Opposite Behaviors? Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks, Antarctic Grows
September 2012 witnessed two opposite records concerning sea ice. Two weeks after the Arctic Ocean’s ice cap experienced an all-time summertime low for the satellite era (left), Antarctic sea ice reached a record winter maximum extent (right). But sea ice in the Arctic has melted at a much faster rate than it has expanded in the Southern Ocean, as can be seen in this image by comparing the 2012 sea ice levels with the yellow outline, which in the Arctic image represents average sea ice minimum extent from 1979 through 2010 and in the Antarctic image shows the median sea ice extent in September from 1979 to 2000. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio and NASA Earth Observatory/ Jesse Allen
The steady and dramatic decline in the sea ice cover of the Arctic Ocean over the last three decades has become a focus of media and public attention. At the opposite end of the Earth, however, something more complex is happening.
A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006.
“There’s been an overall increase in the sea ice cover in the Antarctic, which is the opposite of what is happening in the Arctic,” said lead author Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. “However, this growth rate is not nearly as large as the decrease in the Arctic.”
The Earth’s poles have very different geographies. The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by North America, Greenland and Eurasia. These large landmasses trap most of the sea ice, which builds up and retreats with each yearly freeze-and-melt cycle. But a large fraction of the older, thicker Arctic sea ice has disappeared over the last three decades. The shrinking summer ice cover has exposed dark ocean water that absorbs sunlight and warms up, leading to more ice loss.
On the opposite side of the planet, Antarctica is a continent circled by open waters that let sea ice expand during the winter but also offer less shelter during the melt season. Most of the Southern Ocean’s frozen cover grows and retreats every year, leading to little perennial sea ice in Antarctica.
Using passive-microwave data from NASA’s Nimbus 7 satellite and several Department of Defense meteorological satellites, Parkinson and colleague Don Cavalieri showed that sea ice changes were not uniform around Antarctica. Most of the growth from 1978 to 2010 occurred in the Ross Sea, which gained a little under 5,300 square miles of sea ice per year, with more modest increases in the Weddell Sea and Indian Ocean. At the same time, the region of the Bellingshausen and Amundsen Seas lost an average of about 3,200 square miles of ice every year.
› View larger The ice covering the Bellingshausen Sea, off the coast of Antarctica, as seen from a NASA Operation IceBridge flight on Oct. 13, 2012. Credit: NASA/Michael Studinger
Parkinson and Cavalieri said that the mixed pattern of ice growth and ice loss around the Southern Ocean could be due to changes in atmospheric circulation. Recent research points at the depleted ozone layer over Antarctica as a possible culprit. Ozone absorbs solar energy, so a lower concentration of this molecule can lead to a cooling of the stratosphere (the layer between six and 30 miles above the Earth’s surface) over Antarctica. At the same time, the temperate latitudes have been warming, and the differential in temperatures has strengthened the circumpolar winds flowing over the Ross Ice Shelf.
“Winds off the Ross Ice Shelf are getting stronger and stronger, and that causes the sea ice to be pushed off the coast, which generates areas of open water, polynyas,” said Josefino Comiso, a senior scientist at NASA Goddard. “The larger the coastal polynya, the more ice it produces, because in polynyas the water is in direct contact with the very cold winter atmosphere and rapidly freezes.” As the wind keeps blowing, the ice expands further to the north.
This year’s winter Antarctic sea ice maximum extent, reached two weeks after the Arctic Ocean’s ice cap experienced an all-time summertime low, was a record high for the satellite era of 7.49 million square miles, about 193,000 square miles more than its average maximum extent for the last three decades.
The Antarctic minimum extents, which are reached in the midst of the Antarctic summer, in February, have also slightly increased to 1.33 million square miles in 2012, or around 251,000 square miles more than the average minimum extent since 1979.
The numbers for the southernmost ocean, however, pale in comparison with the rates at which the Arctic has been losing sea ice – the extent of the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean in September 2012 was 1.32 million square miles below the average September extent from 1979 to 2000. The lost ice area is equivalent to roughly two Alaskas.
Parkinson said that the fact that some areas of the Southern Ocean are cooling and producing more sea ice does not disprove a warming climate.
“Climate does not change uniformly: The Earth is very large and the expectation definitely would be that there would be different changes in different regions of the world,” Parkinson said. “That’s true even if overall the system is warming.” Another recent NASA study showed that Antarctic sea ice slightly thinned from 2003 to 2008, but increases in the extent of the ice balanced the loss in thickness and led to an overall volume gain.
The new research, which used laser altimetry data from the Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat), was the first to estimate sea ice thickness for the entire Southern Ocean from space.
Records of Antarctic sea ice thickness are much patchier than those of the Arctic, due to the logistical challenges of taking regular measurements in the fierce and frigid waters around Antarctica. The field data collection is mostly limited to research icebreakers that generally only travel there during spring and summer – so the sole means to get large-scale thickness measurements is from space.
