Antarctic Sea Ice Extent

[LithiaWx]

Lol at trying to spin record high extent in the satellite era.

[nflwxman]

Why is this thread such a train wreck?  Can we just talk about Antarctic sea and land ice?

[The_Global_Warmer]

The most over-looked part of the Antarctic increase in sea ice area is that the Southern Ocean SSTA have dropped about 0.275C since the Spring of 2006.

 

But the Southern Ocean has also seen about 22-23MM of SLR since 2006.  Roughly 3MM a year. 

 

 

That is a pretty impressive disparity.

 

 

 

 

 

Which coincides with the argo data showing a massive increase in Southern Ocean OHC during the post mid 2000s. 

 

 

Now granted the Southern Ocean as depicted below goes to about 40-45S.  This really implies a big wind shift took place and caused heat to head downwards. 

 

This also Coincides with the Atlantic leveling out in OHC and even dropping some and the Indian Ocean increasing which is also the first basin Southern Ocean sub-surface would be able to distribute some heat to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

Why is this thread such a train wreck?  Can we just talk about Antarctic sea and land ice?

 

Because there is nothing new to add... All the possible explanations have been discussed. We each one of us have taken sides yet again and it's turned into a mess. Every thread in the "climate change" forum eventually ends up like this. Antarctica is gaining sea ice.... that's a fact, The cause is not settled....another fact. Will we all agree on a root-cause..... never.

[LithiaWx]

Because there is nothing new to add... All the possible explanations have been discussed. We each one of us have taken sides yet again and it's turned into a mess. Every thread in the "climate change" forum eventually ends up like this. Antarctica is gaining sea ice.... that's a fact, The cause is not settled....another fact. Will we all agree on a root-cause..... never.

 

Bingo,  cold hard facts are few and far between.  One of them though is the record high sea ice extent. 

[nflwxman]

Because there is nothing new to add... All the possible explanations have been discussed. We each one of us have taken sides yet again and it's turned into a mess. Every thread in the "climate change" forum eventually ends up like this. Antarctica is gaining sea ice.... that's a fact, The cause is not settled....another fact. Will we all agree on a root-cause..... never.

I think the explanations and theories are there.  Whether or not people put the time and effort into reading papers on this topic seems to be the issue.  Growing antarctic sea ice does not really have many implications on AGW.  In fact, it probably means very little about climate sensitivity and associate feedbacks (the area growth would have to be much larger to cause an increase of albedo negative forcing).  So if you are hoping that somehow this dulls the implications of AGW-  you are likely mistaken.  Regional attribution is generally a tougher part of climate science.  Models have done a spotty job in general with small grid points, undoubtedly. 

 

It could be, as TGW shows above, the wind patterns have changed leading to more heat transported downward.  It's a completely reasonable explanation for the SST drop in the Southern Ocean.  In my mind, that seems to be one of the most well supported hypothesis. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

It doesn't help when there is hype saying this "epic" and "unprecedented".  When we are talking about a very small relative expansion of very very thin ice.

 

During peak ice thickness about 25% of the ice is 1 Meter thick or more.  About 50% of the ice is .5 meters thick or less.

 

 

From NASA satellite OBS.

 

 

 

 

From Australia annual sea ice thickness on average. 

 

 

It's so thin it's effects on albedo are even negligible in many areas.  It's also not a solid sheet almost anywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's a lot more important to look into why the heat below the Southern Ocean has dramatically expanded concurrently with a field of ice chunks under a half meter thick have spread out over a vastly large sea by 1-1.5 million in area.

 

From average to the maximum we are talking about a gain of about 400-600km2 in additional sea ice volume.

 

The arctic has lost about 12000km3 of sea ice volume from the late 1970s to the maximum loss. 

 

Actually going all out Max it's closer to 14000km3 but has oscillated back to 10-12Km3.

 

Basically the arctic has lost 22-28x more Sea ice Volume than the Southern Ocean has gained at the height of gaining or losing ice.

 

The ice is not the story here.  The mechanisms and the observed huge increase in OHC in the Southern Ocean coinciding with the ice expansion is what needs to be questioned and figured out.

[LithiaWx]

TGW, everything you posted doesn't change the black and white numbers.  We are witnessing extent running higher than it has at any time in the satellite record at the least.  No telling how far back we could go to find an extent this high at the maximum.  That is the definition of unprecedented in recent times which is what I wrote.  I also wrote that this is epic. While the word epic may be hyperbole you are no stranger to that so it's pretty loltastic you would go there. 

