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.
rbateman,
Re: polar hopscotch, I had this thought in 2007 when the arctic ice reached a minimum and there was substantial snow in Johannesburg, Argentina up to Buenos
Aires and in Melbourne Oz which hadn’t seen such in a century. I predicted (email to NSIDC) that there would be a rebound in Arctic ice the following winter – one of the steepest re-freeze curves in the record occurred after the record low in Sept in the Arctic and we have seen rebound since (with the DMI temps above 80N below average – see WUWT sidebar, I’m predicting the melt slope will now lessen and the summer low will come in still well above 2007)
Re Archeopterix (don’t be a dinosaur!), R. Gates (AGW models and the Antarctic) and a few others: If the models are predicting flooding shorelines, drowning islands, 5C increases, etc. where is the water coming from if the warming causes heavy snow in Antarctica and expanding ice. Won’t this also reflate the glaciers in NZ, southern Andes, etc witholding more water? Look, the climate is complex, so lets not be simpletons when looking at it. If warming is inexorably increasing by 3-5C per century, surely the oceans would be the main repository of heat and sea ice would decline at both poles and under warming air all the ice would melt. If not, then the largest polar caps would be on Venus. I know AGWers have been grasping at melting ice floes the last few years but don’t tell me they have stopped believing in a waterworld with islanders swimming and paddling to the remaining landmasses. If so, your dropping of the “C” and “T” from CAGWT was justified.
Dave Springer says:
July 4, 2010 at 5:15 am
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 PDO index is warm at present, and where does the schedule come from?
See:
Though they do give the obligatory nod to C02 of course.
I can see this debate about warming or cooling going on for a very long time indeed!
Jack Simmons says:
July 4, 2010 at 6:56 am
…Arctic sea ice has been discussed ad nauseum….
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?
_____________________________________________________________________
Here is your answer to the question of why we discuss Arctic Sea Ice. You may want to bookmark this prediction and keep a hard copy.
The alarmists predicted Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’ “…Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski’s analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo….”
Professor Maslowski’s Analysis
“Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss….
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
“So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative”
…Professor Maslowski’s group, which includes co-workers at NASA and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modeled dates that are in advance of other teams.
These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.
But the Monterey researcher believes these models have seriously underestimated some key melting processes. In particular, Professor Maslowski is adamant that models need to incorporate more realistic representations of the way warm water is moving into the Arctic basin from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans….”
Now you know why some of us would like to see a major recovery of Arctic Sea Ice by 2013. Even though it may mean a reduction in the global food supply now it could prevent deaths from starvation caused by alarmist programs such as bio-fuel and Clinton/Gore’s 25×25 resolution. Diverting 25% of “our working land” into producing fuel instead of food. The USA produces 25% of the world’s grain much of which is exported as food for third world countries.
“The U.S. Senate today adopted by unanimous consent a resolution calling for a new national renewable energy goal: 25 percent of the nation’s energy supply from renewable sources by 2025… The resolution also reinforces the 25x’25 principle that the U.S. agricultural and forestry industries, while producing renewable energy, will continue to produce safe, abundant and affordable food feed and fiber.”
Co-sponsor, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), said “addressing the climate crisis is one of the greatest challenges America faces today. Any comprehensive strategy to fight climate change must include a strong renewable energy standard in addition to a low carbon fuel standard, raised fuel economy standards, and incentives to promote efficiency. This bipartisan resolution will make an unprecedented goal for producing 25 percent of America’s energy from renewable sources by 2025….”
The 25X25 org is a UN NGO masquerading as a “grass roots” American movement. The major goal is implementing UN’s Agenda 21
the last link has a rather interesting poll on “Should national law be over-ruled by U.N. Agenda 21? “
Here is the UN’s view of property rights, straight from the horse’s mouth.
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), Vancouver, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report. Preamble
Can you fix the typo in “Antarctic Sea Ice Exent”? And someone else said there was one story, and now there are several in Google News. I’ll point out that Google News servers might have noticed an increased interest in the topic, so might have cast a wider net to find stories relevant to this topic. Now if you put quotes around the search phrase there are two stories found, while without quotes several more are found with varying amounts of irrelevancy.
