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
re; which pole is a better proxy for the earth’s temperature and trend
Actually they both suck equally. And why on earth do we need a proxy? We have satellites that tirelessy measure the temperature 24/7 over almost the entire surface of the globe. Surface station thermometers and proxies are obsolete and unreliable at best. As well, we have satellites that measure sea level changes down to the proverbial hair’s width which tells us just about all we need to know about total oceanic heat content and glacier melt.
The scare mongering is a bunch of crap. The earth’s surface temperature fluctuates slightly as the PDO, ENSO, and AMDO bring more or less of the vast cold deep of the world’s oceans to the surface. The PDO has been in its warm phase for the last 30 years and it appears to have shifted into its cold phase right on schedule. That’s the entire basis for the so-called anthropogenic global warming.
The gloom & doom control freaks have 30 years at a stretch to work up a good panic about catastrophic global warming or cooling. Nice try this time but no cigar. Time to change over to global cooling. So to all the little boys crying wolf, better luck next time.
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.
_________________________________________________
Richard Holle says:
July 3, 2010 at 11:26 pm
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.)
_________________________________________________
The tilt and precession variations of earth’s axis seem to be long term effects
* 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
* 21,000 year cycle: Earth’s combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
* 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth’s orbit ( tilt )
* 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity ) click
Vukcevic has done a lot of work on the changes and shifts in the earth’s geomagnetic field and how it effects sea currents and therefore temperatures.
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation & Arctic Ttemperature Anomaly vs. Geomagnetic Field Fz
NORTH ATLANTIC TEMPERATURE ANOMALY
This winter we saw there was a shift in NH weather patterns that had a major effect on a large area. This type of shift, caused by shifts in PDO, AMO, ENSO Climate Oscillation Combinations seems to be the immediate cause. The reason for the oscillations is the next step.
VILLABOLO:
“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.)”
This is an argument based on model projections not on observations. If this “global warming” hasn’t effected the Antarctic then it is neither global nor empirical – it is a belief.
“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.”
Very amusing. What physical process do you propose that leads to Greenland ice disappearing at a geometric rate? The rate of melting is proportional to the quantity of heat supplied. For your scenario to be true, the amount of heat would have to double every seven years. Do you have a citation for that?
“b) It [Antarctica] has cold ocean currents that go around it in a manner similar to refrigerator coils. This enhances its frigidity.”
It’s always amusing the way alarmists come up with the “reason” that parts of the world aren’t behaving according to their beliefs. In this case it’s due to enhanced “frigidity”! Nice one.
“c) Temperatures are more concentrated in the Arctic region, including Greenland, than in Antarctica.”
Confused or what! What, in your opinion, are concentrated temperatures? Is that measured in degrees per meter square?
Is there any sense in watching polar ice?
I mean, the world has gone competely mad anyway?
http://www.newswise.com/articles/study-shows-global-warming-impact-of-anesthetics-one-common-anesthesia-agent-is-greatest-potential-contributor-to-climate-change
I think Harvey and his warmista friends need a vacation down at the Vostok station in Antarctica to bask in the -100F temperatures…
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/89606.html
Dave Springer says:
July 4, 2010 at 5:15 am
Nicely put!
Vincent says on July 4, 2010 at 5:30 am
Probably temperature density: degrees per cubic meter 🙂
3 July 2010
Obama commits nearly $2 billion to solar companies
Obama, under pressure to spur job growth, said today that two solar energy companies will get nearly $2 billion in US loan guarantees to create as many as 5,000 so-called “green” jobs.
In his weekly radio and Web address, Obama coupled his announcement with an acknowledgment that efforts to recover from the recession are slow a day after the Labor Department reported that private hiring in June rose by 83,000.
“It’s going to take months, even years, to dig our way out and it’s going to require an all-hands-on-deck effort,” he said. All told, 5,000 jobs are expected to be created through use of $1.85 billion in money taken from the $787 billion economic stimulus that Obama pushed through the U.S. Congress in early 2009 over the strenuous objections of Republicans.
Obama announced the Energy Department will award $1.45 billion in loan guarantees to Abengoa Solar Inc to help it build Solona, one of the largest solar generation plants in the world near Gila Bend, Arizona. Abengoa Solar, headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, is a unite of Spanish renewable energy and engineering company Abengoa SA (ABG.MC). In the short term, construction will create some 1,600 jobs in Arizona.
“After years of watching companies build things and create jobs overseas, it’s good news that we’ve attracted a company to our shores to build a plant and create jobs right here in America,” Obama said.
