Twenty-Three Consecutive Months Of Above Normal Antarctic Sea Ice

Every day for the last 23 months, Antarctic sea ice area has been above normal. It is currently 13,100 Manhattans above normal. To put this in perspective, alarmists got hysterical last year about a perfectly normal glacier calving in Greenland – which was 2 Manhattans in size.

ScreenHunter_333 Sep. 07 20.02

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008

ScreenHunter_336 Sep. 07 20.08

Greenland Glacier Sheds Two Manhattans’ Worth of Ice | Climate Central

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Twenty-Three Consecutive Months Of Above Normal Antarctic Sea Ice

  1. F. Guimaraes says:

    To use a word that the alarmists like so much, it’s “unprecedented” as far as recorded data go, nearly 35 years. Both poles are getting colder.

  2. norilsk says:

    It was the Great Global Warming Swindle that caused me to see the light. Now I know just how irrelevant CO2 is.

  3. matayaya says:

    To understand why the Antarctic sea ice expanded, you need to know what is happening to the Antarctic land ice and the warming ocean around the Antarctic. Land ice is moving to the continental shelf into the ocean. The warming ocean puts more humidity into the air resulting in more snow to ice over the continental shelf giving the appearance from the satellite of a larger ice mass while underneath in the water, the warmer water is reducing the thickness and mass of the shelf ice. Though counter intutitive, the satellite image showing more area of ice really disguises the fact of less ice. Climate science is complicated. Don’t just get your jollies from cherry picked information from someone with a political ax to grind.

    • Did you suffer a head injury recently?

      • matayaya says:

        If you are actually curious about the science, check this out. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

        • John Cook is one of the biggest frauds in the business

        • matayaya says:

          For being such a strong opiniated debater, you are man of few words. I regret you are not curious about the science. There were about ten references to specifc studies you can link on to get the underlying science. This was hardly the opinion of one man. The underlying science of what you are defending shows a single cherry picked data that tells the opposite of what the main stream science is saying. That makes it politics, not science.

        • suyts says:

          Yes, Cook and his serial dishonesty. He quotes a lot of papers whose data is mostly derived from the GRACE tandem. Odd that he never seems to mention ICEsat papers.

          http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

          Oops. GRACE derived estimates on ice mass are simply unreliable. Go back through the literature Cook offers and note the wide disparity of estimates. There’s no reason to take any of them serious. The margin of error usually exceeds the estimates. They are of no value.

        • matayaya says:

          So you all are actually saying that warming is not occuring? I thought the debate had moved beyond that. Most of the people I see you all quoting are not saying warming is not occuring, but that it is less than what most climate scientist are saying. I thought you all had moved on to yea, it may be warming, but it is no big deal and we will learn to live with it. But no, you all seem to actually be saying the Earth is cooling. Wow. I haven’t seen you all mention the word “ocean”. That happens to be where 90 percent of the added warmth resides at the moment. The land and air warmth is just the tail of the dog.

        • Robertv says:

          warming ?

        • matayaya says:

          You may think your graph of 65 million years settles the issue but it doesn’t begin to address the relative rapid temperature increase of the past 100 years that nothing in recorded history equates too.

        • suyts says:

          @ matayaya …… you ladies are moving the goal posts so much you don’t even know where you’re putting them! Read what Steve wrote. At first the lunatics proclaimed our sea ice was decreasing because of global warming. Now they’re saying its increasing because of global warming? But, the global warming which got you girls excited has stopped for ~15 yrs. And, the lunatics are still claiming that the overall trend in the ice is decreasing.

          Well, which is it? You’re arguing out of both sides of your orifices. It’s a huge circle of fail. Wait, don’t tell me!!! I know the answer!!! The ocean ate all the global warming which is now lurking on the bottom of the seas, but, somehow teleconnects back up to the surface to warm the ice only the hide back down at the bottom of the ocean without detection!!! Seriously. You believe that nonsense? And, if you do, which part? All of it?

        • How odd that the IPCC were unaware of this unprecedented rise in temperature when they wrote their 1990 report. Not till Mikey Mann came along and set the world straight.

        • matayaya says:

          Your premise about the IPCC is faulty. The IPCC only reviews, not write their own, peer reviewed climate science articles and reports on the consensis of those articles. Be specific if you want to say the consensis was no warming. That is hardly what I see in their historical reports.

        • F. Guimaraes says:

          “… The warming ocean puts more humidity into the air resulting in more snow to ice over the continental shelf giving the appearance from the satellite of a larger ice mass while underneath in the water, the warmer water is reducing the thickness and mass of the shelf ice…”
          You’re wrong in both statements: /1/ the southern hemisphere SST’s (Sea Surface Temperatures) are getting lower

          and in the Antarctic region,
          http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/satellites-confirm-antarctic-is-getting-colder/
          /2/ The increased CO2 of recent times is driving the atmosphere drier, which is the opposite of what “the models” say,
          http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/03/peer-reviewed-study-finds-that-co2-induced-warming-causes-atmosphere-to-hold-less-water-vapor.html

          Therefore, your conclusions are wrong because based on false assumptions and Steve conclusions are correct because he’s just stating the observed facts in a logical manner.
          The “warmists” are the real “deniers” of reality.

  4. matayaya says:

    It is counter intutitive, but its true. Relative warmer water has melted the Artic sea ice while increasing the Antarctic sea ice. Quite a conundrum for you non critical thinkers. Too bad you don’t have the discipline and intellectual curiosity to try and understand it.

    • Warm water is increasing Antarctic sea ice? Did she also turn you into a newt?

