The Antarctic Sea Ice Extent on Sept 13 2014 may have set a new all time record (at least for the satellite era, we don’t have data prior to that).
Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent With Anomaly
Sunshine hours writes: Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Sept 13 2014 – 1,121,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. Data for Day 255. Data here.
Breaking the record set in 2013 by 48,000 sq km.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
with the “Turn”date fast approaching, the MAX level is likely to stabilize over the next week prior to the “CORNER” when ice levels begin do decline. There are likely to be a couple of even higher level recordings over the next week.
Once it turns the corner we will be plagued with scare stories about melting Ice.
Around about the time Ban Ki Moon is boondoggling with all those heads of state to try and save the planet ….. on Sept. 23rd I believe ….
Glad you mentioned “Satellite era” a notation that seems to be lacking in some alarmists reports of
“Worst in History!!!” etc. As if nothing happened before we had Satellites. Thanks, Anthony.
Flying on a private jet, Al Gore could not be reached for comment.
Looks like a good use of a Bak missile. Then blame the Russians.
Inappropriate.
Looks like Arctic Ice is about to “Turn the Corner” as well (any day now) without eithern Northern Passage being open and Ice Free
For the satellite era [like, since I’ve had a Master’s ticket] this is weather.
. Like – just weather . . . . . . . .
I a m an old fart, but this proves nothing.
It may prelude a cooler spell of twenty to fifty years, but it may not.
I l i k e warmth – but I do not know if we will get this in 2014 to 2024 (say), despite obviously rising CO2 levels.
I hope we will have warmth.
I fear we will n o t have warmth
Auto
I look forward to the in depth reporting of this by the BBC on Monday morning.
Probably not, though.
Absolutely no chance!
Ahh satellites, those pesky devices that present the “inconvenient” truth. The challenge for the warmists is how to spin the data to fit their theories…The problem is all that instant, accurate reporting.
Doesn’t that mean it’s broken the record every year for the past three years?
Yes. But the highest from 2012 is #18.
Year day# Extent
1 2014 255 19.62641
2 2013 273 19.57892
3 2013 271 19.57295
4 2013 264 19.56010
5 2013 257 19.55145
6 2014 254 19.54671
7 2013 263 19.53172
8 2013 274 19.52377
9 2013 270 19.51465
10 2013 258 19.51242
11 2013 256 19.50511
12 2013 265 19.50450
13 2013 272 19.50390
14 2013 261 19.50078
15 2013 260 19.49298
16 2014 253 19.48881
17 2013 262 19.48110
18 2012 266 19.47713
19 2012 270 19.47649
20 2012 269 19.47159
21 2013 259 19.47074
22 2013 275 19.46862
23 2013 269 19.46622
24 2012 268 19.46327
25 2012 267 19.45940
Extent is in millions of sq km.
Interesting data,
it indicates that the tof 25 highest extent days have all been in the first 4 years of this currently unfinished decade
#40 2006 is first before 2012.
#78 1998 is first before 2000.
Extent means nothing, nothing I tell you. It’s the volume that matters and that has continued to decline. Or so they tell me…
Extent means something, since it changes the albedo to more reflection, less absorbtion which makes it colder still.
Al Bedo??? I though tit was Al Gore
Or maybe Al Gore’s spinoff – Al Jazzera
Some simple geometry should apply…but probably not.
Extent = Area + ‘holes’ ; the area of water that the ice actually is spread out on.
Area = surface that is covered by ice
Volume = Area x ‘thickness’.
Now if area and/or extent are ‘up’ then by definition, so must volume increase. It doesn’t matter if it the thickness is 1 mm or 10 m, it WILL increase the volume, if the area/extent are increased.
Looks like a long walk for the penguins. Polar bears should be happier, tho.
Wonder what’s happening at the collapsed Wilkins ice bridge?
And this is the problem for the IPCC, albedo. Most of their models projected a decrease in extent. Expect a paper out soon showing a new model result projecting an increase AND decrease as well as staying the same. Is there anything that co2 cannot do?
While the death spiral in the north seems to be taking a pause. The days of mass shame is drawing near. It’s all worse than we thought.
