Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University
Global warming theory predicts that rising levels of CO2 will gradually warm the air and cause an increasing loss of sea ice. As temperatures rise, ice nearer the equator was predicted to be the first to disappear and over the coming decades ice closer to the poles would be the last to melt. However that is not the reality we are now observing. Antarctic sea ice is mostly located outside the Antarctic Circle (Figure 1) and should be the first to melt due to global warming theory. Yet Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and expanding towards the equator contradicting all the models. As Dr. Laura Landrum from the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote, “Antarctic sea ice area exhibits significant decreasing annual trends in all six [model] ensemble members from 1950 to 2005, in apparent contrast to observations that suggest a modest ice area increase since 1979.”10 (see Figure 2)
In contrast, most of the Arctic sea ice exists inside the Arctic Circle and should be last to melt. However during the Arctic’s coldest winters, Barents Sea ice still melts deep inside the Arctic circle. While cold March air temperatures maintained maximum ice further south in the Hudson Bay and Bering Sea, much of the Barents Sea has been ice-free. In 2012 the more southerly Bering Sea ice set records for maximum extent, similar to the maximum sea ice currently observed in the Antarctic. Clearly global greenhouse gases cannot be the cause of melting inside the Arctic, while simultaneously sea ice is expanding in the Bering Sea and the southern hemisphere. However ocean currents and natural ocean oscillations readily explain such behavior. Counter to the media hype, it is Antarctic sea ice that should be the most sensitive indicator of climate change caused by greenhouse gases because the Arctic sea ice is affected by too many other confounding factors.
Arctic vs Antarctic sea ice
1) Sea ice melts deep inside the Arctic Circle during the coldest of winters because warm water from the Atlantic and the Pacific intrude and melt the ice from below. During the past two decades scientists have observed an increase in the volume of warm water penetrating deep inside the Arctic Circle, which then preconditioned the polar ice cap for a greater loss of summer ice.3,8 Changes in the North Atlantic/Arctic Oscillation affect how much heated water is driven into the Arctic, which then causes the widespread melt seen in the Barents Sea and adjoining Kara Sea. Similarly the warm phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation drives more warm water through the Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea.2,5,8
In contrast for millions of years the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) has created a formidable barrier that prevents any similar warm water intrusions. (The ACC is discussed further at the end of this essay). Therefore changes in Antarctic sea ice are not confounded by warm water intrusions, making Antarctic sea ice a better indicator of the effects of rising CO2 concentrations.
2) Any trend in the degree of summer melt in the Arctic is further confounded by the fluctuating concentrations of thin first year ice. Because continents surround the Arctic Ocean, Arctic Sea ice undergoes cycles of accumulating or reducing the amount of thick, multi-year sea ice that resists melting.2 When the winds pile sea ice against the Arctic shoreline, thicker multi-year ice accumulates. When the winds shift, that thicker ice is blown out past Svalbard into the north Atlantic, and is replaced by thinner, first-year ice that more readily melts each summer. The amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic is controlled by the direction of the winds and the Arctic oscillation.2 It was not warmer temperatures that removed the thickest Arctic Ice, but sub-freezing winds blowing from the coldest regions in the northern hemisphere.4,5
Due to the constraints of the continents, the maximum extent of Arctic sea ice in 1979 covered about 15 million square kilometers. In contrast, Antarctic sea ice is unconstrained by continental boundaries and each winter winds blowing from the cold Antarctic interior push the sea ice much further towards the equator. By September the sea ice covers 16 to 17 million square kilometers of the Antarctic Ocean, nearly 40% of the southern hemisphere’s ocean surface. Because sea ice is less likely to be piled against a shoreline to form thicker multi‑year ice, most of the Antarctic sea ice is relatively thin, first‑year ice.