[Fixed.]
The large land mass and circumpolar ocean currents and air flow meteorologically isolate the Antarctic from the rest of the world. Its short term climate trends tend to be opposite the Arctic. Svensmark claims that this is because its very white surface reflects sunlight at least as well as clouds. While clouds tend to cool the rest of the world by blocking sunlight, they tend to keep the Antarctic warmer by blocking outgoing IR.
“The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays”, Henrik Svensmark
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145
also “The Chilling Stars”, Svensmark and Calder; page 82-92
I sure wish we had easily accessible global cloud data.
Jack Simmons-
“What would happen if all the Arctic sea ice melted”?
Nothing!. Since the ice is floating, melting does not raise sea level.
One other thing is being missed in the discussion. The Antarctic is more important than the Arctic because it holds 85-90% of the World’s ice.
R. Gates says:
July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Thanks for your long and un-educational comment. What do the models say about global sea ice? Can the models explain the following?:
http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
http://co2science.org/articles/V12/N32/C2.php
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm
http://www.icue.com/portal/site/iCue/flatview/?cuecard=41751
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Arctic.htm
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2372
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
2010 curve creeping up closer to 2006 curve now;
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Dave Springer says:
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.
GeoFlynx –
Dave – Copernicus also “tweaked and twisted” his heliocentric model of the solar system nearly as much as the Ptolemaic model. Skeptics back then were quick to point this out and were quick to persecute those who would not place the Earth at the “center of all”. It was not until Kepler recognized that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular that the heliocentric theory gained popular acceptance. Global climate models are continuously being improved, but that does not mean that the underlying premise of AGW is incorrect, just like Copernicus.
R. Gates says:
July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Here are a few things about your “AGW climate models predict..”
I could go on and on but it’s good to see that you have more faith in models than I have. I mostly prefer the old method called observation or “measure it” as Monckton would say.
Gates, you can spin this all you like bu the only model that’s going to count in this debate is called Earth + observations. Nothing else matters.
It appears to ME that there is much more Arctic Sea Ice now than in 2007.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=03&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=02&sy=2010
Or am i missing something?
R. Gates says:
July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Here are your failed predictions. :o)
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
GeoFlynx says:
“…that does not mean that the underlying premise of AGW is incorrect…”
No, but that’s only because you can’t prove a negative. The real problem is that the planet isn’t acting according to the models…
…so who are you gonna believe? Computer models? Or Planet Earth?
rbateman said:
July 3, 2010 at 11:24 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. ”
You really need to consign you ying yang theory to the rubbish bin because it does not wash. there is no correlation between what is happening in the Antarctic now and what will happen come December in the Arctic.
I said the Arctic had not much extent last December and you starting going on about it being cold then. But due to the negative AO it was warm last December
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/010510.html
“Average air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean were much higher than normal for the month, reflecting unusual atmospheric conditions”
Andy
“Archeopteryx says:
July 3, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Ignoring, conveniently that this is exactly as the AGW theory predicts…”
He He, yup it predicts everything and therefore cannot be falsified. By the most basic definition therefore not a theory at all.
Murray Carpenter says:
July 4, 2010 at 9:01 am
It appears to ME that there is much more Arctic Sea Ice now than in 2007.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=03&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=02&sy=2010
Or am i missing something?
You’re comparing images produced using two totally different imagers, try comparing like with like.
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2010/jul/asi-n6250-20100703-v5_nic.png
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2007/jul/asi-n6250-20070703-v5_nic.png
No Google News results? Did you spell it right the first time?
Results 1 – 10 of about 166 for antarctic sea ice extent. (0.15 seconds)
Can anyone spot much difference between 2007 and the following 2 years?
Didn’t think so.
harvey says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Wow, why so bitter? If you count the categories of posts (I did, see http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/categories.html ) you’ll note that Arctic posts lead Antarctic 128-48, and some categories, e.g. the new sea_ice_news focuses on Arctic ice. I’d say it’s time for an article on the other pole. Would you rather WUWT stick with just the Arctic until the low point in September?
