While the Arctic recently set a new record low, lower than that of 2007, the Antarctic is at near record highs similar to that of 2007 according to University of Illinois Cryosphere Today data:
Here are the values:
2007.7206 1.1396104 16.2323818 15.0927715
2012.7316 1.1447686 16.2041264 15.0593576
Source: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008
At NSIDC, they show extent at near peak, and we’ll likely see a downturn begin soon:
Though, it is possible we’ll see some additional gain before the downturn starts, and a new record high for Antarctic sea ice area is still possible.
I find it interesting that we apparently have this “bipolar” relationship going on. On years of far lower than normal record lows in the Arctic 2007/2012, we have record highs and near record highs in the same years, 2007/2012.
At the blog “sunshine hours” it is reported:
Antarctic Sea Ice Area 28,255.4 sq km short of an all time record
The graph there shows 2012 and 2007 in red and blue respectively:
Ice Area is 1.964296 million sq km higher than the lowest amount ever recorded for this day in 1986.
richardscourtney says:
September 28, 2012 at 1:28 am
Friends:
If you blow the picture right up with “control and +” keys you can see that what at first appears to be water is a darker white. I think it is just shadow.
The webcam 2 archive shows the melt water has been refreezing since July 31st.
My take on the opposite symmetries of Arctic & Antarctic ice: it’s how the satellite microwave data is being read. Until recently the ice graphs showed a bump mid-way through the ice-fall each end-June as settings were changed to allow for surface melt (that they should not be read as open water) — a similar bump mid-way through the ice-rise was at the graph edge, so hard to see. A few years ago the bump was removed by changing to gradual tweaking, so now instead of two well-defined settings we have arbitrary tweaking by the data custodians. This tweaking results in symmetric over-reporting for one pole and under-reporting for the other. I reckon they accidentally tweaked too far in 2007, thus the simultaneous Arctic record-minimum and Antarctic record-maximum. Maybe they’ve done it again this year to help re-elect Obama. 🙂
Kelvin Vaughan:
Contrary to your post at September 28, 2012 at 12:04 pm I said nothing at September 28, 2012 at 1:28 am and I have said nothing which relates to what you claim to be replying.
This is the second thread on which you have misrepresented me in this way on WUWT today.
If you do it again then I shall call for the Moderators to stop your behaviour.
Richard
[Richard: Noted. Kelvin: Don’t do bogus quoting. -ModE]
Dermot O’Logical said (September 27, 2012 at 11:37 pm)
“…Some questions which spring to mind – can any commenters offer any insights?
What’s the mechanism for this inverse correlation?
Are there any models which have accurately forecast this?
Does this pattern appear anywhere in the historical record?…”
Well, we can answer the second question about the models by pointing to that paragon of factual data (the “bible” for the AGW preists), the IPCC:
They predicted (projected, guessed) that “…Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios. In some projections, arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century…”
And gave us this chart to “prove” their point:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-10-13-l.png
A few things about their comment:
1. “…projected to shrink in BOTH Arctic and Antarctic…” Not one grow while the other shrinks.
2. “…In some projections, arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely…” Notice they’re not saying ice-free, there.
Pursuant to my previous post, every election cycle the mainstream media springs a “November surprise” on the weekend before election day — this is some surprise new topic designed to help the Democrats. If this year’s “November surprise” is a publicity blitz about the new Arctic ice minimum, then that would support my take on the symmetrical Arctic/Antarctic minima/maxima.
Bill Parsons says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:14 am
How do North and South anomalies compare in absolute (square km) terms, as well as in percentage deviation from their 20-year averages. Can someone boil it down for the non-scientist?
I hope this helps.
http://tinyurl.com/czhz6ux
David Schofield says:
September 28, 2012 at 12:35 am
Thanks, it wörks….
Baa Humbug says:
September 28, 2012 at 1:58 am
Looking at the above chart, the ice seems to swing between about 2msqk to about 16msqk each year. Remarkably stable if you ask me.
Nothing to see here folks, move on.
Equally, I hope I can convince the earlier writers above to look very, very carefully at Antarctic sea ice trends as a very troubling indicator of coming cooler global heat exchange rates.
I request each reader to review, analyze, and seriously critique each of the following points:
A) Arctic sea ice minimums at the equinox in mid-September have only one real limit: they can continue to reduce to zero from their (typical) 4.0 million km^2 extent minimum. (This year, in 2012, that minimum was right 3.4 million km^2, or a “beanie cap” extending down from the pole to latitude 81 north.)
Specifically,
3 million km^2 => 80.9 degrees (rounded to 81 latitude)
4 million km^2 => 79.8 degrees (rounded to 80 latitude)
5 million km^2 => 78.6 degrees (rounded to 79 latitude)
6 million km^2 => ~77.5 degrees latitude
7 million km^2 => ~76.4 degrees latitude (the “official” sea ice nominal minimum value)
(This is a slight approximation: There is a little bit of sea ice near the east coast of Greenland, and the actual center of the sea ice circle is slightly offset away from the pole. A very little triangle of Greenland between 81 north and its tip at 83 north would be technically considered “land ice” rather than sea ice. But this area (like that of central Ellesmere Island, remain ice covered and does not change the analysis by more than 2%.
