As you may know, I have been using Cryosphere’s Antarctic Sea Ice Area data to show the record levels of Antarctic Sea Ice.
But I just found another data set, NOAA’s Sea Ice Extent here. (thanks to commenter HaroldW at the Blackboard)
And it turns out day 265 set an all time record, and then day 266 (Sept 22nd) broke that record. Days 265 through 270 are now the 6 highest Antarctic Sea Ice Extent’s of all time (in the satellite record)!
11 of the top 15 extents are now in 2012.
Anyone wonder why NOAA isn’t making a fuss about this?
| Year | Day of Year | Ice Extent |
| 2012 | 266 | 19.45418 |
| 2012 | 268 | 19.4478 |
| 2012 | 267 | 19.44631 |
| 2012 | 270 | 19.4433 |
| 2012 | 269 | 19.41601 |
| 2012 | 265 | 19.36135 |
| 2006 | 264 | 19.35934 |
| 2012 | 257 | 19.35567 |
| 2012 | 271 | 19.35207 |
| 2006 | 267 | 19.34999 |
| 2012 | 264 | 19.34204 |
| 2012 | 259 | 19.33522 |
| 2006 | 265 | 19.3289 |
| 2006 | 268 | 19.32669 |
| 2012 | 258 | 19.31503 |
Please could i ask if anyone knows ( as i havnt been able to find any info ), there has been a record release of ice cold meltwater into the northern seas , possibly many many billions of tons of it. Does it stay where it is or drift south , as it is likely to send a massive chilling effect to wherever it goes to and effect the winter temperatures of nearby land . Britain might well be in range but as no one seems to be concerned about the meltwater does it matter at all ?
KR,
But which IPCC models made the predictions you claim?
On the p.795 you cite, they claim a “thinning” of “Arctic sea ice” from 3m to 1m over a century. If someone else then points to an ice free area that has disappeared in a decade, does that prove the above prediction, or merely show that nobody really understands the situation? [Zonally averaged decadal mean thickness also does not seem like “area” or “extent” to me so I question even these definitions.]
If I make a prediction something will happen in a century, then you may have to wait a century to prove me wrong. Of course if I can claim any arbitrary point in the next hundred years as proving my prediction then random fluctuations have a better chance of “proving” my prediction for me. It is a “prediction” that is too asymmetric and poorly defined to be useful [except to those earning a living from the prediction-business].
If I say a Governor of Massachusetts will win the Presidency in the next 100 elections, and Romney wins this year, can I claim I predicted it? Yes. Should you take my predictions seriously? Probably not.
Curious….it is really very simple.If the UN or IPPC or any politician or government and any agency like NOAA,or unviersity says anything about weather,which it really is,you know the exact opposite is true.
This is just so exciting! Yet another thing that proves that CAGW is a total FRAUD.
Growing antarctic ice will soon be engulfing Australia, and all those nitwits can worry about is a little melt in the arctic. This lunacy has surely gone too far.
No one cares, they only notice if arctic melting
RACookPE1978 says:
September 29, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Be sure to include in your remarks the obvious difference with arctic ice is it floats on top of an ocean; the wind moves and breaks it up, sea currents move the ice breaking it up, and ice breakers move breaking it up; whereas the antarctic ice extends off a continental object not being push by wind, current or man made machines.
KR,
If I was feeling less even-handed towards the predictions in that paper, I might be tempted to point out that Figure 11 c) on p.795 appears to indicate that at the shorter time-scales of 15-25 years, some thickening of Antarctic sea-ice is a consequence of DECREASING atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
My conclusion: Unchanged. These are not useful predictions. [Especially when you read the caveats to the modelling which are, quite properly, mentioned in the third sentence of the abstract and Appendix B].
John Brookes: ” CAGW is a total FRAUD.”
Nice, you’re finally starting to catch on.
The warmists are going to have to revoke Gore’s passport. He might travel to the North Pole or Greenland.
John Brookes says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:08 am
As usual, nothing of substance.
