms in the climate system must also strongly influence the state of the Antarctic oscillation.
1. Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre, 21502 Geesthacht, Germany
Correspondence to: Julie M. Jones1 Email: jones@gkss.de

cassandra,
In the NASA article with the red map, they say the error is +/- 3 degrees. In other words an admission that the choice of red color was arbitrary, at best.

Glaciers expand and flow towards the ocean (like in Antarctica and Greenland) when their mass is increasing in the interior. Diminishing glaciers are characterized by retreat, not expansion.
As far as the gravity measurements go, they are very questionable, because there is no bedrock reference point under the ice for the vast majority of the continent. The tiny measured gravity changes could be due to isostasy or tectonic movement rather than ice loss.

Since the Ozone Hole is caused by excessive GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) which go along with this solar minimum, cooling makes sense.

What if the water cycle is not closed but opened?. During summer time above the pole and due to increased radiation, atmosphere´s oxygen is turned into Ozone (O3), which during winter time and specially when there are proton flares from the sun or increased cosmic rays, as during solar minimums (mainly composed of protons-90%-, which, btw, we must remember are Hydrogen Nucleii), then these react with ozone to produce water 2H+…O3=H2O+O2 and increase the “Ozone Hole” once again , then snow fall increases ice. So we have an ice cube making machine over there.

Given the current Ice extent in the Arctic, I’m not sure what they’re talking about
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Looks like the currents and wind patterns have changed and the Arctic is recovering quite nicely.

wayne (02:13:52) :
Thanks! I see my error. Antarctica is melting at 100 cu km/yr and, assuming no further accumulation, sea level will rise .000810 feet per year. Then, sense 2002 we could have had a sea level rise of 8 X .00081 ft or .00648 ft. rise. Or reverting to metric, .00648 ft X 30.48 cm/ft = .1975 cm sea level rise. AH!! HA!! The editors, writers and peer reviewers at Earth Observatory can’t distinguish between .197 cm and 197 ft. As a former Math and Science teacher I had students like that… but none of them had PhD’s… Perhaps I was wrong in believing they never would.

Cassandra King (05:47:06) : It seems supremely idiotic and not a little desperate to resort to measuring in tiny fractions and using the red/blue colours to enhance the effect
That reveals NASA involvement in the international “climate change” conspiracy, and the same conduct is found in many official institutions around the world, as was found in the world connections of climate-gate emails: There were “partners”-presumably well funded too-everywhere.

Steve Goddard said:
“This article is about sea ice, but it should be apparent that it would be impossible for a region of sea ice to be growing and nearby continental ice to be melting.”
This is incorrect. The two form by completely different processes and dynamics. Sea ice formation is an annual process, much more closely governed by short term fluctuations. Continental ice, i.e. glaciers, is much longer term process. The growth of shrinkage of one does not necessarily indicate the status of the other. Also, as I’ve pointed out several times when AGW skeptics get all excited about the relatively modest year-to-year growth of Antarctic sea ice, the southern sea ice has had negative anomalies within the past few years, whereas the arctic sea ice has not had a positive anomaly since 2004…i.e. the northern sea ice is shrinking faster than the southern sea ice is growing.
Having said this, I do believe it is possible for the first time since 2004 that the arctic may see a positive anomaly in the next few weeks. I’ll watch this closely, and if the arctic begins to have more frequent positive anomalies, that last more than just a year, it will strongly diminish my belief in the accuracy the AGW hypothesis. The reason I want to see if the positive anomaly (should it occur in the arctic sea ice) last more than just a year, is I believe the recent long and deep solar minimum and la nina certainly had some effect on the arctic, as well as the very negative AO index this winter. So though we may not see a new record low for arctic sea ice this summer, if we actually begin to see positive anomalies for an extended period of time, this would be very damaging to the AGW hypothesis.

In a recent article concerning record drought in SW Australia, they explain that record snowfall at Law Dome in Antarctica is unprecedented in 750 years is likely tied to the drought. I had not read about that before but googling “law dome”+750 produces lots of results. I’ve learned (I think) that the anomaly has been going on for decades and it is this decadal +ve anomalous snowfall that breaks the 750 year record.
So, if sea ice is increasing, and snowfall (in parts) is at record levels, why does some warming in the west dominate the news? WUWT? What is the truth?