Obama said $400 million in loan guarantees will be awarded to Colorado-based Abound Solar Manufacturing to manufacture advanced solar panels at two new plants, creating more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs. A Colorado plant is already being constructed and an Indiana plant will be built in what is now an empty Chrysler factory.
The announcement addresses Obama’s desire to create jobs related to “green” technologies.
Obama, whose Democrats are anticipating losses in Nov 2 congressional elections because of the weak jobs picture, said the steps he is taking “won’t replace all the jobs we’ve lost overnight” and that “I know folks are struggling.” He accused Republicans of blocking a $33 billion extension of unemployment benefits that failed to pass the House of Representatives on Tuesday. “At a time when millions of Americans feel a deep sense of urgency in their own lives, Republican leaders in Washington just don’t get it,” Obama said.
..Yeah, well you said it, O’barmy…
$1.85 billion divided by 5,000 jobs = a cost of $370,000 per job. With the US already with a debt of $13 trillion, I don’t see how that amount of spending to create a job is either justifiable or prudent.
One company will be producing power which will probably be government subsidised for every kWh produced – an ongoing cost to the government. The other company will be producing solar panels – if these are marketed at the consumer market, there will not be many consumers queuing to purchase them with the current US economic climate. People have got by without them so far and will perceive them to be a luxury purchase.
This may well be $1.85 billion of the taxpayers money well spent, but I fail to see how.
re; which pole is a better proxy for the earth’s temperature and trend
The best ‘proxy’ locations have sparse to nonexistent measured data. Obviously the polar regions are ideal, since there is little measured data. Large or infinite error bars allow lots of shenanigans cloaked as expert interpretation…
@villabolo
“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.”
Have you even looked at the antarctic data?
The trend has been increase of ice for decades.
This is a bit more than a few years and you people use the same timespan when you use arctic as proof for AGW.
There simply is no downward trend in antarctica if you look at the trend since at least 70s.
This will make a good talking point if the Arctic ice level is low in that month.
tommy says:
“There simply is no downward trend in antarctica if you look at the trend since at least the 70s.”
You are right. The 30 year trend is up, not down. Although trying to get that fact through villabolo’s head is like arguing with a brick wall.
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’.”
AGW models also have much in common with their human counterparts; just the right ones need to be selected, with considerable lipstick and other cosmetics, primping, staging, lighting, and posing, followed by photo enhancement, and then marketing the product for maximum results and ROI.
VILLABOLO:
“c) Temperatures are more concentrated in the Arctic region, including Greenland, than in Antarctica.”
Vincent:
“Confused or what! What, in your opinion, are concentrated temperatures? Is that measured in degrees per meter square?”
Actually, I think the physical quantity proposed by VILLABOLO would have to be “temperature intensity”, as in degrees per meter cubed. So one could say the temperatures in the arctic are “brighter”! No wait, that doesn’t work.
Archeopteryx says:
Ignoring, conveniently that this is exactly as the AGW theory predicts…
Since “AGW theory” predicts everything (and so, nothing) your statement is rather a null case.
We’ve got a load of ice forming at the S. pole, and that’s what AGW predicts?, more ice?… OK, can it also predict absolutely normal nothing happening global ice and snow levels? If so, I’m ready to endorse AGW theory as predicting we don’t need to do a darned thing to our fuel usage as everything is staying the same.
Kate says:
Obama, under pressure to spur job growth, said today that two solar energy companies will get nearly $2 billion in US loan guarantees to create as many as 5,000 so-called “green” jobs.
Lets hope we don’t have the same kind of ‘success’ that Spain has had with their solar “green jobs” government program:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/green-jobs-spanish-unemployment-20-in-q1/
Spain just announce a 20% unemployment rate…
harvey says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm
“what I did on my summer vacation”
Villabolo & Harvey : good cop / bad cop?
Dave Springer said
“As well, we have satellites that measure sea level changes down to the proverbial hair’s width which tells us just about all we need to know about total oceanic heat content and glacier melt.”
The sea level satellites are accurate to around 80mm on one pass and around 8mm combined-that is they are inaccurate to a level greater than the amount they are measuring-as confirmed at the end of Chapter 5 of TAR4
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-a-3.html#5-a-4
Properly maintained tide gauges are a much better way of finding out what is going on in the real world at specific locations.
Incidentally, the method of estimating historic sea level is bizarre to say the least, relying as it does on three highly truncated northern European tide gauges and extrapolating that to create a global measurement.
