Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area

by

The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, which, as I reported in my book, has been steadily increasing throughout the period of satellite measurement that began in 1979, has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage.

The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning.

Antarctic sea ice has set a new all-time record maximum over the weekend of June 28-29, 2014.

The previous record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area was 1.840 million square kilometers and occurred on December 20, 2007.

Global sea ice area, as of Sunday morning, stood at 1.005 million square kilometers above average.

More here: http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice/

And also at the WUWT Sea ice page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

About these ads
This entry was posted in Antarctic, Sea ice. Bookmark the permalink.

260 Responses to Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area

  1. Bill P. says:

    I thought the Arctic pack was growing but Antarctic was shrinking! That’s what the Warmists told me anyway.

  2. Jim Foles says:

    With low sunspot counts the ice grows. But, there is an active volcano under the western part of the north and south ice packs maybe three, they wont talk about that warming the water below and melting ice. its not the air. its the sea floor and lava. sssshhh.. dont tell anyone.

  3. Don’t be a contrary douche, Bill P. I’d say that this is a welcome piece of research, and one that should be studied fully, because it’s not just important that we know how much sea ice there is, it’s also important that we know how long it lasts, as that’s the real bellweather of temp changes in the region.

  4. I believe Cryosphere uses Area. You mention Extent in post title.

    They also use 1979-2008 as their mean. That makes Arctic look lower and Antarctic look higher.

    :)

    REPLY:
    Right you are. While NSIDC focuses on extent, Cryosphere Today focuses on area. I’ve made the change.

    What is the difference between sea ice area and extent?

    Area and extent are different measures and give scientists slightly different information. Some organizations, including Cryosphere Today, report ice area; NSIDC primarily reports ice extent. Extent is always a larger number than area, and there are pros and cons associated with each method.

    A simplified way to think of extent versus area is to imagine a slice of swiss cheese. Extent would be a measure of the edges of the slice of cheese and all of the space inside it. Area would be the measure of where there is cheese only, not including the holes. That is why if you compare extent and area in the same time period, extent is always bigger. A more precise explanation of extent versus area gets more complicated.
    More here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent

    -Anthony

  5. Kevin Hearle says:

    Now that is what I call a hockey stick, Note also that we are just past mid winter down in this part of the world and there is a lot of freezing yet to come.

  6. Bill Illis says:

    Data here.

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

    Although the anomaly has been creeping up on the all-time record in the last few weeks, the last two days have increased by 200,000 km2 each compared to the average 85,000 km2 so it is possible there are some data issues.

    But 18% above normal is not a sign of global warming, it is the opposite. To be honest, it is a little disturbing.

  7. Josh Payne says:

    CAGW novice here. I have heard the claim from the alarmist camp that this surprising sea ice record is a result of the outward distribution of fresh water from the rapidly melting ice masses. How much merit does this claim have?

    REPLY: Two things to note.

    1. It is winter down there, and most of the continent is below freezing, as is the area outside the continent. http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/navo/antarcsstnowcast.gif
    Where would that meltwater come from?

    2. This NASA article talks about the issues, and while salinity is mentioned it isn’t given much prominence.
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic_melting.html

    -Anthony

  8. Dubya G says:

    More ice on this Fourth Rock does not seem a very good thing to me. What happens when the sea-ice extends to the tip of South America, and cuts off the Roaring Forties? Now, THAT will have an enormous effect on global climates.

    I do, however, still require ice with my vodka & tonic. Especially with the global temperatures reportedly getting out of control (/sarc)

  9. R. Shearer says:

    Satellite measurements began in 1973. The period beginning in 1979 corresponds with the maximum extent in the Arctic. Cherry picking? See page 150 of the full IPCC WG1 report from 1995.

  10. D. B. Cooper says:

    Obviously caused by Global Warming. Ban the Deniers, burn their books, remove them from Public Office.

    It is all so simple, Gaia must prevail.

  11. Eric Worrall says:

    Absolutely freezing here tonight in Hervey Bay, Australia, on the edge of the tropics – 25 degrees south of the Equator. Could use some of that global warming.

  12. Bill P. says:

    First, how is asking a legitimate question “being a contrary douche?”

    Second, at what point do Warmists admit that, even if their warnings are correct, dismissing legitimate questions regarding how they arrived at their conclusions isn’t a “fringe thing” but actually part of scientific inquiry?

  13. Lawrence13 says:

    Bill Illis

    “But 18% above normal is not a sign of global warming, it is the opposite. To be honest, it is a little disturbing”

    Well the ice core record for the last 500,000 years shows that our interglacial is coming towards an end and then we are looking down both barrels of the next glaciation period . Looking at that record is like one of those ‘what happens next’ movies that used to be shown in British schools in the fifties and early sixties.

    In all seriousness are we privileged or just damn unlucky to be living around that turning point

  14. urederra says:

    sunshinehours1 says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:38 am

    I believe Cryosphere uses Area. You mention Extent in post title.

    And the difference is …?

  15. Alan Robertson says:

    Remember when Chris Turney and his flock aboard the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy declared that the Antarctic sea ice was growing because of the excessive fresh water runoff from the fast- melting Antarctic continental ice cap? Get ready for that meme to be redeployed.

  16. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks, Harold.

    Regards

  17. LWJR says:

    Goes to show you that the DEMS and GLOBAL WARMING ideologues are after TAX MONEY. Their science has a few ozone holes in it.

  18. Yancey Ward says:

    According to climate models, this is all predicted- sea ice will increase and increase until it reaches zero sea ice.

  19. John says:

    Gore disciples had better start praying to Mother Earth for global warming – unless of course they consider the inability to grow food for a few billion people to be a good thing.

  20. John says:

    I nominate Yancy award as today’s interweb winner!

  21. JOhn Boles says:

    It’s better than we thought!

  22. Lawrence13 says:

    Alan Robertson says:

    June 29, 2014 at 7:13 am

    “Remember when Chris Turney and his flock aboard the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy declared that the Antarctic sea ice was growing because of the excessive fresh water runoff from the fast- melting Antarctic continental ice cap? Get ready for that meme to be redeployed.”

    But surely if there was any shred of truth about that theory then we should see positive sea ice anomalies of the southern coast of Greenland? Same principle surely.

  23. Hill411 says:

    Sounds like a good opportunity for the global warming/climate change/whatever they nowcall themselves to claim the Antarctic freeze is locking up all the atmospheric miosture and causing worldwide droughts. When the ice melts they can claim worldwide flooding as a result of increased atmospheric moisture. No matter the weather condition, the alarmists will find a way to futher their political agenda and blame man as the cause of the disaster. I am awaiting word that earthquakes are caused by the weight of too many people. Volcanoes are caused by man cooking out doors and heating up the ground. I can see the crowds chanting “No more luaus…no more luaus”. Yeah, mankind has really screwed up the earth. The end is near. The sky is falling. The oceans willrise and everyone will die. Iam pretty sure the earth has survived dramatic changes in climate, the rise and fall of the oceans, wide spread volcanic activity with the resulting polution, hot periods, cold periods, and the beat goes on. Of course, thebeat offers opportunitiesformsny who can use emotions and distorted ‘facts’ to sell an agenda.

  24. Bill Illis says:

    Take 4 mms of fresh water and put it on top of 5,000,000 mms of salty water.

    What happens? Absolutely nothing.

  25. Alan Robertson says:

    Josh Payne says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:40 am

    _________
    Here’s a fascinating and very informative documentary made by NSF divers beneath the Antarctic sea ice. At one point, they show melt water pouring into the sea, where it freezes within seconds and forms underwater “ice falls”.

  26. dbstealey says:

    Bill P asks:

    …at what point do Warmists admit that, even if their warnings are correct, dismissing legitimate questions regarding how they arrived at their conclusions isn’t a “fringe thing” but actually part of scientific inquiry?

    I’ve been asking that for the last couple of years. When every alarmist prediction turns out to be wrong, intelligent folks will begin to wonder if the basic premise was wrong.

    Planet Earth is clearly telling us. There is no global warming. There just isn’t.

  27. John Shade says:

    2004: ‘Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.’ (http://www.rense.com/general52/ahbi.htm)

    2014: the story so far. It is going to be harder and harder for poor folks to reach this promised land by sailboat and on foot, what with all this new ice in the way and all. All that green pastureland waiting for them will be taken by wealthy folks like King arriving in their private jets. (http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/8/11/king-of-carbon-emissions.html).

  28. NZ Willy says:

    Just a brief reminder about the polarizing lens on the orbiting satellite. Before 2008 the Arctic ice extent charts showed an upwards bump on 1 July when the polarizing lenses were switched from Antarctic to Arctic mode — this was so that Arctic melt ponds would not be interpreted as open water. The reverse switch was on 1 January so was not evident on the charts because it was at the edge. Anyway, people complained about the bump so they decided to “improve” the chart by gradually turning the polarizing lens. This rapidly became carte blanche for turning the lens any way they wanted, and accounts for much of the symmetry seen nowadays — when the Arctic ice anomaly rises, the Antarctic anomaly falls, and so on. Today we see the Antarctic ice anomaly rising to record levels even as the Arctic ice anomaly is oddly dropping even as the ice edge is strong — this is because the Arctic ice concentration has dropped to about 75% – 80% all across the ice cap — because the melt ponds are all being interpreted as open water (see the washed out orange color on the ice concentration map). It’s just that they’ve (presumably) turned that polarizing lens all the way into Antarctic mode to report as low an Arctic ice area as possible– which thus causes the reported Antarctic ice extent to skyrocket.

    This account is my interpretation of what is happening, as it is consistent with the past few years of sea ice data. What’s needed is someone in the satellite data area to come forth and tell the reality.

  29. Ice ages have always been associated with slight wobbles in the earth’s axis relative to the sun. They are caused by the earth and the moon orbiting a point between them. The moon doesn’t really orbit the earth as much as it does this point (called the barycentre). Also there are the slight variations of the sun’s output and the distance the earth is from the sun. These changes have been mostly moderate, though there have been periods when ice covered a substantial area of the earth. The global warmists might be right, but I doubt it. They have not followed the scientific method and thus have not done science.

  30. dougjmiller says:

    The “Global Warming” scam is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated. There have many climate changes in the few billion years the earth has been around, and most of them occurred well before man arrived on the scene. So even if the present “Global Warming” fraud were true, which is unlikely, it’s a real stretch of the imagination to blame it on man. Plus the hustlers’ “solution” for this non-event is to undermine the American economy and to transfer sovereignty from individual nations and surrender power to the UN. Should we take better care of our planet? Of course! But the “Global Warming” scam should be thrown out with the garbage, not to be recycled.

  31. Adam says:

    During the summer we prefer to focus on the Arctic ice extent. We don’t look at the southern hemisphere until around January. Please get with the program.

  32. RAH says:

    How about some of you smart folks here poke holes in this for me?

    For a couple of years now I have spent a good deal of time scanning various climate sites as I strive to gain an understanding. I have read several books on the subject also. I am not going to pretend that I have even come close to have really scratched the surface of this very complex subject. But the one central thing I have tried to decide is what I should really look at to determine if and how much significant global cooling or global warming is going on. I think I have finally decided the best way to keep track of it using strictly objective data that is easy to interpret for the average person even with no science aptitude or back ground .

    So here it is.
    Now the freezing point of water does vary slightly. Fresh water freezes at a slightly higher temperature than sea water for example. But this variability is miniscule in almost all conditions found on the earths surface. So when it comes to determining if our earth is cooling or warming in the general sense the amount of sea ice is a very good measurement over the long term. In the short term the amount of sea ice is not nearly as reliable a measurement for determining cooling or warming because storms, currents, and volcanic activity can significantly effect it’s volume and coverage.

    And thus as far as I’m concerned the best single way for a layman to get a handle on if the earth is warming or cooling is to monitor the sea ice extent at both poles. It seems very clear that in the past when global cooling has occurred the most obvious sign has been markedly decreased melting of the ice during the summer months at both poles. That is a prime sign of when an ice age is begining. It is not so much the amount of accumulation of snow and ice at the poles during their winter months that is a sign of cooling as it is the lack of dissipation of ice during the summer months. The opposite applies for general global warming. In short it is the amount of melting that occurs during the summer months at both poles that is the simplest measurment to understand that accurately reflects cooling or warming of the globe.

    This layman is tired of models though I understand the need to strive to prefect them in order to try to develop long term forecasts and understand our climate. But for now when it comes to determining global cooling or warming it seems to me the best course for the average guy who doesn’t have training as a statistician is to watch the poles.

    Why are temperatures not a good gauge of global warming or cooling for the layman? The fact is that almost all of the temperature data our government agencies and various other agencies around the world publish are statistically “adjusted” for various reasons. Often such “adjustments” are made to fill in blank spots in the data when measuring stations go down or when the measurements from stations are not reported in a timely manner. Other such adjustments are made to account for the fact that large urban areas are heat islands that remain warmer than surrounding rural areas. Even satellite temperature data is adjusted for various reasons. No matter the reason for the adjustments the fact is that they are made using statistical methods and the particular statistical method(s) selected to be applied is based solely on the judgment of people. IOW what your getting when you look at historical temperature data is to some extent colored by AN OPINION!

    So the third year the sea ice extents remain significantly above the mean during the summer months at both poles then I will start being concerned about cooling. The opposite goes for warming. No corruption or “adjustment” of temperature data can change these signs. So it seems to me that the satellite measurements of the sea ice extents at BOTH POLES, while not always perfect by any means, as has been proven in the past, are still far more reliable and less susceptible to tampering or error than temperature data at any level from any source and thus make the best and most easily understandable and reliable gauge for the layman to make his/her own judgment on what the worlds temperature is doing.

  33. kbray in california says:

    Anthony, WUWT made the Drudge Report.

    Sweet.

  34. Did Someone Say says:

    In central Wisconsin USA, where the southern edge of the last Ice Age stopped. No ice here today except in our freezer.

  35. NikFromNYC says:

    Josh Payne, you don’t need liquid meltwater that then bizarrely refreezes when it moves from the cold interior to the saltwater sea, since ice itself is plastic enough to flow but that also spells grow. A bit of ocean induced melting merely helps lubricate ice particles to flow faster so a random warm spike can briefly accelerate ice flow.

    In other words, you are being lied to by propagandists and hacks who are smoke screening away Antarctic ice growth with mere soundbites. The same people point to ice breaking off as if that’s due to melting ice instead of ice growth. Since Antarctica is so terribly cold throughout the year, in a warming world with resulting higher humidity, overall Antarctica becomes a sea level sink as it freezes out all that extra humidity and only let’s it go through ice flow. The hockey stick team was so troubled by Antarctic mainland cooling that they were willing to suffer scientific shame by illegally smearing the highly volcanic Peninsula warm trend out over the whole continent with blatantly bad math. News cycle complete, after winning the cover of top journal Nature, the peer reviewed skeptical debunking of it only appeared many months later:

    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/nature_cover.jpg

  36. The following site has the Antarctic anomaly very cold lately.
    http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/index_ds.php
    Today, it is -4.02 while the Arctic is -0.32.

  37. OUOTE: “the outward distribution of fresh water from the rapidly melting ice masses” That’s like saying if I put an ice cube on a plate and it melts the melting water will flow out and refreeze on the plate. Really? How is the climate hot enough to melt the ice yet at the same time cold enough to refreeze the melting water?

