Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I got to thinking about sea ice and the climate models. Here’s what we know about polar sea ice extent, showing data that starts with the satellite era when we began to have accurate observations of the poles.
Figure 1. Arctic, Antarctic, and global sea ice extent. Colored lines are CEEMD smooths of the underlying datasets.
Now, there are some rather large curiosities regarding the sea ice extent records.
- The North Pole is a liquid ocean covered with sea ice, with most of the ice polewards of 70°N. The South Pole is a giant chunk of frozen rock surrounded by sea ice, with almost no ice polewards of 70°S. So why do both poles have about the same extent of sea ice?
- From the start of the satellite era up until ~2015, Arctic sea ice extent was decreasing and Antarctic sea ice extent was increasing … and as a result, total global sea ice extent was relatively constant, with 2014 having about the same global sea ice extent as 1978. Why?
- Around 2015, Antarctic sea ice extent started dropping rapidly … but Arctic sea ice stopped dropping and leveled off up to the present. Why?
- After dropping precipitously for a couple of years, Antarctic sea ice extent leveled off again … and as a result, global ice extent also leveled off. Why?
Here’s the interesting part. Nobody knows the answers to any of those questions. And I suppose predictably, since they’re based on our (mis)understandings of the climate, none of the climate models either forecasts or hindcasts sea ice extent doing anything even remotely similar to the actual observations.
So I’ll leave this here as a testament to just how little we understand the magnificent global heat engine that we call the climate …
My best to all,
w.
Tony Heller has used lower quality satellite reports from before 1978, and ship reports of ice coverage, to make a fair case that arctic ice coverage looks cyclical. BTW, 1978 was near a peak, so it was useful for advocates.
Funny how the sun irradiance is also cyclical.
At least one of graphs he uses is from IPCC FAR Working Group 1 final report reprinted 1991, page 224. The graphs for both Arctic and Antarctic begin in 1972.
Consider the source, he also thought that CO2 freezes on Antarctica!
Oh, for heaven’s sake, Phil. Drop it. Many have made the mistake Tony Heller made. Considering that CO2 freezes at minus 78.5 celsius, and it gets colder than that in Antarctica, it is natural to suppose a CO2 frost might form. The reason it fails to form is due to the fact that, at low concentrations, CO2 frost sublimates faster than it can form. Sublimation occurs well below the freezing point.
Water also sublimates below the freezing point. This is why, on extremely cold winter mornings, when the air is extremely dry, I can go out to my vehicle muttering curses softly myself, expecting to have to scrape frost off my windshield in the bitter cold, and to my delight see no frost at all. The air was so dry that the frost was sublimating faster than it could form.
Yes, you are quite correct that Tony Heller made a mistake. We all do that. One thing I like about WUWT is that when I myself make mistakes, (which is quite often), people do correct me, usually in a kind and uplifting manner.
However you are not uplifting Tony Heller. This is about the fifteenth time you’ve brought up a mistake he made years ago. Is it possible that, in rubbing his mistake in, you yourself are making a mistake?
Heller didn’t just make a mistake he threw a temper tantrum to such an extent that he was thrown off this site by Anthony. Good reason not to regard him as a reliable source.
Unsupported ad hominem.
Not surprising considering the source of the ad hominem.
“Unsupported”!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/results-lab-experiment-regarding-co2-snow-in-antarctica-at-113f-80-5c-not-possible/
A number of years ago curious as to whether the unusual weather conditions of the 1930’s had effected artic sea ice I searched the NY Times archives. I found articles indicating there were low sea ice conditions reported by mariners.
Or, maybe the condition of the Arctic sea ice was the cause and not the effect.
Perhaps but who knows. The important thing is it happened before, when CO2 levels were lower. I’m starting buy into cloud cover is the cause of these melts that is the lack of.
I posted on the sea-ice maximum, bringing up a few historical examples of high and low levels of sea-ice from the past.
https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2024/04/20/arctic-sea-ice-the-2024-maximum/
The history of arctic explorers shows all sorts of ups and downs in the levels of sea ice. Also the geology of the arctic coasts indicates the Arctic Sea was ice-free at times, and ice-covered at other times.
“Or, maybe the condition of the Arctic sea ice was the cause and not the effect.”
Cause of what?
Global heat waves through summer during when Arctic sea ice extent is minimal?
That would require Arctic sea ice extent causing hot weather around the globe, including the Southern Hemisphere.
Nobody knows, but billions of dollars in grants are awarded over decades to find out why.
I’m sure the billions could have been spent for better use, such as finding a cure for cancer. But you get what you pay for. So, In this case you get nothing.
Not many of those dollars were spend putting researchers on site to gather data.
That would be hard work!
Dangerous hard work.
Not something glory hunting alarmists volunteer for, even if paid.
as with any government spending
Not billions on ice research grants specifically.
NOAAs ice and snow centre is not a large program. many grants are for ice adjacent areas , like fisheries or the local indigenous peoples.
Sea ice doesnt have careerists like Mann who hopped from solid Physics to dendrochronology the better his career chances- and they werent already smarter than him
Notice it’s dendro-chronology not dendro-climatology since the later doesn’t exist.
“Mann who hopped”
A rather amusing mental image.
I was reminded of the scene in “Men in Tights” where Robin Hood cut the Sheriff of Rottingham’s saddle strap, and the sheriff rode away hopping on his head while under the horse.
“Nobody knows, but billions of dollars in grants are awarded over decades to find out why.”
Yes and no.
Yes, “Nobody knows” and billions were spent.
I’m not aware of any effort to actually identify why?
Besides all that, do the bears really need the sea ice? The seals need a safe place to haul out to have their pups. If they haul out on the beach the bears would have a much easier time of snatching the adult seals. Sea ice offers the seals an escape from the bears, so the bears have to settle for the pups.
I saw that scenario on these pages some time ago.
Seal whelping season is late spring. Nobody ever said there wouldn’t be Arctic sea ice then. The whole ‘climate change endangers polar bears thru loss of sea ice’ thing was a scientific canard from the beginning.
Our
highly sophisticated computer modelMagic 8 Ball says …Essay ‘Northwest Passage’ in ebook Blowing Smoke used preWW2 DMI summer ice extent charts and the two Larsen NW Passage transits aboard St. Roch (1941-2, 1944) to make the case that summer Arctic Sea ice is roughly cyclical, with an apparent peak to trough of about 30-35 years. Arctic expert Akasofu made the same observation in his 2010 paper. And Wyatt and Curry made the same observation in their mid 2010’s Stadium Wave paper. No explanations, just observations.
I’ve proposed an explanation in the past. The driver of the ~60 year stadium wave is the Arctic sea ice itself. With the Arctic being mostly land locked the Arctic ocean temperature is not influenced by external currents to any great degree. This allows the ocean water to warm/cool based on the amount of sea ice.
The sea ice increases after the Arctic ocean vents its heat due to more open water. The sea ice decreases when the Arctic ocean warms up from more sea ice providing insulation.
With more/less sea ice, the air over the Arctic gets much colder/warmer and this escapes into the Northern Hemisphere. This drives the AMO as well as the stadium wave.
Interesting. Not so sure about external currents . just the other day I was reading about finding the wreck of HMS Hood in Denmark St near Iceland, they found very strong currents and that was at 2.8km/9300 ft down. So the Greenland Sea- Barents Sea part of the Arctic Ocean has them
I thought the same thing about this particular area. But, from what I could find it looks like the water loops around, sinks and then heads south.
These diagrams are nonsense.
Note they show the cold bottom water somehow ascending to the surface in teh middle of the very warm Indian Ocean, a physical impossibility.
They show upwelling where there is none evident or measured at the surface, and no upwelling in the regions it is known to occur.
You not supposed to notice that!!
We see it all the time off the Peruvian coast. It would require another set of forces to come into play.
It looks like this occurs as the current is approaching the Indian subcontinental shelf. That could be the cause of the rise. A combination of ocean floor geography and the inertia of the current.
I guess I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. It could be a slow process of mixing and warming.
From Earth.Nullschool.net – ocean currents currents setting:
NOAA’s interim graphic shows the cold current crossing rising ocean bottom then hitting an Mid Indian Ocean ridge. That is the likely culprit for causing cold nutrient dense upwelling of water to the surface.
Graphic artists aren’t known for including every branch of all ocean currents. They’re more just trying to get a concept across, not detailed hydrographic detail and explicit information regarding water movement, and velocity at all depths.
The publicity surrounding the deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a decade plus ago, indicated that temperature of water at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico at that location was barely above freezing. With the earth temperature below that and the water temperature above it much higher temperature than that, the cold water had to come from somewhere. It had to be water from one or both of the poles. Looking at the globe, the Gulf is protected from most of the surrounding Atlantic Ocean sea water flow by Mexico, Cuba, and Florida, but the icy polar water still gets there. There has to be significant ocean current to carry the icy water there without much warming.
There has been hard work done studying the inflow of warmer waters and outflow of colder waters in the arctic. One thing they need to understand better is why the flow varies. If it was nice and steady, like a river in its channel, it would be one thing, but apparently the currents have no banks and can wander, just as the jet-stream has no banks and can wander.
Dr. Phil Gray urged we invest in a study of thermohaline circulation, but Al Gore used his political clout to defund the good man, because Al was outraged Phil suggested CO2 had less effect on sea-ice than warm and cold currents. Therefore we can thank Al Gore that we do not know what Phil Gray wanted us to learn.
In the words of Frank Sinatra, That’s Life.
Willis, I have a couple of docks, one with pilings on granite bedrock and the other on bay fill. I follow the reports from nearby tidal gauges and the data from my own pilings. The data suggests I’m good for a century, maybe a millennia, but I do have questions that I would like to ask you. One is what exactly is sea level rise? Is it simply a measurement of the change in high tide, or is a more sophisticated measurement including the duration of high tide and the duration and height of low tide (ie, the local gauge effect of increased volume, ex-sea floor and base elevationd change). How does local gauge measurement differ from Satellite? Finally, does it follow that ice melt will increase sea level in direct proportion to the volume of new water, or will tidal changes occur as a consequence of gravity that results in longer highs and shorter lows? Would welcome your thoughts on these questions and any sources I could review.
I don’t have answers for you. But just wanted to comment that I had similar questions about purported sea level rise measurements which ultimately lead me to finding Watts Up, and becoming the proud Climate Realist I am today. Nostalgia!
PS. Another question for your list: as coastlines still rebound from the last ice age, how is this land rise taken into account with sea level rise measurements?
EW, there are two very different solutions to your vertical land motion problem.
One is to simply take a very large geographically diverse tide gauge sample and hope it averages out to near zero. Most papers use 200-300.
The other is to use dGPS vertical land motion corrected tide gauges. There are about 70 with sufficiently long records (~70 years) with dGPS sufficiently proximate to be useful. Moerner says those show 2.2mm/year with no acceleration. Very likely correct, since 2.2mm/yr also closes. See a much older post of mine on ‘Sea level rise, acceleration, and closure’ for details.
Thanks, Rud I! I’ll do that!
So a drowning Statue of Liberty isn’t imminent then? /s
When they start selling up at Marthas Vineyard we’ll know thats when they believe the stories told for the rest of the world
Civilian access to the GPS system didn’t occur until the 1980s, and as I recollect, it took a few more years before someone came up with the idea of differential GPS and implemented it.
Due to isostatic rebound the bottom of Hudson Bay is rising an inch or so a year. That means Hudson Bay can hold less water. Where does that water go?
Figuring out the reasons for sea-level rises involves more than melting ice.
Keeping in mind that dGPS is incapable of a 2.2mm measurement.
N.B., the waffle wording “can increase the accuracy of the data to ± 3 cm”.
Factually, dGPS improves GPS accuracy to within ±1 meter with refinement (averaging repeated measurements again) to an estimated ±10 cm.
Like a journey to St. Ives; kits, cats, sacks, and wives, how in ‘ell can they claim they measure 2.2 mm sea level rise using a ruler with ± 3 cm, (6 cm), increments?
Sea ice, by definition is ice floating in water. Ice floating in water displaces liquid water equal to the melt volume of the ice. Ice is less dense so it floats. When it melts there is no sea level change.
Glaciers and land base ice, when melt, affect sea level, depending on a variety of factors, such as ocean evaporation (hydro-cycle).
A clever guy, that Archimedes…
There is more. The thermal coefficient of expansion of sea water is itself temperature dependent. Kevin Trenberth’s missing heat could, conceivably, be hiding in the deep ocean where its presence would have far less effect on sea levels.
Of course this is very convenient for such people who like to have their cake and eat it: It’s there when you want to raise alarm but goes missing for explainable reasons when the alarms prove false.
Interesting, Michael, never thought of that. The thermal coefficient of expansion of sea water is also pressure dependent, although to a much smaller degree.
Turns out that the coefficient of expansion at the surface at 30°C is three times the CofE at 4°C at 2000 meters depth, assuming the same salinity which also has a small effect.
Much more than I’d have guessed.
Regards,
w.
Willis,
Years ago on WUWT I wrote of the “dirty dozen” math equations missing from climate research.
As in, for a 1deg C change in global temperature, what is the change in affected factors?
1degC = X mm of thermostatic sea level change
Not all the dozen are answered yet. Maybe none is.
Geoff S
The ocean expands in volume when the ocean warms up, not when the air 6′ above land surfaces warms up.
Also, to calculate the expansion of seawater, one has to compute the amount of ocean warming times the volume of water that has warmed and the amount of warming for each amount of water. Very complicated, and we have very sparse and highly questionable “data ” on ocean warming to begin with.
On top of all of that, the estimated time for the entire ocean volume to circulate from the depths to the surface and back, in order for the entire volume to even be exposed to the atmosphere to exchange thermal energy with the air, is estimated to be on the order of 800-900 years. And no one even has any idea how accurate THAT estimate may be.
Where is Calculus Man when you need him?
Geoff – for every degree the ocean warms it must expand by a calculable amount. But doesn’t the warming also increase evaporation, thus reducing the volume so that levels don’t rise (or rise as much as predicted)?
The real problem is how does a very miniscule amount of low density CO₂ warm an immense volume of high density H₂O?
Perhaps their inability to calculate water’s expansion/evaporation/volume is more about activists & alarmists not wanting to expose that weak part of their ocean warming claims?
At least for the Cosmological Coefficient they invented it as temporary fix for ‘what we dont know ‘
Climate scientist have an aversion to saying ‘they dont know’ so they say hiding in the depths instead.
Elmer, these days sea level is measured many times each day by an acoustic sensor in what is called a “stilling well”, which is basically a vertical pipe with a small hole in it so it doesn’t respond to the waves.
Before that, a stilling well with a float hooked up to a chart recorder was used.
So it does include the duration of the high and low tides.
As to the difference between tide gauges and satellites, it’s significant. See my post “Munging The Sea Level Data” for a discussion.
Regarding the relationship between land ice melt and sea level, it’s generally assumed to be simple addition. However, I suspect that the additional weight of water will push the seafloor crust down, and the loss of weight on the land will allow it to rebound, so the true answer is likely to be more complex.
w.
Over the time scales of concern (say a century or so), simple addition suffices. Closure is the simple math of additional seawater from melted/berged Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets plus thermosteric rise near the ocean surface measured newly quite accurately by ARGO. Best estimate 2.2mm/yr closes exactly with best tide gauge estimate 2.2mm/yr. Posted on it here some years ago in detail.
Willis: I believe it is also the case that much of the glacial/land ice accumulates snow/ice during winter which offsets some or perhaps all of the melt during warmer periods. It is net land ice melt that matters. It can be positive or negative.
Since all the climate models do is give us a lagged and scaled version of the inputs, I fear that your faith in them is … well … let me call it “optimistic”.
Data below.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/life-is-like-a-black-box-of-chocolates/
w.
Can satellites measure ice thickness? On first guess I would doubt that capability exists.
DMI have this
Modelled Arctic Sea Ice
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php
Claimed to be thickness and volume. I’ve no idea how the model works. But I’ve not seen any hysteria about this year’s data.
Ben, there are several papers on the several ways satellites attempt to measure sea ice thickness (only in winter) by comparing average ice surface height to sea level height. None are very good since height varies locally (pressure ridges) and snow confounds ice surface. I looked this up before posting subcomment.
Good point. As the sea ice extent in winter is far greater than the areas of open water, they must be cranking up the computer models
Checkout https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4734/
Just another climate model that pretends far greater accuracy from their measurement method (lasers in this case) than is physically possible based on wavelength.
Why?
Ying and yang?
That’s the simplest and most insightful possible explanation I’ve seen yet, Strat..
Story Tip
Observed decreasing trend in pan evaporation in a tropical rainforest region during 1959–2021
AbstractPan evaporation (Epan) is a critical measure of the atmospheric evaporation demand. Analyzing meteorological data from the Tropical Rainforest Comprehensive Meteorological Observation Field in the Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden (XTBG Meteorological Observing Station) based on physical models is helpful to improve our understanding of the state of the hydrological cycle in the Xishuangbanna tropical rainforest region. In this study, we investigated the long-term trend in Epan using the observation data from 1959 to 2021. Moreover, correlation analyses of Epan were performed, such as trend test, assessment of periodic properties and abrupt change analysis. Then, D20 Epan data and related meteorological data from 1979 to 2008 were used to drive Penman‒Monteith and PenPan models for simulating Epan. The partial derivative attribution method was used to analyze the dominant factors affecting Epan. The results showed that Epan exhibits obvious periodic changes, the 19a is the first primary period. In addition, there was a clear ‘evaporation paradox’ phenomenon in Xishuangbanna. Epan showed a decreasing trend during both 1959–2008 and 2009–2018, and the decreasing trend reached a significant level with a rate of −3.404 mm·a−2 during 1959–2008. Through comparative analysis, the PenPan model was considered more suitable for simulating Epan in Xishuangbanna. In order to identify the main meteorological factors influencing Epan, complete data from the D20 pan monitoring period, namely, 1979–2008, were selected for attribution calculations. The variations in the net radiation and saturated vapor pressure deficit are the main triggers that explain the ‘evaporation paradox’ phenomenon in Xishuangbanna.
Found at NoTrickszone
“So why do both poles have about the same extent of sea ice?”
Typically something like this is written off as coincidence, but each pole is so different the sea ice extent should be as well.
This is likely telling us something very significant about the energy balance or some such and how it regulates climate.
It is as mysterious as the fact that both hemispheres have nearly the same albedo, even tho NH has much more land.
Arctic sea ice declined during negative NAO regimes 1995-1999 and 2005-2012, and then leveled off during the mostly positive NAO regime since 2013. The negative NAO regimes are driving a warmer AMO as well as causing an increase in warm humidity events into the Arctic.
I don’t know enough about SAM to explain the mechanics of the bi-polar see-saw effect, but it is obviously still in operation.
There’s quite a few studies/papers out there talking about a ‘teleconnection’ between the Arctic and Antarctic. It’s not that fanciful.