B) Arctic sea ice maximums do have a near-physical limit: The Arctic Ocean shores limit sea ice once the region ices over, and any increase in maximum must occur in very, very small regions down the east and west shores of Greenland, in the narrow gap between Asia and North American continents, etc. Smaller areas inside the southern seas and bays are also “area limited”: Hudson Bay ices over every year, then melts again very spring -> It’s ice area can’t get any larger, and the melted area can get no larger. The Barents Sea, Bering Strait, Norwegian Sea, North Sea, Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea, etc. What parts freeze can’t freeze any more: what melts each spring already completely melts. There is no more Arctic sea ice that can melt anywhere on earth except that little cap up north between 81 north and the pole.
C) All of the Arctic Ocean that now freezes will continue to freeze each winter – average winter temperatures at 80 north latitude are -25 degrees C, and regardless of any IPCC/CAGW projection, the region will continue to freeze over every winter.
D) Arctic sea ice minimum (and maximum) extents have declined since measurements began reliably in 1979. However, at the border of the sea ice minimum, during the only melting season that exists, air temperatures have remained steady. Measured daily air temperatures by the DMI at 80 north latitude through EVERY summer since 1958 have remained steady between 1958 and 2000, and, in fact, have declined between 2000 and 2012 – which included record low sea ice extents in 2007 and 2012.
E) Yes, the sun shines every hour above the Arctic Circle (66.5 degrees) during the summer. It doesn’t matter, since minimum Arctic sea ice extents DON’T occur while the sun is above the horizon. Minimum sea ice extents occur each FALL very near the equinox in mid-September. At that time if the year, minimum sea ice extents occur when the sun is below the horizon for 12 hours each day, and raise only a little bit (less than 10 degrees) above the horizon for a few minutes each day at solar local noon. Thus, at 80 north, the sun is only at 10 degrees incidence angle at noon.
At 82 north, it is 8 degrees above the horizon at noon.
At 86 north, it is only 4 degrees above the horizon.
At 88 north, the ice is exposed to solar rays at maximum of 2 degrees above the horizon.
Every other hour of the day, the sun is even lower than its maximum (obviously!) and the ice can only absorb even less radiation.
F) Air Mass. The inbound solar energy so greatly feared by the CAGW community for its ability to reflect off of the Arctic Ice, but get absorbed by newly exposed sea water and thus warm the globe, must transit the earth’s atmosphere before it can get reflected – or absorbed. Note that solar energy loss calculations through the air mass do NOT account for reflections off of either high clouds or low clouds or atmospheric dust and turbidity: they are based on “clear sky” conditions regardless of clouds, dust, storms or wind.
On the equator,at 0 latitude, by definition, the air mass = 1.0
Again, only at solar noon. At all other times of the day, the air mass is calculated based on the incident angle of the sun – the angle of the sun above the horizon.
It’s esiest to read the air mass chart: Following from NOAA website
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/neubrew/SolarCalc.jsp
yyyy MMddHHmmss * * AirMass * * SolarZen * * Elev * * Azim
2012 09 23 06 00 00 * * 18.27621 * * 87.77073 * * 2.22927 * * 90.24422
2012 09 23 07 00 00 * * 3.38948 * * 73.01902 * * 16.98098 * * 90.27210
2012 09 23 08 00 00 * * 1.88462 * * 58.04187 * * 31.95813 * * 90.32584
2012 09 23 09 00 00 * * 1.36700 * * 43.04926 * * 46.95074 * * 90.42875
2012 09 23 10 00 00 * * 1.13247 * * 28.05277 * * 61.94723 * * 90.65683
2012 09 23 11 00 00 * * 1.02615 * * 13.05633 * * 76.94367 * * 91.43927
2012 09 23 12 00 00 * * 1.00030 * * 1.97674 * * 88.02326 * * 260.05476
2012 09 23 13 00 00 * * 1.04498 * * 16.95005 * * 73.04995 * * 268.77349
2012 09 23 14 00 00 * * 1.17772 * * 31.94691 * * 58.05309 * * 269.29361
2012 09 23 15 00 00 * * 1.46286 * * 46.94272 * * 43.05728 * * 269.46626
2012 09 23 16 00 00 * * 2.11834 * * 61.93305 * * 28.06695 * * 269.53965
2012 09 23 17 00 00 * * 4.33480 * * 76.89906 * * 13.10094 * * 269.56628
2012 09 23 18 00 00 * * -1.00000 * * 91.96936 * * -1.96936 * * 269.56097
Note the high air at sunrise and sunset. To illustrate, even at the equator, yes, at those hours you can look directly at the sun, only needing to squint a little.