Steve Goddard said :
“R. Gates,
How could we be “on track” for a record warm year in early March?”
January and February running far above the 20 year average in tropospheric temps at all levels, with much of the time spent above the 20 year record highs for tropospheric temps. Every day in March has been above the 20 year record high for tropospheric temps at 14,000 ft for example. So my projection is based on the current trend, which if it continued, would make 2010 the warmest on instrument record. The only mechanism to cool the year would be a Mt. Pinatubo type eruption, or a sudden and strong la nina developing. In this regard, I agree with the Met office, who also still predicts 2010 will be the warmest year on record.

I loved the SkepticalScience article. He conveniently forgot to attribute the cooling/expanding ice statements to NSIDC.
Scummy blogs like that are why people are losing interest in their religion.

R. Gates,
Again, GISS surface measurements show 2007 so far warmer than 2010, and that turned out to be a cold year. I’m still waiting to hear why satellite data shows huge spikes during ENSO events that are much smaller in the surface record.

I guess to put all this in perspective, one should really compare the two anomaly charts between the arctic and the antarctic. First look at the arctic chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
And then compare it to the antarctic chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Now ask yourself, which, just as a casual observer, appears to show a more dramatic slope up or down? If you said the arctic you’d be right, and furthermore, the arctic has not has a positive anomaly since 2004, whereas the antarctic had a NEGATIVE one just a few months back, which is hardly indicative and any dramatic sea ice growth for the region, and that is exactly the case– the year-to-year sea ice growth in the antarctic is not dramatic, but certainly merits monitoring. I think once more, this is a case of over-hyping the case, when a more moderate “interesting but not dramatic” stance is warranted.

Southern Hemisphere annular mode – SHAM.
How ironic.

MaxL (22:20:07) : Whenever displaying linear regressions it should be mandatory to give both the standard error of the estimate and the correlation coefficient (r).
Bravo! Furthermore there should be a estimate of the autocorrelation of the residuals. Time and time again these climate “anomaly trend” charts exhibit linear regressions onto what appear to be manifestly autocorrelated time series. When the series is autocorrelated any temporal trend has a much larger error bar than that for independent and identically distributed data (which is what linear regression is designed to work on).
And while we’re at it, can we stop these ad-hoc moving averages (8 years? 13 months? why?) that are supposed to “illustrate” the underlying trend.

wayne (00:03:55) :
“Why does no one mention the very possibility that Antarctica could be subsiding 0.7 mm/year instead of assuming loss of ice over the continent? Or could it possibly be a combination of both? The satellite is measuring height. That 0.7 mm would, over 14,000,000 km, equate to 100 cubic kilometers of ice loss also but would mean no ice has actually been lost. Can the Grace satellite’s instruments measure to this incredible precision. That is to 9 or 10 digits. Don’t know, will have to read the Grace instruments user, calibration, and specification manuals and procedures; NASA usually makes these public. And Grace was launched in 2002 which is when the ‘trend’ began. What? That questions immediately a possible secular drift. Just don’t foolishly accept statements tossed without concrete backup.”
There is also sublimation and compaction due to age… The amount of Ice is dependent on how much it snows vs how much melts due to warm temperatures, compacts, sublimates or melts due to the weight of the ice. To me the amount of continental ice would be a function of how much snow falls and the data says not much snow does fall at least in the interior.
From the Antarctica Connection Website
Coldest Temp:
-129°F (-89°C) on July 21, 1983
Location: Vostok Station
Warmest Temp:
+59°F (+15°C) on Jan 5, 1974
Location: Vanda Station
Mean Temps:
Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C)
Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C)
Why is Antarctica so Cold?
Several factors combine to making Antarctica one of the coldest and least hospitable places on the Earth:
* Unlike the Arctic region, Antarctica is a continent surrounded by an ocean which means that interior areas do not benefit from the moderating influence of water.
* With 98% of its area covered with snow and ice, the Antarctic continent reflects most of the sun’s light rather than absorbing it.
* The extreme dryness of the air causes any heat that is radiated back into the atmosphere to be lost instead of being absorbed by the water vapor in the atmosphere.
* During the winter, the size of Antarctica doubles as the surrounding sea water freezes, effectively blocking heat transfer from the warmer surrounding ocean.
* Antarctica has a higher average elevation than any other continent on Earth which results in even colder temperatures.
Blizzards:
Blizzards are a typical Antarctic phenomenon in which very little, if any, snow actually falls. Instead the snow is picked up and blown along the surface by the wind, resulting in blinding conditions in which objects less than a meter away may be invisible….
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/index.shtml

