North and south are both close to 12 million km^2. The Arctic is deficient about 1 million km^2 while the Antarctic has an excess of almost 2 million km^2.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
You are cherry picking global ice because it is above normal. If you would just look at how the ice is melting in one small part of the Arctic, you would see that the globe IS warming at an alarming rate….
Okay, I admit it, I miss Brendon and ChrisD. Not nearly as many laughs here!
I can not get the calculation 2M km^2 – 1M km^2 = 1M km^2 +-0.00 through the peer review process as I am not a qualified climatologist.
The earth is warming at an alarming rate, that is a joke.
Look at any graph of past temperatures and it will refute that notion,other then Mann’s ridiculous hockey stick. This warming of last century was typical, and was the result of natural influences on the climate, which have since started to turn into a colder mode.
Those being, solar activity, volcanic activity,soi oscillation, pdo/amo, nao ,ao ,atm. circulation patterns.
For more details on my thoughts, go to Dr. Spencer website and look on those recent message boards.
THOSE ARE THE FACTORSS THAT HAVE AND WILL BE DETERMINING FUTURE CLIMATIC TRENDS.
ya but is rotten ice.
Pingback: Polar Ice Caps Inceased Size in past 20 years! - Page 21
This post is on the front page at ClimateDepot. Glad people are seeing what is happening at the Poles instead of the constant droning in the media about dangerous global warming.
Stevengoddard,
I don’t see a significant problem with the Arctic loss, but to be fair, you have to look at the Arctic and Antarctic both only when the Sun is reasonably high for each. The Antarctic is coming out of winter, and the large sea ice area was not getting solar insolation during winter, so the large area did not affect the albedo then. There is a lg until this melts, so SH spring might show a higher albedo, while NH spring might show a lower one. It is only the year round average effect on albedo that matters here, and there likely was a small average loss over the last few years, although that seems to be recovering at the present. Doing the year average effect would be a good thing for you to examine.
According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age. … this is on the NASA site, no less.
So exactly who is in charge over at NASA ?
Sea ice extent is a surface measurement. It is counted regardless whether it is 5cm thick or 5m thick for as long as there is at least 15% of an area covered with ice. It is the volume, stupid! Think volume.
Please provide a link to the NSIDC volume data.
You can find them the same way I do. Cryosat 2 is about to reveal an inconvenient truth. The Grace satellites show loss of ice mass (volume) Visit http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png which shows that at the moment the Antarctic sea ice extent is below the record of 2006 and the arctic is about level pegging with 2006. Maximum sea ice extent in the arctic has declined at 3.3% per decade, the minimum extent by 11.5% per decade. The sources are similar or the same as the ones WUWT displays on its open sea ice page. Don’t tell me that extent is declining while volume is not, or increasing as some claims. It depends on whether you believe the latter or former or both. I’ll go with the science that seems the most credible and as such makes me very pessimistic about arctic sea ice surviving in summer. The albedo implications are enormous, I’m talking summer albedo. This is not likely to change much for Antarctica with it’s land-bound ice and seasonal sea ice. The arctic is different where sea ice is replaced by open ocean. As an electronics engineer I see a positive feedback destroying an audio amplifier through oscillation. The same way I see the arctic sea ice destroyed by albedo shift.
GRACE doesn’t measure ice mass, it measures gravity anomalies. Sea ice doesn’t cause gravity anomalies, but isostasy does – which is why nobody believes the University of Texas claims about ice loss any more. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/09/09/climate-change-a-slowdown-on-polar-melt/
You seem a bit baffled, Baffled.
You tell us to ignore ice extent and only look at thickness and then proceed to show us a graph on extent.
You also seem to be rather confused between the North Pole and the South Pole –
You refer to “Antarctic sea ice extent is below the record of 2006” and then put up the Arctic graph.
Keep trying though.
“…which is why nobody believes the University of Texas claims about ice loss any more.”
Nobody? Are you speaking for all and sundry? Is the University of Texas the only one?
“GRACE doesn’t measure ice mass, it measures gravity anomalies.” The gravity anomalies are then used to calculate, guess what mass.
Sorry, but you are creating a diversion. Even the linked article based on just one study, confirms that even at half the rate, a lot of ice is still being lost. Half of 362 giga tonnes remains an awful lot of ice turning to water. Isostacy measurements are relatively new and its accuracy improve with future improvements. This may affect both sides of the argument. My feeling is that isostasy is a phenomenon that decays over time after weight removal. Initial movement, as it will be on Greenland and Antarctica, will be greatest in early times and diminish as weight is lost. North America has been without an ice cap for a long time. An other complicating factor is that as landmasses rise through isostacy, the world land surface will increase at the expense of ocean surface. Some land surfaces are sinking and the net result may well be neutral, positive or negative. As for sea ice measurements, Antarctica is a moot point, the ice is seasonal and subject to fluctuations. The arctic is different and you are remarkably quiet on Cryosat 2, which is capable of volume measurement of sea ice. However, I do note, as an infrequent visitor, that the “arctic has recovered” claim has drifted into oblivion. That happens when faced with an inconvenient truth. I have a gut feeling that the 2011 arctic minimum sea ice extent will set a new record. Ice growth seems to have stalled in February, notwithstanding a now Positive arctic oscillation. The opposite should be happening and even if it does in the few weeks remaining to the melt start, it will be awfully thin ice doomed melt quickly. I’ll be following the arctic info closely.
I have written dozens of articles about Arctic sea ice volume, some within the last two weeks. You haven’t read bothered to read them and are wasting my time.