Now, same day, same time intervals, “look” at the sun (without squinting!) at latitude 81 north.
yyyy MMddHHmmss * * AirMass * * SolarZen * * Elev * * Azim
2012 09 23 06 00 00 * * 30.14076 * * 89.39174 * * 0.60826 * * 91.94021
2012 09 23 07 00 00 * * 16.53731 * * 87.37416 * * 2.62584 * * 106.77170
2012 09 23 08 00 00 * * 10.93514 * * 85.35191 * * 4.64809 * * 121.65225
2012 09 23 09 00 00 * * 8.35603 * * 83.59536 * * 6.40464 * * 136.61412
2012 09 23 10 00 00 * * 7.06556 * * 82.26159 * * 7.73841 * * 151.66783
2012 09 23 11 00 00 * * 6.45947 * * 81.45777 * * 8.54223 * * 166.79864
2012 09 23 12 00 00 * * 6.31717 * * 81.24726 * * 8.75274 * * 181.96999
2012 09 23 13 00 00 * * 6.59312 * * 81.64740 * * 8.35260 * * 197.13354
2012 09 23 14 00 00 * * 7.38032 * * 82.62837 * * 7.37163 * * 212.24298
2012 09 23 15 00 00 * * 8.98921 * * 84.11485 * * 5.88515 * * 227.26733
2012 09 23 16 00 00 * * 12.27159 * * 85.98700 * * 4.01300 * * 242.19923
2012 09 23 17 00 00 * * 19.78169 * * 88.06450 * * 1.93550 * * 257.05641
2012 09 23 18 00 00 * * 37.66657 * * 89.98293 * * 0.01707 * * 271.87658
At very high angles, the horizon can be assumed flat, but at the low angles of interest in the Arctic (and Antarctic lest we forget) the earth’s radius must be included. More exotic air mass calculation include factors (corrections) for varying atmosphere density with altitude and temperature varying from the ground through the stratosphere, height of the observer, and assumed atmosphere thickness. Technically, we’d need to correct for the lower atmosphere temperature in the Arctic (increasing density compared to the rest of the earth), and the lower atmosphere thickness at the poles (decreasing air mass compared to the simple NOAA approximations for all values from the equator to the poles).
For what they are worth, the above are from the NOAA – good, bad, and approximations as found.
G) Rough water DOES increase albedo (the relative absorption of sunlight compared to the reflection of sunlight. However, the effect of waves depends on the wind, and the net result fro measured results for clear days very closely approximates the reflection of P polarized light from smooth water. The only research paper actually measuring reflections of light off of rough water is fro Burt, 1954, and his data ends at 10 degrees incidence angle. Non data is available from 10 degrees incidence angle to the horizon. Then again, research from 1954 is unlikely to be contaminated by any CAGW pre-conceptions or biases.
H) At low angles of solar incidence, less than 25% of the sun’s energy can be absorbed into open, rough water. The rest is reflected.
I) Evaporative heat losses from open Arctic waters are constant, regardless of latitude – slightly more than 113 watts per meter square. If the water is ice-covered, no evaporation occurs.
J) Radiative heat losses from water (or ice-covered water) into the sky depend only on the emissivity of water (or ice), and do not change with latitude.
Note also, that radiation going INTO the Arctic sky radiates vertically into the sky. The air mass for radiation heat loss does NOT change with latitude or time of day. (That is, radiation heat losses from the same surface (ice or water) at 5:00 AM at latitude 80 north are the same as they are at Noon (local solar time) at latitude 84 north, and the same as they are at midnight at the pole.)
K) Radiation heat loss does depend on the fourth power of radiating (sea surface) temperature – which will be right at 273 K for open water; but what might be as low as -12 to -20 at the equinox for ice-covered water exposed directly to the rapidly freezing Arctic air. Again, ice-covered Arctic waters near the equinox at times of minimum Arctic sea ice extent will radiate more energy losses than ocean-covered sea waters at the same latitude and time of year!
Net result for the Arctic?
At solar angles below 10 degrees angle of incidence, each square meter of newly melted Arctic Sea Ice loses several times more energy by evaporation than it gains by absorption of the sun’s energy. Thus, loss of sea ice INCREASES heat loss from the Arctic Ocean, and provides a net COOLING of the air and water in the Arctic Ocean. Phrased differently, the sea ice acts as an insulator between the salt water below the sea ice and the Arctic air above the sea ice – preventing BOTH evaporation losses from the water AND radiation losses to the 12 hours of night air when the sun doesn’t shine.
Next, we need to look at the Antarctic sea ice.
And a completely different story emerges.
And yes, it IS worse than we thought! Much Worse, in fact.
@Olaf Koenders:
Hear hear!
