The climate catastrophe caravan is on the move again with the alarmists whipping up fears over a supposed low rate of winter sea ice in Antarctica. In the Financial Times, science editor Clive Cookson reports that Antarctica “faces a catastrophic cascade of extreme environmental events… that will affect climate around the world”. Needless to say, there is no mention that Antarctica sea ice was at a record high in 2014, but curiously missing from all the hysteria is the fact that reanalysed early satellite data shows similar levels of winter ice in 1966. Even more curious is that minimal journalist sleuthing is required to uncover this information, since it is supplied by the frequently-consulted National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC).
Colorado-based NSIDC cited evidence that early Nimbus satellite data revealed winter sea ice extent of around 15 million square kilometres in 1966 “may have rivalled the very low level seen today”. There are some uncertainties in reanalysing such early satellite data, but the NSIDC says the findings are consistent with observations that Antarctica sea ice extent is “highly variable”. Last year, a group of American geographers and statisticians examined historical observations of Antarctica sea ice extent and found “statistically significant” positive trends since 1979. Furthermore, these trends across all four seasons compared with “statistically significant decreases” throughout much of the early and middle 20th Century.
Some of the FT guff came from a report commissioned by the Net Zero-promoting U.K. Government. Lead author Professor Martin Siegert from the University of Exeter says he is “staggered by the amount of change we’ve seen already in the past few years”. In fact we only have complete records of Antarctica sea ice since 1979, but it is more than likely that, like ice in the Arctic, it waxes and wanes on a natural cyclical basis. But like the coral on the Great Barrier Reef, the politically-inspired alarmists cry wolf when it falls, but move on to the next cherry pick when it recovers. Even though carbon dioxide is well mixed over the entire southern hemisphere, the small contribution made by humans is somehow held responsible, while cyclical changes offer the opportunity for Greta Thunberg-style contributions to climate science knowledge.
Antarctica was also in the news last month due to its leading role in promoting the “hottest day in 125,000 years” scare. The global claim of 62.6°F was the guesstimate product of a computer model from Climate Reanalyzer. It was heavily skewed by a ‘heatwave’ in Antarctica on July 3rd – 4th that saw temperatures soar in parts of the continent from -70°F to around -30°F. Without satellites, this localised rise would never have been detected in the past, calling into question the “hottest day” claims. Steve Milloy examines such claims every month. He argued that without the Antarctica spike, the global temperature would have been around 57.5°F, similar to the long-term figure.
As the Daily Sceptic has often noted in the past, Antarctica is a difficult place to create climate alarm. Over the last seven decades there has been little or no warming over large areas of the continent. According to a recent paper (Singh and Polvani), Antarctica sea ice has “modestly expanded” and warming has been “nearly non-existent” in this period. According to NASA figures, the ice loss is 0.0005% a year. Another recent paper found that ice shelves surrounding the continent grew in overall size by 0.4% in the years 2009-2019.

The above map from Singh and Polvani shows that all the warming in Antarctica is to be found in the west. It is to this area that eco warriors return with tales of collapsing ice shelves and glaciers. But it has always been known that the west side is an area of considerable volcanic activity. The full extent of this has recently been shown by scientists working at the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences. They provide scientific evidence that shows a “direct link” between recent western ice loss and geothermal heat flow. Furthermore, they state that it is common to attribute changes in ice dynamics and loss to atmospheric and oceanic influences. “However, recent studies suggest a direct link between the origin of ice streams and zones of increased heat flow,” it is noted.



This map compiled by the German scientists plots the known volcanoes (black triangles) under the ice in Antarctica, and highlights the geothermal heat flows arising from them. As can clearly be seen, the warming shown in the first graph correlates with the heat flows under the ice. The scientists say their work indicates a “direct connection” of deep lithospheric and surface processes. This is said to be in agreement with elevated geothermal heat found below the Thwaites and Pope glaciers.
That would be the Thwaites Glacier, otherwise known in the popular prints as the ‘Doomsday’ Glacier.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
In the end I suspect that geothermal heat flow will be found to be responsible for a considerable portion of the warming of the oceans we are seeing now. That is why no alarmist wants to really study that possibility. No alarmist mentions it unless it is to claim that isn’t possible. We need observations and data and I don’t think the government is going to fund anything that may prove that warming is occurring by any new natural processes that have not been previously studied.
The alarmism about Antarctica is often focused by the media on the dramatic thawing of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers.
Indeed everybody, except the deaf and ignorant mainstream warmist media, knows that both theses two glaciers are victims of a strong subglacial volcanic and geothermal activity.
The usual explanation by the anthropic global warming is utterly irrelevant in these claims
The alarmists want to Just Stop Civilization, so yah, alarmist scientists aren’t going to go looking for anything other than the products of civilization: CO2, methane, CFCs, etc.
“Colorado-based NSIDC cited evidence that early Nimbus satellite data revealed winter sea ice extent of around 15 million square kilometres in 1966”
The report says “However, in August 1966 the maximum sea ice extent fell to 15.9 × 10 6 km 2 ± 0.3 × 10 6 km 2”
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6547200
That’s a bit bigger than around 15 million, and as of now (13th August) the extent is 15.04 million km².
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Yes, but so what? The Arctic isn’t playing ball so why would Antarctica?
Would you have cried “foul” if he had said “nearly 16 million”? What are the error bars on this estimate of 15% ice coverage?
He told you: “the maximum sea ice extent fell to 15.9 × 10 6 km2 ± 0.3 × 10 6 km2”
Only on the 1966 figure, not on the 2023 figure. If he cannot use the same metric or system for both then I call BS on that.
It’s funny how people are quite prepared to accept the accuracy of reanalysis of 50 year old satellite images when it is claimed it shows ice extent as being similar as today, but quibble when I point out 15.9 it’s slightly more.
Funny too how nobody was worried about error bars all the times it was pointed out that Antarctic sea-ice was increasing.
From the FAQ (I think this is talking about the Arctic)
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#error_bars
I wasn’t crying foul, just trying to correct a small inaccuracy. Now why couldn’t you have included that error range you cite above in the post I was talking about?
You said it was BS that I was comparing 1966 with 2023 figures, when they are using different metrics. But it’s this article which is doing that, and getting a figure wrong.
But your Pavlovian response means you’ll attack me rather than the author.
Given that the author quotes the NSIDC it’s worth mentioning that whilst they say 1966 may have rivaled this year, they do also add some important caveats.
They also say that the other report mentioned in this article,
That’s the one he asked about.
Interestingly I get 7 downvotes for answering Clyde’s question by quoting from the cited report.
If a figure is 15.9, then when rounding to an integer it should be 16, not 15. Maybe he was just rounding to the nearest 5 million km².
I’m not crying foul, just trying to correct a small inaccuracy. I really doubt it matters given the uncertainties involved in trying to compare different satellite data, probably using different methodologies.
So we’re doomed because the extent now is about .9 Mkm2 less than almost 60 years ago? And that’s ignoring the +/- .3 Mkm2. The .9 in 15.9 is less than 6% – that’s practically fixed solid compared to most things in the natural world.
No, we’re not doomed, as long as we start to do something about it.
“as long as we start to do something about it.”
ROFLMAO !
You seem to think this year’s Antarctic sea ice dip in extent is “human caused”
NO evidence of that at all.
If it is TOTALLY NATURAL, as it almost certainly is…
What is this “IT” , that you think we need to do anything about ?
And what do you think we can do about “IT” ?
ie.. you are typing zero-thought mantra nonsense, as usual.
…
Yes! After trillions spent or lost due to green energy, failed subsidized EV and solar companies, economic damage due to supposed mitigation efforts, and new restrictions on personal freedoms, you alarmists have been so successful at “doing something about it”
“So we’re doomed because the extent now…”
I doubt it. Why would you think that?
The Financial Times is blessed with a science editor armed with scissors and a glue paste.
One has to wonder why the FT reports on the Antarctic ice. What does it have to do with finance? Or can readers invest in Antarctic sea ice futures?
If the sea llevel rises are as bad as the press predicts you can write off most of the agricutural land in the Netherlands.
This alone would be a major economic impact.
However, it should be noticed that the world’s leading modellers (in the City, who are best-paid) have not acted negatively in the futures or bonds markets.
So not everyone is confident in these predicrions.
Still, the press may want to report fringe views in case of black swan events.
Melting floating sea ice does not increase global sea levels. Global sea ice depends on 1) ice accumulation/loss on land and 2) ocean temperature (thermal expansion).
Yes exactly – I don’t know why the scientists either pretend to not know that or pretend that the ice floating on the sea is somehow holding back the glaciers in on land in the mountain valleys. Glaciers in other parts of the world without any sea ice seem perfectly happy to stay glued to the valley and actually retreat uphill (the glacier gets smaller so the edge retreats).
So, isn’t dishonest of them to claim that shrinking sea ice can somehow destabilize the alpine glaciers?
The sea is nowhere near as problematic as the EU and Natura 2000
BS – the press predictions are pulled out of their ass anyway, and are usually based on extreme conditions and far out in the future – for instance even the most alarmist paper on Antarctic ice melt said that it could destabilize in 700 years – 7 centuries!
Anyways, realistically (if sea level rise continues as currently) there’s only going to be about 20cm rise over a century – the height of 1 concrete block – I am sure the industrious Dutch can manage to build a seawall/dyke 1 block high around the country in that time.
Anyways, what’s worse for Dutch agriculture is their own government which wants ban fertilizers and other crazy greenish ideas.
“If the sea llevel rises are as bad as the press predicts you can write off most of the agricutural land in the Netherlands.”
The wonderful EU is already trying to do that.
Your question raises wider questions, again, Phillip.
I am still curious to know which genius econometrician first produced a model which purports to link global economic activity to this thing called global average temperature.
Despite valid questions about the actual physical meaning of a global average temperature, many economic models long ago also calculated that earth actually runs a substantial trade imbalance with the rest of the universe. (But maybe it was just a trade imbalance with the rest of the solar system. My memory isn’t what it was.)
“The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the reverse.” [Nelson]
A drop in Antarctic sea ice will have absolutely zero effect on anything financial, except in the fevered, addled minds of those trapped in the AGW cult.
Most MSM channel journos are 20 something arts graduates with zero investigative experience or talent – they just regurgitate the alarmists deceit – it’s lazy, incompetent journalism
All recent journalism seems to be regurgitated press releases – even the most glaring omissions or obvious questions never get asked by the reporter.
I’m far from an expert, but the level of sea ice should depend on ocean temperatures. The Antarctic air temperatures in winter aren’t the issue. You need sea surface temperatures less than -1.8C for sea ice to form. Earth.nullschool allows one to look at sea surface temperatures around the edges of the sea ice. It seems to me that SST anomalies are a bit warm this year and hence the lack of growth of sea ice. Hypothesizing that the Tonga volcanic eruption caused a somewhat warmer SST around Antarctic seems a reasonable explanation for low sea ice this year. earth :: a global map of wind, weather, and ocean conditions (nullschool.net)
I just wanted to call and ALERT to a seemingly all-new strategy in the warmista propaganda blitzkrieg: This morning I saw a news item in which it was stated that the reason no one can point to any actual horrific consequences from the recent spate of fake unprecedented temperatures, is because the fake measures taken to battle the fake crisis are working to prevent any fake problems.
“Why have all the unprecedented temperatures failed to cause widespread power blackouts? Because renewables have prevented such blackouts from occurring!”
Have no fear, the renewables induced blackouts are coming
Ah yes, the ‘anti-lion powder’ approach!
“””To participate virtually, media must RSVP no later than two hours prior to the start of the event
…
NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, along with leading climate experts from the space agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), will discuss new findings from both agencies.
..
Additional participants in the call include:
…Gavin Schmidt…”””
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-discuss-temperature-data-climate-goals/
Expert – an activist who knows not their elbow from their fundament
“nasa-to-discuss-temperature-data-climate-goals”
ie.. they want to determine just how much fake warming they want to mal-manipulate into their once-was-data.
An expert is someone more than 100 miles from home.
Antarctica recently recorded its 5th lowest temperature at Concordia
The ice mass has shrunk in length / width, but it also got thicker, as ice was pushed together by strong winds, leaving the actual volume the same, although the alarmists won’t ever let fact and some basic geometry get in the way of a good scaremonger
Wait just one minute there . . . you are using logic, which climate alarmists absolutely despise.
It is true that total thermal annual energy exchange as relates to Antarctic sea ice extent is related to change in sea ice volume and NOT in sea ice areal coverage. But alarmist don’t seem to concern themselves with scientific rigor in promoting their absurd agenda(s).
Paul Homewood tried this nonsense in a previous copied post here at WUWT and was shot down with the first comment (Nick Stokes) and several subsequent comments, all demonstrating that Homewood can’t understand simple graphical presentations that he himself presented.
The sea ice around Antarctica is thinner than usual, as well as being of lower extent.
It is melting away because of global warming.
A blind man on a galloping horse could see this. But not died in the wool ‘skeptiks’, apparently.
“It is melting away because of global warming.”
Absolute anti-science, evidence-free BS. !
If that was the case, it wouldn’t have been at record highs only a few years ago.
TFN, you need to get off your galloping horse—oh, wait, is that an ass?—and read the following:
“The extent of Antarctic sea ice varies greatly from year to year, but 40 years of satellite records show a long-term trend. Although some Antarctic regions have experienced reductions in sea ice extent, the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice.“
— Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E., I. Eisenman, S. Zhang, S. Sun, and A. Donohoe (2022), New perspectives on the enigma of expanding Antarctic sea ice, Eos, 103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EO220076. Published on 11 February 2022
(my bold emphasis added)
“Our observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade, whereas the steady-state approach would estimate substantial ice loss over the same period, demonstrating the importance of using time-variable calving flux observations to measure change.”
— Andreasen, J. R., Hogg, A. E., and Selley, H. L.: Change in Antarctic ice shelf area from 2009 to 2019, The Cryosphere, 17, 2059–2072, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2059-2023, 2023
(last sentence in abstract; my bold emphasis added)
Don’t you find it troublesome that these scientific articles keep getting published despite “global warming” over at least the last 40 years? You know, all that “melting away” at the South Pole?
Now, you were saying something about nonsense . . .
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/concordia-antarctica-hits-829c-worlds-provisional-lowest-temperature-since-2017/1407455
cold = ice
Please re-read the article above and accept ice coverage is variable, always has been, it ebbs and flows, as climate naturally changes from warming periods to cooling periods, as it has done since the earths climate was formed – the truth is, no one truly knows if human activity is driving climate changes – as alarmists you rely on consensus of a few, politicised ‘experts’ – consensus is only opinion, it is not based on empirical data or science fact, whereas climate ‘realists’ (not the incompetent boring slur of ‘sceptics’, being the usual ad hominem bilge alarmists throw around like confetti because they have diminishing authority on the science) are very open minded on causation and work to verify natural processes via observation, data gathering (not tweaking) and scientific evaluation rigour, analysis, retest and professional integrity, including the significant effects of the main climate driver, solar activity, that alarmists shy away from
The sheer folly of alarmists, frantically weaponising every weather and natural climate anomaly as anthropogenic climate change, is comical, it’s like the two French castle guards in Monty Pythons Holy Grail constantly shouting out incoherent gibberish nonsense
The truth is out there but it will never be looked for by alarmism funders, who benefit from the ongoing human causation tomfoolery
No it’s been blown offshore and is mostly thinner. image_thumb-24.webp
When arctic ice was trending down, the alarmists ignored the fact that Antarctica sea ice was trending up. Now they are suddenly interested in Antarctica sea ice. Shocking.
Tempting as it may be, it’s unscientific to blame recent warming (and sea ice loss, ice shelf collapse, all the usual alarmist catastrophe stories) in West Antarctica on volcanic activity — UNLESS you can show that the geothermal heat flux and/or eruptive activity have increased over the same time frame.