You are somewhat correct. Extent is a volatile indicator. But, it is still a useful measurement. The Volume is also increasing. Look at the 2013 minimum, it set records for being the maximum of the satellite record minimums. The sea ice didn’t melt it thickened therefore the volume increased.
The same thickening is happening in the Arctic. Checkout
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png to see the surprising rate of thickening!
Been expecting this, a large SST cold anomaly has been siting over almost all of the Arctic this summer and it’s still there even into autumn:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-121.27,77.65,536
Note that a similar SST anomaly pattern to last years, is in place once again, so North America may get some degree of repeated polar vortex excursion pattern once more this winter.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-123.51,54.25,536
And if you look at the mid and upper level winds you can see that the winds are already beginning to replicate last years classic blocking pattern.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#curren/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-123.51,54.25,536
For some reason the third link broke, here it is again:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-123.51,54.25,536
I pointed the Antarctic record setting extent some time ago during an argument. My opponent said that while extent was increasing, volume was decreasing. I asked incredulously how they would even know this. He said they could measure gravity. I conceded that might be possible. I asked to see data but never heard back. Anyone have any thoughts/references/data on this? It seems highly doubtful that extent would grow while volume shrinks (more than doubtful), but … who knows.
That’s the old “It’s the land ice that matters for Antarctica” reason. There’s been several threads on it on here, if the satellite (GRACE?) is measuring correctly, there is loss of ice mass on the Antarctic continent. According to theory, sea ice should be shrinking too, but it’s not, so our attention is turned to the “important” metric.
I’ll search on here for GRACE and ‘Antarctica volume’, thanks. I agree that the important point is that sea-ice extent growth contradicts ‘the theory’. You can’t point to A, B & C and go “look that matches the theory!”, but then ignore E, F, and G that directly contradict it. When it comes to science and theories, the contradictions are more important.
Check here but take it all with a grain of salt as it’s the usual suspects doing the work.
http://physicscentral.com/explore/action/grace.cfm
Hmmmm, it seems the pattern is that when something clear and easily measured contradicts “the theory” (i.e. ice extent), you move on to data that is muddy and measured with great difficultly instead (extremely minute changes in gravity).
“Since the measured change in gravity is so small, there are many corrections.” I believe this is what is referred to as pathological science. Science that relies on measurements where ‘signal’ is easily swamped by ‘noise’ and ‘corrections’ allowing you to ‘see’ things that don’t actually exist.
I don’t see how ice volume over the continent could have decreased significantly since temperatures never go above freezing. It doesn’t make sense to me (i.e. ‘Sublimation rate suddenly increased dramatically? Why?).
Still I’d be interested to read more.
CryoSat2 confirms GRACE’s data using altimeter readings.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract
Beckleybud,
It just depends on whose peer reviewed paper you read. This one says ice mass is increasing. Take your pick.
So the jury is still out. But one factor to take into account: SkepticalScience says Antarctic ice volume is falling off a cliff. On the principle of Falsus in uno, falsus in ombibus, we can assume that SkS is going to be proven wrong, as always. ‘Falsus in omnibus” should be their motto.
If Antarctic ice is in fact declining [very doubtful given the rapid, years-long increase in surface ice], then the reason must be that changing ocean currents are eroding the undersea ice, because there has been no acceleration in global sea level rise.
So there must be more to it than what GRACE putatively shows. Recall that when the ARGO buoy network showed the deep oceans cooling, it was promptly rejiggered to show the ‘correct’ situation. Same thing with GRACE – it was ‘adjusted’. The gatekeepers know they must show something alarming, or their jobs may be in jeopardy. Cui bono? must always be asked.
I believe what we observe: very rapid multi-year ice increases. GRACE has been ‘adjusted’. You can believe what you want, but the two have yet to be reconciled.
Smokey, Cryosat2 was launched around endpoint of the study you cited, not to mention that GRACE has three additional years of data to look at.
