Sea Ice News, Volume 3 Number 14 – Antarctic Sea ice near record high of 2007

While the Arctic recently set a new record low, lower than that of 2007, the Antarctic is at near record highs similar to that of 2007 according to University of Illinois Cryosphere Today data:

Here are the values:

2007.7206 1.1396104 16.2323818 15.0927715

2012.7316 1.1447686 16.2041264 15.0593576

Source: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008

At NSIDC, they show extent at near peak, and we’ll likely see a downturn begin soon:

Though, it is possible we’ll see some additional gain before the downturn starts, and a new record high for Antarctic sea ice area is still possible.

I find it interesting that we apparently have this “bipolar” relationship going on. On years of far lower than normal record lows in the Arctic 2007/2012, we have record highs and near record highs in the same years, 2007/2012.

At the blog “sunshine hours” it is reported:

Antarctic Sea Ice Area 28,255.4 sq km short of an all time record

The graph there shows 2012 and 2007 in red and blue respectively:

Ice Area is 1.964296 million sq km higher than the lowest amount ever recorded for this day in 1986.

About these ads

85 thoughts on “Sea Ice News, Volume 3 Number 14 – Antarctic Sea ice near record high of 2007

  1. 2011 also was a summer record low for the Arctic sea ice, but nowhere near a winter record high for the Antarctic sea ice. Perhaps you could do a more thorough analysis of that bipolar relationship. Or you could just ask Tamino.

    REPLY: I just find it curious enough to make a note of. Haven’t you ever been curious Günther? I’ll continue to point out curious things that interest me, and you spend can your time over there where conformity reigns supreme instead of curiosity.

    It really would matter what I said, based on your track record you’d find something not to like, it’s what you do.

    I noticed you changed your name (Günther Kirschbaum) and email again. I find that curious too. Since you tend to be one of the first commenters on sea ice news, to ensure immediate delivery of whatever snark you choose, one wonders if maybe you don’t have some sort of alert system setup to watch for Sea Ice News posts on WUWT. – Anthony

  2. Günther says:

    September 27, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    “…………….Or you could just ask Tamino.”
    =======================
    I’m asking.

  3. There does seem to be a concerted effort in getting out the right message. Thanks for your post Anthony. It is interesting.

  4. Günther says:
    September 27, 2012 at 10:11 pm
    2011 also was a summer record low for the Arctic sea ice,
    __________________________________________

    You mean – 7th record low in 30 years? Does not sound too much like a record low to me.

  5. Over many years I have found the periods of late March and September to be great times to watch the atmosphere as its components adjust to the rapidly changing position of the sub-solar point. There are usually bursts of odd weather in several places. For example, this weekend and early next week in the Eastern US, weather is shaping up to be quite interesting. In recent years I’ve found the same equinox-times to show interesting sea ice changes. There is much more variation now in the yearly charts than in mid-to-late May.
    The growth of sea ice about Antarctica is quite interesting because it is unconstrained spatially as is ice on the Arctic Ocean. We hear a lot about how warm this summer was in the USA and how little ice remained in the Arctic. Almost nothing is seen regarding the amount of ice around Antarctica. That is one reason why this information is worthy of posting.
    When one throws in the CO2/global warming/catastrophic meme (said to rhyme with dream) things just get curiouser and curiouser!

  6. Aww gee.. It’s only ice – bloody useless at most times of the year. If a big chunk slides off Antarctica, it proves there’s more being added behind it to push it into the sea, not that anything’s “warming” in particular. It’s not even an important source of reflective albedo, considering the sun’s angle near the poles all year round. It’s also a large cause of storms and hurricanes because it has a powerful cooling effect on the oceans and atmosphere. When that cooling tries to mix with warm equatorial currents and water-laden atmosphere we’ll have the CAGWists sooking about all the hurricanes and tornadoes as happened most often some 50-100 years ago.

    Be happy the climate’s relatively warm and stable at the moment!

    I did see about a year ago on [AU]‘s Catalyst TV program some aquatic malingerer (scientist) showing small holes in sea shells from the Antarctic region – obviously blaming CO2 and acidic conditions for the “corrosion”.

    Has a CAGWist ever tried this experiment:

    Chuck some eggshell (calcium carbonate) into a bottle of soda water. Using CAGWist CO2 oceanic “science”, the eggshell should bubble about and dissolve within minutes if all that alleged carbonic acid is really there.

    Note that it doesn’t. It’ll sit there happily for months without even any pitting, let alone holes. Maybe try the same thing with a far stronger seashell..

    Idiots. they’ll be waiting an eternity.

    “Salt! What about salt?” they cry. Try adding some salt to soda water and see if it doesn’t boil over and lose all that precious CO2 that’s supposed to be doing all the damage.

    “Heat!” they scream. OK – heat some soda water and see it bubble out all that precious CO2 again. There’s no way the oceans could become acidic due to CO2. They constantly brush against alkaline rocks and warm water can’t hang onto CO2 very well at all. The ocean PH ranges from 7.9 to 8.3. It’ll take a massive amount of any acid to even make it neutral.

    Go ahead CAGWists – make my day.. ;)

  7. Nice one Anthony,some mothers do av em ae.With the ever increasing ice in the Antarctic,how long will it be before I can walk to the south pole from NZ?We need global warming in NZ,I have to stack more firewood to see me through the cold times.BTW,who is this unknown tamino guy?

  8. What’s also interesting is to look at the current Bering Sea SST anomalies. It looks like the Bering Sea ice extent could be positioned for another whopper this winter, especially considering the predicted 2013 El Nino event doesn’t look likely to happen.

    The Arctic Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation are still above normal, so it would seem that Arctic Ice in the North-East section of the Ice extent probably won’t be setting any records this winter, either.

    According to Dr. Spencer, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation appeared to have peaked in 2011, so it would seem likely that the AO an NAO could be trending cooler in the coming decades… That also doesn’t bode well for CRUTEM4 and HADCRUT4, which were “fixed” to show the current warming trend in Northern upper latitudes.

    How about those SSTs anomalies around Antarctica and in large sections of lower Southern latitudes. Things sure don’t seem very hopeful for the Warmunistas, especially considering a Maunder Minimum Event seems likely around 2020 according to Penn/Livingston…

    When it rains it pours… Well…when it pours, it’s because of CAGW, of course, except when it doesn’t pour that’s CAGW, too, but when it doesn’t rain much or at all, well, that’s certainly CAGW, too… except…Well, kinda, sorta… Ohhhhh, It’s all so confusing…

  9. And Tamino thinks that “records” like these are unimportant, and posted an interesting chart – one from NSDIC (http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/anom2.jpg?w=750&h=483) showing the trends for both Arctic and Antarctic (and we’ve all been told the TREND is the most important metric, not the highs and lows).

    The problem is, while the Arctic trend has been dropping (and has been below “zero” since about 1992), the Antarctic trend has been rising (and has been above “zero” for the same length of time).

    So when we see articles like “the (x) straight month the global temp has been above the 20th century average”, why don’t we see similar articles stating the Antarctic sea ice anomalies have been above the average for about the last 20 years?

    And you’re right about the yearly values – if you look at The Cryosphere Today site, and use their interactive chart, you’ll see just how close it is:

    2007, day 263, 16.23238 sq km

    2012, day 267, 16.20413 sq km

    2010, day 227, 16.05034 sq km

    This shows that three highest values have been in the last 5 years.

    You know they won’t pay any attention to the peak – but each little dip below the average will be headline news (and sure-fire evidence of Global Catastrophe).

    It still raises a question for the CAGW crowd – if every extreme weather or climate event seems to prove CAGW, why wouldn’t this one?

  10. I don’t usually comment on names, but this time I couldn’t resist.
    Gunther, (sorry can’t do umlauts) is your last name Kirschbaum or Kirchenpflucker ?

  11. The bipolar relationship does not mean if one is a record high the other has to be a record low, however, it is interesting that with ‘global’ temperatures rising, the increase in ice in Antarctica is a contradiction to the belief that global warming exists at all.

  12. Some questions which spring to mind – can any commenters offer any insights?

    What’s the mechanism for this inverse correlation?
    Are there any models which have accurately forecast this?
    Does this pattern appear anywhere in the historical record?

    Thanks…..
    Dermot

  13. Here is an interesting graph that shows what we armchair climatologists have said about the storm in August in the Arctic:

    Could be added to the Sea Ice page.

  14. If warming is “global”, then surely Arctica and Antarctica should be both showing depletion of ice all year round? The AGW mob cannot be telling us that, due to AGW the Arctic will be ice free by 2050 (or whatever year it is now, as the goalposts seem to keep moving) but Antarctic ice is somehow immune to this process? Because they are ignoring what is happening in Antarctica, does that make them “Deniers” or is it just an “Inconvenient Truth”?

  15. Günther says:

    September 27, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    .”…………….Or you could just ask Tamino.”
    ==================
    Ask him what ?
    To explain bipolar ice anomolies, in relation to CO2.
    Cost/benefit ratios of windmills.
    The money is in the pipeline, “nobody” dares to question its destination.

  16. If globally-averaged temperatures were rising, I would expect to see globally-averaged sea ice areas decreasing apace. So why is the latter figure so obscure that nobody features it on a webpage?

