I’ve been remiss at posting regular entries of this feature, and there hasn’t been much happening on the way to peak Arctic Ice this year. The action seems mostly down south, and there’s a lot of news from NSIDC that you haven’t heard about.
Per the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomaly for November was a record high for their data set:
Source: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Nov/S_11_plot.png
November’s record high Antarctic Sea Ice Area of 16.90 Million Sq Km, exceeded the prior record of 16.76 Million Sq Km (Set in November 2005), by 140,000 Square Kilometers. See here:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Nov/S_11_area.txt
Oddly, they have a plot for extent, and a data file for area, but no plot for area or data for extent. I meant to say: Oddly, they have a plot for extent, and a data file for area, but no plot for area or data file for extent. They do have both data included in the file named “area.txt”. Seems backwards, doesn’t it?
The NSIDC plot certainly shows a lot of growth in November around the periphery of the sea ice pack in November:
Source: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Nov/S_11_trnd.png
I find it interesting that the (NSIDC) National Snow & Ice Data Center doesn’t find it newsworthy to mention this record high Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomaly in their December 6th press release:
They certainly could have included this information, since their FTP folder had NH data posted three days prior to the December 6th press release:
And the SH data also, with the same time stamp:
But this comes as no surprise considering that they glossed over the other record highs that occurred this year in,
June:
Source: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Jun/S_06_plot.png
Data: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Jun/S_06_area.txt
July:
Source: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Jul/S_07_plot.png
Data: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Jul/S_07_area.txt
August:
Source: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Aug/S_08_plot.png
Data: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Aug/S_08_area.txt
It is apparent that Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is currently maintaining above average;
But, with such good news, I wonder why NSIDC and others aren’t providing more information to the public on this interesting phenomenon. I know these new record highs aren’t as interesting or as likely to generate news stories as “death spiral watch”, but perhaps in their next press NSIDC release they will at least recognize the Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice for the simple fact that it has hit record highs?
We are constantly told that NSIDC is all about the science, and we are just “breathtakingly ignorant” (to quote NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze), so I’m sure this press release reporting on only one half of the planet’s icecap’s is just an oversight on their part. I’m sure NSIDC will want to show that their mission truly is “global” and talk about the gains in Antarctica when they write up their year end review which will be seen by hundreds of journalists.
They seem to have interest in the minuscule (compared to the whole continent) Antarctic Peninsula ice loss, but not so much the main continent gains.
Antarctica is by far the largest mass of ice on Earth, containing approximately 90% of the world’s supply. By contrast, the Arctic and glaciers make up the remainder, yet they get all the facetime.
The fact that Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica is trending up and has been regularly hitting record highs in 2010 should give any rational person a moment’s pause. It might even provide the basis for some healthy skepticism of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Narrative.
Oh, and for the few worrywarts who frequent here, who will howl mercilessly that I didn’t show the Arctic Sea Ice trend, here’s your North and South trends together:
Cryosphere Today – extent 15% or greater – click to enlarge
Cryosphere Today – Antarctic Sea Ice anomaly – click to enlarge
Of course all the graphs and imagery that I didn’t cover here is available 24/7/365 on the WUWT sea ice page, which I recommend you visit.
h/t to WUWT reader “Just the facts” for pointing out the ftp data which has remained buried and out of view of NSIDC’s main public relations page.
November's record high Sea Ice Extent of 16.90 Million Sq Km, exceeded the prior record of 16.76 Million Sq Km (Set in November 2005), by 140,000 Square Kilometers:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
R. Gates says:
December 21, 2010 at 11:13 am
Comparing the N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere graphs we see that the N. Hemisphere is showing a lot more decline than the S. Hemisphere..
I have rather unorthodox approach to these events. Ice is formed in the winter months, when air temperature and precipitations are controlled by polar vortex.
Ice is melted in the summer months mainly by insolation which is constant from year to year. So ice extent (area and depth) has to be a winter factor. Polar vortex in the arctic often is split up, and this appear to affect not only stratosphere but troposphere too. In contrast Antarctica vortex is pretty constant, only one case of sudden stratospheric warming SSW was recorded since 1950 (in 2002, science is puzzled by the event, but there is a simple explanation for it).
