The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, which, as I reported in my book, has been steadily increasing throughout the period of satellite measurement that began in 1979, has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage.
The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning.
The previous record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area was 1.840 million square kilometers and occurred on December 20, 2007.
Global sea ice area, as of Sunday morning, stood at 1.005 million square kilometers above average.
More here: http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice/
And also at the WUWT Sea ice page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Someone needs to put together some better “statistical adjustments” to fix this anomaly soon; growing ice sheets and record cold winters are confusing the public.
Forgive me – there’s a lot of passion in this thread with a lot of people making bold statements that are contradictory to some science which either suggests that global warming – however created – exists, or that global warming exists and it’s because of man. I’m waste and recycling consultant and have no scientific knowledge of the problem and am often left to gain information from either left or right leaning news sites and thus am fairly confused as to what is truly happening. I also graduated in the same class with a woman who would be a part of the warming crowd of sciences and a respected scientist in her field. Half my friends are warmers and the other half or not. I’ve witnessed endless debates between them for years. I read numerous threads like this one, in full admiration of all of you who know more than I do and seem to have a grasp on what they think is going on.
So forgive me this one question – does it seem logical that as industry release millions of chemicals into the air to keep up with the demands of a growing human population that left unchecked, it would be foolish to think this could in any way impact the weather or our lives on any tangible level? I recognize the numerous flaws of many warming arguments but it does beg this question, doesn’t it? It would seem that any argument against (at a high, layman level, forgive me again) the idea that mankind can negatively impact the environment is more or less implying that business as usual is not a long term, potential problem for future generations.
Consider this my ignorant entry into the discussion. I have no position because I lack any such conviction given a lack of education and a sense of overwhelmed complacency that the sun will most likely rise tomorrow and I’ll have my yard to cut.
My goal is not to antagonize but more to understand some basic common sense. If I burn a wood fire in my living room, perhaps it first the impact is negligible, but eventually, the whole house will be filled with carbon dioxide and I will die. Isn’t this feasible on much larger world scale should we continue to run industry without improvements and reductions in emissions?
Thoughts? Go easy – I claim zero authority on this subject but find it fascinating just the same.
Alan Robertson
Arctic temperatures have only been below average in the late spring and summer, as we reach the maximum temperature for the year. Around the winter, temperatures have been consistently above long term average for several years although of course they are tens of degrees below zero at that time.
So, if you want to restore summer ice minimum levels, cold summers help. If you want to restore winter maximum levels cold winters are needed in the arctic.
ren says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:22 am
If the Gulf Stream will continue to
——————-
Very interesting, worth keeping a watch!
Oops- all apologies, posted to Tony without comment, (by accident.)
—————
Tony, your best course of action might be to take any pronouncements about man- made climate change with a grain of salt and do a bit of research and find out the truth for yourself. WUWT is a wonderful resource to help you understand the issues. In regard to the examples you cited,
a) glacier melt: glaciers have generally been melting since the end of the last ice age. A recent study of Himalayan glacier showed some diminishing, some increasing and over 80% of them showing no change at all. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/10/melting-by-2035-hardly-new-study-shows-most-himalayan-glaciers-are-stable-and-in-a-steady-state/
In addition, there is at least one famous set of glacier- comparison photos which was published as proof, but they were altered, because the modern photo showed ice increase vs. the old- time photo, do the time stamps/labeling were reversed, to show how man is causing problems, i.e. pure propaganda. There are many instances of data manipulation to make the cause of climate change relevant.
b) Polar bears- Polar bear populations stand at records above 25,000 animals, aided by restrictions on hunting the beasts. They are in no danger of extinction, although you might be, if you venture into their territory unawares. Polar bears are omnivorous, despite the alarmist efforts to claim their diet is exclusively seals and thus dependent upon ice extent. Electronically- collared Polar bears have been tracked while swimming for hundreds of kilometers at a stretch. At minimum extent each September, Arctic ice has been averaging just under 5 Million Km2 each year since the 80’s, an area somewhat greater than 1/2 the size of the Continental 48 US states.
I’m just some guy, with no claim to any sort of climate expertise, but the same advice applies to any “expert” testimony as well… don’t believe it unless you can verify it for yourself.
