Antarctic Sea Ice Didn’t Get The Memo That It Was Supposed To Melt

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source

Image Credit: Cryosphere Today – University of Illinois – Polar Research Group

By WUWT Regular Just The Facts

Per the graph above, Antarctic Sea Ice Extent has remained above the 1981 – 2010 “normal” range for much of the last three months and the current positive Antarctic Sea Ice Extent anomaly appears quite large for a planet supposedly on the verge of Dangerous Warming.

Furthermore, in 2013 we had the third most expansive Southern Sea Ice Area measured to date;

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source


and Southern Sea Ice Area has remained above average for most of the last two years;

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

At the other pole Arctic Sea Ice Extent has remained within the 1981 – 2010 “normal” range for the entirety of 2013;

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – click to view at source

and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area had it’s smallest decline since 2006;

Cryosphere Today – University of Illinois – Polar Research Group – Click the pic to view at source

thus Global Sea Ice Area has remained stubbornly average for the entirety of 2013:

Cryosphere Today – University of Illinois – Polar Research Group – Click the pic to view at source

According Michael Oppenheimer, Professor Geo-sciences and International Affairs at Princeton University and IPCC Contributor, the reason for The Pause/Hiatus in Earth’s atmospheric temperature, and apparently associated average Global Sea Ice is that;

“heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before. We don’t know this for certain, we’ll find out over the next few years, but it is wrong to say that the IPCC didn’t look at it carefully, it certainly did.” PBS

Reassuring to know that IPCC has figured out Earth’s climate system for us, it’s all just like a big game of hide and go seek, clearly…

To see more information on Sea Ice please visit the WUWT Sea Ice Page and WUWT Northern Regional Sea Ice Page.

About these ads

161 thoughts on “Antarctic Sea Ice Didn’t Get The Memo That It Was Supposed To Melt

  1. After all the rhetoric over the last few years about how the observed temperatures were unimportant, and how the declining sea ice PROVED that dangerous warming was still going on, we can expect the alarmists to try to find some new supposed ‘trend’ to serve as their ‘proof’.

  2. And we all know that the msm is just itching to publish this good news story. Any minute now, just you wait and see.

  3. Any possibility the Arctic maximum sea ice extent could recover to the 1981-2010 baseline this year? What are the key conditions for attaining a high maximum?

  4. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before. We don’t know this for certain, we’ll find out over the next few years, but it is wrong to say that the IPCC didn’t look at it carefully, it certainly did.”

    ….how on EARTH can these people claim that “the science is settled”??

    “We don’t know this for certain,” so we’ll do everything we can to destroy the hydrocarbon economy until we find out for sure.

  5. Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
    How dare the ice defy Al Gore? Oh, wait. According to a Warmist cited in the article, the heat is just “hiding in the oceans” and could be released at any time. I guess it’s just waiting for the right time to ambush us…

  6. In case it has escaped some people’s notice, spring has been real late down here at the southern tip of Africa. There is still snow on our few 2000m peaks.

  7. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before. We don’t know this for certain, we’ll find out over the next few years”

    And if they are wrong? Billions down the drain and years wasted and wealth squandered and people suffering from high energy costs, of course they continue to get lavish funding and even a few more years of it would justify some of the most unscientific gibberish I have ever heard from a supposed scientist. “heat hides in the ocean sometimes” huuh?

  8. Amazing how sea ice is expanding around Antarctica, while Antarctica itself (according to Nature, etc., etc.) is warming. It must be harder to torture the satellite cameras into false confessions.

  9. Wouldn’t be surprised if the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) got a secret memo on one of those unauthorized email accounts from the Gov Elites to correct these NH & SH ice stats/data. (If they already haven’t gotten some – not accusing, just sayin)

  10. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before.

    We should note that Oppenheimer fails to provide an explanation of the physical processes by which this could occur. To my knowledge, neither he, nor anyone else in the alarmascience community has done so, despite the frequency with which they claim that this is a possibility.

    No such mechanism exists. For “heat” to “come out of” the oceans and into the atmosphere requires that the oceans be warmer than the atmosphere. Since the heat capacity of the oceans is about 1200 times that of the atmosphere, doing so would require 1200 times as much energy to raise ocean temps as would be required to raise atmospheric temps by the same amount.

    In other words, worst case, the heat really is hiding in the oceans. Instead of heating the atmosphere by 2 degrees in the next century, it would take 1,200 centuries. As for the notion that this heat would, at some point, come out “all at once”, that would require so many changes to the laws of physics that one should be equally worried about a gravity well reversal that spews everyone on earth out to space.

  11. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before” This suggests heat is playing peek-a-boo, sometimes hiding in the oceans, then suddenly reappearing. What nonsense.

  12. dipchip says:
    October 20, 2013 at 11:19 am
    Where does a guy find data for the …
    ——————————–
    Daily Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent data from the NSIDC back to the end of 1978 here (3 files – 2013 NRT, daily numbers from 1978 to 2012, and average climatology 1981-2010) (CSV files loadable into Excel) (the earlier part of the record is every second day which can pose some issues if you don’t know how to work around it.)

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/

    NH sea ice area from the Cryosphere today.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008

    ——————————–

    Southern Hemisphere NSIDC sea ice extent here (same files).

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/

    SH daily sea ice area from the Cryosphere Today.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008

    ———————–

    I remember the days when one had to accidently stumble upon the data in an obscure FTP directory named NDP0051. Glad to see it readily available now.

  13. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before. We don’t know this for certain…”

    Yow, an unseen entity that hides and comes out later to terrorize people. Sounds like that well known mythical creature, the Bogeyman. Warmists are really getting desperate to invoke hidden entities which they don’t know for certain.

    From Wikipedia:
    “A bogeyman (also spelled bogieman, or boogeyman) is a mythical creature in many cultures used by adults to frighten children into compliant behaviour. The monster has no specific appearance, and conceptions about it can vary drastically from household to household within the same community; in many cases, he has no set appearance in the mind of an adult or child, but is simply a non-specific embodiment of terror. Parents may tell their children that if they misbehave, the bogeyman will get them. Bogeymen may target a specific mischief—for instance, a bogeyman that punishes children who suck their thumbs—or general misbehavior, depending on what purpose needs serving. In some cases, the bogeyman is a nickname for the Devil.”

  14. Presumably Oppenheimer can identify previous instances of this phenomenon in the historical record, and can explain the conditions under which it occurs and mechanisms by which it occurs.

  15. I’ve decide to sell “Global Warming Insurance”.

    For $100 per month, I will insure/ensure you live as comfortably as today whenever temperature rises above 3.0C or by the year 2150 (if it is warmer than today), whichever comes first.

    For $50 per month, I will ensure you are not financially impacted when the Arctic sea ice melts completely. $25 per month insures against the Antarctic glaciers melting out (riser at $50 per month to cover the Penguins as well).

  16. Ah, but there’s an obvious explanation: the ice is expanding because it is melting. This is how it works: Antarctica is melting and the enormous quantities of run-off fresh water lay on top of the salty ocean and therefore refreeze easily. Add to that the fresh water added by rainfall and it all becomes crystal clear. Nobody has ever measured this run-off or the thickness of that surface layer but this must be the true explanation. Everybody knows that. Oh, and in Arctic, being on the opposite side of the planet, everything works the other way around. So in the Arctic the ice is melting but it doesn’t refreeze. Obviously. The whirlpools turn the other way there, don’t they.

    Martin Gardner, a popular science and math writer in the previous century once wrote that when confronted by such idiocies the only valid and sound reaction is roaring laughter.

  17. Global warming causes above average ice. Scientist proclaims: “If we don’t regulate carbon sources, man will heat the Earth until it freezes.” Story at 11.

  18. There is nothing shocking about Professor Oppenheimer’s statement (above). Instead, his attempt to mask politics as science is the sort of mundane mendacity which is found throughout climate science.

  19. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before. We don’t know this for certain, we’ll find out over the next few years”

    Translated into lay terms for the target audience:

    Crocodiles tend to hide under the bed sometimes, but when crocodiles hide under the bed they later come out and then they nibble your ankles. We don’t know this for certain, we’ll find out when you kiddies grow up.

  20. Heat hides in the ocean? Every ocean I’ve ever put my feet into was colder than the air around me. Is this similar to those CO2 pockets that were supposedly in higher levels of the atmosphere?

  21. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears…”

    Does it go “Boo!”?

  22. Bill Illis says:
    October 20, 2013 at 12:01 pm
    ["I’ve decide to sell “Global Warming Insurance”."]

    Do we get a free pen? :)

  23. Edohiguma says:
    October 20, 2013 at 12:40 pm
    ["Heat hides in the ocean? Every ocean I’ve ever put my feet into was colder than the air around me."]

    Duh… Of course you can’t feel it because it’s hiding! :)

  24. Question I have been wanting to ask for a very long time. Mars has water ice caps on both poles often covered by frozen carbon dioxide and studies show Mars has experienced ice ages. Wouldn’t this suggest a cosmic relationship with climate change and why does no one ever talk about the similarities in variation between climate cycles on earth to solar system wide or cosmic events? http://www.daviddarling.info/archive/2005/archiveFeb05_1.html#250205_2

  25. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the”…..

    Poles…..which is exactly what’s been happening

    …and now that’s it’s over

  26. I was just looking at the sea ice page last night. Still amazed that WUWT has the most comprehensive list of sources, yet this is almost absent from sites that are pro-AGW.

    The Northern sea-ice seems to be expanding quite fast. The true test will be if it doesn’t all get sucked out into the Atlantic next summer via the Greenland Sea. That’s the biggest cause of Northern Sea Ice loss. Not the temperature nor CO2 or anything like that.

  27. Isn’t Antarctica’s maximum extent usually reached around 22nd September? Anyway, the Arctic and Antarctica sea ice have been very badly behaved this year. Maybe the climate has changed after all. I kept trying to explain to Warmists that most sceptics are fervent proponents of climate change. The climate always changes.

  28. Wayne d says:
    October 20, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    People have talked & still do about possible cosmic effects to explain apparent synchronous heating & cooling of other planets in the solar system. It is a common enough argument that SkS felt the need to try to counter it.

  29. Jordan says

    Crocodiles tend to hide under the bed sometimes, but when crocodiles hide under the bed they later come out and then they nibble your ankles. We don’t know this for certain, we’ll find out “when” you(r) kiddies grow up.

