Antarctic sea ice hits second all-time record in a week

A graph of the latest all-time record of Southern Hemisphere sea ice area, expressed as an anomaly, courtesy of The Cryosphere Today.

A graph of the latest all-time record of Southern Hemisphere sea ice area, expressed as an anomaly, courtesy of The Cryosphere Today.

Antarctic sea ice has hit its second all-time record maximum this week. The new record is 2.112 million square kilometers above normal. Until the weekend just past, the previous record had been 1.840 million square kilometers above normal, a mark hit on December 20, 2007, as I reported here, and also covered in my book.

Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, responded to e-mail questions and also spoke by telephone about the new record sea ice growth in the Southern Hemisphere, indicating that, somewhat counter-intuitively, the sea ice growth was specifically due to global warming.

Serreze

Serreze

“The primary reason for this is the nature of the circulation of the Southern Ocean  – water heated in high southern latitudes is carried equatorward, to be replaced by colder waters upwelling from below, which inhibits ice loss,” Serreze wrote in an e-mail. “Upon this natural oceanic thermostat, one will see the effects of natural climate variations, [the rise] appears to be best explained by shifts in atmospheric circulation although a number of other factors are also likely involved.”

There was one part of his response that was hard for me to understand. What would heat the water at high latitudes, those closest to the South Pole?   (I also didn’t understand why he was talking about ice loss being inhibited when what was happening was the record growth of ice.)

Over the phone, I asked Serreze if he could clarify what was heating the water. His full response is below:

What we’re talking about is water that is 60 degrees south and more southerly than that, and so the basic thing is you have got surrounding the Antarctic continent a band of fairly strong and somewhat steady west-east winds, which they call the Roaring 40s, but then you’ve got this thing called the coriolis force, which wants to turn things to the left. What happens is that water at the high latitudes, what happens is that as we heat that water, you set up what’s called an Ekman drift, which at the surface transports that water from the high southern latitudes toward the equator.

What happens is you have to set up a continuity that has to occur so that what happens is that there’s an upwelling of cold waters from below, there’s a whole circulation loop where water sinks in the lower southern latitudes, then there’s a return flow that brings the same amount of mass to the higher latitudes. 

Basically, what happens is that in the Arctic you can warm that surface water up and it doesn’t get transported away. It stays there, and it helps melt more ice, but in the Antarctic, the water gets carried away. 

I thanked Serreze for his response but told him that I still didn’t know what heated the water at high latitudes. Was it, simply, global warming?

“Exactly!” he said.

“How many degrees is the water heated, before it is transported toward the equator?” I asked.

“I don’t have data on that,” Serreze said. He indicated that Marika Holland, a sea ice specialist and climate modeler at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, would possibly have some data as well as, perhaps, a fuller description of the mechanism warming the water nearest Antarctica and the associated growth of sea ice.

Holland did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Gavin Schmidt, director of Goddard Institute for Space Studies, also did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

 

 

About these ads

About Harold Ambler

I am a lifelong environmentalist. I started my journalism career at The New Yorker, where I worked as a copy editor. Since then, my own work has appeared in The New York Daily News, The National Review Online, The Atlantic Wire, The Huffington Post, The Berkeley Daily Planet, The Providence Journal, Brown Alumni Monthly, The Narragansett Times, Rhode Island Monthly, and Providence Business News.
This entry was posted in Antarctic sea ice, Antarctica, don't sell your coat, Gavin Schmidt, global warming, Marika Holland, Mark Serreze, Record sea ice, Southern Hemisphere sea ice. Bookmark the permalink.

137 Responses to Antarctic sea ice hits second all-time record in a week

  1. Reblogged this on Real Science and commented:
    Mark Serreze demonstrates a classic example of making up technical sounding gibberish to confuse laymen.

      • Sam says:

        Jimmy is a master communicator. If he is half as good a scientist he will rule the world.

    • squid2112 says:

      Steven, did you happen to county the number of times he says “Basically, what happens is …” … ROFLMAO… the term gibberish provides for far too much structure in his nonsense.

      • WINative says:

        What I heard was “Basically what happens is…I want to keep my grant money flowing in”.

      • JohnM says:

        “Basically we happens is that we have to spend a lot of time inventing plausible sounding excuses but being careful not to mention exact figures in case someone calls our bluff.”

      • john segale says:

        Basically the earth is cooling!

    • annieoakley says:

      Never ever heard such gibberish in my life. One can agree to disagree but not with that garbage. It is called “making it up ” .