    When the sea ice at one pole goes up and the other pole goes down, I assume this is a warmth-distribution issue. The most obvious culprit is ocean currents, but global wind patterns might also have something to do with it. Does NSIDC study this stuff?

    Why would anyone assume that a unipolar decrease was a symptom of global (as opposed to regional) temperature change?

  17. Link between the solar activity and climate is often questioned, since data doesn’t support it unequivocally. This could be due to intermediary factors, which are often either ignored or not taken into account.
    In Antarctic there is clear and without any doubt data supported link between the solar activity and changes in the Earth’s magnetic field (as I found some months ago and brought to the attention of the WUWT readers)

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm

    The changes in the geomagnetic field come from the movements of fluid in the Earth’s core:
    Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
    “One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.”

  18. Keith Minto says:
    September 27, 2012 at 11:28 pm
    ….. sorry can’t do umlauts……

    with number lock on and using number keypad;
    alt plus 132 ä (0228)
    alt plus 137 ë (0235)
    alt plus 148 ö (0246)
    alt plus 225 ß (0223)
    alt plus 129 ü (0252)
    alt plus 142 Ä (0196)
    alt plus Ë (0203)
    alt plus 153 Ö (0214)
    alt plus 154 Ü (0220)

  19. I find it interesting that we apparently have this “bipolar” relationship going on.

    They have a common cause, decreased cloud cover, particularly low level cloud.The effect of decreased clouds is greater ice melt through increased insolation, and increased ice formation in winter. As BC is almost completely absent in the Antarctic, we don’t see the accelerated melt of older ice from decreased albedo we see in the Arctic, and there isn’t much multi-year ice in the Antarctic anyway.

    Unfortunately climate4you’s data doesn’t go 2012, so I can confirm 2012 had a low level cloud low.

    http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Cloud data

    And reduced cloud cover is also the main cause of surface warming as Roy Spencer has documented.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/

  20. Dermot O’Logical:

    At September 27, 2012 at 11:37 pm you ask three questions. I assume several people will provide answers and I write to offer mine.

    Q1.
    What’s the mechanism for this inverse correlation?
    A1.
    Random chance in a small sample. (Weather is not the same everywhere at any time.)

    Q2.
    Are there any models which have accurately forecast this?
    A2.
    No. None. Not any.

    Q3,
    Does this pattern appear anywhere in the historical record?
    A3.
    The “historical record” is so short that any observed repetition of the pattern would be meaningless.

    I await other answers with interest.

    Richard

  21. “one wonders if maybe you don’t have some sort of alert system setup to watch for Sea Ice News posts on WUWT”

    I work for Interpol, Anthony. :-|

    BTW, what is your view – as a trained meteorologist – on the potential consequences for weather patterns on the Northern Hemisphere, caused by the rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice (you know, extra warm waters releasing all that heat and moisture to the atmosphere in fall, the temperature gradient between the equator and the Arctic becoming smaller, jet stream slowing down, becoming wavier, etc)? There’s an ever increasing amount of talk about that, which probably won’t decrease as the decline in the thickness of the ice cover is increasingly noticeable in sea ice area and extent numbers, no matter what the weather patterns are. And the rapid spring melt of snow on NH land masses doesn’t help either. WUWT?

  22. Looking at the above chart, the ice seems to swing between about 2msqk to about 16msqk each year. Remarkably stable if you ask me.
    Nothing to see here folks, move on.

  23. Günther:

    At September 28, 2012 at 1:45 am you list a load of speculation and say

    There’s an ever increasing amount of talk about that,

    Yes, I have noticed that, too. It is clearly an indication of an increasing amount of desperation among warmists as nothing they have predicted has come to pass and there are no signs that anything they have predicted is likely to happen.

    Richard

  24. I do like the Antarctic news. It goes some way to confirm the seesaw of sea ice cover between both poles. Yes it would be good to see a graph of total sea ice. Help sink the alarmism.

  25. Günther says:
    September 27, 2012 at 10:11 pm
    ….
    You recommend Grant Foster (‘prince’ Tamino) !?
    He isn’t true scientist, he is just an agit-prop peon in service of his masters. When encountered by a problem (on Gavin’s RealClimate) similar to one shown here

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm

    he could only retort with primitive, vulgar and abusive language.. For good measure he was joined by his good friend Daniel Bailey from Skeptical Science.
    Gavin not only had to step in and inform both of these ‘science wizards’ that data is correct and, and then promptly deleted their abusive garbage.
    As ‘true scientists’ both took an exception to this and didn’t come back to the RC for number of weeks or possibly months following the incident
    Günther, just to mention, I am not in the Gavin’s Xmas address book.

  26. It’s worse than we thought!

    13 April 2012.
    Emperor penguins in Antarctica are far more plentiful than previously thought, a study that used extremely high-resolution imagery snapped by satellites has revealed.

    “It surprised us that we approximately doubled the population estimate,” said Peter Fretwell, a scientist with the British Antarctic Survey and lead author of a paper published today in the journal PLoS One.

    http://news.discovery.com/animals/emperor-penguins-antarctica-count-120413.html

    [My bold]

    Further references:

    http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/17923/

    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=1786

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17707200

  27. I think Günther’s response is quite telling. Given “warm waters releasing all that heat and moisture to the atmosphere in fall”, I would expect increased snowfall. The Arctic is too cold for the “heat” to turn much of the increased precipitation to rain. In addition, since we generally regain most of the ice extent during the winter there’s no logical reason to assume a “rapid spring melt of snow” will occur on a regular basis. The net would likely be increased albedo over northern land masses.

    It interesting that the warmists are trying to spin this into something that supports “the cause”.

  28. Günther says:
    September 28, 2012 at 1:45 am

    “…caused by the rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice…”

    Gunther – get a grip! The arctic sea ice is NOT retreating – it’s freezing back up as we speak, just like it always has (and always will). Do you remember the record amounts of snow and brutally cold conditions Alaska got earlier this year? WUWT? Arctic ice is NOT worth worrying about – there are MANY more important problems in this world (none of which involve climate “science”).

  29. Gunther says…“warm waters releasing all that heat and moisture to the atmosphere in fall”

    So is this, along with the increasing N.H snow cover ( http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/ipcc-forecast-decreasing-winter-snowcover/
    a negative (cooling) affect.? Most notably true when you consider that SH ice is at lower latitudes then NH ice, and during the SH sea ice melt the sun is closer to the earth so increased SH ice reflects sun light which is both more direct and intense. (Up to 7 percent more intense)

  30. Last winter, just as Arctic sea ice was poised to set a high record, the methodology of the data set was ‘corrected’ and the new high record was averted. Since then the slope of Arctic ice extent has not followed the trend of the previous years.

    I was not surprised that a new low was established. Perhaps another instance of “hide the” correct data?.

  31. ****
    Günther says:
    September 28, 2012 at 1:45 am

    BTW, what is your view – as a trained meteorologist – on the potential consequences for weather patterns on the Northern Hemisphere, caused by the rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice (you know, extra warm waters releasing all that heat and moisture to the atmosphere in fall, the temperature gradient between the equator and the Arctic becoming smaller, jet stream slowing down, becoming wavier, etc)?
    ****

    Childish baiting. Go back to Closed-Mind.

  32. I’ve long presumed that the overall earth temperature, was approximately constant. A region significantly warmer than average is likely to be offset by another region cooler than average. Those regions don’t have to be antipodal. If they happen to be then low ice in one pole will correspond with higher ice on the other pole, but it could be, in the case of 2011, that low ice at the North pole corresponded with a region of cooler than usual temperatures in Africa or the south pacific or elsewhere.

  33. An interesting point made further up. The Antarctic is indeed unconstrained by land in its winter coat of sea ice. Any trends could be delved into for possible markers of, wait for it, natural oscillations. In the winter Arctic, not so much given the constraints of land.

    Should such markers be found in Antarctica, a nonsensical argument would reign King and be the butt of jokes on late night TV. Anthropogenic global warming would have to be given sentient thinking, showing its hand by having it in for the North.

  34. Kelvin Vaughan says:
    September 28, 2012 at 6:37 am

    “We have reached the tipping point. Here comes the cold!”

    Yes – it’s called Fall/Winter :)

    I predict that the temperatures in the northern hemisphere are going to trend cooler over the next 3 – 5 months – and if I extrapolate that trend for the next 10 years, average temperatures are going to reach -50F in 2015!! Whoa…hold it…sorry – I was having a “climate science” moment there for a few seconds…

  35. The inverse relationship was noted and discussed at length a number of years ago and posted at junkscience. My take away at that time was that the globe could warm and ice increase at the south pole with a force for lowering sea level (as opposed to, and an order of magnitude greater than, northern hemisphere land-sited ice).

    I’m just surprised that some alarmist hasn’t used the inverse relationship to predict that the world will tip over as a result of warming. (Yeah, yeah. If we go there and on the other hand, could it affect orbital wobble and “drive” the glacial/interglacial cycle? Should we start melting the Antarctic ice to keep climate from – you know – changing? So many questions to man-controlled climate and no answers! Thinking of Michael Crichton here.)

