Remarkable correlation of Arctic sea ice to solar cycle length

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

On the Stephen Wilde/ David Hoffer debate:
Hoffer points out the anti-correlation or bi-polar seesaw.
The major difference I see between the Arctic and Antarctic is the Arctic is a sea surrounded by land with narrow straits allowing warm water access from the North Atlantic Current (See: Vukcevic’s map)
The Antarctic on the other hand is land surrounded by an open sea except for Drake’s Passage

Related to this difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice, and the differences between how difference influences may affect that difference!, is their location.
At sea ice minimum extents in today’s climate (1970-2013) ALL of the remaining Arctic sea ice at minimum extent in mid-September is concentrated in a tiny “beanie” between latitude 80 north and the pole. The edge of a 4.0 Mkm2 (million km squared) sea ice cap is at 79.8 latitude, of a 3.0 Mkm2 is at 81.2 latitude, 2 Mkm2 is at 82.8 lat, and 1.0 Mkm2 is up at 85 north. At these latitudes, there is only 25 to 75 watts of solar energy available – regardless of whether it is being reflected by sea ice or absorbed by open ocean water.
Thus, the loss (or gain) of Arctic sea ice at today’s sea ice minimum’s date does NOT heat the earth, and does NOT appear to be related to global atmospheric temperatures, since the loss of Arctic sea ice continues at the same rate while the earth’s temperature remains higher than 1970-1990 normal, but is NOT increasing, while CO2 continually increases. None of these factors limits or excludes some other factor affect Arctic sea ice extents that may be itself related to the length of successive solar cycles at the same time. 8<)
On the other hand, the edge of the Antarctic sea ice at today's world's sea ice maximum is at 61 south latitude. (On Jim Hansen's CAGW-flavored (favored ?) Mercator global projection, the edge of the Antarctic sea ice extents at maximum is a band stretching around the globe from the southern tip of Greenland across Canada, Alaska, the north Pacific, Siberia, Europe, and the Atlantic all the way up to the north pole. On his projection, on the other hand, today's Antarctic sea ice extents isn't even visible! But Greenland seems bigger than Australia, Brazil, and South Africa combined. No wonder he is so deathly frightened of the loss of Arctic ice.)
Anyway, at 61 south latitude, the edge of Antarctic sea ice IS far enough away from the pole that ITS reflection (albedo changes) on the earth's radiation balance IS important. The sun is not 2-8 degrees above the horizon, but 28 to 30 degrees above the horizon. The available solar energy (to be reflected or absorbed by the ocean or the sea ice) is not 25-50 watts/meter square but 250 to 450 watts/meter square. (The change depends on time-of-day.). Expressed differently, one square meter of Antarctic sea ice is – in today's world – ten times more important than 1 square meter of Arctic sea in calculating the earth's energy balance.
Worse, there is effectively no limit on how much larger Antarctic Sea maximums may grow: last year was 1 Mkm2 above previous records, but this year could be another 1 Mkkm2 above that, (or 2 or 2.5 above that), and 2015 may be another 2.0 Mkm2 above that, etc.
But in 2012, only 3.5 Mkm2 of Arctic sea was left. If we lose 1.0 Mkm2 of that in some future year, there will only be 2.5 Mkm2 left. If some alien from New York or Washington DC took all of the Arctic Sea ice away on September 15 of some year and moved it to Mars, there could never be a sea ice minimum smaller than 0.0 square meters. And, since a few more calculations show that open Arctic ocean water at these latitudes actually cool the ocean's surface rather than heat it, the continued loss of Arctic sea ice is actually a cooling effect on the earth's climate.
So, the gain of Antarctic sea ice cools the planet. The loss of Arctic sea ice (from today's minimum sea ice extents) cools the planet. The change in the average solar cycle length might influence some factor that might change either sea ice minimum or maximum extent – and might each end of the planet either way. We don't know enough to tell. Yet.
An analogy:
If you are measuring the height of the Mississippi river water near New Orleans each hour of each day of each year over a century, could you correct for the change in elevation of the soil as people pumped water and oil out from underneath the delta – if you didn't know when they were pumping water in and out of the ground? If you didn't know about the increased (or decreased) snow fall in the previous winter in Southern Canada and Montana and North Dakota and Kansas and Ohio and West Virginia , could you account for changes in elevation of the water during the spring floods over different years? If you didn't know about hurricanes in the Gulf Coast passing east, west, or directly over New Orleans, could you account for strange 2 day and 3 week long irregular high and low water levels in September, October, and August in different years? If you didn't know about the solar tide influence in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi River delta, but tried to use a Nova Scotia tide table measured at the Gulf of Fundy, would you be more (or less!) accurate by trying to correct for high tide and low tide?
The theory (of a solar cycle length influencing Terran sea ice extents) might be completely correct (or completely missing!) or completely ignorant of some affect, and some resulting effect, that we know about in theory, but are applying improperly in practice at the wrong location at the right time. Or are applying at the right time but at the wrong location. Or don't know about at all yet.