    • Paul says:

      Steven, what about Antarctic land ice compared to the sea ice? I am not disagreeing, i am just curious about the land ice. I have been reading that the land ice in Antarctica is melting while the sea ice is expanding.

    • Tin Can Sailor says:

      Technobabble.

      • mike hunt says:

        I think volcanic activity is genuine global warming. I mean, isn’t the mantle and the core hot? The only problem is proving that this condition is anthropogenic and caused by CO2. I believe that with a grant of say $50 million, I can prove this hypothesis. Spare change Bill Gates? Bill Styer?

      • pdk says:

        Exactly! Used to have a t-shirt that said “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bs.”

    • Johnboy says:

      We’ll, I am certainly confused. If this is what global warming looks like, what would global cooling look like?

      • FactsDontMatterToLiberals says:

        Since global warming looks, and behaves, like cooling, then global cooling would look, and behave, like warming. Duh!!! Liberal “logic” baffles me!!

  2. D. Self says:

    It’s called baffling with BS. And I suppose his taillight fluid is low as well.

  3. Psalmon says:

    Funny that Joe Bastardi has shown numerous charts showing water temps in the N Atlantic are below normal right now.

  4. Shanna M says:

    On a hunch, I decided to run his gibberish through Google Translate. English -> Japanese -> Lithuanian -> Back to English. The result makes a little bit more sense:

    When we talk about water than from 60 degrees south to the south, they call roaring quite strong, the main things that the zonal wind band somewhat stable in Antarctica you, this thing called the 40′s you have around is the Coriolis force when you turn things around to the left. Water at high latitudes, what happens is what happens to heat the water, are the surface, we must determine the type of Ekman drift, the water from the large southern latitudes of the equatorial high respect that is that.

    What happens to the water at low southern latitudes sinks and all the circulating loop backflow out there that if you are so that the bottom of the upwelling of cold water, what happens to the same amount of high-latitude mass needed to establish the continuity that you can occur.

    This is, in fact, and you can heat the water to the surface in the Arctic is what happens, and that it will not be shipping it. It stays there, it helps to melt more ice in Antarctica but the water carried away.

  5. Morgan says:

    It’s simple. The water at the surface is warmer so it gets swept to the equator by the coriolis effect, to be replaced by upwelling colder water. Now you have colder water at the surface so whatever I said in the first sentence doesn’t apply anymore. Never mind.

  6. Mark Serreze explanations are nonsense. Global warming has zero to do with it.

  7. mark says:

    We need to fix global warming ASAP before we freeze our butts off.

    • Peter Wells says:

      For 19 years I have tracked the freeze over date for the lake in New Hampshire I live on. In 2013 it froze on November 29, the earliest ever! This has been followed by more below zero temperatures than I have seen for a long time. Since CO2 “global warming gas” levels have now reached 401.85 ppm, well above a purported tipping point of 350 ppm, how could this be?

      A possible answer is that the carbon in our CO2 is defective and therefore no longer traps heat. If this cooling keeps up we could freeze. What other effects will faulty carbon bring about, since absorption of CO2 through photosynthesis is the basis of life on earth. Will we have unsound wood in our houses causing them to collapse?

      There are three isotopes of carbon; perhaps the problem is an excess of the C14 isotope, which is known to rot. What will happen if humans consume too much food​ grown with flawed carbon? We humans contain lots of CO2 which we emit with every breath, and generate a lot of heat internally. If we generate too much heat and our bad CO2 is unable to contain it, might we explode?

      This could be a clue to the source of the defective carbon. The place where faulty humans are exploding is the Middle East. We need to stop importing their deficient carbon right away and use only good carbon approved by the EPA.

  8. Jason says:

    I am a roofer, not a scientist, so all technical stuff sounds like a foreign language to me.
    That being said, this guy is trying to say that AGW is causing the sea water to heat and then migrate North? I assume that Serreze expects chumps like me to hear that and think “Makes sense. Hot water/air rise and South is down and North is up, so….”

    I would have asked him a follow up question. How is it that AGW is heating the water but not melting the ice?

    • lcs says:

      The answer to that question is not settled, but Serreze’s explanation was not BS, just one aspect of the possible answer. Mechanisms for ice formation and transport in the Antarctic are “complex and often counter-intuitive”:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

    • Estelle Brennan says:

      The scientist developed his theory after watching a movie “The Day After Tomorrow.” In the movie, global warming causes Europe and most of North America to instantly freeze. There are several graphics shown during the movie as the fictional scientist attempts to convince politicians to do something before it’s too late.

