Remarkable correlation of Arctic sea ice to solar cycle length

This is interesting, especially since Solar Cycle 23 was quite long.

The Hockey Schtick writes:

A paper published by the Danish Meteorological Institute finds a remarkable correlation of Arctic sea ice observations over the past 500 years to “the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.” The paper adds to several others demonstrating that Arctic sea ice extent and climate is controlled by natural variations in solar activity, ocean & atmospheric oscillations, winds & storm activity, not man-made CO2.

Figure 1.5 Solar Cycle Length [SCL] shown by dotted line, Koch sea ice extent index from observations in the Greenland Sea shown by solid line.

 The paper:

Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea-Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000

Knud Lassen and Peter Thejll

Abstract:

The extent of ice in the North Atlantic varies in time with time scales stretching to centennial, and the cause of these variations is discussed. We consider the Koch ice index which describes the amount of ice sighted from Iceland, in the period 1150 to 1983 AD. This measure of ice extent is a non-linear and curtailed measure of the amount of ice in the Greenland Sea, but gives an overall view of the amounts of ice there through more than 800 years. The length of the series allows insight into the natural variability of ice extent and this understanding can be used to evaluate modern-day variations. Thus we find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea  may be related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch [sea ice] index and compare it to the similar periodicity found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.

Conclusion:
In view of the large significance observed we suggest that the correlation of 0.67, between
multi-decadal modes in the Koch ice index and the solar cycle length, is indicative of a relationship not due to chance. The multi-decadal modes still represent only a small fraction of the total variance in the ice series, which illustrates that while the kind of solar activity characterised by the variable length of the solar cycle may cause some of the variability seen in the ice series, the majority is caused by other factors.

Whereas the multi-decal mode may be a result of varying solar activity, the cause of the slowly varying mode is not directly seen from the data presented here. Obviously, it must be due to a natural variation of the climate. A variation of similar shape may be recognised in the solar cycle length (Figure 1.5), but it has not been possible from the present data to deduce a correlation that is significant. Nevertheless, the similarity of the variation of the ice export through the Fram Strait and the smoothed variation of the solar cycle length shown in Figure 1.7 speaks in favour of the assumption that the solar cycle variation may include both natural modes. This conclusion is in accordance with the finding by Bond et al., 2001 (their Figure 2) that a persistent series of solar influenced millennial-scale variations, which include the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, reflect a baseline of the centennial-scale cycles.

Fram_strait-export_fig1-7

Figure 1.7: Variation of Ice export through the Fram Strait (in units of ) and smoothed
values of solar cycle length (SCL121) (heavy curve).

The ’low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries. The pattern is a natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal could be a natural occurrence.

Full paper is here (PDF)

About these ads

108 thoughts on “Remarkable correlation of Arctic sea ice to solar cycle length

  1. Since I am no scientist but can read data, it is about time someone came out and said what I have been SCREAMING for years.

  2. I did not see anything about tree rings, Did you. hmmmm Maybe the trees just grow because of the sun and then they make tree rings… Ok

  3. Seems like more of this stuff appearing.

    As the powers that be slowly back away from the con, I plan to rub it in the face of the believers!

  4. I’m betting Leif knocks this on back out of the ballpark in three, two, one…

    And the Koch Ice Index? Squak! It’s a denier tool! Squak! Heh.

  5. EXCELLENT! Time to break out the Haagen Daz!

    LOL, and this phrase will REALLY throw the Cult of Climatology for a loop:

    “the KOCH ice index” [sound of theme from movie "Psycho"]

    Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

    [Did you note that Dr. Spencer was doing his bit for "Coke" at the hearing, today? Heh, heh]

  6. Abstract:

    “The extent of ice in the North Atlantic varies in time with time scales stretching to centennial, and the cause of these variations is discussed. We consider the Koch ice index which describes the amount of ice sighted from Iceland,..”
    =============
    I would like a map view that shows sight distance, also some kind of ice conditions.
    Of the ice exiting the Arctic.
    Such as it was.
    The horizon is 3 miles away.
    I’m sure I’m missing something ?

  7. I’m not a scientist either but, yes, there should be a lag.

    The deniers of natural forces may eat this theory up.

  8. I made the mistake of watching a David Attenborough documentary on a flight across the Tasman yesterday. The doco was showing dramatic images of Arctic ice loss over time plus footage of polar bears swimming under and around small patches of floating ice. Seemingly swimming into oblivion. Meanwhile our kindly and knowledgable expert naturalist Sir David Attenborough was telling us in his unique voice about human pollution and the damage we are doing to our wonderful planet. Made me realise just how long it is going to take to allay peoples NEGATIVE feelings about human caused damage to the Planet. To counteract this negativity I then wondered how the “dry” scientific data typically being presented on this wonderful website could be presented to provide a POSITIVE emotional impact among the general public. People just don’t seem to engage with graphs showing flat or downward trends! Then the plane landed…..

  9. Other_Andy says:
    July 18, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    Interesting but…..
    Correlation does not imply causation.

    ==================

    But OTOH lack of correlation most definitely does not imply causation, as in the lack of correlation between temperatures and CO2 concentration (R=>.3).

  10. I’m sure we’ll have the same suspects saying that this is flawed, because there is no trend in solar activity, or something of the sort.

    The fact is that there are dozens of papers documenting a solar effect on the MJO, precipitation changes, stream flow changes, the LOD, ENSO, the AO/NAO, Cloud Cover, the NAM, Ozone changes etc., and ultimately temperature changes. It’s amazing to me that some continue to neglect the role of the sun.

  11. Another extraordinary revelation suggesting that the sun has just possibly something to do with it all. I can barely contain myself. One has to ask WHY this research wasn’t undertaken before the eco-socio-political love affair with GCM’s?

  12. Snowlover123, could you link me to some of the papers you are talking about when you say:

    “The fact is that there are dozens of papers documenting a solar effect on the MJO, precipitation changes, stream flow changes, the LOD, ENSO, the AO/NAO, Cloud Cover, the NAM, Ozone changes etc., and ultimately temperature changes. It’s amazing to me that some continue to neglect the role of the sun.”

    In particular, I am most interested in the solar-MJO papers. Thanks…

  13. Try this on for size. Heavy snow falls assist sea ice nucleation. Heavy snow falls are a proxy for cloud nucleation. Cloud nucleation is a proxy for GCR flux and steering of that flux by B and H field lines.

  14. Jimbo says:
    July 18, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    Excellent compilation, showing that “climate science” (so-called) has sadly regressed since Lamb has been supplanted by the buffoonish likes of Mann. Amazing that even with documentary records as well as physical proxies, the Lysenko-like scoundrels try to rewrite climate history in order to toe the Warmunista Party line.