    Didn’t you mean “if” your kiddies grow up? Crocodiles tend to bite more than your ankles. I take the you(r) to be a typo – it must be, surely?q

  30. John Comeau says:
    October 20, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    where is the thickness factored into the equation? and where is the part of the graph showing mass of antarctic land ice for comparison?
    _______________________
    The mass of Antarctic ice cover is growing at a rate measured in hundreds of gigatons/year.

    Terms such as “thickness” are meaningless in this case, but are often deployed as tools of deception. The global sea ice anomaly is currently “positive” in the amount of 164,000 (sq. Km.),
    which also signifies nothing.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/

    Also see:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

  31. As soon as Greenpeace gets out of jail in Russia, they’ll be paddling down to the Antarctic as fast as they can, taking care to avoid the Russian part of the Antarctic of course. And once there, they’ll declare that the satellites have got it wrong, that in fact the apparent increase in sea ice is in fact an illusion, a mirage caused by all the missing heat. Clearly we will have to recalibrate the satellites so that they can distinguish between mirages and ice. Quick, someone tell Trenberth we have found his missing heat. /sarc tag only necessary for the AGW challenged.

  32. The hide and seek heat, which bypasses the first 700m of ocean, is an attempt to buy more time for their already failed CAGW speculation. Many climate scientists are secretly ruing the day they decided to go along with this con job. Their IgNobel ‘reputations’ will end up in the scientific bin of history. Hailing Oppenheimer.

    On Antarctica sea ice growth: They have blamed ozone, melting ice, winds etc. Could it be that it’s just getting colder???

  33. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before.

    ‘Tends to’ and ‘sometimes’ sounds like there is empirical evidence to prove this or a record of observations or something to explain how this works as it obviously happens regularly? And then the rest of the sentence sounds like someone speaking from experience: “and then the warming resumes faster than before”.
    I’m afraid he blows it with the next sentence: “We don’t know this for certain, we’ll find out over the next few years””

    Out of interest is there a Temperature Lapse rate for Oceans?

  34. When Antarctic sea ice begins its seasonal melt, and if it proceeds at a normal pace, with such a high starting point it’s hard to believe that there won’t be significant implications for the Southern Hemisphere summer.

  35. Well: I would not say heat can hide in the oceans. However, as Bob Tisdale explains, successive La Ninas can supercharge the waters on the west equatorial Pacific by cooling the air to the east which reduces cloud cover and allows the sun to warm the waters which pile up (or down) into the wester areas of the equatorial Pacific. The heat later surfaces during an El Nino, when gravity allows the piled up water to plunge down and resurface the warmed water.

    However, the IPCC are not talking about this mechanism. This mechanism proves that the warming we’ve seen, which caused step changes in the global climate is completely natural. So it is a double edged sword if they give credence to this fine work by Tisdale.

  36. Alan Robertson says:
    October 20, 2013 at 1:53 pm
    _______________________
    The mass of Antarctic ice cover is growing at a rate measured in hundreds of gigatons/year.

    __________________________________
    Correction: Antarctic ice cover is thought to be growing and changes intraannually at a rate measured in gigatons/year.

  37. I am a Quality Engineer, and as such I have spent a good part of my career looking at and interpreting process charts. Looking at the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly chart, three things jump out at me. This is a process which was more or less steady up to about 1998, then started a fairly stable downward trend. Around 2007 the descent stopped, and since then the process has been level, but possibly has a little more variation. If this were a process I was investigating, I would pet money that something changed ~1999, and again ~2007.

  38. John Comeau says: “where is the thickness factored into the equation?”

    Thickness isn’t relevant to catastrophe theories which rely on ice albedo positive feedback. Not that I accept these arguments, if there is any merit in an ice albedo positive feedback process, the increasing Antarctic ice cover, consistent catastrophe theory would recognise a cooling effect and self-perpetuating expansion of the ice cover.

    Robert Scott says: “Didn’t you mean “if” your kiddies grow up?”
    No, the statement is addressed to children (the lay audience). Therefore “when you (the kiddies) grow up”.

    When the kiddies grow up, they will come to appreciate there were never any Crocodiles under the bed, and they were fooled into staying in bed by underhand tactics.

    The original statement appears to be addressed at people who’s understanding of thermodynamics is no greater than the level of pre-school children. It appears to be seeking to scare the audience to behave in an intended way.

  39. Antarctic ice extent was flat-topped, that it, they turned the satellite polarizing filters to prevent a new record, so the extent was flat-topped until it finally recedes. That’s why the ice is apparently refusing to melt — it is melting, but from its true maximum which the graph does not show.

  40. This is simply the Gore effect caused by this:

    http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059958774

    “”Former Vice President Al Gore is taking his fight against climate change to Antarctica next week as part of a cruise organized by his Climate Reality Project.

    Gore and more than 100 fellow travelers will depart from Argentina late next week. Scientists, including climatologists James Hansen of NASA and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, will give talks during the journey.””

    The ice has been increasing ever since.

  41. I have seen non-skeptics claim that the Antarctic Sea Ice is expanding because the continental glacial ice is melting faster increasing the fresh water content of the coastal waters. Is there a response to this better than, “Come over here so I can give you a smack”?

  42. You know, I think what EWF says has merit.:
    EWF says:
    October 20, 2013 at 3:14 pm
    “Antarctic ice extent was flat-topped,…”
    I had posted before as to why the antarctic sea ice data stopped in Sept until Oct 19th. This could be the reason. Maybe the NSIDC did get a secret memo from the powers that be…
    Just Sayn.

  43. MinB says:

    October 20, 2013 at 11:15 am

    Any possibility the Arctic maximum sea ice extent could recover to the 1981-2010 baseline this year? What are the key conditions for attaining a high maximum?
    @@@@@

    There is an excellent write up as to why Arctic sea ice did not melt as fast this year as it did recent years at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ This might give you an answer to your question.

  44. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before. We don’t know this for certain…”

    I just had to quote that again.

    Is this the new science – make a statement of whatever one wishes and then say “We don’t know this for certain…” and it is accepted as factual by your loyal following?

    Good grief! There is definitely something wrong with this picture.

  45. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before. ”

    Seriously? A scientist said this? LOL, that just boggles the mind.

    Heat ‘hides’ in the ocean – sometimes. What is it hiding from? Then it magically reappears in the atmosphere? Is that when whatever it is afraid of gets bored and leaves?

    This ‘heat’ is a tricksey one, yesss! he is!

  46. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before. We don’t know this for certain …

    When the IPCC is certain, and does have those supporting observations, then another Nobel Prize would be a certainty. It surely would be catastrophic …. for the Second Law of Thermodynamics- a real reversible thermodynamic process. Wow!

  47. Jim Cripwell says:
    October 20, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    No surprise that the NSIDC fail to mention the unusual August storm that caused the record (since 1979) low last year, just as happened to create the prior low in 2007. Reality deniers try to deny that the cyclone was the culprit, but all the evidence in the world is against them.

  48. @ Geoff Withnell
    Geoff, there was a huge El Nino in 1998 that left a lot of hot water on the surface. Since then my understanding is that the planet has been in a La Nina cycle, which would have gained momentum in about 2007.

  49. I remember not too long ago, when the winter sea ice froze the Intracoastal Waterway along the Jersy Shore north & south of Tuckerton, NJ. I think it was in the mid 70s. It’s a cycle, it’s a cycle – could happen again this year or not in the too distant future.

  50. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before. We don’t know this for certain, we’ll find out over the next few years, but it is wrong to say that the IPCC didn’t look at it carefully, it certainly did.”

    There indeed is the heat in the ocean, accumulated there -caused by Sun (mid- IR unlike the solar irradiation can’t significantly penetrate water deeper than 0.1 milimeter) during last century of the solar activity rising trend, but it can’t be released until the surface cools to allow it – the colder more dense (but still quite warm water) can’t ascend up into warmer less dense water – until a warmer water is above it – the Newton law of universal gravitation denies it. Nor can the heat from the colder (but still quite warm) water below ascend up – the 2nd law of thermodynamics denies it. And if there is any surface layer mixing – due to wind, waves.. it in principle transfers more of the heat of the warmer water down, than the heat from the colder water up. So it accumulated and waited, rising slightly the surface temperatures, evaporation, latent heat transportation, heating atmosphere upon condensation, rising its temperature, slowing the heat dissipation from surface due to Stefan-Boltzman law of radiative heat transfer, causing the surface to warm more…until the solar activity slumped, caused the very surface to release more heat, cool, so the heat from below is now released. But visibly it is not enough to cause any warming and in principle, it can’t be enough. So they can wait and wait in the IPCC and release inept reports…and then finally see that the sea will not warm this planet without surplus energy supply from the Sun.

  51. Comte de Dirac: “There is now a proposal to start naming hurricanes after climate change deniers:”

    Name hurricanes after empiricists? I’m down. But the first one better be called Isaac Newton.

  52. The heat is being sequestered in the bottom of the oceans, which, being closer to the Earth’s gore – I mean core, is heating the core to millions and millions of degrees.

  53. The whole “heat hides in oceans” trope has always seemed batty to me, and I wasn’t sure why. But it occurs to me that one reason could be: How do we know that escaping sea heat wasn’t the reason for the run-up in warming in the decades prior to 1997 in the first place? In which case we are just looking at another cycle in an ocean/atmosphere dynamic equilibrium.

  54. Heat doesn’t hide.
    Michael Oppenheimer, Professor Geo-sciences and International Affairs at Princeton University and IPCC Contributor, the reason for The Pause/Hiatus in Earth’s atmospheric temperature, and apparently associated average Global Sea Ice is that; (I paraphrase)

    “That sneaky heat, is skulking around in the deep oceans, until it decides to rise forth into the air of our unsuspecting planet, which will then allow the Earth to resume warming again, but faster than ever!. / paraphrase

    Perhaps my paraphrase contains a bit of hyperbole, but it is still not as ridiculous as Michael anthropomorphizing the object of his ignorance.

  55. “Ice Extent anomaly appears quite large for a planet supposedly on the verge of Dangerous Warming.” – There’s a completely unsupported argument.

    There has been some interesting research on Southern Sea Ice lately: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00139.1

    But the existence of that research doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming or that it’s not dangerous. It means that the southern sea ice extent is still an interesting field to study.

    The argument that “well, you’ve changed your mind on this one little aspect, therefore your whole thesis is wrong” is used by creationists at lot. Not a group I’d be proud to ape. Congratulations for lowering the bar “justthefactswuwt”.