Note, too, that there are millions of pounds of carbonate dumped on the ocean floor ( do a web search of ‘fish gut rocks’ for one) AND then there are those megatons of “manganese nodules”…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_nodule
“Polymetallic nodules, also called manganese nodules, are rock concretions on the sea bottom formed of concentric layers of iron and manganese hydroxides around a core”
and
“The total amount of polymetallic nodules on the sea floor was estimated at 500 billion tons”
So somewhere around 1/2 TRILLION TONS of HYDROXIDES.
The notion that is going to be made “acidic” is what’s loony.
Maybe we have the title for AlGore’s next book to raise alarm about a non-problem, “Our Poles Out of Balance!”?
Seeing as we’re making equivalence between the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, let’s compare figures, quoting the top post first, and then the minimum area on record for the Arctic recently.
Record minimum area was 3.4657657 million sq km lower than the highest amount ever recorded for this day in 1980 [Arctic].
Daily data for Arctic and Antarctic:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008
Cryosphere today also provide a global area chart.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
And here is the page for global daily data.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
I plotted a linear regression for global sea ice area (Exel software).
From January 1979 to December 2011 global sea ice area has declined by
1.317659 million sq km.
I would be glad for anyone to check this figure.
And if anyone has the energy to crunch the numbers, I wonder what percentage of the average annual ice area for 1979 to 1988 (first ten years of satellite record) this represents?
Phil. says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:08 pm (responding to)
Bill Parsons says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:14 am
How do North and South anomalies compare in absolute (square km) terms, as well as in percentage deviation from their 20-year averages. Can someone boil it down for the non-scientist?
I hope this helps.
http://tinyurl.com/czhz6ux
– – – – – – – – –
And also
barry says:
September 28, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Seeing as we’re making equivalence between the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, let’s compare figures, quoting the top post first, and then the minimum area on record for the Arctic recently.
Ice Area is 1.964296 million sq km higher than the lowest amount ever recorded for this day in 1986 [Antarctic]. ….. I plotted a linear regression for global sea ice area (Exel software).
From January 1979 to December 2011 global sea ice area has declined by
1.317659 million sq km.
Well both of you attempt a good response, trying to make the CAGW =-required case that losing sea ice is a catastrophic event.
But both of you make the same error: You – the entire CAGW-funded community – are trying very hard to make us ignore three very “inconvenient facts” that the physics and geography prove your points not only wrong, but exactly backwards.
Percentage losses are irrelevant and actually a means of disguising their inherent falsehood. Losing ALL of the remaining Arctic sea ice from today’s world – melting every square km from the Arctic Ocean between its present boundary at 81 north and the pole will increase Arctic Ocean cooling, increase water evaporation, and (probably) increase European and Siberian snow fall levels. In today’s world, there is NO “positive sea ice feedback” due to melting the Arctic sea ice. It is not possible due to the physics of the water and ice at the present sea ice boundaries.
Arctic: Essentially all Arctic sea ice below 80 north latitude has already melted, and all of its (assumed) warming due to increased albedo of the open ocean has already occurred. That little triangle of north Greenland aside, there is almost no land ice left to melt either, so there is no arctic amplification due to melting ice available from the land areas eitehr. And, even if there were, we are discussing sea ice, not land ice.
And the actual result of the observed sea ice melt increases is simply more heat loss (mainly due to increased evaporation and increased radiation) from the Arctic, cooler Arctic air temperatures above 80 north latitude in the summer, and more ice growth the next fall. Each winter following a substantially increased Arctic sea ice loss, that next Arctic sea ice maximum has increased significantly over ALL recent norm’s. Not over the entire period of satellite measurements, it is true. But NEVER has a single high melt summer been followed by a low sea ice maximum and subsequent lower sea minimum. A high melt summer is followed by a higher-than-average sea ice maximum the next winter. And, making your case even worse, those winter Arctic sea ice maximums are increasing in amplitude and in frequency! Yes, it is even worse than we thought: Arctic sea Ice maximums are increasing and they are increasing faster the more Arctic sea ice melts in the summer!
One year ice? Five year ice? Doesn’t matter: reflectivity of energy, insulation of the covered open water by sea ice does NOT depend on thickness, depth, or age of the ice; the only thing that matters is area.
“Sea Ice: CAGW Amplification by Increasing Arctic Albedo” Sounds nice in theory in a warm classroom using theoretical albedos for sea ice floating on calm water on the Equator at noon, but that is not where today’s Arctic sea ice actually is melting.
Coming back to the “attitude” of both of your attempted rebuttals: Losing 1.4 million square km’s of Arctic sea ice has increased the earth’s net heat loss. Losing the next 3.4 million square kilometers will only increase that heat loss, and increase the next winter’s ice extents even further.
Oops, CAGW is wrong.
Next, the Antarctic.
Now, the Antarctic is a completely different geological field, and the only thing in common with its Arctic neighbor is that simple CAGW-albedo-feedback theories using the common equatorial reflections of sea ice albedo are dead wrong. But they are dead wrong for a completely different reason.