Polar vortex is frequently (but not all the time) under the influence of the geomagnetic field, I suspect it depends on the extent of ionisation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF-PV.htm
For the Arctic temperature and its magnetic field see:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
I have not as yet done full analysis of the Antarctica, one more job to do.
Re: Owen says December 21, 2010 at 10:54 am
Thanks for the reference but I couldn’t find the numbers comparing the GRACE modelled land ice loss with sea ice gain?
“Plus, we have the net melting of land ice in antartica which is far greater than any gains in sea ice. ”
vukcevic says:
“Ice is melted in the summer months mainly by insolation which is constant from year to year. So ice extent (area and depth) has to be a winter factor.”
___________
Much ice is melted from the bottom, as the greater mass of ice is in the water, so water temperatures determine melting as much has how much actual insolation occurs. So in addition to insolation (which varies depending on Arctic cloud cover), warm water inflows from both the Atlantic and Pacific cause melting. In short, sea Ice extent is determined by many factors throughout the year, all of them related to energy, (including of course wind, which is of a form of energy) thus, the total energy inflows (sun, warm or cold currents, wind, etc.) and energy distribution throughout the year determine sea ice area, extent, and total volume.
I find it interesting that the (NSIDC) National Snow & Ice Data Center doesn’t find it newsworthy to mention this record high Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomaly in their December 6th press release….
Yes, it certainly sounds like this record should qualify as a pretty significant “climate disruption”, yes? But whatever, hopefully the AP will clear this up quickly! We Cave Dwellers really do want to know what narrative to parrot before we gather again to watch the shadows!
P. Solar requests Arctic temperature data:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html
Yes, these are based on land stations surrounding the Arctic, but due to the big reductions in summer time sea ice, it’s pretty obvious that any retrieval of average arctic SST would show a substantial warming over time. The point is: there’s a reason we haven’t paid much attention to the small trend in Antarctic Sea Ice. It’s because there was no prediction of a large reduction in Antarctic Sea Ice with increasing CO2. On the other hand, there was a prediction of reduced Arctic Sea Ice, and this has, in fact, occurred.
Dan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
R. Gates
One side note: The current record setting moisture hitting California this week is exactly consistent with the acceleration of the hydrological cycle expected with higher amounts of CO2, and exactly the way the planet has responded to higher elevations of CO2 for millions of years.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Unfortunately, the Pacific as a whole is pretty bellow the normal now. Your theory is junk.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
++++++++++++++++++
Owen says:
References to key papers on the melting of antarctic land ice are provided at this site. GRACE measurements indicate an accelerating net loss of land ice.
++++++++++++++++++
Uh there might by a problem with GRACE.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/20/antarctic_ice_loss_overestimated/
Jeff T says:
December 21, 2010 at 11:08 am
@Evan Jones and Rod Everson,
Cryosphere Today shows ice area; NSIDC shows ice extent. Since they are different quantities, they don’t always agree precisely; but they show long-term similar trends.
Are you sure? The caption with the CT graph says….
Cryosphere Today – extent 15% or greater – click to enlarge
As much of the Antarctic ice sheet extends well past the land mass, sooner or later it will break off. Then it will be Big News, and proof of the urgent need to raise taxes and ban SUV’s. Until then? Nothing to see, move along.
Re: Owen says December 21, 2010 at 9:10 am
“Plus, we have the net melting of land ice in antartica which is far greater than any gains in sea ice. ”
Nett loss of ice. Possibly. If the measurements and modelling are correct. If.
However, the one thing we can be sure of is that it is not melting. The middle of Antarctica is well below zero all the time. Unless you can explain how ice melts at less than zero, it has to be some other mechanism.
I’ve seen it attributed to “sublimation”, but the vapour pressure of water at those temperatures is miniscule. I would put my money on the whole thing being a misunderstanding, and that ice is not being lost.
Re; complaints of bias on the BBC: Here in Oz, our ABC has a weekly radio programme entitled, would you believe; “The Science Show“. I’m not sure if I should inflict this on you, but check-out this Dorothy Dix interview. (Click: ShowTranscript and View Comments)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/3065125.htm
Among other things, it predicts a 75% demise of sea-ice dependent penguins in Antarctica by 2037. Changes in ocean currents and temperatures, loss of ocean CO2 sink, and naughty acidification, are just part of the plethora of doom.