…
Try and keep current with up to date data.
beckleybud,
It could be true, but it feels like desperation. It’s not even clear if the ice-loss would support global warming (i.e. what is the mechanism exactly to cause this increase since temperature never goes above freezing over the continent?) To ignore obvious data with a long history (ice-extent) in favor of pathological data (lots of noise, lots of corrections) with a very short history. Well, what else can one conclude except this is a strong case of confirmation bias at work.
It feels a lot like the hotspot debate where warmists decided to put their faith in proxy data of dubious quality (wind speeds) above ACTUAL direct measurements (direct balloon temperature measurements). Or the ‘pause’ debate where ‘suddenly’ the heat is going deep in the ocean when no one had ever previously predicted this was a likely scenario.
There is this pattern that repeats over and over. IF measurements are in expected direction. The data is assumed to be correct and no one looks any further. On the other hand, if measurements contradict expectations, then an exhaustive search for ‘errors’ and alternate measurements begins. Over and over. Eventually a pathological enough measurement method is afford that does the trick. Then the clear but inconvenient measurements are dismissed. It would be interesting to form a complete list. Let’s see:
– tree modern-temperature divergence (trees only make good thermometers for the past).
– tree correlation inversion (cause and effect is irrelevant).
– urban heat island effect. (correcting for this would be in the ‘wrong’ direction, so we’ve decided it doesn’t exist).
– hot spot (direct balloon temperature measurements show it’s not there – so we’ve decide to ignore balloon data and use wind data).
– the ‘pause’ (the oceans ate it and in a way that can not be tracked down).
– Antarctica ice extent (this directly contradicts the models … sooo we’ll stop looking at it and look at some thinning that we think might have occurred instead).
And these are only the ones I know of. This is will be a good study in pathological science for future generations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
Cryosat2: 3 years of data. Miniscule changes. I mean -3 gt per year for East Antarctica and the coverage doesn’t get within 215km of the pole.
The last time I did the math it was 188,000 years to melt
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/antarctica-losing-159-gigatons-per-year-tick-tock-only-188679-years-to-go/
The rate of ice loss claimed is very small compared to the total (but the total is such a big number that the ice loss sounds significant if taken out of context). When someone tried to say that the loss was due to global warming, I provided two links. One showed that Antarctic temps not only have not gotten warmer but have actually dropped a insignificant amount. The other link was a peer-reviewed paper detailing newly discovered geothermal activity in Antarctica. Then I asked him for any links to research showing global warming was responsible. He never responded.
Wonder why.
Gravity measurements are completely useless for measuring the volume of sea ice which is quite thin and floating on water.
They are in principle the best method for measuring the thickness of ice on land, but suffers from the absence of reliable isostatic data from Antarctica, i. e. knowledge about the movements of the bedrock underneath the ice. This has to be modelled which means that there is a lot of ucertainty about the figures.
Your opponent added the ice sheet over the continent to the sea ice surface area. West Antarctica is apparently losing mass, but sea ice is gaining it as far as I can see.
I’m just going to assume that this is a certain sign of global warming that was predicted by the models……
That’s am amazing image.
So let’s imagine there is a rogue wave that slips under all that ice on the Weddell Sea and east to the Prime Meridian, cracks the ice near the coast, and sets it free.
Priceless!
The spin will be:
1) that the ice cap is melting
2) the melted fresh water is running into the sea
3) the increases amount of fresh water in the sea reduces the salinity of the sea
4) the reduced salinity allows the sea to freeze at a higher temperature
5) the higher temperatures from Global Warming mean more sea ice
6) we’re all doomed.
Also, that the hole in the ozone layer let more heat in and now that we have banned CFCs we have saved the Antarctic.
For that is a more useful spin.
Somehow that will also increase the acidity of the oceans /sarc
Nice spin. Now try to figure out how the low salinity water ends up offshore East Antarctica, which happens to be gaining mass?
More proof of “Global Warming”:
all of that new ice is warmer than the old ice.
/sarc
I also get the impression that ice CREAM is also getting warmer than before.
/sarc
Ian Schumacher says: “I pointed the Antarctic record setting extent some time ago during an argument. My opponent said that while extent was increasing, volume was decreasing”
I am not a scientist, but I would think that volume cannot decrease at the expense of extent, because the temperature at the periphery of the outer edges of the ice is higher than in the middle, where the volume is the greatest. Since the outermost parts of the icecap must by definition be thinner, they must melt faster.
