By WUWT Regular Just The Facts
Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area reached a minimum of 2.447 Million Sq km on February 23rd, 2014, which exceeded the prior 2nd highest minimum of 2.423 Million Sq km that occurred on February 22nd, 2013. The highest recorded Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area minimum remains 2.473 Million Sq km, which occurred on March 1st, 2003. The data from Cryosphere Today can be found here. Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area has now been above average for over 2 years:
The last negative anomaly recorded was on November 23rd, 2011, data here and graph below:
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent reached its 3rd 4th highest minimum of 3.515 Million Sq km on February 20th, 2014, which is less than the 3.626 Million Sq km minimum that occurred on February 17th, 2003, the 3.650 Million Sq km minimum which occurred on February 19th, 2013 and the record high minimum of 3.692 Million Sq km, which occurred on February 20th, 2008.* Corrected Also, Antarctic Sea Ice Extent dipped below 2 standard deviations of the 1981 – 2010 average for the first time since September, 2013, Data can be found here and graph below:
Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) has been quite close to average for the last few years;
thus the increase in Southern Sea Ice and Extent is likely primarily driven by wind, atmospheric oscillations and ocean currents, similar to the causes of the recent decline in Northern Sea Ice. In January 2014, Arctic Sea Ice Extent dipped below 2 standard deviations of the 1981 – 2010 average for the first time in over a year;
likely due to the displaced Polar Vortex, which allowed several cold air outbreaks to escape the Arctic region. As result, Great Lakes Ice is within striking distance of a record high;
and a large number of record low temperatures have occurred over the last few days:
Weather aside, Global Sea Ice Area has remained stubbornly average over the year;
and Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly is currently .361 Million Sq km below the 1981 – 2010 average:
I am sure that we can expect to see similar coverage about the 2nd highest Northern Sea Ice Area minimum, like we saw for the Arctic in 2011, e.g.:
“Last month the extent of sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean declined to the second-lowest extent on record. Satellite data from NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder showed that the summertime sea ice cover narrowly avoided a new record low.” NASA
“Sea-ice coverage across the Arctic Ocean has dwindled to its second-lowest level since satellite records started in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.” Reuters
“Sea ice cover in the Arctic in 2011 has passed its annual minimum, reaching the second-lowest level since satellite records began, US scientists say.” BBC
Right?
Does this mean that Australia, South Africa and New Zealand will get a colder winter in 2014 than they got in 2013?
@Janice Moore
You may be onto something there. :=) Will await JTF ruling.
the measurement process has been applied consistently throughout the record..
JTF…are you sure about that?
I remember NSIDC doing at least two changes and one fairly recent…….
What has gone largely unreported even in the skeptical blogs is that major shipping companies are very worried that the passage around Cape Horn will be blocked. Modern giant container ships cannot get through even the expanded Panama Canal. Such a blockage would disrupt world wide shipping severely.
Please! Keep your sea ice extents (covered by at least 15% sea ice) and sea ice areas (areas completely covered) separate.
With that definition of course, sea ice extents will always be greater than sea ice area. Also, it is a bit frustrating because our WUWT sea ice web page lists both AREA and EXTENTS near the top for the Arctic (both as yearly plots, multi-year records, and 4 month plots fromother agencies such as JAXA and the DMI) but does NOT have the same sea ice extents yearly and long-term plots for the Antarctic sea ice. Antarctic sea ice DOES have AREA plots near the bottom of the page. (The WUWT Sea Ice Page does have yearly plots and two-year plots for Antarctic sea ice areas, just to confuse things even further.)
Well, the last glaciation froze half the northern hemisphere. The upcoming one looks to return the favor to the southern half of the planet.
@justthefactswuwt says:
March 1, 2014 at 5:19 pm
Thank you for your cogent, if dificult – for me, anyway- explanation.
I freely admit that old age has not improved my reading skills – or typnig ethere.
In truth, we don’t know.
The “excess” sea ice extents around Antarctica DO significantly affect the southern region’s climate, if the commonly accepted climate theory of solar energy absorbed and solar energy reflected is true.
The Antarctic continental ice (14.0 Mkm^2) + Antarctic permanent ice shelves (3.5 Mkm^2) + the variable Antarctic sea ice itself (3.5 Mkm^2 to 19.5 Mkm^2) all combine to cover an area larger than the entire southern hemisphere continental land area combined!
This Antarctic total ice cap covers the region from the south pole “up” latitude 59.2 south in September – a latitude closer to the equator than even Greenland southern tip. But, on the common Mercator maps, it is not even plotted! But, it reflects much more energy on a square-meter-by-square meter basis, than the Arctic sea ice “beanie” – which is limited to the little area between the north pole and latitude 72 north at most southern points near the Alaskan and Siberian coasts. So, the impact of the Antarctic sea ice is much greater than that of the arctic sea ice on any given comparable date across the solar year.