  36. richardscourtney says:
    September 28, 2012 at 1:37 am
    Dermot O’Logical:

    At September 27, 2012 at 11:37 pm you ask three questions. I assume several people will provide answers and I write to offer mine.
    ==================================================================
    Here’s my “Joe-Sixpack” answers:

    Q1.
    What’s the mechanism for this inverse correlation?
    A1.
    Don’t know. We need more research funding to find out.
    Q2.
    Are there any models which have accurately forecast this?
    A2.
    No. More research funding is needed to produce them.
    Q3,
    Does this pattern appear anywhere in the historical record?
    A3.
    No. There are no tree rings at the poles. Perhaps with more research funding we could find one. One is all that is needed to manufacture the historical record.

  37. A number of commenters have asked for a graph of TOTAL sea ice. It seems no one has looked at our own ice page references:

    The bright red line (at bottom) is total sea ice extent. Perhaps they mean total sea ice mass… which would be a different question. GK

  38. How do North and South anomalies compare in absolute (square km) terms, as well as in percentage deviation from their 20-year averages. Can someone boil it down for the non-scientist?

    What is the mechanism for the deposition of additional snow in the Antarctic?

  39. North Pole Camera has drifted down to near 80 degrees north and 1 degree east, and Camera 2 finally had the frost sublimate off the lens, and during the brief day seems to show an open lead of water in the distance. Temperature has been well below zero and melt-water pools have frozen up, but we may soon witness the ice break up in Fram Stait, and say bye-bye to pictures for another year. (Soon the nights will close down the cameras, at any rate.)

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/webcam2.html

  40. The extra sea ice in antarctic corresponds with unusually strong westerly winds that in turn drive the Antarctic circum polar current of the Southern Ocean that through Ekman pumping is bringing unusually large volumes of Antarctic bottom water to the surface where some of it finds it way into the adjacent subtropical gyre and which in turn feeds the Gulf stream. The warm gulf stream feeds the AMOC which warms the arctic ocean and melts the arctic sea ice.
    Although global circulation models show that most of the effect of the increased westerly Antarctic vortex winds would take as long as 3500 years to effect the Arctic, reserchers believe that teleconnections between the poles exist for time intervels of less than ten years due to wave propagation such as Kelvin and Rosseby waves.

    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~hbrix/papers/brixdiss.pdf

  41. “Günther says:
    September 28, 2012 at 1:45 am
    …blah blah blah…
    …bait bait…
    …(you know, extra warm waters releasing all that heat and moisture to the atmosphere in fall, the temperature gradient between the equator and the Arctic becoming smaller, jet stream slowing down, becoming wavier, etc)? There’s an ever increasing amount of talk about that, which probably won’t decrease as the decline in the thickness of the ice cover is increasingly noticeable in sea ice area and extent numbers, no matter what the weather patterns are. And the rapid spring melt of snow on NH land masses doesn’t help either. WUWT?…”

    Can anyone play this game? Why don’t we make it meaningful and list the “modeled” prognostications of your favorite modelers against some of the wild a_s guesses we throw out?

    I’ll throw out a curious thought of mine as a possible result. All of that, warm, cough, moisture rising and filling the atmosphere with that horrible CO2 mitigating humidity just might end up as winter storms piling snow, ice and freezing rain into thse high latitude glaciers that the CAGWers are so worried about melting. Simplified, for your benefit, it means that the high latitude glaciers will again grow and glacier growth willl continue until all of the artic is ice covered year round when they will stabilize until the cycle begins downward again.

    Sound logical? Does to me. Will it happen? Maybe. Maybe not. Like Anthony and many others here I don’t make glorified ‘I am Scientist, thou shalt not doubt me‘ claims. Those type of claims and insistances are generally a feature of CAGW religion. Identifying and explaining ALL existing climate effects is not a feature of CAGW beliefs. Like the ice burden at the South Pole versus the ice burdens at the North pole shifting back and forth in regular cycles. A feature that has been noted by astronomers on a number of planets, including earths.

  42. richardscourtney says:

    September 28, 2012 at 1:28 am

    Friends:

    If you blow the picture right up with “control and +” keys you can see that what at first appears to be water is a darker white. I think it is just shadow.

    The webcam 2 archive shows the melt water has been refreezing since July 31st.

  43. My take on the opposite symmetries of Arctic & Antarctic ice: it’s how the satellite microwave data is being read. Until recently the ice graphs showed a bump mid-way through the ice-fall each end-June as settings were changed to allow for surface melt (that they should not be read as open water) — a similar bump mid-way through the ice-rise was at the graph edge, so hard to see. A few years ago the bump was removed by changing to gradual tweaking, so now instead of two well-defined settings we have arbitrary tweaking by the data custodians. This tweaking results in symmetric over-reporting for one pole and under-reporting for the other. I reckon they accidentally tweaked too far in 2007, thus the simultaneous Arctic record-minimum and Antarctic record-maximum. Maybe they’ve done it again this year to help re-elect Obama. :-)

  44. Kelvin Vaughan:

    Contrary to your post at September 28, 2012 at 12:04 pm I said nothing at September 28, 2012 at 1:28 am and I have said nothing which relates to what you claim to be replying.

    This is the second thread on which you have misrepresented me in this way on WUWT today.

    If you do it again then I shall call for the Moderators to stop your behaviour.

    Richard

    [Richard: Noted. Kelvin: Don't do bogus quoting. -ModE]

  45. Dermot O’Logical said (September 27, 2012 at 11:37 pm)

    “…Some questions which spring to mind – can any commenters offer any insights?

    What’s the mechanism for this inverse correlation?
    Are there any models which have accurately forecast this?
    Does this pattern appear anywhere in the historical record?…”

    Well, we can answer the second question about the models by pointing to that paragon of factual data (the “bible” for the AGW preists), the IPCC:

    They predicted (projected, guessed) that “…Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios. In some projections, arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century…”

    And gave us this chart to “prove” their point:

    A few things about their comment:

    1. “…projected to shrink in BOTH Arctic and Antarctic…” Not one grow while the other shrinks.

    2. “…In some projections, arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely…” Notice they’re not saying ice-free, there.

  46. Pursuant to my previous post, every election cycle the mainstream media springs a “November surprise” on the weekend before election day — this is some surprise new topic designed to help the Democrats. If this year’s “November surprise” is a publicity blitz about the new Arctic ice minimum, then that would support my take on the symmetrical Arctic/Antarctic minima/maxima.

  47. Bill Parsons says:
    September 28, 2012 at 11:14 am
    How do North and South anomalies compare in absolute (square km) terms, as well as in percentage deviation from their 20-year averages. Can someone boil it down for the non-scientist?

    I hope this helps.

    http://tinyurl.com/czhz6ux

  48. Baa Humbug says:
    September 28, 2012 at 1:58 am

    Looking at the above chart, the ice seems to swing between about 2msqk to about 16msqk each year. Remarkably stable if you ask me.
    Nothing to see here folks, move on.

    Equally, I hope I can convince the earlier writers above to look very, very carefully at Antarctic sea ice trends as a very troubling indicator of coming cooler global heat exchange rates.

    I request each reader to review, analyze, and seriously critique each of the following points:

    A) Arctic sea ice minimums at the equinox in mid-September have only one real limit: they can continue to reduce to zero from their (typical) 4.0 million km^2 extent minimum. (This year, in 2012, that minimum was right 3.4 million km^2, or a “beanie cap” extending down from the pole to latitude 81 north.)

    Specifically,
    3 million km^2 => 80.9 degrees (rounded to 81 latitude)
    4 million km^2 => 79.8 degrees (rounded to 80 latitude)
    5 million km^2 => 78.6 degrees (rounded to 79 latitude)
    6 million km^2 => ~77.5 degrees latitude
    7 million km^2 => ~76.4 degrees latitude (the “official” sea ice nominal minimum value)

    (This is a slight approximation: There is a little bit of sea ice near the east coast of Greenland, and the actual center of the sea ice circle is slightly offset away from the pole. A very little triangle of Greenland between 81 north and its tip at 83 north would be technically considered “land ice” rather than sea ice. But this area (like that of central Ellesmere Island, remain ice covered and does not change the analysis by more than 2%.

    B) Arctic sea ice maximums do have a near-physical limit: The Arctic Ocean shores limit sea ice once the region ices over, and any increase in maximum must occur in very, very small regions down the east and west shores of Greenland, in the narrow gap between Asia and North American continents, etc. Smaller areas inside the southern seas and bays are also “area limited”: Hudson Bay ices over every year, then melts again very spring -> It’s ice area can’t get any larger, and the melted area can get no larger. The Barents Sea, Bering Strait, Norwegian Sea, North Sea, Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea, etc. What parts freeze can’t freeze any more: what melts each spring already completely melts. There is no more Arctic sea ice that can melt anywhere on earth except that little cap up north between 81 north and the pole.

    C) All of the Arctic Ocean that now freezes will continue to freeze each winter – average winter temperatures at 80 north latitude are -25 degrees C, and regardless of any IPCC/CAGW projection, the region will continue to freeze over every winter.

