# Arctic v Antarctic

A semi scientific perspective.

An article by Tamino on sea ice area and extent  and balancing  has upset my apple cart enough to try to sort out some common sense  debate on the issue of  North and South sea ice.

He states “Despite the fact that the southern ice pack is larger overall than the northern, its increases are much smaller than the decreases noted for the northern hemisphere, 1.96 million km^2 in extent and 1.92 million km^2 of area. This puts the lie to claims (oft repeated) that southern gain even “almost” balances northern loss — the northern extent loss is 3.4 times as great as the southern extent gain while northern area loss is 3.8 times as great as southern area gain. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another, they are certainly not “balanced” and anyone who claims so is either a fool or an outright liar.”

As I am not a mathematician  or a  facts at the finger tips person I would appreciate  any such comments or additions that make sense  [or nonsense of] my statements to be added to this article.

Statements

At maximum extent I believe the volume of the southern ice pack is smaller [16 square million kilometers[ to  than the  northern ice pack [18 square million kilometers]   via eyeballing a graph from climate4you.com

The last 30 years have seen an imbalance in the  total ice balance  to the negative side  but currently the balance is very  positive with only a slight negative southern anomaly. This means that the southern  area gain of 910,000 square kilometers is  3.4 times that of the northern hemisphere  loss of 280,000 square K. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another it pays to check the current facts.

The two areas of ice do not occupy  the same relative areas to their poles so cannot be looked at as  twins or mirrors of each other. The north is part of a circular semi spherical surface, The south is a larger  circumference dough nut or torus shape though also on a semi spherical surface. Furthermore the heat that reaches them from the sun does so at different latitudes  and hence heats and melts them at different rates for the corresponding times of the year.This explains in part why the pattern of the global sea ice area moves up and down and not in a sinusoidal pattern as would be expected .

The two bodies of ice are totally different in the amount of heat that reaches them as most of the ice at the arctic is at a  much higher latitude,  ie over the north pole  whereas the ice in the antarctic  starts 400 [guess only?]  or more kilometers from the south pole.

Because the earth is curved the amount of heat received  at the surface increases cubically [???] as one moves away from the polar area. So if  the ice area  is starting 400 kilometers away from the pole the heat the ice is receiving is very much higher per square kilometer average  than the same area of ice centered around a pole.

The sun is closer to the north pole  in a northern summer than the south pole  in summer  hence the total  heat delivered to the ice is  greater in the North than the South. Hence the rate of melting  at the south pole is always greater naturally , not as an effect of global warming. [Also the rate of refreeze as the sun is further away in  northern winter at the north as to southern winter at the south pole]. The rate of refreeze should also  be slower in the south due to the fact that the energy reaching the outer ice is higher  at the higher southern latitudes than at the northern very high latitudes.

All late winter ice is thin [ Note to Mr Forster et al ] hence will melt quickly whether the ice extent for that year is high or low. The rapid melt at the start  in 2012 was due to the larger extent of ice able to melt and was no more rapid at the start than that in years with a similar ice extent like the late 1990’s.

Ice in the antarctic requires much colder  temperatures to extend the same distance out as the arctic does .

When some one states the melting in the arctic is 3.4 times that of the freezing in the antarctic [by someone who completely understands the maths of what I am talking about] , One can only conclude that he is being disingenuous.

The existence of such a large anomaly of  area of frozen water so far out, increasing over the last 30 years, must be  a  sign that the earth is currently not warming. If it was warming the Antarctic ice should be disappearing quicker than the arctic ice as it is further out [although in the colder hemisphere.]

The fact that the Antarctic ice diminishes to almost nothing  in Summer  should not  be compared to the  ice in that same latitude  at the North Pole in Summer .As a guess  I would say that there is very little  ice at the  Arctic at the same latitudes except for where glaciers in Greenland etc enter the sea.

disclaimers,         always leave some area’s wrong for the critics.