 

I am very interested in what is causing this, but right now all we have are hypothesis'.  We don't know how important this is.  You seem to be suggesting you know it's not significant and that imo is a big mistake in assuming anything regarding the climate system.

[Cold Rain]

TGW, everything you posted doesn't change the black and white numbers.  We are witnessing extent running higher than it has at any time in the satellite record at the least.  No telling how far back we could go to find an extent this high at the maximum.  That is the definition of unprecedented in recent times which is what I wrote.  I also wrote that this is epic. While the word epic may be hyperbole you are no stranger to that so it's pretty loltastic you would go there. 

 

I am very interested in what is causing this, but right now all we have are hypothesis'.  We don't know how important this is.  You seem to be suggesting you know it's not significant and that imo is a big mistake in assuming anything regarding the climate system.

 

Yet this continues to be a frequent occurrence.  To suggest that A is a substantial and meaningful event while B is dismissed out of hand as inconsequential and irrelevant without any proof of either viewpoint is a foolish position to take and is one most always taken on the basis of one's particular bias.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I know(.25-.35M) 8-14" thick chunks of ice being spread out over 1-1.5 million of Southern Ocean area between 55-60N is not epic. 

 

I know the OHC rise in the Southern Ocean that has concurrently taken place holds immeasurably more importance and value then fields of foot thick ice chunks being blown around the Southern Ocean.

 

The changes in the arctic off the scale versus the Antarctic in term of "sea" ice.

 

It's not hyperbole to say the arctic has seen unprecedented changes losing 75% of it's summer minimum sea ice volume compared to the Antarctic gaining maybe 2-4% more of it's volume at it's max.

 

That is like Detroit Michigan seeing their snow totals drop by like 40-50" a winter and Atlanta Georgia seeing there average go up 2" and acting like it's comparable.

[LithiaWx]

I know(.25-.35M) 8-14" thick chunks of ice being spread out over 1-1.5 million of Southern Ocean area between 55-60N is not epic. 

 

I know the OHC rise in the Southern Ocean that has concurrently taken place holds immeasurably more importance and value then fields of foot thick ice chunks being blown around the Southern Ocean.

 

The changes in the arctic off the scale versus the Antarctic in term of "sea" ice.

 

It's not hyperbole to say the arctic has seen unprecedented changes losing 75% of it's summer minimum sea ice volume compared to the Antarctic gaining maybe 2-4% more of it's volume at it's max.

 

That is like Detroit Michigan seeing their snow totals drop by like 40-50" a winter and Atlanta Georgia seeing there average go up 2" and acting like it's comparable.

 

Strawman,  This thread is about Antarctic Sea Ice Extent.  Anything relating to the Arctic is just clouding the issue that this thread is about.  Considering most of the Antarctic ice melts out every summer Volume wouldn't be a metric I would look at with much weight.  Abnormal extent OTH could alter weather patterns.

[PisgahNCWeather]

I would have to agree with Marietta that to continue to scoff at the record highs at Antartica and trying to minimize its impact is silly.  It is what it is people.  Shows that it is very likely that natural cycles are at play here.  One goes up the other goes down and vica versa. Betting that when Arctic starts gaining yearly again, Antarctica will start declining.  If not we are in serious trouble with an ice age.  Sorry no peer reviewed papers just current data.

 

[AvantHiatus]

I would have to agree with Marietta that to continue to scoff at the record highs at Antartica and trying to minimize its impact is silly.  It is what it is people.  Shows that it is very likely that natural cycles are at play here.  One goes up the other goes down and vica versa. Betting that when Arctic starts gaining yearly again, Antarctica will start declining.  If not we are in serious trouble with an ice age.  Sorry no peer reviewed papers just current data.

Stop with the hype please, Arctic is not going to keep gaining yearly ice if you understand system dynamics. Antarctica is not gaining land ice, which is what matters in the long-haul. Take a look for yourself, West Anarctica is particularily vulnerable and closer to the sea surface.