    D) Arctic sea ice minimum (and maximum) extents have declined since measurements began reliably in 1979. However, at the border of the sea ice minimum, during the only melting season that exists, air temperatures have remained steady. Measured daily air temperatures by the DMI at 80 north latitude through EVERY summer since 1958 have remained steady between 1958 and 2000, and, in fact, have declined between 2000 and 2012 – which included record low sea ice extents in 2007 and 2012.

    E) Yes, the sun shines every hour above the Arctic Circle (66.5 degrees) during the summer. It doesn’t matter, since minimum Arctic sea ice extents DON’T occur while the sun is above the horizon. Minimum sea ice extents occur each FALL very near the equinox in mid-September. At that time if the year, minimum sea ice extents occur when the sun is below the horizon for 12 hours each day, and raise only a little bit (less than 10 degrees) above the horizon for a few minutes each day at solar local noon. Thus, at 80 north, the sun is only at 10 degrees incidence angle at noon.
    At 82 north, it is 8 degrees above the horizon at noon.
    At 86 north, it is only 4 degrees above the horizon.
    At 88 north, the ice is exposed to solar rays at maximum of 2 degrees above the horizon.

    Every other hour of the day, the sun is even lower than its maximum (obviously!) and the ice can only absorb even less radiation.

    F) Air Mass. The inbound solar energy so greatly feared by the CAGW community for its ability to reflect off of the Arctic Ice, but get absorbed by newly exposed sea water and thus warm the globe, must transit the earth’s atmosphere before it can get reflected – or absorbed. Note that solar energy loss calculations through the air mass do NOT account for reflections off of either high clouds or low clouds or atmospheric dust and turbidity: they are based on “clear sky” conditions regardless of clouds, dust, storms or wind.

    On the equator,at 0 latitude, by definition, the air mass = 1.0
    Again, only at solar noon. At all other times of the day, the air mass is calculated based on the incident angle of the sun – the angle of the sun above the horizon.

    It’s esiest to read the air mass chart: Following from NOAA website

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/neubrew/SolarCalc.jsp

    yyyy MMddHHmmss * * AirMass * * SolarZen * * Elev * * Azim
    2012 09 23 06 00 00 * * 18.27621 * * 87.77073 * * 2.22927 * * 90.24422
    2012 09 23 07 00 00 * * 3.38948 * * 73.01902 * * 16.98098 * * 90.27210
    2012 09 23 08 00 00 * * 1.88462 * * 58.04187 * * 31.95813 * * 90.32584
    2012 09 23 09 00 00 * * 1.36700 * * 43.04926 * * 46.95074 * * 90.42875
    2012 09 23 10 00 00 * * 1.13247 * * 28.05277 * * 61.94723 * * 90.65683
    2012 09 23 11 00 00 * * 1.02615 * * 13.05633 * * 76.94367 * * 91.43927
    2012 09 23 12 00 00 * * 1.00030 * * 1.97674 * * 88.02326 * * 260.05476
    2012 09 23 13 00 00 * * 1.04498 * * 16.95005 * * 73.04995 * * 268.77349
    2012 09 23 14 00 00 * * 1.17772 * * 31.94691 * * 58.05309 * * 269.29361
    2012 09 23 15 00 00 * * 1.46286 * * 46.94272 * * 43.05728 * * 269.46626
    2012 09 23 16 00 00 * * 2.11834 * * 61.93305 * * 28.06695 * * 269.53965
    2012 09 23 17 00 00 * * 4.33480 * * 76.89906 * * 13.10094 * * 269.56628
    2012 09 23 18 00 00 * * -1.00000 * * 91.96936 * * -1.96936 * * 269.56097

    Note the high air at sunrise and sunset. To illustrate, even at the equator, yes, at those hours you can look directly at the sun, only needing to squint a little.

    Now, same day, same time intervals, “look” at the sun (without squinting!) at latitude 81 north.
    yyyy MMddHHmmss * * AirMass * * SolarZen * * Elev * * Azim
    2012 09 23 06 00 00 * * 30.14076 * * 89.39174 * * 0.60826 * * 91.94021
    2012 09 23 07 00 00 * * 16.53731 * * 87.37416 * * 2.62584 * * 106.77170
    2012 09 23 08 00 00 * * 10.93514 * * 85.35191 * * 4.64809 * * 121.65225
    2012 09 23 09 00 00 * * 8.35603 * * 83.59536 * * 6.40464 * * 136.61412
    2012 09 23 10 00 00 * * 7.06556 * * 82.26159 * * 7.73841 * * 151.66783
    2012 09 23 11 00 00 * * 6.45947 * * 81.45777 * * 8.54223 * * 166.79864
    2012 09 23 12 00 00 * * 6.31717 * * 81.24726 * * 8.75274 * * 181.96999
    2012 09 23 13 00 00 * * 6.59312 * * 81.64740 * * 8.35260 * * 197.13354
    2012 09 23 14 00 00 * * 7.38032 * * 82.62837 * * 7.37163 * * 212.24298
    2012 09 23 15 00 00 * * 8.98921 * * 84.11485 * * 5.88515 * * 227.26733
    2012 09 23 16 00 00 * * 12.27159 * * 85.98700 * * 4.01300 * * 242.19923
    2012 09 23 17 00 00 * * 19.78169 * * 88.06450 * * 1.93550 * * 257.05641
    2012 09 23 18 00 00 * * 37.66657 * * 89.98293 * * 0.01707 * * 271.87658

    At very high angles, the horizon can be assumed flat, but at the low angles of interest in the Arctic (and Antarctic lest we forget) the earth’s radius must be included. More exotic air mass calculation include factors (corrections) for varying atmosphere density with altitude and temperature varying from the ground through the stratosphere, height of the observer, and assumed atmosphere thickness. Technically, we’d need to correct for the lower atmosphere temperature in the Arctic (increasing density compared to the rest of the earth), and the lower atmosphere thickness at the poles (decreasing air mass compared to the simple NOAA approximations for all values from the equator to the poles).

    For what they are worth, the above are from the NOAA – good, bad, and approximations as found.

    G) Rough water DOES increase albedo (the relative absorption of sunlight compared to the reflection of sunlight. However, the effect of waves depends on the wind, and the net result fro measured results for clear days very closely approximates the reflection of P polarized light from smooth water. The only research paper actually measuring reflections of light off of rough water is fro Burt, 1954, and his data ends at 10 degrees incidence angle. Non data is available from 10 degrees incidence angle to the horizon. Then again, research from 1954 is unlikely to be contaminated by any CAGW pre-conceptions or biases.

    H) At low angles of solar incidence, less than 25% of the sun’s energy can be absorbed into open, rough water. The rest is reflected.

    I) Evaporative heat losses from open Arctic waters are constant, regardless of latitude – slightly more than 113 watts per meter square. If the water is ice-covered, no evaporation occurs.

    J) Radiative heat losses from water (or ice-covered water) into the sky depend only on the emissivity of water (or ice), and do not change with latitude.

    Note also, that radiation going INTO the Arctic sky radiates vertically into the sky. The air mass for radiation heat loss does NOT change with latitude or time of day. (That is, radiation heat losses from the same surface (ice or water) at 5:00 AM at latitude 80 north are the same as they are at Noon (local solar time) at latitude 84 north, and the same as they are at midnight at the pole.)

    K) Radiation heat loss does depend on the fourth power of radiating (sea surface) temperature – which will be right at 273 K for open water; but what might be as low as -12 to -20 at the equinox for ice-covered water exposed directly to the rapidly freezing Arctic air. Again, ice-covered Arctic waters near the equinox at times of minimum Arctic sea ice extent will radiate more energy losses than ocean-covered sea waters at the same latitude and time of year!

    Net result for the Arctic?

    At solar angles below 10 degrees angle of incidence, each square meter of newly melted Arctic Sea Ice loses several times more energy by evaporation than it gains by absorption of the sun’s energy. Thus, loss of sea ice INCREASES heat loss from the Arctic Ocean, and provides a net COOLING of the air and water in the Arctic Ocean. Phrased differently, the sea ice acts as an insulator between the salt water below the sea ice and the Arctic air above the sea ice – preventing BOTH evaporation losses from the water AND radiation losses to the 12 hours of night air when the sun doesn’t shine.

  49. Next, we need to look at the Antarctic sea ice.

    And a completely different story emerges.

    And yes, it IS worse than we thought! Much Worse, in fact.

  50. @Olaf Koenders:

    Hear hear!

    Note, too, that there are millions of pounds of carbonate dumped on the ocean floor ( do a web search of ‘fish gut rocks’ for one) AND then there are those megatons of “manganese nodules”…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_nodule

    “Polymetallic nodules, also called manganese nodules, are rock concretions on the sea bottom formed of concentric layers of iron and manganese hydroxides around a core”
    and
    “The total amount of polymetallic nodules on the sea floor was estimated at 500 billion tons”

    So somewhere around 1/2 TRILLION TONS of HYDROXIDES.

    The notion that is going to be made “acidic” is what’s loony.

  51. Maybe we have the title for AlGore’s next book to raise alarm about a non-problem, “Our Poles Out of Balance!”?

  52. Seeing as we’re making equivalence between the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, let’s compare figures, quoting the top post first, and then the minimum area on record for the Arctic recently.