  15. The solar magnetic cycle variation appears to cause planetary climate change by modulating the amount of planetary cloud cover. The observed warming in the last 70 years and in the paleo climatic record is the strongest in high latitude Northern regions although there is warming observed in both hemispheres in the last 70 years and in the past. The paleo climate record shows the warming cycle has always been followed by cooling when the sun enters a Maunder minimum.

    The warmists have ignored the fact that the regional pattern of warming in the last 70 years cannot be explained by the CO2 forcing mechanism theory. The warmists have assumed any and all warming observed is due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
    There is in the paleo climate record cycles of warming and cooling of high latitude regions in the Northern hemisphere that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    The following is another paper that notes that high latitude warming and cooling correlates with solar magnetic cycle length with a lag time of roughly one solar cycle.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256

    Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
    The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles.
    The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years.
    These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models.
    We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C.
    William: Latitude and longitude of Svalbard (Longyearbyen)
    78.2167° N, 15.6333° E Svalbard Longyearbyen, Coordinates
    William: Based on observations the sun appears now to be rapidly moving towards a Maunder minimum.

    The following are three papers that predicted that the sun would be moving towards a Maunder minimum.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD….34.0603S

    Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?
    …The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/

    Prolonged minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion, Rhodes W. Fairbridge and James H. Shirley, January 1987
    ….. The progression of the inertial orientation parameter is controlled by the 900-yr great inequality of the motion of Jupiter and Saturn, while the precessional rotation parameter is linked with the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion previously identified by Jose (1965). A new prolonged minimum of solar activity may be imminent.

    http://www.ann-geophys.net/20/115/2002/angeo-20-115-2002.pdf

    ..The 2400-year cycle in atmospheric radiocarbon concentration: bispectrum of 14C data over the last 8000 years…

  16. At first glance, it looks interesting. However my immediate fret is that the measuring of ice discharging through the Fram Strait would be a guess. Unfortunately the graph seems to start right after the Tambora Volcano event. There were reports of a huge amount of ice breaking lose and crowding the waters off north Ireland with bergs even in August, around 1816-1817.

  17. Anthony says,

    “Snowlover123, could you link me to some of the papers you are talking about when you say:”
    Of course.

    MJO:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682609002673

    From the paper:

    “We analyze the long-term evolution of seasonal temperature disturbances in a 2.5×2.5° area of the US North Pacific. Late Fall and early Winter display significant correlation of temperature disturbances and are investigated in detail. The long-term evolution of the Fall temperature disturbances from 1945 to 2008 closely follows that of solar activity. The robustness of these results is successfully controlled in a 2.5×2.5° area immediately north of the studied region. The modulation of temperature disturbances is very large (∼30%) compared to the corresponding changes in solar irradiance, and has significant variability, even at small geographical scale. The physical mechanism of solar forcing of temperature disturbances remains to be understood, but a relation with cloudiness and influence of the Madden–Julian oscillation in the North Pacific is suggested.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000302

    From the paper:

    “This paper focuses on the decadal to multi-decadal evolution of the spectral properties of the Madden–Julian Oscillation (MJO). Guided by former studies, we test whether the ∼11-yr (Schwabe) cycle of solar activity could be reflected in the spectral features of MJO indices: namely, we study the evolution of MJO mean period within different period ranges and compare these with the evolution of solar activity. We focus on solar proxies best linked to UV emission and cosmic rays: sunspot number WN, F10.7 flux, core-to-wing ratio MgII, and galactic cosmic rays (GCR). A clear solar signature in MJO spectral properties is indeed found and shown to be both statistically significant and robust. UV proxies are found to be better correlated with MJO mean period than GCR, thus supporting rather the ozone mechanism of solar impact on MJO. The overall correlation with solar activity is found to be stronger in the Indian Ocean. Long periods (e.g. 50–80 day) are better correlated with solar activity than shorter periods (e.g. 30–60 day). A marked change in the relationship between MJO mean period and solar activity takes place in the declining phase of solar cycle 23, adding to its unusual character.”

    ENSO:

    http://journal.fmipa.itb.ac.id/jms/article/view/56

    From the paper:

    “Variations in the Solar Cycle has been known for a long time. The Solar Cycle is observed to vary from 14 to 8 years in length. The reconstructions of the annual solar total irradiance since the beginning of Maunder Minimum (from year 1600) to year 2000 show that there are envelopes of groups sunspot numbers. The intensities delineated by the envelopes are consistent with the range of CaII brightness. The timelength of the envelopes corresponds to long term variabilities such as the Gleissberg Cycle of 88 and 124 years period. A close correlation between total irradiance and sunspot number from 1610 to 2000 is found to be 0.88. Although the work of Labitzke and van Loon has clearly shown the existence of an oscillation in many atmospheric parameters with a period in the vicinity of 11 years and a phase that is related to that of solar activity, there is reluctance to accept a relationship to the 11-year solar cycle. Therefore this study aimed to pursue the investigations further by determining the correlation coefficients to lower trophospheric layers. Our studies reveal to results, which we summarized as follows: A weak correlation at 27 month delay is found between solar activities and the El Niño/La Niña phenomena. The next El Niño/La Niña event is expected to occur from year 2002 until mid 2003. A major change in the pattern of the solar cycle since 1700 appears. The sun is seen to be more frequent in its active states over the last 100 years. The length of the cycle is becoming shorter. The solar cycles modulate from 5, 8, 12 and 25-year period obtained from its total irradiance plot. The 5-year period coincides very well within the El Niño/La Niña period of 2 to 7-year. The El Niño/La Niña phenomenon has a 10-12 month duration. Every El Niño/La Niña event is separated from 24 to 84 months duration in an irregular pattern. Every El Niño/La Niña event is unique. These conclusions are drawn after decomposing the SST Anomaly Index through applied Fourier Transform. The effect of the solar cycle variations is to generate long period harmonics in the coming El Niño/La Niña events. We expect that more variability in climate will occur in the coming decade.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL047964/abstract

    From the paper:

    “A persistent mean sea level pressure response to solar forcing is found for the eastern North Pacific extending over North America. Moreover, there is evidence for a La Niña-like response assigned to solar maximum conditions with below normal SSTs in the equatorial eastern Pacific, reduced equatorial precipitation, enhanced off-equatorial precipitation and an El Niño-like response a couple of years later, thus confirming the response to solar forcing at the surface seen in earlier studies. The amplitude of the solar signal in the Pacific region depends to a great extent on the choice of the centennial period averaged.”

