While everyone seems to be watching the Arctic extent with intense interest, it’s bipolar twin continues to make enough ice to keep the global sea ice balance near normal. These images from Cryosphere today provide the details. You won’t see any mention of this in the media. Google News returns no stories about Antarctic Sea Ice Extent.
Here’s the graph, see for yourself.
Here’s global sea ice:
click image to enlarge
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
savethesharks says:
July 3, 2010 at 9:08 pm
It damn sure DOES tell the story.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Yer welcome.
It’s been updated
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
Anthony: you can copy or link that into your topic above if you want.
R. Gates says:
July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
=================
The WHAT?
The AGW models?
What the hell are the “AGW models”?
Your incessant, persistent, perpetual, non-stop talking out of your austral end is amusing, but never informing.
You always refer to the “AGW models” but you are never quite able to identify what they are.
I had a professor once that said and it stuck with me: “A little knowledge…in the mind of someone who thinks they know much…is a dangerous thing.”
He was right on!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
rbateman said
July 3, 2010 at 8:09 pm
“When December arrives in the N. Hemisphere, this is what to expect.
The stage is set for another round of ‘not to be outdone’ hopscotch effect”
What does it tell you to expect ?
Looking at last December
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Extent was pretty low, but then peaked fairly high come March after a late “burst”
Andy
R. Gates says:
July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
As per your interest in the Antarctic Sea Ice, it was a big deal in the 70’s when the ozone hole scare was all the rage.
Apparently, growing ice is not newsworthy. “We just want the facts, ma’am, the cold facts”.
R. Gates says: July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
“The Artic and Antarctic (besides being at the exteme latitudes of the planet) are vastly different systems. One is sea ice that surrounds a continent and is fully open to multiple oceans, and the other is an ocean surrounded by continents with only a few access points to other oceans. More importantly, Antarctic sea ice has a far less of an impact on our N. Hemisphere weather. Also, while we have seen a general increase in year-to-year amounts in the Antarctic, we have also seen plenty of negative anomalies over the past 6 years”
The fact you are omitting is that a large portion of Antarctic Sea Ice melts each year as you can see in this video;
thus in a way Antarctic sea ice resets/recalibrates each year, increasing its sensitivity and variability as compared to the Arctic sea ice, which suffers from the impact and memory of major wind/natural sea ice loss events such as occurred in 2007.
How about an answer to the question you dodged last thread, which of Earth’s poles’ sea ice offers a more accurate proxy of Earth’s temperature and temperature trend, and why?
AndyW says:
July 3, 2010 at 10:57 pm
For those not paying attention to the increasingly cold winters hopscotching from one hemisphere to the next, that’s what to expect. Cold train.
Spartacus says:
July 3, 2010 at 9:11 pm
This rbateman graph poses a question that already crossed through my mind several times. The short term variation of ice from both poles seem to be linked in opposite directions. When the anomaly of one goes up the other one goes down. There’s some mechanism here that it’s not fully understood. For me it’s some astronomical effect related with short term tilt and precession variations of earth’s axis.
_________________________________________________
I suspect it is due to the declination of the outer planets from the ecliptic plane, shifting the flow of the solar wind off of a neutral bias North / South as it passes the Earth headed out to the outer planets. It is on my list of things to graph out to check asap, (on slow speed internet connection for a while yet.)
In his very own “Perry Mason” moment R. Gates has confessed that the climate models are actually “AGW models”. It’s just what the skeptics have been saying all along. Case closed.
So, let me get this straight… you’re saying that all the media hype about global warming is wrong?
Notice how R. Gates left no comment in Flaming the Amazon showing more Warmers adjusted science, but he pops in here.
harvey says: July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm “So why the dodging of the arctic sea ice extent/volume.”
Dodging? Perhaps it is ironic or simply coincidental, but just to the right of your post and up a couple of inches is a direct link to the Arctic sea ice extent and Arctic temperatures. No dodging here.
harvey says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm
“So why the dodging of the arctic sea ice extent/volume.
Nice try at forcing focus away from anything that does not suite your agenda.”
VILLABOLO:
Now, now Harvey, let’s be polite.