  38. Pastor Bob says:

    drink the kool-aid

    A reference to the 1978 cult mass-suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. Jim Jones, the leader of the group, convinced his followers to move to Jonestown. Late in the year he then ordered his flock to commit suicide by drinking grape-flavored Kool-Aid laced with potassium cyanide. In what is now commonly called “the Jonestown Massacre”, 913 of the 1100 Jonestown residents drank the Kool-Aid and died.

    One lasting legacy of the Jonestown tragedy is the saying, “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.” This has come to mean, “Don’t trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side.” or “Whatever they tell you, don’t believe it too strongly”.

  39. jlbusm says:

    And they want us to believe theres global warming or i mean climate change

  40. John says:

    I guess Al Gore better get down there with his backpack blow torch and get busy. This will take money out of his pockets…

  41. I notice that on the WUWT sea ice page there are no graphs such as this for Antarctic sea ice:
    http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/images4/nsidc-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-max.jpg
    I was looking for when the antarctic sea ice is at it’s maximum – looks like late September.
    I wonder why there are a plethora of graphs for arctic sea ice available, but “none” for antarctic sea ice?
    Bias maybe?

  42. Alan Robertson says:

    Jeff Christie says:
    June 29, 2014 at 8:12 am

    Three of the last six months were the warmest on record.
    _________________
    Oh, by record, did you mean the instrumental record of the past 160 years or so, since the use of thermometers began and since the end of the Little Ice Age? Did you also mean the “adjusted” temp record?
    How about during the summer of 2013, when 2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps were recorded?

  43. Teddi says:

    R. Shearer says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:58 am
    Satellite measurements began in 1973. The period beginning in 1979 corresponds with the maximum extent in the Arctic. Cherry picking?

    ———————————————

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_of_sea_ice

    “so the practical record begins in late 1978 with the launch of NASA’s Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) satellite.”

  44. Green Sand says:

    There is a lot of ocean around Antarctica and the sea surface temperatures in the Southern Annular Area – 60 South to 70 South are running “cool” and have been since an apparent step change circa 2006

    Reynolds monthly SSTa – 2000 through May 2014

    http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&month=jan&year=2000&fmonth=may&fyear=2014&lat0=-70&lat1=-60&lon0=-180&lon1=180&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=

    Also SSTa’s from yesterday – Earth Wind map:-

    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-89.39,-87.18,819

  45. ferdberple says:

    consider that heat accumulates at the equator and radiates to at the poles. ice extent shows how much heat is being lost to space at the poles, but it doesnt mean the earth is warming or cooling. the water in your cars cooling system stays about the same temperature regardless of how much fuel you are burning. likely water-ice serves the same function on earth. it is like the louvers on the front of a modern car. they open as the engine needs more cooling, and close when it needs less. all the while the engine remains within a narrow temperature range.

  46. Teddi says:

    RAH says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:59 am
    How about some of you smart folks here poke holes in this for me?
    ————-
    I’d be interested in someone commenting on RAH’s thoughts.

  47. ren says:

    Please check the temperature of the surface. Click on the map. Click to Earth.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=48.99,-84.10,365

  48. ferdberple says:

    since the end of the Little Ice Age
    =============
    how do we know it ended. we don`t know what caused it, so how can anyone know it ended.

  49. Chris Yeager says:

    With all of the scientists promoting fear… The Planet poles move approximately one foot per year…
    Therefore, the human coefficient, albeit somewhat manageable. provisions a small effect to the dynamics of a planet in Space. When we learn more we may actually predict simpler methods to avert extinction. We all know the dinosaurs were just unaware of their demise.
    Good day….

  50. Bill P. says:

    “Three of the last six months were the warmest on record.”

    Okay, what does this mean, exactly? What “record?” Kept by whom and for how long?

    This is one of the things that bothers me about this whole Climate Change flap: the implication that when we say “warmest in record” e.g. that we’re talking about a significant body of data.

    And yes, I understand the concept of Statistics of Extreme Events. I have to use it in my work. But we’re taking less than 200 years of data, and trying to make it stand for MILLENNIA-LONG events!

    We’re doing trend-line analysis that is dramatically affected by where your start-point is.

    And to top it all off, people like you will say “look at these record temps” but if it’s pointed out that there are record temps the other way as well, the response is “climate is not temperature.”

    It’s the slipperiness of the arguments, the unwillingness to consider ALL the data rather than cherry-pick that which seems (at least disingenuously) to support the AGW thesis, that makes me so skeptical.

  51. Vince says:

    What a cotton pickin minute! I thought global warming was suppose to cause the polar ice caps to MELT! And these are the crackpots who want to create new carbon taxes??

  52. Harold Ambler said: “The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, which… , has been steadily increasing throughout the period of satellite measurement that began in 1979, has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage.”

    I don’t see a steady increase since 1979. Instead, I see a flat linear trend until shortly before a big uptick in the second half of 2007.

  53. Tilo says:

    To me the most interesting part of the Antarctic anomaly chart is not the high peak we have just reached, but rather the constant trend since mid 2011 of higher highs and higher lows. Looking at that ramp I see nothing comparable in the record.

    In the mean time the warmists are telling us to ignore the man behind the curtain.

  54. RACookPE1978 says:

    Adam says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:54 am

    During the summer we prefer to focus on the Arctic ice extent. We don’t look at the southern hemisphere until around January. Please get with the program.

    Can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

    Regardless …
    You are wrong about the relative importance of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.
    You are wrong about your choice of the “January” date for the importance of antarctic sea ice: By September, when both arctic and antarctic poles are receiving the SAME solar radiation levels, the edge of the antarctic sea ice at their maximum extents are receiving FIVE TIMES the solar radiation that the edge of the arctic sea ice at its minimum are receiving up north!

    Anomalies (excess) Antarctic sea ice is far, far more important every year across all months of the year than Arctic sea ice losses. In fact, in most months of the year, losing more arctic sea ice from today’s sea ice limits will only INCREASE global cooling due to greater heat loss from the open arctic ocean due to convection, evaporation, conduction, and long wave radiation from the open ocean than is absorbed into the arctic open ocean waters. In sharp contrast, increasing area of the antarctic sea ice increases reflective surfaces closer to the pole, and INCREASES reflective heat losses of the planet.

    This week, at the northern summer solstice, the sun “is” of course, far higher above the north polar regions.

    But! This week’s “excess” antarctic sea ice is so far from the pole that the “excess” 2.04 Mkm^2 of Antarctic sea ice this year IS reflecting solar energy back into space even this week at the NH solstice. For SEVEN months of the years (all of Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, and March) the edge of the Antarctic sea ice received MORE solar energy every day than does the Arctic sea ice – which gets more solar energy only from mid- April, May, June, July through early August. Making this comparison north pole – south pole difference even worse, the annual solar year TOA radiation is at its MINIMUM of 1310 watts/m^2 in mid-July (when arctic sea ice is exposed to the most hours of sunshine), but the top-of-atmosphere solar radiation is at its MAXIMUM of 1410 watts/m^2 the first weeks of January when antarctic sea ice is exposed to 24 hours of sun each day!

    Specifically, in early April just after the spring equinox, both poles receive about the same radiation at top-of-atmosphere (like they do around September’s equinox) : and with the arctic at its annual maximum sea ice of 14.0 Mkm^2, and the antarctic sea ice increasing from its minimum sea ice extents in mid-February. Both arctic and antarctic sea ice extents edges are at about the same latitude, and both get the same exposure. March-April and mid-September are the ONLY months of the year that the total sea ice actually means anything: That you can actually compare Antarctic and Arctic sea ice areas.

    Remember, Antarctic sea ice surrounds the 14.0 Mkm^2 area of the ice-covered continent, and it also surrounds the 3.5 Mkm^2 Antarctic shelf ice. Thus, at a minimum sea ice extents of 2.5 Mkm^2, this 2-1/2 million square kilometers of Antarctic sea ice surrounds 17.5 million square kilometers of permanent ice. At its recent maximum of 19 million square kilometers, the Antarctic sea is represents the ever-expanding edge of 36 million square kilometers of reflective surface ending at 59 south latitude: an area further south than ALL of Greenland, half of Canada, half of Siberia and much of north China, and all of Scandinavia.

    In contrast, any arctic sea ice loss occurs much closer to the pole every day of the year: The arctic sea ice cycles between 81 north latitude at minimum (3.0 Mkm^2 extents in mid-September 2012 for example) down to only 70-71 north latitude at maximum in early-April. The Antarctic sea ice also cycles, but the antarctic sea ice at its minimum is at latitude 69-70 south. At its maximum, antarctic sea ice extents are now at record-setting highs ALL YEAR, and are at latitude 59 south at maximum, rapidly approaching Cape Horn at 56 south latitude where sea ice may block sea traffic within 8-12 years if expansion continues at its 2000 – 2014 rate.

    To visually illustrate the ominous growth in Antarctic growth as CO2 has increased:
    Before 2007, Antarctic sea ice anomaly NEVER exceeded +1.10 Mkm^2 before 2007, and only “touched” 1.0 Mkm^2 six times between 1960 and 2007.
    In 2007, antarctic sea ice extents set a new satellite-era record at 1.84 Mkm^2.
    Since 2007, antarctic sea ice anomaly has routinely exceeded 1.0 Mkm^2; has been continuously greater than 1.0 Mkm^2 the past three years EVERY month of the year; and has been greater than 1.5 Mkm^2 so often that not even skeptical science sites even note the fact that antarctic sea ice is ever-higher and higher.

  55. Jeff Christie says:
    June 29, 2014 at 8:12 am
    Three of the last six months were the warmest on record.
    GISS is running much hotter than others. For example, with an anomaly average of 0.66 after 5 months, GISS would set a new record in 2014 if it stays this way. However RSS has an average of 0.235 after 5 months and this would only rank eighth on RSS. UAH, version 5.5 would also rank eighth.

  56. ruth895 says:

    Bwahahahaha – now what will the warmists say? They’ll have to focus on something else to lie about

  57. alexwade says:

    The warmist brigade are already saying there is a difference between volume and extant. Okay that is true. But their attempt at misdirection shows they missed the point. The point is even if volume is more important than extant the total amount of sea ice is still not declining and therefore their prophecy was a false one. (And you better believe that if the volume broke a record but the extant was not large the warmist brigade would be harping on how volume is not extant.)

  58. ristoi says:

    If this is “only” a feedback phenomenon for global warming it is not accelerating feedback but still a strongly braking thing. Antarctica sea ice is much further from The South Pole than northern sea ice from The Nort Pole. So at south there may be more direct reflection of sun rays from sea ice to ethenity before melting of ice. And this is a huge additional removal of energy from sea compared to open sea. I suppose this is not predicted by climate models.

  59. CitizenPiper says:

    Thank goodness we have global warming which is increasing the amount of ice….oh…. wait.

  60. Ginger says:

    Fact: Surface ice in Antarctica increasing:
    Fact: Ice at the bottom of parts of Antarctica is melting.
    Theory: The missing heat is going into the magma below Antarctica.
    Reason for the “Pause” finally determined.
    Next question?

  61. John says:

    ARRRGGGHHH. Global Warming, the ice is melting, the sky is falling, dogs and cats living together …

  62. ferdberple says:

    consider that the LIA was not a one time event. rather it is part of a larger process. the minoan, roman and medieval warm periods are similar to todays modern warm period. peaks in a cycle. the dark ages and the LIA are valleys. as such, the LIA didnt end. we simply moved into the next phase of the cycle. the question is what will we call the next valley. based on history, it will be bad news.

  63. Hale bop says:

    Give us all your moniez! Give us all your first born! Go live in a shack!It’s fer da earf!

    -Al Gore , high priest of the church of climatology

  64. Steve from Rockwood says:

    RAH says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:59 am
    ————————————–
    I am not a smart folk but I do recognize an unanswerable question when I see one posed. Sea ice extent is no more useful than any other measurement. The global temperature can and will go up and down and we can’t determine why because the earth is too complex a system to understand or model. So ice extent reaches records from 1973 for a few years. What does it mean? Nothing really. Ice extent would have to increase continuously for decades and just when we are ready to throw in the towel and call for an ice age it will start warming again. So have a beer and relax.

  65. ferdberple says:

    are at latitude 59 south at maximum, rapidly approaching Cape Horn at 56 south latitude where sea ice may block sea traffic within 8-12 years if expansion continues at its 2000 – 2014 rate.
    ================
    roughly 200 miles. that would be a game changer. drive to Antarctica.

  66. Alan Robertson says:

    RAH says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:59 am
    _______________
    Sea ice at the poles is subject to far different conditions. Antarctic sea ice extends outward from the continent, while Arctic ice is floating, in constant motion, much like ice cubes being swirled around in a glass of ice water. Arctic ice melt/extent does not depend on temperature, but on winds, ocean currents and melt from the Sun, hastened to some extent by the ice albedo reduction from the accumulation of soot/dust. Of course, Antarctic Sea Ice is subject to winds, currents and the Sun also, but the whole mass is anchored and isn’t swirling around and there is less soot/dust accumulation on Southern Hemisphere ice, because there is neither as much land mass, nor human activity in the SH. Arctic temps this melt season have been below average, as you can see from a graph on the sea ice page, while Antarctic temps have been in decline for some years. Arctic sea ice thickness has increased this year, with a great extent thicker than 3- 5 meters. Perhaps the best indicator for you would be the Global sea ice extent anomaly, which is currently greater than 1 Million Km2 above average. To put that much sea ice area somewhat into perspective, 1M Km2 is about the same size as all the US states along the Atlantic seaboard from Maine to Florida. That’s a lot of ice.

  67. kimdi01 says:

    Oh NO!!! More truths come out to debunk the lies of Obama, Al Gore and the rest of the “Global warming” advocates. The seas aren’t rising because the ice is melting? I can still go to the beach and it will still be there rather than coming to meet me at my house. Obama, how many lies have you told in your presidency?

  68. Teddi says:

    ferdberple says:
    June 29, 2014 at 9:28 am
    “the question is what will we call the next valley”
    ——————–
    “Sharp cooling” to hit in the next five years, says new solar theory.
    http://iceagenow.info/2014/06/global-cooling-imminent/

  69. OK, let me see if I get this right. . .The Arctic region appears to be warming and Antarctica seems to be cooling (along with most of the rest of the Southern Hemisphere). It seems to me that if this is true–and I believe that it is–all one need do is refer to the Milankovitch Cycles, with particular attention to obliquity, or axial tilt.

    If the Northern Hemisphere is tilted toward the sun and the Southern Hemisphere away from it, this can easily explain the variable heating. Laymen’s explanations with good illustrations of the cycles can be found on Wikipedia under “Milankovitch Cycles.” What I do not know is whether my scenario is occurring, but it warrants checking! Does anyone “out there” have the answer?

    Meanwhile, we had best prepare for the coming (next) Ice Age!

  70. WxMatt says:

    Speaking of extent, this is also an impressive story- still a ways off from peak of the season yet.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

  71. ren says:

    Sorry, the temperature of the southern polar circle.

  72. MrX says:

    jlbusm says:
    June 29, 2014 at 8:25 am

    And they want us to believe theres global warming or i mean climate change
    ———–

    What a lot of people forget is that “climate change” is the skeptical position. Originally, the alarmists were promoting catastrophic unprecedented global warming, not climate change. When George W. Bush used “climate change” in one of his speeches, the alarmists were FURIOUS. That’s because climate change implies that the climate, well, changes and that it’s not unprecedented. If it’s not unprecedented, then it’s difficult to make the claim it’s catastrophic since it’s happened before.