I have no greater faith in the unerring accuracy (or relevance) of satellite global temperatures nor ice area/extent but in any case would point out that they merely record a tiny sliver of our climatic history.
tonyb
villalobo
Try looking on the first chart at the minimas. Not only are the maximas increasing, but the minimas are too. How does that work in an AGW world?
harvey says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Arctic sea ice has been discussed ad nauseum. We’ve discussed thin ice, thick ice, medium ice, Caitlin survey poorly measured ice, rotten ice, wind blown ice, cracked ice, melted ice, melting ice, volcano affected ice, open ice, dirty ice, Paleozoic ice, Holocene ice, ice bergs, ice cores, O18 ratioed ice, ice calving, bears on ice, faked ice, measured ice, ice volume, Medieval Warming ice, Viking ice, well, you get the point.
What has not been discussed or explained, as far as I know, is who cares?
I have asked this question several times and no one seems to know the answer.
If all the arctic sea ice were to melt next week, would it make any difference?
I don’t know if it did during the Medieval Warm Period, but it might have. After all, a bunch of Vikings were raising cattle, sheep, wheat, rye, etc. in Greenland. Today the Greenlanders can’t do that. They must import fodder for their sheep and other foods for themselves.
http://www.indexmundi.com/trade/imports/?country=gl§ion=0
http://www.indexmundi.com/trade/imports/?country=gl
And look at what they export, fish.
http://www.indexmundi.com/trade/exports/?country=gl§ion=0
Polar bears, polar foxes, harbor seals, ermine, arctic hares, harp seals, walruses, snowy owls, one and all, did just fine with diminished ice. Or did the arctic sea ice somehow remain during decades of record warmth?
And while we’re at it, what caused things to warm up in the arctic at that time?
And why did it cool, forcing extinction on the Vikings of Greenland?
And if cooling was dangerous, just ask the Vikings, why are we so concerned about warming?
With all the warming we’ve experienced, my flowers are doing great, the fishing is good, the plains and foothills of Colorado are green like they haven’t been in years, and we’ve even saved the Preble Jumping Mouse. http://gliving.com/prebles-meadow-jumping-mouse-endangered-or-not/
What’s the problem?
This is boring. Look at the long term chart for the world’s ice. It looks like the electrocardiogram of an NFL wide receiver. It’s healthy. It’s normal. Get on with your life.
Hmm … Lets take a quick look at recent blog entries, shall we?
These are from June and about the Arctic in some way.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/28/sea-ice-news-11/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/23/sea-ice-news-10/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/14/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-9/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/06/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-8/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/25/ice-dancing/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/25/the-trend/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/scan-of-arctic-ice-dispels-melting-gloom-researcher/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/arctic-albedo/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/15/arctic-ocean-ice-retreating-at-30-year-record-pace/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/10/concentration-vs-extent/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/2007-sea-ice-post-mortem/
That was just 1 month. I could have gone to May, but the point is clear. Oh, and what about the links at the right of the page.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Replying to:
“Spartacus says:
July 3, 2010 at 9:11 pm…”
Joe Bastardi suggests that, when the AMO and PDO are both warm, the warm belt of air around the equator is displaced north, which results in less ice in the north and more ice in the south. Now that the PDO is colder, (and the AMO is likely to follow in the next few years,) the warm belt at the equator will be budged south, and the ice will shink in the south as it grows in the north.
I found the idea interesting.
Archeopteryx says:
July 3, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Ignoring, conveniently that this is exactly as the AGW theory predicts…
—-
Reality: Pick a number between one and ten.
AGW Theory: Seven. No, three. Six! Two, maybe. Eight or nine. It has to be one. Wait … Ten. Yeah, ten. Ten is it. Four? Like I was saying, five.
Reality: It was two.
AGW Theory: See, I predicted it. Bow down to my prognostication skills.
Imagine if the March 1980 sea ice extent and concentration was swapped with the 2010 extent and concentration, what do you think Serreze and other alarmists would be saying right now about the shape of the sea ice? People might accuse me of cherry picking so lets look at global sea ice = at around ‘normal’. What about Arctic sea ice? I have pointed out numerous times that if you look to within the last 10,000 years we have seen it numerous times before. We just happen to have satellites and ultra warm exploration ships now. Similar to more hurricanes = better observation equipment which even the warmists at NASA admit. :o)
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent:
1980 = 3.5 million sq. km
2010 = 4 million sq. km
Antarctic Sea Ice Concentration:
1980 = 2.0 million sq. km
2010 = 2.6 million sq. km
http://tinyurl.com/22wy5g2
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg