As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows

We haven’t heard a lot about the other ice sheet, the one at the…

by Alex Shimo on Monday, January 5, 2009 12:38pm - 36 Comments

We haven’t heard a lot about the other ice sheet, the one at the South Pole. This is probably because no one lives on in the Antarctic, other than a few very cold scientists, and not that much is known about it, compared to the arctic, where data was amassed by Canadian, United States, and the Soviet military in their struggle for power during the cold war. What we do know is that the Arctic is in a very bad state: September Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 2007 at a rate of about -10% +/- 0.3% per decade. By contrast, ice in the Antarctic has shown very little trend over the same period, or even a slight increase since 1979.

So what’s going on? The short answer is that we’re not quite sure. What we do know is the Antarctic sea ice is a volatile beast, growing during the winter months to an area twice the size of Europe, and shrinking during the summer to one sixth of it’s winter area. This means long term trends are pretty difficult to measure, especially because most of the data only goes back 30 years or so. In contrast, Arctic ice is more stable, so long term trends are easier to monitor. Antarctic sea ice is also susceptible to El Niño and La Niña, the ocean current systems that scientists say are responsible for the particularly cold winter we are having this year. There has also been more snow at the Antarctic and there’s a possibility that this snow is becoming ice and slowing down the rate of melt at the South Pole. Then there are the errors in our climate models because any model will have to make simplifications and assumptions, and predicting as complex system as the environment is fraught with difficulties. Arctic ice is melting much faster than the models predicted, says Stephen Ackley, a polar scientist at the University of Texas, San Antonio, in an interview to the Christian Science Monitor. By contrast, “Antarctic sea ice is well behind what the models project.”

Bookmark and Share
  • http://www.leehamilton.blogspot.com/ Lee

    “This is probably because no one lives on in the Antarctic, other than a few very cold scientists…”

    I believe there’s a Russian Orthodox monastery near Bellinghausen Station, and there are Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic houses at a handful of other locations. Not sure what the headcount is though.

  • baldygirl

    Grammar Slammer:

    It’s not it’s, it’s its—in this case, at least.

  • Kevin in Sk

    Maybe you want to make that, “both polar ice caps growing”.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

    “Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards. “

    • TJ Cook

      A slight improvement after years of staggering declines hardly qualifies as “Arctic ice growing”.

    • http://macleans.ca kc

      The increase is not in thicker multi- yr ice. That’s still retreating.

      • sf

        No it’s not.

        • http://macleans.ca kc

          “No it’s not” Please tell me why more and more individuals are attempting to navigate the NW passage, when previously you pretty much needed an ice-breaker? I live [wintertime] in the hub of northern transport. last yr NTC attempted a trial run, to determine the viability of moving goods via NW passage from Asia into N Alberta. In the past this made no sense due to ice conditions. They may have abandonded this now due to a little problem we’re having with he enviironment.

          • sf

            More people are attempting because of the lower levels of sea ice extent from 2005 to 2007. These people believe in global warming and assumed the sea ice would shrink indefinitely until the passage opened up.

            I could tell that your claim was not based on any factual evidence -I know that the measurements of sea-ice extent, which only started in 1979, are done by satellite observations, and these observations are not measuring ice depth. Whether this data will be available in the future, I don’t know. Obviously, measuring the depth of arctic ice over a large geographic area from outer space is not a trivial matter. Correct me if I’m wrong.

            As a side topic, knowing that sea ice extent measurements started just 30 years ago, I find it hilarious and distressing when I see articles with headlines like “sea ice to lowest extent ever” or “unprecedented melting in arctic” or “sea ice extent at historical lows”. I see such misleading headlines all the time. There are only 30 years of measurements.

        • Kyle Bailey
        • http://macleans.ca kc

          Iv’e only just read the whole post article. What about ths little matter of the decline of sept sea ice from 73 – 2007?? just an anomaly?

  • http://macleans.ca kc

    “As arctic ice melts…”
    I think Kody’s loading up the rhetorical blunderbuss right now.

  • Daryl

    What an intersting article Kevin. I cannot beleive Global Warming scientists were WRONG. They even stated there would be no ice last year in the arctic.

    “Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.”

    Multi year ice retreating? Still? Prove it?
    Slight improvement?
    “That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.”

    Why can’t you global sea ice deniers just admit that ice is recovering unexpectidly and we need to investigate why it’s not following the models.

    • TJ Cook

      A single data point? My god, global warming is a fraud!

      I continue to be amazed just how far people will reach to support their own predetermined beliefs. Gotta remind myself: the *average* IQ is 100.

      • sf

        You’ve revealed your own IQ with that blundering statement.

        The average IQ is 100 by definition. Everybody is measured relative to the average.

        So if we all sniffed paint fumes and became dumber than chimpanzees, the average IQ would still be 100.

        Back to the topic, if you actually looked at the article linked to be Kevin in SK, you would notice that the handy graphic refutes your single data point assertment. The worldwide sea ice extent has been growing for 3 years, and stable for 10 years. Additionally, the hysteria from the AGW crowd about the sea ice levels was just a 3 year anomaly from 2005 to 2008. Prior to 2005 there was no noticable change.
        Yet the AGW crowd claim that AGW has been happening for over a century.

        • http://macleans.ca kc

          sf – if the sea ice retreat is in fact merely an anomaly then that’s the first time i’ve heard you or any of the anti crowd give a rational response instead of screaming ” no it’s not”. I guess i’m dumb because yr paint fume analogy hasn’t registered. If we all became dumber wouldn’t the average drop???

          • sf

            “If we all became dumber wouldn’t the average drop???”

            The average what? The average intelligence would drop, but the average IQ would remain the same.

            The IQ of 100, by definition, is the IQ of a person with average intelligence. It is the IQ of any person that is smarter than half the population and dumber than the other half. By definition. Additionally, IQ follows a Bell distribution, so you can also say that 100 is the median IQ.

            If everybody in the world more intelligent than you were to die tomorrow, then your intelligence would be the same but your IQ would be much higher.

            When you do an IQ test, your score is not your IQ. Your score is an attempt to measure your IQ. If we all became as dumb as chimpanzees then the scores being produced by today’s IQ tests would be very inaccurate. If we all became as dumb as chimpanzees, then 100 would be the IQ of the average chimpanzee.

          • madeyoulook

            But would the chimps care about the non-extinctifying polar bears as much as we do? Why, they’d probably use the HB pencil to scratch some itch somewhere anyways, instead of giving that IQ test the seriousness it deserves.

            And anyway, the average person should stop driving on the median, it’s too dangerous and not good for fossil fuel economy.

            OK, OK, I surrender the mike to Olaf, he’s way better at this stuff.

          • sf

            “the average person should stop driving on the median, it’s too dangerous and not good for fossil fuel economy”

            Also, driving on the median increases global warming because the erergy absorbed by white lines is less than the energy absorbed by black pavement. Maybe we need a tax on medians to reduce their number. Or maybe roads should be painted white.

    • http://macleans.ca kc

      Why don’t you read the article. Perhaps the author and data are wrong, but it does help your credibiliy if you read it before you trash it and those responding to it.

    • intrepidorator

      I have heard that the reason that the computer models were innaccurate was because they couldnt predict the cloud cover. That is a significant limitation to the models, warming increases evaporation which forms clouds which cools the earth. if you cant predict the clouds then your model is useless.

  • Blair

    A couple comments:

    First a proviso, I tend to be a bit of a skeptic on the extent of anthropogenic climate change. That fact being stated out front, in my view the data Kevin in Sk cites seems pretty solid. The increase in ice in the arctic appears to be more than a statistical blip.