    So the irony now is when people ask me: “So you don’t believe in climate change? You some kind of denier?” I always respond, “I believe in the skeptical and anti-alarmist claim of climate change. Climate change implies natural variations that have happened in the past and will continue to happen today.”

    They are usually speechless. Some will argue against my claim that climate change is not alarmist, etc. but those are easily proven wrong.

  73. ferdberple says:

    GISS would set a new record in 2014 if it stays this way.
    ===============
    GISS will set new records regardless of what happens. that is the beauty of adjustments. if they are shown to be in error, the correction is always more adjustments. if these are later shown to be wrong, well you know the answer.

    this isn’t by any means limited to temperature. the regulations aren’t working? the “solution” is always more regulation. with so many regulations in place, we should expect problems to be like snow, a thing of the past.

  74. Tony says:

    So when you are a rookie in all things scientific like myself…ho do you interpolate the data when they show photos of melting glaciers compared to years ago and when they show the same photo…and the polar bear area (ice) deminishing. They look convincing for most folks like me…

  75. Ah Clem says:

    This article says that the only thing that’s warming that area is two volcanos. I’m pretty sure that they’re not man made. So much for warming being caused by humans. Global Warming is a political agenda, and a conspiracy. If scientists dispute it, or it’s cause (by humans) they lose their funding from the government. Now, that’s a real “Inconvenient Truth”. Don’t believe the BS coming out of Washington on this subject. It’s about controlling our lives, and the way we live. It’s just another phony conspiracy, of the left, and far left, and it’s bought hook line and sinker by the “educated” stupid.

  76. NikFromNYC says:

    …and right in cue, in today’s news…

    “Emperor penguins are heavily dependent on sea ice for their livelihoods, and, therefore, are sensitive to changes in sea ice concentration (SIC). The researchers’ analysis of the global, continent-wide Emperor penguin population incorporates current and projected future SIC declines, and determined that all of the colonies would be in decline – many by more than 50 percent – by the end of the century, due to future climate change.”

    “If sea ice declines at the rates projected by the IPCC climate models, and continues to influence Emperor penguins as it did in the second half of the 20th century in Terre Adélie, at least two-thirds of the colonies are projected to have declined by greater than 50 percent from their current size by 2100,” said Jenouvrier. “None of the colonies, even the southern-most locations in the Ross Sea, will provide a viable refuge by the end of 21st century.”

    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-emperor-penguin-peril.html

    But they give alarmist lip service too to the trend being backwards:

    “The role of sea ice is complicated,” added Jenouvrier. “Too much ice requires longer trips for penguin parents to travel to the ocean to hunt and bring back food for their chicks. But too little ice reduces the habitat for krill, a critical food source for emperor penguins. Our models take into account both the effects of too much and too little sea ice in the colony area.”

    The porridge is never the right temperature!

  77. Admad says:

    Alan Robertson says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:13 am

    What more could I add? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B84O9k1ZX4g

  78. ALGORE says:

    If this continues for 40 years the world will be covered with Ice.

    ALGORE

  79. In response to RAH, the best source of accurate temperature data is the satellite record, provided that one averages the two datasets, UAH (which runs hot) and RSS (which runs cold). These two are less subject to tampering than the surface datasets, nearly all of which should be scrapped and replaced by a global version of the US Climate Reference Network of ideally-sited, properly-maintained stations.

    Every month here at WUWT, I post a graph that shows the monthly anomalies [for] as far back as one can go and still find a zero trend (currently 17 years 9 months on the RSS dataset). I also show the trend line (a simple least-squares regression).

    In addition, I show the average monthly record for the two satellite dataset since 1990, compared with the IPCC’s prediction. The world has been warming at exactly half the predicted rate – a substantial error on the part of the computer models, whose then projection the IPCC presented with “substantial confidence”.

    The global sea-ice extent is updated just about every day at Cryosphere Today, and can easily be accessed from the web once one hacks down the page from all the stuff about the decline in Arctic sea ice that they seem to find more interesting than the growth in Antarctic sea ice. No one knows how good a bell-wether it is of global temperature change, because what is known as “polar amplification”, to name but one of many reasons, make the temperatures and ice extents at the Poles highly variable.

    However, RAH may like to know that the global sea-ice extent shows just about no trend at all in the entire satellite era, though there has been a little warming globally since then. I suspect that that warming has not been well reflected in the sea-ice extent because at the very much sub-zero temperatures that obtain at the Poles the odd half a degree of global warming is not going to make a lot of difference in the short term.

    [The mods point out that http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com has a Sea Ice page that reports from more sources than just the one Lord Monckton listed above. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ .mod]

  80. BDR says:

    I don’t think these data will change the arguments of the warmists. They have been able to hold two conflicting positions before and not suffered from cognitive dissonance. I think that is because they really do not believe what they are saying. Their positions are just convenient means to an end.

    If one were to use Venn diagrams to represent warmists and leftists I believe there would be virtual unity. With that in mind consider this past winter.

    Some of us living in parts of the continental US were treated to cold temperatures, high winds and heavy snows in the first quarter of this year. In the past this was called a cold winter. This year it was named The Polar Vortex. We were told, sometimes not so subtly, that this was a harbinger of what was to befall us if we didn’t acknowledge the reality of climate change/AGW. We must give up our carbon fuelishness before we make things worse and begin redistributing our wealth to the poorer peoples of the world. We must act now.

    Last week we found out that the US economy contracted a not insignificant 2.9% in the first quarter. Among the ways this was explained away was that we had unusually cold weather in the first quarter which kept consumers from shopping, buying cars, houses, etc. In other words, don’t worry, it is just temporary. The implication being that the contraction was certainly not the result of our President’s economic policies which has the economy on track to a nice recovery and this was just a little speed bump along the way. The snow has melted. All is well.

    The winter becomes The Polar Vortex and it is a manifestation of a long term, irreversible trend when it supports a grab for power and money. But it is just an unusually cold winter that had a short term, reversible effect on the economy when the numbers threaten to expose the left’s mismanagement of the economy. See, it is easy. The truth is whatever they say it is today.

    “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

  81. highflight56433 says:

    Soon, igloos that last year around. :) New on ebay: man-made ice caves …free shipping by dog sled…UPS United Puppy Service.

  82. RAH says:

    RAH says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:59 am
    ______________
    Alan Robertson says:
    June 29, 2014 at 9:39 am

    Sea ice at the poles is subject to far different conditions. Antarctic sea ice extends outward from the continent, while Arctic ice is floating, in constant motion, much like ice cubes being swirled around in a glass of ice water. Arctic ice melt/extent does not depend on temperature, but on winds, ocean currents and melt from the Sun, hastened to some extent by the ice albedo reduction from the accumulation of soot/dust. Of course, Antarctic Sea Ice is subject to winds, currents and the Sun also, but the whole mass is anchored and isn’t swirling around and there is less soot/dust accumulation on Southern Hemisphere ice, because there is neither as much land mass, nor human activity in the SH. Arctic temps this melt season have been below average, as you can see from a graph on the sea ice page, while Antarctic temps have been in decline for some years. Arctic sea ice thickness has increased this year, with a great extent thicker than 3- 5 meters. Perhaps the best indicator for you would be the Global sea ice extent anomaly, which is currently greater than 1 Million Km2 above average. To put that much sea ice area somewhat into perspective, 1M Km2 is about the same size as all the US states along the Atlantic seaboard from Maine to Florida. That’s a lot of ice.
    ============================
    First off Alan, let me thank you for the considered response.
    I understand the fundamental difference in the poles. The south one being a considerable land mass essentially covered in and anchoring the surrounding ice allows for more or less uniform circumpolar current. The North being more or less the opposite as a frozen ocean bounded by land in most directions and thus around which the currents are multi-directional and somewhat more variable and thus the extent of the sea ice is more susceptible to being effected by severe storms and currents.

    Never bought into all the worry about Greenlands ice melt since there is no way in hell the Norsemen would have settled in a place without trees for lumber for their vessels and a climate that not would allow for making Mead. However despite the fact that during the warm period in the early Holocene the Arctic ice extent was far more stunted than now while that in the south apparently grew! But during the last ice age the the ice sheets expanded much further south from the Arctic than they extended north from the Antarctic. Thus looking at both, understanding these fundamental differences,seems prudent?

  83. Johnmann says:

    GLOBAL WARMING is the Democrat lie of the century. First, it was the GREEN ENERGY SCAM (Solyndra, et al)… now it’s the GLOBAL WARMING SCAM… any lie necessary to bilk taxpayers out of $$trillions.

  84. Stan says:

    If it’s hot, it’s global warming. If it’s cold, it’s global warming. If there are many hurricanes, it’s global warming. If there aren’t many hurricanes, it’s global warming. And certainly if there’s a lot of ice, it’s global warming.

    So the brilliant global warming crowd tells us.

  85. Alan Robertson says:

    RAH says:
    June 29, 2014 at 10:56 am

    “However despite the fact that during the warm period in the early Holocene the Arctic ice extent was far more stunted than now while that in the south apparently grew! But during the last ice age the the ice sheets expanded much further south from the Arctic than they extended north from the Antarctic. Thus looking at both, understanding these fundamental differences,seems prudent?”
    ___________________
    As Lord Monckton pointed out in his post @10:43, Global sea ice anomaly hasn’t shown much of a trend during the satellite era.

  86. peter says:

    If you have these massive ice fields projecting far out from the main solid mass, it seems that sooner or later a large chunk will split off and go floating away. something on the order of hundreds of square miles in area.

    We can likely expect that to hit every warmist site on the planet as soon as it is detected, especially the ones who have gone out of the way to ignore the current ice growth.

  87. Stink Flower says:

    One must laugh at Drudge’s credibility when presented with links that tell a tale of double standard. Science of biology is correct without scrutiny, because no one commenting has enough biology education to smear the story. However, climate science… Suddenly all commenters are experts and cry afoul… It doesn’t take much thought to realize that these “experts” denigrating climate science in the articles to which Drudge links are most likely paid to be there. They wait for the signal and awaken their army of managed personas much like the cigarette industry did when the Feds called them on their covering up of data which indicated, unequivocally, that smoking causes cancer.

    One day soon all of you climate change deniers, or internet opinion analysts as you rightfully should be called, will be revealed for the sham that you all represent. And what might that be that you represent? Nothing more than the interests of the oil and dirty energy industries. Make no mistake about it. Your days are numbered. The people are not that stupid. Perhaps you all should report back to your superiors and suggest that the money spent on this farce might better be spent on R&D towards sustainable energy. But then you might need to find a real job wouldn’t you? And I’m guessing you have no real talents to offer this world other than to be paid shills. It’s pathetic really. pathetic.

  88. Eliza says:

    The problem is that a current rates antarctic sea ice extent will be about 10 million km2 above normal by 2017 and about 20 million km2 by 2025.I think southern Argentina Ushuaia
    and Chile Punta Arenas will be under 1 KM of ice! by 2025 if current trend continues. Please advise Chilean and Argentine Governments. NO ONE is actually taking notice of this except us few crazy skeptics who bother to look at these charts..

  89. j j parkyn says:

    Has any one ever compared the observed size of Martian ice caps to the Earth’s ice caps since records of each’s ice caps have been recorded? I believe all records of Mars are post “Little Ice Age” and show on average they have receded since first observed/recorded. Was this due to Martian warming? What caused it? The Sun maybe? Has the warming on Earth mirrored the warming on Mars? Caused by the Sun maybe? Just wondering if any Planetary scientist has found a correlation of ice cap size on both planets.

  90. Alan Robertson says:

    Tony says:
    June 29, 2014 at 10:10 am

    So when you are a rookie in all things scientific like myself…ho do you interpolate the data when they show photos of melting glaciers compared to years ago and when they show the same photo…and the polar bear area (ice) deminishing. They look convincing for most folks like me…

  91. James Strom says:

    At the current rate of ice growth, how many years are we from interruption of navigation around South America? Such a development should also have an interesting effect on weather and ocean circulation patterns.

  92. ren says:

    If the Gulf Stream will continue to inhibit this ice in the Arctic will soon increase.
    Click, see temperature anomalies.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/orthographic=-34.53,52.42,838

  93. old44 says:

    Kevin Hearle says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:38 am
    Now that is what I call a hockey stick, Note also that we are just past mid winter down in this part of the world and there is a lot of freezing yet to come.

    I don’t know what part of the world you live in Kevin, but in Australia mid-winter is 14th July.

  94. Francisco says:

    There is one thing I do not understand, maybe somebody can help me.

    I do get it, it is all a scam. I have worked in the environmental/waste field all my life and, as an engineer I find it laughable that the running joke is that weather forecasters never get it right. Somehow when it is climate they do? Bu!!$!7!!

    However, looking at the ice graphs, how come the Arctic shows and average that is much higher than the registered area coverages? As far as I am concerned, an average should fall, somewhat, within the middle.

  95. thesunisup says:

    Who cares?
    It’s all Evolution.

    Climate change people must accept Evolution and get another job.
    Or change themselves and start believing in God.
    Can’t have it both ways.
    Either people are in charge, God is in charge or Evolution is doing what it should do, evolving.

    If one doesn’t like or approve of Evolution’s processes one mustn’t complain or rail or beg nations for money to support your fears.

    Accept your very temporary life which is less then 100 years of thousands.

    Evolutionists practicing hypocrisy and confusion and living in fear while believing they have
    alarming knowledge which they can be instrumental in changing because they believe if they’re alarmed everyone should be alarmed, must be made to re-explain Evolution with regards to climate and to prove of all process evolving, climate must not, is exempt, and can be controlled..

    Because if climate cannot be controlled, the Evolutionists are indeed wasting vast sums of money
    which could be used to buy cars and transportation for the poor instead of going into salaries and perks and benefits and bonuses for double minded people..

    Evolutionists must be made to be faithful to Evolution and confirm their science of Evolution position by allowing the climate to change.

  96. Hoser says:

    ferdberple says:
    June 29, 2014 at 8:52 am

    The question of whether the Little Ice Age has ended is a matter of semantics, not science, per se. However, our definitions in science matter. Who decides what a thing in science is called? Unless there is a scientific committee like IUPAC, or the IAU that demoted Pluto, it’s a collective and fluid decision. Usage matters, and prominent ground breaking papers of course have a stronger impact. You could take a poll of geologists, and get an answer like 97% of geologists agree the Little Ice Age [fill in the blank with the answer]. And it would be valid, because it’s not a question of theory, just semantics.

  97. R. Shearer says:

    Teddi says:
    June 29, 2014 at 8:33 am
    R. Shearer says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:58 am
    Satellite measurements began in 1973. The period beginning in 1979 corresponds with the maximum extent in the Arctic. Cherry picking?

    ———————————————

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_of_sea_ice

    “so the practical record begins in late 1978 with the launch of NASA’s Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) satellite.”
    _____________________________
    Thanks Teddi. That’s plausible. Still, there are observations of Arctic ice increasing from the early to late 70′s. A declining trend line does not fit if that data is added.

  98. Someone needs to put together some better “statistical adjustments” to fix this anomaly soon; growing ice sheets and record cold winters are confusing the public.