  9. https://weather.gc.ca/saisons/sea-snow_e.html

    A look at this map shows clearly that the waters near Antarctica are mostly below normal to some normal areas at best. It has been this way for several months clearly showing Mr. Serreze’s explanation is a none explanation.

    Also if one looks at the AAO phase and Antarctic Sea Ice it does not seem to matter. Antarctic Sea Ice has shown this growth even when the AAO is in a negative phase. More cold water on Mr. Serreze’s suggestions.

    Another fraud attempt of promoting AGW. If sea ice melts it is due to AGW if sea ice expands it is due to AGW. Utter nonsense!!

  10. Joseph Bastardi says:

    The why did he not forecast this before. Some old krap. Something happens, and then they make up a reason after. He should have told us then.

    The reason answer its cyclical, should reverse when AMO flips and arctic increases in next 10-15 years. If not, then we are in real trouble

    Isnt this the death spiral guy? How did that work out

    • Roger says:

      Been following you for some time, many thanks for ‘logical’ explanations. You say here, “If not, then we are in real trouble”… as I understood some of several recent articles you’ve written, the AMO is going to get colder, the Pacific will warm slightly and we should (by 2020 or so) start to see a ‘cooling’ period (not a mini, but a continuation of the ‘not rising’ temperatures that are present now and dropping). So, ‘in real trouble’ could mean “really colder?” It is good to see supported explanations and I forward yours to friends, take care.

  11. xdream12 says:

    In the high latitudes the sea ice forms from precipitation and condensation of airborne water vapor. The biggest limitation to ice accretion is the lack of water vapor in the air. Cold dry air doesn’t produce snow or frost. Warm moist air, on the other hand, can transport huge amounts of moisture. As temperatures rise and the air becomes more loaded with water vapor precipitation and deposition at high latitudes increases and ice pack extent increases.

    It is a natural function, and has been going on for millions of years.

    • FlatEarther says:

      Dear Dreamer! The ice area increase is from frozen WATER. Only on Antarctica land, the ice is from precipitation, but the area of the land does not change, dear Genius.

      • Beth White says:

        No… Land and sea, at the poles most of the ice forms from the air. Although seawater will freeze, it creates a thin insulative layer that doesn’t extend very far.

      • Juli Funk says:

        dear beth those of us who read science books know that the biggest and driest desserts in the world when it comes to humidity and precipitation are the north south polar regions 9 months out of the year the only snow deposited there gets blown there for the air is to cold to hold any liquid most of the deserts get more water

      • Juli Funk says:

        ps sense he didn’t predict the ice growing why is he getting air time and i hope he doesn’t program the super computers that predict the climate sorry my bat no one saw the ice growing in the north and south pole na na I did but who am I

      • Juli Funk says:

        The only thing funnier than watching bunch of smart people get stuck in ice that formed in the summer at the north pole last year is watching a new bunch do it six months later in the south pole and both groups knew the ice was going to melt to the lowest levels as they watched their vessels get frozen in place. Hey kids the magnetic field determines the amount of energy that strikes the surface of the earth. The whole of the atmosphere provides very little protection and equals only 3 inches of surface water when converted from a gas. A minor change in the field converts huge amounts of water to ice which is why the current models didn’t see the ice build up because the field isn’t part of there program Trying to predict the climate using the smallest verriable will never produce an accurate model . BTW its going to get colder unless the sun gets more energetic and field gets weaker sorry it only hurts if your not prepared like those smart people.

    • Richard says:

      …the biggest limitation to ice accretion is the lack of water vapor in the air. Cold dry air doesn’t produce snow or frost…

      Interesting that along the shores of the North Slope and the Arctic Ocean in Alaska ice forms regularly during the winter months, in one of the coldest and driest areas on the planet.

      …as temperatures rise and the air becomes more loaded with water vapor precipitation and deposition at high latitudes increases and ice pack extent increases…

      High latitudes – defined by latitudes 70 – 90 – the range of the Arctic Polar Ice Cap.

      Almost all precipitation is in the form of snow, less than 20 inches per year. A cold desert climate.

      …it is a natural function, and has been going on for millions of years…

      Actually, only for about 2 million years in our current Ice Age. Geologically, the presence of ice on the planet is unusual and not a regular feature of the planetary ecosystem. 20 million years ago large ice formations was not a geological feature of the planet.

      Ice forms on the planet when large continents drift over a polar region and disrupt the normal deep water ocean cycling of heat distribution in the oceans. Land retains much less heat than water. Continental ice sheets form on continents when continents cover polar regions or prevent functional heat transfers between arctic and tropical waters. The prior Ice Age is known as the Great Permian Ice Age, approximately 25 – 30 million years from 280 – 250 million years ago.