  56. “Ice Extent anomaly appears quite large for a planet supposedly on the verge of Dangerous Warming.” – There’s a completely unsupported argument.

    There has been some interesting research on Southern Sea Ice lately: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00139.1

    But the existence of that research doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming or that it’s dangerous. It means that the southern sea ice extent is still an interesting field to study.

    The argument that “well, you’ve changed your mind on this one little aspect, therefore your whole thesis is wrong” is used by creationists at lot. Not a group I’d be proud to ape. Congratulations for lowering the bar ” justthefactswuwt”.

    • Reply to @ Seth aka “Seth CuttleFish”

      You wrote: The argument that “well, you’ve changed your mind on this one little aspect, therefore your whole thesis is wrong” is used by creationists at lot. Not a group I’d be proud to ape. Congratulations for lowering the bar ” justthefactswuwt”.

      Two things.

      1. You sir, are an idiot for making such a outlandish claim to try to make this about creationism. I reserve statements like that here for people such as yourself that go off the rails of connected rational thought. I don’t think I’ve ever said it more than one other time for a similarly ridiculous claim.

      2. With you being a government employee of Roads and Maritime Services (RTANA) in New South Wales, I can understand why you are an idiot. I’m sure they appreciate you spending work time online making such claims, right? Care to test that theory?

      Feel free to be as upset as you wish, but I have a low tolerance for government employees spouting creationism idiocy in an attempt to smear while at work under the cover of fake names, as pointed out in the WUWT policy page.

      - Anthony

  57. Seth: “The argument that “well, you’ve changed your mind on this one little aspect, therefore your whole thesis is wrong” is used by creationists at lot.”

    Fair cop. The Creationist and ID types are all over Evolution for lacking both predictive value and experimental validation also. Seems to me that if folks don’t want to be lumped with nutty religious types, they should just shut up and and accept the revealed knowledge from the High Popes of Heat.

  58. With fewer El Ninos to create warm water pools feeding into the Arctic, the Arctic ice should increase. If the Antarctic also starts increasing, are we setting the stage for significant cooling on a world wide scale?

  59. As for the notion that this heat would, at some point, come out “all at once”, that would require so many changes to the laws of physics that one should be equally worried about a gravity well reversal that spews everyone on earth out to space.

    I think our baseline understanding of the core mechanism of gravity is so poor in comparison to thermodynamics, that the latter might be more likely.

  60. The failure of the ice to melt this summer is not explained very well by the link Jim Cripwell gave at 3:45. I think it has many scratching their heads, the NSIDC included. The simple fact of the matter is that the ice was quite thin, and torn up by a big storm in February, and I myself was wary about how thin it looked at the start of the melt last April, especially right near the Pole. Alarmists, on the other hand, were elated, and fairly sure the ice was flimsy and would fall apart quickly. The fact it didn’t demands a better explanation than the NSIDC’s take that summer of 2012 had dipolar winds and 2013 was more zonal, for the fact of the matter is that both summer had a variety of weather set-ups, and both summer had summer gales, with the ice actually stronger to begin the summer of 2012 than the summer of 2013.

    I think the water was cooler last summer, especially at depth. It was cooled by three events. First, the big storm in August 2012 didn’t melt a huge amount of ice by hitting it with a hot hair-drier. Rather it churned the ice with the water, and brought up slightly warmer water from a hundred or two feet down, and melting all the ice made all the water cooler, even down deep. Second, having such a vast area ice-free as winter descended and the sun dipped below the horizon was a perfect set-up for the water losing further heat. Lastly, the storm that cracked up the ice in the Beaufort Gyre in February exposed areas of ocean to the coldest air of the winter, (air that was below normal on the DMI graph,) making the Arctic Sea that much colder. Therefore even though the ice cap may have looked flimsy last April, the water it sat in was colder. It wasn’t merely colder up close to the icecap, with milder currents meandering down below the ice, but was colder clear down to the pycnocline, so that last summer’s gales couldn’t upwell warmer waters from beneath to melt the ice. Having the water colder down deeper may have even so changed the density of the water that milder currents had a harder time penetrating the arctic and flowing under the ice.

    Please notice I began the above paragraph with “I think.” This is all theory on my part, in an attempt to explain what is quite baffling. However the true scientists up there are gathering data like crazy, and have gizmos that run up and down cables under the newer buoys bobbing around up there. (I’d give my eye teeth to get a gander at the data they’re gathering, but I suppose if they do all the work they get first dibs at peeking at it.) The data they are gathering is in many ways brand new information about what goes on under the ice, in terms of salinity and temperature. They are pioneers on a new frontier.

    It is a silver lining, on the dark clouds of Global Warming balderdash, that those guys get the funding to place all the neat buoys up there. I have a fear they will get de-funded as soon as it becomes apparent the ice is growing, and doesn’t support the “agenda.” The fact of the matter is that the “science” of Global Warming is going down, (not in flames, as it isn’t hot enough, but rather like a Titanic after hitting an iceberg.) World temperatures refused to rise, computer models looked stupid, children continued to know what snow is in England, and an ice-free-Pole was the last, great hope of Alarmists. And as far as they were concerned, last summer was a dreadful disappointment, and an impossible, inconceivable, freakish, and weird return to normalcy.

    They appeared to be staggered, and babbling, like a boxer who just took an uppercut to his jaw.

  61. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere…”

    As Giant Crabs, Godzilla, Giant Octopus, the Kraken, Cthulhu, and many others.

  62. John Comeau says:
    October 20, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    where is the thickness factored into the equation? and where is the part of the graph showing mass of antarctic land ice for comparison?

    1. “All” of the CAGW religious fear of Arctic sea ice loss is based on (the false and highly exaggerated) fears of a “positive” feedback Arctic sea ice albedo. Supposedly, arctic sea ice has a much higher albedo than the dark ocean water it covers, and, in the usual scheme of things in temperature latitudes, darker things absorb more heat than lighter things when both are exposed to the same amount of sunlight. According to this much-publicized “positive sea ice albedo feedback” theory, when the Arctic sea ice melts, the darker ocean waters absorb more solar energy, get warmer, heat the air above these “new ocean waters” and the surrounding sea ice even more, and thus melt more sea ice, which absorbs more solar energy and heats even Arctic waters even hotter.

    Since the much-publicized Arctic sea ice feedback begins with the difference in albedo between sea ice and open ocean waters, the thickness of the sea ice is irrelevant to how much solar energy is reflected or absorbed from a surface. Since “all” of the Antarctic sea ice melts every year (only 1+ million sq km’s remain over the summer season, compared to 16 millions at maximum extent, the thickness doesn’t affect the year-to-year sea ice residuals either. Up north, in the Arctic, where 2-year, 3-year, and 4-year ice make up 1/3 to 1/2 of the total sea ice present, one could argue that thickness matters (thick ice melting slower than thin ice) the loss of ANY arctic sea ice blown away from the high arctic waters into the Atlantic Ocean means ALL of the sea ice “lost” will melt anyway. The ONLY sea ice remaining year-to-year is that which is NOT blown away past Greenland, but which remains above 82-85 north all year. Consider that even a Greenland glacier block 300+ feet thick (100 meter) is completely melted in only weeks. A 1 or 2 meter thin wafer of sea ice has no chance of surviving if the winds blow it south. So, Arctic thickness is a distraction to sea ice area, and it is irrelevant to Antarctic sea ice reflection calc’s as well.

    2. The Antarctic land mass is 14,000,000 sq km’s. This land mass has a permanent ice shelf surrounding it of 1.5 million sq km’s. The Antarctic sea ice area minimum – steadily GROWING year-to-year from just at 1.5 million sq km’s a few years ago up to last year’s 2.5 million sq km’s! – surrounds this combination of land ice and permanent ice shelves – which makes a total of 18,000,000 sq km’s AT MINIMUM AREA. If you use “sea ice extents (rather than sea ice area) you get even more “year-round-sea-ice” around the Antarctic pole.

    AT ITS MINIMUM, 18 million sq km’s of total Antarctic ice covers a “beanie” around the Antarctic continent from the south pole up to 68.3 latitude. On Hansen’s Mercator projector maps, ALL of the south pole is covered by ice ALL of the time to a point just about the middle of Greenland.

    3. But it is even worse than you think: That 18 million sq km’s Antarctic ice cover is the MINIMUM ice area. Each recent winter, the maximum Antarctic sea ice area is setting new records – it was just over 16,000,000 sq km’s a few weeks ago. Antarctic sea ice extents are even higher, and they are increasing as well: They are now averaging over 18,000,000 sq km’s each antarctic winter.

    Total Antarctic ice is 14 million (land area) + 1.5 million (ice shelves) + 18 million (sea ice at maximum extents) = 33.5 million sq km’s. This is an area from the Antarctic pole “up” to latitude 60.3 South.

    Note: The Drake Passage and Straits of Magellan are only at latitude 56 south. Ship traffic around Cape Horn can expect to be blocked by Antarctic sea ice within 8.5 years to 14 years, depending on which sea ice trend you want to use!

  63. If one considers the linear trend of arctic September ice minimum extent as plotted by NSIDC, here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/10/Figure3_Sept2013_trend-350×261.png
    and projects backwards from their linear trend, the result is that the entire northern hemisphere should have been covered in solid ice all year round as recently as about 938 BC. Admittedly the historical records from that time are sparse, but there are some written historical records from that time period. Oddly enough, I can find no reference in the historical record of the entire known world being covered in solid ice all year round at that time, or any other time in recorded history for that matter.
    Hmm…..

    Sarcasm aside, what is the official method for determining at what point the linear trend assumption breaks down and what empirical evidence supports said assumption? For that matter, what justifies assuming a linear trend at all, especially for purposes of extrapolating predictions beyond the limits of available data??

  64. Seth says: October 20, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    “Ice Extent anomaly appears quite large for a planet supposedly on the verge of Dangerous Warming.” – There’s a completely unsupported argument.