 

 

 

Indications that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing mass at an increasing rate come from the Amundsen Sea sector, and three glaciers in particular: the Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith Glaciers.^[4] Data reveal they are losing more ice than is being replaced by snowfall. According to a preliminary analysis, the difference between the mass lost and mass replaced is about 60%. The melting of these three glaciers alone is contributing an estimated 0.24 millimetres per year to the rise in the worldwide sea level.^[5] There is growing evidence that this trend is accelerating: there has been a 75% increase in Antarctic ice mass loss in the ten years 1996–2006, with glacier acceleration a primary cause.^[6] As of November 2012 the total mass loss from the West Antarctica is estimated at 118 ± 9 Gt/y mainly from the Amundsen Sea coast.^[7]

[LithiaWx]

Stop with the hype please, Arctic is not going to keep gaining yearly ice if you understand system dynamics. Antarctica is not gaining land ice, which is what matters in the long-haul. Take a look for yourself, West Anarctica is particularily vulnerable and closer to the sea surface.

 

You state this as a fact.  This is yet to be determined. 

[AvantHiatus]

You state this as a fact.  This is yet to be determined. 

Lol, I'm not even sure if the arctic gained any sea ice much less land ice since 2012. Greenland had it's worst spring and late summer melt on record. The SIE is really a poor measurement of system health, unless albedo goes way up or way down and flips the system toward a tipping point.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

I know(.25-.35M) 8-14" thick chunks of ice being spread out over 1-1.5 million of Southern Ocean area between 55-60N is not epic. 

 

I know the OHC rise in the Southern Ocean that has concurrently taken place holds immeasurably more importance and value then fields of foot thick ice chunks being blown around the Southern Ocean.

 

The changes in the arctic off the scale versus the Antarctic in term of "sea" ice.

 

It's not hyperbole to say the arctic has seen unprecedented changes losing 75% of it's summer minimum sea ice volume compared to the Antarctic gaining maybe 2-4% more of it's volume at it's max.

 

That is like Detroit Michigan seeing their snow totals drop by like 40-50" a winter and Atlanta Georgia seeing there average go up 2" and acting like it's comparable.

 

You are not comparing apples to apples. I answered your comparison in an earlier post.

[LithiaWx]

Lol, I'm not even sure if the arctic gained any sea ice much less land ice. Greenland had it's worst spring and late summer melt on record. The SIE is really a poor measurement of system health, unless albedo goes way up or way down and flips the system toward a tipping point.

 

I'm pretty sure if you look at PIOMASS you will see that the arctic did gain ice this season just as it did last season.  I didn't think that was debatable. I didn't mention Greenland, not sure why you are.

[Jonger]

Stop with the hype please, Arctic is not going to keep gaining yearly ice if you understand system dynamics. Antarctica is not gaining land ice, which is what matters in the long-haul. Take a look for yourself, West Anarctica is particularily vulnerable and closer to the sea surface.

 

Antarctica has probably been losing ice mass for quite a long time.... This is starting to get exposed as BS now.

[nflwxman]

Antarctica has probably been losing ice mass for quite a long time.... This is starting to get exposed as BS now.

 

uhh what?

[Jonger]

uhh what?

 

The temps in Antarctica have not been rising, the only thing rising is the number of BS excuses trying to explain it away. Trying to point to West Antarctica as an example of climate change is a big fat lie.

[LithiaWx]

Antarctica has probably been losing ice mass for quite a long time.... This is starting to get exposed as BS now.

 

GRACE data suggests that Antarctica is losing land ice mass.  Why is debatable, the fact it is losing mass isn't scientifically debatable.

[Jonger]

GRACE data suggests that Antarctica is losing land ice mass.  Why is debatable, the fact it is losing mass isn't scientifically debatable.

 

No doubt.. It probably is, but it probably was losing ice mass for decades or centuries.

 

It probably gains ice mass during an ice age and slowly loses it during inter-glacial periods. The interior never stops gaining ice though.

 

The BS I was referring to was that the icemass being lost is unprecedented and its more and more looking like its not.

[nflwxman]

The temps in Antarctica have not been rising, the only thing rising is the number of BS excuses trying to explain it away. Trying to point to West Antarctica as an example of climate change is a big fat lie.

I don't even...

 

Please tell me you are trolling.

[bluewave]

GRACE data suggests that Antarctica is losing land ice mass.  Why is debatable, the fact it is losing mass isn't scientifically debatable.

 

The current Antarctica melt rate contributes less than 10% to the annual 3.3mm sea level rise.

[csnavywx]

CDW-driven melt has increased considerably over the past 20 years, that's not really in doubt either. Neither is the freshening of the surface layer. Or the fact that the Weddell polynya doesn't appear anymore either.