Of course there was bland acceptance of all the claims, not even a “but why is” sea ice trending up for some time**. There is also a 7-author paper referenced, which makes me feel ill as a professional engineer. First polar bears, now penguins?
** Footnote; the presenter, Robyn Williams is aware of that point, following my Email enquiry to him
Dan Kirk-Davidoff Please note the above
SORRY, I mean in;
** Footnote; the presenter, Robyn Williams is aware of that point, following my Email enquiry to him
That he confirmed he had known of it for a long time.
Dan Kirk-Davidoff says: December 21, 2010 at 12:55 pm
“The point is: there’s a reason we haven’t paid much attention to the small trend in Antarctic Sea Ice. It’s because there was no prediction of a large reduction in Antarctic Sea Ice with increasing CO2. On the other hand, there was a prediction of reduced Arctic Sea Ice, and this has, in fact, occurred.”
Are you not keeping up?
No prediction? What do you call this then and what is your explanation for it in view of the observed reality of Antarctic sea ice trend?
Just so that we can tie you down a bit, what is is your prediction for future Antarctic sea ice extent, with timelines, in the face of increasing atmospheric CO2? Also what processes are involved if you ever predict a reversel of the current trend?
Alan
just flew BA sydmey the ice is beyond 70 degrees south. The cold here in Brisbane is extraordinary time to start arresting some people (just joking)
Re previous comment to Dan Kirk-Davidoff I should have course have appended the following quotes from the IPCC.
This is what the IPCC said about Antarctic sea ice in 2001.
“16.2.4.2. Sea Ice in the Southern Ocean
Antarctic sea ice is not confined by land margins but is open to the Southern Ocean. Sea-ice extent contracts and expands on an annual cycle in a roughly concentric zone around Antarctica. The ultimate extent is controlled by a balance of air temperature, leads, wind direction, upper ocean structure, and pycnocline depth. Some of these parameters are controlled in the atmosphere by the relative position of the subpolar trough with respect to the sea ice. In the ocean, variations in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current are important. The extent and thickness of Antarctic sea ice are sensitive to the depth and thermal properties of overlying snow, about which relatively little is known.
A reduction in Antarctic sea ice volume of about 25-45% is predicted for a doubling of CO2, with sea ice retreating fairly evenly around the continent (Gordon and O’Farrell, 1997). This CSIRO model assumes a 1% yr-1 compounding increase of CO2, corresponding to global warming of 2.1°C. Using a similar but modified model that has a higher albedo feedback and predicted global warming of 2.8°C, Wu et al. (1999) calculate a reduction in mean sea-ice extent of nearly two degrees of latitude, corresponding to 45% of sea-ice volume. These estimates do not represent the equilibrium state, and sea ice can be expected to shrink further, even if GHGs are stabilized.”
Here is what was said by the IPCC in 2007…………
” Highlights from the IPCC Working Group I Summary for Policymakers of “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis”
“What can we expect to happen?”…………..“Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic.”
Alan
Tony, I was going to make the same comment about the Cryosphere Today graph. Note though that the Southern Hemisphere graph omits that comment, though it appears identical in virtually all other respects. I’m still curious about this. And even if it is area, if the extent is running 2 standard deviations above average, wouldn’t area tend to follow that? This discrepancy has existed for several months now, I think.
For that matter, I’ve always assumed that the Global Sea Ice Anomaly chart was a summation of the two charts shown above in this post for the Northern and Southern hemispheres. But if one chart is extent and the other area, they’re summing apples and oranges, so why not get some consistency and chart the same variable on all three charts? Still confused…..
R. Gates says:
December 21, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Much ice is melted from the bottom, as the greater mass of ice is in the water, so water temperatures determine melting as much has how much actual insolation occurs.
Not so. Inflow of water from Pacific is only 1Sv to 9Sv from Atlantic. Both Atlantic and Pacific warm waters as more saline are at some dept where temperature does not change with seasons, but it may on longer time scale.
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/2006/1/map_18930.gif
Note vertical distribution of cold and warm currents from Bering to Fram straits.
Areas where warm water surfaces are Labrador and Irminger seas, usually at the Greenland’s southern tip, warm currents looses its energy and is mixed with cold currents creating Labrador Sea current; this tightly governs the strength of the Subpolar gyre’s circulation, which is the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean..