But seriously folks, here are some points to be emphasized.
In general this is what’s happening. The Arctic Sea Ice Cap, Greenland and the Antarctic are all being effected by Global Warming but not to the same extent. It would further be irrelevant that the Antarctic was not currently being effected because that would only indicate that Global Warming has not had full effects upon every region of the World YET. (That’s for the sake of argument. It is being effected.)
You have to understand all three ice caps (yes that includes the Arctic) in order to get the big picture. That includes the geographies of Greenland and Antarctica in contrast to each other in order. This is how I see things:
1) THE ARCTIC. It is melting the fastest because it is the thinnest.
2) GREENLAND. According to GRACE satellites it lost 137 billion metric tons of ice in 2002 and 286 billion metric tons in 2009. The first figure is a trickle in comparison to both the total amount of ice in Greenland and ocean level rise. The second figure a double trickle. The fact that it doubled is the important figure.
Doubling in just 7 years indicates, that in just 10 doublings, there will be a 1024 fold increase. That is no longer a trickle. Assuming that the same 7 year period is taken into account this increase will take 70 years.
3) THE ANTARCTIC. It has lost several huge ice shelves in the first decade of this century. The last one was the size of Rhode Island. Nevertheless, it is not going to be effected as fast as the other ice caps for the following reasons:
a) It is 10 times as large as Greenland and generates its own weather. The larger something is the better it protects itself.
b) It has cold ocean currents that go around it in a manner similar to refrigerator coils. This enhances its frigidity. This factor is not a small concern when Antarctica’s past is taken into account.
Once, when the tip of South America was connected to Antarctica, those ocean currents would deflect north, by the west side of South America, carrying its cold water away. It would, at the same time, draw warmer waters south from the east coast of South America. This made Antarctica warmer without the Earth having to have been warmer overall than at present.
c) Temperatures are more concentrated in the Arctic region, including Greenland, than in Antarctica.
d) Don’t look to closely. What it does on a decade per decade basis is what counts not absurd one, two or three year trends.
re R. Gates
So the models do show an increasing amount of antarctic sea ice in their projections of AGW run away warming. Puh… now we can all sleep safely knowing that the prophets have everything under control.
No matter the amount of heat sinks the trend should not be increasing during the last years should it? Or is that just short term variability of the earths normal extremely complex and yet to be understood climate system?
In matters environmental, some newspapers seem to suffer from a bi-polar proble; London’s Telegraph, which supports the blogs of Booker and Delingpole, also carries some of the most ridiculous puff-pieces promoting the notion of CAGW. I was amazed to read there just just yesterday that a glacier in tropical Indonesian Papua is “the last glacier in the Pacific, is melting and will be gone in about 50 years”. Having walked on New Zealand’s Fox and Franz Joseph Glaciers and flown over others nearby, I was sure those particular glaciers are still there – melting very slowly as they have been doing (as far as I am aware) since they had a growth spurt in the LIA. I suspect there are a large number of glaciers in the North and South American landmass bordering the Pacific Ocean too as a quick search in Google found 800 glaciers just in the Washington Cascades, in addition to numerous others around the Pacific.
Why do nutjobs write such blatantly silly stories? I am amazed that a paper which supports Delingpole and Brooker gives space to such badly-written alarmism. Sure the glacier in question may be soon melted and gone but to say it is the last in the Pacific region is beyond nonsense.
R. Gates says: “the uninformed or perhaps intentionally ignorant skeptic always wants to point to the Antarctic as proof that AGW models are garbage, when in fact, the general trends of the Arctic and Antarctic and not out of line with many AGW models.”
“the uninformed or perhaps intentionally ignorant skeptic” = “people who R Gates disagrees with”
“are not out of line with many AGW models” = “are out of line with many AGW models.”
Put another way: “people who R Gates disagrees with always want to point to the Antarctic as proof that AGW models are garbage, when in fact, the general trends of the Arctic and Antarctic are out of line with many AGW models.”
Thanks R Gates. I’m sure that’ll help clear up any confusion.