(You can find a lot to clean up in the category arena because no one has had a useful way to use it. I’ll volunteer, at least to categorize most of the uncategorized posts.)
Curious Yellow says:
July 4, 2010 at 3:42 am
So you are stating on the record that IF Arctic sea ice continues its recovery of September 2008 and 2009 over 2007 then the Earth is cooling? On the basis of you post do you agree that 2008 and 2009 were cooler years than 2007?
I am not putting words into your mouth, as I would like you to either clarify for me or answer my 2 questions.
Ric
Thats a useful tool. Is it listed anywhere on this site (under ‘tools’ would be the obvious place.)
Tonyb
Did anyone see this story yet?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/21/autosub_in_pig_melt_clue/
“British and international boffins, having probed an Antarctic glacier which is thought to be a major cause of rising sea levels worldwide, report that increased polar ice melting may not be driven by climate change.”
Correction:
On the basis of you[r] post
Just the Facts said:
“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?”
______________
I’m going to answer this question, but let me first give a bit a background:
The idea that the Antarctic should repsond exactly as the Arctic does if AGW is in fact happening is a red-herring argument. The only thing they share in common is that they are at the extremes of our planet, but beyond that, as I’ve stated so many times, they are completely different in their dynamics. It is only a casusal observer who might grasp onto the notion that “the polar ice ice caps are SUPPOSED to melt” if AGW is true, etc. and therefore it must not be true This notion is simpleminded at best and is a prime example of how a very little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
In my last post, I have an excelllent example of scientific research that gave reasons why Antarctic sea ice might actually increase under the effects of AGW. This research is based on modeling. I would however, like to refer to the experts, and let them give a far more eloquent answer to the Arctic vs Antarctic differences. From the NSIDC:
“Wintertime Antarctic sea ice is increasing at a small rate and with substantial natural year-to-year variability in the time series. While Antarctic sea ice reached a near-record-high annual minimum in March 2008, this does not indicate a significant long-term trend. To borrow an analogy from sports, one high day, month, or even year of sea ice is no more significant than one early-season win would be in predicting whether the hometown team will win the Super Bowl ten seasons from now.
Another important point is that the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is not surprising to climate scientists. When scientists refer to global warming, they don’t mean warming will occur everywhere on the planet at the same rate. In some places, temporary cooling may even occur. Antarctica is an example of regional cooling. Even our earliest climate models projected that Antarctica would be much slower in responding to rising greenhouse gas concentrations than the Arctic. In large part, this reflects the nature of the ocean structure in Antarctica, in which water warmed at the surface quickly mixes downward, making it harder to melt ice.
In terms of sea ice, climate model projections of Antarctic sea ice extent are in reasonable agreement with the observations to date. It also appears that atmospheric greenhouse gases, as well as the loss of ozone, have acted to increase the winds around Antarctica. Perhaps counter intuitively, this has further protected the Antarctic from warming and has fostered more ice growth.
The one region of Antarctica that is strongly warming is the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into the Atlantic Ocean and is thus less protected by the altered wind pattern. The Antarctic Peninsula is experiencing ice shelf collapse and strongly reduced sea ice.
Finally, even if wintertime Antarctic sea ice were to increase or decrease significantly in the future, it would not have a huge impact on the climate system. This is because during the Antarctic winter energy from the sun is at its weakest point; its ability or inability to reflect the sun’s energy back into space has little affect on regulating the planet’s temperature.”
Here a full link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#wintertimeantarctic
So, the though I think this question is wrongly thought out, your question as to which represents a more accurate “proxy” for Earth’s temperature and temperatures trend (the Arctic or the Antarctic), the answer would of course be…both. As referenced in the above article from the NSIDC, it was not unexpected that the Arctic year-to-year SEA ICE would decline, while the Antarctic would grow slightly. However, when talking about the continental glacial ice, that is an entirely different matter, as it should show long term melting and decline in the Antarctic and Greenland. But for the common layperson of course, they think of “ice caps melting” and not only do they not understand the differences between the Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice and what the experts say (reference the above link) but they can’t understand or know about the differences between the continental ice in the Antarctic and the sea ice…each of which may behave quite differently under AGW scenarios, and indeed, appears to be.