    As for the original post. During my graduate program I used to share study space with grad students working on global climate models (GCMs). From my many discussions with the modellers I would suggest that the observations reported herein are entirely predicatable (and were frankly predicted). Specifically, it is my understanding that the majority of GCMs used to support the current global warming world-view have predicted short-term (i.e. year-to-year) increases in ice area/thickness in Greenland and the Antarctic in the early heating phase. The basis of increase is twofold: 1) temperatures in those regions are sufficiently cool in winter that even with moderate heating temperatures are still expected to be low enough to result in ice build-up from any precipitation, and 2) warmer air is able to carry more moisture thus resulting in higher volumes of precipitation, resulting in larger volumes of deposited snow to turn into ice. Remember, while Antarctica is extremely cold, large portions of the continent are considered deserts (i.e they get less than 254 mm of rain, or rain equivalents per year). Any substantial increase in precipitation in these areas will result in increased ice build-up. As such the models predict that increased precipitation, resulting from warming air currents, will result in increasing ice volumes.

    • wayne moores

      So, in other words, no matter if the ice is retreating or expanding it is more “proof” of global warming. Well, I guess no one can argue with that. Now what’s Al Gore’s addy so I can sent him money to add to the 100 million he has swindled out of people selling “hot air” credits from his own carbon trading company. I guess the fact that the earth has actually cooled by .14 degrees in the last decade is more “proof” of global warming. Also with record cold in the west and record snowfall in Vancouver…ahhh…of course…more “proof”. Snow in Spain…more “proof”. I see the eco-spin doctors are covering their ass by lately announcing in very earnest tones not to expect any warming for the next decade but then…watch out, we all gonna fry. In the meantime just keep those donations and government grants coming in. Also after several years of crummy conditions in Europe for ski resorts, operators they were told by the alarmists to prepare to go out of business. Unfortunately things didn’t go as planned and snow conditions were the best seen in years and the resorts opened early. Early and plentiful snow…don’t tell me let me guess…more “proof”. Norwegian scientists announce that glaciers there have started expanding. I could go on but it really doesn’t matter as Pope Suzuki has declared the debate is over and anyone who disagrees with him is a heritic to the new eco-religion. And of course anyone expressing a contrarian view on here is obviously uneducated, on the payrole for “big oil”, in league with Stephen Harper and probably Satan!!! Have a nice day.

      • Blair

        Wayne,

        Increased growth in ice fields in selected areas is fully projected by the models as is the loss of ice fields in others. The movement of ice volumes is not occurring randomly as you suggest. The combined growth and loss of ice as predicted by the models supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change.

        Put simply, the topic of anthropogenic climate change is an incredibly complex one that we are only starting to get a handle on. The field itself is incredibly diverse and detailed and far too complicated to be easily explained in the popular press. Entire journals are dedicated to minute branches of the field and, frankly, even if someone wanted to and could comprehend the details, no individual would be able to read all the literature produced on the topic in any given year. As a consequence the scientific community builds up our information base incrementally. The scientific community works on topics and sub-topics and our understanding grows. Eventually trends are observed and in this case the majority of the trends appear to be driving in one direction: supporting the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. A scientific consensus has thus developed that based on the trends action should be taken soon. Is the scientific consensus correct? That is for time to tell. That being said, the models predict dire consequences and based on the probabilities action is warranted now.

        To make an analogy, 99% of all the houses out there aren’t expected to burn down and yet most homeowners have house insurance that covers fire damage. The risk is low that your house will burn down, but should it happen the consequences are dire. Similarly, the risk that the worst case scenarios in the GCMs will come to pass is low, but the consequences are incredibly dire verging on cataclysmic. Action on our part now is like paying insurance to attempt to forestall those consequences.

        As I noted above, I am a bit of a skeptic on the topic, I think a lot of the worst case scenarios are overblown. That being said, I still pay for fire and earthquake insurance on my house and am willing to pay “earth” insurance to help prevent a global catastrophe.

  • kody

    I would post to a link which shows difinitively that, not only has the arctic sea ice (which is always in a state of flux) returned to normal levels, but is now much greater,

    and that those levels have increased at a greater rate over the past year than at any recorded period.

    Right now. By the major tracking agencies, satellites and major American institution.