Above, Phil. says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:08 pm (responding to)
Bill Parsons says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:14 am
How do North and South anomalies compare in absolute (square km) terms, as well as in percentage deviation from their 20-year averages. Can someone boil it down for the non-scientist?
I hope this helps.
http://tinyurl.com/czhz6ux
———-
The Antarctic Sea Ice Increase. It’s Not Only Worse Than We Thought, But It’s Getting Worse than We Thought.
I see that “official” little web page you reference above ONLY displays percentages of Arctic and Antarctic ice changes – as if it were trying to pretend loss (or gain) of 1 million km square of sea ice in the Arctic is the same as losing (or gaining) 1 million km square of sea ice in the Antarctic. Dead wrong. Dead misleading … but deliberately misleading to maintain the CAGW myth?
First, geography.
The Antarctic continent is 14.425 million km square land area. (This alone is more than equal to the entire maximum sea ice extent of the Arctic Ocean. And, no one, anywhere, is claiming that the entire Antarctic land area is going to become ice-free until the sun goes nova. ) In round numbers, 3.87 million km^2 of the continent is between 80 south and the 90 south at the pole. There is no sea ice that melt in this area. The arguments (the physics) of low solar incidence angles off of Arctic sea ice DO NOT, and cannot!, occur in the Antarctic between 80 south and the pole. This area of the Antarctic will continue growing in ice thickness, continue radiating energy just as it has been the past few million years, and will not change based on any CO2 concentration nor on ANY Antarctic sea ice extents change.
Most of the total 11.505 million km^2 Antarctic area between 80 south and 70 south latitude is covered by land. In round numbers, this breaks to about 7.90 million km^2 of land, and the remaining 3.605 million km^2 is essentially ice-covered ocean all of the time, even at Antarctic sea ice minimum in mid-March each year. Not much to discuss in terms of global heat absorption OR global heat radiation and losses. They will remain the same. There can be no change in the global heat absorption or global heat radiation between 70 south and 80 south latitude due to ANY projected temperature changes due to ANY cause of any type or ANY loss (or gain!) of Antarctic sea ice.
So, now on to the ONLY part of the southern hemisphere heat exchange area that CAN change with sea ice extents.
Right now, this year, we have a Antarctic sea ice maximum of 16.5 million km^2, plus a Antartcic land area of 14.425 km^2 or 30.925 million km^2 of reflective surface centered around the south pole. A few irregularities, but this corresponds to a “southern ice cap” beanie from the pole up to a latitude between 61 and 62 south latitude.
“Normal” Antarctic sea ice maximums are only 15.0 million km^2, so all observers are nominally “correct” in pointing out that this is “only” a mere 10% gain in Antarctic sea ice, and compares poorly with the much larger “loss” (in terms of both percent of Arctic Ice and total sea ice extent) from the average Arctic Sea Ice extents.
But NOTE that the Antarctic sea maximums have not only been increasing, but these higher Antarctic sea ice maximums are increasing at a faster rate and new “maximums” above 15.0 million km^2 are occurring at an ever-faster rate than ever before !
So, the “official” CAGW-approved web sites showing “merely” both a smaller percentage of sea ice growth in the Antarctic area compared to the Arctic, but also a smaller total change in sea ice area is (again!) both misleading in intent and propaganda, but dead wrong in net heat transfer!
A total, 100%, 3.4 million square kilometer, loss of all Arctic sea ice will only serve to INCREASE the net heat loss of the Arctic Ocean.
A much smaller, mere10%, 1.5 million km^2 GAIN in Antarctic sea ice at latitude 61 south will only serve to FURTHER INCREASE the net heat loss of the Antarctic Ocean!
Like the Arctic heat loss-with-increasing-sea-ice-loss, this may appear counter to the CAGW meme of catastrophic sea ice loss, but – remember! – you have ONLY heard of Arctic sea ice loss from the CAGW community propaganda. Antarctic sea ice IS increasing, and so the situation IS reversed, and the “warm classroom” sea ice albedo theory is more nearly correct. In the wrong place for the CAGW community, but the sea ice albedo feedback IS correct at 60 south latitude.
The most important thing to remember about all of “new” reflecting sea ice is that it can be approximated as a single “band” around the planet between latitude 62 south and 60 south.
