I felt that the statement itself was incorrect unless it was a particular term being used to identify a particular property of sea ice (or such). It wasn’t. I think the person writing it was trying to say that the sea ice around Antarctica this winter was wider in extent than it has ever been. When the term extent is used it refers to the northern edge of the sea ice (as a pack). It doesn’t deal with thickness distribution or ice types rather it is a statement of the boundary for ocean/sea ice.
The sea ice extent is relatively easy to define using remote sensing data of some kind and a methodology for ascertaining the sea ice/ocean delineation. It is much more difficult to say that a certain year is “wider” in extent that another and even more so to identify a trend. There is a limited amount of information to base that on. You can get around this by saying “for as long as records have been kept” or something.
Antarctic sea ice is interesting in that it is sea ice surrounding a continent (as opposed to the generalisation that the Arctic region surrounds the sea ice). The northward advance of sea ice is abated by oceanic and atmospheric properties (and land mass in west Antarctic). To talk about things like width is difficult as sea ice is not a homogeneous entity. Nor does is “sit still” to be measured. You need to find the ice edge to talk about extent. This is tricky. I will try to explain why.
When you talk about sea ice you say thickness (of the ice itself), pack width or extent. I have never heard it referred to as having a height. You can have very thick sea ice compacted to the shore and then the ice breaks up and becomes wider in extent. You are then comparing two different properties of the ice pack. Which was more important? The extent (or ice edge) or the pack density.
The following is an SSM/I image (east Antarctic) from the winter of 1999. The ice edge is where the sea ice meets the ocean. To determine the ice edge is complex. Way more than i want to get into but your more than welcome to look it up.
SSM/I product info: http://www.ssmi.com/
The following plot of ice edge (for the same general area as the map) is the weekly sea ice edge as calculated from the SSM/I data. As you can probably tell there is a lot of variation for a winter. It fluctuates from week to week. Even looking at in time series you get fluctuations and variance. Naturally. What you do get is a general idea of the sea ice extent. You would need many years of data and then work out some averages, means, limits (etc.) to be able to ascertain any definitive changes in behaviour.
That is why when you read statements such as the one stated in the opening paragraph you need to realise that the data and any analysis needs to be examined. Thoroughly. You need to know what science is behind it. In general this is a good approach to take in all matters. There is often not a right or wrong answer to a question. Rather there is a “point of view”. You just need to understand it.
BTW this has not been a science lesson. If i wanted to be a teacher i would have become one! I am rubbish at explaining things. This is because my brain runs ahead of my mouth all the time. Also, i have my own short hand. One of the reasons i couldn’t get somebody else to type my notes up. I know that not many people on the planet care about sea ice (and even less about polynyas). However as political people start to use it as a for/against in the great climate debate i think more people should take an interest.
Oh yeah. Merry Christmas and happy holidays.






