    But the folks here wish to shut their eyes to such things. So I will take comfort in knowing that, while the vast majority of Canadians have an open mind and will see such things, and incorporate that into their judgement (they will also continue to wonder why they aren’t seeing these things in the MSM, even though its right there before their eyes, the satellite date being obvious on its face [you can literally see the ice formation getting larger in the time series]),

    the type of folks that swarm the nest here, and cast insults and attack those who seek to enlighten with such information, will find themselves with an ever smaller nest, as their attacks become more and more fierce by necessity.

  • kody

    No link (because the hornets would never stray from the nest), but a quote, to buttress the usual cries of “lies!!!” or other such smearing, that inevitably follows intruders approaching:

    “Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

    Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

    The data is being reported by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

    Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly — defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.”

  • kody

    And a teensy weensy article the CBC let slip:

    “It’s nice to know that the ice is recovering,” Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday.

    “That means that maybe the perennial ice would not go down as low as last year.”

    Canadian scientists are also noticing growing ice coverage in most areas of the Arctic, including the southern Davis Strait and the Beaufort Sea.

    “Clearly, we’re seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year,” said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.”

    The article is dated from LAST YEAR at this time no less.

    Funny, no headlines blaring “SEA ICE RECOVERED AND EVEN GREATER NOW!!” like we saw with the purported catastrophic melts.

    • http://www.truemuse.wordpress.com truemuse

      kody, I think it is the melting of really old ice that get the headlines. New ice is not newsworthy. It will be made out of our polluted water. The old ice is made out of ancient pure water. You see how old ice is more poetic, and more interesting (if it melts?).??

  • scissorpaws

    All kind of pointless, isn’t it? Is anyone doing anything at all (except for Al Gore) to stave off Global Warming? Is anyone going to? At least the Climatologists are up front, they don’t fudge the data. It’s a highly complex system is the take home message. You screw it up, you may not be able to put Humpty together again with a little crazy glue. One thing we can all agree on is that not burning the fossil fuels like there’s a run on them, won’t screw up our long term chances for survival.

    • wayne moores

      Al Gore is doing nothing but line his own pockets. He is the biggest hypocite and phoney on the planet. His mansion puts more co2 into the air than some subdivisions. But that’s ok because he is buying “hot air” credits, presumably from himself. Pope Suzuki rides around the country in a rock style tour bus screaming at everyone that the debate is over and to turn off their beer fridge. The bus had 8 people in it by the by. But that’s ok, Suzuki is buying carbon credits also, from big Al no doubt. Lately he’s been shilling on CBC doing a fascinating documentary showing him and his daughter jetsetting off to Europe to study “green” technology. I guess all the windmills spinning in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Canada wasn’t exotic enough for the great man. I refer anyone who wants a good laugh to go to UTube and look up George Carlin’s take on people”saving the planet”. Man, he smelled out the phonies a long time ago. Wish he was still around

    • sf

      Actually, your Humpty Dumpy analogy is often false in the natural world. Systems in equilibrium (such as annual climate), when perturbed, tend to return to a state of equilibrium. In nature this is far more common that “runaway” processes. And climate is always changing. Everywhere.

      Anyway, for geopolitical reasons, and other environmental reasons such as pollution, I think it would be better if alternative energies were as cheap and as plentiful as oil and coal. Unfortunately, they are not.

      Frankly, I wish that the global warming hype would disappear, because I think there are non-imaginary environmental problems that deserve more attention, such as the loss of biodiversity worldwide and degradation of arable land.

      • Kyle Bailey

        sf, you’re right that the analogy is ‘often false.’ Of course, the converse is true too- there are plenty of natural systems where peturbations will move the system to a new equilibrium, or just completely destabilize.

        In fact, the climate record is probably one of the strongest examples of ‘runaway processes.’ Of course, it all dependant on which time periods you look at and which scales.

        I certainly won’t argue that BIOD and arable land (sterilizing our soil and washing it into the sea!) are issues that need way more attention- but that doesn’t mean CC should have less attention, especially since it will likely exacerbate those problems to a huge extent.

  • sf

    Hey Alexandra,
    How about a “green” post on an environmental topic that is not related to global warming or fossil fuels? Like the impending extinction of the tigers, gorillas, rhinos, and orangutans from the wild? Or for a Canadian topic, declining stocks in the salmon fishery?

