By WUWT Regular Just The Facts
Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area reached a minimum of 2.447 Million Sq km on February 23rd, 2014, which exceeded the prior 2nd highest minimum of 2.423 Million Sq km that occurred on February 22nd, 2013. The highest recorded Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area minimum remains 2.473 Million Sq km, which occurred on March 1st, 2003. The data from Cryosphere Today can be found here. Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area has now been above average for over 2 years:
The last negative anomaly recorded was on November 23rd, 2011, data here and graph below:
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent reached its 3rd 4th highest minimum of 3.515 Million Sq km on February 20th, 2014, which is less than the 3.626 Million Sq km minimum that occurred on February 17th, 2003, the 3.650 Million Sq km minimum which occurred on February 19th, 2013 and the record high minimum of 3.692 Million Sq km, which occurred on February 20th, 2008.* Corrected Also, Antarctic Sea Ice Extent dipped below 2 standard deviations of the 1981 – 2010 average for the first time since September, 2013, Data can be found here and graph below:
Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) has been quite close to average for the last few years;
thus the increase in Southern Sea Ice and Extent is likely primarily driven by wind, atmospheric oscillations and ocean currents, similar to the causes of the recent decline in Northern Sea Ice. In January 2014, Arctic Sea Ice Extent dipped below 2 standard deviations of the 1981 – 2010 average for the first time in over a year;
likely due to the displaced Polar Vortex, which allowed several cold air outbreaks to escape the Arctic region. As result, Great Lakes Ice is within striking distance of a record high;
and a large number of record low temperatures have occurred over the last few days:
Weather aside, Global Sea Ice Area has remained stubbornly average over the year;
and Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly is currently .361 Million Sq km below the 1981 – 2010 average:
I am sure that we can expect to see similar coverage about the 2nd highest Northern Sea Ice Area minimum, like we saw for the Arctic in 2011, e.g.:
“Last month the extent of sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean declined to the second-lowest extent on record. Satellite data from NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder showed that the summertime sea ice cover narrowly avoided a new record low.” NASA
“Sea-ice coverage across the Arctic Ocean has dwindled to its second-lowest level since satellite records started in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.” Reuters
“Sea ice cover in the Arctic in 2011 has passed its annual minimum, reaching the second-lowest level since satellite records began, US scientists say.” BBC
Right?
Just heard a lady in Ohio say that the ground around her home is frozen to a depth of 8 feet.
She can say so but I think not.
Lots of ice and cold though. Nice post Mr. Facts.
From what I can tell, anything is possible for the Magic Molecule CO2. It creates more ice, less ice, more heat, less heat, more rain, less rain, more storms, less storms, …
Nice post by the way. I enjoyed it.
I make the minimum 4th highest, not 3rd.
2008 came in at 3.691, and is the highest.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-passes-minimum/
BTW – The Aurora Australis has had ice problems YET AGAIN.
It could not get into Mawson Base, and has had to return to Hobart.,
Emergency supplies will now have to be airlifted by helicopter.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/thick-ice-prevents-resupply-at-mawson-station/
So Antartic sea ice extent is constant, Arctic one is shrinking, leading to a smaller sea ice extend in global terms. So I’m wondering about the sentence, “Global Sea Ice Area has remained stubbornly average over the year”, while in the same sentence it is said that “Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly is currently .361 Million Sq km below the 1981 – 2010 average:”. How does that make sense?
Paul Homewood says: March 1, 2014 at 1:58 pm
I make the minimum 4th highest, not 3rd.
2008 came in at 3.691, and is the highest.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-passes-minimum/
You are absolutely correct, my mistake. I have corrected this error in the article above and linked the correction to this comment. Thank you very much for correcting this mistake.
Max Erwengh
So Antartic sea ice extent is constant, Arctic one is shrinking, leading to a smaller sea ice extend in global terms. So I’m wondering about the sentence, “Global Sea Ice Area has remained stubbornly average over the year”, while in the same sentence it is said that “Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly is currently .361 Million Sq km below the 1981 – 2010 average:”. How does that make sense?
No, Antarctic ice is not constant. It has been at record levels for most of the last year, and at the end of Feb is 23% above average.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-passes-minimum/
Meanwhile global sea ice , while slightly below normal this month, has also been above average for most of the last year.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Max Erwengh says:
March 1, 2014 at 2:15 pm
So Antartic sea ice extent is constant, Arctic one is shrinking, leading to a smaller sea ice extend in global terms. So I’m wondering about the sentence, “Global Sea Ice Area has remained stubbornly average over the year”, while in the same sentence it is said that “Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly is currently .361 Million Sq km below the 1981 – 2010 average:”. How does that make sense?
——————————————————————————————————————
Antarcic has remained “constantly above average”, not “constant”, and Arctic has grown this year,but is still below average. Between the two they’ve given a global extent that’s been bouncing around the average mark since about the begining of 2013.
0.361 million sq km below average may sound a lot, but it’s so close to the average as makes no difference – a couple of months ago it was a full million above average, about 6 months ago it was about the same as now, and for the 6 months before that it was between average and about 0.8 million above. So it’s “remained stubbornly average” – neither surprisingly high nor low.
