From NASA Goddard, October 7, 2014:
![antarctic_seaice_sept19[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/antarctic_seaice_sept191.jpg?resize=720%2C405&quality=83)
The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.
“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.
Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).
The single-day maximum extent this year was reached on Sept. 20, according to NSIDC data, when the sea ice covered 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers). This year’s five-day average maximum was reached on Sept. 22, when sea ice covered 7.76 million square miles (20.11 million square kilometers), according to NSIDC.
A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler air to some areas. And in the Antarctic, where sea ice circles the continent and covers such a large area, it doesn’t take that much additional ice extent to set a new record.
“Part of it is just the geography and geometry. With no northern barrier around the whole perimeter of the ice, the ice can easily expand if conditions are favorable,” he said.
Researchers are investigating a number of other possible explanations as well. One clue, Parkinson said, could be found around the Antarctic Peninsula – a finger of land stretching up toward South America. There, the temperatures are warming, and in the Bellingshausen Sea just to the west of the peninsula the sea ice is shrinking. Beyond the Bellingshausen Sea and past the Amundsen Sea, lies the Ross Sea – where much of the sea ice growth is occurring.
That suggests that a low-pressure system centered in the Amundsen Sea could be intensifying or becoming more frequent in the area, she said – changing the wind patterns and circulating warm air over the peninsula, while sweeping cold air from the Antarctic continent over the Ross Sea. This, and other wind and lower atmospheric pattern changes, could be influenced by the ozone hole higher up in the atmosphere – a possibility that has received scientific attention in the past several years, Parkinson said.“The winds really play a big role,” Meier said. They whip around the continent, constantly pushing the thin ice. And if they change direction or get stronger in a more northward direction, he said, they push the ice further and grow the extent. When researchers measure ice extent, they look for areas of ocean where at least 15 percent is covered by sea ice.
While scientists have observed some stronger-than-normal pressure systems – which increase winds – over the last month or so, that element alone is probably not the reason for this year’s record extent, Meier said. To better understand this year and the overall increase in Antarctic sea ice, scientists are looking at other possibilities as well.
Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier, Parkinson said. Or changes in water circulation patterns, bringing colder waters up to the surface around the landmass, could help grow more ice.
Snowfall could be a factor as well, Meier said. Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow – leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice. This new, thicker ice would be more resilient to melting.
“There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”For Antarctica, key variables include the atmospheric and oceanic conditions, as well as the effects of an icy land surface, changing atmospheric chemistry, the ozone hole, months of darkness and more.
“Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did,” Parkinson said. “The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
I only wish for the Disneylike Goverment now sitting in office in Stockholm Sweden to read and understand the NASA information in this blogg article…..
The fact that Artic and Antartic have different behavior shows that there are probably planetary forces at helm.
They are connected via the THC. If the jet stream speeds up and pushes more warm water to the Arctic then is will cool and sink pushing more water into the lower ocean. This should force more upwelling cold water at the other end of the THC in the Antarctic. I think this is the cause of the additional ice. What exactly drives this THC behavior may be planetary or may not be.
I computed that the 28 year increase in max sea ice area at the Antarctic is 1.3M sq km. The same change at the Arctic is a .88M sq km decrease. I did this averaging 1985, 1986 and 1987 maximums with 2012-2014 maximums at the two ends of the trend line. From this fact, I find this statement in the article to be bogus: “The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.”
1985-2014 is 30 years.
For the article to be true, the Antarctic increase would have to be .88/3 M sq km. How are these NASA experts off by about 400%? And don’t try to tell me that seasonally gained and lost sea ice is 4 times thicker in the Arctic than in the Antarctic.
Yes, they are playing the old trick of lying with numbers. Since the Antarctic increase is based off the maximum and hence a larger number, the % gain is smaller. The Arctic loss based on a minimum is thus a higher % even though the raw numbers are lower. It is half truths like this that demonstrates these people are completely dishonest.
“Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did,” Parkinson said.
All of earth is not acting as you expected. The global temperature stopped warming since 1997.
“The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”
Grade 6 pupils can explain it. The Southern Ocean surface is now coldest since 1979 and all your models are wrong. You guys are still in denial after discovering your religion is fake.
+1
“Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected.”
This is something that has always bothered me. IF CO2 has increased over the entire globe, and CO2 makes it warmer, and yet not every location is warming, THEN does that not demonstrate that natural factors are dominating the climate? If the extra CO2 above Antartica doesn’t make it warmer also, then what effect does it have at all? Natural cycles are either important or not, at the discretion of one’s whim!
Parkison seems to suggest A causes B but when it doesn’t, Parkinson seems to then say it would be amazing if it did every time! Not science. Not a scientist. I’d be fired in my line of work for this kind of thing.
Believing global warming is causing increased Antarctic sea ice extent is like believing the missing is heat is hiding somewhere.
Both are like believing the bogeyman can’t see you when you close your eyes.