    AO/NAO:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD015822/abstract

    “The relationship between the geomagnetic aa index and the winter North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) has previously been found to be nonstationary, being weakly negative during the early 20th century and significantly positive since the 1970s. The study reported here applies a statistical method called the generalized additive modeling (GAM) to elucidate the underlying physical reasons. We find that the relationship between aa index and the NAO during the Northern Hemispheric winter is generally nonlinear and can be described by a concave shape with a negative relation for small to medium aa and a positive relation for medium to large aa. The nonstationary character of the aa-NAO relationship may be ascribed to two factors. First, it is modulated by the multidecadal variation of solar activity. This solar modulation is indicated by significant change points of the trends of solar indices around the beginning of solar cycle 14, 20, and 22 (i.e., ∼1902/1903, ∼1962/1963, and ∼1995/1996). Coherent changes of the trend in the winter time NAO followed the solar trend changes a few years later. Second, the aa-NAO relationship is dominated by the aa data from the declining phase of even-numbered solar cycles, implying that the 27 day recurrent solar wind streams may be responsible for the observed aa-NAO relationship. It is possible that an increase of long-duration recurrent solar wind streams from high-latitude coronal holes during solar cycles 20 and 22 may partially account for the significant positive aa-NAO relationship during the last 30 years of the 20th century.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL014903/abstract

    From the paper:

    “A study on a possible solar wind interaction with the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is performed. Results are presented suggesting a relationship between the NAO index and the electric field strength E of the solar wind. A possible scenario for the suggested interaction is that an electromagnetic disturbance is generated by the solar wind in the global electric circuit of the ionosphere. This disturbance is then dynamically propagating downward through the atmosphere and subsequently influencing the large-scale pressure system in the North Atlantic region. A relationship is also evident on longer time-scales when using the group sunspot number as a proxy for the solar wind.”

    This is just a small sample of the many, many, many, papers that document a significant solar effect.

  18. Since the correlation is with cycle length and not number I don’t see why Leif should object. Cycle length is largely unaffected by the kinds of measurement problems he is most concerned with.
    Why look at sunspots though? What other correlations did they try? Did they look at the CET record? The corellation between sunspots and ice would appear to me to be indirect and is presumably a consequence of the well known but poorly understood corellation between sunspots and the climate.

    Having said that, if modern observations of sunspots and ice as viewed from Iceland are correlated and well within the historical range, it does at least suggest that a natural cause for the loss of arctic ice should not be ruled out.

  19. Virtually every major study over the last several years accords in one form or other with Dr. Sebastian Luning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt’s “cold sun” hypothesis (qv), to effect that solar cycles are major if not all-determining influences on long-term terrestrial climate fluctuations.

    AGW catastrophists with their linear extrapolations of CO2 –in fact a benign trace-gas– have absolutely zero empirical scientific basis, relying instead on utterly simplistic if convoluted “global climate models” (GCMs) which of course parrot programmers’ tautological assumptions: A = A.

    But of course, “global warming” is no more about Climate Science than blood-and-soil “environmentalism” (sic) is about peace-and-prosperity. If you would see this Green Gang’s legacy, circumspice.

  20. Sadly they dont use raw data:

    “The method used by Koch in 1945 to construct his ice index is in fact not known – the details given
    in Koch’s publication are not sufficient to understand how the index was constructed. However,
    Wallevik and Sigurjónsson have probably figured out what Koch did. By testing several algorithms
    on Koch’s original data they have reconstructed almost exactly the index, as published by Koch for
    the period 1880 to 1939. ”

    “Schmith and Hansen (2003) published a reconstruction of the ice export through the Fram Strait.
    Annual values of the ice export through the Fram Strait in the period 1830-1994 were modelled from
    historical observations of ’Storis’ in the southwest Greenland waters obtained from ships log-books
    and ice charts.”

    Also, A peer review would have been nice.

  21. RoHa says:
    July 18, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    Heat from the sun can affect Arctic ice? Ridiculous!

    …and further that day time highs are linke to that same sun! What a stretch! :)

  22. Heh heh heh. I only saw Barbara the Idiot Boxer for a few minutes today, but what I did see was that her implied position is that man-made carbon dioxide causes global warming because anyone who says it doesn’t is funded by the Koch brothers and Exxon/Mobil.

    Is she still on dial-up ? Hello …. Earth to Idiot ….

  23. Whew: nice to get back to “puzzling things” again. A few random points, if I may:

    1. Just to mention that the Fram Strait doesn’t appear to be shown on the artic map image under the Sea Ice Reference Page – if it’s that important, perhaps it should be …?

    2. If there is this solar effect shouldn’t an effect also be seen in the Antarctic as well – I know solar orbital perigee is in January but TOA insolation presumably doesn’t vary that much during the year?

    3. I recall that my old geography master used to say (all too many years ago now – in the late 1950’s) that the polar icecaps on Mars also could be seen (by telescope) to vary in size periodically – has anyone done an analysis of that, since that must presumably be down to our Martian cousins burning their oil too (/sarc)

    4. Is it valid to say “a close correlation (R=0.67)” gives “0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence” – the R value is surely not that high to give a 200:1 causation probability …?

  24. Ian H says:
    July 18, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    Since the correlation is with cycle length and not number I don’t see why Leif should object. Cycle length is largely unaffected by the kinds of measurement problems he is most concerned with
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well I’ll let Leif speak for himself, but my reaction is that you are correct, and that is the problem. The way they have done this divorces the sea ice measurements from ANY physical process in the Sun. Without a physical process to correlate to, you’ve got nada but a correlation.

  25. “””””…..The amount of sea ice sighted from Iceland ?…..””””””

    Can you see Wassila, Alaska or Siberia from Iceland ??

    OOps ! wrong ocean again. Just how far can one see from Iceland, well from the top of a Viking longboat mast anyhow ?

    Well I’m always interested in correlations. Of course the correlation often depends on some other factor that happens to be related to both observations, which however have nothing to do with each other.

    But it is amazing what knobs people will twist, just to see what happens.

  26. davidmhoffer said:

    “Without a physical process to correlate to, you’ve got nada but a correlation”.

    There is a physical process.

    The solar changes acting on stratospheric temperatures differentially between equator and pole affect the gradient of tropopause height to allow the climate zones to shift to and fro latitudinally beneath the tropopause which alters global cloudiness and the proportion of ToA solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.

  27. George:
    Correlation does not imply causation. However, high correlation does lend itself to good prediction, regardless of whether we know the reason. Why something happens is an intellectual luxury.

  28. Stephen Wilde says:
    July 18, 2013 at 9:30 pm
    davidmhoffer said:
    “Without a physical process to correlate to, you’ve got nada but a correlation”.
    There is a physical process.
    The solar changes acting on stratospheric temperatures differentially between equator and pole affect the gradient of tropopause height to allow the climate zones to shift to and fro latitudinally beneath the tropopause which alters global cloudiness and the proportion of ToA solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    There’s no physical process. The correlation they present is to the rate of change of the processes which is entirely different from being correlated to the processes themselves. Further, if you were correct, then the arctic and antarctic ice extents would also be correlated. A quick look at the sea ice page will show you that based on the satellite record since 1979, if anything, they are anti-correlated. And no, I’m not talking about on an annual basis where they are obviously anti-correlated, I’m talking about a decadal basis that roughly matches solar cycle lengths. Can you propose a physical process which fluctuates over about an 11 year span that would be correlated to one pole and anti-correlated to the other?