Here’s the most recent UAH anomaly map I’ve found so far.
http://climate.uah.edu/map_thumb/1208.jpg

Once again, global sea ice area is at the 30 year mean.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

D. Patterson (01:37:51) :
“As water goes through a phase change from a gaseous vapor to a liquid and from a liquid to a solid snow and ice, it liberates an extraordinary amount of thermal energy. When this phase change from a warmer water vapor or liquid to a colder solid snow and ice occurs in the troposphere, a certain amount of that thermal energy must be radiated into space….. In other words, when the Earth is cooling it must radiate elevated levels of thermal energy to space where the satellite instruments can record the thermal emissions resulting from the cooling.”
In other words when Dr. Roy Spencer showed high satellite temperature records in January 2010 it is actually show the earth is COOLING down by radiating more thermal energy thanks to the record snow and rainfall. Is that correct?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/04/january-uah-global-temperature-warmest/

R. Gates (07:48:54) :
“How could we be ‘on track’ for a record warm year in early March?”
January and February running far above the 20 year average in tropospheric temps at all levels, with much of the time spent above the 20 year record highs for tropospheric temps.
From NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, January 2010 — my emphasis:
* The global land surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F)—the twelfth warmest January on record. Land areas in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record for January. In the Northern Hemisphere, which has much more land, comparatively, land surface temperatures were 18th warmest on record.
* The worldwide ocean surface temperature for January 2010 was the second warmest—behind 1998—on record for January, 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F). This can be partially attributed to the persistence of El Niño across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC), El Niño is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
February’s data isn’t posted yet, and the archives only go back to 1998 — but it appears that the *surface* temperatures don’t justify a prediction that we’re in for “a record warm year.”

RockyRoad (04:22:37) :
NASA says
“The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.”…..
————–
Reply:
That’s a rather weird sentence; melted ice isn’t ice at all; it is water.
Should Antarctic ice loss be factual, I see several possibilities:”
Two other commentors have pointed to this article from the Geological Society that addresses the science. http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/page7209.html
The really interesting point made is
“It is also worth noting the geometry and age of the great icecaps. The Greenland, East Antarctica and West Antarctica ice sheets occupy kilometre-deep basins, and the ice cannot possibly slide downhill – it has to flow uphill. ..”
And yes they do consider ice a “rock” with plastic characteristics
“The threshold boundary between non-flowing ice and flowing ice marks the yield stress level. The brittle upper ice in an alpine glacier is a solid being carried along on plastic ice beneath.”

So, as we know from our observations of the sun, global cooling is coming. I noticed here in Pretoria, South Africa that last winter was colder than usual; in fact one of our solar panels froze up. Freezing weather is strange for Pretoria. I will let you know if this winter will be colder than usual again.

Cassandra,
The bottom line with Antarctica is that it is not doing what Hansen predicted in 1984, in fact it is doing the opposite of what he predicted.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf
Why can’t they just admit that they are wrong, instead of making increasingly ridiculous claims about future sea level rise?

Smokey,
Don B.’s chart doesn’t “debunk” anything I posted. Arctic sea ice has been in a year-on-year decline for many year, and the anomaly chart I posted, here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Is the absolute best way to see this decline. We’ve not see a positive anomaly in the arctic sea ice since 2004, and no amount of verbal cleverness or manipulation of short term data will change that either. And despite the attempts at both sides of the issue to spin data for their own interests, I only care about the truth of the situation. Even more to the point, I have openly said that if the arctic truly starts to show long term freqent positive anomalies, then I would seriously begin to doubt my own current belief that AGW is likely a correct hypothesis. However, when either side pushes and manipulates that data, it reminds me of the used car salesman approach, and I never buy used cars from them, simply because they are so seedy.