My dear KR, you are indulging in gross hyperbole. There is ample evidence that the offset is close to equal. The global sea ice extent may, indeed, have increased since 1979, ie. the satellite era. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/14/global-sea-ice-trend-since-1979-surprising/
For the Antarctic sea ice to be at a record high, the sea surface and air temperatures around Antarctica must also be the lowest in the satellite record.
I imagine winds and ocean currents have played some part but “temperatures” have to be below or near the coldest it has been since 1979.
Now remember, whaling and scientific expedition ships have “landed” on Antarctica as early as 1821. They were not using ice-breakers in those days so the summer ice could not have been much different than today. Even in 2012, it would have been difficult for a non-ice-breaker-type ship to reach land through the minimum ice (on February 23, 2012).
One of the coldest winter seasons ever in Antarctica. How can that be in global warming world, where polar amplification should have the poles increasing by twice the global average. Nada instead.
Interesting lecture by Svensmark;
vukcevic says:
September 30, 2012 at 1:08 am
Looks plugged in to me. Nice work Vuk !! Keep em coming, more are starting to notice.
Bill
Interesting points.
Captain Cook made a number of attempts to explore Antarctica in the 1770’s
http://www.south-pole.com/p0000071.htm
Doesn’t seem to be a lot of difference between then and now-Polar amplification seems to have bypassed the South Pole
tonyb
commieBob says:
September 30, 2012 at 7:07 am
The difference between the NASA Team algorithm and the Bootstrap algorithm in measuring sea ice extent shows how statistical data manipulation is all in the method and whether the modeler is content (or motivated) with the outcome or going to press for better data and improved algorithms.
David Ball says: blah blah blah…
Yes, David, but since you mob won’t be changing your minds any time soon, it makes more sense to mock you than to argue with you.
anthony holmes says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:03 am
“. . . there has been a record release of ice cold meltwater . . .”
You just made that up! **
Anyway, ice floating on the Arctic Ocean melts every year to a great extent beginning about the Ides of March and continuing for the next 6 months. Some years there is greater ice mass that melts and some years less but it is not all released at once. In certain instances, such as this, folks will look at “analogue-years” and guess that results this year will be similar to results from their year chosen for its similarity.
So, pick your analogue-year. Check the character of the following winter. Relax.
~~~~~~
**Ice was reported to be thin this year. Thus, there may not have been a record release because the mass of ice going back X years would have to be known – and I don’t think such is known.
Keith says:
September 29, 2012 at 10:33 pm
While both Cryosphere Today and NOAA data show a record Antarctic sea ice extent, the Cryosphere Today anomaly plot shown on the WUWT Sea Ice page suggests that higher anomalies occurred in 2007 and 2010. Is it because of different measuring techniques or why is there this discrepancy?
Looking at the CT area data during the year it follows the average data rather closely with a superimposed short term fluctuation (weather).
E.g. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
The fluctuation is most noticeable near the max and min where there is only slow change otherwise. At the maximum the average area is 15.059 Mm^2 on day 267 however because of the phase shift in the fluctuation the maximum area in any given year occurs on a different date so even if the maximum area on two different years were the same the anomaly would be different because it would be compared with a different value,.
For example, the max has occurred at the following times over the last few years: 268, 263, 279, 267. This year the anomaly was 1.165 Mm^2, on the same day over the last few years it has been: -0.040, -0.448, 0.834, -0.331, 1.004, 0.477.
Note that the area has dropped ~0.3 Mm^2 since the max (2 days), anomaly now 0.871.
Adding to my comment @ur momisugly : 8:37 am
If there is a year that northern sea(s) ice reaches an unprecedented large amount the summer’s melt might be delayed, then rapid and record breaking – and interesting.
We are in a period of rapid magnetic pole change.
As the north magnetic pole moves towards the north geographic poles, the ice is decreasing at the north pole. As the south magnetic pole moves away from the south geographic pole, the ice is increasing at the south pole.
100 billion dollars spend on climate research, at the “best” minds in the field missed this very simple connection between climate change and the earth’s magnetic field. The paleo evidence is clear, the cliamte changes when the magnetic poles change.
Or, are we to believe that CO2 and climate change control the magnetic poles?
alex says:
September 30, 2012 at 12:49 am
Absolutely uninteresting and irrelevant for climate.