    Further, there’s no lag. Show me a physical process that has zero lag!

  29. davidmhoffer says:
    The way they have done this divorces the sea ice measurements from ANY physical process in the Sun. Without a physical process to correlate to, you’ve got nada but a correlation.

    Cycle length clearly is linked to physical processes in the sun. But I agree that they lack a mechanism explaining the link to sea ice. Correlation without a known physical mechanism can be coincidence. It can also be a clue that a physical mechanism exists which we don’t yet understand.

  30. Ian H;
    Cycle length clearly is linked to physical processes in the sun.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    So show me the correlation to the physical processes and you’ve got something. But that’s not what they have done.

  31. Interesting, in the early days of questioning strange claims of CAGW, I spent some time observing post at Real Climate, you know the one where THE scientists hold sway. Whenever someone dared to suggest that solar or clouds had anything to do with CLIMATE they were howled down or projected as nut cases, this puzzled me, are the for real or just fakers, scared of the sun. After a while their treatment of questioners made me vow to avoid the site – too much censoring, ignorance and use of authority not science to silence dissenters.

    Ignorance and ultimate arrogance.!! May they reap what they sowed.

  32. davidmhoffer asked:

    “Can you propose a physical process which fluctuates over about an 11 year span that would be correlated to one pole and anti-correlated to the other?”

    Yes.

    The oceanic lag times are different in each hemisphere.

    Warm water entering the Arctic Ocean after a period of high solar activity results in the Arctic staying warm after the Antarctic has begun to cool.

    If the sun stays quiet for long enough we should see Arctic ice recovery plus continuing Antarctic ice accumulation.

    As for the apparent lack of a significant lag I suspect that any change in solar activity results in a change in the global air circulation which would immediately start the process of change at the sea ice periphery even though the water temperature underneath the ice at the north pole itself takes longer to catch up with the solar change.

    The sea ice periphery would thus respond quickly and that would disguise the ocean induced lag towards the pole itself.

  33. davidmhoffer said:

    “There’s no physical process. The correlation they present is to the rate of change of the processes which is entirely different from being correlated to the processes themselves”

    The cause of the effect on stratosphere temperatures is a change in the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun which alters the ozone creation / destruction balance above the tropopause.

    A long low activity solar cycle favours ozone creation and so causes equatorward climate zone and Jetstream shifting whereas a short high activity solar cycle favours ozone destruction and causes poleward shifting.

    During the late 20th century warming period the short intense solar cycles reduced ozone, cooled the stratosphere, caused poleward climate zone shifting, less clouds, more energy into the oceans, El Nino became more dominant relative to La Nina and the air warmed a fraction.

    Now we have the opposite scenario which is being reflected in Antarctic sea ice growth but not yet in the Arctic.

    We can see that Arctic sea ice loss has already pretty much bottomed out if one ignores the exceptional storm induced loss last season so the Arctic trend has responded without significant lag, just not yet as emphatically as in the Antarctic. The Arctic lag seems to be only about 10 years which does not show clearly in the above graph due to the scaling. The big El Nino of 1997/8 would have reached the Arctic to result in the ice loss which occurred in 2007.

  34. Stephen Wilde says:
    July 18, 2013 at 10:16 pm
    davidmhoffer asked:
    “Can you propose a physical process which fluctuates over about an 11 year span that would be correlated to one pole and anti-correlated to the other?”
    Yes.
    The oceanic lag times are different in each hemisphere
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The satellite record is roughly 3 full 11 year cycles, about 1.5 22 year cycle, and nearly 1/2 of an 80 year cycle. Show me the lag that would then correlate them.

    Sorry, but 100 volts rms at 50 Hz heats the pot of water exactly the same as 100 volts rms at 60 Hz. This paper is telling you to ignore the volts and focus on the Hz.

  35. davidmhoffer says:
    July 18, 2013 at 9:05 pm
    Without a physical process to correlate to, you’ve got nada but a correlation.
    ===========
    Physics exists to make predictions about the physical world. we have no idea “why” gravity happens, yet we make exceedingly good predictions by knowing the correlation between mass, distance, time. We call this correlation the gravity.

    The insistence on physical process is bad science. How can we understand anything new if it has to fit to a known process? As a result, the least interesting question in physics is “why” something happens. no matter what explanation you can find for “why” something happens, some future generation of scientists will prove you wrong as our level of understanding increases.

    We Invented a process called “gravity”, to explain why things fall. That doesn’t mean that gravity is a process. Rather that we understand it as a process by applying a name to the observed correlation, and we develop mathematical rules to allow us to predict future events based on this correlation.

  36. Stephen Wilde;
    The cause of the effect on stratosphere temperatures is a change in the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun which alters the ozone creation / destruction balance above the tropopause.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    So how me THAT. Not the length of the cycle of THAT, but THAT. If the correlation is there, then it is there and directly linked to THAT physical process or processes. But this paper measures something completely different and assumes a further correlation to the kinds of things you are talking about without presenting any data to show they do.

  37. “Correlation without a known physical mechanism can be coincidence. It can also be a clue that a physical mechanism exists which we don’t yet understand.”
    [Ian H at 9:42PM 7/18/13]

    Dear David Hoffer,

    Could we find common ground in the above? That is, would you agree that we have, in short, (at the very least)….. a clue. What Stephen and Ian and Ferd and others said above sure made a lot of sense to me.

    Your sister in climate sleuthing,

    Miss J. Marple

  38. Ian H says:
    July 18, 2013 at 9:42 pm
    Correlation without a known physical mechanism can be coincidence. It can also be a clue that a physical mechanism exists which we don’t yet understand.
    ========
    Exactly. Rather than rejecting correlation as co-incidence we should embrace unexplained correlation as an opportunity to increase our understanding. Something happens a couple of times, that is one thing. Regularly for 800 years, that is another.

    To suggest that there is no physical mechanism to connect the length of the solar cycle to ice cycles seems rather near sighted to me. The sun is a massive source of energy and particles, that pulses and flips polarity with a frequency of about 1 cycle / 11 years. This will induce resonance in any object on earth that has a natural frequency at some harmonic of the solar frequency. This resonance will be much greater than that predicted for linear forcings.

  39. Hey, Ferd Berple! Great minds!! (yeah, yeah, dream on, hm? — well, it encouraged me, regardless)

    Here’s what I wrote and was about to post just before reading yours above. I don’t expect you to respond. It was directed to Mr. Hoffer anyway:

    “… indicative of a relationship not due to chance… .” [cited article]

    This statement appears to me to acknowledge their lack of certainty to a degree that makes it highly likely to be a true statement, given the high correlation in the cyclic data.

    That is, it appears to be a valid “clue.”

  40. Sure. We’ve got proxies for solar activity but let’s just ignore them and focus on a proxy for the proxies.

    And we didn’t invent a process called gravity, we measured a process called gravity. And we figured it out to a lot of decimal places by taking as direct measurements as possible.

    Just because a paper reports results that resonate with our skeptic viewpoint doesn’t mean we should cease being skeptics. If this paper holds water, then the proxy data should say the same thing as the proxy for proxy data. It doesn’t.

  41. The sun is a massive source of energy and particles, that pulses and flips polarity with a frequency of about 1 cycle / 11 years.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yup it does. We’ve got instrumental measurements of same for a number of years now and proxy data in the way of Be10 and sun spots. But let’s ignore those because they don’t tell us what we want to hear and instead focus on a proxy for the proxies because it does.

  42. Long before we knew the physical process, people learned to predict that if you ate something cold you would get a serious head pain. Yet to this day we have no “name” for this process. Some call it ice cream fzckup, others cold stimulus headache. Watching TV years ago I recall Martin Mull came up with the idea to name things that had no name. As I recall he called it a glorn, but maybe that was a lizard creature on star trek.

    In any case, to this day when eating ice cream our family now predicts a glorn will happen. we have some vague idea that maybe it has something to with blood vessels, but really it makes no difference. we know that eating ice cream can cause a glorn. the value of scientific prediction in action. made absolutely no difference why ice cream caused a glorn, only that there was a high correlation between eating it too fast and the appearance of a glorn, so take it slow.

  43. Quote from Dr. Svalgaard:
    “The ice data is probably good. The Solar Cycle Length analysis is nonsense.”

    I have no quarrel with that.

  44. Other_Andy says:
    “Interesting but…..
    Correlation does not imply causation.”

    I think we can pretty conclusively rule out the ice level having an effect on the Sun. :-)

  45. Oh wait there.. if there is more ice, there will be more reflection back to the Sun, so the Sun will heat up.

  46. davidmhoffer says: “Sorry, but 100 volts rms at 50 Hz heats the pot of water exactly the same as 100 volts rms at 60 Hz. This paper is telling you to ignore the volts and focus on the Hz.”

    Can you say, “False analogy?”

    I knew you could.

  47. davidmhoffer says:
    July 18, 2013 at 11:19 pm
    And we didn’t invent a process called gravity, we measured a process called gravity.
    ===========
    What we measured was something some believe to be a process and we invented the label “gravity” as an abstract representation of the patterns in our observations. to claim that gravity is a process is a matter of faith, a belief in a model of our observed reality. we know not what it is, only what it does.

  48. Sigh. I’ll take all that ignoring of my low-information posts as a clue. Thanks for your honesty.

    **************
    (will I EVER learn! here I go again….) Hey, Andy G! I hope all is going well after that rough week you mentioned about two weeks ago. I was praying. Take care, down there! #[:)]

  49. Janice,
    If you said 2 and 2 is 4 and I said it was 3, would you agree to saw it off at 3.5? Sorry, but in math and physics, there is little room for compromise.

    For those still twisting the facts to fit their world view, see vuckevic’s comment above quoting Leif. When those two agree on something regarding solar physics that bluntly, I for one sit up and pay attention.

  50. Thank you, David Hoffer, for honoring me with a response. I want to argue with the logic and reasoning of your assertions above, but, this is a science forum. Since I simply cannot argue the science, I’ll stop interrupting you wonderful science guys. Even more, I want to be your truth in science pal (virtually speaking), so, I’ll just say that I hope that you and Ian and Steve W. can communicate well enough with each other to understand exactly what each of you is saying and to find SOME common ground. Surely, there must be something!

    Take care.

    J.

  51. davidmhoffer says: “Sorry, but 100 volts rms at 50 Hz heats the pot of water exactly the same as 100 volts rms at 60 Hz. This paper is telling you to ignore the volts and focus on the Hz.”
    ___________

    For being so finiky about causality, you seem to have completely missed the boat that without a mention of wattage or the amount of water being heated (or the time scales measured) you have just spouted utter nonsense.

    If you looked at very cold water on very short time scales with very small energy levels (low wattage), you would see a very significant variation in the way the pot was heated. In fact, you would see spurts of heating timed closely to the phase of the current.

    All in all, your analogy seems to support what you purported it to undermine.

  52. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    July 19, 2013 at 12:41 am

    Since when was an R value of 0.67 a good correlation?

    Good question… In general that is a fair correlation with a 50% chance to be spurious. But for natural processes it is quite high as so many processes are involved which all influence ice sheets…
    But still correlation is not causation…

  53. While a .67 is not that high in and of itself, the fact it holds over hundreds of years is what drives the probability so high. Anything that has a 99.5% relationship cannot be dismissed with a hand wave. OTOH, keep in mind that there could be a third process driving both items. Or, a combination of other factors could be involved. The appearance of ice in the Fram straight does not necessarily mean low ice. It could be wind patterns that create this situation and wind patterns are driven by changes in atmospheric pressure.

    The number of possibilities might be quite large.

  54. Is it just me or is the Arctic (so far) been the coldest summer on the record for the north of the 80th northern parallel of the the Centre for Ocean and Ice?

    “Daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th northern parallel, as a function of the day of year.”

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

  55. Come on. It is the area under the curve that provides the energy. It is the length times the height!!! Usually, less height [sunspots] produces longer frequency; and more sunspots produce shorter frequency. Remember shorter frequency means more energy produced more often.

    One can not take just a single cycle to determine to the energy produced over 100 years. Complete the average of sunspots over the cycles times cycle length over the 100 years to get the trend.

    Quit looking at the weather [instantaneous] and look at the climate [long term average]!!

    We must wait for this cycle to end before the full impact of the reduced energy is felt on the Earth. This cycle is enough to keep the Global temperatures steady. But, we are at the peak of this 360 year cycle [2 x 180 years] with all of the oceans stored heat. In two years [or sooner] the pain of the reduced energy will be felt.

  56. davidmhoffer says:
    __________________________

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?
    Or do you have a proof that there is no way there can be any physical relation? No, you just don’t believe there is. That’s okay. And you may actually be right. Or not. So far it’s just belief against belief, no science involved.

  57. @ Other_Andy
    If A (ice) and B (solar output) are correlated, then I guess only 4 scenarios can be true.
    1) A affects B
    2) B affects A
    3) A and B are both affected by C (unknown factor)
    or
    4) The correlation does not exist and the samples showing correlated only do so by pure chance.

    I cannot imagine how earth (A and C) can effect Solar output leaving us with only two options:

    Either the correlation is by chance OR the sun affects ice on Earth.

    /C

  58. u.k.(us) says:July 18, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    [...]
    The horizon is 3 miles away.
    I’m sure I’m missing something ?

    I have believed for years, perhaps wrongly, that the average horizon is 17 miles away, from 5-6 feet above ground/sea level.

  59. @ Steve
    i live by the sea. 3 miles sounds correct.
    There are several islands nearby. The only one I can see is 5km away. I cannot see the one which is 10km away.

  60. Could we have a graph showing not just the ice index vs solar cycles but add CO2 levels during that period to show the lack of correlation ?

  61. Don’t buy it — no physical reason why solar-cycle length affects sea-ice. Correlation w/o causation & curve-fitting.

  62. Manfred says: @ July 18, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    ….. One has to ask WHY this research wasn’t undertaken before the eco-socio-political love affair with GCM’s?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Because it was never ever about determining what causes changes in our climate.

    The IPCC mandate states:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    Humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at a single scientific fact. The IPCC mandate is not to figure out what factors effect the climate but to dig up the ‘facts’ needed to hang the human race. The IPCC assumes the role of prosecution and and the skeptics that of the defense but the judge (aka the media) refuses to allow the defense council into the court room.

    Academia is providing the manufactured evidence to ‘frame’ the human race and they are KNOWINGLY doing so. In other words Academics who prides themselves as being ‘lofty socialists’ untainted by plebeian capitalism are KNOWINGLY selling the rest of the human race into the slavery designed by the bankers and corporate elite. (Agenda 21)

  63. beng says:
    July 19, 2013 at 7:41 am

    Don’t buy it — no physical reason why solar-cycle length affects sea-ice. Correlation w/o causation & curve-fitting.
    ——

    Couldn’t agree more. Also, the paper was astonishingly lacks in establishing what the reason for the smoothing was in the solar length. That makes curve fitting even more suspicious.

  64. Christian says:July 19, 2013 at 7:20 am
    Checking on the math, it appears 3 miles is correct from 6 feet height.

  65. On the Stephen Wilde/ David Hoffer debate:
    Hoffer points out the anti-correlation or bi-polar seesaw.

    The major difference I see between the Arctic and Antarctic is the Arctic is a sea surrounded by land with narrow straits allowing warm water access from the North Atlantic Current (See: Vukcevic’s map)

    The Antarctic on the other hand is land surrounded by an open sea except for Drake’s Passage

    The theory is the start of the present Cenozoic Ice Age was caused by several major tectonic transformations, culminating in a minor, but crucial, event: the formation of the Isthmus of Panama about 3.5 MYA… So land configuration, mountains, the oceans and the sun all contribute to the present day climate and I would not expect the Arctic and Antarctic to mirror each other for that reason.

    Vukcevic has gathered a lot of data on the geomagnetic field too. link ARCTIC and link ANTARCTIC

  66. However, I don’t believe the math. Using the math in:

    http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Distance-to-the-Horizon

    that derive the 3 miles from a 6 foot observation height, I can compare observational evidence. Having lived on the front range in Colorado, I know I can, from the Wyoming border, see Pike’s Peak west of Colorado Springs, as if it were sitting level with the horizon, but it would be 150 miles away. I know from playing with telescopes years ago, there is an atmospheric effect that allows celestial objects to appear at the horizon when the object is as much as 10° below the physical horizon. Don’t recall the term for it, don’t know if it applies to earth-bound objects.

  67. Gail Combs says:
    July 19, 2013 at 8:33 am

    On the Stephen Wilde/ David Hoffer debate:
    Hoffer points out the anti-correlation or bi-polar seesaw.

    The major difference I see between the Arctic and Antarctic is the Arctic is a sea surrounded by land with narrow straits allowing warm water access from the North Atlantic Current (See: Vukcevic’s map)

    The Antarctic on the other hand is land surrounded by an open sea except for Drake’s Passage

    Related to this difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice, and the differences between how difference influences may affect that difference!, is their location.

    At sea ice minimum extents in today’s climate (1970-2013) ALL of the remaining Arctic sea ice at minimum extent in mid-September is concentrated in a tiny “beanie” between latitude 80 north and the pole. The edge of a 4.0 Mkm2 (million km squared) sea ice cap is at 79.8 latitude, of a 3.0 Mkm2 is at 81.2 latitude, 2 Mkm2 is at 82.8 lat, and 1.0 Mkm2 is up at 85 north. At these latitudes, there is only 25 to 75 watts of solar energy available – regardless of whether it is being reflected by sea ice or absorbed by open ocean water.

    Thus, the loss (or gain) of Arctic sea ice at today’s sea ice minimum’s date does NOT heat the earth, and does NOT appear to be related to global atmospheric temperatures, since the loss of Arctic sea ice continues at the same rate while the earth’s temperature remains higher than 1970-1990 normal, but is NOT increasing, while CO2 continually increases. None of these factors limits or excludes some other factor affect Arctic sea ice extents that may be itself related to the length of successive solar cycles at the same time. 8<)

    On the other hand, the edge of the Antarctic sea ice at today's world's sea ice maximum is at 61 south latitude. (On Jim Hansen's CAGW-flavored (favored ?) Mercator global projection, the edge of the Antarctic sea ice extents at maximum is a band stretching around the globe from the southern tip of Greenland across Canada, Alaska, the north Pacific, Siberia, Europe, and the Atlantic all the way up to the north pole. On his projection, on the other hand, today's Antarctic sea ice extents isn't even visible! But Greenland seems bigger than Australia, Brazil, and South Africa combined. No wonder he is so deathly frightened of the loss of Arctic ice.)

    Anyway, at 61 south latitude, the edge of Antarctic sea ice IS far enough away from the pole that ITS reflection (albedo changes) on the earth's radiation balance IS important. The sun is not 2-8 degrees above the horizon, but 28 to 30 degrees above the horizon. The available solar energy (to be reflected or absorbed by the ocean or the sea ice) is not 25-50 watts/meter square but 250 to 450 watts/meter square. (The change depends on time-of-day.). Expressed differently, one square meter of Antarctic sea ice is – in today's world – ten times more important than 1 square meter of Arctic sea in calculating the earth's energy balance.

    Worse, there is effectively no limit on how much larger Antarctic Sea maximums may grow: last year was 1 Mkm2 above previous records, but this year could be another 1 Mkkm2 above that, (or 2 or 2.5 above that), and 2015 may be another 2.0 Mkm2 above that, etc.

    But in 2012, only 3.5 Mkm2 of Arctic sea was left. If we lose 1.0 Mkm2 of that in some future year, there will only be 2.5 Mkm2 left. If some alien from New York or Washington DC took all of the Arctic Sea ice away on September 15 of some year and moved it to Mars, there could never be a sea ice minimum smaller than 0.0 square meters. And, since a few more calculations show that open Arctic ocean water at these latitudes actually cool the ocean's surface rather than heat it, the continued loss of Arctic sea ice is actually a cooling effect on the earth's climate.

    So, the gain of Antarctic sea ice cools the planet. The loss of Arctic sea ice (from today's minimum sea ice extents) cools the planet. The change in the average solar cycle length might influence some factor that might change either sea ice minimum or maximum extent – and might each end of the planet either way. We don't know enough to tell. Yet.

    An analogy:

    If you are measuring the height of the Mississippi river water near New Orleans each hour of each day of each year over a century, could you correct for the change in elevation of the soil as people pumped water and oil out from underneath the delta – if you didn't know when they were pumping water in and out of the ground? If you didn't know about the increased (or decreased) snow fall in the previous winter in Southern Canada and Montana and North Dakota and Kansas and Ohio and West Virginia , could you account for changes in elevation of the water during the spring floods over different years? If you didn't know about hurricanes in the Gulf Coast passing east, west, or directly over New Orleans, could you account for strange 2 day and 3 week long irregular high and low water levels in September, October, and August in different years? If you didn't know about the solar tide influence in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi River delta, but tried to use a Nova Scotia tide table measured at the Gulf of Fundy, would you be more (or less!) accurate by trying to correct for high tide and low tide?

    The theory (of a solar cycle length influencing Terran sea ice extents) might be completely correct (or completely missing!) or completely ignorant of some affect, and some resulting effect, that we know about in theory, but are applying improperly in practice at the wrong location at the right time. Or are applying at the right time but at the wrong location. Or don't know about at all yet.

  68. I think this section is of great importance to whether the correlation is legitimate, documenting a physical relationship, or if it’s just a correlation.

    From the article:

    “A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence)”

    A 0.5% probability of a chance occurrence is quite low. Thus, this is compelling evidence, in my opinion, that there is a discernible solar influence on the climate system.

  69. Skepticism in science isn’t a tool for rejecting the hypotheses of others. It’s a tool for constantly questioning one’s own belief so as to uncover error. Religious zealots are perfectly skeptical of the claims of every other religion while remaining certain their view is correct. This doesn’t make them scientists. More than once have advances in understanding had to wait because authorities were certain of their own understanding while being skeptical of challenging theories. Any challenging theory that predicts as well as an established theory should be given equal consideration, whether or not a mechanism is understood. Experiment and observation only rule out theories that are inconsistent with reality. Theories are not ruled out just because we can’t yet completely articulate a model.

  70. Gail Combs says: July 19, 2013 at 8:33 am
    …….
    Thanks for drawing attention to some of my graphic illustrations.
    Link between solar activity and changes in the Earth magnetic field is a bit of a mystery. Obviously change is at the bottom of ‘food chain’ with the Earth in the middle, kind of a ‘dishonest broker’ fiddling the solar script to its moods.
    Hence we may never have an exact climate mechanism or correlation to either solar or geomagnetic variability.
    When climate scientists realise that two are ‘joined at hip’ than we may get somewhere:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm

    It is time that the Svalgaards of this world realise when they come of their ‘high horse’ they may have to step in a pile of manure, and even Bucephalus or Marengo generated loads of it daily.

  71. Gail Combs says: July 19, 2013 at 8:33 am
    …….
    Thanks for drawing attention to some of my graphic illustrations.
    Link between solar activity and changes in the Earth magnetic field is a bit of a mystery. Obviously change is at the bottom of ‘food chain’ with the Earth in the middle, kind of a ‘dishonest broker’ fiddling the solar script to its moods.
    Hence we may never have an exact climate mechanism or correlation to either solar or geomagnetic variability.
    When climate scientists realise that only when two are put together than we may get somewhere:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm

    It is time that the Svalgaards of this world realise when they come of their ‘high horse’ they may have to step in a pile of manure, and even Bucephalus or Marengo generated loads of it daily.

  72. Oh come on. You ALL have it wrong. It is the fluctuation of those millions of degrees at the Earth’s core.

  73. RACookPE1978 says: @ July 19, 2013 at 9:34 am ……..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I think you are correct. The Arctic is the Red Flag waved in everyone’s face but I do not think it is the key, more a red herring. If you add together what E.M. Smith came up with on Drake’s Passage with all of Bob Tisdale’s work on ENSO you come up with this:

    Stronger winds warming Antarctica? (Link removed new link) “…Stronger westerly winds around Antarctica are increasing eddy activity in the Southern Ocean and consequently may be driving more heat southward across the formidable Antarctic Circumpolar Current – the world’s largest current….” The Antarctic Circumpolar Current flows from west to east around Antarctica. What they forget to mention is thanks to Drake’s Passage at the tip of South America you get cold water from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current shooting up the coast of South America. This map from the Natural Environment Research Council shows the current going in the wrong direction but you can see the tongue heading up along South America. (These guys want us to trust them on climate when they can even get the current direction correct???)

    That takes us to this Sea Surface Anomalies 21 December 2010 map clearly showing the cold water being diverted up along the South American coast and Bob Tisdale takes it from there.

    There are a few nuggets in this report among all the propaganda.

    State of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Climate System

    Executive Summary
    This Information Paper provides a review of the key developments over the past two years in our understanding of Antarctic climate and the role of the Antarctic climate system in the global climate system. It comments on the findings of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that relate to the Antarctic….

    Antarctica and the Southern Ocean play a major role in the Earth’s climate system….
    Modern climate in the region results from the interplay of the ice sheet – ocean – sea ice – atmosphere system and its response to past and present climate forcing…..

    While ice is being lost from glaciers in the Peninsula and in West Antarctica, East Antarctica shows much less ice loss.

    Consistent with global warming, the Antarctic troposphere has warmed while the stratosphere has cooled. Part of the reason for stratospheric cooling is ozone depletion.

    Cooling of the stratosphere appears to have encouraged the development of polar stratospheric clouds, which may have exacerbated ozone depletion.

    The atmospheric pressure gradient between mid latitudes and Antarctica has steepened over the past 50 years, intensifying the westerlies over the Southern Ocean, and warming the Antarctic Peninsula; this change in pressure and wind has had no significant effect as yet on temperature in East Antarctica, which remains cool.

    The upper kilometer of the circumpolar Southern Ocean has warmed, as have the densest components of Antarctic Bottom Water in the Weddell Sea.

    The coastal ocean has freshened between the Ross Sea and the Southern Indian Ocean, making the Antarctic Bottom Water formed there less saline.