“We have a good handle of the extent of the Antarctic sea ice, but the thickness has been the missing piece to monitor the sea ice mass balance,” said Thorsten Markus, one of the authors of the study and Project Scientist for ICESat-2, a satellite mission designed to replace the now defunct ICESat. ICESat-2 is scheduled to launch in 2016. “The extent can be greater, but if the sea ice gets thinner, the volume could stay the same.”
Maria-José Viñas
NASA’s Earth Science News Team

I picture a cloud of Satan’s gas (CO2) moving over Gaia’s planet causing havoc wherever it goes – for example, over Moscow, in summer a couple of years ago causing infernal heat, then over Europe the next winter causing cold never seen in a hundred years, then the cloud of Stan splitting this year – half to over Antarctica and half to The Arctic – simultaneously causing record levels of ice in the former and the greatest melt in recent history in the latter.
/sarc (Just in case there are any warmers are out there…)
‘Stan’ was a typo but I like it. I can picture him being called Stan…
So if wind patterns cause Antarctic ice to expand it’s global warming, and if wind patterns cause Arctic ice to decrease it’s global warming. I think I’ve got that.
“This year’s winter Antarctic sea ice maximum extent, reached two weeks after the Arctic Ocean’s ice cap experienced an all-time summertime low, was a record high for the satellite era of 7.49 million square miles, about 193,000 square miles more than its average maximum extent for the last three decades.”
Note that the record low in Arctic was an “all-time low” while in Antarctica it was just a “record high for the satellite era” or “last three decades”.
If it should not be considered as biased, the time frame for the data used should be mentioned for both ice sheets.
Anthony, you are an absolute meteorological superstar.
Your stance is dismissing so-called AGW as a hoax is about to be fully vindicated.
Tragically, as you appear to be a fundamentally very decent human being, you probably would not wish what is coming on your worst enemy.
The coming Northern Hemisphere winter will be brutal.
There is no human-induced warming in the offing.
The climate is certainly changing.
It is getting colder, much colder and the freezing behaviour of the Antarctic and Arctic sea ice are giving us valuable clues.
Unfortunately, for the alarmist Mr Rintoul of Australia’s CSIRO, and the changes observed by him in the depletion of the Antarctic Bottom Water, (Rintoul has found the layers of missing Antarctic Bottom Water but he has clearly failed to assist one Tremberth locate the famous missing heat) he somehow has managed to conflate the cause and effect of the recent warming trend.
The mighty Antarctic Circumpolar Current that is primarily driven by the rotation of the Earth and thermohaline effects of the freezing of Antartic seawater will no doubt soon enough educate Mr Rintoul.
In the meanwhile, a decent start is to monitor the deflection of the Gulfstream brought about by the increasing power of the Labrador current and its effects on temperatures in Northern Europe this coming winter.
The next attraction for lovers of truth and honesty in climate science and meteorology is to watch as for the global warming hoaxers and their apologists squirm as they try to explain away the re-apperance of icebergs in the North Atlantic sealanes.
Thanks sincerely for your tireless work in exposing the greatest scientific lie since the Piltdown Man.
Robert
“This year’s winter Antarctic sea ice maximum extent, reached two weeks after the Arctic Ocean’s ice cap experienced an all-time summertime low, was a record high for the satellite era of 7.49 million square miles, about 193,000 square miles more than its average maximum extent for the last three decades”.
So the Arctic was a record all time low but the Antarctic was only a record high for the satellite era.
Bias anyone.
Having watched GISS fiddle the data for the past five years or so I have doubts about the accuracy of this report. Maybe she’s right but NASA has a warming agenda and so I wonder. Pity because we now have the dilemna of who can the layman believe?
Changes in ice area at both poles:
http://i47.tinypic.com/72zrio.png
Changes in length of melting season at both poles
http://i50.tinypic.com/2mdgitw.png
Despite the very different geographies they seem to act with complementary variations. That is a *global* effect not local geography.
That also suggests that whatever is driving these complementary changes is of extraterrestrial origin.
We’ve just seen 30y or one trend since we’ve been looking. Since 2005 we’re moving in the other direction. Once we understand that, we can see what room is left for a “global warming” signal.
Climate does not change uniformly: The Earth is very large and the expectation definitely would be that there would be different changes in different regions of the world, That’s true even if overall the system is static or going through natural cycles, which is why the melting in the Arctic isn’t really proof of global warming.
Quick question: I would swear I’ve heard for decades, that ‘man-made’ global warming would lead to warming at both poles, twice as fast as the rest of the globe, simultaneously. Even algor claims this. Can anyone lay that to rest, or confirm it?
Oh, just in case anyone get’s in a panic after seeing Arctic ice plummeting off the graph there, best to take a look at rate of change if you want to know how things are changing
http://i49.tinypic.com/xudsy.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/r7uets.png
In short, Arctic big slide ended in 2007.
WARMISTA WARNING: these graphs were produced by cherry-picking ALL the available data so may be misleading.