None of which can be proven to be false. 🙂
Go ahead, try.
Antarctic sea ice is a record since the start of records by satellites ~1978. Other coarser records from satellites in 1964 show about the same sea ice amount as 2014. So we are back to where we were 50 years ago. Not true at the Arctic. Land ice loss in the Antarctic is happening at a rate of 1.9 mm per year. Since the average land ice thickness is 2,000,000 mm throughout all of Antarctica, all the ice will be gone in just a little over one million years if the trend remains the same for just a little over one million years. Not too much to ask.
Multi-year ice is up 27% over last year in the Arctic.This is directionally inconsistent with sailing from Finland to Alaska by the short-cut in 2030. There is a 120 degree (of longnitude) pie segment from the S. tip of Greenland westward to The Bering Sea by Russia that has no loss of sea ice for the winter of 2014 compared to any previous record as far as sea ice and land snow/ice cover area is concerned. There are other areas of normal sea ice N. of Siberia in western Russia, and only about 140 degrees out of 360 degrees total is a zone where sea ice is below normal in the Arctic. This may be why N. America had a very cold winter just past and jacket weather in the Ohio River Valley came to stay in September. 3B cubic feet of natural gas was consumed in the US to mostly heat buildings last winter, breaking the 2.3B cu ft previous record and sending natural gas supplies to the lowest level in 11 years in April 2014.
And that concern about ice calving off Greenland had gone dead quiet since December 2012. Not a peep anymore.
It is a good thing all that ice is down at the bottom of the planet instead of at the top.
Otherwise, we might reach a “tipping point” and the planet might tip over.
Maybe the bottom of the planet is really the top.
‘“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.’
**********************
Taking a gander at the chart below, it appears to me that the global ice extent (this is ALL ice) looks to be pretty stable to me. Another needless alarmist claim emanating from NASA.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Oops. I meant global sea ice extent.
“Scientist”: This is not the sea ice you’re looking for.
Public: This isn’t the ice we’re looking for.
That’s their intent.
Dismissing the increase record ice in the Antarctic by saying it doesn’t offset the decrease of the Arctic during its minimum phase. WOW! Talk about a
straw mansnowman!Another assumption: Could it be that natural cooling is in balance with warming for the NH but dominates in the SH. With the solarcycle in a decreasing activity cooling for the entire globe can be expected the coming years.
Parkinson uses a caveat saying that global ice overall is down but that’s not true…..it’s up and there’s Weeks saying that though NASA has shown that heat is not hiding down in the ocean sea level is rising but the natural rate of seal level rise is not increasing.
These buffoons are getting stupid desperate. Laughable and transparent…..pitiful. Embarrassing for all concerned.
The Arctic sea ice extent may be down from last year but the (modelled) Ice volume is increasing:- http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png
Its far to early to be able to claim this as a trend, but I notice that virtually all trend lines are linear when they would be much better represented as waves or at least averaged out curves. At the very least there is a good enough reason now to show a flattening of the downward trend. The anomaly in the arctic had flattened out before the record extent loss in 2012 which is why I think lines are so non representtive. Fitting a curve though would require a very deep understanding of a longer string of data. 30 years is a good base for trending 60+years much better, representing trends from data strings that choose their data from short periods, no matter which side of the argument, are only predicting a trend from short term information are therefore barely at the ‘Hypothesis’ stage IMO
On the plus side, I’m glad they’re not towing out the ‘it’s not ice extent, it’s the ice thickness you should be looking at’ BS
reposted from above (wrt sea ice N Pole vs. S Pole):
Jimbo –
You should post both a) and b) from Fig. 7.20 of the IPCC’s FAR (regarding the NOAA figures from 1970-1990). Sea Ice extent anomalies in the N. and S. Poles are likely to be 180 deg. out of phase with each other.
mwh
And then there is the effect on Arctic ice due to recovery from the Little Ice Age.
This is from IPCC, TAR:
Figure 16-3: Time series of April sea-ice extent in Nordic Sea (1864-1998) given by 2-year running mean and second-order polynomial curves. Top: Nordic Sea; middle: eastern area; bottom: western area (after Vinje, 2000).
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/images/fig16-3s.gif
From the Vinje study:
Anomalies and Trends of Sea-Ice Extent and Atmospheric Circulation in the Nordic Seas during the Period 1864–1998 by TORGNY VINJE, Norwegian Polar Institute, Oslo, Norway
“The extent of ice in the Nordic Seas measured in April has been subject to a reduction of ~33% over the past 135 yr. Nearly half of this reduction is observed over the period ~1860–1900, prior to the warming of the
Arctic. Decadal variations with an average period of 12–14 yr are observed for the whole period. The observation series indicates that less than 3% of the variance with respect to time can be explained for a series
shorter than 30 yr, less than 18% for a series shorter than 90 yr, and less than 42% for the whole 135-yr long series. While the mean annual reduction of the April ice extent is decelerating by a factor of 3 between 1880 and 1980, the mean annual reduction of the August ice extent
is proceeding linearly.