In this band, the solar angle at 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM at the equinox is always between 15 degrees and 30 degrees above the horizon. Air mass is much closer to the “expected” 1.5 or 2.5 of more temperate latitudes. Your “instincts” about “conventional global warming theory which holds “open ocean water absorbs heat, and sea ice-covered ocean water reflects solar energy” are correct.
yyyyMMddHHmmss * * AirMass * * SolarZen * * Elev * * Azim
2012 09 23 06 00 00 * * 24.79593 * * 88.81939 * * 1.18061 * * 91.78990
2012 09 23 07 00 00 * * 6.66837 * * 81.75090 * * 8.24910 * * 104.89460
2012 09 23 08 00 00 * * 3.77831 * * 74.85520 * * 15.14480 * * 118.48381
2012 09 23 09 00 00 * * 2.74876 * * 68.80527 * * 21.19473 * * 132.93464
2012 09 23 10 00 00 * * 2.27890 * * 64.08311 * * 25.91689 * * 148.47734
2012 09 23 11 00 00 * * 2.06568 * * 61.14509 * * 28.85491 * * 165.05740
2012 09 23 12 00 00 * * 2.01443 * * 60.33252 * * 29.66748 * * 182.24090
2012 09 23 13 00 00 * * 2.10584 * * 61.75016 * * 28.24984 * * 199.32230
2012 09 23 14 00 00 * * 2.37548 * * 65.22100 * * 24.77900 * * 215.64389
2012 09 23 15 00 00 * * 2.95348 * * 70.36091 * * 19.63909 * * 230.87465
2012 09 23 16 00 00 * * 4.27423 * * 76.70276 * * 13.29724 * * 245.05095
2012 09 23 17 00 00 * * 8.54422 * * 83.75743 * * 6.24257 * * 258.45515
2012 09 23 18 00 00 * * -1.00000 * * 91.36460 * * -1.36460 * * 271.48638
(A -1 for air mass from the NOAA calculator means the sun is below the horizon.)
Increased Antarctic Sea Ice around latitude 60 south increases global reflected heat energy, and leads to a globally cooler world.
A 1 million km INCREASE in the Antarctic sea ice at today’s conditions near latitude 60 south reduces global temperature more than a 4 million km square change in Arctic sea ice extents in EITHER direction!
Worse case conditions are a DECREASE in Arctic Sea Ice levels from the present, and a simultaneous INCREASE in Antarctic Sea Ice extents!
RACookPE1978,
What on Earth are you talking about? I was trying to provide parity by including Antarctic sea ice in the overall picture of sea ice trends. Just the facts and figures. People upthread were curious, I ran the numbers. That was it.
I’ll keep it to just the facts and figures in reply to you.
According to UAH satellite data the temperature of the Arctic Ocean has increased by more than 1.5C over the same period when sea ice has been declining. (Satellite sea surface measurements are of the ocean skin, not the lower troposphere). What will cause a reversal of that trend from now on if Arctic sea ice continues to decline?
I also checked your assertion that “Each winter following a substantially increased Arctic sea ice loss, that next Arctic sea ice maximum has increased significantly…”
I wasn’t sure how to determine what was “substantially increased” ice loss. For the years where there was less sea ice than the year before, the range of difference is 20,000 sq kms to 1,5 million sq kms, the average is roughly 458,000, and the median is 450,000. I picked 600,000 sq kms as a minimum for “substantially increased” ice loss, but you may prefer a higher figure.
On the left is the amount sea ice minimum declined substantially from the previous year, and on the right is the difference between the previous and following maximum (sea ice area in sqare kms)
1993 | 1,500,000…..–240,000
1995 | 700,000……..–450,000
1997 | 740,000……..260,000
1998 | 600,000……..–30,000
2007 | 1,190,000…..710,000
Sea ice area data from here if you want to redo anything.
Günther says:
September 28, 2012 at 1:45 am
“There’s an ever increasing amount of talk about that…”
Where? Who?
In any event, we already know what happens when there is a large scale retreat of Arctic sea ice.
It’s called the Medieval Warm Period. It’s true, we don’t know all the details, but we do know it was much warmer than it is now. After all, the Vikings were raising livestock and growing crops on about 400 farms in what is now Greenland. We know this because the current warm period has revealed the remains of these farms as the ice cover leaves.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t7211316g1364665/
And guess what? All the ecosystems and their inhabitants appear to have gotten through the much lower levels of Arctic sea ice. How do we know? Because the polar bears, seals, foxes, owls, lemmings, caribou, etc. are still with us. What ever happens to the Arctic sea over the next century, we can expect a basic repeat of the those events.
Arctic Antarctic and Global Sea Ice Area: Very clearly charted (well… linked) on WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
barry says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:51 am (replying to)
RACookPE1978,
Well both of you attempt a good response, trying to make the CAGW =-required case that losing sea ice is a catastrophic event.
What on Earth are you talking about? I was trying to provide parity by including Antarctic sea ice in the overall picture of sea ice trends. Just the facts and figures. People upthread were curious, I ran the numbers. That was it.
As I showed, just comparing “percent lost” (of Arctic Sea Ice) to “percent gain” (of Antarctic Sea Ice increases) is incorrect: Equally, comparing “total losses” to “total gains” is incorrect. The result of talking about ANY percentage changes (Arctic to Arctic, Arctic to total, total to total, Antarctic to Antarctic) is wrong. It provides misleading information about the earth’s total heat exchange rates.