(Measurements of sea ice extent differ depending on what concentration of ice cover is used as the threshold between ice and “no ice”. For example, by using a lower concentration, some authors report that Antarctica’s maximum coverage reaches 20 million km2. Here we use statistics supplied by the University of Illinois’ website The Cryosphere Today to allow an accessible comparison of the Arctic and Antarctic)
Despite more extensive winter ice, each summerAntarctic sea ice retreats much more rapidly than Arctic sea ice. Antarctica’s first-year ice can quickly shrink to a less than two million square kilometers. Even during the Arctic’s “historic” summer lows of 2007 and 2012, the Arctic still retained more sea ice than the Antarctic.
When the Arctic Oscillation shifts and blows thick multi-year ice out into the northern Atlantic, the Arctic is dominated by first year ice that behaves just like the rapidly melting Antarctic sea ice. A season of rapid summer melt is normal wherever first‑year ice predominates, whether it occurs in the Arctic or Antarctic, and is not an indicator of rising air temperatures. For example off the coast of Alaska, climate scientists reported a more rapid summer melt even though air temperatures were colder than average, simply because the winds had removed the thicker multi-year ice which was replaced with more rapidly melting first year ice.
Climate scientists acknowledge that due to Arctic Oscillation’s natural variability, “detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming [is] most difficult.”3 Therefore because the confounding percentages of trapped multi-year ice fluctuates greatly in the Arctic, trends in Antarctica’s sea ice are again a much cleaner indicator of global climate change.
3) There is so much warm, salty Atlantic and Pacific water lurking just 100 meters below Arctic Ocean’s surface, that it could melt the winter ice completely several times over. As climate scientists noted, ““There are arguments in support of an important role for oceanic heat in shaping the Arctic pack ice. They are often keyed to the presence of warm intermediate-depth (150–900 m) water of Atlantic origin” 3 Sea ice insulates the ocean surface from the stirring effects of the wind that will raise those warmer waters from intermediate depths. However once the insulating layer of ice is removed, the formation of thicker ice is delayed because the winds will now stir and raise warm subsurface waters. For example even when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifted to its cool phase and the volume of intruding Pacific water was reduced, the stirring effect of the winds still caused greater summer melt.6
4) When the effects of ventilating heat are removed, air temperatures show little warming. Most of the warming in the Arctic has not been caused by CO2‑warmed air from above, but from the ventilated warmth from Atlantic and Pacific waters. In addition to raising warmer water from below, thinner ice also allows more heat to ventilate than thicker ice. In fact before the insulating ice cover was blown out of the Arctic, climate scientists in the 1980s and 90s had measured a cooling trend writing, “In particular, we do not observe the large surface warming trends predicted by models; indeed, we detect significant surface cooling trends over the western Arctic Ocean during winter and autumn. This discrepancy suggests that present climate models do not adequately incorporate the physical processes that affect the polar regions.”1
Similarly if we examine winter air temperatures over the South Pole where heat from the ocean is not a factor, again there is no warming trend (Figure 4). In fact there is a slight cooling during the months of April May and June, which is consistent with the increasing Antarctic sea ice.
A Natural Experiment Has Begun
In 2010 Michael Mann and 8 other climate scientists wrote to Secretary Ken Salazar suggesting climate change had imperiled the polar bears stating, “Scientific studies and observations indicate that climate change is more rapid and pronounced in the Arctic than in other areas of the world. Data and modeling studies repeatedly document that the geography, ice albedo feedback and cloud feedbacks make this region extremely sensitive to climate forcings. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) found that the Arctic has warmed at twice the rate of the rest of the globe on average, and some areas have warmed even faster. Mean annual temperatures in Alaska have increased by 1.9 degrees Celsius in the past 50 years, almost three times the global average over the same time period, and by 3.5 degrees Celsius in winter, as reported by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.” They predicted, “Under current greenhouse gas emissions trends, Arctic summer sea ice has been projected to disappear in the 2030s or before, as reported by several recent studies.”