Hope that helps clarify it? :).
Eyeballing your first chart, it looks like the most recent Antarctic sea ice maximum (2013) was the third highest. So within one year the min and max where both the third highest.
John
Max Erwengh March 1, 2014 at 2:15 pm
So Antarctic sea ice extent is constant, Arctic one is shrinking, leading to a smaller sea ice extend in global terms. So I’m wondering about the sentence, “Global Sea Ice Area has remained stubbornly average over the year”, while in the same sentence it is said that “Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly is currently .361 Million Sq km below the 1981 – 2010 average:”. How does that make sense?
At present Global Sea Ice Area is 15.572 Million Sq km data
the .361 Million Sq km anomaly represents just 2.3% of the total. A single storm could cause this, e.g.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/27/record-arctic-storm-melted-sea-ice/
Given the significant normal variation due to large scale climatological phenomena like the Polar Vortex and ENSO, the noise of small changes does not change the fact that Global Sea Ice is “average”. Global Sea Ice Area had a positive anomaly of 0.8636 on January 4th data, when I last used the phrase “stubbornly average” in an article to refer to Global Sea Ice:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/2013-was-not-a-good-year-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-climate-warming-change-disruption-wierding-ocean-acidification-extreme-weather-etc/
I am giving an educated guess here. I wonder if the record extents have to do with the position of the cold pools (there are two) related to the Circumpolar Wave and the shoreline geography of Antarctica. Food for thought.
I think anyone with an unbiased view would have to observe that the two poles are doing something wildly different when it comes to sea ice. A straight inter comparison is hardly worth the effort. Artic ice changes by approximately 7 million sq km between summer and winter whilst Antarctic ice swings by some 13 million sq km. this most likely has something to do with the presence of land in the Antarctic and the lack of land in the Artic.
I suggest this because I have noted a fairly regular cadence to the peaks in the above extent graph that appear to match the circumpolar wave. I wonder if there is a fit somewhere.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00376-011-1143-z#page-1
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/ant_wave.html
Global Sea Ice extent is about 2% below normal. That’s not much of an anomaly.
Great post JTF!
@ur momisugly Pamela Gray — there never will be a perfect place to post this Q, so, I’ll just interject it here, hoping you see it…
(How was Valentine’s Day?) #(:))
Janice
Lovely! I received the most wonderful bouquet of deep red roses and dinner out. Plus a semi-precious stone strand necklace. That man treats me like a queen and is the kindest person I have ever known. I am indeed very fortunate!
Given co2ers don’t seem to have designed a fail point in their experiments then there is no point at which evidence will change their conviction that the theory is right. Co2 =main driver of climate is a Hotel California. You can check out any time u like but u can never leave.
@ur momisugly Pamela — Good! And you deserve it. (thanks for replying)
[The mods will refrain from further commenting on the personal crystalline ice particles worn by or exhibited on the persons or personnel responding to a sea ice discussion. Mod]
Well, let us see.
October, 2013, the Antarctic sea ice extents was at a record high maximum at right at 19.5 Million square kilometers.
The Antarctic sea ice extents ANOMALY in October 2013 was also very high – over 1.5 Mkm^2 of “excess” southern sea ice extents. ALL of this “excess” sea ice was between latitude 60 south and latitude 59 south. ALL of this “excess” southern sea ice extents covered an area LARGER than the entire area of Hudson Bay (also centered at latitude 60), and this EXCESS southern sea covered an area about HALF the size of Greenland (a region centered between 60 north and 80 north latitude).
The CAGW deists ignored it. Totally. Absolutely ZERO coverage in the world’s press. And, to be honest, very little coverage in even the “friendly” web environment also. Some notice, but no press releases nor TV appearances, right?
Now, imagine the hysteria worldwide if 1/4 of the Hudson Bay “lost” sea ice coverage! Imagine the hysteria if 1/10 of Greenland “lost” sea ice? (Actually, we read every year the hysteria when a “Manhattan-size” iceberg breaks off any glacier anywhere, so the world’s press would run out of ink printing Washington’s worry about even a 1/10 Greenland loss.)
But, when the southern hemisphere “gains” 1/2 Greenland sea ice extents?
Nothing.
Just remember, at today’s sea ice extents, the “edge” of the Arctic sea is a tiny ring about latitude 78 -82 north in mid-September. The “edge” of Antarctic’s sea ice minimum is also a “ring” – but that ring is about latitude 66 south. Much closer to the equator, much more energy reflected from the Antarctic sea ice, right? Now, at maximum extents, the “edge” Arctic sea ice is at its closest point to the equator is only down to 72 north, not even as close to the equator as the minimum Antarctic sea ice! But at its maximum, Antarctic sea ice extents is much, much higher at 59.2 to 59.0 latitude. Closer to the equator than even the most southern tip of Greenland!
