Skip to comments.A New Record for Antarctic Total Ice Extent?
Posted on 09/12/2007 10:05:57 AM PDT by EPW Comm Team
A New Record for Antarctic Total Ice Extent? While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979.
This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent.
While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed Its hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.
Indeed, according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004.
This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. We will have recap on this hard winter shortly. See full story here.
Global Warming ping!
Doesn’t matter. Al Gore said the ice caps are melting. Whatever Al Gore says overrides what any other studies or scientists are saying.
Probably Antarctica doesn’t matter. But at the north pole, the polar bears are falling off the ice into the water, so we are told.
Where is Al Gore anyway? Haven’t heard from him since the Live Earth bomb and his son’s arrest. At least his son drives Prius though.
I guess penguin farts aren’t as potent as the cows.
This is not possible. There must be some error in recording data. There are no reasonable explanations for this. It is a random spike, nothing more. The ice may be larger, but it must be thinner. The Ice is full of holes of CO2 so therefore it’s bigger..............................
This is caused by Global Warming (TM). You see, heat rises, so the warming is going to the North Pole, leaving the South Pole much colder, and stranding untold numbers of polar bears.
Thus, Americans need to pay and pay for carbon credits and higher energy taxes to assuage their consciences.
THE COMING ICE AGE!!!!!
WE HAVE 10 YEARS TO CHANGE OUR WAYS!!!
For your consumption...
You see, heat rises, so the warming is going to the North Pole, leaving the South Pole much colder, and stranding untold numbers of polar bears.Solution: Relocate the polar bears to the south pole!
“At least his son drives Prius though.”
and his daughter drives a Maserati Quattroporte, for balance.
“All those penguins and seals...yum, yum!” said the polar bear. And then he went to pack his bags.
(sniff) That post is a thing of beauty....
Heresy! This goes against the teachings of the Church of Global Warming and the dogma of St. Algore...send in the Inquisition.
When I was little we had to walk 5 miles to school uphill bothways. It wasn't as "icy" in those days.
Then you never smelled a penguin fart.
The dummy; you’re only suppossed to count the warm spots.
The dummy; you’re only supposed to count the warm spots.
>>>But at the north pole, the polar bears are falling off the ice into the water,
... and Santa Claus too.
Don’t believe your lying eyes, listen to Al Gore. /s/
I do not believe in Global Warming, as I live in Michigan and our winters get colder each year and our summers seem to be hotter every year. Balance, I'm good with that.
I do believe that there is a finite amount of water on earth, and when we come up short somewhere (Grand Traverse Bay, for example), there will be more than needed elsewhere (Chicago...those guys get everything!) Again, balance.
So, to my question. Isn't the axis of the earth shifting? If it is, would that not explain the shifting of the ice balance from north to south poles? Honest, this is a serious question!
(think 'bout it!>
Thanks for the answer.
What are you going to believe, those images you can see with your own two eyes, or the ‘statistics’ put out by Al Gore and his disciples at the IPCC? If you answered your eyes, you need to get your vision checked. It is OBVIOUS that global warming is destroying the planet, as Al Gore says, ‘the debate is over’.
The obvious solution to this problem is rename the poles. Since the lunatic left, the save mama earth crowd, the liberals, the democrats, the media and a few wigged out scientists only seem to be able to focus on the North Pole, lets rename it the South Pole, rename the South Pole the North Pole and everyone will be deleriously happy.
Of course hemispheres and other things would have be renamed as well, but what a small price to pay for curing mental health problems around the planet.
Liberal Hype Debate Manual, Rule #1 (don't ask how I got this, I could get killed for knowing):
Never...EVER...let something pesky like FACTS get in the way.
Dig a big hole in the ice.
Line the hole with little green peas.
When the Polar Bear comes to take a pea, kick him in the ice-hole.
Pointing to something I have been asking about for some time, since I have known about it for some time.
If we have any “warming” it is (1) hemispheric - concentrated in the northern hemisphere (where we also have more land and more land-based temperature sensing stations) and is most likely equally offset by a “cooling” trend in the southern hemisphere.
Which suggests we have a change in the patterns of atmospheric circulation and distribution - not a total warming. And, in fact we know that is true because we have had continuous reporting of very much changed patterns in the “El Nino” and “El Nina” affects in the Pacific.
“Manmade” global warming is more political-science than science and when it’s not political-science, it’s an ignorance-based religion from those who believe what the political-science (politicized scientists) tells them.
Abstract: (apologies for symbol mistranslation from the PDF): "Estimates of sea ice extent based on satellite observations show an increasing Antarctic sea ice cover from 1979 to 2004 even though in situ observations show a prevailing warming trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean. This riddle is explored here using a global multicategory thickness and enthalpy distribution sea ice model coupled to an ocean model. Forced by the NCEPNCAR reanalysis data, the model simulates an increase of 0.20 1012 m3 yr1 (1.0% yr1) in total Antarctic sea ice volume and 0.084 1012 m2 yr1 (0.6% yr1) in sea ice extent from 1979 to 2004 when the satellite observations show an increase of 0.027 1012 m2 yr1 (0.2% yr1) in sea ice extent during the same period. The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity, and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 19792004 and the extended period 19482004."