The sun does not shine there in winter, so no influence on albedo.
It is the ice extent in summer that does matter.
False. Totally false. Can you and KR even “look” at a globe before you write such blatant falsehoods in “defense” of your CAGW-dogma??)
The Antarctic Sea Ice at its 16.5 million km^2 maximum near the equinox in mid-September is a near crown-shape: A circular ring whose lower (sea-side) edge is between 62 south and 60 south latitude, and whose upper (pole-side) edge varies between 65 south and 72 south latitude. During its mid-winter GROWTH range – that period BEFORE its maximum extent when its will reflect the most solar energy – it will have about 50% of its area between 66.5 south (the Antarctic Circle) and 60 south latitude.
Now, at that latitude, EVEN AT MID NH SUMMER (darkest time of the year for the Antarctic continent in mid-winter) the Antarctic sea ice WILL be reflecting light energy … for the simple reason that the Antarctic sea ice is exposed to southern hemisphere sunlight every day – even at the shortest day if the winter at June 22.
BUT … Antarctic Sea Ice is NOT at its maximum at mid-winter (the darkest days), but rather, Antarctic Sea Ice is at its maximum at the equinox when there IS sunlight for 12 hours per every latitude on the planet. Further, Antarctic Sea Ice at its maximum IS exposed to strongly absorbed sunlight at solar incidence angle between 15 and 30 degrees for 10 of those 12 hours. Worse, from a cooling world standpoint, a DECREASE in Arctic Sea ice from its present “circular cap” up between 81 north latitude and the pole DOES NOT result in increased solar absorption into the exposed sea surface, but rather an increased LOSS of heat energy from the exposed water due to evaporation and radiation.
The difference? The angle of the incidence sunlight. In the Antarctic, the light is inbound on the newly freezing sea ice at 30 degrees angle: At 30-25 degrees incidence angle, open water absorbs 90-95% of the inbound energy, sea ice reflects about 98 percent of the incident energy.
in the Arctic, at 4-8 degrees incidence angle, open (rough) water reflects 95% of the solar energy. Ice reflects about 98% of the incoming solar energy. Open water loses another 117 watts/m^2 compared to ice-covered water.
Thus, “simple” physics and geography shows that an increase in Antarctic Sea by 1.5 million km^2 ABOVE its previous “average” of 15.0 million km^2 SIGNIFICANTLY increases heat loss from the planet. An (potential) loss even of the entire remaining sea ice of 3.4 million km^2 increases heat loss from the planet.
And NO IPCC report nor ANY climate model predicts ANY increase in Antarctic sea ice at the same time as a Arctic Sea Ice decline. They only predict sea ice declines due to “a warming world” and “prove” a warming world by that same sea ice decline.
Except sea ice is not declining in the “right” places.
andrewmharding says:
September 30, 2012 at 3:19 am
Curious.
I have a scientific background, but I am not a climatologist.
2) The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.038%, in other words 99.962% is not CO2.
=============================================
When trying to explain that to the ” panic at any thing” groups of people, be sure to point that the CO2 % is actually 3/100 %. Some will think that “0.038%” = “3.8%”
Thank you all for your responses! I am so appreciative of the suggestions made, links offered, and stories shared by those of you who so kindly responded to my post. Obviously, I have a LOT of reading to do to get adequately informed on this topic. So I will start reading, question everything, and keep an eye on your discussions here to help fill in the big (ozone);) holes in my knowledge. Much gratitude!
For those confused about Cryosphere’s Anomaly Graph, they are graphing sea ice AREA, not EXTENT.
AREA came within 10,000 sq km of an all time record.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/antarctic-sea-ice-could-it-get-an-closer-without-breaking-the-all-time-record/
My post reblogged here is sea ice EXTENT.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/wow-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-all-time-records-set-in-2012/
“Area and extent are different measures and give scientists slightly different information. Some organizations, including Cryosphere Today, report ice area; NSIDC primarily reports ice extent. Extent is always a larger number than area, and there are pros and cons associated with each method.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent
2006 was the previous record holder for EXTENT.
2007 is the current record holder for AREA.