My problem with such teleconnections is that until they can also explain the physical connections the ‘tele’ part is like magician Yuri Geller telebending spoons.
That’s precisely what some of the papers try to show/consider.
“Here, we hypothesize that the opposite trends in Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice concentration may be linked, at least partially, through interdecadal variability of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)”
Possible connections of the opposite trends in Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice cover
I would stay clear of anything ‘tele’. Its highly speculative and the real answer maybe ‘theres no there there’
What’s the point of quoting ONE example, applying your personal preconceptions, prejudices, and summarily dismissing it?
I’ve got no strong view on the notion, and I don’t honestly care, I just thought some people might be interested in exploring it further.
Thanks for the post, Mr. Eschenbach.
It’s good to try to understand what’s happening in the Arctic and what implications it holds for the future. The more albedo reflected with more sea ice extent and thickness, the larger the temperature gradient between the poles and the tropics.
My thoughts on this have been that the Arctic and Antarctic changes are largely independent. And the Antarctic is largely influenced by the winds around the continent. Which is complex.
However, the changes in the Arctic has an obvious cause that is explicable.
The rivers that feed the Arctic sea in Russia and Alaska (and to a lesser extent Canada) have been urbanised over the satellite period. Partly encouraged by the improved communications enabled by satellites.
Waste heat in river water is small compared to an Ocean. But at the edge of the ice sheet, it doesn’t need much more heat to reduce ice formation. That’s why the edge is the edge.
Thermal insulation and more efficient electric devices have reduced energy wastage at the time that the Arctic started to flat-line. LEDs make a difference, for instance.
I’ve posted this idea before and it was rejected here because it implies that mankind does have an effect on the Arctic, not for any rational reason.
Two other factors are ocean heating from geothermal underneath and the tremendous amount of energy coming from CME’s into the polar regions from an active Sun. Additionally we are losing our magnetic shield as it is weakening which intensifies the effects of even a moderate CME.
Geothermal ocean heating has been increasing in parts of the Antarctic for the last few decades as well as other parts of the world. The electrical effects from flares and CME’s has also increased, which directly influences both the strength of high and low pressure systems as well as magma formation.
In the past with a stronger magnetic field the Earth has been fairly stable, but the sizable and accelerating weakening of the field starting a couple of decades ago is going to be probably the major influence in the coming decades.
Willis,
you ask “ So why do both poles have about the same extent of sea ice?” and the answer is probably it is just a coincidence due to the current position of the continents. If you wait several million years Antartica will have shifted position as will the North American and Eurasian plates and the amount of sea ice at both poles will be very different.
Being dissatisfied with the wimps only projecting climate out to 2100 AD, Izaak confidently predicts the climate a million years from now …
w.
Actually, this question is a rather easy one to answer. The latitudinal temperature gradient is steeper toward the South Pole because temperatures in Antarctica are lower than in the Arctic. So it is colder between 65-70°S than between 65-70°N.
Scratch “Nobody”.
Thanks, Javier. So your claim is that the poles have the same amount of sea ice because the South Pole is so much colder than the North Pole?
…
Some actual numbers:
Between 65°-70°N the average temperature is -6.25°C.
Between 65°-70°S the average temperature is -11°C.
So your claim is that the 4.75°C temperature difference between those two zones mysteriously makes the sea ice extent equal?
Yeah, that’s totally legit …
w.
I have always been fascinated since my geothermal energy research days with the “volcanic” nature of Iceland, which isn’t a subduction feature, but sits on top of the mid-Atlantic rise. Unique, I think ?? Certainly not like the Hawaiian Island chain’s ‘hot spot’ genesis. Then there are the volcanic features of Antarctic geology. These are pretty curious goings on near the poles and despite denials of their significance in climate matters, I just keep wondering in ignorance.
West Antarctica’s mean annual surface temperatures cooled by more than -1.8°C (-0.93°C per decade) from 1999-2018 (Zhang et al., 2023).