  99. Scott says:

    Forgive me – there’s a lot of passion in this thread with a lot of people making bold statements that are contradictory to some science which either suggests that global warming – however created – exists, or that global warming exists and it’s because of man. I’m waste and recycling consultant and have no scientific knowledge of the problem and am often left to gain information from either left or right leaning news sites and thus am fairly confused as to what is truly happening. I also graduated in the same class with a woman who would be a part of the warming crowd of sciences and a respected scientist in her field. Half my friends are warmers and the other half or not. I’ve witnessed endless debates between them for years. I read numerous threads like this one, in full admiration of all of you who know more than I do and seem to have a grasp on what they think is going on.

    So forgive me this one question – does it seem logical that as industry release millions of chemicals into the air to keep up with the demands of a growing human population that left unchecked, it would be foolish to think this could in any way impact the weather or our lives on any tangible level? I recognize the numerous flaws of many warming arguments but it does beg this question, doesn’t it? It would seem that any argument against (at a high, layman level, forgive me again) the idea that mankind can negatively impact the environment is more or less implying that business as usual is not a long term, potential problem for future generations.

    Consider this my ignorant entry into the discussion. I have no position because I lack any such conviction given a lack of education and a sense of overwhelmed complacency that the sun will most likely rise tomorrow and I’ll have my yard to cut.

    My goal is not to antagonize but more to understand some basic common sense. If I burn a wood fire in my living room, perhaps it first the impact is negligible, but eventually, the whole house will be filled with carbon dioxide and I will die. Isn’t this feasible on much larger world scale should we continue to run industry without improvements and reductions in emissions?

    Thoughts? Go easy – I claim zero authority on this subject but find it fascinating just the same.

  100. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Alan Robertson

    Arctic temperatures have only been below average in the late spring and summer, as we reach the maximum temperature for the year. Around the winter, temperatures have been consistently above long term average for several years although of course they are tens of degrees below zero at that time.

    So, if you want to restore summer ice minimum levels, cold summers help. If you want to restore winter maximum levels cold winters are needed in the arctic.

  101. Green Sand says:

    ren says:
    June 29, 2014 at 11:22 am

    If the Gulf Stream will continue to
    ——————-

    Very interesting, worth keeping a watch!

  102. Alan Robertson says:

    Oops- all apologies, posted to Tony without comment, (by accident.)
    —————
    Tony, your best course of action might be to take any pronouncements about man- made climate change with a grain of salt and do a bit of research and find out the truth for yourself. WUWT is a wonderful resource to help you understand the issues. In regard to the examples you cited,
    a) glacier melt: glaciers have generally been melting since the end of the last ice age. A recent study of Himalayan glacier showed some diminishing, some increasing and over 80% of them showing no change at all. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/10/melting-by-2035-hardly-new-study-shows-most-himalayan-glaciers-are-stable-and-in-a-steady-state/

    In addition, there is at least one famous set of glacier- comparison photos which was published as proof, but they were altered, because the modern photo showed ice increase vs. the old- time photo, do the time stamps/labeling were reversed, to show how man is causing problems, i.e. pure propaganda. There are many instances of data manipulation to make the cause of climate change relevant.

    b) Polar bears- Polar bear populations stand at records above 25,000 animals, aided by restrictions on hunting the beasts. They are in no danger of extinction, although you might be, if you venture into their territory unawares. Polar bears are omnivorous, despite the alarmist efforts to claim their diet is exclusively seals and thus dependent upon ice extent. Electronically- collared Polar bears have been tracked while swimming for hundreds of kilometers at a stretch. At minimum extent each September, Arctic ice has been averaging just under 5 Million Km2 each year since the 80′s, an area somewhat greater than 1/2 the size of the Continental 48 US states.

    I’m just some guy, with no claim to any sort of climate expertise, but the same advice applies to any “expert” testimony as well… don’t believe it unless you can verify it for yourself.

    Much of what you hear in the debate will be logically very weak, besides being downright false, so here’s another link which might help you become proficient in separating the wheat from the chaff:
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html

  103. Tony says:
    June 29, 2014 at 10:10 am

    So when you are a rookie in all things scientific like myself…how do you interpolate the data when they show photos of melting glaciers compared to years ago and when they show the same photo…and the polar bear area (ice) diminishing. They look convincing for most folks like me…

    ——– ———-

    We need to look at historic context. Photos of glaciers represent a wink of an eye in historic terms. I would recommend you read something like ‘Times of feast, times of famine’ by Ladurie which goes into glacial movements in detail.

    I have interpreted the thousands of glacier observations in this graphic that represent the last 3000 years and put into it the Hockey stick graphic

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image010.jpg

    Closed blue line at the top represents glacial retreat, closed blue line at the bottom is glacial advance.

    The LIA was the coldest period in the 10000 year rise from the Holocene. It is that snow and ice which is currently melting. Judging by other periods it has a long way to go. For example it is said that during the Roan period many glaciers had all but disappeared which is why Hannibal was able to cross the Alps.

    tonyb

  104. SAMURAI says:

    This is yet another example of the “settled science” getting their doom and gloom predictions WRONG!

    According to virtually all climate model predictions, Antarctic Sea Ice should be shrinking, yet it has a 35-yr increasing trend and set a new 35-yr record large anomaly today.

    CAGW predicts catastrophic increasing trends in severe weather, yet trends have been flat for 50~100 years.

    CAGW predicts catastrophic Sea Level Rise, yet SLR stuck at just 7″/Century.

    CAGW predicts catastrophic ocean pH neutralization, yet ocean pH has only dropped by 0.05~0.1 since 1750.

    CAGW predicts catastrophic desertification, yet the Earth has greened 16% since 1980.

    CAGW predicts catastrophic global warming, yet global temp trends have been flat for 16~18 years.

    I can’t believe Obama has the gall to call CAGW skeptics “deniers” and “flat-Earthers”, given the complete collapse of virtually all of CAGW model/hypothetical predictions.

    The way empirical evidence is becoming more and more unsupportive of the CAGW hypothesis, the more it seems likely CAGW could be disconfirmed in around 5 years..

  105. Tony

    Sorry, I meant the Roman period of course. Although the glaciers also melted a lot during the Roan period as well…..

    tonyb

  106. Ah Clem says:

    There are no polar bears in Antartica. They only exist in the Artic.

  107. dbstealey says:

    Stink Flower,

    Interesting screen name. Is that how you view yourself?

    You wrote:

    And what might that be that you represent? Nothing more than the interests of the oil and dirty energy industries. Make no mistake about it. Your days are numbered. The people are not that stupid. Perhaps you all should report back to your superiors and suggest that the money spent on this farce might better be spent on R&D towards sustainable energy. But then you might need to find a real job wouldn’t you? And I’m guessing you have no real talents to offer this world other than to be paid shills. It’s pathetic really. pathetic.

    You have no clue, do you? This site has won the internet’s Best Science &Technology category for the past three years. Climatologists, physicist and others with degrees in the hard sciences regularly comment and write articles here. WUWT has a milliom reader comments, in only about 7 years, and almost 200,000,000 unique page views. So it seems that the ‘consensus’ is right here. And no one pays for commenting here. I comment more than most, and I have yet to see a nickel.

    You are in the minority, Stink Flower. And it is your numbers that are falling off faster than the temperature. That is clear from the tone of your comment. You know you are losing the battle. That amuses me, and provides much schadenfreude. Thank you for that. And give us more! We like your squealing.

  108. NZ Willy says:

    RAH: The Greenland Vikings got their timber from Labrador, which they called “Markland”.

  109. anon says:

    science under attack is a great documentary……..

    [Reply: this BBC propaganda video is terrible quality. Is there another link? ~mod.]

  110. RACookPE1978 says:

    Stink Flower says:
    June 29, 2014 at 11:10 am

    One must laugh at Drudge’s credibility when presented with links that tell a tale of double standard….

    One day soon all of you climate change deniers, or internet opinion analysts as you rightfully should be called, will be revealed for the sham that you all represent. And what might that be that you represent? Nothing more than the interests of the oil and dirty energy industries. Make no mistake about it. Your days are numbered. The people are not that stupid. Perhaps you all should report back to your superiors and suggest that the money spent on this farce might better be spent on R&D towards sustainable energy. But then you might need to find a real job wouldn’t you? And I’m guessing you have no real talents to offer this world other than to be paid shills. It’s pathetic really. pathetic.

    So, you repeat the canard that “science can be bought” – but only if it is “science” that YOU disagree with? How much “science” can I buy for 200 billion in government-paid research money and labs? How much government-paid/government-controlled “science” can I buy for 1.3 trillion in annual carbon control taxes? How much “science money” will buy your publicity – since you apparently have no morals and no soul?

    Please give us some evidence of your vaunted “catastrophic man-caused global warming” …

    See, temperatures have only increased 21 of the past 64 years, yet CO2 has been increasing the entire time. Antarctic sea ice has set an all-time record high. Arctic sea ice reductions are cooling the planet, not warming as your theory claims. Summer Arctic daily temperatures at 80 north are NOT increasing at all, and, the past 50 years, are decreasing. (Arctic air temperatures far lower latitudes – right above the ever-greening ever darker and more bountiful tundra and forests are higher though.)

    Your policies are killing millions of innocents each year now. Condemning billions more to lives wasted in squalor, poverty, dirt and misery of no lights, no water, no food, no clean energy. YOU demand they get nothing but years more of the same. “I” wanted to enjoy an energy-cheaper more fruitful life. You? More death. How many more hundreds of millions of innocents do YOU demand die every year between now and 2100, on 10% chance that global temperature average “might” be 3 degrees higher than they are now?

  111. Jim Wright says:

    Don’cha know that the only way to combat Global Warming (or/any or all of the crises of the moment) is to Raise Taxes, Especially Those Of Americans….

  112. davideisenstadt says:

    Stink Flower says:
    June 29, 2014 at 11:10 am
    its always amusing to read the rambling of an anonymous sock puppetty troll.
    thanks

  113. David says:

    Keep in mind that sea ice reaching from Antarctica to the southern most point of South America will be ice that is at the surface of the ocean. To block ocean currents the ice would need to exist all the way to the ocean floor. Anyone who has lived in northern states knows that water flows very well under ice.

  114. policycritic says:

    Josh Payne says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:40 am
    CAGW novice here. I have heard the claim from the alarmist camp that this surprising sea ice record is a result of the outward distribution of fresh water from the rapidly melting ice masses. How much merit does this claim have?

    So it melts and freezes at the same time? Warm enough to melt “rapidly” on the continent, but then freezes (at record levels, apparently) when it hits…what? The edge of the continent?

    Good one. ;-)
    =============================

    Alan Robertson says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:46 am

    Great video. Thx.

  115. Tonyb says:

    Scott

    You ask an interesting question. That there is likely to be a noticeable, much Less catastrophic, effect from mans co2 seems doubtful and bearing in mind the enormous benefits we have derived from fossil fuels since the industrial revolution probably some impact from its use would be deemed acceptable.

    As for the chemicals from industries, our waste and general Pollution, you are right that we need to be cautious and will have to mend our ways and become more environmentally aware as the population heads towards 9 billion.

    But here you have the rub, if it is obvious that man is increasingly having a detrimental impact on his environment, then logically it would be desirable to try to limit the rise in the global population

    Here you run into the malthusian question which greatly exercises some commentators on this blog. That greater prosperity for undeveloped countries tends to bring smaller families seems a win win situation until it is realised that the most likely scenario for that to happen is through the availability of cheap fossil fuels.

    Tonyb

  116. dbstealey says:

    anon,

    Do you know that Paul Nurse is an über-warmist? Politics has infested the formerly great RS, like it has other professional societies. All it takes are one or two activists, and politics pollutes science. Prof Richard Lindzen has a great explanation. See especially Section 2.

    Paul Nurse is a political activist. He has always pushed the “global warming” scare. It is very self-serving, and it corrupts science.

  117. FAIRTV says:

    When will the Global Warming crowd quit lying?

  118. Bill says:

    I saw a bow groove in Monterey Bay caused by the ship’s bow that docked there in mid 1700′s. Don’t recall particulars but in 1999 they measured that bow groove and determined if the ship docked there today (1999) it would prove that the ocean levels are exactly (within mere inches) of what it was over 200 years ago.
    Phooey to global warming and cars, industry and such causing the seas to rise.
    I lived near a couple of historical sites that proved the same thing. One was in Turkey and that site was built early 100 BC.
    The other site was even older and is the site that Moses crossed the Red Sea. The sand bar the people crossed over from (and to) have not seen erosion since at least 400 BC.

  119. Owl Bore says:

    The real reason behind the expanding ice cover in the Southern Hemisphere has little to do with global warming or cooling. Actually there are billions and billions of tons of plankton in the Antarctic which are devoured by millions and millions of vicious little fish, ferociously thrashing about through the freezing water which spreads the cold water around to warmer areas, making surrounding areas even colder. Along come the penguins alerted by the splashing fish. In hopes of a quick meal, the birds jump into the Antarctic waters accelerating the splashing and the dispersion of the freezing waters. The penguins quickly digest the fish and eliminate the waste which feeds the plankton which feeds then feeds the fish which again feeds the penguins. The freezing splashing water keeps edging outwards, expanding the ice cap in a brutal Antarctic circle.
    The only solution to putting a halt to the rapidly expanding ice cap is to export herds and herds of polar bears from the North to the South Pole. The polar bears will then feed on the penguins and reduce the population to acceptable levels. The fish will then feel free to come out into the open. At that point, the fish will feel even freer and plunge into a decadent breeding frenzy. They will soon over populate and in the process, eat all the plankton, which will eliminate their only food source. With no food, the poor fish will soon become extinct, but al least they will have a lot of fun getting there.. No plankton = no fish = no penguins = no cold splashing water = no expanding ice cap. Once the cap returns to normal levels, we can then catch all the polar bear herds and send them back up North with a pat on the back and a job well done! No kidding! The science is settled.

  120. Phoenix says:

    And this should be a surprise to no one. If the overall ocean water level is NOT increasing but the arctic caps are melting then that means there has to be freezing/refreezing somewhere else. But try telling that little bit of logic/common sense to the frothing-at-the-mouth global warming crowd.

  121. John Campbell says:

    For the record, I don’t buy into the global warming thing. I believe it to be a scam around the idea of fear mongering for the benefit of globalist socialists looking for an excuse to run a dictatorship.

    Having said that, I also admit to not being an expert in climate studies so in that light I have a few questions. Since I rely on common sense it makes sense that there has to be a balance. The combination of various forces that hold us in our elliptical path would have to be maintained in order to sustain our present global climate. The earth rotates on it’s axis as a spinning top. If enough of an imbalance is applied that path would be affected.

    1) Since the Arctic is claimed to be losing ice mass and the Antarctic is claimed to be at record levels and growing, what keeps the balance?

    2) Also, how much of an imbalance can be tolerated before a shift occurs?

    3) Further, how much of a shift is tolerable?

    4) Finally, would not such an imbalance also result in plate movement and volcanic activity happening as a natural balance maintaining affect due to gravity?

  122. charles bukowski says:

    It’s winter in Antarctica now, so the sea ice always is more down under when it is summer in t :(e north America area

  123. Jeff Christie says:

    The “Little Ice Age” coincides with but was not caused by the Maunder minimum sunspot cycle. It was caused by volcanic activity.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2040.html

    http://www.rtcc.org/2013/12/23/scientists-dismiss-solar-link-to-medieval-little-ice-age/

  124. RAH says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    June 29, 2014 at 10:43 am

    In response to RAH, the best source of accurate temperature data is the satellite record, provided that one averages the two datasets, UAH (which runs hot) and RSS (which runs cold). These two are less subject to tampering than the surface datasets, nearly all of which should be scrapped and replaced by a global version of the US Climate Reference Network of ideally-sited, properly-maintained stations……………..

