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/
And this should be a surprise to no one. If the overall ocean water level is NOT increasing but the arctic caps are melting then that means there has to be freezing/refreezing somewhere else. But try telling that little bit of logic/common sense to the frothing-at-the-mouth global warming crowd.
For the record, I don’t buy into the global warming thing. I believe it to be a scam around the idea of fear mongering for the benefit of globalist socialists looking for an excuse to run a dictatorship.
Having said that, I also admit to not being an expert in climate studies so in that light I have a few questions. Since I rely on common sense it makes sense that there has to be a balance. The combination of various forces that hold us in our elliptical path would have to be maintained in order to sustain our present global climate. The earth rotates on it’s axis as a spinning top. If enough of an imbalance is applied that path would be affected.
1) Since the Arctic is claimed to be losing ice mass and the Antarctic is claimed to be at record levels and growing, what keeps the balance?
2) Also, how much of an imbalance can be tolerated before a shift occurs?
3) Further, how much of a shift is tolerable?
4) Finally, would not such an imbalance also result in plate movement and volcanic activity happening as a natural balance maintaining affect due to gravity?
It’s winter in Antarctica now, so the sea ice always is more down under when it is summer in t :(e north America area
The “Little Ice Age” coincides with but was not caused by the Maunder minimum sunspot cycle. It was caused by volcanic activity.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2040.html
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/12/23/scientists-dismiss-solar-link-to-medieval-little-ice-age/
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:43 am
In response to RAH, the best source of accurate temperature data is the satellite record, provided that one averages the two datasets, UAH (which runs hot) and RSS (which runs cold). These two are less subject to tampering than the surface datasets, nearly all of which should be scrapped and replaced by a global version of the US Climate Reference Network of ideally-sited, properly-maintained stations……………..
However, RAH may like to know that the global sea-ice extent shows just about no trend at all in the entire satellite era, though there has been a little warming globally since then. I suspect that that warming has not been well reflected in the sea-ice extent because at the very much sub-zero temperatures that obtain at the Poles the odd half a degree of global warming is not going to make a lot of difference in the short term.
========================================================
Thank you sir for taking time to respond.
So the bottom line is that the sea ice extent does not appear to track well in a timely manner with the satellite temperature record over the rather short span of satellite data for each. And thus averaging the two satellite temperature data sets is a better measure of global temperature. Got it! I also believe that the satellite data from it’s inception up to this time is compiled, reported, and monitored by better scientists along the lines of a Roy Spencer than many of the terrestrial sources. And really that is what it all gets down to here. TRUST!
Thanks ren, no worries for the first post, it has helped. I now know how to check EWM previous dates!
RAH, the poles are not a very good indicator because of natural variation, fairly well documented for the Arctic. For example, there is good qualitative Danish and Russian documentation for steady diminution in summer Arctic ice from roughly 1923 to roughly 1943, analogous to the diminution from roughly 1985 to 2007. Arctic summer sea ice is now rebounding, as it did after 1943.
And, the poles have very different climate dynamics. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents, with a narrow shallow western opening to the Pacific (Bering Strait) and an eastern ‘terminus’ where the Gulf Stream peters out. The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by deep open ocean. Most Arctic ice is sea ice. Most Antarctic ice isn’t. And so on. One consequence (for example) is that the seasonal ozone hole is mostly at the South Pole.
If you are looking for simple physical indicators, consider Northern hemisphere snow coverage extent in March. Until the past two winters put the lie to AGW, it was supposed to reduce hemispheric winter snow coverage. That is available from NSIDC amongst other sources. Another to consider is Antarctic sea ice extent, the subject of this thread. Similar logic applied to different conditions in the other hemisphere.
IMO the best single ‘modern’ indicator is sat temp, either UAH or RSS (they are similar, and becoming more so).
Double mindedness, two courses of action in motion that oppose each other; sabotage and confusion reign. The world of what is.
It is not Double Think which is two opposing thoughts or positions, linear or circular;
not necessarily confusing or defeative.
A Double minded person is unstable. They declare opposites and pursue both paths at once.
A Double Think-ing person may be exploratory, deducting, weighing opposing views as possibilities. The world of what if.
And if dinosaurs, large carnivorous birds, the proverbial ‘cave men ‘, and man eating cats and bears became extinct or evolved why not the carnivorous polar bear? Some will die and some adapt, they evolve
Why should anyone insist polar bears should not die? Only a person with control issues.
Species have proven records of becoming extinct gradually or suddenly but the hand of man was never implicated.
As for back seat scientists writing their views on this site, the multitudes are rolling in laughter at the silly ‘ science ‘ of the vain and self righteous displayed for decades that there were just 9 planets, that seas didn’t flow into other seas and the waters which are one body circle the earth?