  • Kyle Bailey

    So my comment on the previous story got swallowed by the moderator gremlin….but we’re still on the subject of Arctic Sea Ice, so here goes:

    (This comment is referring to the DailyTech article)

    Yeah, the arctic winter sea ice extent is about normal right now. However, before you go flagging this as evidence that there is an overall steady state in sea ice, keep in mind a few things:

    a) sea ice extent isn’t the same as the total level of ice. to figure out how much ice there is, you need to know the level too. The WMO said, in a Dec 16 press release, that this was the lowest year for arctic sea ice volume, since the ice was thinner. Obviously, that dataset could only have gone to November latest- but the new sea ice which has returned the extent to the current level is obviously new, thin ice, so I think it is a safe bet to assume that 2008 will be pretty low on overall ice volume,

    It is germane to point out that the article itself brings up the fact that this ice is thin:
    “Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.”

    By the way, just because we can’t monitor something from space doesn’t mean we can’t monitor it! Sea Ice thickness is measured by sonar. I assume the denialists here have seen an inconvenient truth, and recall that the Americans have been making sea ice measurements for a long time. Of course, nowadays there are also NOAA monitoring stations.

    b) The winter sea ice extent often goes back to 1979 levels, so the fact that it has done it again isn’t news. Yes, there is the same extent right (Januaryish) as in 1979, but take a look at the rest of the year.
    Refer to:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
    (The pic is from the same source as the embedded graphic article, the U. of IL Centre, btw, and in fact shows the same anomoly in greater detail)

    Using this image, compare the year of 1979 to 2008. Notice how in 1979, most months were above the 1979-2008 average?
    Notice how the entire record for 2008 is below the 1979-2008 average?

    Now take a look at the intervening time:
    Notice how the last time it reached the average was 5 years ago in 2003, when it reached the average extent for a very short time about Marchish?
    Notice how sea ice extent hasn’t be in ‘average’ since the mid 90’s?

    Now take a look at how often the sea ice extent is approximately at the present level (which is the same as the 1979 level) in the December Januaryish pattern throughout the record? Notice how it often is? Now maybe you can understand why it isn’t a huge deal.

    You can see how the seasonal arctic warming really impacts summer sea ice using this pic:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

    Also, Kody, when you quote someone who is obviously hoping that next year’s summer minima won’t be quite as low as this year’s (i.e. pretty much the lowest ever), I think you’re raising the point that the perennial minima is the problem here.

    In fact, as you pointed out, last year’s winter maxima was near normal too, and people were hoping it would stave off another record low summer minima….but it didn’t exactly play out that way did it?

    So now I’ve gone ahead and posted the sea ice extent anomoly myself, and shown that for the vast majority of the hyear it was way lower than average, and that it returning to normal now isn’t a big deal….what exactly are you trying to point out to those of us who apparently ignore the facts?

    Sure, go ahead and pedantically point out that January ice levels are about normal….but perhaps the story is somewhere else!

  • Kyle Bailey

    -for the Antarctic sea ice, it seems as if there is virtually no historical record of thickness (not surprising given that the Russian and Americans weren’t laying under the sea as much there)- and the article correctly points out that although extent may be the same or increasing, this doesn’t tell us much about volume. If anyone knows of Antarctic sea ice thickness data, I’d love to know.

    • Jarmo

      I have no idea about the Arctic ice but here in Finland we have one rather interesting ice statistic about Baltic ice. The lowest decadal ice extent was in the 1930′s…1990′s is on #2 spot and we’ll see how 2000-2010 will do.

      Since I have read about studies that say Greenland temps were quite high in the 1930´s and about Soviet icebreakers floating to the Pole in 30′s, perhaps the warming now is not unprecedented.

  • Robin

    What about the ice age a few hundered years ago? it started melting and humans were probaby also responsable for that too!?! Since everything that happens on this planet just happens to be done by the 'power' of humans? In that case, then we must be very good in everything!

From Macleans