    However, RAH may like to know that the global sea-ice extent shows just about no trend at all in the entire satellite era, though there has been a little warming globally since then. I suspect that that warming has not been well reflected in the sea-ice extent because at the very much sub-zero temperatures that obtain at the Poles the odd half a degree of global warming is not going to make a lot of difference in the short term.
    ========================================================
    Thank you sir for taking time to respond.
    So the bottom line is that the sea ice extent does not appear to track well in a timely manner with the satellite temperature record over the rather short span of satellite data for each. And thus averaging the two satellite temperature data sets is a better measure of global temperature. Got it! I also believe that the satellite data from it’s inception up to this time is compiled, reported, and monitored by better scientists along the lines of a Roy Spencer than many of the terrestrial sources. And really that is what it all gets down to here. TRUST!

  125. Green Sand says:

    Thanks ren, no worries for the first post, it has helped. I now know how to check EWM previous dates!

  126. Rud Istvan says:

    RAH, the poles are not a very good indicator because of natural variation, fairly well documented for the Arctic. For example, there is good qualitative Danish and Russian documentation for steady diminution in summer Arctic ice from roughly 1923 to roughly 1943, analogous to the diminution from roughly 1985 to 2007. Arctic summer sea ice is now rebounding, as it did after 1943.
    And, the poles have very different climate dynamics. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents, with a narrow shallow western opening to the Pacific (Bering Strait) and an eastern ‘terminus’ where the Gulf Stream peters out. The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by deep open ocean. Most Arctic ice is sea ice. Most Antarctic ice isn’t. And so on. One consequence (for example) is that the seasonal ozone hole is mostly at the South Pole.

    If you are looking for simple physical indicators, consider Northern hemisphere snow coverage extent in March. Until the past two winters put the lie to AGW, it was supposed to reduce hemispheric winter snow coverage. That is available from NSIDC amongst other sources. Another to consider is Antarctic sea ice extent, the subject of this thread. Similar logic applied to different conditions in the other hemisphere.
    IMO the best single ‘modern’ indicator is sat temp, either UAH or RSS (they are similar, and becoming more so).

  127. thesunisup says:

    Double mindedness, two courses of action in motion that oppose each other; sabotage and confusion reign. The world of what is.
    It is not Double Think which is two opposing thoughts or positions, linear or circular;
    not necessarily confusing or defeative.
    A Double minded person is unstable. They declare opposites and pursue both paths at once.
    A Double Think-ing person may be exploratory, deducting, weighing opposing views as possibilities. The world of what if.

    And if dinosaurs, large carnivorous birds, the proverbial ‘cave men ‘, and man eating cats and bears became extinct or evolved why not the carnivorous polar bear? Some will die and some adapt, they evolve

    Why should anyone insist polar bears should not die? Only a person with control issues.
    Species have proven records of becoming extinct gradually or suddenly but the hand of man was never implicated.

    As for back seat scientists writing their views on this site, the multitudes are rolling in laughter at the silly ‘ science ‘ of the vain and self righteous displayed for decades that there were just 9 planets, that seas didn’t flow into other seas and the waters which are one body circle the earth?

    If there’s one thing level headed people know it’s this:

    wait 10 years and the scientists will assuredly disprove themselves, arguing amongst themselves.

    science is an art of making conclusions based on the limitations of magnification, the human brain, and a peculiar bent of some to prove their assumption rather then disprove theories.

  128. Steve P says:

    Did Someone Say says:
    June 29, 2014 at 8:05 am

    In central Wisconsin USA, where the southern edge of the last Ice Age stopped…

    Although named for Wisconsin, which was indeed partially glaciated, the most recent advance of the ice sheets in N. America reached its southernmost extent in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.

    This extract from the Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources describes the three most recent episodes of glaciation in N. America:

    Pre-Illinoian (1.6 million to 300,000 years ago) glaciers invaded Illinois from the west and east. There may have been several glaciers advancing into Illinois during this period, but not much evidence of them remains because it was so long ago and wind, water and other glaciers have mostly destroyed it.

    The Illinoian stage glaciation was extensive in Illinois. At this time glaciers extended to the most southern point that they have ever reached in the northern hemisphere. That place was in Illinois, near Carbondale. About 85 percent of what is now Illinois was covered by this ice sheet.

    The Wisconsinian glaciation started about 15,000 years ago and covered much of the northern and east-central parts of our state. The Illinois area of this glaciation would generally become the Grand Prairie natural division. The moraines and Lake Michigan in northeastern Illinois are all remnants of this glacial period. About 12,000 years ago the climate warmed, and the glaciers began to melt and retreat, forming large lakes. As the melting continued, the lake waters eventually eroded their banks and created enormous floods. The flood known as the Kankakee Torrent was mainly responsible for the deposition of sand along the Illinois River, where sand prairies developed.

    [my bold]
    http://dnr.state.il.us/education/biodiversity/glaciation.htm
    End moraines with map from Illinois State Geological Survey:
    http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/outreach/geology-resources/end-moraines-end-glacial-ride

  129. taxed says:

    Ren
    That’s interesting about what’s happening to the Gulf stream.
    Because am convinced that what is key to major cooling in the NH is what happens over the North Atlantic. lf a more zonal southern tracking jet stream becomes a stable weather pattern over the North Atlantic then l can see this leading to climate cooling in the NH.

  130. J Hill says:

    Quiet……… how we going to keep the SCAM going? Still alot of $$ to be made.

  131. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Are there only ‘computer models’ for things that ‘melt’ and things that ‘heat up’? Or do climate experts have a model that correctly predicted record Antarctic sea ice growth?

  132. j***h2 says:

    You heretics. Do you not know you are in deed being blasphemous? Everybody know the earth is getting botter, ask AlGore. Your instruments are corrupted, BHO said so.

  133. Jack Kennedy says:

    but………..but………… the potus would NOT lie ……….. would he?

  134. sjmaus says:

    A primary rule of science is this. When proposing a theory, you design a series of tests. Your theory should predict the outcome of these tests. If even one piece of data from the tests does not agree with the outcomes predicted by your theory, your theory is WRONG. The tests used to confirm AGW consists of computer models that should predict climate changes and atmospheric conditions. So far, the models have utterly failed to produce data that can be confirmed by actual observation. At various times, the models have predicted the cessation of the gulf current, hot spots in the stratosphere, cessation of snow in northern Europe and the Americas, increased hurricane landfall and severity, lack of polar sea ice in winter, and a host of other ills. None of these predictions have come to pass. By sciences own rules, the theory of AGW is WRONG.

  135. Steve P says:

    The Wisconsinian glaciation started about 15,000 years ago*

    * Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources

    I assume they mean: the glacial margins didn’t reach Illinois until about then, but the ISGS gives 25,000 years ago as the time of glacial incursion into Illinois. The Wisconsonian episode started earlier, perhaps 75-85,000 years ago, when the glacial margins of the early and middle episodes of ice sheet advance were still north of Illinois.
    http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/outreach/geology-resources/quaternary-glaciations-illinois

  136. Jimbo says:

    Josh Payne says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:40 am

    CAGW novice here. I have heard the claim from the alarmist camp that this surprising sea ice record is a result of the outward distribution of fresh water from the rapidly melting ice masses. How much merit does this claim have?

    Here is what the IPCC says.

    IPCC Summary For Policy Makers

    Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large
    inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations. {9.4} …..

    There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of natural internal variability in that region (see Figure SPM.6). {10.5}……

    In the Antarctic, a decrease in sea ice extent and volume is projected with low confidence for the end of the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. {12.4}…..

    While surface melting will remain small, an increase in snowfall on the Antarctic ice sheet is expected (medium confidence), resulting in a negative contribution to future sea level from changes in surface mass balance.

    So the claims from the alarmist camp contradict the IPCC. What do they call people who challenge the IPCC’s projections? It’s at the tip of my tongue and begins with D.

  137. truthmatters says:

    Wants some truthful Information http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1075/1075_01.asp Global Climate change news for you :)

  138. Jimbo says:

    R. Shearer says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:58 am

    Satellite measurements began in 1973. The period beginning in 1979 corresponds with the maximum extent in the Arctic. Cherry picking? See page 150 of the full IPCC WG1 report from 1995.

    In some ways that is good. ;-)

  139. dbstealey says:

    sjmaus,

    The short term rise in global T during the 1997 El Nino fooled a lot of folks. Then the political folks saw their opportunity, and they flogged their scare stories about “runaway global warming”.

    The government scientists do not follow the Scientific Method. Their paychecks are more important. As you pointed out, exactly none of their alarming predictions have come to pass. With their multi-million dollar climate models, not one GCM was able to predict the current end to global warming. Global warming stopped more than 17 years ago. It is not a “pause”, until and unless global warming resumes. It may well go in the opposite direction. Nobody knows.

    IMHO there is a slight warming due to CO2. But it is too small to measure, so everything at this point is simply an assertion. The “climate change” scam costs this country alone $Billions every year. That money is the only thing that keeps the scare alive. Science certainly does not support it.

  140. Michael D says:

    Harold: you have a good point to make, but you slipped up with your opening paragraph, where you say The sea ice surrounding Antarctica… has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage. Your second paragraph is correct – it is the anomaly that has set a record. The areal coverage is well on-track to set a record soon, but is clearly not at an all-time record (it is the wrong time of year to set such a record). We may be able to publish the “all time areal coverage” record soon, but please don’t jump the gun.

  141. Eelo Fudpucker says:

    Not long ago the global warmist scientists in England and here in america were caught through e-mails that they were falsifying data to support their climate model.
    Just the other day NOA said that scientists did not use actual temperatures in their studies but temperatures of their computer models.
    Global warming is a fraud pushed by politicians in order to tax the heck out of everyone

  142. Eelo Fudpucker says:

    Global warming scientists have made over two billion dollars in America alone with grants by our government to prove global warming and yet they are constantly caught falsifying their own records in an attempt to comply

  143. Doesn’t the location of the freezing zone for oranges in Florida also give a good integrated measure? Is the growing zone increasing or decreasing in latitude?

  144. Why are the graphs different? They are labeled the same

    REPLY: One is southern hemisphere, Antarctica , the other is both Arctic and Antarctic i.e. global. – A

  145. Jeckyll says:

    As usual those nutty right wingers are trying to make that Gore guy look crazy again. Shame on us, I mean them.

  146. KRJ Pietersen says:

    I see a hockey stick on this graph. Certainly the last two or three years is taking on an unmistakable blade-shape:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

    I’m surprised it hasn’t been adjusted to massage away the inconvenient truth.

  147. goldminor says:

    I was expecting the sea ice anomaly to rise above 2 mil in late July or August. This is early.

  148. Dugway says:

    It’s a good thing we have all that man-made warming going on… No yelling where the ice would be if we were cooling.

  149. goldminor says:

    I read NZ Willy,s comment which talks about possible satellite mechanical changes as having influence on the rise of thst trend line. That would be important to know.

  150. Angech says:

    The Antarctic sea ice has large increases whenever two the ice outgrowths bulge and develop a wedge between themselves which being cooled on both sides instead of on rapidly freeze over. Such a wedge had been developing to the right of the South American ice edge over the last 3 weeks and presumably just filled in giving the extra 100,000 square Kilometres.
    No need to invoke machine errors it is a genuine reading.
    Had been predicting it for a week. Tm angech

  151. Eric L says:

    First off, seasonal sea ice differential is not as strong as a case for or against climate change as ocean temperature and the state of very old glaciers.
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

    You cannot deny that humans have impact on the place where we live. Your sh*t does stink (and it takes a lot of clean water and energy to properly treat it), air pollution is real (ever been to LA, Salt Lake City, or Mexico City???) and garbage doesn’t go ‘away’ (it’s put into an ever growing landfill or maybe burned with heavy metals and toxins released into our atmosphere). Of course this planet has carbon spewing volcanoes and natural sulfur vents… but that doesn’t mean our burning of fossil fuels has no impact. This Earth will heal itself with or without us around, but we are certainly reaching some sort of climax. Today is our opportunity to make changes regarding population growth and consumption/waste rates to ensure a healthy future for many generations.

    Lastly, please remind me the negative impacts of acting against climate change. Are you people afraid of cleaner air & water, and seeing a workforce shift to renewable energy development from digging in coal mines? Personally, I’d much rather see a consumption based tax focused on what you buy rather than what you make or already own. Get rid of property and income tax and let’s implement a consumption based tax (exempting food)!

  152. thesunisup says:

    Ah Clem, of course you are correct, there are no polar bears in the Antarctic and this article focus on the Antarctic.
    I took freezing-warming projections into global and historical; polar bears have been used to refocus emotions and sympathies.
    Reason concludes various species are already extinct.
    This then is reasonable to expect more.

    Behind the Global climate discussion is the implication the world has arrived, it is fully evolved in ‘our’ lifetime and our ‘behavior’ is causing ie; polar bear and our own extinction.

    The same was said by peoples who practiced child sacrifice, tossing them into erupting volcanoes to save their lives, off of cliffs at sunrise so they’d live longer, burning them alive to spare themselves disease.
    The same convictions are still around today. They just wear suits and ties or jeans and loafers.

    Today we throw money at governing bodies for the same reason, the sun will scorch, the ice will cover us, there won’t be water for the ” too many people”.
    As if wars and disease won’t occur in a controlled climate and millions won’t die of these 2 scourges.

  153. iambicpentamaster says:

    The science deniers are all on the political Left.

  154. carlb says:

    how can this be the poor polar bears are scratching on little ice flows with no land in site. why this heresy of the most agregious type. you are not allowed to print the truth you will be excommuniquated by the un climate panel. would someone please get a pro and con panel debating this chicken little science and pipe it world wide for all to hear! by te way i also heard antatica has been adding miles of ice also! we live in wacky times

    REPLY: Polar bears live in the Arctic.

  155. YouGotToBeKiddingMe says:

    Ice ice baby.

  156. Alan Robertson says:

    Rhys Jaggar says:
    June 29, 2014 at 11:50 am
    _______________
    Good points.
    —————–

    Scott says:
    June 29, 2014 at 11:49 am
    ____________
    “Forgive me – there’s a lot of passion in this thread with a lot of people making bold statements that are contradictory to some science”
    —————–
    Which statements, which science?
    ____________
    “I… am often left to gain information from either left or right leaning news sites and thus am fairly confused as to what is truly happening.”
    ———————–
    Join the club. Many have begun to understand the deeper agenda, that the issue of man- made climate change is neither left nor right, that such terms are merely used to keep everyone arguing among themselves and not paying attention to the real money and power brokers behind the scenes.
    _______________
    “… does it seem logical that as industry release millions of chemicals into the air …”
    ——————-
    Please do not fall into the trap of believing the EPA trick of calling CO2 an industrial chemical with harmful consequences. Current atmospheric CO2 levels are on the low end of the range for optimum plant growth. Before man began releasing CO2 into the atmosphere by burning limestone to make cement and burning fossil fuels, life on planet earth was headed for a crash, as atmospheric CO2 was arguably heading in a downward direction, without sufficient volcanic and plate- tectonic releases to replenish the natural CO2 diminution through the process of oceanic sequestration (limestone production.)
    Most calculations from various source have estimated climate temperature sensitivity to doubling of CO2 in a range from .8C to 1.5C. (Yes, the IPCC made scary noises of 3.5C increase/doubling, but they uses a dishonest trick to derive that high figure.) Fact is, there is no modern data set which shows a clear CO2 signal in the temperature record. In other words, while CO2 has been increasing steadily, global temps have remained flat for well over a decade.
    _________________
    ” If I burn a wood fire in my living room, perhaps it first the impact is negligible, but eventually, the whole house will be filled with carbon dioxide and I will die. Isn’t this feasible on much larger world scale should we continue to run industry without improvements and reductions in emissions?”
    ————————-
    Oh, ye of little understanding… the wood fire in your house is a poor analogy. Earth is not a closed and sealed room and just as there is a water cycle, there is a CO2 cycle. That wood which you would burn and which grew and sequestered Carbon (while releasing Oxygen,) eventually falls to earth and feeds multitudes of tiny organisms during decomposition which return CO2 to the atmosphere, where it will ultimately be stored as limestone, beyond the reach of the living biosphere.
    All of man’s activities to this point in history have alleged added up to maybe, 120 ppm in atmospheric volume of air, all of which is causing the biomass of Earth to be undergoing an increase. The Sahara is once again, beginning to bloom. We are helping life on Earth with each drop of oil we burn, regardless of whether or how much climate change results.