      The current Ice Age is approximately one-fifth of its way through its projected duration – probably ending in 18 million or so years from now when Antarctica moves off of the South Pole through its path of continental drift.

      Ice Ages are characterized by extreme variations in ocean sea levels, extreme variations in the size of the continents, and extreme variations in weather patterns. The sea level changes in just the past 20,000 years indicate changes in the hundreds of feet (Bering Land Bridge), sometime with up to 10 percent of the total volume of the ocean being converted into ice.

      The speed of evolutions tends to speed up dramatically during an Ice Age, with features of mass extinctions and new evolutionary traits in the remaining surviving species. The concept of island biogeography is especially important during the extreme variations of ice ages.

      When you realize that about one third to half of the North American continent has been buried and unburied from continental wide glacial ice sheets – that is the definition of global climate change. The impacts on terrestrial and marine species and landscape during the past two million years is plainly evident and undeniable.

      In the hype over AGW, people are not missing the forest for the trees, folks are missing the forest for rock lichen.

      • Marianna Friesel says:

        Bravo!

      • Anthony J. Gould says:

        Richard, I thank you for your response and explanation. As a non-scientist are there supporting content that I can pursue, without becoming lost in the GooglePlex Search Universe?

    • Estelle Brennan says:

      It sounds like the feedback loop, in the real world, tends to correct changes, as opposed to what the AGW believers think, which is that the feedback causes a death spiral.

  12. gofigure560 says:

    That claptrap by Serreze is obfuscation. That’s all the alarmists have. They have no real defense at all. Amazing.

    • dreadfroggod says:

      What impressed me, as a premier BSer myself, was the size of the shovel used when providing his “explanation.” Shovels of that volume are not cheap, and require large amounts of Grant Money (preferably from guilt-ridden corporations and gullible 1st world rubes) to properly maintain. :D

  13. Michael says:

    He certainly says “what happens” a lot!

    • annieoakley says:

      Says “what happens is..” a lot. He is buying time, thinking because he knows it makes no sense.

    • R. Shearer says:

      That’s what happens, when what happens, when someone doesn’t know what is happening.

  14. Ed says:

    He’s not even a good bullshitter. If so-called journalists did their job (BBC) this scam wouldn’t last the week.

  15. Doug Proctor says:

    A second example of “missing heat”: The warmth that drives the movement has gone away.

    Another Positive Trenberth Event: an observation that is not in keeping with the CAGW narrative, that is dismissed as observational error, i.e. the waters actually ARE getting warmer, your data is wrong/you are looking in the wrong place.

    • JohnM says:

      In future this should be known as “doing a Trenberth”. Who knows, maybe it will become an kind of alibi for anything and everything.

  16. enzyme23 says:

    It all makes sense if you take into the account the fanatical gleam in Serreze’s eyes.

  17. JayJoJay says:

    Impossible. Al Gore said this planet would lose all ice.
    Maybe it’s lost movie props from the “Titanic”

  18. catweazle666 says:

    Arrant nonsense.

  19. Bob White says:

    This sounds like the old, hot water in the ice cube tray will freeze faster canard… The only warming in this story is the air above the steaming pile of… well you know.

  20. Mike J. says:

    I note that the area of Antarctic ice is at a record yet two months ago the news was that the Antarctic ice sheet was collapsing. Could somebody explain the relationship between these two phenomena?

  21. Serreze is a comedian and must NOT be taken seriously. BTW, the Law of Conservation of Energy directly negates his comedy script.

  22. Don Quixote says:

    So – what I hear is that when the sea ice melts – that’s global warming, but when the sea ice grows – that’s global warming.

    • Mark Moser says:

      Now you are catching on. What part of settled science don’t these people understand? Stop asking for logical explanations. Al was the VP for crying out loud! Watch Al’s documentary, “The Day After Tomorrow.” Then thing will become clear, concerning AGW, if there are no clouds where you are standing or you wait long enough.

    • R. Shearer says:

      Yes, but when it hasn’t warmed for 17 or 18 years, that happens to be global warming too.

  23. Helmut Thick says:

    It sounds a lot more clear if you read it using a “Porky Pig” cartoon voice….just add the occasional “be de be de be de be de….that’s all folks” and it becomes quite humorous

  24. Brian says:

    If it rains its global warming, if there is a drought its global warming. If there are hurricanes and tornados it is global warming. It there are no hurricanes or tornados it’s global warming. If the ice increases its global warming, if it recedes its global warming. Basically anything that happens good or bad is global warming. Even you libots have to see the flaw in this “science”.

