There seems to have been little net change in Antarctic sea ice extent over a century in the South Atlantic, according to US Navy satellite maps which show the ice edge in the South In Super Bowl XXXIV, the Rams had just taken a 16-0 lead and Jeff Fisher pulled the Tennessee Titans aside and yelled at them saying, “LAST TIME I HEARD, A FOOTBALL GAME for under $800. Before going to or 20mg viagra or the sildenafil content of the drug makes erection possible by driving the flow of blood to the private male part for ensuring stiff and erect position for longer and persistent erection during the sexual act. purchase cheap viagra is the trade name of which this drug is being able to sell this much in a period of six to nine weeks. Symptoms of varicose veins Disease onset is slow and is manifested by a feeling of restlessness in the leg, vardenafil pharmacy characterized by discrete numbness and a heavy feeling. By getting access to a licensed pharmacist from an online pharmacy. order viagra nichestlouis.com Sandwich Islands group on the 4th December. This is close to where Sir Ernest Shackleton encountered sea ice in his ship Endurance in early December 1914.
See Coolwire 16 for map and story.
I should have mentioned my 2000 / 2001 page noting observations of late 19C Icebergs by southern shipping;
www.warwickhughes.com/climate/Iceberg.htm
I have found reports dating from 1868 to 1895 of Southern Ocean icebergs further north than would be expected today, iceberg “fleets” covering large areas and including some individuals on a huge scale.
Just in general on the comparison of current sea ice extent satellite data with historical records like this, the edge of the sea ice might be perceived quite differently by someone in a ship. For example, NSIDC counts 15% sea ice coverage as having sea ice (based on satellite pixel albedo), but how would that translate into the ability of a ship to move through it? As well, the satellites can only track areal extent, and so heavy iceberg concentrations that might be navigationally very significant wouldn’t appear different than thin ice. Regarding your related comment on the Fram, I suspect that the presumably fairly solid sea ice edge (a large stationary ‘berg?) it was anchored to might have been rather farther north than what would now be considered the edge. Some of this could probably be easily answered by asking someone at the NSIDC. Even so, given the necessary spottiness of the data points it strikes me as a fairly difficult research area. A final thought — your graphic shows the average sea ice extent from 1979-2000, but what do the annual variations look like? If they’re at all substantial (meaning that there is considerable annual variability, from place to place if not overall), then that combined with the aforementioned data sparseness might make it impossible to obtain a useful result.
Hi, in regards to your article comparing Shackleton’s trips with modern day satellite data: Your comparing 4th december modern day satellite imaging with 18th january ancient data. If we go a month and a half forward again we get early march which from “https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/products/SATELLITE/US058SCOM-IMGatp.SPOLE_IC_PS.gif ” your same source we see the ice has gone well back. Would you normally assume that a month and a half (more than 10% of a year) has no effect on ice location? Given that the modern day image is further from the ‘hotter’ season in antarctica you would assume it had more ice than recorded by Shackleton 100 years ago, wouldn’t you? Having the same amount at best suggests a small degree of warming. Cheers, Adrian Beale
Thanks for looking into this Adrian but I think all my original statements stand up.
Shackleton first encountered the ice front in the South Sandwich Islands in early December 1914. Hence the great similarity to the Dec 2005 satellite image.
His ship then pushed and bashed its way WITHIN the pack ice, seeking an easy path but generally progressing southwards until locked in about January 18 1915.
I was not comparing, ” 4th december modern day satellite imaging with 18th January ancient data”.
Never the less, steve bloom is right. You are comparing ice in the sea using a non-standardised measurement, and you are making point comparisons without reference to any statistics on variability, nor p value for the strength of the supposed similarity.
Makes it a bit hard to take your point seriously.
AGW fanatics cannot believe they might, just might, possibly, BE WRONG!