    Ps, With your last statement, you are getting close to invoking “The Precautionary Principle”, which says in effect, if the possibility exists that something might happen, then we need to do something to stop it from happening, or negate the effect. At what cost should we take measures to stop any possible event? To stop “climate change”? When costs are proving a burden on living human beings and when efforts to (purportedly) thwart CO2 increases have already been shown to be responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousands (if not millions,) of living human beings, then when do efforts at mitigation become unreasonable?
    When do we grow weary of transferring wealth from the many to the few, under the rubric of stopping “climate change”?

  157. It’s amazing when there is a link from the Drudge Report to WUWT, how the thread posts go from scientific/rational to crazy/troll-like all over the place… but I still think all should be welcomed…

  158. JBSPuddintane says:

    Warmunists, rejoice!
    More proof!
    Praise Aljazeera Gore!

  159. JBSPuddintane says:

    Watch ya’ll don’t slip on that ice while yer waving that hockey-stick around.

  160. retrometas says:

    Not one person here, and certainly not one among the radical left with their global warming hysteria, can say exactly what the optimum ice cover for mother earth is or should be. What we do know is there have been numerous periods in earth’s history in which the planet was substantially colder and substantially warmer; neither situation lead to the earth’s doom. The planet’s climate is far too dynamic and complex to suggest scientists know what global temperature target to shoot for.

  161. Jeff Christie says:

    Is there a distinction between land ice and sea ice we should be paying attention to? When ice melts on land at 32° F and the resulting water flows into seawater which freezes at 28°, does the salt-free water from snow-pack freeze again?

  162. pat says:

    NikFromNYC linked to phys.org on the following, but how about the Reuters’ contradictory spin?

    30 June: SMH: Alister Doyle/Reuters: Emperor penguins slide towards endangered list
    Oslo: Global warming will cut Antarctica’s 600,000-strong emperor penguin population by at least a fifth by 2100 as the sea ice on which the birds breed becomes less secure, according to a new study.
    ***The report urges governments to list the birds as endangered, even though populations in 45 known colonies were likely to rise slightly by 2050 before declining…
    “It’s not happy news for the emperor penguin,” said Hal Caswell of the US Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a co-author of the study in the journal Nature Climate Change…
    The impact of climate change on penguins gets less attention than the effect on polar bears, which are often portrayed by scientists as victims of man-made warming and shrinking ice at the other end of the planet.
    ***Despite rising global temperatures, sea ice around Antarctica has expanded in recent winters…
    http://www.smh.com.au/world/emperor-penguins-slide-towards-endangered-list-20140630-zsqbr.html

  163. Alan Robertson says:

    Eric L says:
    June 29, 2014 at 4:21 pm
    ________________
    Where to begin- You actually linked a Wiki article on glacier retreat <i.since the Little Ice Age? Do you not understand that glaciers have effectively been retreating since the end of the last BIG Ice Age, throughout such times as the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods, when human civilization flourished, excepting regrowth during the Little Ice Age, which drove (newly discovered) settlements in Greenland and the Alps out of existence?

    Regardless of the fact that you have absolutely zero data to support your assertion that too many humans exist and populations must be reduced, I could recommend some very tall buildings to you… what’s that? You only meant reduction of other people?

    On your tax scheme- the first thing you need get through your head is that tax systems are designed to keep the little guy little and that your proposal to tax consumption instead of wealth and wealth production is the surest method to concentrate wealth increasingly in the hands of the elite few. Things are already bad enough, with just 85 individuals owning as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/

  164. Dems will still try to legislate a narrative change hurting the American people in the process! All Democrats and supporters here and abroad, are trying to flood the media with hysterical climate change & global warming alarms and fabricated evidence to take the heat off Dem candidates in the November 2014 and 2016 elections due to the train wreck of Obamacare! They shout, scream, cry, make outlandish claims and won’t stop till after the elections! Poor Democrats! The tsunami cometh!

  165. Justin Case says:

    No amount of Evidence will convince progressive fools of their stupidity.

    Their “global warming” is just as big of a scam as ObamaCare and Border Security – or anything else their greedy little minds have concocted.
    Face it… all Progressives are liars and deceivers. .

  166. Alan Robertson says:

    Jeff Christie says:
    June 29, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    Is there a distinction between land ice and sea ice we should be paying attention to? When ice melts on land at 32° F and the resulting water flows into seawater which freezes at 28°, does the salt-free water from snow-pack freeze again?
    ____________________
    Yes, the fresh water freezes right quick at 28°. In the coastal waters of Antarctica, Summer melt water has been shown to form underwater “ice falls”. Curiously, as sea water freezes and expels salt, a very cold and dense brine is created, which forms little frozen “tubes” as it sinks and freezes the less- saline water around it, forming an icy tube through which the dense/cold brine sinks and the tube extends…

    On the difference between land ice and sea ice melt- the scary stories of sea level rise invoke the specter of land ice melting into the sea, as sea ice melting actually reduces sea level, much like ice cubes melting in a glass of water reduce the water level in the glass. Sea level rise has remained relatively constant since measurements began and incidentally, is not occurring at the same rate, worldwide.

  167. Al Cold Gore says:

    LIAR !

    [To whom do you speak? To how many of those whomever's do you speak? .mod]

  168. Bill says:

    Maybe Mr. Harold Ambler could obtain a comment from lying demoRAT-COMMUNIST party operative and colossal fraud, algore.

  169. William Astley says:

    If it walks like a duck, quakes, and looks like a duck, it’s a duck. It appears were are observing the start of the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oechger cycle. If the planet cools we will have chance by observation to see how much of the warming in the last 30 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes and how much was due to AGW.

    The paleo record shows there is cyclic ‘natural’ warming and cooling of the Antarctic peninsula that matches the periodicity of the warming and cooling cycle in the Northern hemisphere. The fact that the proxy record shows cyclic warming and cooling of both hemisphere provides support for the assertion that the forcing mechanism is solar magnetic cycle changes which affects both hemispheres simultaneously and is cyclical due to the large planet’s affect on the solar tachocline which drives the solar magnetic cycle. Internal process such as ocean currents affect only one hemisphere at time and are chaotic not cyclical.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
    Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”

    …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this paper shows there the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

  170. Greg Goodman says:

    compares well to my estimation of freezing/melting periods
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=964

  171. Bill says:

    There is always some global catastrophe on the horizon for which members of the demoRAT-COMMUNIST seek to remove our Freedom and our money…. see global cooling, rain forest, acid rain, ozone layer, nuclear annihilation, et.al. Anyone care to speculate on the next global catastrophe is next after global warming is finally debunked?

  172. philjourdan says:

    Another Drudge hit. The message is getting out.

  173. tom s says:

    By george, that’s a hockey stick…WITH ACTUAL MEASURED DATA even!

  174. Always Mindful says:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png

    Please took at total area rather than anomaly, you will see total area is currently down from prior peaks.

  175. Alan Robertson says:

    Always Mindful says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:47 pm

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png

    Please took at total area rather than anomaly, you will see total area is currently down from prior peaks.
    _______________
    Kindly note that Antarctic Winter seasonal peak sea ice extent won’t be reached until around July 23rd. The extent anomaly means that Antarctic sea ice is currently 2+ Million Km2 above the 30 yer average for this date, not for seasonal maximum extent.

  176. Alan Robertson says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:10 pm
    “…Kindly note that Antarctic Winter seasonal peak sea ice extent won’t be reached until around July 23rd. …”
    I think Sept 22 to Aug 1 is more accurate…

  177. RACookPE1978 says:

    Jeff Christie says:
    June 29, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    Is there a distinction between land ice and sea ice we should be paying attention to? When ice melts on land at 32° F and the resulting water flows into seawater which freezes at 28°, does the salt-free water from snow-pack freeze again?

    What little such cooled water runs off, it does occasionally freeze in underwater “ice falls” as it runs into the colder sea water – but such ice falls are both very rare, and of very, very limited extents (10 and 50 meters wide, less than 500 meters long.) Compared to the current Antarctic sea ice extents anomaly of 2,000,000 “excess” square kilometers of 2 and 3 meter thick “excess” sea ice for today’s date, such run off from the land ice is trivial.

  178. Alan Robertson says:

    J. Philip Peterson says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:19 pm
    ________________
    Yes- what was i typing? Sheesh.

  179. RACookPE1978 says:

    J. Philip Peterson says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:19 pm (correcting)

    Alan Robertson who said:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:10 pm
    “…Kindly note that Antarctic Winter seasonal peak sea ice extent won’t be reached until around July 23rd. …”

    I think Sept 22 to Aug 1 is more accurate…

    No, the Arctic sea ice minimum occurs (on average) between 15 September and 25 September each year. The Arctic maximum extents occurs slightly after the spring equinox (NOT during the Arctic winter!) in early April.
    The Antarctic sea ice extents maximum occurs just a bit later between 1 October and 15 October. The Antarctic sea ice minimum occurs in mid-February.
    You can see these off-equal maximums and minimums as a series of double peaks in the yearly total sea ice extents when both Arctic and Antarctic are added together. But such mindless additions are worthless: The two CANNOT be compared directly each other.
    Sea ice area anamalies and sea ice extents anomalies are the DIFFERENCE between the established daily average area (or extent) and the day’s actual sea area. Thus a record high sea ice anamaly IS the highest ever recorded difference between a measured sea ice area, and that day’s “expecetd” sea ice area. Such a record sea ice anomaly can be set ANY DAY of the year, in ANY season of the year, regardless of that day’s average value of 3.0 million sq kilometers, 12 million sq kilometers, or the maximum of 14 million sq kilometers. A sea cie anomaly record can be set at any time; a record high sea ice area (or sea ice extents) can reasonably only be expected to occur near the yearly maximum. In the Antarctic, such a record sea ice extents is not likely to occur until mid to late September.

    but, in truth, a +2.0 million sea ice extents anomaly is so high so early in the year that a record may be exceeded much earlier. We shall see.

  180. RACookPE1978 says:

    Always Mindful says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:47 pm

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png

    Please took at total area rather than anomaly, you will see total area is currently down from prior peaks.

    Meaningless comparison. The Antarctic sea ice extents is so much closer to the equator throughout the year than the very small arctic sea ice areas that solar reflection from the excess Antarctic sea ice around the Antarctic continent is much, much more important to the earth’s energy balance than the Arctic sea ice. In fact, from today’s arctic sea ice extents, the more the arctic ice melts after late-August, more energy is lost from the arctic ocean through evaporation, convection, radiation, and conduction than can be gained from solar absorption.

  181. philk111 says:

    Are these changes over the last 25-50 years any real indicator of what trends have developed over thousands. Can we really predict anything with such a short time sample?

  182. J. Philip Peterson @ Jun 29 8:29am Is this what you’re looking for?
    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/extent_s_running_mean_amsr2_previous.png

    I haven’t read all the comments, so someone else may have already found this for you …

  183. Mikefoote2000@gmail.com says:

    Hey, I got an idea. How about we pick on the side of caution? Being right has too much risk long term. For now get your car ECU recalibrated and save fuel while lowering the crap comming out the pipe. It’s an so easy it is silly.

  184. RACookPE1978 says:

    Eric L says:
    June 29, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    Lastly, please remind me the negative impacts of acting against climate change. Are you people afraid of cleaner air & water, and seeing a workforce shift to renewable energy development from digging in coal mines? Personally, I’d much rather see a consumption based tax focused on what you buy rather than what you make or already own. Get rid of property and income tax and let’s implement a consumption based tax (exempting food)!

    Odd you ask that: The IMMEDIATE NEGATIVE effect of acting as YOU require against safer, inexpensive energy for all is the immediate death of millions of lives each year, and the continued misery of life for billions who are forced to give up access to improved and safe water, sanitation and sewage control, refrigeration and safe heating, lights, heat, better roads, more rails, and improved food storage and handling.

    For what? For nothing! The misery and deaths YOU require in YOUR demands between now and 2100 to make CO2 “expensive” will have NO MEASURABLE IMPACT on global temperatures.

    You REQUIRE the immediate death of millions for your schemes and YOUR tax requirements. Against the 5% chance of avoiding a beneficial increase in temperatures of 2-3 degrees. That is, if the world temperatures even increase that much between now and 2100. Thus far this century, they have been decreasing you know. 8<)

  185. No one has mentioned albedo and feedbacks.

    The albedo of water is less than 0.1 and the albedo of SH sea ice (mostly snow covered) is around 0.6. Where the new ice has formed, reflection of solar radiation back out toward space has gone from 10% to 60%.

    It’s a common misconception that south of the Antarctic Circle doesn’t get that much solar radiation even in summer. In fact, around the [SH] summer solstice, it gets more daily solar radiation than anywhere else on Earth.

    Increasing sea ice and the consequent albedo increases cause a major cooling feedback. The more sea ice that forms, the colder it gets.

    We know that around the start and end of inter-glacials, the climate undergoes periods of rapid warming and cooling. Rapid being from a few years to a few decades What causes these rapid changes IMO is formation of new sea ice (cooling) and melting of old land ice (warming).

  186. RACookPE1978 says:

    Angech says:
    June 29, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    The Antarctic sea ice has large increases whenever two the ice outgrowths bulge and develop a wedge between themselves which being cooled on both sides instead of on rapidly freeze over. Such a wedge had been developing to the right of the South American ice edge over the last 3 weeks and presumably just filled in giving the extra 100,000 square Kilometres.
    No need to invoke machine errors it is a genuine reading.

    False. Dead wrong in the long term trend, though your observation of the past week may be correct.
    The Antarctic sea ice anomaly has been steadily increasing since 2007 through EVERY season of the ice year. As noted above, the Antarctic sea ice anomaly once “touched” 1.0 million sq km^2 six times between 1970 and 2007. Since then, it has regularly exceeded 1.2 million km^2, and has been continuously increasing since May 2011. Today’s sea ice anomaly of 2.0+ million km^2 merely continues that long-term trend.

    That a recent increase of 100,000 km^2 only added to a three-year (or a longer, slower 14 year) trend of ever-increasing Antarctic sea ice marks only a short period in a far longer, far more important interval.

  187. Corey says:

    Always Mindful says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:47 pm
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png

    Please took at total area rather than anomaly, you will see total area is currently down from prior peaks.