Effect is also visible on SST on
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
This has mainly winter effect (as dome of worm tropospheric air pushes into stratosphere) causing a ripples in the Rossby (planetary wave), and occasionally break up of the Arctic vortex (SSW) which can affect only precipitation and surface temperatures, and only in the winter months when the ice is forming and not melting, and insolation is low or nonexistent.
So conclusion is the Arctic ice extent (depth and area), assuming constant insolation (as Dr.S. tells us to be so) from year to year is to the greatest degree a winter factor.
Luis Dias says: and other follow-on comments:
This rain will fall on Antarctica, and it won’t be in liquid shape. It will be snow, of course. This snow will pile up and extend itself towards the sea.
There is glacial ice and sea ice and somewhere the two do meet. However, I did not note in the post any attempt to show that the increasing extent of sea ice was a result of the glacial ice pushing into the ocean. I wonder, then, if the sea ice extent is growing because the local heat loss of the water is sufficiently great to make the phase change, or whether the glacial ice is pushing into the sea at an alarming rate?
Sorry for being so “breathtakingly ignorant” !
noaaprogrammer says:
December 21, 2010 at 8:44 am
Does the seemingly inverse relationship between the north and south poles’ ice extent have anything to do with the current celestial mechanics of which hemisphere is tilted toward the sun during the apsides of Earth’s orbit? -i.e. where are we positioned in the Milankovitch cycle?
southern summer insolation is on the rise, while northern winter insolation is going down.
our current interglacial may not have that much longer
Re: Mooloo says December 21, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Yes, I also find it hard to understand where it is going but Owen has claimed:
“Plus, we have the net melting of land ice in antartica which is far greater than any gains in sea ice. ”
So there must be some data out there which compares these two quantities, measured or modelled, and concludes one is “far greater” than the other. In order to evaluate this I’m asking Owen (or anyone else) for the numbers and sources he based his claim on. He might be right but without the numbers we’ll never know.
Juraj V. says:
December 21, 2010 at 1:00 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
R. Gates
One side note: The current record setting moisture hitting California this week is exactly consistent with the acceleration of the hydrological cycle expected with higher amounts of CO2, and exactly the way the planet has responded to higher elevations of CO2 for millions of years.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Unfortunately, the Pacific as a whole is pretty bellow the normal now. Your theory is junk.
______
First, it isn’t my theory, and second, yes, there is an La Nina along the equatorial and south Pacific regions, but there is also a big mass of very warm water in the Western Pacific north of the equator. Some say this is “residual” warmth from the last El Nino, but it really doesn’t matter as it represents energy and is a potential source of all the moisture now falling in CA. You really ought to read up a bit more on CO2 and the carbon/hydrological cycle before calling this theory “junk” because it is far more solid than you seem to give it credit.
I can see a lot of confusion here between sea-ice area and extent. Looking at Cryosphere Today, the area appears to be about normal for the southern hemisphere. However the NSIDC graph indicates more ice extent, that means the ice is more spread out than normal. I also think I’ve seen another graph showing greater area somewhere. Now southern sea ice is not constrained by land and is largely perennial, so I reckon it would spread out depending on the currents, wind and weather. That said, why are these currents, wind and weather happening? I have no idea.
I’m curious to see what things will look like in 3 months.
Whether we like it or not, total ice is down, only if slightly. You know what happens when you give the AGW crowd a few square kilometers right?
R. Gates says:
One side note: The current record setting moisture hitting California this week is exactly consistent with the acceleration of the hydrological cycle expected with higher amounts of CO2, and exactly the way the planet has responded to higher elevations of CO2 for millions of years. No proof of anything of course, but consistent with both theory and millions of years of earth history. How much energy does it take to move all that moisture from the Pacific to California? If it is “record setting” moisture now hitting California, then somewhere there was “record setting” energy to transport it…
I see that R. Gates is indulging in their fantasy world again. Nice model of what you fantasize happens. Unfortunately, it is not in keeping with the facts.
The Western USA has an interesting behaviour. When it gets colder, it gets wetter. When it gets hotter, it gets dryer. Just backwards from your theory.
(Why? I suspect it’s because we have cold water off our coast. To squeeze rain out of what drifts ashore takes MORE cold, not less…)
At any rate, we don’t have to guess nor model. We’ve got a very long and very nice set of records (of various sorts) that all say when it gets COLDER California and the rest of the west get WETTER.