The August ice extent in the Eastern area has been more than halved over the past 80 yr. A similar meltback has not been observed since the temperature optimum during the eighteenth century. This retrospective
comparison indicates accordingly that the recent reduction of the ice extent in the Eastern area is still within the variation range observed over the past 300 yr.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014%3C0255%3AAATOSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Seems like an obvious thing to ask:
How far away is this ice from Tierra del Fuego and what would happen if an ice bridge ever formed?
If an ice bridge formed between Cape Horn and the Antarctic Peninsula, it would block shipping for 2-6 weeks each year from the Pacific to the Atlantic for ships too large to pass through the Panama Canal. (Which is being widened now, certainly only a coincidence for the Chinese trade with Europe.
Distance is hard to measure, because the average Antarctic sea ice edge at maximum each September lies between 59 south and 58 south, the Antarctic sea ice is less extensive in the gap between the Cape and Antarctica. Estimates are fun to play with: you can predict a closure date between 12 years to 42 years at today’s rate of increase.
This might be interesting in the context of your concerns about Antarctica:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999PA000461/pdf
Gildor and Tzipermann (2000) propose that sea ice is the switch between glacial and interglacial, via albedo, under phase locking of eccentricity (100 kyr). They also propose that the MPR (change from obliquity to eccentricity pacing of glacial cycle about 1 Mya) occurred due to the growth of sea ice associated with long term secular cooling.
“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. ”
Indeed the planet is doing what is expected – half a precession cycle into a post-MPR interglacial and at mid downstroke of the obliquity cycle.
Sell.
IIRC, the loss of Arctic sea ice last year or the year before was because of storm winds tearing it up in the surf, not because of warming. that was conveniently not mentioned in this article.
[Clearly, an “Inconvenient Truth” … .mod]
IMO, the two record lows of 2007 & 2012 were both caused by August cyclones out of the Bering Sea driving floes together & piling them upon each other, & perhaps moving more ice into the Atlantic to melt.
http://www.forskningsradet.no/prognett-polarforskning/Nyheter/Winds_from_Siberia_reduce_Arctic_sea_ice_cover/1253955174381?lang=en
My take: the 2007 Arctic minimum was an artifact of a change in measurement technique. Prior to 2007, the polarizer was turned twice a year, on Jan 1 and July 1 — the reason was to prevent interpreting surface ponds and broken ice as open water. But people complained about the “notch” mid-way across the yearly ice extent chart, so in 2007 they did not turn the filter. The result was two-fold: a new record ice minimum in the Arctic and a new record ice maximum in the Antarctic, happening simultaneously. The satellite boys kept their heads down and started tweaking the polarizer after that. The 2012 Arctic minimum was due to storm action spreading the ice over a large area, which mostly did not melt but was thinned to below the 15% threshold for counting. Actually, even that’s not quite right, the thinning was into the range 10%-30%, but only the lower estimate is used for counting, so 20%-40% range gets counted but 10%-30% does not. This is familiar to purveyors of the Bering Sea ice charts. So both 2007 and 2012 minima were substantively measurement artifacts.
There is a remarkable incuriosity, even on this forum, about the 2007 record Antarctic ice maximum that was simultaneous with the record Arctic ice minimum then. Yoo hoo?
That is an interesting point, NZ Willy. However, there were reports of strong southerly winds in the Chuckchi Sea.area at the time. which could have brought warm water north. If you look at the map you will notice that almost all of the extra melting was on rhe Bering side and none on the Russian side which made me blame the winds but now you have another cause in the play.
These guys making announcements about the poles just don’t know their climate science and should not open their mouths. Here is Claire Parkinson from Goddard, Hansen’s old haunt, who sees: “… changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change…Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss…The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming..” And here is her colleague Walt Meyer: “…A warming climate changes weather patterns,..” (Can you really believe this drivel?”)
This is just a pseudo-scientific claim about warming which does not exist. Lets start from the beginning. First of all the only part of the world still warming today is the Arctic. It is not global or greenhouse warming but warming caused by ocean currents carrying warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. I proved that in my 2011 peer reviewed paper [E&E 22(8):1069-1083] but these so-called climate scientists simply don’t read the relevant literature in their own field. It started at the turn of the twentieth century as a result of a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system, prior to which there was nothing there but two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. The warming paused in mid-century for thirty years, then resumed in 1970 and kept on going. If it wasn’t for that both poles would now be at the same temperature.
I think you’re on the right track in regard to ocean current patterns – this system is in my view the principal driver of climate. 95% of climate heat does not just sit passively in the ocean – it is a dynamic nonlinear system subject to switching between regimes, from internal dynamics and oscillations under possible external weak forcing (entrainment).
“Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier, Parkinson said.”
So, melting and freezing at the same time, – just like magic!
‘The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.’
However, the total global sea ice index is above the long-term average, hence it is clearly within normal ranges……