Antarctic Sea Volume Higher Than In The 1980s
By Paul Homewood
NOAA’s Zachary Labe has updated the Antarctic sea ice data for September.
As the first chart shows, sea ice extent is still the lowest on record:
But the ice is much thicket then normal in places, particularly around the Peninsula:
As a result the volume is not a record low. At the time of year, the volume was actually lower in three years during the early 1980s
You will recall that when the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) goes negative, as it has been for most of this year, northerly winds tend to push polewards, both bringing milder air which melts the ice, and also pushing ice south, thus making it thicker:
https://niwa.co.nz/climate/information-and-resources/southern-annular-mode
The SAM was also strongly negative between 1980 and 1983, and as a consequence sea ice extent and volume were also much lower than average:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/month_aao_index.shtml
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Compare ice volume also with the PDO oceanic cycle.
I was looking recently, and one of these graphs looked very similar.
R
Ocean Evaporation near enough to land for water vapor to become snow on Antarctic Sequestered Ice is most when the sea ice and ice shelves around Antarctic Continent are less, promoting more ice on land.
Antarctic ice core records show that most of the ice on land was accumulated during the warmest times.
Sea levels start dropping at the peak of the warmest times as most ocean evaporation and snowfall on land in coldest places occur during that time.
Should the title of this article not read “Antarctic Sea [Ice] Volume Higher…..”
Otherwise it looks like the sea’s are rising…….
Do you mean “seas”?
Wait a meenit, what does the TITLE say? Antarctic Sea Volume .. no mention of ICE at all, Not even going to bother to read that story. Anyway, all that Ice which is being calved, is it not already floating on water, therefore as it breaks off, it will continue to float as it melts away. …. just as the Artic Ice – no increase in sea -level then ? What HAVE they all been telling us ?
‘Britain will need gas to avoid blackouts for decades’
National Gas chief has major concerns about the Government’s decommissioning plans
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/22/national-gas-jon-butterworth-britain-fossil-fuels-blackouts/
There’s a nice chart of sources of domestic heating in England in the article
Have you noticed too, that because of alarming climate change, *Antarctic* polar bears have *entirely disappeared*. I’ve got a charity for that, just direct mail me for my PayPal details. Cheers.
So why does the chart of extent only show the 10-90 percentiles? The two SDs show significantly greater variation but why not show all the previous data? This is data, not a statistical analysis. Obviously the previous low must be lower than the graph suggests.
And today on the Graun,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/23/rapid-ice-melt-in-west-antarctica-now-inevitable-research-shows
Not a single mention of the volcanic plume under west Antarctica.
and the BBC naturally ran the story today. The paper they reference is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x
“Previous modelling found that the Amundsen Sea probably warmed in response to atmospheric changes over the twentieth century, providing a viable explanation for WAIS mass loss.”
Modelling? Probably? All good (climate) science then.
There is a paper that references the volcanoes you mention Harry: https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/pdf/10.1144/SP461.7
From the Abstract: “in light of concerns over whether enhanced geothermal heat fluxes and subglacial melting may contribute to instability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Here, we use ice-sheet bed-elevation data to locate individual conical edifices protruding upwards into the ice across West Antarctica, and we propose that these edifices represent subglacial volcanoes. We used aeromagnetic, aerogravity, satellite imagery and databases of confirmed volcanoes to support this interpretation.”
We used data? Imagery? That’s not (climate) science!