The current Arctic Sea Ice loss CANNOT be compared to the Antarctic’s gain. The two are (literally) polar opposite, and they respond very differently – oppositely, in fact – to losses (or gains) in minimum and maximum sea ice extent because the CHANGE in sea ice extent in today’s world occurs at different latitudes. The difference in latitude of the CHANGE i sea ice each year means a tremendously different amount of solar energy is reflected or absorbed at the two opposite poles.
Further, the increasing Arctic sea ice maximums DO reflect measurable solar radiation from their lower (most southern) areas where the latitude is lower. Not a lot. Not nearly as much as the very significant Antarctic sea ice at its maximums at their 60-61-62 south area.
To repeat what you missed:
Losing additional Arctic Sea Ice at the equinox at the time of Arctic Sea Ice minimum means significantly INCREASING radiation heat losses from the Arctic Ocean, increased moisture in the Arctic atmosphere, and cooler Arctic air and sea temperatures.
Gaining additional Antarctic Sea Ice at the equinox at the time of Antarctic sea maximum SIGNIFICANTLY increases reflected heat losses from the southern oceans, less absorbed solar energy, and increasingly cooler southern hemisphere air temperatures.
Look again at your claim that UAH temperatures show an increase: What latitudes and what time of year are those measurements? Air temperatures at 80 north latitude – the ONLY area where sea ice occurs at minimum and thus the ONLY area in the arctic where a change in sea ice will affect temperatures – show a consistently decreasing arctic air and sea temperatures.
Others have tried to use central Canada and central Russian averaged yearly temperatures to prove the Arctic is warming. Those are tundra and forest “hot spots” regions 1500 to 1800 kilometers on solid ground (well spongy ground under the tundra) south of the Arctic ocean where the sea ice boundary occurs.
Now, to be accurate, those tundra and forest hot spots” 1200 km south of the Arctic Ice boundaries ARE due to CO2 increases: They are due to CO2 because every plant and tree in those Arctic tundras and forest are growing 15% to 27% faster, taller, greener (darker) and heavier with foliage and branches!
Antarctic Sea ice near record high of 2007
2007…… 2007……. huh, rings a bell………
//4/*
Arctic ice at a “record” low in 2007, Antarctic ice record high t same year. 2012 Arctic ice at a record low, Antarctic ice reaching record high. Yep, there’s a connection.
And where’s that “global warming” thingy?
RACookPE1978,
Oh, I agree with you. I was, as I said in both my posts above, responding to the equivalence other people seem to think is meaningful.
UAH Arctic coverage is 60N to 85N. That covers most of the melt area. The measurments are of ocean skin, not air temperature. The satellite data well and truly rebut the contention that increasingly exposed water will bring a net cooling effect.
barry says:
September 29, 2012 at 11:20 am
UAH Arctic coverage is 60N to 85N. That covers most of the melt area. The measurments are of ocean skin, not air temperature. The satellite data well and truly rebut the contention that increasingly exposed water will bring a net cooling effect.
There are several problems with satellite SST measurements of the Arctic. The most obvious is satellites can’t measure SSTs under ice cover. Another is that the adjustment for ice cover changes is undocumented.
The Reynolds SST data shows a peak warming of 0.4C at 62N (where there is the least ocean %age of any latitude and therefore the most land affected ocean) which declines to almost zero near the pole.
The best we can say is the satellite data is inconclusive on the effect of ice cover on SSTs.
There are no ARGO bouys in the Arctic ocean. So, we have no real data on Arctic ocean temperature changes.
And I agree with RACookPE1978 that the physics says decreased ice cover must be cooling the Arctic Ocean (all else being equal). The ocean cools primarily by evaporation driven by the temperature difference between ocean surface and the air, and that is greatest in the ice free Arctic Ocean.
RACookPE1978 says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Above, Phil. says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:08 pm (responding to)
Bill Parsons says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:14 am
How do North and South anomalies compare in absolute (square km) terms, as well as in percentage deviation from their 20-year averages. Can someone boil it down for the non-scientist?
I hope this helps.
http://tinyurl.com/czhz6ux
———-
The Antarctic Sea Ice Increase. It’s Not Only Worse Than We Thought, But It’s Getting Worse than We Thought.
I see that “official” little web page you reference above ONLY displays percentages of Arctic and Antarctic ice changes
In case you hadn’t noticed that’s what Bill asked for!
– as if it were trying to pretend loss (or gain) of 1 million km square of sea ice in the Arctic is the same as losing (or gaining) 1 million km square of sea ice in the Antarctic. Dead wrong. Dead misleading … but deliberately misleading to maintain the CAGW myth?
Not misleading at all just answering the guy’s question. I just presented the facts, that the Arctic sea ice is steadily decreasing both in winter an summer (particularly the latter). While the Antarctic is just bouncing around in the vicinity of the mean with a barely significant trend. It’s you you appears to have an agenda of trying to distract folks attention from that. I didn’t mention CAGW at all, it’s a fact that the Arctic sea ice has been rapidly decreasing in the summers, I happen to think that it will probably be mostly gone in the summer in a few years time. If it is we’ll see what effects it has, good or bad. The research suggests that if that happens then the upper layer of the ocean could become well mixed and a hysteresis will occur which will prevent the return of ice in the winter, we shall see.