[bluewave]

http://www.nature.co...limate2219.html

For far too long the climate science community has grappled with an inconvenient truth: the vast majority of the datasets used to constrain temperature trends of the recent past come from the Northern Hemisphere. Over a dozen reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature spanning the past millennium exist and have played a critical role in distinguishing natural from anthropogenic climate change. However, the extent to which recent temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere resemble those in the Southern Hemisphere remains unclear. Such information is critical to a complete understanding of the mechanisms of global, rather than hemispheric, climate change. Although the new reconstruction resembles the Northern Hemisphere reconstructions in some key aspects — the anomalous nature of twentieth century warming being one of them — it also suggests that temperatures in the two hemispheres may have differed more than they have agreed over the past millennium.

However, the new reconstruction of Southern Hemisphere temperature1 suggests that the climate model simulations of past climate systematically underestimate the magnitude of natural climate variability in the Southern Hemisphere. At first glance, the reconstruction contains the same basic features of the Northern Hemisphere family of reconstructions — a centuries-long cooling into the seventeenth century, and a twentieth-century warming of unprecedented duration and magnitude. But a close comparison between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere reconstructions reveals many intervals when the two series diverge for decades at a time. Notably, some of these differences occur following large volcanic eruptions, when the Northern Hemisphere cools significantly but the Southern Hemisphere does not, at least according to the new reconstruction1. The fact that many of these differences occur within the past 400 years, when the data networks from both hemispheres are most robust, makes it less likely that such temperature differences are artifacts of poor data coverage. That said, it is possible that small but cumulative age errors in single palaeoclimate records may smear out interannual variability in large-scale temperature reconstructions — currently the topic of vigorous debate.

If the new reconstruction of Southern Hemisphere temperature is accurate, then estimates of climate sensitivity — the response of global temperature change to a given amount of external radiative forcing — may be lower than those calculated based solely on Northern Hemisphere reconstructions. Indeed, instrumental temperature data suggest that warming in the Northern Hemisphere has been greater than that observed in the Southern Hemisphere over the past two decades — a feature reproduced in the current suite of climate models11. Therefore, this hemispheric asymmetry may be a fundamental feature of the climate system’s response to a change in radiative forcing, whereby the ocean-dominated Southern Hemisphere acts as a buffer of sorts to global temperature change on decadal to centennial timescales. On the other hand, Neukom et al. propose that divergent hemispheric temperatures arise from strong natural climate variability in the Southern Hemisphere, and have been a constant feature of the past millennium.

Given the new information now available from the Southern Hemisphere, climate scientists must consider a larger role for natural climate variability in contributing to global temperature changes over the past millennium. While the new reconstruction brings strong additional support to the phrase ‘anthropogenic global warming’, it also highlights the limits of our current ability to understand, and predict, global temperature variations from decade to decade. In other words, global temperatures will warm appreciably by 2100, but the road may be bumpy and full of surprises.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I would have to agree with Marietta that to continue to scoff at the record highs at Antartica and trying to minimize its impact is silly. It is what it is people. Shows that it is very likely that natural cycles are at play here. One goes up the other goes down and vica versa. Betting that when Arctic starts gaining yearly again, Antarctica will start declining. If not we are in serious trouble with an ice age. Sorry no peer reviewed papers just current data.

It doesn't refute AGW in any way, so there's no reason to "scoff" at it. In fact, it may partially be due to anthropogenic CFC forcing destroying ozone and strengthening the circumpolar vortex.

At least there is a physical basis to that theory. The meltwater stuff is just lol-tactic.

[chubbs]

Loss of ice sheet mass in both Greenland and Antarctica has only developed to a significant extent in the past 20 years

 

[chubbs]

It doesn't refute AGW in any way, so there's no reason to "scoff" at it. In fact, it may partially be due to anthropogenic CFC forcing destroying ozone and strengthening the circumpolar vortex.

At least there is a physical basis to that theory. The meltwater stuff is just lol-tactic.

  We'll have to disagree on the impact of freshening Antarctic waters There is a clear physical basis but its going to take future research to determine whether it plays a significant role.

[StudentOfClimatology]

We'll have to disagree on the impact of freshening Antarctic waters There is a clear physical basis but its going to take future research to determine whether it plays a significant role.

Yep. Until you explain how bottom-melt can accelerate despite the observed cooling of the upper 50-75m of the Southern Ocean, and a notable increase in vertical mixing, I call BS.

Furthermore, how the supposed deep-water melt (below 50-75m) can magically teleport from that depth to the sea surface is still a mystery to nearly everyone I've asked about this today (including two oceanographers).