Hey, I bet the cold is coming from the SOUTH OF FRANCE.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8557570.stm?ls

Over time, the earth radiates out the same amount of energy as it receives, plus heat derived from radioactive decay. This is due to the first law of thermodynamics.

I work for kings
Give me wings
I’m a CRUdude
I need blings

Steve Goddard (08:46:56) :
Wren,
Hansen says it is “going away soon.”
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/news_repository/will-oceans-surge-59-centimetres-this-century-or-25-metres
==========
I read the cited article, and didn’t find Hansen quoted as saying it (antarctic) is “going away soon.”

D. Patterson said:
“(R. Gates)…makes the hugely over-simplistic and erroneous conclusion and impression these satellite observations constitute evidence of the whole Earth radiating at warmer levels.”
Nope, never said the “whole earth” once, and would never say the whole earth is radiating at warmer levels, as that would be a nonsensical and erroneous statement. The troposphereic temperature data is exeptional useful and important, and my whole point in even mentioning it is because it is diplaying exactly what we’d expect in January, February, and now into March 2010, if, as the Met Office has stated, and I also believe, there is a good chance that 2010 will be the warmest on instrument record. A warm troposphere is exactly what AGW models predict, as that is where the “action is” so to speak in terms of GH forcing…i.e. that’s where the GH gases do their business. LIkewise, in the same satellite data we see the Stratosphere is cooling, and that is exactly what AGW models predict. If the troposphereic temps were falling, or the stratospheric temps rising, it would not be a good sign for the AGW hypothesis.

R Gates,
The average temperature of the atmosphere at 14,000 feet is warm because of El Nino.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1978/plot/rss/from:1978
Two years ago it was low because of La Nina. Seems simple enough?

Wren (12:02:50) : That expression “going away soon” perhaps refers to the possibility of Hansen going somewhere else in his coal trains…
Anyway, Bon voyage!

vukcevic (11:30:51) : As logic teaches, he who denies a denier it’s a believer!!☺

@Wren (23:06:35) :
“NASA says
“The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.” ”
========================================
Wren, you’re faith in what “NASA says” is astounding. At this point in time, if NASA said the sky was blue, I’d go out side and look.

I think R. Gates makes an interesting point about AGW models.
It is his contention that the models are correct, so following this logic the record warm Troposphere temperatures in Jan, Feb and March actually corresponds with a very cold Northern Hemisphere on the ground.
So if the Troposphere temperatures are “as expected” by the AGW models then following his logic, all in the NH must prepare for very cold weather in the future.
Is this what the AGW models predict? certainly sounds catastrophic!

wes george (21:38:17) wrote:
What does one call a hypothesis that fails to yield useful predictions of observed data?
*********************************************
Well, I think a “Climate Change Scientist” (h/t to rob @ 03:28:33) would call it “Results!”

Remember what the doormouse said;
“Keep YOUR HEAD
Actually he said “Feed your head”, but that’s ok.
I have now canceled my order of a castle in the sky at 14,000 ft.
Thank you all.

Another absolute butchering of scientific data.
First off, Steven, you’re comparing NSIDC sea ice “extent” to NASAs “mass”. Two different metrics, obtained by different scientists, using different methods.
Second, NSIDC merely mentions a study that proposed an ozone hole-related cooling process. Conveniently, you ignore the entire FAQ section in which NSIDC clearly explains the scientific consensus (inclusive of NSIDC) on Antarctic sea ice, warming, cooling, etc. Here’s a particularly illuminating line:
“In terms of sea ice, climate model projections of Antarctic sea ice extent are in reasonable agreement with the observations to date. It also appears that atmospheric greenhouse gases, as well as the loss of ozone, have acted to increase the winds around Antarctica. Perhaps counter intuitively, this has further protected the Antarctic from warming and has fostered more ice growth.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#wintertimeantarctic

“In terms of sea ice, climate model projections of Antarctic sea ice extent are in reasonable agreement with the observations to date. It also appears that atmospheric greenhouse gases, as well as the loss of ozone, have acted to increase the winds around Antarctica. Perhaps counter intuitively, this has further protected the Antarctic from warming and has fostered more ice growth.”
So it is not melting, they know it is not melting, and even if was melting it would take most of forever to do it.
So why do they keep coming out with all those estimates of how much
water would be over everything if did melt and inundate us all ? Isn’
the whole thing rather disingenuous ?
The next time some numbskull starts railing at me about how Pittsburgh and Denver will be coastal cities by August I will spit on their shoe, and say
“Are you drowning yet ?” or “I refute it thus”.

