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.
To expand on that – because there has been a reduction in Arctic sea ice during the winters, when the sky is dark and heat flux from the extra area of open sea doesn’t compete with short-wave radiation, surely we should see a definite cooling in winter as well as a thickening of the ice pack due to the more frigid waters.
But we see the opposite of these things.
barry says:
September 30, 2012 at 1:29 am
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?
—————————————
barry, the Arctic ocean is not an isolated Ocean by itself.
The oceans are interconnected and massive heat transfer is happening through the oceans waters.
I do not pretend to be a specialist, I was a normal AGW believer until about a year and a half ago when I started to look at the data and what was presented to us as science.
The South Hemisphere is receiving about 6% more heat from the sun in comparison with the North Hemisphere due to Earth being at periphelion (January 3rd) during summer in the South and aphelion in the North (July 4th), however the North Hemisphere is losing more heat then the South – look at the OLR data:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Global-99-now.png
This means there is heat transfer between the hemispheres to compensate for it.
Due to the circumpolar currents around the Antarctica there is no strong heat transfer from the oceans towards the South Pole.
Due to the Atlantic open water towards the Arctic and secondary the Bering Straight for the North Pacific there is heat transfer from the oceans to the North Pole.
This all is looking like the oceans work like a heat pump gaining heat in the South Hemisphere and pumping it to the Arctic.
As said I am not a specialist, do not know the delay – how long does the heat need to be transferred, how the whole process is happening, but at first overview it would look like the South is getting colder, the North is still receiving warmth from the “good past years”. Am apoen to new hypothesis, happy to learn from specialists and would change my point of view if data would point to it.
As we see the warming is not exponentially increasing, no sea level acceleration I am confident we have time to let science explain correctly what is happening and can focus on more urgent issues.
I am not satisfied with the quality of the climate scientific publications, with name calling studies and garbage and political activism-us. We have seen where this led to in the past and it is not pretty.
If CO2 would be the major culprit it would also reduce the South Hemisphere ice coverage. The Antarctica gaining ice and reaching an all time ice extend record is not looking good for the CO2 CAGW hypothesis.
The missing of strong correlation between CO2 and temperature on milenia scale is also a strong issue of the hypothesis. Did I said strong correlation? Actually missing of any correlation in the last 11000 years:
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#An%20overview%20to%20get%20things%20into%20perspective
The Arctic had already less ice then now and no chain reaction or catastrophe happened:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice.aspx
The Arctic trend is not unusual:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
We live in the coldest period of the last 10000 years:
Barry:
Yes, we have looked at the albedo of open ocean (rough water) compared to to the albedo of ice.
Listen to my words very carefully please: At the latitude where Arctic Sea Ice is now concentrated – that region between 81 north latitude and the pole , at the time of minimum sea ice extent at the autmn equinox , for time of day when the sun is shining – with a maximum of 3-9 degrees incidence angle at local soalr noon, and an average of 2 to 5 degrees incident angle for the entire 12 hour day, and for the extreme air mass values (between 6 and 30 air masses for differnt hours of theday) forced by these very low solar incidence angles at the timeof minmum sea ice extents …
The albedo of open ocean water – smooth or roughened by waves – is equal to the albedo of ice.
As much solar energy reflectes off of the newly open ocean water as reflects off of the sea ice. Any increase in sea ice melting from any area in the Arctic between latitude 78 north and thepole results in increased net heat losses.
Understand? Under today’s conditions at the edge of the Arctic Sea Ice, at the time of Artic Sea Ice minmum, the physics of the water and ice, the geogrpahy of the sun and thesea ice, do not permit arguements.
The more the Arctic Sea Ice melts under today’s conditions at the time of minimum sea ice, the cooler the earth becomes.
THE OPPOSITE HAPPENS IN THE ANARCTIC.
The sea ice maximum of theAntarctic is at a much, much lower latitude: the edge of the sea is between 62 and 60 south latitude.
At THOSE latitudes, today’s Antarctic increased sea ice extents DOES reflect more energy from the earth, DOES reduce albedo, and DOES cool the earth more.