    Umm, “completely unsupported”? The statement that “Ice Extent anomaly appears quite large” is supported by a National Snow and Ice Data Center graph showing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent to be outside of 2 standard deviations and over 2 million Sq. km. above average:

    “a planet supposedly on the verge of Dangerous Warming.” is supported by a PBS news segment titled “Climate Scientists Warn Opportunity to Prevent Dangerous Warming Is Dwindling” and features an IPCC Contributor, who states that “the window of opportunity to avoid a dangerous warming, which has been labeled by the governments as a warming of a little short of 4 degrees Fahrenheit, that window is closing rapidly”:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change/july-dec13/climate2_09-27.html

    Seem like it is your argument that is completely unsupported…

    There has been some interesting research on Southern Sea Ice lately: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00139.1

    Jinlun Zhang has a history of contorting himself to try to hide the gaps in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Narrative. For example, in this NASA article/press release it states that:

    “Jinlun Zhang, an oceanographer at the University of Washington, has pieced together a complex computer model that helps explain why Antarctic sea ice is expanding even with signs that ocean and air temperatures are on the rise.”

    and in this paper titled “What drove the dramatic retreat of Arctic sea ice during summer 2007?” by Zhang, J., R.W. Lindsay , M. Steele, and A. Schweiger, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11505, doi:10.1029/2008GL034005, 2008, it states that “Arctic sea ice in 2007 was preconditioned to radical changes” and this contributed to “The dramatic decline” . This is not objective science, rather it’s alarmist rhetoric.

    Zhang was already looking for an Arctic Sea Ice tipping points in 2005, i.e. the title of this paper paper was “The thinning of arctic sea ice, 1988–2003: have we passed a tipping point?” by Lindsay, R. W. and J. Zhang, J. Climate, 18, 4879–4894, 2005.

    In 2006 Zhang co-wrote a paper with Mark “Death Spiral” Serreze and Keith “the lack of warming … is a travesty” Trenberth, titled “The large-scale energy budget of the Arctic” by Serreze, M. C., A. P. Barrett, A. G. Slater, M. Steele, J. Zhang, and K. E. Trenberth, , J. Geophys Res., 112, D11122, doi: 10.1029/2006JD008230, 2007.

    Jinlun Zhang is also responsible for the highly suspect “PIOMAS Sea Ice volume model” , i.e.:

    “Satellite sea ice concentration data are assimilated in GIOMAS using the Lindsay and Zhang (2005) assimilation procedure. The procedure is based on “nudging” the model estimate of ice concentration toward the observed concentration in a manner that emphasizes the ice extent and minimizes the effect of observational errors in the interior of the ice pack.” http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Global_seaice/model.html

    “Because of the errors in the summer Gice dataset ice concentration in the interior of the pack (as well as errors in summer ice concentration based on passive microwave observations), assimilation of ice concentration is accomplished in a method that emphasizes the extent over the concentration. The observations are weighted heavily only when there is a large discrepancy between the model and the observed concentration. Each day the model estimate Cmod is nudged to a revised estimate Ĉmod with the relationship.” http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH1871.1

    As such, PIOMAS uses an erroneous data set, weights heavily when observations didn’t fit the model and then “nudges” the output. Jinlun Zhang is not a credible source of scientific research or data.

    But the existence of that research doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming or that it’s not dangerous. It means that the southern sea ice extent is still an interesting field to study.

    No, Jinlun Zhang’s “research doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming” rather these temperature graphs from UAH, RSS, GISS and the Met Office show that the planet isn’t warming:

    UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomalies – 1979 to Present

    University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Click the pic to view at source

    RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present

    Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

    Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly – 1996 to Present

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) – Click the pic to view at source

    Annual Global Average Land and Ocean Temperature Anomaly – 1850 to 2012

    Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

    The argument that “well, you’ve changed your mind on this one little aspect, therefore your whole thesis is wrong” is used by creationists at lot. Not a group I’d be proud to ape. Congratulations for lowering the bar “justthefactswuwt”.

    Hilarious, you and your ilk have lowered the bar so low that an ant can get over it in one step. Try presenting some evidence to support your position, whatever it may be…

  65. davidmhoffer [October 20, 2013 at 11:45 am] says:

    In other words, worst case, the heat really is hiding in the oceans. Instead of heating the atmosphere by 2 degrees in the next century, it would take 1,200 centuries. As for the notion that this heat would, at some point, come out “all at once”, that would require so many changes to the laws of physics that one should be equally worried about a gravity well reversal that spews everyone on earth out to space.

    I splat coffee all over the place. Thread winner!

    Jeff Norman [October 20, 2013 at 3:26 pm] says:

    I have seen non-skeptics claim that the Antarctic Sea Ice is expanding because the continental glacial ice is melting faster increasing the fresh water content of the coastal waters. Is there a response to this better than, “Come over here so I can give you a smack”?

    Yeah there are good responses to that, but yours was the most appropriate of all.

  66. davidmhoffer says:
    October 20, 2013 at 11:45 am

    “We should note that Oppenheimer fails to provide an explanation of the physical processes by which this could occur. To my knowledge, neither he, nor anyone else in the alarmascience community has done so, despite the frequency with which they claim that this is a possibility.”

    The ancient astronomers would say he’s added an epicycle.

  67. Jeff: “For that matter, what justifies assuming a linear trend at all, especially for purposes of extrapolating predictions beyond the limits of available data??”

    When the R^2 you want is no longer above the minimum bar permissible by your discipline, then you start adding exponents. Though, as few things are linear, adding a single term with an exponent in the beginning is always useful. But a linear trend is, essentially, justified on the basis that it takes less pencil lead to deal with. Not much importance nowadays, but there you have it.

    As for extrapolation: Every prediction is justified on the same basis that every hypothesis is. That is: Why not? If your prediction model is useful enough to state something less than ‘derp’ at dinner parties, then it’s useful enough. If can slap it on a lab table then you can validate it, and tease out causation, trivially enough. When you can’t, then you have to wait for the future to make its natural progression into the past before anything can be said. Though teasing causation out of such conditions is just this side of impossible. Effectively you need to watch every possible confounder take an up swing and down swing so you can rule it out as possible or primary. When all that’s left is one item tracking both ways, then you’re gold.

    Which is to say: You need cycles or quasi-cycles in the data to begin with. Otherwise, it’s back to lab tables.

  68. Tim Groves: “The ancient astronomers would say he’s added an epicycle.”

    Hating on epicycles is so medieval. Modern science is all about the epicyclic diversity and fighting against experimental privilege.

  69. Jimbo says:
    October 20, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    I kept trying to explain to Warmists that most sceptics are fervent proponents of climate change. The climate always changes.
    ——————

    YES! I do the same. It’s amazing how much I get asked “What? You don’t believe in climate change?” And I always respond back, “Climate change is a skeptical position. Of course I believe in climate change. Unprecedented and catastrophic global warming is your side’s position. If it isn’t unprecedented, then it’s happened before (aka climate change) and it’s natural and not catastrophic. Nothing to worry about.”

    They always come back baffled and completely confused about their own position. Sometimes they’ll throw a word in about not liking the fact that used “global warming” or some other nonsense. But they never know how to argue against the fact that it can only be climate change if it’s not unprecedented.

  70. Seth says:
    October 20, 2013 at 5:46 pm
    “Ice Extent anomaly appears quite large for a planet supposedly on the verge of Dangerous Warming.”
    – There’s a completely unsupported argument.”

    So the argument that, a decade of reductions in Arctic Sea Ice Extent indicates we are on the verge of Dangerous Warming, is unsupported then?

    “The argument that “well, you’ve changed your mind on this one little aspect, therefore your whole thesis is wrong” is used by creationists at lot. Not a group I’d be proud to Ape.”

    If “creationists” argued that, a decade of reductions in Arctic Sea Ice Extent indicates we are on the verge of Dangerous Warming, would the argument be wrong simply because it was used by creationists?

    “Congratulations for lowering the bar…”

    Indeed.

  71. justthefactswuwt,

    Excellent comment. PIOMAS is nothing but alarmist propaganda. It is a scare tactic.

    Good that you are debunking PIOMAS with facts.

  72. Jquip says: “When the R^2 you want is no longer above the minimum bar permissible by your discipline, then you start adding exponents. Though, as few things are linear, adding a single term with an exponent in the beginning is always useful. But a linear trend is, essentially, justified on the basis that it takes less pencil lead to deal with. Not much importance nowadays, but there you have it.”

    Yeah, back when I took thermo class in the days of using steam tables, localized linear assumptions for purposes of interpolating between closest available data points made reasonable sense, especially if you wanted to finish your exam in time when pencil lead and a basic calculator was all you had…
    But quite silly if extrapolating more than a few percent beyond the ends of your data set.

    As for adding exponents, while that will increase the fidelity of interpolations between known data points, when it comes to extrapolation, the only thing increasing the order of your polynomial curve fit will accomplish is to make your lies look fancier given that any polynomial with positive exponents will diverge to infinity. As you said, the data has to by cyclical in order to be plausibly predictable.

  73. Chris B says:
    October 20, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    So the argument that, a decade of reductions in Arctic Sea Ice Extent indicates we are on the verge of Dangerous Warming, is unsupported then?

    True. The false arguments about Arctic amplification – the fears that a continued loss of Arctic sea ice from its current extents is dangerous – ARE unsupported and ARE wrong.

    The numbers show that, additional loss of arctic sea from today’s sea ice extents from mid-August through mid-April cause more loss of heat from the newly exposed ocean areas than can be absorbed from the sun. More Arctic ice loss from today’s levels means more cooling in August, September and October. More snow on the land surfaces around the Arctic as well..

    On the other hand, the INCREASED Antarctic sea ice at minimum AND maximum extents all year DOES reflect more heat energy and DOES cause increased cooling of the planet.

  74. John Comeau says:
    October 20, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    where is the part of the graph showing mass of antarctic land ice for comparison?
    ————————–

    The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which holds most of the land ice on the planet, has been steadily growing while CO2 has risen. It stopped melting at least 3000 years ago, as show by radionuclides in the soil around its edge. Yet Warmunistas keep lying that its mass is disappearing:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/

    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/MassBalance.pdf

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5730/1898.short

    Published Online May 19 2005
    Science 24 June 2005:
    Vol. 308 no. 5730 pp. 1898-1901
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1110662

    Report

    Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise

    Curt H. Davis1,*,
    Yonghong Li1,
    Joseph R. McConnell2,
    Markus M. Frey3,
    Edward Hanna4

    + Author Affiliations

    1 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
    2 Desert Research Institute, University and Community College System of Nevada, Reno, NV 89512, USA.
    3 Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
    4 Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.

    ↵* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: davisch@missouri.edu

    Abstract

    Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year.

  75. Funny how the Warmastrologists want to change what was actually predicted when this all came to the forefront. When things didn’t work out as predicted, they simply make it up as they go along. The “greenhouse effect” was all the rage back then. Today they’d just wish it would go away because it just ain’t happening the way we were told it would.