If there’s one thing level headed people know it’s this:
wait 10 years and the scientists will assuredly disprove themselves, arguing amongst themselves.
science is an art of making conclusions based on the limitations of magnification, the human brain, and a peculiar bent of some to prove their assumption rather then disprove theories.
Did Someone Say says:
June 29, 2014 at 8:05 am
Although named for Wisconsin, which was indeed partially glaciated, the most recent advance of the ice sheets in N. America reached its southernmost extent in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.
This extract from the Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources describes the three most recent episodes of glaciation in N. America:
[my bold]
http://dnr.state.il.us/education/biodiversity/glaciation.htm
End moraines with map from Illinois State Geological Survey:
http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/outreach/geology-resources/end-moraines-end-glacial-ride
Whoops.
Ren
That’s interesting about what’s happening to the Gulf stream.
Because am convinced that what is key to major cooling in the NH is what happens over the North Atlantic. lf a more zonal southern tracking jet stream becomes a stable weather pattern over the North Atlantic then l can see this leading to climate cooling in the NH.
Quiet……… how we going to keep the SCAM going? Still alot of $$ to be made.
Is there a distinction between land ice and sea ice we should be paying attention to? When ice melts on land at 32° F and the resulting water flows into seawater which freezes at 28°, does the salt-free water from snow-pack freeze again?
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Are there only ‘computer models’ for things that ‘melt’ and things that ‘heat up’? Or do climate experts have a model that correctly predicted record Antarctic sea ice growth?
You heretics. Do you not know you are in deed being blasphemous? Everybody know the earth is getting botter, ask AlGore. Your instruments are corrupted, BHO said so.
but………..but………… the potus would NOT lie ……….. would he?
A primary rule of science is this. When proposing a theory, you design a series of tests. Your theory should predict the outcome of these tests. If even one piece of data from the tests does not agree with the outcomes predicted by your theory, your theory is WRONG. The tests used to confirm AGW consists of computer models that should predict climate changes and atmospheric conditions. So far, the models have utterly failed to produce data that can be confirmed by actual observation. At various times, the models have predicted the cessation of the gulf current, hot spots in the stratosphere, cessation of snow in northern Europe and the Americas, increased hurricane landfall and severity, lack of polar sea ice in winter, and a host of other ills. None of these predictions have come to pass. By sciences own rules, the theory of AGW is WRONG.
* Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources
I assume they mean: the glacial margins didn’t reach Illinois until about then, but the ISGS gives 25,000 years ago as the time of glacial incursion into Illinois. The Wisconsonian episode started earlier, perhaps 75-85,000 years ago, when the glacial margins of the early and middle episodes of ice sheet advance were still north of Illinois.
http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/outreach/geology-resources/quaternary-glaciations-illinois
Here is what the IPCC says.
So the claims from the alarmist camp contradict the IPCC. What do they call people who challenge the IPCC’s projections? It’s at the tip of my tongue and begins with D.
Wants some truthful Information http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1075/1075_01.asp Global Climate change news for you 🙂
In some ways that is good. 😉
sjmaus,
The short term rise in global T during the 1997 El Nino fooled a lot of folks. Then the political folks saw their opportunity, and they flogged their scare stories about “runaway global warming”.
The government scientists do not follow the Scientific Method. Their paychecks are more important. As you pointed out, exactly none of their alarming predictions have come to pass. With their multi-million dollar climate models, not one GCM was able to predict the current end to global warming. Global warming stopped more than 17 years ago. It is not a “pause”, until and unless global warming resumes. It may well go in the opposite direction. Nobody knows.
IMHO there is a slight warming due to CO2. But it is too small to measure, so everything at this point is simply an assertion. The “climate change” scam costs this country alone $Billions every year. That money is the only thing that keeps the scare alive. Science certainly does not support it.
Harold: you have a good point to make, but you slipped up with your opening paragraph, where you say The sea ice surrounding Antarctica… has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage. Your second paragraph is correct – it is the anomaly that has set a record. The areal coverage is well on-track to set a record soon, but is clearly not at an all-time record (it is the wrong time of year to set such a record). We may be able to publish the “all time areal coverage” record soon, but please don’t jump the gun.
Not long ago the global warmist scientists in England and here in america were caught through e-mails that they were falsifying data to support their climate model.
Just the other day NOA said that scientists did not use actual temperatures in their studies but temperatures of their computer models.
Global warming is a fraud pushed by politicians in order to tax the heck out of everyone
Global warming scientists have made over two billion dollars in America alone with grants by our government to prove global warming and yet they are constantly caught falsifying their own records in an attempt to comply
Doesn’t the location of the freezing zone for oranges in Florida also give a good integrated measure? Is the growing zone increasing or decreasing in latitude?