  25. Thom says:

    Reminds me of the scene in the movie “Airport” where the smart kid asks Dean Martin if the plane is turning around and he uses gobbledygook to explain that it is not: “Due to a Cetcil wind, Dystor’s vectored us into a 360-tarson of slow air traffic. Now we’ll maintain this Borden hold until we get the Forta Magnus clearance from Melnics,”

  26. mickrussom says:

    The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere 130% modern levels. CO2 is 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. Temperature a WHOLE 3 DEGREES C over modern times – Oh noes!! The Jurassic DGW, Dinsaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs with their Airplanes and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that! And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON’T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don’t want more plants and animals and trees, no.

    Any time period they want to “prove” this they just cherry pick ranges. And they have the perfect example, the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW, Disnosauric Global Warming, destroyed the Jurassic – wait, no , it didn’t, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm CO2!

    The Cult of the Church of Climatology and Al Goreleone must spin this NOW!

    • Estelle Brennan says:

      I have watched the Flintstones, and obviously the dinosaurs who were powering the machinery that was digging stones at the quarry were: (1) emitting excessive quantities of carbon dioxide and (2) offending mother earth by digging holes in her. Without a doubt, the dinosaurs deserved to be destroyed before they destroyed the earth.

  27. Serreze was one of the climate scientists invited to the Polar Bear Specialist Group meeting a few weeks ago, to give them a global warming update.

    I wonder if his explanation to them was as clear?

    http://polarbearscience.com/2014/07/01/polar-bear-specialist-group-just-had-another-secret-meeting/

  28. Geoffrey Green says:

    To cut to the chase, if global warming continues unabated, it is going to get so hot on Earth that, “somewhat counter-intuitively,” we will all freeze to death. We need to do something about the cooling/warming now!

  29. busseja says:

    So where are the tuna?

  30. Ed says:

    The man is a total idiot. The huge growth in Antarctic Ice is due to global warming. First insist that it is actually shrinking… then after that becomes inoperative say that the growth is due to global warming. Actually it is due to ducting… huge amounts of heat are bring ducted to the bottom of the ocean. One day there will be an inversion and the boiling water at the bottom of the ocean will raise atmospheric temperatures dramatically and then you will be sorry. Some Ivy league college gave this dumb ass a PhD.

  31. Ray R says:

    What the h-ll did he say?!?!?!?

  32. hoohah!948 says:

    Apparently his English done be even gooder than than his science …

  33. tallbloke says:

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    .
    .
    Too funny. Nice one Harold

  34. Jw says:

    Clear as mud

  35. Hillel says:

    In 100 years from now, the warmists will still be trying to explain that global warming is causing the ice to increase and soon it will cause the ice to decrease and we will all drown from rising seas….yada….yada….yada….

    • Estelle Brennan says:

      In days of old, alchemists convinced kings to give them money with the promise that they would convert lead to gold. In 100 years, historians will draw the logical analogy.

      Meanwhile, the AGW believers will have merged with the flat earth society and will be awaiting the return of their messiah, Algore.

      In the unlikely probability that the AGW believers are able to convince the kings to give them enough treasure to eliminate the use of carbon fuels, the planet will have degenerated into a poor, disease ridden world similar to the stone age. At that point, some enterprising soul will discover fire and fossil fuels.

  36. demetrious says:

    can the guy who claims to explain what is occurring–after the fact–direct us to one of his many articles written more than a year ago wherein he predicts this result flowing from global warming or climate change..

  37. kingbum says:

    Funny he expects us to believe this when in a year you had Lake Superior that didn’t thaw completely until June….Hudson Bay is still 50% covered in ice…Last 18 months we have been in a positive ice anomaly globally…I do believe that everything in climate is cyclical because everything involving the Sun is cyclical. ..TSI has been negative since 2005 the oceans kept temperatures steady until now….now you are seeing the result of oceans losing its heat and temperatures will continue to drop until solar activity picks back up maybe in solar cycle 26 they are predicting….Remember though temps won’t increase immediately because it takes a lot of energy to heat water so temps lag a cycle…you are looking at 20 years or so minimum of temperatures dropping….

  38. Dave says:

    All of you jokesters on here won’t think it is so funny when your grandchildren drown.

    • R. Shearer says:

      I’ll teach mine how to ice skate.

    • Azmus says:

      “Oh dear! Will no one think of their grandchildren?”

      The last emotional refuge of the advocate whose quiver of rational arguments is empty and their cause doomed.

    • Estelle Brennan says:

      Gee, just ten years ago it was our children who were going to drown. In another ten years will it be our great-grandchildren we are worrying about?