Much of what you hear in the debate will be logically very weak, besides being downright false, so here’s another link which might help you become proficient in separating the wheat from the chaff:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html
Tony says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:10 am
So when you are a rookie in all things scientific like myself…how do you interpolate the data when they show photos of melting glaciers compared to years ago and when they show the same photo…and the polar bear area (ice) diminishing. They look convincing for most folks like me…
——– ———-
We need to look at historic context. Photos of glaciers represent a wink of an eye in historic terms. I would recommend you read something like ‘Times of feast, times of famine’ by Ladurie which goes into glacial movements in detail.
I have interpreted the thousands of glacier observations in this graphic that represent the last 3000 years and put into it the Hockey stick graphic
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image010.jpg
Closed blue line at the top represents glacial retreat, closed blue line at the bottom is glacial advance.
The LIA was the coldest period in the 10000 year rise from the Holocene. It is that snow and ice which is currently melting. Judging by other periods it has a long way to go. For example it is said that during the Roan period many glaciers had all but disappeared which is why Hannibal was able to cross the Alps.
tonyb
This is yet another example of the “settled science” getting their doom and gloom predictions WRONG!
According to virtually all climate model predictions, Antarctic Sea Ice should be shrinking, yet it has a 35-yr increasing trend and set a new 35-yr record large anomaly today.
CAGW predicts catastrophic increasing trends in severe weather, yet trends have been flat for 50~100 years.
CAGW predicts catastrophic Sea Level Rise, yet SLR stuck at just 7″/Century.
CAGW predicts catastrophic ocean pH neutralization, yet ocean pH has only dropped by 0.05~0.1 since 1750.
CAGW predicts catastrophic desertification, yet the Earth has greened 16% since 1980.
CAGW predicts catastrophic global warming, yet global temp trends have been flat for 16~18 years.
I can’t believe Obama has the gall to call CAGW skeptics “deniers” and “flat-Earthers”, given the complete collapse of virtually all of CAGW model/hypothetical predictions.
The way empirical evidence is becoming more and more unsupportive of the CAGW hypothesis, the more it seems likely CAGW could be disconfirmed in around 5 years..
Tony
Sorry, I meant the Roman period of course. Although the glaciers also melted a lot during the Roan period as well…..
tonyb
Green Sand http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/02/25/0000Z/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/equirectangular=-122.55,0,160
There are no polar bears in Antartica. They only exist in the Artic.
Stink Flower,
Interesting screen name. Is that how you view yourself?
You wrote:
And what might that be that you represent? Nothing more than the interests of the oil and dirty energy industries. Make no mistake about it. Your days are numbered. The people are not that stupid. Perhaps you all should report back to your superiors and suggest that the money spent on this farce might better be spent on R&D towards sustainable energy. But then you might need to find a real job wouldn’t you? And I’m guessing you have no real talents to offer this world other than to be paid shills. It’s pathetic really. pathetic.
You have no clue, do you? This site has won the internet’s Best Science &Technology category for the past three years. Climatologists, physicist and others with degrees in the hard sciences regularly comment and write articles here. WUWT has a milliom reader comments, in only about 7 years, and almost 200,000,000 unique page views. So it seems that the ‘consensus’ is right here. And no one pays for commenting here. I comment more than most, and I have yet to see a nickel.
You are in the minority, Stink Flower. And it is your numbers that are falling off faster than the temperature. That is clear from the tone of your comment. You know you are losing the battle. That amuses me, and provides much schadenfreude. Thank you for that. And give us more! We like your squealing.
RAH: The Greenland Vikings got their timber from Labrador, which they called “Markland”.
science under attack is a great documentary……..
[Reply: this BBC propaganda video is terrible quality. Is there another link? ~mod.]
So, you repeat the canard that “science can be bought” – but only if it is “science” that YOU disagree with? How much “science” can I buy for 200 billion in government-paid research money and labs? How much government-paid/government-controlled “science” can I buy for 1.3 trillion in annual carbon control taxes? How much “science money” will buy your publicity – since you apparently have no morals and no soul?
Please give us some evidence of your vaunted “catastrophic man-caused global warming” …
See, temperatures have only increased 21 of the past 64 years, yet CO2 has been increasing the entire time. Antarctic sea ice has set an all-time record high. Arctic sea ice reductions are cooling the planet, not warming as your theory claims. Summer Arctic daily temperatures at 80 north are NOT increasing at all, and, the past 50 years, are decreasing. (Arctic air temperatures far lower latitudes – right above the ever-greening ever darker and more bountiful tundra and forests are higher though.)