In the above, yr1 should be yr^-1, i.e., square meters per year. There are a bunch of non-printing characters that are a pain to delete.
It’s no more ridiculous than some of the official explanations we sometimes hear.
The SH is warming, but not as quickly at the surface because most of the SH surface is water, and there is a definite time-lag of ocean warming due to the high heat content of water. And one of the main land masses in the SH, Australia, is already very warm because it's mostly desert, so the effects there are harder to detect. See the above post about the sea ice model (though I can't intellectually defend it because I don't pretend to understand it). Land areas of Antarctica that are influenced by sea surface temperatures are warming markedly. The unique environment of central Antarctica, which for several reasons is semi-isolated from the rest of the world, has shown a small cooling trend.
It has to do with approach of Planet X in Sept. of 2009.
Sorry, got no tinfoil on today!
Oh. ...sorry bought that ...
“And one of the main land masses in the SH, Australia, is already very warm because it’s mostly desert, so the effects there are harder to detect.”
The “desert” status of an area makes no difference, about anything, if there is any general “global” aspect to the “warming” - a small difference in Australia’s desert is no less, or greater, of an indicator than the small difference in the northern hemisphere, which in spite of all the local, and often contradictory, evidence, is itself small.[Which, by the way, in case you didn’t notice, the “data” has again been corrected and now reflects that 1934, not 1998 was “the hottest” in North America - in spite of 70 years of more “CO2”]. [What was it they said about the massive catastrophes in the next 70 years????]
It is not harder to detect that the average annual temperature at an Australian weather station has risen from 100.0025 degrees farenheit to 100.0034 degrees farenheit than it is to detect that the average annual temperature in Fargo North Dakota has gone form 73.0025 to 73.0034 (all figures fictional).
“Manmade” global warming (as opposed to natural warming and cooling) is political science, not science.
"n further response to Singer's letter, we (and the AMQUA folks) are certainly aware of the evidence for the so-called "1500-year cycle" in climate. But we are unaware of any evidence that this has anything to do with the current warming, as Singer claims. And we find it is curious that Singer's recent view that the earth is cooling has been replaced with the view that the current warming is "unstoppable."
In case you didn't notice, this correction made nary a whit of difference to the global trends, where 1998 is by far the warmest year -- except for 2005, which was nearly as warm.
And this is quoted from my profile:
"Quote from the above: "Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century." [I have done a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation for a FR post, which is reproduced here. "OK, it's warmed about 0.4 C since 1975. Call it +0.13 C per century (which actually agrees with Spencer and Christy's MSU satellite data analysis, other groups put it higher). So if 1975 is the "0" point, then 1998 should have been 0.3 C warmer than 1985. Instead, it was 0.2 C above the trend line, i.e. 0.5 C. According to the current decadal trend (barring accelerations), it should take 38.5 years for the global temperature to rise 0.5 C. That would be -- 2013. So it's basically unsurprising (and expected) that there hasn't been a year warmer than 1998 yet, even though 2005 was a virtual tie. So we either have to wait until 2013 (or a year with the next large El Nino) to expect a new global temperature "record". "]
Seeing this, I realize you misunderstood. Areas with more range of changeability will show a larger warming signal than areas that are already very warm due to regional climate factors. I.e., in a global warming scenario, the North Dakota fields would be expected to warm more that the Australian outback.
“Seeing this, I realize you misunderstood. Areas with more range of changeability will show a larger warming signal than areas that are already very warm due to regional climate factors. I.e., in a global warming scenario, the North Dakota fields would be expected to warm more that the Australian outback.”
Seeing this, I realize you “misunderstand” true science and logical use of it. Knowing that everything concerning science in the rest of your statement above is known, by us as well as the “scientists” it is accounted for and in that accounting demonstrates, that due to those known variabilities, and with them scientifically in tow, it is NOT “harder” to detect “warming” in the deserts of Australia than in North Dakota. What you speak is the language of political science (”warming signal”) intended to mask the absence of true science. The “range of changeability” is known and completely accountable in addressing the “weaker” but still present “warming signal” in an area of less “changeability”, when science uses that change, no matter how “weak” in an appropriately long term trend.
But, when the political science is demanding immediate results (not long term trend (1,000s of years), one can understand the purely political difficulty the political scientists have (they don’t want and cant sit on the desert for 100 years).
When you recognize (1) the errors made (a) in the selectivity of the starting points for both the rise in temperature and the rise in CO2 and (b) in the starting values for CO2 at that starting point - in the “man made” mathematical models; and (2) the intentional manipulation of US temperature data in the early years (program code that lowers the temperature data input to the algorithms or many US sites for the early years and intentionally quits performing that lowering at a convenient time); then you know you have a political science project cherry picking “science facts” that fit a template that began with that political science project and not with the facts.
Regardless of any warming that any area of the world may be experiencing now, it (”warming”) is not “manmade” it is part of natural cycles that the solar system and Earth’s relationship to it has been producing throughout Earth’s existence. The rest (”manmade”) is religion (ignorance) when it is not intentional political science.
Good luck with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.