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

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.

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!

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!

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.