  39. Keith says:

    Shanna M.

    Google translate to Japanese then Lithuanian and back to English – brilliant – now that spiral explains Serreze’s death spiral

  40. Patrick in AZ says:

    Yes, this is from NOAA, and NOAA is questionable at times, but this is basic information on how ocean currents work – nowhere in there do I see rising surface temperatures causing water to drift towards the equator, therefore causing “upwelling” – what I do see is WINDS blowing surface water and upwelling occurring to replace the displaced surface water. Also, I see sea ice forming, which causes water to become more dense with salt and therefore sink – which in turn causes surface water to move in to replace sinking water (which ultimately causes deeper water to rise somewhere else – i.e. the equator) – neither of these events are described as being caused by temperature, however, they do work to distribute waters of different temperatures

    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/tidescurrents/tidescurrents_currents.html

  41. Crumb says:

    Someone forgot to tell him that the parts of the Antarctica ice sheet that are melting is due to the volcanoes that are buried beneath it. Also, the NOAA, whose temperature measurements are used to defend global warming has had 2 embarrassing admissions lately, that the warmest year on record was not 2013, but 1930, and they were replacing actual temperature readings with phony ones from their computer models. But gotta keep that fed money coming!

  42. randy says:

    my fellow Americas and the rest of you . you now all know what it feels like to have liberal scientific smoke blown right up your anal cavity

  43. John W. Garrett says:

    Wassa matta wif you?

    The Bezzila Vortex transferred its latent energy to the Czezedo submerged current in full accordance with the Dilword hypothesis thereby confirming the accuracy of the output from our CGM model.

    Got that? A six-year old could understand that. Are you stupid or what?

  44. Mervyn says:

    Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, should be charged for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct.

    Peddling ‘gobbledygook’ from a position of authority in unforgivable.

  45. jeff says:

    And when ice melts the sea level raises? Actually it lowers. Try letting a glass of ice water
    melt and compare the level in the glass before and after the ice melts. It is lower. Water expands when it freezes due to contained air and displaces more water than when it thaws. Even glacier ice floats.
    So why will global warming cause the sea levels to raise and flood our coasts?

    • It’s not “due to contained air,” it’s due to the lattice arrangement of water molecules in ice, which take up a lot of space compared to liquid water, where the molecules are more compact.

      Also, the sea level will rise, if the ice that is melting is on land, and the subsequent runoff ends up in the ocean, as will happen in Antarctica, where the ice is all on land. Not so for the arctic, where most of the ice is floating.

    • PuterMan says:

      Because the ice that is on the land mass would contribute to the volume of water in the oceans, NOT because of the ice that is already in the ocean.

  46. Rich says:

    From a non-technical observer’s viewpoint, it appeared he was describing something like the Atlantic conveyor cycle, that keeps the UK from freezing over, n’est pas?

  47. Counter-intutitive? I prefer the term “horse-hockey”…

  48. Dave says:

    What you have here is a scientist who cannot express himself off the cuff, particularly in lay terms. I also noted several commenters who are language-challenged and who neglected to proofread what they wrote. Folks, take a little care and a little pride in how you present yourselves to the world.

    • PuterMan says:

      Methinks perchance you are an older person like me. You shud realize that it don’t matter wot u rote these days as long as you rote it and it dont matter wot u do their gonna say it great cos no one can do bad or faile eveyone does good however bad it are.

  49. A theory is not scientific if it cannot be falsified by data.

    AGW theory is not contradicted by any data; any and all data support the theory, even if they disagree with the models (which are still, somehow, not falsified, even though they fail to predict any climate data whatsoever.)

    How can climatologists continue to spin their theory as if Popper never lived???

  50. Pingback: Global Warming: How Heat Expands Sea Ice | Truth and Trouble

  51. PuterMan says:

    Reblogged this on Grandfather David and commented:
    Makes perfect sense to me. The warming air is making the ice cooler just like in the refrigerator thus as we head further into the abyss of global warming with earlier colder winters and cool wetter summers, increased Antarctic ice and glaciers starting to grow again, the great lakes freezing up for longer and the Sun dropping it’s power output we can expect to see the whole globe being cooled by global warming. Every minute trace of CO2 adding to the current 5.7% of the CO” level of the Carboniferous period, or indeed of the levels found in any cinema or theatre brings us perilously closer to the ultimate global warming phenomenon, the next Ice Age.