    Ice Area is 1.964296 million sq km higher than the lowest amount ever recorded for this day in 1986 [Antarctic].

    Record minimum area was 3.4657657 million sq km lower than the highest amount ever recorded for this day in 1980 [Arctic].

    Daily data for Arctic and Antarctic:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008

    Cryosphere today also provide a global area chart.

    And here is the page for global daily data.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008

    I plotted a linear regression for global sea ice area (Exel software).

    From January 1979 to December 2011 global sea ice area has declined by

    1.317659 million sq km.

    I would be glad for anyone to check this figure.

    And if anyone has the energy to crunch the numbers, I wonder what percentage of the average annual ice area for 1979 to 1988 (first ten years of satellite record) this represents?

  53. Phil. says:
    September 28, 2012 at 5:08 pm (responding to)

    Bill Parsons says:
    September 28, 2012 at 11:14 am
    How do North and South anomalies compare in absolute (square km) terms, as well as in percentage deviation from their 20-year averages. Can someone boil it down for the non-scientist?

    I hope this helps.

    http://tinyurl.com/czhz6ux

    – – – – – – – – –
    And also
    barry says:
    September 28, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    Seeing as we’re making equivalence between the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, let’s compare figures, quoting the top post first, and then the minimum area on record for the Arctic recently.

    Ice Area is 1.964296 million sq km higher than the lowest amount ever recorded for this day in 1986 [Antarctic]. ….. I plotted a linear regression for global sea ice area (Exel software).

    From January 1979 to December 2011 global sea ice area has declined by

    1.317659 million sq km.

    Well both of you attempt a good response, trying to make the CAGW =-required case that losing sea ice is a catastrophic event.

    But both of you make the same error: You – the entire CAGW-funded community – are trying very hard to make us ignore three very “inconvenient facts” that the physics and geography prove your points not only wrong, but exactly backwards.

    Percentage losses are irrelevant and actually a means of disguising their inherent falsehood. Losing ALL of the remaining Arctic sea ice from today’s world – melting every square km from the Arctic Ocean between its present boundary at 81 north and the pole will increase Arctic Ocean cooling, increase water evaporation, and (probably) increase European and Siberian snow fall levels. In today’s world, there is NO “positive sea ice feedback” due to melting the Arctic sea ice. It is not possible due to the physics of the water and ice at the present sea ice boundaries.

    Arctic: Essentially all Arctic sea ice below 80 north latitude has already melted, and all of its (assumed) warming due to increased albedo of the open ocean has already occurred. That little triangle of north Greenland aside, there is almost no land ice left to melt either, so there is no arctic amplification due to melting ice available from the land areas eitehr. And, even if there were, we are discussing sea ice, not land ice.

    And the actual result of the observed sea ice melt increases is simply more heat loss (mainly due to increased evaporation and increased radiation) from the Arctic, cooler Arctic air temperatures above 80 north latitude in the summer, and more ice growth the next fall. Each winter following a substantially increased Arctic sea ice loss, that next Arctic sea ice maximum has increased significantly over ALL recent norm’s. Not over the entire period of satellite measurements, it is true. But NEVER has a single high melt summer been followed by a low sea ice maximum and subsequent lower sea minimum. A high melt summer is followed by a higher-than-average sea ice maximum the next winter. And, making your case even worse, those winter Arctic sea ice maximums are increasing in amplitude and in frequency! Yes, it is even worse than we thought: Arctic sea Ice maximums are increasing and they are increasing faster the more Arctic sea ice melts in the summer!

    One year ice? Five year ice? Doesn’t matter: reflectivity of energy, insulation of the covered open water by sea ice does NOT depend on thickness, depth, or age of the ice; the only thing that matters is area.

    “Sea Ice: CAGW Amplification by Increasing Arctic Albedo” Sounds nice in theory in a warm classroom using theoretical albedos for sea ice floating on calm water on the Equator at noon, but that is not where today’s Arctic sea ice actually is melting.

    Coming back to the “attitude” of both of your attempted rebuttals: Losing 1.4 million square km’s of Arctic sea ice has increased the earth’s net heat loss. Losing the next 3.4 million square kilometers will only increase that heat loss, and increase the next winter’s ice extents even further.

    Oops, CAGW is wrong.

    Next, the Antarctic.

  54. Now, the Antarctic is a completely different geological field, and the only thing in common with its Arctic neighbor is that simple CAGW-albedo-feedback theories using the common equatorial reflections of sea ice albedo are dead wrong. But they are dead wrong for a completely different reason.

    Above, Phil. says:
    September 28, 2012 at 5:08 pm (responding to)

    Bill Parsons says:
    September 28, 2012 at 11:14 am
    How do North and South anomalies compare in absolute (square km) terms, as well as in percentage deviation from their 20-year averages. Can someone boil it down for the non-scientist?

    I hope this helps.

    http://tinyurl.com/czhz6ux
    ———-

    The Antarctic Sea Ice Increase. It’s Not Only Worse Than We Thought, But It’s Getting Worse than We Thought.

    I see that “official” little web page you reference above ONLY displays percentages of Arctic and Antarctic ice changes – as if it were trying to pretend loss (or gain) of 1 million km square of sea ice in the Arctic is the same as losing (or gaining) 1 million km square of sea ice in the Antarctic. Dead wrong. Dead misleading … but deliberately misleading to maintain the CAGW myth?

    First, geography.

    The Antarctic continent is 14.425 million km square land area. (This alone is more than equal to the entire maximum sea ice extent of the Arctic Ocean. And, no one, anywhere, is claiming that the entire Antarctic land area is going to become ice-free until the sun goes nova. ) In round numbers, 3.87 million km^2 of the continent is between 80 south and the 90 south at the pole. There is no sea ice that melt in this area. The arguments (the physics) of low solar incidence angles off of Arctic sea ice DO NOT, and cannot!, occur in the Antarctic between 80 south and the pole. This area of the Antarctic will continue growing in ice thickness, continue radiating energy just as it has been the past few million years, and will not change based on any CO2 concentration nor on ANY Antarctic sea ice extents change.

    Most of the total 11.505 million km^2 Antarctic area between 80 south and 70 south latitude is covered by land. In round numbers, this breaks to about 7.90 million km^2 of land, and the remaining 3.605 million km^2 is essentially ice-covered ocean all of the time, even at Antarctic sea ice minimum in mid-March each year. Not much to discuss in terms of global heat absorption OR global heat radiation and losses. They will remain the same. There can be no change in the global heat absorption or global heat radiation between 70 south and 80 south latitude due to ANY projected temperature changes due to ANY cause of any type or ANY loss (or gain!) of Antarctic sea ice.

    So, now on to the ONLY part of the southern hemisphere heat exchange area that CAN change with sea ice extents.

    Right now, this year, we have a Antarctic sea ice maximum of 16.5 million km^2, plus a Antartcic land area of 14.425 km^2 or 30.925 million km^2 of reflective surface centered around the south pole. A few irregularities, but this corresponds to a “southern ice cap” beanie from the pole up to a latitude between 61 and 62 south latitude.

    “Normal” Antarctic sea ice maximums are only 15.0 million km^2, so all observers are nominally “correct” in pointing out that this is “only” a mere 10% gain in Antarctic sea ice, and compares poorly with the much larger “loss” (in terms of both percent of Arctic Ice and total sea ice extent) from the average Arctic Sea Ice extents.

    But NOTE that the Antarctic sea maximums have not only been increasing, but these higher Antarctic sea ice maximums are increasing at a faster rate and new “maximums” above 15.0 million km^2 are occurring at an ever-faster rate than ever before !

    So, the “official” CAGW-approved web sites showing “merely” both a smaller percentage of sea ice growth in the Antarctic area compared to the Arctic, but also a smaller total change in sea ice area is (again!) both misleading in intent and propaganda, but dead wrong in net heat transfer!

    A total, 100%, 3.4 million square kilometer, loss of all Arctic sea ice will only serve to INCREASE the net heat loss of the Arctic Ocean.

    A much smaller, mere10%, 1.5 million km^2 GAIN in Antarctic sea ice at latitude 61 south will only serve to FURTHER INCREASE the net heat loss of the Antarctic Ocean!

    Like the Arctic heat loss-with-increasing-sea-ice-loss, this may appear counter to the CAGW meme of catastrophic sea ice loss, but – remember! – you have ONLY heard of Arctic sea ice loss from the CAGW community propaganda. Antarctic sea ice IS increasing, and so the situation IS reversed, and the “warm classroom” sea ice albedo theory is more nearly correct. In the wrong place for the CAGW community, but the sea ice albedo feedback IS correct at 60 south latitude.

    The most important thing to remember about all of “new” reflecting sea ice is that it can be approximated as a single “band” around the planet between latitude 62 south and 60 south.

