An Alarming Trend In SH Sea Ice!!!!

So I decided to do an annual average of the SH sea ice.  In this case it is from June 30 of one year to June 29 of the next.  I went back to the 2000-2001 year.



Good heavens!!!  Think of the massive albedo!!!  We’re all going to freeze to death!!!!  Rolling on the floor laughing

On a more serious note, and while we’re on the subject. 

Question:  Why is the SH sea ice more important than the NH? 

Answer:  Because of the starting latitude points and the angle of incidence.

Think about it for a moment, and then realize how our cli-sci numbnuts are either incredibly deceiving people, or how massively stupid they are. 

If there is a significant energy and climatic affect of our ice albedo, and I’m not convince there is a significant affect, then the place to watch is in the south, not the north.  The sea ice, combined with the land ice is roughly double the size of the Arctic sea.  As the earth tilts on its axis, the direct sunlight is more in the south than in the arctic because of that huge land mass we call the Antarctic. 

Look at the two most recent minimums…….


But, for the Antarctic, there’s still another 14.0 million km2 of land which is almost entirely covered with snow and ice. 

And before some jackwagon screams “Greenland”, Greenland is covered with about 1.5 million sq km of ice and snow. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to An Alarming Trend In SH Sea Ice!!!!

  1. tckev says:

    yep, it is global warming after all.

  2. Latitude says:

    even funnier….I posted this to Steve too
    If the Greenland ice is so important….why is it that Julienne claims that the same amount of Arctic sea ice…….would be considered “ice free”

    • tckev says:

      I saw that – good one.
      I’m over there now and again with that David vun Kannon who is trying to tell me how important the CO2 effect (and soot methane and CFCs) is on the Arctic ice melting. My come back is this post here.

  3. miked1947 says:

    The earth is closest to the sun during the Winter Solstice! That also makes ice extent at the south pole more important. However there are many variables involved in global climate to worry about either pole. It is more important to understand the variables so we can be prepared to adapt to future changes. Sounding the alarm the Sky is Falling does not provide any understanding as the Sky Falling is due to their manipulation of the evidence!

  4. T.O.O says:

    “But, for the Antarctic, there’s still another 14.0 million km2 of land which is almost entirely covered with snow and ice.”

    Arctic Trend, 1979-2008 — Significant decrease of 4.1% (~500,000 km2; 193,000 mi2) per decade Antarctic Trend, 1979-2008 — Small increase of 0.9% (~100,000 km2; 42,000 mi2) per decade

    • suyts says:

      T.O.O. …… sorry about the wait in moderation. Now that you’ve been approved for comment, you’ll be able to freely do so without the wait. Welcome.

      First of all, you’re missing the point of the statement. Look at what you wrote. -500,000 km2. How significant is that to the total ice and snow, when considering earth’s albedo? It’s amounts to nearly nothing. The antarctic alone accounts for, on average, about 26 million km2.

      Further, your information is dated. Look at the graph and then read what you quoted. 1979-2008. You’re missing the last 5 years of information. The last decade, 2004-present saw an increase in the SH of about 300,000-400,000 km2, depending upon how one wishes to look at it. Indeed, if you look at the very next post, we see that in the last 8 years the globe has gained in total ice extent, as the SH ice is expanding more rapidly and the NH decrease has significantly slowed.

      Again, welcome.


      • Latitude says:

        TOO, The Other One….is Laz

        HEY Laz, visit with us over here!

      • suyts says:

        Well, I see he hasn’t increased his comprehension ability.

        • T.O.O says:

          Apparently it is your comprehension that needs improvement — that was -500,000 km2 per decade — not total. Plus, if you want to factor in the years from 2008 as you suggested, then your argument becomes even more tenuous as the lowest 6 years of Arctic sea ice extent have all happened since 2007. To compare sea ice loss to gain from the Arctic to the Antarctic, the Arctic has lost sea the size of Indiana per year since 2008 whereas Antarctica gained the size of one Connecticut per year for the same period.

          As well, In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer. That is where the important difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice exists. Arctic sea ice lasts all the year round, there are increases during the winter months and decreases during the summer months but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years.

          Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth’s energy balance because when it melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth’s energy balance largely unchanged

        • suyts says:

          TOO, you realize that the minimum extent isn’t the total ice amount, nor is it indicative of total ice loss or gain. In fact in toto, we’ve gained ice extent over the last 8 years.
          That is coupled with an increase in the NH snow extent.

          But, that’s just using the arbitrary start date of Jan 1 ….. If one starts at a different date of the year, we see almost no ice loss at all in the NH for the last 13 years….

          And, again, all of this misses the point of the latitude. The SH sea ice can almost entirely disappear, but the Antarctic is still almost entirely covered with snow and ice with about 14 mill km2. Which is almost equal to the NH ice extent at the maximum. Look at the graph above. The SH, antarctic + SH ice extent, reaches 33 mill km2. Whereas, the NH the arctic is the ice extent, which can reach about 15-16 mil km2. At latitudes, the SH ice albedo receives much more direct sunlight than the NH. This is why the SH modest gains are much more important than the NH notable loss. The proportion and physics mandate this. Yes, NH has lost more than the SH has gained, but, that loss isn’t significant with direct sunlight. The SH has almost 10 more deg latitude than NH.

          Proportion…. NH ice loss >1% of earth’s snow and ice, if that. Here’s our snow extent over the last 30 years. …

          Of course, we’ve no idea what’s going on in the SH snow extent, but, we can guess. When one considers the sunlight, then we realize, when considering earth’s albedo, the ice loss in the NH isn’t consequential.

          Happy 4th of July, TOO. Or whichever moniker you wish to go by today.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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