    • Brian Fortin says:

      That was a very good conclusion shoehorned into our current fashionable dialogue. CO plays a very small part in this process. It’s nowhere near as effective a greenhouse gas as other gasses, and none of them are even close to water vapor, the granddaddy of climate factors and something about which we know very little and can’t even model. The bottom line is we are long overdue for another Ice Age, and you are probably correct that we are going to get one soon.

  52. Frank V says:

    “Basically what happens is” he hopes you keep believing his global warming
    BS so that your tax money will keep flowing.

  53. Now they are trying to use the bogus argument that sea ice volume is down. Well the news is when it comes to the climate sea ice area extent is much more important then volume. That is what effects albedo.

    In addition with Antarctica Sea Ice coverage over 2 million sq. km above normal I highly doubt the se ice volume is below average..

  54. David M. says:

    Folks, there is a term for all of this already that I like to use. I know that it confuses people, especially those trying to place blame on others, or to control their behavior, or to regulate and tax stuff, but here is my word, it’s not a new word but it describes all of the things that have been happening globally. Its called “weather”.

  55. Brian Fortin says:

    An elaborate explanation for why the ice is getting thicker doesn’t support your allegations of global warming, it just means you are trying to understand the mechanism for the ice getting thicker.

    The facts are, the ice is getting thicker and that doesn’t support your theory that everything’s getting warmer, everything’s getting warmer because of us, and that it’s irreversible and even bad for us.

    Hey, I get your argument: Hot is hot, and cold is hot. Got it.

  56. Can O'Korn says:

    Mark Serreze, et al must have missed the recent report about underwater volcanic activity being the root cause of warm waters underneath Antarctica.

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8278/20140610/underwater-volcanoes-climate-change-reason-melting-west-antarctic-ice.htm
    Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet
    “They found liquid water was present in a greater number of sources than previously believed, and it is warmer than estimated in previous studies. ”

    “It’s the most complex thermal environment you might imagine. And then you plop the most critical, dynamically unstable ice sheet on planet Earth in the middle of this thing, and then you try to model it. It’s virtually impossible,” Don Blankenship, senior research scientist at the University of Texas, said. “

  57. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/why-my-approach-is-by-far-the-best-approach/

    great video to watch about the third post down showing solar /climate correlations.

  58. jamman says:

    It does not seem to be ‘gibberish’.

    He is saying that warmer water is flowing North away from the Antarctic on the top of the Ocean, which then moves on top of other water, which pushes on deeper colder water that moves to the surface near the Antarctic, creating ice there because it is colder water.

    His problem is he would have to prove some obvious (and it would seem, extreme level of) heating somewhere for this to occur, or that somehow deeper colder water than normally is pushed to the surface is by some mechanism being pushed to the surface.

    Or alternatively, he could just say that it is cold in the Antarctic and that causes Ice.

  59. Rick says:

    Sounds like BS to me.

  60. Neal says:

    Liberals will believe anything. They are the least educated among us. They believe global warming, they believed Obama was going to deliver FREE healthcare, they believe that we can somehow take care of everyone in South America’s children their derelict parents dump at the border. Liberalism is a disease of the mind. It should be studied, isolated, and eradicated.

  61. JO says:

    Talk about a dog chasing his tail! Since all assumptions begin with the premise there is global warming then all occurrences…hot, cold, dry, wet, storms, no storms, etc. must be explained by global warming regardless of the facts. Pick a warm spot on a cycle and then declare all points after that are due to the conditions of that spot ignoring or explaining away other cyclical changes to cold. It is all about ideology and grant $$$.
    We are left to conclude that cold brings warmth and less ice and warmth brings cold and more ice.

  62. Timmy says:

    Got to love this Serreze guy….”What happens is” is the new “Whatever”.

  63. blqysmsg says:

    H’es essentially saying that upwelling water at 4º C is causing ice to grow, while the winds blowing at -40º C are inconsequential. I’m having a bit of trouble with that logic. Ice is growing because a) it’s freaking cold, b) more ice is sliding off of the land, c) less of it is melting during the Antarctic summer.

    His explanation only works if…. no, it just doesn’t work at all. The currents have been working the way they are working now for hundreds, or even thousands of years. The claim that AGW has suddenly altered the way ocean currents carry water, and THATS why ice is suddenly growing, well that’s just wrong.

  64. Pingback: Scientist: Record Ice Growth in Antarctica Due to Global Warming « Dvorak News Blog

  65. Penn says:

    Finally! A group smart enough to understand the real problem! It’s not global warming; it’s continental drift. I’m telling you, if we don’t stop it, we’re doomed!