    In this band, the solar angle at 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM at the equinox is always between 15 degrees and 30 degrees above the horizon. Air mass is much closer to the “expected” 1.5 or 2.5 of more temperate latitudes. Your “instincts” about “conventional global warming theory which holds “open ocean water absorbs heat, and sea ice-covered ocean water reflects solar energy” are correct.

    yyyyMMddHHmmss * * AirMass * * SolarZen * * Elev * * Azim

    2012 09 23 06 00 00 * * 24.79593 * * 88.81939 * * 1.18061 * * 91.78990
    2012 09 23 07 00 00 * * 6.66837 * * 81.75090 * * 8.24910 * * 104.89460
    2012 09 23 08 00 00 * * 3.77831 * * 74.85520 * * 15.14480 * * 118.48381
    2012 09 23 09 00 00 * * 2.74876 * * 68.80527 * * 21.19473 * * 132.93464
    2012 09 23 10 00 00 * * 2.27890 * * 64.08311 * * 25.91689 * * 148.47734
    2012 09 23 11 00 00 * * 2.06568 * * 61.14509 * * 28.85491 * * 165.05740
    2012 09 23 12 00 00 * * 2.01443 * * 60.33252 * * 29.66748 * * 182.24090
    2012 09 23 13 00 00 * * 2.10584 * * 61.75016 * * 28.24984 * * 199.32230
    2012 09 23 14 00 00 * * 2.37548 * * 65.22100 * * 24.77900 * * 215.64389
    2012 09 23 15 00 00 * * 2.95348 * * 70.36091 * * 19.63909 * * 230.87465
    2012 09 23 16 00 00 * * 4.27423 * * 76.70276 * * 13.29724 * * 245.05095
    2012 09 23 17 00 00 * * 8.54422 * * 83.75743 * * 6.24257 * * 258.45515
    2012 09 23 18 00 00 * * -1.00000 * * 91.36460 * * -1.36460 * * 271.48638

    (A -1 for air mass from the NOAA calculator means the sun is below the horizon.)

    Increased Antarctic Sea Ice around latitude 60 south increases global reflected heat energy, and leads to a globally cooler world.

    A 1 million km INCREASE in the Antarctic sea ice at today’s conditions near latitude 60 south reduces global temperature more than a 4 million km square change in Arctic sea ice extents in EITHER direction!

    Worse case conditions are a DECREASE in Arctic Sea Ice levels from the present, and a simultaneous INCREASE in Antarctic Sea Ice extents!

  55. RACookPE1978,

    Well both of you attempt a good response, trying to make the CAGW =-required case that losing sea ice is a catastrophic event.

    What on Earth are you talking about? I was trying to provide parity by including Antarctic sea ice in the overall picture of sea ice trends. Just the facts and figures. People upthread were curious, I ran the numbers. That was it.

    I’ll keep it to just the facts and figures in reply to you.

    Losing ALL of the remaining Arctic sea ice from today’s world – melting every square km from the Arctic Ocean between its present boundary at 81 north and the pole will increase Arctic Ocean cooling.

    According to UAH satellite data the temperature of the Arctic Ocean has increased by more than 1.5C over the same period when sea ice has been declining. (Satellite sea surface measurements are of the ocean skin, not the lower troposphere). What will cause a reversal of that trend from now on if Arctic sea ice continues to decline?

    I also checked your assertion that “Each winter following a substantially increased Arctic sea ice loss, that next Arctic sea ice maximum has increased significantly…”

    I wasn’t sure how to determine what was “substantially increased” ice loss. For the years where there was less sea ice than the year before, the range of difference is 20,000 sq kms to 1,5 million sq kms, the average is roughly 458,000, and the median is 450,000. I picked 600,000 sq kms as a minimum for “substantially increased” ice loss, but you may prefer a higher figure.

    On the left is the amount sea ice minimum declined substantially from the previous year, and on the right is the difference between the previous and following maximum (sea ice area in sqare kms)

    1993 | 1,500,000…..-240,000
    1995 | 700,000……..-450,000
    1997 | 740,000……..260,000
    1998 | 600,000……..-30,000
    2007 | 1,190,000…..710,000

    Sea ice area data from here if you want to redo anything.

  56. Günther says:
    September 28, 2012 at 1:45 am

    BTW, what is your view – as a trained meteorologist – on the potential consequences for weather patterns on the Northern Hemisphere, caused by the rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice (you know, extra warm waters releasing all that heat and moisture to the atmosphere in fall, the temperature gradient between the equator and the Arctic becoming smaller, jet stream slowing down, becoming wavier, etc)? There’s an ever increasing amount of talk about that, which probably won’t decrease as the decline in the thickness of the ice cover is increasingly noticeable in sea ice area and extent numbers, no matter what the weather patterns are. And the rapid spring melt of snow on NH land masses doesn’t help either. WUWT?

    “There’s an ever increasing amount of talk about that…”

    Where? Who?

    In any event, we already know what happens when there is a large scale retreat of Arctic sea ice.

    It’s called the Medieval Warm Period. It’s true, we don’t know all the details, but we do know it was much warmer than it is now. After all, the Vikings were raising livestock and growing crops on about 400 farms in what is now Greenland. We know this because the current warm period has revealed the remains of these farms as the ice cover leaves.

    http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/t7211316g1364665/

    And guess what? All the ecosystems and their inhabitants appear to have gotten through the much lower levels of Arctic sea ice. How do we know? Because the polar bears, seals, foxes, owls, lemmings, caribou, etc. are still with us. What ever happens to the Arctic sea over the next century, we can expect a basic repeat of the those events.

  57. Arctic Antarctic and Global Sea Ice Area: Very clearly charted (well… linked) on WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page:

  58. barry says:
    September 29, 2012 at 12:51 am (replying to)

    RACookPE1978,

    Well both of you attempt a good response, trying to make the CAGW =-required case that losing sea ice is a catastrophic event.

    What on Earth are you talking about? I was trying to provide parity by including Antarctic sea ice in the overall picture of sea ice trends. Just the facts and figures. People upthread were curious, I ran the numbers. That was it.

    As I showed, just comparing “percent lost” (of Arctic Sea Ice) to “percent gain” (of Antarctic Sea Ice increases) is incorrect: Equally, comparing “total losses” to “total gains” is incorrect. The result of talking about ANY percentage changes (Arctic to Arctic, Arctic to total, total to total, Antarctic to Antarctic) is wrong. It provides misleading information about the earth’s total heat exchange rates.

    The current Arctic Sea Ice loss CANNOT be compared to the Antarctic’s gain. The two are (literally) polar opposite, and they respond very differently – oppositely, in fact – to losses (or gains) in minimum and maximum sea ice extent because the CHANGE in sea ice extent in today’s world occurs at different latitudes. The difference in latitude of the CHANGE i sea ice each year means a tremendously different amount of solar energy is reflected or absorbed at the two opposite poles.

    Further, the increasing Arctic sea ice maximums DO reflect measurable solar radiation from their lower (most southern) areas where the latitude is lower. Not a lot. Not nearly as much as the very significant Antarctic sea ice at its maximums at their 60-61-62 south area.

    To repeat what you missed:
    Losing additional Arctic Sea Ice at the equinox at the time of Arctic Sea Ice minimum means significantly INCREASING radiation heat losses from the Arctic Ocean, increased moisture in the Arctic atmosphere, and cooler Arctic air and sea temperatures.

    Gaining additional Antarctic Sea Ice at the equinox at the time of Antarctic sea maximum SIGNIFICANTLY increases reflected heat losses from the southern oceans, less absorbed solar energy, and increasingly cooler southern hemisphere air temperatures.

    Look again at your claim that UAH temperatures show an increase: What latitudes and what time of year are those measurements? Air temperatures at 80 north latitude – the ONLY area where sea ice occurs at minimum and thus the ONLY area in the arctic where a change in sea ice will affect temperatures – show a consistently decreasing arctic air and sea temperatures.

    Others have tried to use central Canada and central Russian averaged yearly temperatures to prove the Arctic is warming. Those are tundra and forest “hot spots” regions 1500 to 1800 kilometers on solid ground (well spongy ground under the tundra) south of the Arctic ocean where the sea ice boundary occurs.

    Now, to be accurate, those tundra and forest hot spots” 1200 km south of the Arctic Ice boundaries ARE due to CO2 increases: They are due to CO2 because every plant and tree in those Arctic tundras and forest are growing 15% to 27% faster, taller, greener (darker) and heavier with foliage and branches!

  59. Antarctic Sea ice near record high of 2007

    2007…… 2007……. huh, rings a bell………
    //4/*

    Arctic ice at a “record” low in 2007, Antarctic ice record high t same year. 2012 Arctic ice at a record low, Antarctic ice reaching record high. Yep, there’s a connection.

    And where’s that “global warming” thingy?

  60. RACookPE1978,

    The current Arctic Sea Ice loss CANNOT be compared to the Antarctic’s gain.

    Oh, I agree with you. I was, as I said in both my posts above, responding to the equivalence other people seem to think is meaningful.

    Look again at your claim that UAH temperatures show an increase: What latitudes and what time of year are those measurements? Air temperatures at 80 north latitude – the ONLY area where sea ice occurs at minimum and thus the ONLY area in the arctic where a change in sea ice will affect temperatures – show a consistently decreasing arctic air and sea temperatures.

    UAH Arctic coverage is 60N to 85N. That covers most of the melt area. The measurments are of ocean skin, not air temperature. The satellite data well and truly rebut the contention that increasingly exposed water will bring a net cooling effect.