It doesn’t matter what the actual temperature is under the ice, because we are discussing whether the exposed water loses more heat than it gains. Satellite measurements of (non-ice) ocean surfaces are better quality than tropospheric temps over land. Where there is sea ice, the temperature is assumed to be 0C.
For sea surface temperatures there are a number of processes at work when the ice recedes. The major factors are 1) darker water absorbs more short-wave radiation, causing the temperature of the ocean to rise, and 2) increased heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere as the insulating effect of the ice is removed. Which will dominate? It seems evident that the warming factors are strongly outweighing the cooling factors, because the Arctic Ocean is strongly warming. This warming is commensurate with the land-based record of atmospheric temps. All the observational evidence points in the opposite direction from ocean net cooling from ice recession.
Is there any observational evidence – I mean long-term – to support this notion?
How have you factored in the loss of albedo and greater absorption of sunlight at all? Have you considered that heat flux from evaporation might form clouds, another potential feedback in both directions? And if you are one who credits the idea that more CO2 traps more infrared radiation, then how does this play out for increased infrared radiation flowing up from the sea surface?
I am by no means an expert and can’t speak to the physics, but the observations seem pretty stark to me. Whatever negative feedbacks are at work, they have not been strong enough to prevent the recession of Arctic sea ice, or the strong temperature rise of the ocean and atmosphere.
I am by no means an expert and can’t speak to the physics, but the observations seem pretty stark to me. Whatever negative feedbacks are at work, they have not been strong enough to prevent the recession of Arctic sea ice, or the strong temperature rise of the ocean and atmosphere.
Excepting the problematic satellite measurements there are no Arctic Ocean wide measurements of air temperatures, SSTs or ocean temperatures. This is why HADCRUT extrapolates land temperatures over the Arctic ocean.
As I have explained before Arctic sea ice retreat in the last 15 years is driven by increased solar insolation from decreased low level clouds, augmented by albedo changes from embedded BC in the Arctic sea ice, which accumulates on the surface as it melts. this is why multiyear Artic sea ice is melting significantly faster than seasonal and 2 year ice.
Incidentally, this explains the record Arctic sea ice summer melt as well as the record winter sea ice formation in both the Arctic and Antarctic (fewer clouds = more radiative cooling). We don’t see enhanced summer sea ice melt in the Antarctic because there is almost no BC embedded in the sea ice.
If you have another theory that explains all the sea ice facts, I’d like to hear it.
International Arctic Buoy Programme
“A network of automatic data buoys to monitor synoptic-scale fields of sea level pressure, surface air temperature, and ice motion throughout the Arctic Ocean was recommended by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 1974. Based on the Academy’s recommendation, the Arctic Ocean Buoy Program was established by the Polar Science Center (PSC), Applied Physics Laboratory-University of Washington, in 1978 to support the Global Weather Experiment. Operations began in early 1979, and the program continued through 1990 under funding from various agencies. In 1991, the International Arctic Buoy Programme (IABP) succeeded the Arctic Ocean Buoy Program, but the basic objective remains – to maintain a network of drifting buoys on the Arctic Ocean to provide meteorological and oceanographic data for real-time operational requirements and research purposes including support to the World Climate Research Programme and the World Weather Watch Programme.”
It is true that Arctic Ocean coverage is inferior to most of the other seas, but it is hard to credit the theory you are expounding, when in order to do so it is required that the satellite record, the buoy record, the record of ships logs and the record of surrounding weather stations, which all point to the opposite, must all be so problematic as to obscure a general Arctic Ocean cooling trend that is not evident in any data set whatsoever.
Furthermore, the temperature signal is strong in these data sets. It stretches credulity even further to imagine that they are all not only wrong, but all very wrong, all at once and in the same direction.
So I ask again, do you have any long-term observational data that indicates a general cooling trend in the Arctic Ocean or in the atmosphere above it over the last several decades?
Well, it may seem a bit naive, but I expect warming conditions in the Arctic would melt the ice. The thinning of the pack ice is a result of the warming of the waters. It has been warming in the Arctic more strongly in winter than in summer, so it seems unlikely that solar influence is responsible, not to mention that the sun has been relatively constant for the last 60 years or so. And sea ice has been declining in wintertime, so the Arctic Ocean should have been cooling over the long-term, adding thickness to the ice pack. But every data set there is doesn’t support the notion of a powerfully negative feedback from newly exposed ocean heat flux.
I imagine this negative feedback does ameliorate the warming, but it doesn’t seem to do so strongly, or not strongly enough for us to see evidence of Arctic Ocean cooling.
But if you know of any observational data of Arctic Ocean cooling over the last few decades, could you point me in the right direction?