Oh, really?
It’s interesting to note that the one place where Antarctic ice has reduced from the average is off the Antarctic Peninsula. This suggests to me that there is a real increase in temperature there and it isn’t just down to UHI around bases.
So what might be responsible for that? Undersea volcanoes? A change in Foehn winds coming over the mid peninsula ridge?
The important facts are; record sea ice winter increases in both Arctic and Antarctic, record summer decrease in Arctic sea ice., no difference in summer Antarctic melt.
Decreased clouds, combined with black carbon embedded in Arctic sea ice, absent in Antarctic sea ice, causes all these effects. As well as other observations like retreating south facing glaciers, while north facing glaciers are advancing.
first question:
Why are they comparing an average minimum (for the whole year) with a September median?
Comparing apples & oranges immediately raises suspicions about intent…
Maybe the aim was to get people to look more carefully?
Could be a way to save money during a time of budget cuts – i.e. get volunteers to do the thinking for them…?
Note that they are also using different date ranges:
“[…] yellow outline, which in the Arctic image represents average sea ice minimum extent from 1979 through 2010 and in the Antarctic image shows the median sea ice extent in September from 1979 to 2000.”
WUWT ?
I’m no scientist, but Harry Potter started with a Nimbus 2000, so NASA are way out of date.
“Climate does not change uniformly: The Earth is very large and the expectation definitely would be that there would be different changes in different regions of the world,” Parkinson said. “That’s true even if overall the system is warming.”
Is this not a valid argument against the use of global temperature anomalies in the climate models and elsewhere. We know that some 30% of stations show long term cooling and that the PDO, NAO etc. have differing cycles that affect climate differently across NH continents. Climate behaves zonally and should be examined as such in climate models.
There’ll be glaciers in Texas, Kenya and northern Australia and GISS will still be showing evidence for global warming.
Vostok is the Russian word for ‘east’ and in Jan 2012 the Russians drilled thru 2 miles of ice, with a surface temperature average of -60F into the liquid Lake Vostok. No atmospheric forces can be the cause of this condition. The heat for this 32F liquid water can only come from below, from a variable rate, fission heater in the mantle.
Consider the Inert Gas, Radon with a half-life of 3.8 days. This element cannot form any compounds and a pound of Radon becomes 1/8 ounce in just 21 days. FOR THERE TO BE ANY RADON ON THIS PLANET, IT MUST BE IN CONTINIOUS PRODUCTION. That production can only be as an ‘elemental atom’ by-product of nuclear decay. Earth’s fission decay is continious, but NOT constant, and is related to climate change as well as to seismic activity. One key marker to Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions is a spike in Radon concentrations in ground water monitoring stations.
There are over 2 million cubic miles of fissionalbe Uranium and Thorium in the mantle, which is subject to variable solar and cosmic particle bombardments, and is partially protected by a variable magnetosphere. Why do otherwise educated Earthlings DEMAND that this fission energy level is the ONLY CONSTANT IN THE UNIVERSE ?
Are they or is this report, mixing apples & oranges with areas & rates of loss/gain, in an effort to misdirect through smoke & mirrors? The upshot still seems to be that total sea-ice area has increased in the same time frame! Either way there is little effort to explain the rate of loss in the Arctic, other than to imply AGW. No mention of the super storm in 2007 & 2012 that broke up the ice when it was conveniently measured.
Why is NASA concerning itself with bolstering the warming paradigm instead of providing meaningful information or (God forbid) space exploration?
Why are they so quick to explain Antarctic ice gain with weather but never mention the weather contributions to arctic ice loss?
Nice big iceberg on view here http://www.andreassen.gl/andreassen/webcam.htm
Tasiilaq is on the southeast coast of Greenland.
Faux: The heat for this 32F liquid water can only come from below
Don’t assume that water melts at 32F with several km of ice pressing on it. Check the pressure, then find out M.P. of water at that pressure.
“The extent can be greater, but if the sea ice gets thinner, the volume could stay the same.”
A year or so ago it was reported that Antarctic was loosing billions of cubic km each year +0/-100%
Now it’s gaining a little bit +0/-100% .
Quite a turn around now they’ve “refined their models” from the outlandish guesses used before. Next paper will refine a bit more and in ten years we may get near to the truth.
They will never admit they were wrong.
@ur momisugly tallbloke:
October 24, 2012 at 3:29 am
“This suggests to me that there is a real increase in temperature there and it isn’t just down to UHI around bases.”
Antarctic Peninsula weather:
http://www.meteoexploration.com/mountain/Antarctica.html
mouse over:
red symbols – near real time conditions
blue triangles – 6 day forcast
Near real time temps:
Limbert Antarctica – Temperature [C]: -28.1
Sky Blue Antarctica – Temperature [C]: -25.6
Butler Island Antarctica – Temperature [C]: -18.8
Dismal Island Antarctica – Temperature [C]: -6.0
If there’s any ‘warming’…..I bet they’re glad for it.