    Is this even a serious comment? The record was for the biggest anomaly since record keeping began. The southern hemisphere sea ice extent set an all time record last year. Sea ice area will not peak until August or September. There is no difference between area and total area. Do some research before posting next time.

  188. RoHa says:

    @ Eric Worrall.

    Bloody cold here in Brisbane, too. What happened to the Warmest Winter Ever?

  189. markx says:

    Tony says: June 29, 2014 at 10:10 am

    …how do you interpolate the data when they show photos of melting glaciers compared to years ago and when they show the same photo…and the polar bear area (ice) diminishing. …

    Hi Tony,
    Good question.
    I find it interesting that most things claimed as ‘unprecedented’ are not so:
    Here is a bit of interesting data on recently retreating glaciers (yes, in some places they are retreating, but is it unusual?) We can see from the data below that they are only now exposing areas completely free of ice previously in this interglacial (The Holocene). Some will argue that yes, we know that, but we fully understand the earlier Holocene warmings.

    An ancient forest has thawed from under a melting glacier in Alaska and is now exposed to the world for the first time in more than 1,000 years.
    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/still-standing-ancient-alaskan-forest-thaws-melting-glacial-tomb-4B11215106

    Canadian researchers from the University of Alberta were exploring the area around Teardrop Glacier in the Canadian Arctic when they found plants that had been frozen for over 400 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age (1550-1850).
    Regeneration of Little Ice Age bryophytes emerging from a polar glacier with implications of totipotency in extreme environments. Catherine La Farge, Krista H. Williams, john H. England
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/22/1304199110

    Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region’s rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum,
    http://www.livescience.com/4702-melting-glacier-reveals-ancient-tree-stumps.html

    Die Welte, Nov. 14, 2005
    Stone Age trade routes yield spectacular finds on alpine pass – clothes, weapons and devices also from Roman time and the Middle Ages
    A glacier near Berne releases finds from the Stone Age – remnants of a forgotten alpine pass…..……..they discovered a birchbark arrow-quiver. A dating with the archaeological service of the canton Berne showed that the birchbark is nearly 5000 years old.
    http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/

    Marianne Vedeler of Norway’s Museum of Cultural History shows off a 1,700-year-old tunic in the mountains of southern Norway. http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/21/17403302-pre-viking-tunic-found-on-glacier-as-warming-trend-aids-archaeology?lite=
    OSLO — A pre-Viking woolen tunic found beside a thawing glacier in south Norway shows how global warming is proving something of a boon for archaeology, scientists said on Thursday.

  190. Christopher Hanley says:

    Memo to Eric L: CO2 is not pollution, it is a colourless, odourless gas essential for the process of plant photosynthesis and therefore life on Earth.
    “… Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath “cleaner”. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is actually plant food. They are also misled to believe that CO2 is polluting the oceans through acidification but there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about current measurements of ocean water pH and a future rise in pCO2 will likely yield growth benefits to corals and other sea life. Thus regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either ‘Carbon Taxes’, ‘Cap and Trade’ or the EPA will cause energy prices (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil etc …) to skyrocket …” :
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

  191. ren says:

    How important is the circulation? This high-pressure system over the Atlantic reigns many days. Brings cooling in Europe and storms in North America. Cools the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf Stream inhibits.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/07/04/0600Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/orthographic=-82.77,29.93,556

  192. ren says:

    It is easy to predict that the global ice this year reaches the highest state since 1979.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

  193. ren says:

    Please see the blood circulation in the lower stratosphere over the Atlantic Ocean at an altitude of about 17 km. This arrangement blocks the circulation. Simultaneously prevents the formation of hurricanes.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/07/04/0600Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-82.77,29.93,556

  194. What catches my eye, and it is only Mark I eyeballs, is the complete lack of a double notch, in this years movement so far. It just keeps going up. Is there a data pool of when the turns historically have happened in the recorded record?

    I would love to see those yearly movements layered on top of each other, and played like a move, so scale per year is in tack.

  195. Jimbo says:

    Josh Payne says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:40 am
    CAGW novice here. I have heard the claim from the alarmist camp that this surprising sea ice record is a result of the outward distribution of fresh water from the rapidly melting ice masses. How much merit does this claim have?

    Here is what I was looking for yesterday but could not find, until today. The following study finds that Antarctic sea ice increases when it gets colder.

    Abstract July 2011
    Qi Shu et. al
    Sea ice trends in the Antarctic and their relationship to surface air temperature during 1979–2009
    “Surface air temperature (SAT) from four reanalysis/analysis datasets are analyzed and compared with the observed SAT from 11 stations in the Antarctic……Antarctic SIC trends agree well with the local SAT trends in the most Antarctic regions. That is, Antarctic SIC and SAT show an inverse relationship: a cooling (warming) SAT trend is associated with an upward (downward) SIC trend.”
    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Shu_etal_2012.pdf
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-011-1143-9

    H/t
    “Study Finds Antarctic Sea Ice Increases When It Gets Colder”
    August 17, 2013
    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/study-finds-antarctic-sea-ice-increases-when-it-gets-colder/

  196. ren says:

    Jimbo
    Growth of ice over Antarctica depends on the polar vortex and temperature in the stratosphere. Strong vortex – ice grows, weak vortex (braking) inhibits ice.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-351.44,-87.64,319
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2014.gif
    When solar activity significantly decreases the polar vortex begins to brake. Now, in the south polar vortex is strong.

  197. Chris Wright says:

    With perfect timing today’s printed Daily Telegraph has a report on how the emperor penguins are threatened by melting ice. It’s a perfect example of how other sciences, particularly biology, have been tainted by the corruption of climate science.
    The headline is: “Melting ice threatens emperor penguins”. And this at a time when Antarctic ice is at a record high. It almost defies belief. You couldn’t make it up.
    Chris

  198. Jimbo says:

    J. Philip Peterson says:
    June 29, 2014 at 8:29 am

    I notice that on the WUWT sea ice page there are no graphs such as this for Antarctic sea ice:
    http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/images4/nsidc-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-max.jpg

    I must be missing something but I see the years 2007 to 2013, but not 2014. The graph also says “Updated on 2013.08.18″. Maybe that’s why it’s not on the WUWT sea ice page?

  199. Jimbo says:
    June 30, 2014 at 3:01 am

    Teapartygeezer did show me an updated version. Just sayin, it should be on the sea ice page:

    teapartygeezer says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:53 pm

    J. Philip Peterson @ Jun 29 8:29am Is this what you’re looking for?
    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/extent_s_running_mean_amsr2_previous.png

    Thanks tea…

    Oops Note: I stated earlier that maximum antarctic sea ice was from Sept 22 – Aug 1st – I meant Sept 22 – Oct 1st

  200. John says:

    Well, if the “consensus” reverts back to the “facts” of Global Cooling, then we can just pump out more greenhouse gases than ever to artificially warm the planet (even if it didn’t work the first time).

  201. Scott says:

    I’m sort of curious if anyone knows if more fog is forming at the expanding Antarctic ice edges (where it is 32F with the ice cooling the air down to its dew point), and the fog reflects sunlight, which keeps the air and water cool, which causes more ice, which pushes the fog northward, etc.

    We are having lots of dense fog on the Great Lakes this year as the water temperatures are 5F less than average, and it seems to me the fog is preventing the lakes from warming up as fast as they normally do. If the water temperature was just a couple degrees warmer there would be much less fog. Its pretty amazing how just a couple degrees can make such a big difference with fog formation.

  202. Sky is Falling says:

    Can someone provide data regarding any point in the 4.5+ billion year history of the Earth when the temperature remained constant for an meaningful period of time, like 100 years? Actually, 100 years is a completely irrelevant amount of time when compared to 4.5+ billion years (4,5000,000,000), so how about we agree that 10,000 years would be a more appropriate measure for anything even approaching relevancy on any real global scale. I would like to put forth the theory that no one alive can state with any certainty whatsoever what the climate should be at any point in human or Earth history. Oh, and where is the data that ice, glacial or otherwise, was never supposed to melt on the surface of the Earth?

  203. Jason L says:

    The statistics and terminology for AGW are ripe for abuse by those who employ propaganda. Humans have a very difficult time understanding the scale of things, and I think scale analogies are great for making our brains understand them better. So let me try with the fact that “May was was the warmest on record.”

    If we include a reasonable time scale, you could also say this, for the same data:

    “The temperature that was just recorded is the warmest since since 78 seconds ago.”

    Here’s how I came up with it:

    Let’s use a “calendar year” as our timescale. Assume the last dinosaur walked the Earth 65 million years ago, and we want to use this as “January 1″ on our scale. The date of the temperature measurement is December 31 at 11:59:59 pm. This helps put the woefully inadequate temperature record of 160 years in proper perspective.

    So if we spread 65,000,000 across an imaginary 365 days, that makes each “scaled day” 178,082 “real years.” That means the temperature record of 160 days would be 0.00089846 “days” on our scale, of 099989846 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 77.6 seconds. So 77.6 seconds = 160 years on our scale. To continue the analogy, imagine you’re looking at an actual calendar, and the little legend is at the bottom that says “1 day = 178,082 years” with a picture of a dinosaur tombstone on January 1. Skip all the way to December 31 and look for the entry at 10:20 pm to see some glaciers encroaching the United States from Canada (representing the last ice age 12,000 years ago).

    Given that calendar analogy, we measure the temperature on December 31 at midnight. Our recorded data only goes back to December 31 at 11:58:43 PM, so that means our temperature at midnight is the warmest since then, just 77 seconds earlier. And just a little bit more than an hour and a half earlier, it was a major glacier time. Given this perspective, how can anyone trust records from a 160-year data record (that itself is suspect?)

  204. Jim James says:

    Heat capacity is proportional to mass, thus volume. Area is not directly related to heat capacity.
    Salt water freezes at lower temperatures than pure.

    The reason this matters is that the enhanced solar energy trapping at the surface due to increased greenhouse gases can do one of two things. First it can increase what is called sensible heat. Sensible heat is manifest is temperature. Second, it can increase latent heat. Latent heat does not increase temperature but is promote phase changes. One important phase change is melting ice. Ice, at 32 F or 0 C melts to form water, also at 32 F/0 C. The energy needed to melt the ice is latent heat. Important here is that the temperature does not increase. The problem as far as humanity is concerned is this. Once the ice melts, there is nothing to convert the excess energy into phase change due to latent heat. The decrease in total ice volume is well established, not just at the poles, but also glaciers and sea ice. The melting ice is currently suppressing the temperature increase, planet wide, because it uses energy that would go into sensible heat to melt the ice (latent heat). As the volume of ice cover is diminished, the heat capacity decreases.

    On the other hand, the rate of heat flow increases with surface area. So a large area thin section will absorb heat more rapid than a small area thick section. Based on this, one might predict that spring time temperatures will be cooler for thin ice, but once this thin ice melts, summer time temperature will be higher because no ice is left to absorb the excess energy.

    And the latter is the era we are in. Ice is not held over year to year but is extending over larger area. Spring temperatures cooler, summer and fall, warmer.

  205. ren says:

    taxed says:
    That’s interesting about what’s happening to the Gulf stream.
    The key changes are in the stratosphere as a result of a weak magnetic field of the sun and changes in UV radiation.

  206. phlogiston says:

    Chris Wright says:
    June 30, 2014 at 2:53 am
    With perfect timing today’s printed Daily Telegraph has a report on how the emperor penguins are threatened by melting ice. It’s a perfect example of how other sciences, particularly biology, have been tainted by the corruption of climate science.
    The headline is: “Melting ice threatens emperor penguins”. And this at a time when Antarctic ice is at a record high. It almost defies belief. You couldn’t make it up.
    Chris

    The BBC have just dutifully posted the same story:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28089988

    It makes you wonder whether somewhere in London is a climate “war room” where they saw the WUWT discussion on record Antarctic ice and felt the need to gate-crash the discussion in their own mendacious, obnoxious way.

    In what other science would they be able to get away with saying – “O yes Antarctic ice extent is at record high levels just now, but its predicted to decline in future”. What theory or equation or model can they produce with a track record giving them confidence to predict future development of Antarctic or Arctic ice? None – its only a confidence trick.

    The fiction-writing authors gush on idiotically about a “Goldilocks point” implying the ice must not too much or too little but just right for the poor fragile penguins to survive. This means they are making the totally nonsensical assumption that – before evil humans arrived – climate persisted in a constant, unchanging Edenic perfection. Climate has never changed before. Animals cant adapt.

    The layers of stupid in this article just wash over you one after the other. It does indeed defy belief. One day there will be an accounting for these deliberate criminal lies.

  207. phlogiston says:

    Jim James says:
    June 30, 2014 at 7:31 am
    Heat capacity is proportional to mass, thus volume. Area is not directly related to heat capacity.
    Salt water freezes at lower temperatures than pure.

    The reason this matters is that the enhanced solar energy trapping at the surface due to increased greenhouse gases can do one of two things. First it can increase what is called sensible heat. Sensible heat is manifest is temperature. Second, it can increase latent heat. Latent heat does not increase temperature but is promote phase changes. One important phase change is melting ice.

    So .. what you are telling us is that all that heat trapped by CO2 – instead of instantaneously teleporting to the bottom of the ocean as Trenberth suggests – is instead being consumed in latent heat causing ice to melt.

    And the result of this is – record HIGH Antarctic ice extent today? And normal / unexceptional global sea ice?

    Global warming from CO2 trapping heat is just not happening. It never has.

  208. ren says:

    taxed says:
    That’s interesting about what’s happening to the Gulf stream.
    The key changes are in the stratosphere as a result of a weak magnetic field of the sun and changes in UV radiation.
    For proof, look at the distribution of ozone in the north.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f00.gif

  209. Michael D says:

    The first sentence of this article is wrong where it says The sea ice surrounding Antarctica… has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage. It is the anomaly that has set a record, not the areal coverage.

  210. qam1 says:

    [i]Josh Payne says: CAGW novice here. I have heard the claim from the alarmist camp that this surprising sea ice record is a result of the outward distribution of fresh water from the rapidly melting ice masses. How much merit does this claim have?[/i]

    *****

    They are just making stuff as they go long

    1) If melting land ice is causing the record sea ice, then how come they same isn’t happening in the Arctic? We are always hearing about how Greenland & Alaska Glaciers are melting aren’t we? So shouldn’t there be record sea ice around them and the Arctic as a whole?

    But I guess to the Fraudsters Physics work differently depending on which Hemisphere you are in, remember the Fraudsters are the same people who think Heat from Global Warming can sink below cold and “hide” in the deep ocean

    2) From 2000 – 2007 Antarctica was losing sea ice. This prompted the IPCC in their 2007 report to predict that Antarctic sea ice would continue to decline and maybe soon accelerate to match the Arctic.

    So if Global Warming is causing increase in sea ice now, what caused the decrease in 2000 – 2007? There were similar multi year up & down trends seen before 2000 also

    3) Looking where the record ice in the Antarctic is, the largest areas of sea ice are no where near the Antarctic Peninsula where pretty much all the melting on the Continent is taking place. Actually there doesn’t look like any increase of sea ice around the Antarctic Peninsula at all. There’s even a large area there that is below normal. Not surprising since the area is volcanically active.

    If Freshwater was causing the sea ice to expand, it should expand the most nearest to the source of the freshwater because the further you get away the more dilute it gets but that’s clearly not happening.

  211. Jeff Christie says:

    Why is everyone getting so wrapped up in what’s happening in one tiny part of the globe? It’s called global warming for a reason.