Worse, the Antarctic sea ice minimum is exposed to significantly MORE solar radiation at the peak of the yearly solar cycle in January-February than the arctic sea ice minimum in August September, when the solar energy production is lower. (Solar minimum is 5 July each year, when the Arctic ice is exposed. But Antarctic sea ice – even at its minimum extents, is much more exposed in January.)
@ur momisugly F. Ross — I was TOTALLY wrong. LOL. (thanks for the friendly wave of the hand, though) JTF gets an “A” for facts, but a C for writing style, I’m afraid. And I get a C for reading — I just get so BORED with the content that I skim (oops!). Every word is potentially significant. Sigh.
Highlighting and underlining (etc…) would sure help the communication though. WUWT needs a writing style editor… .
Oh, and F. Ross — I can tell you (re: reading carefully) from personal experience that it is NOT old age.
So what Climate doom do we face? Fire or ice?
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
(Robert Frost)
@ur momisugly JTF — Please forgive my saying that your posts are boring. (Likely, you could not care less what I think, but, I still owe you an apology). They are NOT boring to those with the intellectual proclivity for such subject matter or to those for whom the content is intriguing — and that is a LOT of people.
Your non-technical fan,
Janice
Global sea ice are negates the lives of Eric Holden and Barak Obama and the Obama Regime, which Vladimir Putin has recently given “the bird.”
Now, now Janice.
They would only be boring if we were not concerned about looking into the whole thing. But, if you drill deep enough … 8<)
[The mods will refrain from further commenting on the personal crystalline ice particles worn by or exhibited on the persons or personnel responding to a sea ice discussion. Mod]
These posts are what WUWT is all about, real people, not pretentious people, discussing real issues, without pretension. This is why the warmist websites are doomed. Well done Mods for not snipping it and love the tiny hint of sarcasm!
Latitude says: March 1, 2014 at 5:29 pm
the measurement process has been applied consistently throughout the record..
JTF…are you sure about that?
I remember NSIDC doing at least two changes and one fairly recent…….
They did go from;
“Bootstrap Sea Ice Concentrations Version 1 Processing Steps”
http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0079_bootstrap_seaice/processing_steps_V1.html
to “Bootstrap Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS, Version 2”
http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0079
in 2000 and then is was updated ion 2012, i.e.:
“Comiso, J. C. 2000, updated 2012. Bootstrap Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS. Version 2. [indicate subset used]. Boulder, Colorado USA: NASA DAAC at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.”
http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0079
The reference paper for Bootstrap Version 2 is this:
http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0079_bootstrap_seaice/docs/Bootstrap_Algorithm_Revised07.pdf
Here is a detailed description of the Bootstrap Algorithm:
https://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/bootstrap/
In terms of the impact of the Bootstrap Algorithm on Sea Ice Area, the NSIDC Total Ice-Covered Area and Extent Data Page;
https://nsidc.org/data/smmr_ssmi_ancillary/area_extent.html
indicates that:
“Daily and monthly total ice-covered area data and total sea ice extent spanning the SMMR and SSM/I-SSMIS record from October 1978 through the most recent processing date are provided by Joey Comiso of the NASA GSFC Oceans and Ice Branch, and are produced from the Bootstrap Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS data set.”
“The Version 2 Summary” states that:
“Changes to this version include:
– Adjusted tie-points to be consistent with the AMSR-E Bootstrap algorithm
– Reprocessed entire SMMR-SSM/I time series”
http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0079
Based upon this I would amend my statement that “the measurement process has been applied consistently throughout the record” to “the data processing methodology has been applied consistently across the record”.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Janice Moore says: March 1, 2014 at 5:52 pm
Janice Moore says: March 1, 2014 at 6:06 pm
“JTF gets an “A” for facts, but a C for writing style, I’m afraid. And I get a C for reading — I just get so BORED with the content that I skim (oops!). Every word is potentially significant. Sigh.
Highlighting and underlining (etc…) would sure help the communication though. WUWT needs a writing style editor… .”
I have been considering how to make some of my articles and the WUWT Reference Pages more accessible to less technical readers, and possibly even customizing a few for children. However, I sometimes struggle to synthesize complex subject matter down to bit size nuggets without expressing some form of opinion. I will put more thought into using highlighting and underlining to help call out important points.
Please forgive my saying that your posts are boring. (Likely, you could not care less what I think, but, I still owe you an apology). They are NOT boring to those with the intellectual proclivity for such subject matter or to those for whom the content is intriguing — and that is a LOT of people.