Don’t suppose so easily, I scan all your postings, don’t comment often though. I’ll finish on this tread because it is already straying into Ad Hominem attacks. Your postings about ice volume, lack credibility, but that’s my view so don’t feel bad. Retiring for a while or at least until Cryosat 2 unveils reality but even then I’ll be reading only for a while. Goodbey for now.
Baffled:
You really are “Baffled”! Your post is totally incoherent as if you live in the fantasy virtual world of computer models. There are not enough measurements to determine if anything out of normal is happening at either pole. The Gravity measurements are speculation at best and will give some sort of meaningful information in a couple hundred years. The ice extent and area measurements are little more that wild ass guesses with an 85% error factor that needs to be included. You also appear to be totally ignorant of historical records that show more variability has occurred in the ice concentrations in the last few thousand years than we are experiencing now! My entertainment is ridiculing dupes like you that appear to be true believers. Other than that you display the logic of Pond Scum!
Your claim of being an Electronics Engineer as allowing you some superior understanding would tend to set me off as my career was to show people in your line where they were wrong and I spent more than 30 years doing just that. The Albedo BS also tends to trip my trigger because of the “Angle of incidence”!
Mike Davis says:
February 19, 2011 at 3:08 pm
I don’t comment on Ad Hominem attacks. You misread badly.
Final comment.
Paul H says:
February 19, 2011 at 12:36 pm
****
“You seem a bit baffled, Baffled.
You tell us to ignore ice extent and only look at thickness and then proceed to show us a graph on extent.”
****
I pointed at http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png which shows both the arctic and antarctic. I have to make do with sea ice extent graphs until Cryosat 2 adds volume charts very soon. Feel free to point me at a site that has credible volume data at present.
****
“You also seem to be rather confused between the North Pole and the South Pole –
You refer to “Antarctic sea ice extent is below the record of 2006? and then put up the Arctic graph.”
****
Follow the Uni Bremen link and you will see parallel graphs of the arctic and Antarctica. Don’t make childish remarks about “being confused between North Pole and South Pole”, it helps to maintain your credibility. Scroll down the page; Daily Updated AMSR-E Sea Ice Maps and you will see the extent graphs, arctic left and Antarctic right side. Look at where the Antarctic graph for 2011 is tracking below 2006. Rest assured, I’ll keep trying to reply to credible comments.
I followed your link and there is nothing to scroll down to . I suggest you check your links in future.
As for your statement that you cannot find a site that gives credible data. If you do not know what the volume, why make unsubstantiated claims that it is falling.
Interesting you use the word “Credible” as at this time there are no credible sites related to “Long” term Ice conditions. Satellite data is in its infant state and is little better than anecdotal because of the upgrades in measurement devices and evaluation methods. It is like looking at a fruit salad and comparing apples to grapes and showing how they are related to iceberg lettuce!
For “Climate” purposes we need to wait one hundred years and observe the signal in the records. As it is you are obsessed by variable weather patterns that fall within the natural expected range of long term regional climate.
Mike Davis says:
February 19, 2011 at 3:21 pm
“For “Climate” purposes we need to wait one hundred years…”
****
That’ll be a hundred years too late.
****
“Interesting you use the word “Credible” as at this time there are no credible sites related to “Long” term Ice conditions. Satellite data is in its infant state…”
****
How long, may I ask, does it take to get beyond ‘infant’ stage? I referred to credible sites about ice volume. Sea ice extent is well documented and settled. Your analogy is poor. I am quite capable to differentiate climate and weather in whatever context. Can you?
Paul H says:
February 19, 2011 at 2:46 pm
“I followed your link and there is nothing to scroll down to . I suggest you check your links in future.”
****
If at first you don’t succeed, try again. However, for your benefit the link pointed at a graph on the AMSRE web page, which was an enlarged version of one graph on page http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html. Don’t play dumb, you could have easily traced it back to the mother AMSRE page by clicking on the home page button. It seems this may have been your first visit on the AMSRE page and by all means investigate it further; it may prove enlightening. Both arctic and Antarctic side by side for comparison.
The ASI sea ice concentration algorithm used here has been validated in several studies (Spreen et al. 2005, Spreen et al., 2008).
However, no warranty is given for the data presented on these pages.
Please help maintaining this service by properly citing and acknowleding if you use the data for publications:
Spreen, G., L. Kaleschke, and G. Heygster (2008), Sea ice remote sensing using AMSR-E 89 GHz channels, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2005JC003384
Thanks for that Baffled.
I presume you are not drawing any significance from the fact that Antarctic ice extent is just at this moment at its lowest level since only 2003, particularly when it is still well above the 30 year average?
Paul H says:
February 19, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Thanks for that Baffled.
I presume you are not drawing any significance from the fact that Antarctic ice extent is just at this moment at its lowest level since only 2003, particularly when it is still well above the 30 year average?
*****
Where did that conclusion come from? Look at http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_s.png
It shows the monthly sea ice extent as of 18-02-2011 and it has just dipped below 2006 (light blue line). Note that 2003 had the highest sea ice minimum (black line) which was above the 30 year average (black dotted line). Now look at 2011 (thick red line) and see it taking the lowest position, which I estimate from the graph to be about 1 million sq/km below the 30 year average. For 2 periods last year the arctic sea ice moved above the 30 year average. However over the last 6 months of 2010 it dropped back below average. If you look at the arctic, http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png or if that doesn’t work go to http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html, where you can select and magnify each graph. You will notice that the arctic 2011 line (thick red) has just joined 2006 (light blue line) to be the lowest for this day of the year. The arctic has little freezing time left, only about a month to improve sea ice extent.