Wren
If you won’t answer the simple question… than lay off. We know you want to take one possible piece of data from one source and pretend it has some huge meaning above all other observations. We get that, enough already.
The supposed loss of continental ice is a rediculously small trend and is NOT enough to validate the models or show any warming at all it is less that would be expected during an interglacial and so small it is doubtful that it exists at all.

Phil M,
Very nice straw man post. You are arguing with yourself, not my article.
I have a homework assignment for you.
1. Essay question (50 points) Propose a physical model where sea ice is freezing and adjacent continental ice is melting. Since you seem to believe it can occur.
2. True/False (25 points) NSIDC says Antarctic sea ice is increasing.
3. True/False (15 points) UAH says Antarctica is cooling and the NSIDC sea ice news explains why.
4. True/False (10 points) Sea level will rise 2-25 metres this century as Hansen has forecast.
-79F in Vostok on this fine summer day.

Ryan Stephenson (02:56:07) : Sea ice is floating on warm water, the base of the ice being in thermal equilibrium with the sea water. If that water gets just a little bit warmer, you’re going to get a lot more melting, with the floating ice turning into more water.
Warm water? Remind me to never ask you to draw a bath.

My argument, Steve, is with you intentionally and repeatedly miscasting the data. I’ve pointed out your errors and missteps numerous times. All this talk about cherry picking – here’s a good line from NSIDC, which you inadvertently overlooked, I suppose:
“Wintertime Antarctic sea ice is increasing at a small rate and with substantial natural year-to-year variability in the time series. While Antarctic sea ice reached a near-record-high annual minimum in March 2008, this does not indicate a significant long-term trend.”
That’s quite an important point you left out there, son. Maybe it’s you that should be doing homework, if you’re not too busy counting pixels somewhere.

Richard Sharpe (13:46:23)
“There is an alternative explanation: That the energy to heat up the troposphere is coming from the oceans.”
Absolutely right but only for so long as the current El Nino lasts.
And also only while the sun’s surface remains quiescent. From 1975 to 2000 the run of strong El Ninos was largely offset by the active sun which allowed a faster venting of the oceanic energy to space. Now with a quiet sun and an El Nino the excess energy from the oceans is restrained from being vented fast enough and some of that energy is being redirected downward in the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations to give cold mid latitudes and heavy snowfalls.
Leif Svalgaard ( 14:09:312)
Leif, as you should know I regard you as the master in all matters solar. However I think you are as adrift as anyone else when it comes to recognising the variety of interactions in the Earth’s processing of that solar energy.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think you see the Earth system as a black body radiating out to space at the appropriate rate for a body at some so called global temperature.
I don’t think you have a grip on the internal variability of the Earth system which is composed of numerous layers in both oceans and air all of which introduce their own variations in the rate of energy flow back out of the system once it has been received from the sun.
It’s not just a matter of radiative physics straight in and straight out. There are the matters of convection and conduction and the irregular block transfers of energy upwards and downwards by the phase changes of water and the albedo variability introduced by changes in cloudiness and snow/ice cover.
As you must accept, the thermosphere can warm or cool whilst other layers change in the opposite direction. The stratosphere seems to warm and cool opposite to the troposphere and the oceanic energy content increases as the troposphere cools and vice versa.
All those phenomena can only be explained by varying rates of energy transfer between layers.
Bob Tisdale is right with his concept of discharge and recharge between sun sea and air but I would extend that globally and over centuries and possibly millennia.
Willis’s thermostat hypothesis is right but I would also extend that globally and over centuries and millennia.
Some of the ideas from tallbloke, Erl Happ and Svensmark are on the right lines as regards the energy flow effects of chemical changes in the atmosphere but personally I think that is a second order effect compared to oceanic variability.
I wouldn’t even entirely exclude the ideas of vukcevic and those who support length of day and gravitational effects because they could influence the oceanic variability that the observational evidence strongly supports.
It really doesn’t seem right for you to be so dismissive of thoughts and ideas that relate to internal Earth system variability on the basis of your undoubted solar expertise.
I think that is why we have not been able to have a full meeting of minds.