Your policies are killing millions of innocents each year now. Condemning billions more to lives wasted in squalor, poverty, dirt and misery of no lights, no water, no food, no clean energy. YOU demand they get nothing but years more of the same. “I” wanted to enjoy an energy-cheaper more fruitful life. You? More death. How many more hundreds of millions of innocents do YOU demand die every year between now and 2100, on 10% chance that global temperature average “might” be 3 degrees higher than they are now?
Don’cha know that the only way to combat Global Warming (or/any or all of the crises of the moment) is to Raise Taxes, Especially Those Of Americans….
Green Sand, sorry to be the current temperature anomalies.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/02/25/0000Z/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/equirectangular=-23.49,-1.42,280
Stink Flower says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:10 am
its always amusing to read the rambling of an anonymous sock puppetty troll.
thanks
Keep in mind that sea ice reaching from Antarctica to the southern most point of South America will be ice that is at the surface of the ocean. To block ocean currents the ice would need to exist all the way to the ocean floor. Anyone who has lived in northern states knows that water flows very well under ice.
So it melts and freezes at the same time? Warm enough to melt “rapidly” on the continent, but then freezes (at record levels, apparently) when it hits…what? The edge of the continent?
Good one. 😉
=============================
Great video. Thx.
I think I drank too much coffee. Sorry.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/equirectangular=-122.55,0.00,243
Scott
You ask an interesting question. That there is likely to be a noticeable, much Less catastrophic, effect from mans co2 seems doubtful and bearing in mind the enormous benefits we have derived from fossil fuels since the industrial revolution probably some impact from its use would be deemed acceptable.
As for the chemicals from industries, our waste and general Pollution, you are right that we need to be cautious and will have to mend our ways and become more environmentally aware as the population heads towards 9 billion.
But here you have the rub, if it is obvious that man is increasingly having a detrimental impact on his environment, then logically it would be desirable to try to limit the rise in the global population
Here you run into the malthusian question which greatly exercises some commentators on this blog. That greater prosperity for undeveloped countries tends to bring smaller families seems a win win situation until it is realised that the most likely scenario for that to happen is through the availability of cheap fossil fuels.
Tonyb
anon,
Do you know that Paul Nurse is an über-warmist? Politics has infested the formerly great RS, like it has other professional societies. All it takes are one or two activists, and politics pollutes science. Prof Richard Lindzen has a great explanation. See especially Section 2.
Paul Nurse is a political activist. He has always pushed the “global warming” scare. It is very self-serving, and it corrupts science.
When will the Global Warming crowd quit lying?
I saw a bow groove in Monterey Bay caused by the ship’s bow that docked there in mid 1700’s. Don’t recall particulars but in 1999 they measured that bow groove and determined if the ship docked there today (1999) it would prove that the ocean levels are exactly (within mere inches) of what it was over 200 years ago.
Phooey to global warming and cars, industry and such causing the seas to rise.
I lived near a couple of historical sites that proved the same thing. One was in Turkey and that site was built early 100 BC.
The other site was even older and is the site that Moses crossed the Red Sea. The sand bar the people crossed over from (and to) have not seen erosion since at least 400 BC.
The real reason behind the expanding ice cover in the Southern Hemisphere has little to do with global warming or cooling. Actually there are billions and billions of tons of plankton in the Antarctic which are devoured by millions and millions of vicious little fish, ferociously thrashing about through the freezing water which spreads the cold water around to warmer areas, making surrounding areas even colder. Along come the penguins alerted by the splashing fish. In hopes of a quick meal, the birds jump into the Antarctic waters accelerating the splashing and the dispersion of the freezing waters. The penguins quickly digest the fish and eliminate the waste which feeds the plankton which feeds then feeds the fish which again feeds the penguins. The freezing splashing water keeps edging outwards, expanding the ice cap in a brutal Antarctic circle.
The only solution to putting a halt to the rapidly expanding ice cap is to export herds and herds of polar bears from the North to the South Pole. The polar bears will then feed on the penguins and reduce the population to acceptable levels. The fish will then feel free to come out into the open. At that point, the fish will feel even freer and plunge into a decadent breeding frenzy. They will soon over populate and in the process, eat all the plankton, which will eliminate their only food source. With no food, the poor fish will soon become extinct, but al least they will have a lot of fun getting there.. No plankton = no fish = no penguins = no cold splashing water = no expanding ice cap. Once the cap returns to normal levels, we can then catch all the polar bear herds and send them back up North with a pat on the back and a job well done! No kidding! The science is settled.