As far as I can tell, we just have a recent snapshot of Antarctic heat flux with no data to show if it’s increasing, decreasing or static.
Actual volcanic eruptions are intermittent by their nature, and sub-icecap eruptions will provide local pulses of heat that will melt a lot of ice and destabilize a lot of glaciers and ice shelves. Again, there is no historical data that I’ve seen, so blaming recent warming/melting on volcanic activity that you don’t know has increased is just arm-waving; it’s no more rigorous than the usual sciency-sounding alarmist concoctions.
An analysis of historic seismic activity in West Antarctica would help in recreating patterns of volcanism over time. Have seismic events increased in number or intensity over time? Have they become shallower as magma made its way towards the subsurface? Perhaps it’s already been done; if anyone is aware of such a study, post it in a comment please.
The other side of that coin is that the decrease in shelf ice just may be that evidence you are looking for. One needs an explanation for the decrease, and warming water may just be the explanation. It should be considered as one of many “multiple working hypotheses,” as suggested by T. C. Chamberlain.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/57/7/608/238555?login=false
[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE]”Antarctica was also in the news last month due to its leading role in promoting the “hottest day in 125,000 years” scare. The global claim of 62.6°F was the guesstimate product of a computer model from Climate Reanalyzer. It was heavily skewed by a ‘heatwave’ in Antarctica on July 3rd – 4th that saw temperatures soar in parts of the continent from -70°F to around -30°F. Without satellites, this localised rise would never have been detected in the past, calling into question the “hottest day” claims. Steve Milloy examines such claims every month. He argued that without the Antarctica spike, the global temperature would have been around 57.5°F, similar to the long-term figure.”
July 4 was only about two weeks after the winter solstice in Antarctica, so it is unlikely there was much sunshine that day in Antarctica (maybe a little along the northernmost rim near the Antarctic Circle). Without sunshine, no ice would have melted at -30 F, so the “heatwave” in Antarctica did nothing to the ice mass over the Antarctic continent.
Without satellites to detect them, there could have been similar “heatwaves” during past Antarctic winters, but the penguins never told us about them.
“According to NASA figures, the ice loss is 0.0005% a year.”
A change of 5 parts in a million in Antarctic sea ice? Yeah, righhhhht.
I’d love to see what they claim for their error bars and what the normal seasonal fluctuations are on every time scale they claim to measure.
Story tip: The Children of the Climate Corn have won their case in Montana:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/14/youths-win-montana-climate-trial/
Yes folks, the kids are angry with the adults for providing them with comfortable lifestyles, smartphones, good schools, etc., and are striking back. Think what happens when kids take over. Lord of the Flies, anyone?
Trouble is that we have such a short history of observations.
Studies do exist that seem to indicate less sea ice through parts of the Holocene
Elephant seal remains show Antarctic sea was warmer in the mid-to-late Holocene (phys.org)
But getting numbers for comparison is basically impossible…
… because a dip or rise in Antarctic sea ice level happens in the deep ocean and doesn’t really have any “marked” effect on anything.
This current dip is a sudden event, so is almost certainly tied to some other recent event in some way.
It certainly is NOT a signal of human CO2 induce “climate change”.
It is certainly NOT something for any sane person to “fear” or get their knickers in a knot about.
Alarmists always claim that previous warm periods were local but not global. This paper will help to scotch that lie.
Professor Chris Turney found out how variable sea Antarctic sea ice can be in 2014. His private expedition to celebrate the Australian Antarctic Expedition led by Douglas Mawson became stuck in sea ice 100 nautical miles from Mawson’s landing a hundred years before. 52 supernumeraries were evacuated by a helicopter off a Chinese ice breaker after delays caused by fog and weather to an Australian Antarctic supply ship. Ice was reported to be over ten feet thick.
Hysteria happens «in Antarctica» only if it’s a Spirit of Mawson style climate tourist season all over again.
If not, it «Ramps Up» somewhere in Washington or Seattle, even if it’s related to Antarctica.
Per good old tradition from the days of Ozone Hollering. No surprise here.