  61. barry says:
    September 29, 2012 at 11:20 am

    UAH Arctic coverage is 60N to 85N. That covers most of the melt area. The measurments are of ocean skin, not air temperature. The satellite data well and truly rebut the contention that increasingly exposed water will bring a net cooling effect.

    There are several problems with satellite SST measurements of the Arctic. The most obvious is satellites can’t measure SSTs under ice cover. Another is that the adjustment for ice cover changes is undocumented.

    The Reynolds SST data shows a peak warming of 0.4C at 62N (where there is the least ocean %age of any latitude and therefore the most land affected ocean) which declines to almost zero near the pole.

    The best we can say is the satellite data is inconclusive on the effect of ice cover on SSTs.

    There are no ARGO bouys in the Arctic ocean. So, we have no real data on Arctic ocean temperature changes.

    And I agree with RACookPE1978 that the physics says decreased ice cover must be cooling the Arctic Ocean (all else being equal). The ocean cools primarily by evaporation driven by the temperature difference between ocean surface and the air, and that is greatest in the ice free Arctic Ocean.

  62. RACookPE1978 says:
    September 28, 2012 at 11:20 pm
    Above, Phil. says:
    September 28, 2012 at 5:08 pm (responding to)

    Bill Parsons says:
    September 28, 2012 at 11:14 am
    How do North and South anomalies compare in absolute (square km) terms, as well as in percentage deviation from their 20-year averages. Can someone boil it down for the non-scientist?

    I hope this helps.

    http://tinyurl.com/czhz6ux

    ———-

    The Antarctic Sea Ice Increase. It’s Not Only Worse Than We Thought, But It’s Getting Worse than We Thought.

    I see that “official” little web page you reference above ONLY displays percentages of Arctic and Antarctic ice changes

    In case you hadn’t noticed that’s what Bill asked for!

    – as if it were trying to pretend loss (or gain) of 1 million km square of sea ice in the Arctic is the same as losing (or gaining) 1 million km square of sea ice in the Antarctic. Dead wrong. Dead misleading … but deliberately misleading to maintain the CAGW myth?

    Not misleading at all just answering the guy’s question. I just presented the facts, that the Arctic sea ice is steadily decreasing both in winter an summer (particularly the latter). While the Antarctic is just bouncing around in the vicinity of the mean with a barely significant trend. It’s you you appears to have an agenda of trying to distract folks attention from that. I didn’t mention CAGW at all, it’s a fact that the Arctic sea ice has been rapidly decreasing in the summers, I happen to think that it will probably be mostly gone in the summer in a few years time. If it is we’ll see what effects it has, good or bad. The research suggests that if that happens then the upper layer of the ocean could become well mixed and a hysteresis will occur which will prevent the return of ice in the winter, we shall see.

  63. There are several problems with satellite SST measurements of the Arctic. The most obvious is satellites can’t measure SSTs under ice cover. Another is that the adjustment for ice cover changes is undocumented.

    It doesn’t matter what the actual temperature is under the ice, because we are discussing whether the exposed water loses more heat than it gains. Satellite measurements of (non-ice) ocean surfaces are better quality than tropospheric temps over land. Where there is sea ice, the temperature is assumed to be 0C.

    For sea surface temperatures there are a number of processes at work when the ice recedes. The major factors are 1) darker water absorbs more short-wave radiation, causing the temperature of the ocean to rise, and 2) increased heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere as the insulating effect of the ice is removed. Which will dominate? It seems evident that the warming factors are strongly outweighing the cooling factors, because the Arctic Ocean is strongly warming. This warming is commensurate with the land-based record of atmospheric temps. All the observational evidence points in the opposite direction from ocean net cooling from ice recession.

    Is there any observational evidence – I mean long-term – to support this notion?

    And I agree with RACookPE1978 that the physics says decreased ice cover must be cooling the Arctic Ocean (all else being equal). The ocean cools primarily by evaporation driven by the temperature difference between ocean surface and the air, and that is greatest in the ice free Arctic Ocean.

    How have you factored in the loss of albedo and greater absorption of sunlight at all? Have you considered that heat flux from evaporation might form clouds, another potential feedback in both directions? And if you are one who credits the idea that more CO2 traps more infrared radiation, then how does this play out for increased infrared radiation flowing up from the sea surface?

    I am by no means an expert and can’t speak to the physics, but the observations seem pretty stark to me. Whatever negative feedbacks are at work, they have not been strong enough to prevent the recession of Arctic sea ice, or the strong temperature rise of the ocean and atmosphere.

  64. I am by no means an expert and can’t speak to the physics, but the observations seem pretty stark to me. Whatever negative feedbacks are at work, they have not been strong enough to prevent the recession of Arctic sea ice, or the strong temperature rise of the ocean and atmosphere.

    Excepting the problematic satellite measurements there are no Arctic Ocean wide measurements of air temperatures, SSTs or ocean temperatures. This is why HADCRUT extrapolates land temperatures over the Arctic ocean.

    As I have explained before Arctic sea ice retreat in the last 15 years is driven by increased solar insolation from decreased low level clouds, augmented by albedo changes from embedded BC in the Arctic sea ice, which accumulates on the surface as it melts. this is why multiyear Artic sea ice is melting significantly faster than seasonal and 2 year ice.

    Incidentally, this explains the record Arctic sea ice summer melt as well as the record winter sea ice formation in both the Arctic and Antarctic (fewer clouds = more radiative cooling). We don’t see enhanced summer sea ice melt in the Antarctic because there is almost no BC embedded in the sea ice.

    If you have another theory that explains all the sea ice facts, I’d like to hear it.

  65. Excepting the problematic satellite measurements there are no Arctic Ocean wide measurements of air temperatures

    International Arctic Buoy Programme

    “A network of automatic data buoys to monitor synoptic-scale fields of sea level pressure, surface air temperature, and ice motion throughout the Arctic Ocean was recommended by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 1974. Based on the Academy’s recommendation, the Arctic Ocean Buoy Program was established by the Polar Science Center (PSC), Applied Physics Laboratory-University of Washington, in 1978 to support the Global Weather Experiment. Operations began in early 1979, and the program continued through 1990 under funding from various agencies. In 1991, the International Arctic Buoy Programme (IABP) succeeded the Arctic Ocean Buoy Program, but the basic objective remains – to maintain a network of drifting buoys on the Arctic Ocean to provide meteorological and oceanographic data for real-time operational requirements and research purposes including support to the World Climate Research Programme and the World Weather Watch Programme.”

    It is true that Arctic Ocean coverage is inferior to most of the other seas, but it is hard to credit the theory you are expounding, when in order to do so it is required that the satellite record, the buoy record, the record of ships logs and the record of surrounding weather stations, which all point to the opposite, must all be so problematic as to obscure a general Arctic Ocean cooling trend that is not evident in any data set whatsoever.

    Furthermore, the temperature signal is strong in these data sets. It stretches credulity even further to imagine that they are all not only wrong, but all very wrong, all at once and in the same direction.

    So I ask again, do you have any long-term observational data that indicates a general cooling trend in the Arctic Ocean or in the atmosphere above it over the last several decades?

    If you have another theory that explains all the sea ice facts, I’d like to hear it.

    Well, it may seem a bit naive, but I expect warming conditions in the Arctic would melt the ice. The thinning of the pack ice is a result of the warming of the waters. It has been warming in the Arctic more strongly in winter than in summer, so it seems unlikely that solar influence is responsible, not to mention that the sun has been relatively constant for the last 60 years or so. And sea ice has been declining in wintertime, so the Arctic Ocean should have been cooling over the long-term, adding thickness to the ice pack. But every data set there is doesn’t support the notion of a powerfully negative feedback from newly exposed ocean heat flux.

    I imagine this negative feedback does ameliorate the warming, but it doesn’t seem to do so strongly, or not strongly enough for us to see evidence of Arctic Ocean cooling.

    But if you know of any observational data of Arctic Ocean cooling over the last few decades, could you point me in the right direction?

  66. And sea ice has been declining in wintertime, so the Arctic Ocean should have been cooling over the long-term, adding thickness to the ice pack.

    To expand on that – because there has been a reduction in Arctic sea ice during the winters, when the sky is dark and heat flux from the extra area of open sea doesn’t compete with short-wave radiation, surely we should see a definite cooling in winter as well as a thickening of the ice pack due to the more frigid waters.

    But we see the opposite of these things.

  67. barry says:
    September 30, 2012 at 1:29 am
    But if you know of any observational data of Arctic Ocean cooling over the last few decades, could you point me in the right direction?
    —————————————
    barry, the Arctic ocean is not an isolated Ocean by itself.
    The oceans are interconnected and massive heat transfer is happening through the oceans waters.
    I do not pretend to be a specialist, I was a normal AGW believer until about a year and a half ago when I started to look at the data and what was presented to us as science.
    The South Hemisphere is receiving about 6% more heat from the sun in comparison with the North Hemisphere due to Earth being at periphelion (January 3rd) during summer in the South and aphelion in the North (July 4th), however the North Hemisphere is losing more heat then the South – look at the OLR data:

    This means there is heat transfer between the hemispheres to compensate for it.
    Due to the circumpolar currents around the Antarctica there is no strong heat transfer from the oceans towards the South Pole.
    Due to the Atlantic open water towards the Arctic and secondary the Bering Straight for the North Pacific there is heat transfer from the oceans to the North Pole.