The difference is the angle of the sun’s rays. in the Antarctic at the equinox, the sun’s rays are between 20 degrees and 30 degrees above the horizon. At that angle, sunlight IS absorbed by the open water, and reflected by the sea ice.
Since there is significantly MRE sea ice than at any time in measured history, more energy is reflected from the earth, less in absorbed by the open water, and the earth cools.
Lars,
Certainly. But that’s not the issue, which I think is really simple. If the outward heat flux from newly esposed water (no more sea ice insulation) in the Arctic outweighs the uptake of solar warming because of the lower albedo + whatever it is that is causing the Arctic to warm, then this should be evident in Ocean temperatures. But RACookPE1978 is refining their case, so let me address that.
RACookPE1978,
We can get around the problem of albedo by examining ocean temperatures during the polar night. November is pretty dark most of the day North of 65N, and the sea ice has retreated by 15% relative to the 1979 – 2000 average. The retreat has been eating into the area between 65N and 72N. If ocean heat flux outweighs other factors the ocean should definitely have cooled during the month of November over the long term.
Do you have any observational evidence that this is the case? UAH shows strong warming for this month.
Rather than expecting me to assume the physics are right, can you refer me to formal studies demonstrating that the albedo of open water at the autumn equinox at 81N is the same as sea ice?
Can you direct me to any formal evidence for the assertions you have been making? I ask because I have now read up on the subject, and just about everything I read (studies, commentary at sea ice institutions like NSIDC) comes to the opposite conclusion you do, and falls into line with the observational evidence that we have.
Can you help me out here? I’m interested in hard data, anything to go on beyond assertion.
Clearly some sort of grand oscillation between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice mechanisms is at work. The formation environment in the Antipodes is ideal whereas in high northerly latitudes it’s been suppressed now for decades.
Clearly some sort of grand oscillation between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice mechanisms is at work.
barry
You assert that in a night-time month (Nov) the arctic warmed. (Yes, I know you source this to UAH, but I’m to lazy to verify, I’ll trust you)
We can all agree that in order for warming to occur, heat energy must be delivered.
We can also all agree that the greater the differential between the night sky and the surface, the more heat energy is lost. e.g. if you have water at > -2C {freezing for seawater} it will loose more energy than an equivalent surface area of ice.
We also can agree that water will transfer more energy per unit time than ice because it is of higher density than ice, is a fluid rather than a solid, develops larger, faster waves (increased area / increased mixing) etc. even when the temperature is at the freeze/thaw point.
(Or if we can’t, don’t bother reading further)
Given the above, the only way for warming to occur is for more heat energy to be moved into the area, which means it is coming from somewhere else.
Once that energy arrives, it is radiated to space.
— Now you may want to argue that the enhanced CO2 would re-radiate it back to the surface, but the enhanced CO2 is more likely ( Terra is an oblate spheroid ) to radiate to space than to the surface, so adding CO2 just increases the updraft and enhances the TOA(CO2) radiation. (similar to how putting on thin silk gloves can increase heat loss by increasing the surface area more than reducing the transfer rate). —
Thus, increased temperature in the Arctic in winter necessarily translates to greater heat loss from the Arctic. This requires a source of heat. The heat could come from chilling the deeper layers of the Arctic (requiring open water and storms, otherwise the ocean will stratify) or along the surface from further south. Which is really the same thing since the deeper water was warmed further south, discounting volcanoes, anyway.
Which all means that to keep the temperature up at the radiator, we must be sucking heat from the engine. Or, GLOBAL COOLING.
Have a nice day
Actually, I’m trying to avoid a conversation about the greenhouse effect as it is a red flag on this site and tends to distract from other topics when it is introduced. Apologies, but I think many here would sympathise with my preference for hard data – observational evidence – over theorising.
(I disagree with your description of the GH effect here and the inferences flowing therefrom, but if you want to discuss that, link me to somethwere else – I really don’t want to sideline the current conversation)
Cheers,
barry.
barry,
You did note the — m-dashes — indicating that the CO2 discussion was not integral to the point, did you not? I’m glad you are trying to avoid the distraction. So, getting back to first principles, what is your proposed mechanism for raising Arctic winter temperatures that will not result in increased heat loss to space?