So frankly, R. Gates, you can take your hypotheticals and theoreticals and go stuff ’em. They are simply wrong. And we have the existence proof to show it.
From:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/wet-cold-and-hot-dry-cycles/
and
So you can continue making up complete fantasies, or you can go look at the record of drowned trees in California, the megadrought records of the Midwest, or even just the historical lake levels, that rise in cold times and drop in hot times.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/salt-lake-utah-cycle-barometer/
and even, if you like, you can see how as we’ve been cooling dramatically (even my Tomatoes are smart enough to know that, having had poor yield due to the cold weather the last 2 years) the rainfall has INCREASED in the cold of the West.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/cooling-and-wet-utah/
You can even watch it happen in near real time. In this link, we can watch the HISTORIC DROUGHT conditions in Arizona get a quenching along with a drench of the Southwest:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/streamflow-in-the-west/
Of course, you can always try to convince all of us shivining in the cold wet and snow that it’s just “a warm snow”…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/snow-of-epic-proportions/
Oh, btw, NASA has recently found that the UV changes at a different pace from the TSI, so maybe TSI doesn’t tell the whole story. Causes unexpected changes in the stratospheric temperatures too. Some more unsettling science to digest:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/sorce-says-sun-did-it/
But somehow I think you will be way to lazy to do that homework. To look at the facts. To read the history. To do the work. Much more simplistic to just spout the party line and make up fantasies.
Now, if you’ll pardon me, I’ve got to get back to reality. There is another band of cold dark rain headed my way and I’ve got to get the gutters cleaned out before all the ‘added warmth’ freezes my arse off…
R. Gates says:
First, it isn’t my theory,
OK, so where are you getting this Cra… stuff from? It’s clearly bogus. Give us your source so we can go straighten them out. Who are you parroting?.
and second, yes, there is an La Nina along the equatorial and south Pacific regions, but there is also a big mass of very warm water in the Western Pacific north of the equator. Some say this is “residual” warmth from the last El Nino, but it really doesn’t matter as it represents energy and is a potential source of all the moisture now falling in CA.
O. M. G. Can you really have that little clue about how the weather works out here on the West Coast? We look NORTH WEST into the NORTH EAST part of the Pacific to know what’s coming our way. It is that DARK BLUE -2 C SST anomaly spot in this graph from 20 Dec (as I type, but will change daily):
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
There is no way on God’s Earth that there is added heat in the stuff falling on top of me as I sit here in the cold rain.
Also that “big mass” of “hot water” is rapidly getting itself made fridgid. It got blown over that way by the trade winds that blow away from California. That hot water might help Japan have a cyclone or two, but can do nothing for us on this coast.
You really ought to read up a bit more on CO2 and the carbon/hydrological cycle before calling this theory “junk”
I have. It is.
It is absolute unmitigated and mindless JUNK. Period, full stop.
You can start by learning which way the wind blows.
Follow by which way the water moves.
For bonus points you can learn that on rare occasions we’ll get some storms that come in from the south as a hurricane crosses Mexico and does a “hook” up into the L.A. Basin. That’s about as close as you can get to ‘warm’ driving storms in California. Yeah, it will make L.A. wet then. Doesn’t do a thing for the rest of the state.
So even then, you need to look EAST of California to find any warmth (that Gulf of Mexico on the other side of Mexico) for the source of any hot water warming California rains.
Oh, BTW, it’s that dark blue with purple spots on the SST map. -2 C to -4 C anomaly.
Good luck with that “warmer water” theory of
yourssome anonymous mouthpiece.To coin a phrase: “Western Pacific? my Arsetic Oscillation… ”
because it is far more solid than you seem to give it credit.
“Gullible” doesn’t even come close. I’m going to self snip at this point.
On the Antarctic Ice Loss topic, from the link above about GRACE having issues:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/20/antarctic_ice_loss_overestimated/
So we don’t really know after all. But whatever we thought we knew, was wrong, and overestimated the “ice loss”.
Owen says:
slow to follow: please see following NASA site: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=242
References to key papers on the melting of antarctic land ice are provided at this site. GRACE measurements indicate an accelerating net loss of land ice.
And I say: Owen, please see above about GRACE being a bit, er, ah, um, “wrong” and overestimating ice loss…