    • tom0mason says:

      Critical thinking appears to be entirely missing. Along with adhering to the basic laws of physics. By what basic mechanism of science does warm water in the arctic cause more ice? There is none known to sane people.
      May I refer you to http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-3224.1 (pdf)

      • matayaya says:

        If you read more carefully, I said warm water decreases the sea ice in the Arctic while increasing the sea ice in the Antarctic. Before knee jerk disagreeing, make an effort to understand the premise of the point.

      • matayaya says:

        I tried to link the website you put up but seems they have taken the article down.

        • tom0mason says:

          I am currently rereading it on line.

        • matayaya says:

          Ok, I got it this time. It is a long technical article. Before I wade in, what are you saying it is saying? You saw that I said the Antarctic gains sea ice with warming, not the Arctic.

        • tom0mason says:

          “You saw that I said the Antarctic gains sea ice with warming, not the Arctic.” Yes I did.
          The idea of the Arctic gain ice with warming is counterintuitive. I’ll agree that the two pole tend to grow and shrink at different times but is there a study of them showing that they are synchronized in any way?

        • matayaya says:

          They are different systems, only distantly syncronized. The jet streams bounces around from over the Arctic to over the US. The Arctic is very connected to the northern latitude weather system. The Antarctic is very isolated, that is why it is 50 degrees colder there than the Arctic. It warms in the Antarctic but is still well below freezing.
          2012 was an extreme low of sea ice in the Arctic so returning more to the norm is not such a big deal in 2013. The satellite pictures from the 70s and 80s show a stark decrease in Arctic sea ice, even with the 2013 “rebound”.

        • F. Guimaraes says:

          Yeah, but you forgot the little detail that Antarctic is not warming,
          http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/satellites-confirm-antarctic-is-getting-colder/
          Basically, no part of the world is (on the average) warming now, we’re having a cooling trend since 2001,
          http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
          If you don’t acknowledge this you’re in denial of the facts
          No matter what you say or what the papers you read say, they must agree with the facts or they’re wrong.

        • F. Guimaraes says:

          @tom0mason says:
          “The idea of the Arctic gain ice with warming is counterintuitive. I’ll agree that the two pole tend to grow and shrink at different times but is there a study of them showing that they are synchronized in any way?”
          Some say that when the Arctic starts to get colder more pronouncedly in the years ahead, the Antarctic will start getting warm due to the see-saw effect,
          http://westernusawx.info/forums/index.php?showtopic=33725&p=651916
          but it has not yet started because right now Antarctica is cooling and have been so for 35 years (at least),
          http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/satellites-confirm-antarctic-is-getting-colder/
          I am of the opinion that even the see-saw effect must be strongly affected by solar radiation levels, which could revert or alter the effect to some extent… but I’m really not sure.

        • tel0 says:

          These are from the IPCC TAR4 predictions made in 2007:

          Snow cover is projected to contract. Widespread increases in thaw depth are projected over most permafrost regions. {10.3, 10.6}

          Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios. In some projections, arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century. {10.3}

          It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent. {10.3}

          Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period. {9.5, 10.3, 3.8}

          Extratropical storm tracks are projected to move poleward, with consequent changes in wind, precipitation and temperature patterns, continuing the broad pattern of observed trends over the last half-century. {3.6, 10.3}

          What should be obvious by now is that these predictions turned out wrong. Given that these are supposedly the foremost climate experts, and they failed their predictions, why take other predictions seriously?

        • matayaya says:

          Why make it about individuals? Stick to the scientific method. It is a fits and starts method that has taught us a whole lot about how the world works. We are a people of laws and a people of the scientific method. Just keep plugging away.

  5. matayaya says:

    Personally I make no predictions. I am just trying to understand climate science 101. Too many of you folks want to reject what 97 percent of climate scientist are saying before fully understanding what they are actually saying. Show a little skepticism toward your beloved 3 percent once in awhile.

    • So an activist publishes a dubious paper claiming that 97% of scientists agree that the planet has warmed and CO2 contributes to warming (which 97% of sceptics agree with anyway)… yet if we look back at the last 20 years of climate science predictions we find out 97% of them turned out to be wrong:

      http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

      Yet you still believe with all your heart. How sweet.

      • matayaya says:

        The 97 percent thing refers to peer reviewed climate scientist that believe global warming is being caused by man. You guys are still saying the world is cooling. I don’t think there is a peer reviewed climate scientist out there, 97 per cent or 3 percent, saying global warming doesn’t exist. The debate has moved on to how much and how much is man contributing to it.

      • matayaya says:

        I just read the link attached to your note. This study focuses on surface temperatures. Surface and atmosphere account for only 10 percent of global warming heat. What about the other 90 percent? The author of the study notes briefly that ocean currents “may” play a role but that “too little is known” to be able to include that in the study. “To little is known”, that is cute trick. We may not know everything but we certainly know some things about the ocean heat. The measuring has improved considerably in the last few years and heat is being found lower in the ocean than had been considered before. Surface heat is only the tail of the dog.

  6. Let’s see what we have…

    * The last 10 years or so have been the warmest on record. Which for the last 300 years or so, approximately, has been true also. (Because the planet has been warmingly mildly for that long).

    * The 30 year Arctic sea ice trend is down, although we see a 60 year up/down cycle in the historical temperature data…

    * 97% of climate scientists agree on something trivial that sceptics agree about as well.

    Is this the sum total of your ‘evidence’ that we’re heading for a global warming catastrophe or did I miss something?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s