There will be plenty of coverage of the Antarctic next March when the Wilkins sheet crack photographs will be recycled again. Ice freezing is not fashionable. Ice melting fits the alarmist narrative.
The difference in ‘performance’ of the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice could well be due to volcanic activity. None in the Antarctic right now – the last one was a couple of years ago beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet.
The volcano in Iceland which shut down most of Europe’s air traffic – another good one from the UK’s Met Office – spewed huge amounts of ash over the Arctic sea ice making it more susceptible to melting. The effect of this must have just about run its course.
Just The Facts says:
July 3, 2010 at 11:01 pm
R. Gates says: July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm………
villabolo says:
July 4, 2010 at 1:00 am ……….
Just The Facts says:
July 3, 2010 at 11:01 pm
How about an answer to the question you dodged last thread, which of Earth’s poles’ sea ice offers a more accurate proxy of Earth’s temperature and temperature trend, and why?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
R.Gates and villabolo provided all the information you need. Antarctic sea ice is seasonal ice, e.i. 1 year ice that accumulates in winter melts in summer. Can we always determine the the actual melt potential for Antarctic sea ice? No. There will be seasons when all the sea ice has melted before the melt season ends, so it could have melted more.
The land-locked arctic ice is different because unlike Antarctica it can build multi-year ice. As to your question which is a more accurate proxy for the earth’s temperature, I’ll answer that it is the Northern hemisphere arctic region. That is in the short to medium term; for as long as the winter vortex of Antarctica blows. In short, the Arctic responds fast, as you can witness, and Antarctica will follow more slowly. In the neantime the Arctic sea ice will have become seasonal.
Why should polar ice have to be used as a ‘proxy’ for determining global ‘temperature and temperature trend’ ? Simply read well-sited thermometers showing air and water temperatures from around the world. Unless, of course, such readings would not be showing the right trend?
Headline; Antarctic sea ice peaks at third highest in the satellite record
I thought the peak occurs sometime in September. Should that have read “June Antarctic….etc. Half way in the season? If there are predictions on this blog that the current arctic melt will slow, is it not equally possible for the current Antarctic growth to slow? Just keeping an open mind.
Arctic & Antarctic are like mirror images — in March, when the Arctic took that unusual bump increase in ice extent, the Antarctic took a bump decrease. I wonder if it’s more than just a coincidence.
Alexander K says:
July 4, 2010 at 3:15 am
“In matters environmental, some newspapers seem to suffer from a bi-polar proble; London’s Telegraph, which supports the blogs of Booker and Delingpole, also carries some of the most ridiculous puff-pieces promoting the notion of CAGW. I was amazed […]
Why do nutjobs write such blatantly silly stories?”
Incompetence. By sheer accident, the newspaper was the first to hire them; now they anxiously occupy a desk and hope that nobody notices that they’re not capable of doing a decent job. Or maybe they don’t even notice their own incompetence; Dunning-Kruger effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Coalsoffire says:
July 3, 2010 at 11:29 pm
“In his very own “Perry Mason” moment R. Gates has confessed that the climate models are actually “AGW models”.”
He should have called them “CAGW models”.
Isnt it strange how little the world has changed. Some years ago I guy called Alexander went to the “Oracle of Delphi” and asked whether he could conquer the world.
Now we have the “CAGW models”.
Curious Yellow says:
“R.Gates and villabolo provided all the information you need. Antarctic sea ice is seasonal ice, e.i. 1 year ice that accumulates in winter melts in summer. Can we always determine the the actual melt potential for Antarctic sea ice? No. There will be seasons when all the sea ice has melted before the melt season ends, so it could have melted more.”
This is news to me. Are you sure that there are seasons where “all the ice melts”? When was the last time that the Ross Ice Shelf melted completely as I seem to have missed it?
R. Gates re; AGW model
Sounds like the POM model – Ptolemaic Orbital Mechanics
Just like the AGW model it was tweaked and twisted ad hoc to fit the observations. It did a pretty good job at predicting planetary motions even though its basis was completely wrong. Just like the AGW model.
Da motion of da ocean is what’s driving all this. It holds 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere. The tail doesn’t wag the dog. Write that down.