    Popular Science 1989

    http://is.gd/pZdujx

  76. Jeff: “… make your lies look fancier given that any polynomial with positive exponents will diverge to infinity.”

    No question on that one. The solutions to which are all largely the same as that for the Ultraviolet Catastrophe. But it’s hardly fun to deal with discrete problems. And all the heady theorizing happens at the infinite limits anyways.

  77. To say that extra heat is hiding in the oceans is to admit that all the climate models are wrong. After all, no climate model specifically includes heat moving into and out of the oceans (as far as I know.)

  78. Why is there suddenly an increase in Antarctic sea ice for all months of the year? Why is there suddenly an increase in Arctic sea ice? Sudden cooling at both poles requires a physical explanation. The warmist theory proposed to explain the increase in Antarctic sea ice was increased melting of the sea ice creates pools of fresh water that freeze quicker. That explanation fails however as there is now increased sea ice for all months of the year. There is in addition to record Antarctic sea ice, cooling of the Antarctic ocean. If it walks like a duck, if it looks like a duke, if it quacks, it is likely a duck. It appears we are observing a reversal of the warming that the AGW paradigm pushers have told us over and over again is due 100% to the increase in atmosphere CO2. Unequivocal cooling of the planet is only possible if a significant portion of the warming in the last 150 years was due to something else besides the increase in atmospheric CO2. (The amount of cooling will of course indicate how much of the warming was due to atmospheric CO2 Vs the alternative hypothesis solar magnetic cycle changes.)

    There are cycles of warming with a periodicity of roughly 1500 years in the paleo record. The cycles of warming correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The regions of the planet that warmed in the past are the same regions of the planet that warmed in the last 150 years. (High latitude regions.) The cycles of warming were in every case followed by cooling events, sometimes rapid, large cooling events. There has been a sudden unexplained change to the solar magnetic cycle. This might be a good time for the warmists scientists to start to look for a way out.

    William:
    There is a very specific prediction that the Arctic will cool.
    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amet/aip/543146.pdf
    Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
    ….These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5C +/- 2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C.
    William:
    There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers that discuss past cyclic climate change. I am curious how the public will react that to the fact that the warming has reversed.

    ABRUPT CHANGE IN EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM
    “The earliest Holocene abrupt climate changes occurred at 12,800, 8200, 5200, and 4200 B.P. . . .” The 8200 B.P. event, “lasted four hundred years (6400-6000 B.C.) and, like the Younger Dryas, generated abrupt aridification and cooling in the North Atlantic and North America, Africa, and Asia (Alley et al. 1997; Barber et al. 1999; Hu et al. 1999; Street-Perrot and Perrot 1990).

    http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html

    The 8200-year Climate Event
    This figure shows snow accumulation and isotopically inferred temperature records in the Greenland GISP2 ice core and a temperature record derived from oxygen isotope measurements of fossil shells in the sediments of Lake Ammersee, southern Germany. These records all show a major climatic instability event which occurred around 8200 years ago, during the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name of the current interglacial period we are living in). The event was large both in magnitude, as reflected by a temperature signal in Greenland of order 5 C, and in its geographical extent, as indicated by the close correlation of the signal in these two locations. The dramatic event is also seen in the methane record from Greenland (not shown here) indicating possible major shifts in hydrology and land cover in lower latitudes. source: Von Grafenstein et al (1998) Climate Dynamics, 14, 73-81.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000PA000571.shtml

    On the 1470-year pacing of Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events
    The oxygen isotope record from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core was reanalyzed in the frequency and time domains. The prominent 1470-year spectral peak, which has been associated with the occurrence of Dansgaard-Oeschger interstadial events, is solely caused by Dansgaard-Oeschger events 5, 6, and 7. This result emphasizes the nonstationary character of the oxygen isotope time series. Nevertheless, a fundamental pacing period of ∼1470 years seems to control the timing of the onset of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. A trapezoidal time series model is introduced which provides a template for the pacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Statistical analysis indicates only a ≤3% probability that the number of matches between observed and template-derived onsets of Dansgaard-Oeschger events between 13 and 46 kyr B.P. resulted by chance. During this interval the spacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger onsets varied by ±20% around the fundamental 1470-year period and multiples thereof. The pacing seems unaffected by variations in the strength of North Atlantic Deep Water formation, suggesting that the thermohaline circulation was not the primary controlling factor of the pacing period.

  79. Algae embedded in melting sea ice is a critical food source for krill, and krill are a critical food source for everything else. I wonder what the effect will be on life in the area.

  80. Wayne d says:
    October 20, 2013 at 1:08 pm
    “Question I have been wanting to ask for a very long time. Mars has water ice caps on both poles often covered by frozen carbon dioxide and studies show Mars has experienced ice ages. Wouldn’t this suggest a cosmic relationship with climate change and why does no one ever talk about the similarities in variation between climate cycles on earth to solar system wide or cosmic events? http://www.daviddarling.info/archive/2005/archiveFeb05_1.html#250205_2

    Likely you’re just essentially noting how nobody who gets highly-funded publicity talks about such. Others do, though. For example, as a Russian paper (Dergachev et al 2004) remarks:

    In this study we analyzed different periods of time, namely, the last millennium, the Holocene epoch (up to 10-12 thousand years ago), and the time interval of 10-50 thousand years ago. Our analysis suggested that the variations of the cosmic ray fluxes seemed to be the most effective factor responsible for long-term climate variations.

    http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/rjes/v06/tje04163/tje04163.htm

    Cosmic ray flux reaching Earth’s atmosphere is modulated by variation in solar activity affecting the interplanetary magnetic field and solar wind, for how much deflected, as well as somewhat by Earth’s geomagnetic field. On far longer timespans, movement of the solar system around the galaxy also matters.

    On short time scales, deflection of cosmic ray flux reaching Earth mainly varies in step with solar activity, so essentially it is like an amplifier of solar variation. Within the solar system, the cloud-seeding mechanism of cosmic ray variation is practically specific to Earth (since other planets lack Earth’s hydrosphere), but variation in other metrics of solar activity, like TSI, affects other planets as well.

    In the case of Martian ice ages, those appear to be from relative wobbling of the tilt of Mars over the eons, as in such that they would occur even if the sun itself was instead perfectly constant, but much else is caused by solar variation, including as the predominate factor in recent centuries of terrestrial climate history.

    A large assortment of illustrations, condensed into a single image for conciseness, are in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg

    Less concisely but providing more reading, there is a collection of many cosmic ray and solar related papers at http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Cosmic

  81. Regarding PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume,

    It doesn’t make sense that the sea ice area (km^2), has only fallen 15%, but the sea ice volume (Km^3), has fallen by nearly 50%. Chart comparing Piomas volume with Cryosphere Today ice area.

    And the reason for lack of logic in that is that Piomas has the average sea ice thickness declining by impossible amounts. In fact, the trends are such that there will be no summer sea ice thickness as early as 2020 (7 years from now) and even no winter sea ice thickness in the six months of darkness and -35C temperatures by as early as 2024 (just 15 years from now).

    The math of the model is such that the sea surface temperatures are rising more in the middle of the ice pack (or let’s say 4 metres down) than they are at the edge of the pack ice. The central ice thickness has to have declined by 2 metres in thickness while the edge has only declined by 1 metre. Sorry, there is no physical reason for that. It is just made-up.

    A simulation of the Arctic sea ice basin as a cross-section in the Piomas model in 1980 and 2013. Maybe it doesn’t exactly look like this, but it does match the actual numbers of volume and area.

    Save these charts and post them up whenever pro-warmers start spouting on Arctic ice volume.

  82. davidmhoffer says:
    October 20, 2013 at 11:45 am

    “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before.

    We should note that Oppenheimer fails to provide an explanation of the physical processes by which this could occur. To my knowledge, neither he, nor anyone else in the alarmascience community has done so, despite the frequency with which they claim that this is a possibility.

    No such mechanism exists. For “heat” to “come out of” the oceans and into the atmosphere requires that the oceans be warmer than the atmosphere. . . .

    The ocean temperature is higher than the air temperature for most of the year in the polar regions. In the Arctic in particular, the North Atlantic Current comes into the Barents Sea region. I have no idea if climate scientists consider this a significant driver to the decadal trend of ice loss and general warming in the Arctic, but “heat coming out of the ocean” and the flow of the North Atlantic Current is consistent with the pattern of minimum ice extent diminishing most rapidly on the eastern side and along the Siberian coast as well as Arctic warming.

  83. I rather hope the ice does not stick around. If we get a big ice anomaly year then that puts up the average ice cover that all subsequent years will have to match. The sceptics get one chance to thumb their noses at the catastrophists and then have to pay for ever more.

    Gracious, catastrophists is spelled correctly? I thought I just made it up!

  84. Geoff Withnell says:
    October 20, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    I am a Quality Engineer, and as such I have spent a good part of my career looking at and interpreting process charts. Looking at the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly chart, three things jump out at me. This is a process which was more or less steady up to about 1998, then started a fairly stable downward trend. Around 2007 the descent stopped, and since then the process has been level, but possibly has a little more variation. If this were a process I was investigating, I would pet money that something changed ~1999, and again ~2007.

    In 2007, due to conditions exceptionally favorable to melt, there was a great deal of ice lost from the Arctic. Because of that there is more “first year ice” which is thinner and more easily lost in subsequent melt seasons. I think what you’re seeing after 2007 is a larger delta between minimum and maximum extent as most of the first year ice melts out each summer and then freezes back to about the normal maximum. The maximum extent is somewhat constrained by the surrounding land masses so you’ll typically see less variation in the annual maximum even if the minimum continues to trend downward.

  85. MarkB;
    The ocean temperature is higher than the air temperature for most of the year in the polar regions. In the Arctic in particular, the North Atlantic Current comes into the Barents Sea region. I have no idea if climate scientists consider this a significant driver to the decadal trend of ice loss and general warming in the Arctic, but “heat coming out of the ocean” and the flow of the North Atlantic Current is consistent with the pattern of minimum ice extent diminishing most rapidly on the eastern side and along the Siberian coast as well as Arctic warming.

    Yes, this is well known. google “best of erbe” and you can see that the equatorial regions are net absorbers of energy and the actic regions are net radiators of energy. But those are surface issues. The claim being made is twofold.

    1) the heat is being sequestered in the DEEP oceans
    2) it might come back all at once

    The deep oceans are VERY cold. For the heat to “come back” they would have to warm to a temp greater than the water above them. For the heat to come back “all at once” is such complete nonsense that I refer you to my original comment above. We have more to worry about from a gravity well reversal that spits everyone on earth into deep space.