Now, at the equinoxes, when both Arctic and Antarctic are both hit by the same solar intensity, the Antarctic Sea Ice receives between 2x (Feb-March) to 5x (September-October) the energy that the Arctic sea ice receives. Thus, to reflect equal energy into space, the “gain” of even 1.0 Mkm^2 of southern sea ice extents needs to be balanced by a loss 2 to 5 LARGER in the Arctic.
Instead, we see near even sea ice changes. So, since at today’s levels of sea ice extents, “more Arctic sea ice loss” up north means a net loss of energy from the planet; and “more sea ice extents gain” down south means a net loss of energy from the planet, we are facing a future big problem. If today’s trends continue.
And, as we can always predict, if today’s rates of Antarctic sea ice extents gain continue, the sea route around Cape Horn will be blocked to shipping within 8-10 years!
P.Homewood says 4th highest instead of 3rd; You (justthefacts) agree; post title still says 2nd highest; what gives? Muchly puzzled?
AR4- the physical science basis-
Snow and Ice
As the climate warms, snow cover and sea ice extent decrease; glaciers and ice caps lose mass owing to a dominance of summer melting over winter precipitation increases. This contributes to sea level rise as documented for the previous generation of models in the TAR. There is a projected reduction of sea ice in the 21st century in both the Arctic and Antarctic with a rather large range of model responses. The projected reduction is accelerated in the Arctic, where some models project summer sea ice cover to disappear entirely in the high-emission A2 scenario in the latter part of the 21st century. Widespread increases in thaw depth over much of the permafrost regions are projected to occur in response to warming over the next century.
and the (non)skeptical science website says-
The take home messages is that while the increase in total Antarctic sea ice area is relatively minor compared to the Arctic, it masks the fact that some regions are in strong decline. Given the complex interactions of winds and currents driving patterns of sea ice variability and change in the Southern Ocean climate system, [b]this is not unexpected[/b].
bahahaha!
oh, these guys are a laugh a minute. here sit down story, i have a nice massage for you. of course ar5 used the cut and trim method, proven to work ten times better because it wont come back to bit you in the future. AR6 will be …sea ice.. what is sea ice, we only talk about sea level rise, and that is all we have ever talked about!
[Those rackets need to be angled brackets, not square brackets for the html commands to work on a WordPress entry. Mod]
Good observation, F. Ross (3/1/14, 5:04pm).
A possible clue:
February 20, 2014: Antarctic Sea Ice Extent reached its
3rd4th highest minimum of 3.515 Million Sq kmFebruary 23, 2014: Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area reached a minimum of 2.447 Million Sq km … which exceeded the prior 2nd highest minimum
Soon, JTF will burst in the door and explain, I have no doubt. (smile)
F. Ross says: March 1, 2014 at 5:04 pm
P.Homewood says 4th highest instead of 3rd; You (justthefacts) agree; post title still says 2nd highest; what gives? Muchly puzzled?
Paul’s article and point was related to Sea Ice “Extent”, i.e.:
“Extent defines a region as “ice-covered” or “not ice-covered.” For each satellite data cell, the cell is said to either have ice or to have no ice, based on a threshold. The most common threshold (and the one NSIDC uses) is 15 percent, meaning that if the data cell has greater than 15 percent ice concentration, the cell is considered ice covered; less than that and it is said to be ice free.”
Conversely, the 2nd Highest Minimum referenced in the title and body of this article is Sea Ice “Area”, i.e.:
“Area takes the percentages of sea ice within data cells and adds them up to report how much of the Arctic is covered by ice; area typically uses a threshold of 15%. So in the same example, with three 25 km x 25 km (16 miles x 16 miles) grid cells of 16% ice, 2% ice, and 90% ice, multiply the grid cell areas that are over the 15% threshold by the percent of sea ice in those grid cells, and add it up. You would have a total area of 662 square km (255.8 square miles).”
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center:
“Scientists at NSIDC report extent because they are cautious about summertime values of ice concentration and area taken from satellite sensors. To the sensor, surface melt appears to be open water rather than water on top of sea ice. So, while reliable for measuring area most of the year, the microwave sensor is prone to underestimating the actual ice concentration and area when the surface is melting. To account for that potential inaccuracy, NSIDC scientists rely primarily on extent when analyzing melt-season conditions and reporting them to the public. That said, analyzing ice area is still quite valuable. Given the right circumstances, background knowledge, and scientific information on current conditions, it can provide an excellent sense of how much ice there really is ‘on the ground.'”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/
Regardless, even if Sea Ice Area might underestimate areas of ice with surface melt, the measurement process has been applied consistently throughout the record and 2014 had the 2nd highest minimum.
It seems the co2ers have mutated their argument to deal with the fact all their predictions are wrong. Eliminate the need for predictions! Hijack the actual as ‘proof’. Then there is no need to recognise when their hypothesis has failed. It can never fail. Whatever the actual does =driven by co2.
” Whatever the extremes in the climate, fry or dry or freeze, it is it co2 that drives it. Co2 is up. Its a fact. Co2 leads to climate extremes is the science consensus. These extremes maybe variable and hard to predict. ‘So how you going to reduce co2’ is the only game in town.”
get out of that one Houdini!