No worries, I take constructive criticism well. Also, my goal here is to make the facts readily accessible to whoever would like to see them. Thus I will work to engage with broader audiences.
Thank you for you input! JTF
Pamela Gray says: March 1, 2014 at 3:37 pm
I suggest this because I have noted a fairly regular cadence to the peaks in the above extent graph that appear to match the circumpolar wave. I wonder if there is a fit somewhere.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00376-011-1143-z#page-1
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/ant_wave.html
According to NASA:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SeaIce/page4.php
Similar to the Arctic, the Antarctic experiences atmospheric oscillations and recurring weather patterns that influence sea ice extent. The primary variation in atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic is the Antarctic Oscillation, also called the Southern Annular Mode. Like the Arctic Oscillation, the Antarctic Oscillation involves a large-scale seesawing of atmospheric mass between the pole and the mid-latitudes. This oscillation can intensify, weaken, or shift the location of semi-permanent low- and high-pressure weather systems. These changes influence wind speeds, temperature, and the track that storms follow, any of which may influence sea ice extent.
For example, during positive phases of the Antarctic Oscillation, the prevailing westerly winds that circle Antarctica strengthen and move southward. The change in winds can change the way ice is distributed among the various sectors. In addition, the strengthening of the westerlies isolates much of the continent and tends to have an overall cooling effect, but it causes dramatic warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, as warmer air from over the oceans to the north is drawn southward. The winds may drive the ice away from the coast in some areas and toward the coast in others. Thus, the same climate influence may lessen sea ice in some sectors and increase it in others.
Changes in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation Index (ENSO), an oscillation of ocean temperatures and surface air pressure in the tropical Pacific, can lead to a delayed response (three to four seasons later) in Antarctic sea ice extent. In general, El Niño leads to more ice in the Weddell Sea and less ice on the other side of the Antarctic Peninsula, while La Niña causes the opposite conditions.
Another atmospheric pattern of natural variability that appears to influence Antarctic sea ice is the periodic strengthening and weakening of something that meteorologists call “zonal wave three,” or ZW3. This pattern alternately strengthens winds that blow cold air away from Antarctica (toward the equator) and winds that bring warmer air from lower latitudes toward Antarctica. When southerly winds intensify, more cold air is pushed to lower latitudes, and sea ice tends to increase. The effect is most apparent in the Ross and Weddell Seas and near the Amery Ice Shelf.
As in the Arctic, the interaction of natural cycles is complex, and researchers continue to study how these forces work together to control the Antarctic sea ice extent.”
According to this paper;
http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/users/axel/Site/pubs/anta2.pdf
“A simplified view of the possible mechanisms behind the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave (ACW) interannual variability is provided by a frequency-domain decomposition of several observed atmospheric and oceanic variables. Two significant interannual signals with different temporal and spatial characteristics are identified inthe Southern Ocean, and most of the variance of the ACW in the interannual band can be accounted for by a linear combination of them. The first signal has a period of oscillation of around 3.3 yr and a zonal wavenumber-3 structure across the Southern Ocean. It involves self-sustained fluctuations inherent in the Southern Ocean and driven by coupled air–sea interactions in which the atmosphere and the ocean mutually force one another. This signal is represented by an atmospheric standing oscillation with centers at fixed locations around Antarctica and a propagating oceanic pattern, in which the surface Antarctic Circumpolar Current plays an essential role. The second signal has a periodicity of around 5 yr and a zonal wavenumber-2 structure across the Southern Ocean. It seems to be remotely forced by the tropical ENSO phenomenon and has a signature mainly in the eastern Pacific sector. This signal likely represents the southern high-latitude manifestation of a larger-scale (hemispheric or global) pattern. The constructive or destructive interference of these two superimposed signals with different periodicities and spatial characteristics gives rise to the observed irregular fluctuations of the ACW on the interannual timescale.”
“In the recent years, several analyses of observed and modelled atmospheric and oceanic variables in the Southern Ocean have revealed the existence of concurrent anomalies that appear to propagate eastward around the Southern Hemisphere on interannual timescales: the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave (ACW). White and Peterson (1996) were the first to report that anomalies in Antarctic sea ice extent propagate eastward in a wave train, coupled to anomalies in sea surface temperature (SST), sea level pressure (SLP), and wind, with a periodicity of around 4–5 yr and a propagation speed of ~8 cm S -1. The eastward propagation of the ACW was also characterized by Jacobs and Mitchell (1996), who observed coherent variations in sea surface height, sea surface temperature, and atmosphere with a dominant period of around 4 years and a wavelength of ~180 degrees.”