  86. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before. We don’t know this for certain..”

    Perhaps the dolphins have stolen the heat and are using it to heat their homes?

  87. Looking at the first few years of Antarctic ice, I am guessing that Hansen was having severe panic attacks fearing the immediate loss of winter ice and catastrophic global flooding. He probably needed Valium at night just to sleep, poor fella.

  88. @davidmhoffer

    >>“heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before.

    >We should note that Oppenheimer fails to provide an explanation of the physical processes by which this could occur. To my knowledge, neither he, nor anyone else in the alarmascience community has done so, despite the frequency with which they claim that this is a possibility.

    >No such mechanism exists. For “heat” to “come out of” the oceans and into the atmosphere requires that the oceans be warmer than the atmosphere. Since the heat capacity of the oceans is about 1200 times that of the atmosphere, doing so would require 1200 times as much energy to raise ocean temps as would be required to raise atmospheric temps by the same amount.

    ++++++

    I am dying to see how a 4.001 degree ocean is going to warm the atmosphere a lot more than a 4.000 degree ocean. The concept is anti-physical. There is always a coterie of alarmists making unphysical predictions of calamity. While this is nothing new, it is such a starkly impossible prophecy it is a surprise to me that it gets any traction, even among the die-hards. Who would want to be associated with such nonsense?

    Oh yeah, right. Forgot about ‘the message’ for a moment.

  89. @ Mark B and davidmhoffer

    If the ‘warmer’ Arctic seas are indeed the point where the deep ocean heat is manifested at the surface, it will melt the Arctic ice earlier and remain open later, radiating vast additional amounts of energy into space during the summer months. Once cooled, it will close over the insulating cap of ice and go back to homeostasis, or thereabouts.

    That plus Willis’ thunderstorm control mechanism is is probably the best part of global thermoregulation, would that people could perceive it. They both support the idea that there is no such thing as any positive feedback which could send surface temperatures into overdrive.

  90. I am a AGW skeptic, but have heard of a AGW claim that the Antarctic ice increase is caused by unusual winds pushing cold air off the Antarctic continent. Sounds logical on its face. Any rebuttal?

  91. J. Philip Peterson says:
    October 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm
    “Antarctic ice extent was flat-topped,…”
    I had posted before as to why the antarctic sea ice data stopped in Sept until Oct 19th. This could be the reason. Maybe the NSIDC did get a secret memo from the powers that be…

    Pretty sure it had to do with the federal government shutdown as updates from NSIDC for Arctic ice were also suspended during this period. Odd though, I could have sworn that second peak wasn’t there earlier.

  92. Bill Illis says:
    October 20, 2013 at 12:01 pm
    I’ve decide to sell “Global Warming Insurance”.

    Sounds silly, but maybe it’s not such a bad idea. Think about it. The mainstream press has colluded with the alarmists to convince the typical “low-information voter” that global warming is a certainty and that havoc will eventually ensue as a direct result of it.

    How many suckers have they created? Suckers who would buy a reasonably-pitched policy “just to be sure”?

    Could be a possible business opportunity. And implementing it would have the additional advantage of getting to watch the regulators try to shut it down by claiming….what?…that it’s all a hoax? I say go for it.

  93. The heat returns to terrorize the Earth! My favorite B movie scream? The Blob! First they try to electrocute the thing but it turns out it only dies when frozen. That movie parallels the current mass hysteria over the heat accumulating somewhere into a giant blob waiting to return to Earth to kill us all. It appears that Mother Nature has taken up the task of freezing it to death.

  94. Do you remember the warmist hype concerning the recent warming of Antarctic Peninsula? How many times have the warmists stated that the recent warming of Antarctic Peninsula, of the Arctic, and of the Greenland ice sheet is is unprecedented? How many times has the media and warmist scientists stated that the recent warming is the highest in ‘recorded’ history where ‘recorded’ is limited to direct measurement of temperature rather than the proxy record.
    The proxy record (of the Antarctic Pensinsula and the proxy record on the Greenland Ice Sheet) shows that there are cycles of warming and cooling of the Antarctic Pensinsula and of the Greenland Ice Sheet with a periodicity of 1500 years and 400 years. The proxy record shows the past rate of warming and the magnitude of the past cyclic warming events was the same or greater than the warming that has just been observed. This is important finding as it shows there is cyclic warming and cooling of both hemispheres. The logical issue is that the mechanism that is causing past cyclic warming and cooling must be able to affect both hemispheres.
    The past cycles of warming were not caused by AGW. The past cycles of warming were all followed by cooling cycles. It should be noted that there is cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate with the warming and with cooling cycles which indicates that solar magnetic cycle changes cause the warming and cooling. There has been a sudden slow down in the solar magnetic cycle. Based on what has again and again, the same regions that warmed will cool.

    Davis, W.J. and P. Taylor Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle?
    We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled “Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history” and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope
    (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica.

    A couple of years ago we performed a similar but more extensive analysis of the historical temperature record from the ice core data obtained from the Vostok site in the Antarctic, not far from the ice core evaluated in the recent Mulvaney et al. Nature paper. We defined a NWE as a monotonic increase in temperature encompassing at least three consecutive Vostok temperature data points and terminated by at least one temperature data point less than the peak reached during the NWE. We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years at apparently irregular intervals (though we have not analyzed for subtle regularities, which may exist). The 342 NWEs we identified by this method are reminiscent of the two more recent NWEs reported in the Mulvaney et al. paper.

    Comment:
    Davis and Taylor could not get their paper published; however, another author had a similar paper published in Nature. Connected with the Davis and Taylor’s attempt to get their paper published is another sad tale of an editor who showed interest in their paper suddenly resigning. See this thread for details.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

  95. SteveP

    “Perhaps the dolphins have stolen the heat and are using it to heat their homes?”

    —————————————————————————————————————

    Well I must say that’s not very eco-friendly of them is it?

    Of all sentient lifeforms they should know better.

  96. R Taylor “Amazing how sea ice is expanding around Antarctica, while Antarctica itself (according to Nature, etc., etc.) is warming. It must be harder to torture the satellite cameras into false confessions.”

    To be fair, if the air temperature rises from -20C to -19C, it shouldn’t matter a lot to the ice. Other effects, like snow accumulationand sea currents, might outweigh temperature changes until temperature exceeds 0C.

  97. Jones, “So long and thanks for all the fish” was the worst of the five volume trillogy. I think he put in the minimum effort required to get a check in the bank.

  98. “……We don’t know this for certain”

    They obviously do not “know” it at all. It’s entirely made up.

    But they’re hoping for the worst. :)

    There’s no longer anything polite that can be said to them
    It’s all come down to their deserving no more than a middle finger.

    Figuratively speaking of course.

  99. Seth says:
    October 20, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    Both the fact that sea ice is normal & that CACA advocates have warned for decades of dangerous warming are well supported. How could you have missed these facts?

    Sea ice normality is less destructive of your faith-based religion than is the fact of no increase in water vapor during the mild, normal warming trend of 1977-96 or since. As you may know, CACA depends completely upon assumed positive feedbacks from rising CO2 to support the scary first C for Catastrophic. A doubling of CO2 in the air on its own can’t produce dangerous warming, but only benefits to humanity. So CACA requires feedback effects which not only are not in evidence, but have been repeatedly shown false by actual science, based upon observations of reality.

    So it’s not a single point in the CACA case that has been shown false, but it’s essential hypothesis. To use your absurd creationist analogy, it’s as if biologists had discovered that natural selection doesn’t occur. The lack of positive feedback is as destructive to the CACA scam as that would be to evolutionary theory (although it’s obscene to compare phony CACA with the real science of evolution).

  100. William Astley says:
    October 21, 2013 at 9:14 am
    there are cycles of warming and cooling of the Antarctic Peninsula and of the Greenland Ice Sheet with a periodicity of 1500 years and 400 years.
    No, there are no such cycles.

    There has been a sudden slow down in the solar magnetic cycle.
    Not ‘sudden’. Gently over the past three cycles and no worse than a hundred years ago, and a hundred years before that.

  101. lsvalgaard says:
    October 21, 2013 at 11:44 am

    Three recent studies confirming Bond Cycles:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212000260

    Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology

    Volumes 321–322, 1 March 2012, Pages 16–23

    Climatic variations over the last 4000 cal yr BP in the western margin of the Tarim Basin, Xinjiang, reconstructed from pollen data

    Keliang Zhaoa, b,
    Xiaoqiang Lia, b, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,
    John Dodsonc,
    Pia Atahanc,
    Xinying Zhoua, b,
    Fiona Bertuchc

    a The Laboratory of Human Evolution, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China
    b State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi’an 710075, China
    c Institute for Environmental Research, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Kirrawee, NSW 2232, Australia

    Abstract

    The nature of Holocene climate patterns and mechanisms in central Asia are open areas of inquiry. In this study, regional vegetation and climate dynamics over the last ca. 4000 years are reconstructed using a high resolution pollen record from the Kashgar oasis, on the western margin of the Tarim Basin, central Asia. Ephedra, Chenopodiaceae and Cannabaceae dominate the pollen assemblages, and Chenopodiaceae/Ephedra ratios and percentages of long-distance transported pollen taxa are used to infer regional variations in moisture and vegetation density. Three periods of increased humidity are identified, from ca. 4000–2620 cal yr BP, ca. 1750–1260 cal yr BP and ca. 550–390 cal yr BP and these periods coincide with the respective Holocene Bond Events 2, 1 and 0, which are reported in the North Atlantic. Any increase in strength, or southward migration, of the mid-latitude westerlies would result in more precipitation and meltwater on mountains surrounding the study site. Warm and dry conditions are detected between ca.1260 and 840 cal yr BP (AD 690–1110), and cool and wet conditions are detected between ca. 840 and 680 cal yr BP (AD 1110–1270), during the Medieval Warm Period (ca. AD 800–1200). The climate variations in the Kashgar region over the last 4000 years appear to have been dominated by changes to the westerly circulation system and glacier dynamics on surrounding mountains. However, the question of whether the Asian monsoon delivers precipitation to the western Tarim Basin, a region that is influenced by several climate systems, is still open to debate.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589410000785