    This all is looking like the oceans work like a heat pump gaining heat in the South Hemisphere and pumping it to the Arctic.
    As said I am not a specialist, do not know the delay – how long does the heat need to be transferred, how the whole process is happening, but at first overview it would look like the South is getting colder, the North is still receiving warmth from the “good past years”. Am apoen to new hypothesis, happy to learn from specialists and would change my point of view if data would point to it.
    As we see the warming is not exponentially increasing, no sea level acceleration I am confident we have time to let science explain correctly what is happening and can focus on more urgent issues.
    I am not satisfied with the quality of the climate scientific publications, with name calling studies and garbage and political activism-us. We have seen where this led to in the past and it is not pretty.

    If CO2 would be the major culprit it would also reduce the South Hemisphere ice coverage. The Antarctica gaining ice and reaching an all time ice extend record is not looking good for the CO2 CAGW hypothesis.
    The missing of strong correlation between CO2 and temperature on milenia scale is also a strong issue of the hypothesis. Did I said strong correlation? Actually missing of any correlation in the last 11000 years:

    http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#An%20overview%20to%20get%20things%20into%20perspective

    The Arctic had already less ice then now and no chain reaction or catastrophe happened:

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice.aspx

    The Arctic trend is not unusual:

    We live in the coldest period of the last 10000 years:

  68. Barry:

    Yes, we have looked at the albedo of open ocean (rough water) compared to to the albedo of ice.

    Listen to my words very carefully please: At the latitude where Arctic Sea Ice is now concentrated – that region between 81 north latitude and the pole , at the time of minimum sea ice extent at the autmn equinox , for time of day when the sun is shining – with a maximum of 3-9 degrees incidence angle at local soalr noon, and an average of 2 to 5 degrees incident angle for the entire 12 hour day, and for the extreme air mass values (between 6 and 30 air masses for differnt hours of theday) forced by these very low solar incidence angles at the timeof minmum sea ice extents …

    The albedo of open ocean water – smooth or roughened by waves – is equal to the albedo of ice.

    As much solar energy reflectes off of the newly open ocean water as reflects off of the sea ice. Any increase in sea ice melting from any area in the Arctic between latitude 78 north and thepole results in increased net heat losses.

    Understand? Under today’s conditions at the edge of the Arctic Sea Ice, at the time of Artic Sea Ice minmum, the physics of the water and ice, the geogrpahy of the sun and thesea ice, do not permit arguements.

    The more the Arctic Sea Ice melts under today’s conditions at the time of minimum sea ice, the cooler the earth becomes.

    THE OPPOSITE HAPPENS IN THE ANARCTIC.

    The sea ice maximum of theAntarctic is at a much, much lower latitude: the edge of the sea is between 62 and 60 south latitude.

    At THOSE latitudes, today’s Antarctic increased sea ice extents DOES reflect more energy from the earth, DOES reduce albedo, and DOES cool the earth more.

    The difference is the angle of the sun’s rays. in the Antarctic at the equinox, the sun’s rays are between 20 degrees and 30 degrees above the horizon. At that angle, sunlight IS absorbed by the open water, and reflected by the sea ice.

    Since there is significantly MRE sea ice than at any time in measured history, more energy is reflected from the earth, less in absorbed by the open water, and the earth cools.

  69. Lars,

    barry, the Arctic ocean is not an isolated Ocean by itself. The oceans are interconnected and massive heat transfer is happening through the oceans waters.

    Certainly. But that’s not the issue, which I think is really simple. If the outward heat flux from newly esposed water (no more sea ice insulation) in the Arctic outweighs the uptake of solar warming because of the lower albedo + whatever it is that is causing the Arctic to warm, then this should be evident in Ocean temperatures. But RACookPE1978 is refining their case, so let me address that.

  70. RACookPE1978,

    We can get around the problem of albedo by examining ocean temperatures during the polar night. November is pretty dark most of the day North of 65N, and the sea ice has retreated by 15% relative to the 1979 – 2000 average. The retreat has been eating into the area between 65N and 72N. If ocean heat flux outweighs other factors the ocean should definitely have cooled during the month of November over the long term.

    Do you have any observational evidence that this is the case? UAH shows strong warming for this month.

    Rather than expecting me to assume the physics are right, can you refer me to formal studies demonstrating that the albedo of open water at the autumn equinox at 81N is the same as sea ice?

    Can you direct me to any formal evidence for the assertions you have been making? I ask because I have now read up on the subject, and just about everything I read (studies, commentary at sea ice institutions like NSIDC) comes to the opposite conclusion you do, and falls into line with the observational evidence that we have.

    Can you help me out here? I’m interested in hard data, anything to go on beyond assertion.

  71. Clearly some sort of grand oscillation between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice mechanisms is at work. The formation environment in the Antipodes is ideal whereas in high northerly latitudes it’s been suppressed now for decades.

  72. Clearly some sort of grand oscillation between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice mechanisms is at work.

    Clearly?

    The preponderance of papers that I’m aware of projecting changes in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice indicate that the Antarctic response to global warming will be slower and/or later than the Arctic. One 1992 paper modelling regionally distinct effects even predicted slightly increased Antarctic sea ice in the short-term, although this is, as far as I am aware, a result unique to that paper. It does, however, highlight characteristics of heat flux and precipitation that are unique to each environment.

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9201.pdf

    The formation environment in the Antipodes is ideal whereas in high northerly latitudes it’s been suppressed now for decades.

    A straightforward reading is that increased temperatures will mean less sea ice, which is the case for the Arctic. But the implication of something suppressing sea ice formation in the Arctic seems a contradiction to the notion of a see-saw mechanism – or is the see-saw mechanism doing the ‘suppressing’?

    Finally, if the there is an actual see-saw mechanism at work, then the only way to determine any trend would be to plot the total sea ice area. For the satellite period there is an overall, annual decline of 1.3 milion sq kms. But perhaps this is an artifact of one half of the cycle – maybe when the see-saw swings back, Arctic growth rate eclipses Antarctic decline, canceling out the trend.

    However, the extant data for sea ice cover over the last 50 years or century or (and the pre-satellite record is sparse, therefore strongly caveated) shows decline for both hemispheres.

    While there is a well agreed on milennial bipolar effect (ice age-length oscillation) the evidence of a multidecadal bipolar effect (such as Chylek et al 2010) isn’t very strong.

  73. barry

    You assert that in a night-time month (Nov) the arctic warmed. (Yes, I know you source this to UAH, but I’m to lazy to verify, I’ll trust you)

    We can all agree that in order for warming to occur, heat energy must be delivered.

    We can also all agree that the greater the differential between the night sky and the surface, the more heat energy is lost. e.g. if you have water at > -2C {freezing for seawater} it will loose more energy than an equivalent surface area of ice.

    We also can agree that water will transfer more energy per unit time than ice because it is of higher density than ice, is a fluid rather than a solid, develops larger, faster waves (increased area / increased mixing) etc. even when the temperature is at the freeze/thaw point.

    (Or if we can’t, don’t bother reading further)

    Given the above, the only way for warming to occur is for more heat energy to be moved into the area, which means it is coming from somewhere else.

    Once that energy arrives, it is radiated to space.
    — Now you may want to argue that the enhanced CO2 would re-radiate it back to the surface, but the enhanced CO2 is more likely ( Terra is an oblate spheroid ) to radiate to space than to the surface, so adding CO2 just increases the updraft and enhances the TOA(CO2) radiation. (similar to how putting on thin silk gloves can increase heat loss by increasing the surface area more than reducing the transfer rate). —

    Thus, increased temperature in the Arctic in winter necessarily translates to greater heat loss from the Arctic. This requires a source of heat. The heat could come from chilling the deeper layers of the Arctic (requiring open water and storms, otherwise the ocean will stratify) or along the surface from further south. Which is really the same thing since the deeper water was warmed further south, discounting volcanoes, anyway.

    Which all means that to keep the temperature up at the radiator, we must be sucking heat from the engine. Or, GLOBAL COOLING.

    Have a nice day

  74. Now you may want to argue that the enhanced CO2 would re-radiate it back to the surface, but the enhanced CO2 is more likely ( Terra is an oblate spheroid ) to radiate to space than to the surface, so adding CO2 just increases the updraft and enhances the TOA(CO2) radiation. (similar to how putting on thin silk gloves can increase heat loss by increasing the surface area more than reducing the transfer rate).

    Actually, I’m trying to avoid a conversation about the greenhouse effect as it is a red flag on this site and tends to distract from other topics when it is introduced. Apologies, but I think many here would sympathise with my preference for hard data – observational evidence – over theorising.

    (I disagree with your description of the GH effect here and the inferences flowing therefrom, but if you want to discuss that, link me to somethwere else – I really don’t want to sideline the current conversation)

    Cheers,

    barry.

  75. barry,

    You did note the — m-dashes — indicating that the CO2 discussion was not integral to the point, did you not? I’m glad you are trying to avoid the distraction. So, getting back to first principles, what is your proposed mechanism for raising Arctic winter temperatures that will not result in increased heat loss to space?

Comments are closed.