    Since the early 1970s sea ice has reduced west of the Antarctic Peninsula, and in the Weddell Sea. These decreases are balanced by an increase in the Ross Sea….
    http:/www.scar.org/treaty/atcmxxx/Atcm30_ip005_e.pdf‎

  74. The tachometer in a car is a useful global indicator of the rate of coupled mechanical processes regardless of (a) what gear the car is in and (b) whether the car is turning, ascending, or descending.

    Cease the obfuscation.

  75. James A.;
    Did Attenborough even know which pole he was approaching? Polar bears and Antarctic ice floes are unacquainted.

  76. James Allison says:
    July 18, 2013 at 6:14 pm
    ————————————-
    Only watch those greenie communists for the purdy pictures, yo.

    Other wise the propaganda will give you a sense of unease; when every thing is fine…”sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows everywhere”
    Just look at some of the bleeding heart suckers….they should just get a haircut and get a real job!

    The industry believes that the wells are safe and do not affect the aquifers, why else would there be the “hal1burt0n loophole” if there was any danger to people and habitats….sheesh.


    The whiners bleat about wiping out all the fish, fauna and flora from a lake that was only in the way of easy car drives though the region…ya right it not like anything went extinct or anything. Besides if a creature disappears without a latin name did it ever really exist anyways.

    I could do this for days; just a couple more…

    Here the greenies are whining about the collapse of Meech lake in 4 years…i mean come on…just because half of Americans do not believe in Darwinism doesn’t mean it shouldn’t apply to Los Vegas…


    It is great that excess plastic builds up in the oceans, just think about how easy it will be harvest it instead of digging up landfill…as if this long term storage could negatively effect the ocean habitats; it’s not like it could collapse or anything

  77. davidmhoffer says:
    July 19, 2013 at 12:02 am
    “Janice,
    If you said 2 and 2 is 4 and I said it was 3, would you agree to saw it off at 3.5? Sorry, but in math and physics, there is little room for compromise.

    For those still twisting the facts to fit their world view, see vuckevic’s comment above quoting Leif. When those two agree on something regarding solar physics that bluntly, I for one sit up and pay attention.”

    As long as all of those demanding to see the data on the process ask for the same for popularly accepted scientific theories like dark matter, then they are not hypocrites. With dark matter we see only the effect but no one can come up with the cause, ie some actual dark matter. But this is accepted by many who demand to see the data on others’ correlations which may be “spurious” or, in fact, may not. Inventing a mental constuct which allows your numbers to work is no more scientifically rigorous than that of those whom you disdain. You reference Leif?

  78. I gotta say, I’m unimpressed. They describe the procedure as follows:

    We correlate the SCL index (annually sampled; sampling obtained with linear interpolation in the tables of Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995 and Thejll and Lassen, 2000, 2002) to the annually sampled multi-decadal mode from the Koch index series (RCs 6,7 and 8).

    This makes no sense to me. Here are the cycle lengths, based on one set of data, and it’s not the only set. One issue is how do you define the “start/end” of a cycle. In any case, this would be typical:

    March 1755 – June 1766: 11.25 yrs
    June 1766 – June 1775: 9 yrs
    June 1775 – September 1784: 9.25 yrs
    September 1784 – May 1798: 13.67 yrs
    May 1798 – December 1810: 12.58 yrs
    December 1810 – May 1823: 12.42 yrs
    May 1823 – November 1833: 10.5 yrs
    November 1833 – July 1843: 9.67 yrs
    July 1843 – December 1855: 12.42 yrs
    December 1855 – March 1867: 11.25 yrs
    March 1867 – December 1878: 11.75 yrs
    December 1878 – March 1890: 11.25 yrs
    March 1890 – February 1902: 11.92 yrs
    February 1902 – August 1913: 11.5 yrs
    August 1913 – August 1923: 10 yrs
    August 1923 – September 1933: 10.08 yrs
    September 1933 – February 1944: 10.42 yrs
    February 1944 – April 1954: 10.17 yrs
    April 1954 – October 1964: 10.5 yrs
    October 1964 – June 1976: 11.67 yrs
    June 1976 – September 1986: 10.25 yrs
    September 1986 – May 1996: 9.67 yrs
    May 1996 – Jan 2008: 11.83 yrs

    Immediately, we see problems. First, they explain that they are converting these cycle lengths to an “annual” value by interpolation … say what? That doesn’t make physical sense. Also, where do you place the values you are interpolating between? The first cycle in this data is March 1755 – June 1766: 11.25 yrs
    So do we assign the value of 11.25 to the start, the end, or the middle of the cycle? And given that the value of the annual interpolation changes from year to year … then what are we measuring? Because it’s no longer the cycle length, that changes cycle to cycle, not year to year.

    We only use the years where the SCL(1,2,1) index is well defined – namely 1558-1625 and 1695-1980. We show these data in Figure 6.

    This kind of thing makes me extremely suspicious. You don’t just leave data out and say it was “ill-defined”. You leave it in, and discuss what you mean by “ill-defined”. In this case I suspect “ill-defined” means “didn’t agree with the ice data”.

    The correlation coefficient is 0.67, and to interpret this value in terms of significance we apply a non-parametric method based on Monte Carlo trials in which surrogate data with the same auto-correlative structure as one of the series are used. We find that the observed correlation coefficient only occurs, or is superseded, in random trials 0.5 % of the time, so that the significance level we may report is near 99.5%.

    You can’t use surrogate data that has “the same auto-correlative structure as one of the series” to test this by monte carlo. You have to build two surrogate datasets, one for ice, and one for cycle length, each with the same autocorrelation structure as what they are representing. The problem is, the autocorrelation on both will be horrible. In one case this is because of the interpolation. In the other case it is because we’re looking at principal components. And curiously, these are principle components numbers 6, 7, & 8 of the ice series, way down the line.

    So I’d have to see a lot more than what they show to pay any attention to that. And in any case, they are not comparing it to the solar cycle length, but to an artificial steadily varying solar length index with free choice as to where the values are placed in the cycle.

    Sorry, I wouldn’t pass the paper as written.

    w.

  79. Paul Vaughan says:
    July 22, 2013 at 4:08 am

    Willis has made 2 mistakes interpreting.

    What is this, Paul, some kind of serial revelation where tomorrow you’ll tell us what “2 mistakes interpreting” I made?

    As usual, you can’t bear anything I’ve written, but as usual, you can’t come up with a coherent argument against what I wrote. As a result, you just go up and down, like the song says,

    I came to the river
    But I couldn’t get across
    So I paid five dollars
    For an old blind hoss [horse],

    Well, he couldn’t go ahead
    And he couldn’t stand still
    So he went up and down
    Like an old sawmill.

    My condolences, Paul, it must be frustrating …

    w.

Comments are closed.