    Abstract

    The alluvial deposits near Gibala-Tell Tweini provide a unique record of environmental history and food availability estimates covering the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. The refined pollen-derived climatic proxy suggests that drier climatic conditions occurred in the Mediterranean belt of Syria from the late 13th/early 12th centuries BC to the 9th century BC. This period corresponds with the time frame of the Late Bronze Age collapse and the subsequent Dark Age. The abrupt climate change at the end of the Late Bronze Age caused region-wide crop failures, leading towards socio-economic crises and unsustainability, forcing regional habitat-tracking. Archaeological data show that the first conflagration of Gibala occurred simultaneously with the destruction of the capital city Ugarit currently dated between 1194 and 1175 BC. Gibala redeveloped shortly after this destruction, with large-scale urbanization visible in two main architectural phases during the Early Iron Age I. The later Iron Age I city was destroyed during a second conflagration, which is radiocarbon-dated at circa 2950 cal yr BP. The data from Gibala-Tell Tweini provide evidence in support of the drought hypothesis as a triggering factor behind the Late Bronze Age collapse in the Eastern Mediterranean.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/37/13941

    Abstract

    The Holocene vegetation history of the northern coastal Arabian Peninsula is of long-standing interest, as this Mediterranean/semiarid/arid region is known to be particularly sensitive to climatic changes. Detailed palynological data from an 800-cm alluvial sequence cored in the Jableh plain in northwest Syria have been used to reconstruct the vegetation dynamics in the coastal lowlands and the nearby Jabal an Nuşayriyah mountains for the period 2150 to 550 B.C. Corresponding with the 4.2 to 3.9 and 3.5 to 2.5 cal kyr BP abrupt climate changes (ACCs), two large-scale shifts to a more arid climate have been recorded. These two ACCs had different impacts on the vegetation assemblages in coastal Syria. The 3.5 to 2.5 cal kyr BP ACC is drier and lasted longer than the 4.2 to 3.9 cal kyr BP ACC, and is characterized by the development of a warm steppe pollen-derived biome (1100–800 B.C.) and a peak of hot desert pollen-derived biome at 900 B.C. The 4.2 to 3.9 cal kyr BP ACC is characterized by a xerophytic woods and shrubs pollen-derived biome ca. 2050 B.C. The impact of the 3.5 to 2.5 cal kyr BP ACC on human occupation and cultural development is important along the Syrian coast with the destruction of Ugarit and the collapse of the Ugarit kingdom at ca. 1190 to 1185 B.C.

  102. milodonharlani says:
    October 21, 2013 at 11:56 am
    Three recent studies confirming Bond Cycles
    The battle of the links. Everyone cherry picks what he likes the best. Here is my pick:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf

    “Ice-rafting evidence for a “1500-year cycle” sparked considerable debate on millennial-scale climate change and the role of solar variability. Here, we reinterpret the last 70,000 years of the subpolar North Atlantic record, focusing on classic DSDP Site 609, in the context of newly available raw data, the latest radiocarbon calibration (Marine09) and ice core chronology (GICC05), and a wider range of statistical methodologies. A w1500-year oscillation is primarily limited to the short glacial Stage 4, the age of which is derived solely from an ice flow model (ss09sea), subject to uncertainty, and offset most from the original chronology. Results from the most well-dated, younger interval suggest that the original 1500+/-500 year cycle may actually be an admixture of the ~1000 and ~2000 cycles that are observed within the Holocene at multiple locations. In Holocene sections these variations are coherent with 14C and 10Be estimates of solar variability. Our new results suggest that the “1500-year cycle” may be a transient phenomenon whose origin could be due, for example, to ice sheet boundary conditions for
    the interval in which it is observed. We therefore question whether it is necessary to invoke such exotic explanations as heterodyne frequencies or combination tones to explain a phenomenon of such fleeting occurrence that is potentially an artifact of arithmetic averaging.

    And this one:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/palo20005-D-O-Explanation.pdf

    “[1] We present a new hypothesis to explain the millennial-scale temperature variability
    recorded in ice cores known as Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) cycles. We propose that an ice
    shelf acted in concert with sea ice to set the slow and fast timescales of the DO cycle,
    respectively. The abrupt warming at the onset of a cycle is caused by the rapid retreat of sea
    ice after the collapse of an ice shelf. The gradual cooling during the subsequent interstadial
    phase is determined by the timescale of ice-shelf regrowth. Once the ice shelf reaches a
    critical size, sea ice expands, driving the climate rapidly back into stadial conditions. The
    stadial phase ends when warm subsurface waters penetrate beneath the ice shelf and cause
    it to collapse. This hypothesis explains the full shape of the DO cycle, the duration of the
    different phases, and the transitions between them and is supported by proxy records in the
    North Atlantic and Nordic Seas.”

  103. lsvalgaard says:
    October 21, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    IMO it’s unscientific to make categorical assertions, such as that Bond Cycles don’t exist, based upon cherry picked studies, when at least equally valid papers find strong support from sites around the world for the existence of the phenomena.

  104. As has been discussed here before, the first study is from a single site. The second study doesn’t show that Bond Cycles don’t exist, but explains ice shelf behavior based upon an oceanic oscillation which it leaves unexplained. That oscillation could well be driven by the same effects which produce Bond Cycles. Or not, but the paper does not support your contention that they don’t exist, only offers an explanation for ice shelf fluctuations that might or might not reflect Bond Cycles.

  105. milodonharlani says:
    October 21, 2013 at 12:47 pm
    IMO it’s unscientific to make categorical assertions, such as that Bond Cycles don’t exist, based upon cherry picked studies,
    And to make categorical assertions that they do exist:
    William Astley says:
    October 21, 2013 at 9:14 am
    “there are cycles of warming and cooling of the Antarctic Pensinsula and of the Greenland Ice Sheet with a periodicity of 1500 years and 400 years. ”

    My point is that there is a good natural explanation for the ‘cycles’. And they are not cycles at all, just episodes occurring every few thousand years. So CYCLEs don’t exist, just variations on a time scale of millennea.

  106. lsvalgaard says:
    October 21, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    Thanks for that clarification. To me however, it looks purely semantic, ie a distinction without a difference, unless you’re convinced that the repeating fluctuations are chaotic & random, not driven by any underlying quasi-periodic natural process.

  107. milodonharlani says:
    October 21, 2013 at 1:01 pm
    fluctuations are chaotic & random, not driven by any underlying quasi-periodic natural process.
    There is no evidence they are driven by an underlying true cycle, so the null-hypothesis must be that they are not. If the period was well-defined one might take that as evidence for a real cycle, but is not. Of course, there are people [Rahmsdorf, 2003] who claim the period is very sharply defined at precisely 1470 years, but paradoxically they also claim that that shows the effect is not the Sun, but something else ‘extra-terrestrial’ [without saying what that might be].

  108. lsvalgaard says:
    October 21, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    IMO the null hypothesis requirement is satisfied by the observable fact of quasi-periodical fluctuations, justifying research into what might cause them, if anything. That the period isn’t precisely defined doesn’t bother me much, since it could be & probably is the result of superimposed periods of differing lengths. It could also be that the period itself alters periodically over longer time frames. While this could be an artifact of finer resolution closer to the present, the cycles, or periods, if you will, appear to be shortening.

    Rahmstorf hypothesized about both solar & orbital forcings, & argued for only a two percent deviation from his period, while allowing that 20% was possible:

    http://pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_grl_2003.pdf

    While this mechanism explains how these events are
    triggered and how they evolve, it does not explain what the
    cause of the underlying cycle might be. There is some
    evidence that this cycle may also be present in the Holocene
    but does not trigger DO events then [Bond et al., 1997],
    possibly because the Atlantic ocean circulation is not close
    to a threshold in a warm climate [Ganopolski and Rahmstorf,
    2001]. The so-called ‘‘little ice age’’ of the 16th–18th
    century may be the most recent cold phase of this cycle. The
    origin of the ‘‘mystery 1,500 year cycle’’ is thus one of the
    key issues in climatology that needs to be explained.
    [5] Two types of explanations have been advanced: periodic
    external forcings (e.g., variations in the luminosity of the
    sun) or internal oscillations in the climate system (e.g. in the
    ocean circulation [Broecker et al., 1990]). A key to distinguish
    hypotheses is the regularity of the oscillation. For
    several reasons oscillation modes within the climate system
    (such as the Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic
    Oscillation) tend to be highly irregular. These reasons include
    the complexity of the climate system, its large number of
    degrees of freedom, and the unstable nature of the atmospheric
    circulation causing ubiquitous stochastic variability. If
    the 1,500-year cycle originated in the Earth system, we would
    also expect the period to change as the background climate
    moves between full glacial and interglacial conditions. In
    contrast, orbital cycles are highly regular…

    2. If the deviations are entirely caused by a random
    variation in the underlying regular cycle or ‘‘clock’’, then
    the best estimate for this ‘‘clock error’’ is less than 7% of the
    period (or 99 years). With 95% confidence we can say that
    the clock error is smaller than 12% of the period.
    [25] 3. The most accurate of the various dating methods
    applied to Greenland ice cores, at least in terms of random
    errors, is layer-counting. Only layer-counted portions of the
    ice cores show the regularity analysed here.
    [26] Conclusion (2) is the most remarkable and far-reaching
    one. It is rare that such a stringent quantitative measure
    can be determined at such a high confidence level in
    paleoclimatic data. Given the pessimistic assumptions that
    were made to derive an upper limit estimate of the clock
    error (in reality, both the core dating error and the triggering
    error can be expected to significantly contribute to the total
    deviations), it is likely that the clock error is in fact much
    smaller still than the estimates given above. The five most
    recent events, arguably the best-dated ones, have a standard
    deviation of only 32 years (2%). While the earlier estimate
    of ±20% [Schulz, 2002] is consistent with a solar cycle (the
    11-year sunspot cycle varies in period by ±14%), a much
    higher precision would point more to an orbital cycle. The
    closest cycle known so far is a lunar cycle of 1,800 years
    [De Rop, 1971], which cannot be reconciled with the 1,470-
    year pacing found in the Greenland data. The origin of this
    regular pacing thus remains a mystery.

  109. milodonharlani says:
    October 21, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    justifying research into what might cause them, if anything.
    sure, that is always a worthy thing to do, and people are doing it. But that is a far cry from postulating that the cycles are established knowledge as is often done in pseudo-explanations of climate variation. So, let me state again how I see it: there are climate variations on millennial time scales. They are not cyclic, and they are not understood, but could well be just chaotic, random fluctuations which as such doesn’t require further explanation.

  110. lsvalgaard says:
    October 21, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    You’re right that “cycles” might imply more than is warranted by the evidence at this point. I’ll start using “events” for both D/O & Bond fluctuations, as I do for Heinrich Events.