As such, yes Antarctic Circumpolar Wave (ACW), in conjunction with theAntarctic Oscillation, ENSO, planetary wave numbers 2 and 3, Eddy Heat, Polar Vorticity and several other factors, likely are responsible for the recent growth in Antarctic Sea Ice Area and Extent.
Perhaps someone should send a link for WUWT to Apple CEO Tim Cook. He seems to have a poor understanding of climate science.
Tim Cook to Climate Change Deniers: Get Out of Apple Stock
“”We object to increased government control over company products and operations, and likewise mandatory environmental standards,” wrote National Center for Public Policy Research general counsel Justin Danhof in a statement before the meeting. “This is something [Apple] should be actively fighting, not preparing surrender.”
Cook’s response was blistering. First of all, he insisted, environmental efforts also make economic sense. Even so, “we do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive,” the CEO said. “We want to leave the world better than we found it.”
Anyone who had a problem with that? They should sell their Apple shares. “Get out of the stock,” Cook suggested.”
http://mashable.com/2014/02/28/apple-ceo-tim-cook-climate-change/#:eyJzIjoidCIsImkiOiJfcjU4dDJ4bXA3emdwbHpjaSJ9
Done. I sold all Apple stock and I’m going one better. I won’t be buying any Apple products till their attitude changes.
The Antarctic sea ice was knocked down in the second week of February by a shift in the jet stream. The jet stream broke up in sections and then moved away towards the north. It has since closed back closer to the continent. That would be my conjecture from observing the daily jet stream movement and sea ice changes during that time period. I though that it was going to keep tracking high and maybe set a new record, but then the shift in the jet stream occurred.
Up north the sst anomalies show a cold stream has broken the northward flowing warm stream in the area of Nova Scotia. Is this going to lead to cooler waters moving into the Arctic in the next 3 to 4 months? A cooler water flow had also pierced the warm flow at the beginning of January, but this time the break is considerably larger and extends across to Europe. This could get interesting.
From the NASA-GISS article just above:
Bluntly. No.
Those papers cited were published in 1996 (and earlier), and their data and analysis was even earlier.
Since May 2011, EVERY Antarctic sea ice “season” (Sept-Oct peak, Nov-Dec-Jan melting, Feb-March-April minimum, and May-June-July-August freeze) has been steadily increasing. Been steadily “positive” sea ice anomaly increases. Looking back even earlier, the Antarctic sea ice extents have been generally positive – though not as strongly increasing as since May 2011 – since about 2002.
Regardless of El Nino, La Nina, or La Nada’s.
No 3 year lag as claimed just above. Just a long steady increase.
No “winds” blowing the sea ice “away” from the continent.
No “glacier melt water” diluting the sea water and causing an easier or faster freeze.
(Any one want to do the arithmetic on how much glacier water needs to melt and run off into the south Atlantic and dilute the ocean deep enough and low enough salinity to freeze 19.5 million sq kilometers of sea water into a 1 -2 meter ice pack? How much fresh water runoff is going to be required to allow freezing that sea water 600 and 1200 kilometers from the continental edge? Where did the water come from? The mass balance of the Antarctic doesn’t show such steady losses every season of the year every year since 2011. )
NASA is pulling a Holdren on this. They cannot accept mentally the blunt error of their religion and the recent facts of Antarctic sea extents growth.
Thank you, JTF, for your gracious response to my rude remark. Sigh. Actually, I LIKE children’s books. Sounds like that would be about my speed. JTF — just do your thing. It is OUR (those of us who are non-science majors) job to work a bit harder at mining the gold you present. And it is not difficult, really, i.e., the gold is right there on the surface. Just takes some mental discipline. Thanks for being willing to put in more headings/highlighting key words, etc… . Remember, as I have often been reminded, “THIS IS A SCIENCE SITE.” You are doing just fine.
Thanks for the reminder, R. A.. I need to take the time to read JTF’s conscientiously copious compendiums with the care they deserve and always keeping the ultimate goal: truth to combat the l1es of AGW, in mind.
#(:))
RACookPE1978 says:
March 1, 2014 at 4:56 pm
The CAGW deists ignored it. Totally. Absolutely ZERO coverage in the world’s press. And, to be honest, very little coverage in even the “friendly” web environment also. Some notice, but no press releases nor TV appearances, right?
———————————————————-
I managed to get in a hundred or so comments about the southern situation at multiple media sites here and in the UK during that time.
@ur momisugly R. A. Cook (re: 9:39pm) — What a fine, resounding, game-set-match, refutation. “NASA,” as has been said before, is “Not About Science Anymore.”
Re: 9:42pm — GO, GOLDMINOR! Way to get the truth out there.