  66. Dontasemebro says:

    “[W]hich inhibits ice loss” says it all. There is a hidden double negative there (“in” in inhibit and “loss.”) Is it not easier to say: “creates ice?” No, no, no, “creates ice” is not a phrase in the agenda driven anthropogenic global-warming scientific community. I am not a scientist but I remember my 7th grade lessons on science. The lack of so-called scientists want and/or ability to consider other causes to global warming is shameful. The ambivalence goes against all scientific practice principles. Logically develop your theories and test them. Then develop more theories and test those to rule out other possibilities. Jeez-louise!! Again, “which inhibits ice loss” is a statement that is so revealing about this man’s agenda. Its a laborious phrase that reveals how pathetically devout some scientists are to the now so-called “climate change” religion. Like its a damn surprise that our planet’s climate is not static, “basically” speaking, . . . of course.

  67. npendleton says:

    Funniest article I have read in a while! (I must thank a facebook friend for forwarding this link to me.) Mocking “nay saying” unhappy climate change denying conservatives for not knowing how their refrigerator works is simply brilliant! And all the complaining follow up comments with arguments about how plugging in a refrigerator makes stuff colder inside and meanwhile the room hotter, and uses more power to do so. Simply priceless. The article authors must be lining up to get impressive writing jobs with Comedy Central.

    Even though the overwhelming majority (97%+) of climate scientists predicted that increasing summer temperatures would convert, like rocket nozzles such as in the back of your refrigerators do, high temperature, high pressure, low velocity, air and water, into much colder temperatures, low pressure, high velocity, wind and water, and these same high quality scientists have put that prediction of colder winters in some places on maps for many years showing places like the global poles (north and south) and the US Dakotas would have both hotter summers and colder winters, I bet there are places on the web where unhappy “nay saying” climate science deniers congregate and boast how they reject evidence based science and thinking, to their long term peril, such as how higher taxes to pay for disruption to their entire existence from droughts and floods and food and fuel supply disruptions from the process of climate change, or even ever present seasonal variability.

    Mocking the cherry picking time frame illogical arguments is also spot on humor, and exactly how climate change deniers claim not to know the difference between summer and winter! Specifically it is the bit about more winter thin ice, while omitting the more serious bit about very important decrease in big floating icebergs and thicker sheet ice that survive each (local) summer, thereby making the entire earth both more likely to have extremely risky rapid climate change, and that climate change rate has already started accelerating, and only picking up its acceleration, because there is drastically more darker ocean in (local) summer and less of the more reflective ice in (local) summer, would be just the sort of thing that actual climate change denier might link and misquote, so the humor value might be high, but likely to fall apart over people not getting that “gotcha” humor.

    Perhaps someone who reads your entertaining article does not know how their refrigerator works, so a link about how more energy on one side of the nozzle, high temperature fluids or gases pumped to higher pressure, becomes a cold and fast wind. Mother nature duplicating rocket nozzle type energy conversion in examples large and small such as jet streams, birds wings, hurricanes, polar vortexes, are each based on the ideas explained in this artwork.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle#mediaviewer/File:Nozzle_de_Laval_diagram.svg

    • Roger says:

      “….Even though the overwhelming majority (97%+) …” Not again. And how long will the paid off ‘grant’ specialists cling to dangerous warming in the face of mounting evidence that, in fact, we most probably are going the other way. I know how my ‘man made’ refrigerator works and see very little of its function within the “big picture” of Mother Nature’s climate model. The fact that the AGW supporters have, time and time again, altered the data to suit their position is sufficient to indict their model as too corrupt for consideration. The numbers don’t lie and, while things ‘are’ changing, it isn’t A causing these significant issues… coping may well be anthropogenic, more sweaters and jackets. The GWers lied, are still lying and that is simply not the foundation I want to support.

  68. joe says:

    What a bunch of nonsense, these scientists are literally pissing on us and telling us it’s raining. How stupid do you have to be to believe this nonsense. There’s more ice in the antarctic because it’s COLD!

  69. Nathan says:

    So global warming is causing the increase in the sea ice that you guys assured is not long ago was disappearing due to global warming.
    2 questions,
    1. Did I say that right?
    2. Is this a parody site?

  70. Jay Banks says:

    @ Nathan -

    If I got it right, the article explains that there’s an anomaly (the Ekman drift) which causes warmer water from the south being carried north. On surface (in the south), this missing water is replaced by cold H2O from the depths.
    The result of Ekman drift is colder water in south (leading to build-up of ice), warmer near the Equator, and probably increased differences between these regions which might lead to further anomalies.

  71. Pingback: GISS Data Contradict Mark Serreze’s Claim

Comments are closed.