  111. milodonharlani says:
    October 21, 2013 at 1:59 pm
    You’re right that “cycles” might imply more than is warranted by the evidence at this point.
    Meanwhile Rahmsdorf has come up with a new interpretation of ‘his’ 147–yr cycle:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16281042

    “Many paleoclimate records from the North Atlantic region show a pattern of rapid climate oscillations, the so-called Dansgaard-Oeschger events, with a quasi-periodicity of approximately 1,470 years for the late glacial period. Various hypotheses have been suggested to explain these rapid temperature shifts, including internal oscillations in the climate system and external forcing, possibly from the Sun. But whereas pronounced solar cycles of approximately 87 and approximately 210 years are well known, a approximately 1,470-year solar cycle has not been detected. Here we show that an intermediate-complexity climate model with glacial climate conditions simulates rapid climate shifts similar to the Dansgaard-Oeschger events with a spacing of 1,470 years when forced by periodic freshwater input into the North Atlantic Ocean in cycles of approximately 87 and approximately 210 years. We attribute the robust 1,470-year response time to the superposition of the two shorter cycles, together with strongly nonlinear dynamics and the long characteristic timescale of the thermohaline circulation. For Holocene conditions, similar events do not occur. We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle.”

    So a result of the 87- and 210-yr cycles. Cyclomania dies hard.

  112. lsvalgaard says:
    October 21, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    “Cyclomania” is just the scientific method in action, seeking explanations for observed phenomena, making hypotheses & testing them. Since the quasi-periodic Pleistocene-Holocene glacial-interglacial cycle indubitably exists & is well explained by orbital mechanics, at least in large part, then why not posit, try to discover & explain the existence of shorter & longer-term cycles?

  113. lsvalgaard says:
    October 21, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    I like it. Thanks.

    Maybe a 1500 +/- 300 year cycle didn’t exist in the Miocene, or at least not detectably. Oceanic circulation, continental arrangements & NH ice, among other possibly relevant parameters, were different then.

  114. milodonharlani says:
    October 21, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    “Cyclomania” is just the scientific method in action, seeking explanations for observed phenomena, making hypotheses & testing them.
    It is more than that. It is hanging on to cycles even when they are past their ‘sell-by date’ or seeing cycles where there are none, or explaining cycles that are there by combination of other cycles [that may be there], etc. It is like pornography: hard to define, but you know it when you see it. Of course, some people have a really low bar [for either] and are suitably enticed and addicted.

  115. milodonharlani says:
    October 21, 2013 at 2:30 pm
    Maybe a 1500 +/- 300 year cycle didn’t exist in the Miocene, or at least not detectably.
    Yeah, cycles exist except when they don’t.

  116. lsvalgaard says:
    October 21, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    True, cycles do sometimes exist, as with Milankovitch, whose hypothesis took decades to be accepted as valid. Other proposed cycles may or may not exist. Time & the scientific method will tell.

  117. “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before. We don’t know this for certain, we’ll find out over the next few years, but it is wrong to say that the IPCC didn’t look at it carefully, it certainly did.”

    =======================================================================
    Did he really just say that the IPCC looked at the heat that nobody can find and so we know it must be there?
    We need to wait a few years to find the heat that the IPCC already found?
    Why can’t they just admit that they can’t account for the expected heat because their premise was fatally flawed?

  118. milodonharlani says:
    October 21, 2013 at 2:42 pm
    Time & the scientific method will tell.
    Many people already assume the science is settled on that…seeing cycles where are are none.

  119. Its next year’s Arctic minimum that will be really interesting. 2013 only could just be a fluctuation, but if 2014 is high too that would start to look like recovery.

  120. Bill Illis

    Whoa! It looks like the anomalously warm NH is coming off the boil also – some new cold patches. My guess is for a big La Nina drop early 2014.

  121. Intelligent Heat (IH)

    with apologies to anyone who thinks there might be additional processes involved in evolution.

  122. Anthony Watts says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/20/antarctic-sea-ice-didnt-get-the-memo-that-it-was-supposed-to-melt/#comment-1454642

    Henry@Anthony
    Hi Anthony, I know this is not my business, but that was a stupid remark. Not least because it might chase commenters away (by looking at their watches to see what time it is)
    I always thought that WUWT is a table (like at a meeting in business) where everybody is allowed to state their opinion based on their own observations and/or those observations of the people/scientists that they believe in. Don’t get me wrong. I do not agree with anything Seth said.
    But then it got me to thinking. Let us face it: you chased him away. Most likely he will never ever come back. (I did not see any more comments from him here)
    What you did is: you returned his ad hominem attcak on justthefactswuwt with an ad hominem attack on him, his person. Essentially, your “justice” was: “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. This is why the Jews and the Arabs cannot make peace with one another. Their specific religions have this point of view (that you also seem to exercise) as their core value. They will always find something to hit back at each other.
    This is why Jesus teaches: If someone slaps you on your face, show him you other cheek.
    You could have just opened some more of your files and show him where he was wrong?
    JMO

  123. Henry,

    I agree with Anthony. I resent it when someone uses the ‘Creationist’ label. That is as objectionable as labeling someone a denialist. It is an emotional, personal attack, and it is used because the mud slinger does not have better arguments.

    If someone slaps me like that, I am not one to turn the other cheek. If he never comes back it would not concern me.

  124. @dbstealey

    You are simply not “getting” what I am saying. By reacting the same way as Seth did, essentially you are descending to the same (“criminal”) behavior.
    You say: if he never comes back it would not concern me.
    You mean: he can go to hell
    Now I will ask you: Are you sure you are going to heaven?

  125. Leif Svalgaard

    Rahmsdorf is not original in proposing the 1470 yr cycle to be emergent from the 87 and 210 yr cycles. I’read this before but I don’t have easy access to google just now.

    You logic seems odd. You say the 1470 periodicity is not a solar cycle. But also quote Rahmsdorf as saying it results from nonlinear forcing from solar cycles of 87 and 210 years. Doesn’t that make it a solar (driven) cycle?

    I’ve been “periodically forcing” this blog with repeated suggestions that climate oscillations could represent nonlinear oscillator(s) weakly forced by solar cycles, good to see some traction finally.

  126. dbstealey says:
    October 22, 2013 at 10:36 am

    Henry,

    I agree with Anthony. I resent it when someone uses the ‘Creationist’ label. That is as objectionable as labeling someone a denialist. It is an emotional, personal attack, and it is used because the mud slinger does not have better arguments.

    If someone slaps me like that, I am not one to turn the other cheek. If he never comes back it would not concern me.

    ======================================================================
    Neither “Creation” nor the “Molecules to Man” theory of Evolution can be scientifically proven. (I doubt there would be much disagreement over what would fit under “seed after its kind”.) Observable facts can be and have been hung on both “Christmas trees”.
    (But perhaps if Seth would submit himself to examination the missing link between apes and men might finally be found?)

  127. Gunga Din says:
    October 22, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    Science isn’t about “proof”. It’s about showing false predictions based upon hypotheses.

    Every single prediction ever made based upon the “hypothesis” of young earth creationism has been shown ludicrously false. Predictions made based upon the hypothesis of evolution have not been falsified. Evolution wins. Creationism loses. (Jury is still out on old universe creationism, but not looking good at the moment.)

    “Molecules to man” isn’t about evolution, BTW. That’s abiogenesis, which finds more support every year. Evolution is about how organisms change over time, or stay the same if the environment doesn’t change. Natural selection is one such mechanism. “Stochastic processes” is another. They have been directly observed in nature, so are as well supported as the hypothesis that the earth goes around the sun, which of course in the Bible, it doesn’t.

  128. I think Lief knows more about the Sun than either one of us. I bet even he would say he has seen a sunset.
    I don’t know who’s on your “jury” or what makes the selections if a consideration of “proof” is excluded. Certainly not “science” since that would result in a hung jury.
    As I said, “(I doubt there would be much disagreement over what would fit under “seed after its kind”.) Observable facts can be and have been hung on both “Christmas trees”.”
    You have objected before to any implication that anything in the Bible is not nonsense.
    (It says some will.)
    But from other comments you’ve made I think you’d agree that, in the US at least, you should be free to tell me that you believe that Jesus was just a nice Jewish boy that went into his Father’s business and I should be free to tell you that God raised him from the dead and neither of us should be able to call upon Government to silence or otherwise punish the other. Agreed?
    (Of course, this is Anthony’s “living room”. He calls the shots here. If this comment is deleted so as to prevent a “derail” or for reasons of his own, no problem on my end.)

  129. HenryP says:

    “You mean: he can go to hell”

    Not really, Henry. I meant exactly what I wrote, no more and no less.

    You ask:

    “Are you sure you are going to heaven?”

    Henry, are you sure there is a heaven? Really? Because I’m not sure.

    Maybe heaven or hell are here on earth, and what we make of it.

  130. Gunga Din says:
    October 21, 2013 at 2:49 pm
    “heat tends to hide in the oceans sometimes, but when heat hides in the ocean it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere and then the warming resumes faster than before. We don’t know this for certain, we’ll find out over the next few years, but it is wrong to say that the IPCC didn’t look at it carefully, it certainly did.”

    =====================================================================
    Did he really just say that the IPCC looked at the heat that nobody can find and so we know it must be there?
    We need to wait a few years to find the heat that the IPCC already found?
    Why can’t they just admit that they can’t account for the expected heat because their premise was fatally flawed?
    ++++++++++++
    Perfectly written Gunga Din!
    Thank you for clarifying the IPCC drivel. It’s amazing the amount of gobbledigook there is. You have done well to translate it into common language for all to see.

    Maybe WUWT could one up Google Translator — and come up with an IPCC and Mannian translator to clarify quotes into plain cogent English. Google Translator could then be used to translate it from there for all other languages.

  131. phlogiston says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/20/antarctic-sea-ice-didnt-get-the-memo-that-it-was-supposed-to-melt/#comment-1455655

    henry says
    interesting.
    To quote from the article you linked there:
    “The De Vries/Suess and Gleissberg cycles with periods close to 1470/7 (~210) and 1470/17 (~86.5) years have been proposed to explain these observations..”

    Now where did I hear about this?

    Oh yes, I figured the Gleissberg out from my own data of 47 weather stations on maximum temperatures….

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    I can try to change the wave length to 86.5 instead of 88 and see how that affects my curve.

Comments are closed.