    REPLY: Thanks. We’ll remember that next time there is some wailing about the Arctic – Anthony

  212. ralfellis says:

    I expect that this will be the headline news on the BBC tonight

    Oh, wait a minute……

  213. The point really is all the data is really insignificant in size to say or mean anything beyond “oh that is interesting”. We are in the hypothesis phase. I tend to look at the middle of that graph rather then the “record”. What is phenomenal is the see saw dipping on to what some are calling “extremes”. Seems to me that wild swings are the norm and not the indication of an extinction event. If we had ancient data that led up to an actual “ice age” or “flood” then we would have one set of data to based a conclusion on. I am thinking that the same climate scientists that give their students F’s for crappier sets of sample data are banking on much worse.

  214. taxed says:

    ren
    Thank’s for your reply.
    The reason why l think what happens in and over the North Atlantic is important is because its the Gulf Stream stops the Arctic ice sheets expanding to a much greater extent. Should the Gulf Stream become much weaker or at least move to a more southern flow across the Atlantic.
    Then this would risk leading to a large expanding of the Arctic ice sheets.

    Now what would cause such a change in the Gulf Stream ?.
    The jet stream turning more zonal and tracking more southward over the North Atlantic is what. Due to a number of reasons.
    1 The trade winds in the Atlantic are what drives the Gulf Stream, and any change in the jet will also change them.
    2There will be less ridging of the Azores high up towards NW europe which will reduce the amount of warmer air flowing up from the mid Atlantic across the Atlantic towards NW europe and bring cooler air coming from the North Atlantic instead.
    3 There will be a greater risk of high pressure blocks forming around the Arctic circle over the Atlantic bringing down cold air from the pole.
    4 A more southern tracking jet would make the Atlantic lows also track further to the south.
    Taking there cloud cover further to the south with them. This increase in cloud cover would likely to reduce sea temps in the mid Atlantic, so there will be less warm water to flow in the Gulf Stream.

    These are just some of the reasons why l think the North Atlantic is important.

  215. TheLastDemocrat says:

    phlogiston says: ” The fiction-writing authors gush on idiotically about a “Goldilocks point” implying the ice must not too much or too little but just right for the poor fragile penguins to survive. This means they are making the totally nonsensical assumption that – before evil humans arrived – climate persisted in a constant, unchanging Edenic perfection. Climate has never changed before. Animals cant adapt.”

    Exactly. Their story starts in the Garden of Eden, before corrupted Man spoils everything.
    Their story also ends in a cataclysmic apocalypse.

    We need to listen, with unquestioning faith, to the High Priests, repent and stop sinning.

    In other words: this is all very unoriginal. They are copying the actual Master of the Universe.

  216. ren says:

    taxed says:
    That’s interesting about what’s happening to the Gulf stream.
    The key changes are in the stratosphere as a result of a weak magnetic field of the sun and changes in UV radiation.
    For proof, look at the distribution of ozone in the north.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f00.gif
    Compare the pressure distribution at an altitude of 15 km and decomposition of ozone.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.gif

  217. phlogiston says:

    taxed on June 30, 2014 at 10:22 am

    ren
    Thank’s for your reply.
    The reason why l think what happens in and over the North Atlantic is important is because its the Gulf Stream stops the Arctic ice sheets expanding to a much greater extent. Should the Gulf Stream become much weaker or at least move to a more southern flow across the Atlantic.
    Then this would risk leading to a large expanding of the Arctic ice sheets.

    There is good evidence from Levitus (sorry no link) that the strength of the Gulf stream rises and falls with the AMO – warm and cool phases respectively.

  218. James at 48 says:

    The oceans are getting ready to punch us hard.

  219. REN, it looks like a positive AAO will be the rule as we head into July. Not much blocking.

  220. phlogiston says:

    RAH on June 29, 2014 at 7:59 am

    How about some of you smart folks here poke holes in this for me?

    I think you could be right – global sea ice, for the physical reasons you outlined, could be the best integrating index of global warming or cooling. Averaged over a few years.

  221. ren says:

    Salvatore we are working on the same wavelength solar. I agree July.

  222. Chris R. says:

    To Mikefoote2000:

    You wrote:

    For now get your car ECU recalibrated and save fuel while lowering the crap comming out the pipe.

    Umm. You are probably not aware that your suggestion is exactly BACKWARD
    with respect to carbon dioxide (CO2). Any hydrocarbon (you know, like most of
    the mass of gasoline?) when burned completely will yield only two products, CO2
    (carbon dioxide) and H2O (water vapor). These are the two most effective greenhouse
    gases. So, your suggestion to save fuel will result in a car emitting MORE greenhouse
    gas, not less.

    You really need to study your chemistry. The trace pollutants like nitrogen oxides,
    ozone, and carbon monoxide (note–that’s different from carbon DIOXIDE) may go
    down a little bit in your scenario, but all those cars that have been “recalibrated’
    will be putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

  223. Phil. says:

    R. Shearer says:
    June 29, 2014 at 11:41 am
    Teddi says:
    June 29, 2014 at 8:33 am
    R. Shearer says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:58 am
    Satellite measurements began in 1973. The period beginning in 1979 corresponds with the maximum extent in the Arctic. Cherry picking?

    And the period beginning in 1979 corresponds with the minimum extent in the Antarctic, the extent anomaly was about 2.5 Mkm^2 in 1973.

  224. Bill P. says:

    “Eric L says:
    June 29, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    Lastly, please remind me the negative impacts of acting against climate change. Are you people afraid of cleaner air & water, and seeing a workforce shift to renewable energy development from digging in coal mines? Personally, I’d much rather see a consumption based tax focused on what you buy rather than what you make or already own. Get rid of property and income tax and let’s implement a consumption based tax (exempting food)!”

    1. I cannot count the number of times I’ve heard this “okay, you caught us. There is not any real evidence of this, BUT…we are lying for the good of humanity!” spiel.

    The answer is the same: we don’t believe in your religion. And that’s all this is, articles of faith based on hope and good wishes.

    Everything you people say is predicated on your faith that (1) all the things we’re doing are bad, and (2) all the things we science cultists WANT to do are good. You ignore un intended consequences. You ignore the fact that free markets are always correct and planned economies invariably are f***ed up beyond your wildest nightmares.

    There is no “clean energy solution,” there is only YOUR hopes and dreams being hijacked by snake-oil salesmen like Al Gore. When government fixers get the hell out of the way, the best solutions will always arise, as they always have. And the moment something better comes along, the old ways will be supplanted, because THATS WHAT WORKS!

    Never occurs to you people that if “clean energy” worked it would be in use right now. You think the market is all manipulated because you want to manipulate it yourself. A thief always thinks others are dishonest.

    You, Al Gore, and B. Hussein Obama get the **** out of the way! and the free market will determine what is best for the greatest number. Your way always leads to cronyism, despotism and poverty for the masses..

    Sit down and shut the **** up unless you have a solution that doesn’t require taking other people’s money and giving it to your cronies.

  225. goldminor says:

    And the period beginning in 1979 corresponds with the maximum extent in the Arctic. I always had the impression that the year 1979 is used, because that is what NSIDC shows as the record on consequence. I have never seen NSIDC use any other graph with a more complete data set. Why is that?

  226. ren says:

    Severe weather will lash through areas from the Plains to the Midwest Monday into Tuesday, hitting some of the major cities in the United States, including Chicago, St. Louis;, Detroit, and Kansas City, Missouri.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/orthographic=-76.56,29.31,1106

  227. TheLastDemocrat says:

    It would be great to see someone with enough knowledge develop a post on this Gulf Stream and Arctic Ice Sheet topic. Including Gulf Stream and AMO, sunspots, and whatever other related bits of info have been mentioned here.

  228. TomR,Worc,Ma,USA says:

    Mikefoote2000@gmail.com says:

    June 29, 2014 at 8:00 pm

    Hey, I got an idea. How about we pick on the side of caution? Being right has too much risk long term.
    ====================================================================

    I love this particular argument. The “Precautionary Principle”.

    I am not a religious person, but I was raised a Roman Catholic. This same argument would seem to say that I should go to church every week and pray feverishly for my immortal soul, because me being wrong about there being no God has “too much risk (very very very VERY) long term”

    I don’t believe in God, as it doesn’t quite pass the smell test (for myself), nor do I buy that man is affecting our climate in anyway that could be considered “catastrophic”.

    My apologies to anyone that is religious, I do not mean to offend.

    One man’s opinion.

    TR

  229. AW35 says:

    Hi

    Sorry but the article is completely wrong in the first paragraph

    “The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, which, as I reported in my book, has been steadily increasing throughout the period of satellite measurement that began in 1979, has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage”.

    You can see from the below graph it is still lower than the maxima for all years measured

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png

    What the writer means is it record high for this time of year. Problem is that when this gets reported on other sites that will be forgotten as they just do the sound bite.

    Can you correct please?

    Andy

  230. James Fosser says:

    Hello RACookPe1978. You say ”..but the top-of-atmosphere solar radiation is at its MAXIMUM of 1410 watts/m^2 the first weeks of January when antarctic sea ice is exposed to 24 hours of sun each day!” Is that taking into account that around January the Earth is approximately 5 Million Kilometres closer to to sun?

  231. ren says:

    AW35
    I do not know if you noticed that the biggest increase in global ice is in September.
    Look at the chart. I predict that it will record. We’ll see in October.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

  232. ren says:

    Let’s see the temperature in the lower stratosphere over the southern polar circle.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/70mb6590.gif

  233. ren says:

    Let’s see how the two fronts collide on the Great Lakes. Weather dangerous. Of course depression over the Atlantic will not become a hurricane, as I wrote above.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/orthographic=-76.56,29.31,1106

  234. Bill P. says:

    “…does it seem logical that as industry release millions of chemicals into the air to keep up with the demands of a growing human population that left unchecked, it would be foolish to think this could in any way impact the weather or our lives on any tangible level?”

    Check your assumptions.

    For instance: “millions of chemicals released into the air.” Where does that notion come from? Nearly every industrialized country has strict controls on environmental contaminants – and this was true long before the AGW flap arose. And not because of “global effects” but rather because of local. People essentially like clean air and water.

    The ASSUMPTION that things are bad and getting worse is just false. It’s the opposite: they’re good and getting better. At least in the west.

    Ironically, the countries being asked (or forced by their politicians) to foot the bill for these “millions of chemicals” you’re alleging are the countries that have long monitored and regulated pollutants. The heaviest polluters like China and India do nothing and pay nothing.

    This is but one data point that leads me to conclude this is a political scam and nothing more.

    And I’ll leave aside the fact that “millions of chemicals” aren’t greenhouse gases, and that the biggest sources of such gases are natural processes. And that taxing them doesn’t necessarily reduce them. And that taxation is for raising revenue and politicians always see it that way.

    There are too many political issues involved, and I don’t trust politicians at all,

  235. Ali Babba says:

    but think of the emperor penguins

    gasp

    sarc off

  236. China and India are the biggest polluters of all. Unless they improve their technology the world will get dirtier even in the west the pollution spans the globe. Taxation is not about solving the problems but about increasing government revenues and control if the citizens. Renewable energy sources should be developed to the point that they can compete with fossil fuels. Until that us a reality this problem will nit be solved. And I don’t refer to global warming or whatever the currenrt buzz word is as the problem but to having enough energy for the world to give all its people a good standard of life. Reliance on fossil fuels leads to many of the ills in the world, wars, hunger, etc. Arguing about how many angels can dance on the head if a pin gets us nowhere

  237. goldminor says:

    @ren…I see a new sea ice anomaly record at 2.112 mil/km2 from today,s update. I noticed several months ago that the sea ice growth rate increases when portions of the jetstream move in closer to the continent. Similarly, the rate slows down when the jet pulls away.

    If the sea ice growth rate continues at a similar pace for the next 3 months, then I would think that Antarctica will receive more respect for it,s position in the climate story. I think that it was only 2 weeks ago that the anomaly had shrunk to 1.0 mil/km2. So it has now gained 1.1+ mil in around 14 days. That is probably a record of it,s own.

  238. empiresentry says:

    Just a sociology/anthropology/political science observation:
    Movement fadists call the last data point a trend. If this were lost ice, they would classify this as a trend.

    Scientists and normal people call this last data point an anomoly in regards to the other data points.

    The fadists gleefully comply…this one time….and adopt the anomoly designation.

  239. Alan Robertson says:

    goldminor says:
    July 1, 2014 at 10:10 pm

    “If the sea ice growth rate continues at a similar pace for the next 3 months, then I would think that Antarctica will receive more respect for it,s position in the climate story. I think that it was only 2 weeks ago that the anomaly had shrunk to 1.0 mil/km2. So it has now gained 1.1+ mil in around 14 days. That is probably a record of it,s own.
    ___________________
    The Antarctic sea ice anomaly as well as the Global anomaly can fluctuate by 100′s Km2/day, due to calving events, Polar storms, days where losses occur at both poles simultaneously, etc. No big deal. A few weeks ago (May 15,) the Global Sea Ice anomaly fell over 400 Km2 overnight, continued a downward trend for a few days, but was back to “normal” a week or so later. There may be some artifacts of data reporting involved, also.

  240. Bill P. says:

    EMPIRESENTRY:

    “Movement fadists call the last data point a trend. If this were lost ice, they would classify this as a trend.”

    When the temps fall to below normal the Warmists tell me “temperature isn’t climate.”

    When we have fewer hurricanes than the Alarmists predict, they tell me “weather isn’t climate.”

    When a hurricane comes ashore, when a summer heat wave happens, guess what those same people tell me?

  241. goldminor says:

    Alan Robertson says:
    July 2, 2014 at 8:49 am
    ————————————————————-
    Thanks for the explanation.

  242. RACookPE1978 says:

    James Fosser says:
    June 30, 2014 at 10:52 pm (responding to)

    Hello RACookPe1978. You say

    ”..but the top-of-atmosphere solar radiation is at its MAXIMUM of 1410 watts/m^2 the first weeks of January when antarctic sea ice is exposed to 24 hours of sun each day!”

    Is that taking into account that around January the Earth is approximately 5 Million Kilometres closer to to sun?

    Yes, that yearly orbital variation of distance is the reason the top-of-atmosphere solar radiation varies so much. Closer to the sun on January 3-5, furthest July 4-5-6 each year.

  243. We really ought to be talking about Antarctic ice mass, which is on an accelerated decline:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/news/242/

    “Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass (Figure 1). Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate.

     “The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time,” she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data does, too. “It isn’t just one type of measurement. It’s a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust.”

  244. dbstealey says:

    hanzo still cannot accept the fact that ice mass is a lagging indicator. Second- and third-year ice is increasing, but it lags ice extent and area. Over the next year or two [assuming that sea ice continues to rise], ice mass will follow, as older ice builds up. This has been explained before, but confirmation bias has a strong hold. Also, hanzo’s link is years out of date. Claiming that ice mass is currently “declining” is a stretch, and shows more than a little desperation.

    Make no mistake, global ice is well above its long term average [the red chart line].

    Next, I suppose we will be subjected to PIOMAS propaganda. I’m surprised that silliness hasn’t appeared here yet.

  245. Brian H says:

    Yes, the use of 1979 as the base year is not to be tolerated. The coldest year in about a century? The “no satellites before then” story is bogus. Sputnik was 20 years earlier, and the moon landing 10. There were many satellites.

Comments are closed.