Stats   a

rea of Global Sea Ice varies from   14.5  to 23.5 total combined area. No balance of north and south masses there but a reflection of the distance away from the Sun. Overall  14.5 just after  winter in the north . 23.5  in summer in the north Sun closest to the earth!

arctic ice     Max       16                  Min 3

antarctic   Max        19                           Min   2

there is more antarctic ice out to a further latitude at its maximum due to the disparity in heat reaching the earth’s surface in the north compared to the south. This is due to the northern hemisphere being closer to the sun in summer. If it was the other way around there would be no sea ice around Antarctica in summer .

poles and the sun is closer to the south pole  in the southern winter.  To achieve an increase in  the southern  area anomaly of  1,000,000 square kilometers  at the lower latitude requires roughly  the same amount of heat loss as it does  the heat gain to melt an anomaly area 1.96 square million kilometers in the north..

when the ice is 1,000,000 square kilometers  more in anomaly at the south pole the degree of cooling is up to 2 times as much as as the amount of heating  needed to  create an anomaly of -2,000,000 square kilometers  at the north pole

Due to the statement set out above  a melting anomaly 4 times greater than a freezing anomaly in the South barely  equates.

Arctic versus Antarctic

A semi scientific perspective.

An article on sea ice area and extent  and balancing  has upset my apple cart enough to try to sort out some common sense  debate on the issue of  North and South sea ice.

It states “Despite the fact that the southern ice pack is larger overall than the northern, its increases are much smaller than the decreases noted for the northern hemisphere, 1.96 million km^2 in extent and 1.92 million km^2 of area. This puts the lie to claims (oft repeated) that southern gain even “almost” balances northern loss — the northern extent loss is 3.4 times as great as the southern extent gain while northern area loss is 3.8 times as great as southern area gain. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another, they are certainly not “balanced” and anyone who claims so is either a fool or an outright liar.”

As I am not a mathematician  or a  facts at the finger tips person I would appreciate  any such comments or additions that make sense  [or nonsense of] my statements to be added to this article.

Statements

At maximum extent I believe the volume of the southern ice pack is smaller [16 square million kilometers[ to  than the  northern ice pack [18 square million kilometers]   via eyeballing a graph from climate4you.com

The last 30 years have seen an imbalance in the  total ice balance  to the negative side  but currently the balance is very  positive with only a slight negative southern anomaly. This means that the southern  area gain of 910,000 square kilometers is  3.4 times that of the northern hemisphere  loss of 280,000 square K. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another it pays to check the current facts.

The two areas of ice do not occupy  the same relative areas to their poles so cannot be looked at as  twins or mirrors of each other. The north is part of a circular semi spherical surface, The south is a larger  circumference dough nut or torus shape though also on a semi spherical surface. Furthermore the heat that reaches them from the sun does so at different latitudes  and hence heats and melts them at different rates for the corresponding times of the year.This explains in part why the pattern of the global sea ice area moves up and down and not in a sinusoidal pattern as would be expected .

The two bodies of ice are totally different in the amount of heat that reaches them as most of the ice at the arctic is at a  much higher latitude,  ie over the north pole  whereas the ice in the antarctic  starts 400 [guess only?]  or more kilometers from the south pole.

Because the earth is curved the amount of heat received  at the surface increases cubically [???] as one moves away from the polar area. So if  the ice area  is starting 400 kilometers away from the pole the heat the ice is receiving is very much higher per square kilometer average  than the same area of ice centered around a pole.

The sun is closer to the north pole  in a northern summer than the south pole  in summer  hence the total  heat delivered to the ice is  greater in the North than the South. Hence the rate of melting  at the south pole is always greater naturally , not as an effect of global warming. [Also the rate of refreeze as the sun is further away in  northern winter at the north as to southern winter at the south pole]. The rate of refreeze should also  be slower in the south due to the fact that the energy reaching the outer ice is higher  at the higher southern latitudes than at the northern very high latitudes.

All late winter ice is thin  hence will melt quickly whether the ice extent for that year is high or low. The rapid melt at the start  in 2012 was due to the larger extent of ice able to melt and was no more rapid at the start than that in years with a similar ice extent like the late 1990’s.

Ice in the antarctic requires much colder  temperatures to extend the same distance out as the arctic does .

When some one states the melting in the arctic is 3.4 times that of the freezing in the antarctic [by someone who completely understands the maths of what I am talking about] , One can only conclude that he is being disingenuous.

The existence of such a large anomaly of  area of frozen water so far out, increasing over the last 30 years, must be  a  sign that the earth is currently not warming. If it was warming the Antarctic ice should be disappearing quicker than the arctic ice as it is further out [although in the colder hemisphere.]

The fact that the Antarctic ice diminishes to almost nothing  in Summer  should not  be compared to the  ice in that same latitude  at the North Pole in Summer .As a guess  I would say that there is very little  ice at the  Arctic at the same latitudes except for where glaciers in Greenland etc enter the sea.

disclaimers,         always leave some area’s wrong for the critics.