Phil M,
You are again arguing a straw man. This article is about the March 3 Sea Ice News, which says the paragraph below. If they have inconsistent statements somewhere else on their web site, what does that have to do with this article? I quoted exactly what they said, in it’s entirety.
“Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region.”

Steve Goddard (22:06:34) :
This article is about sea ice, but it should be apparent that it would be impossible for a region of sea ice to be growing and nearby continental ice to be melting.
—————-
The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=42399
What do they call an Antarctic glacier once it flows into the ocean ?
Sea ice ?
The oceans surrounding Antarctica have been warming, so Schodlok doesn’t doubt that the ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water being brought up from the depths. But he admits that it hasn’t been proven rigorously, because satellites can’t measure underneath the ice.
Wouldn’t melting ice shelves, flowing continental glaciers, increased sea ice, and Antarctica losing ice at an increasing rate (GRACE satellite data), with surface temperatures seen by satellite being basically constant (with a small noise signal superimposed) all be consistent ?
Could 100 cubic kilometers of ice flowing off of Antarctica into the surrounding oceans every year be consistent with less sea ice ?

It would help clarity if all these articles by NSIDC (which is suppported/funded by NOAA, NASA, NSF), would include a simple matrix (excel format)summarizing findings. In a 5 sec look you could get the essense, instead of slogging through weasely summary verbiage. Verbiage in scientific communications is not the optimum way to show info.
Clarity in science maybe should be second only to integrity?
John

OT – but heavy snow and blizzards on the Mediterranean coast:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8557570.stm

” I can’t believe I’m among the first to comment!
Cooling Antarctica? Warming Arctic? So what? Perhaps we should just take the “Global” out of “Climate Change” and “Warming”, then we could all agree that climate does change, and warming can occur, but at different times and rates in different places. Climate is regional.
A good slogan might be- Climate Change- not new, not much, and not scary!”
Well-said!
This is, if I do not misread him, one of the themes of Roger Pielke, Sr. , who, along with Bill Gray, should be considered by President Romney for a Presidential medal, in honor of their fearless and lonely fight for the integrity of climate science.
Who says I’m always living in the past?
We are constantly exhorted not to take ‘weather’ for ‘cimate.’ But weather is what actually happens in a given place and a given time; it is the primary, phenomenal reality, and is what affects human life. Climate is a secondary, statistically abstracted reality.
Globally, January 2010 was the warmest in the 30-year satellite record. Yet the most populated and prosperous regions of the Northern Hemisphere from China through Western Europe, where at least one-third of the human population of the planet live, had the bitterest winter, all things considered, in thirty years. It was weather that disrupted daily human life in these areas, not the artefact (however useful) of a ‘global’ heat wave.
Weather is Hurricane Katrina, or an F-4 tornado flattening a town, or a lovely late April afternoon with the lilacs in bloom. Why should we have only to account for destructive events?
An increase or decrease in the number and /or intensity of landfalling hurricanes or of tornados, or of the frequency of rare days in June would be climate.
It seems to me that one general truth in play in all this AGW brouhaha is that atmospheric scientists should, at this stage of knowledge at least, beware of Grand Narratives. Isaac Newton apparently had an ego as broad as the heavens, but toward the end of his life, he said something to the effect that he felt like a child throwing pebbles into the limitless ocean and watching the ripples.
What a man! Mathematician, physicist, crackpot, alchemist, crackpot Biblical hermeneutician, proto-Whig and political actor in the crisis of 1688, director of the mint–and he felt but a child!

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/mollsat_ir_an.gif
Try this IR view of the globe I look at frequently, it is continually updated with the last 36 hours in 3 hour steps. But look at the storms skirting Antarctica and how most go right over the peninsula. No wonder it is much warmer.
Look at this every few days for a month or so and you may end with a different view of storms and clouds on a planet scale. The storms circulating Antarctica were basically constant over the last 4 months though about 5 degrees closer to the equator. Except for the horizontal daily stepping of the storms, every day looks basically the same as the day before, at least it has for the last four months.