Someone, please correct me if I am wrong!
Here is a nice map I found that confirms some of your thinking
http://www.bbc.com/news/special/2013/newsspec_5043/img/antarctic_ice_2.jpg
(I’m hoping this shows up embedded, so kind of a test – if not, here is article it came from – http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423)
I think it’s possible for there to be more ice loss over the continent. The ice over the ocean can come from the ocean itself and is very dependent on temperature. The ice over the continent comes only from snow (of which there is very little in Antarctica). There is almost no snow to begin with and ice loss over the continent can only happen from wind ablation and sublimation. So there would have to be an increase in one of those to explain it and this may or may not be related to temperatures.
Hmm, good explanation. Since the majority of Antarctica never has temperatures above 0C, how can any ice melt? So I guess we need a wind record to decide if mass loss is realistically possible. Just read that the measured low temp record for Antarctica is -128F. And the measured satellite low is -135F. This record is almost 50F colder than Arctic records.
“Grace” is subject to many potential errors. For one example consider that Volcanism is active in Antarctica. Grace cannot help but be affected by changes in the mantel.
Tilo, the ice melts if it contacts water above 0 degrees C. This can happen. I wouldn’t worry too much about it, there’s a tendency to hype it.
I am sure the BBC will say record high ice extent in the Antarctic is not inconsistent with AGW!
1. It’s the wrong kind of ice.
2. It’s rotten ice.
It’s Lying ice! or was that the Eagles.
See, one can’t believe their Lying Ice!
/grin
“The Antarctic Sea Ice Extent on Sept 13 2014 may have set a new all time record (at least for the satellite era, we don’t have data prior to that).”
How about waiting to see the actual data over the next few weeks rather than speculating ?
says the data is here….
Source: http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-sept-13-2014-new-all-time-record
Why, are you expecting a sudden increase in temperatures, right in the middle of a 3-month-long Midnight?
The “actual” NSIDC data says it is a new record. However, there are 2 – 3 weeks up ahead where an even higher record could be set.
In 2013 records were set on days 257, 264, 271 and 273.
So far in 2014 there is only data up to day 255.
Anyone disputing the new record can check it out for themselves here :
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/SH_seaice_extent_final.csv
Its OK, within a month the media will be able to report that the Antarctic is losing sea ice.
Tiny Tim sang about melting ice caps back in the 60s when almost no one was thinking about global warming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1se9xbRRZL8 I never thought I would be reminded of it by a climate blog in 2014…. That was almost 50 years ago during a cooling period.
‘We don’t have data prior to that.’
But you can BET, if it were setting a record minimum, that they’d be saying ‘since 1979,’ as if the billion years before that were all meaningless to the equation.
Damn Global Warming! 🙂
Wrong, Ralph! It’s weather. 🙂
I have a serious question. Is the temperature warmer or colder there now?
Kind of puts the whole global temperature anomaly in a new perspective doesn’t it.
Here is a list of temperature databases for the continent
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp032/ndp032.html
It appears that the majority of the continent has warmen only slightly (from freezeing your assetts off to numbing your nads)
while the Pensinula region has warmed by about 2.8C from toe numbing cold to simply teeth chattering cold
Serious answer: See for yourself at http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/august2014/Aug2014map.png
From http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/ (older maps are available)
So warming really does increase the ice extent. Something is wrong with that, but I can’t quite put my finger on it : )
The warming is marginal, and disputed, however SST have declined.
“Extreme” weather – just as predicted.
We’re dooooomed!!!
Kerry and company will wiz off to Patagonia aboard Air Force 0.420 and have a photo op to call for the Strategic Air Command to bomb ICE (Islamic Contra Extremists) back to the Stone(d) Age.
Ha ha
Any loss of Antarctic ‘land ice’ is due to it marching itself off to the sea, and/or volcanic activity in certain areas warming the water enough to cause some melt from beneath. But what is the average daily temperature there? So loss of land ice is not happening because of anything man has done.