Oddly, Mann did not address the changes in intruding warm water or the Arctic Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). It was the greater volume of warm water that had passed through the Bering Strait that had caused the extensive loss of sea ice in the Chukchi Sea in 2007 resulting in the historic summer low. But all that is now changing. Mann’ alarming trend of rising Alaskan temperatures has already reversed with the shifting to the PDO cool phase and Alaska is becoming the most rapidly cooling region on the globe, cooling by 1.3°C for just the recent decade.9 As the PDO trends to its cool phase and less Pacific water enters the Chukchi Sea, its sea ice is also recovering.
Likewise the Barents and neighboring Kara Sea are most affected by warm intruding Atlantic water, but as the Arctic Oscillation trends negative, less Atlantic water is pumped towards the poles. The 2013 increase of Kara Sea ice is likely a result. Unlike the Arctic, Antarctic waters are not so affected by cycles of intruding warm water, and its growing sea ice suggests that rising greenhouse gases exert a very trivial effect.
As the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation shift to their cool phases and solar activity wanes, natural climate cycles predict that Arctic sea ice should recover within the next 5 to 15 years. Climate models have demonstrated that Arctic sea ice can recover in just a few years after the winds change.7 Allowing for a lag effect as subsurface heat ventilates and thicker multiyear ice begins to accumulate, recovery could be swift. If so, CO2 advocates like Mann and his allies who have based their political and scientific authority on predictions that Arctic Sea Ice will disappear by 2030 will likely suffer embarrassing unprecedented scientific and political repercussions.
Antarctic Circumpolar Current
Antarctic Circumpolar Current’s (ACC) oceanic barrier was first established when continental drift separated Antarctica from the other continents several million years ago. This allowed an unimpeded flow and the ACC became the world’s greatest and most powerful current, moving a hundred times more water than the all the earth’s rivers combined. As it strengthened and isolated the seas inside the ACC, Antarctic waters cooled dramatically. Inside the ACC species requiring warmer water soon became extinct, and the ACC still maintains a formidable thermal barrier that has thwarted invasions by cold-blooded marine species. Since its establishment, true sharks, true crabs, and some families of barnacles are uniquely absent inside the ACC, and many of Antarctica’s remaining cold-blooded species are found nowhere else. In contrast, the Arctic Ocean has been invaded by many North Atlantic and Pacific species that can persist at lower depths in warmer subsurface waters that circulate throughout the entire Arctic. The ACC’s thermal barrier is also why the Antarctic pack ice symmetrically extends far beyond the Antarctic Circle (Figure 1).
Literature Cited
- Kahl, J., et al., (1993) Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years. Nature 361, 335 – 337.
- Venegas, S. A., and L. A. Mysak, 2000: Is there a dominant timescale of natural climate variability in the Arctic? J. Climate, 13, 3412–3434.
- Polyakov, I., et al., (2010) Arctic Ocean warming contributes to reduced polar ice cap. Journal of Physical. Oceanography, vol. 40, p. 2743–2756. doi: 10.1175/2010JPO4339.1.
- Rigor, I.G. and J.M. Wallace (2004), Variations in the Age of Sea Ice and Summer Sea Ice Extent, Geophys. Res. Lett., v. 31, doi:10.1029/2004GL019492.
- Rigor, I.G., J.M. Wallace, and R.L. Colony (2002), Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation, J. Climate, v. 15, no. 18, pp. 2648 – 2668.
- Shimada, K. et al. , (2006) Pacific Ocean inflow: Influence on catastrophic reduction of sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L08605, doi:10.1029/2005GL025624.
- Tietsche, S.,et al. (2011) Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 38, L02707, doi:10.1029/2010GL045698.
- Woodgate, R., et al. (2006) Interannual changes in the Bering Strait fluxes of volume, heat and freshwater between 1991 and 2004. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L15609, doi:10.1029/2006GL026931
- Wendler,G., et al. (2012) The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2012, 6, 111-116
- Landrum, L., et al. (2012) Antarctic Sea Ice Climatology, Variability, and Late Twentieth-Century Change in CCSM4. Journal of Climate, vol. 25, p. 4817‑4838.
Adapted from Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nice read,, thankyou
Now a question related to sea ice.
The focus seems to always be on melting ice. I find very little information on ice creation and the massive brine injection into the deep water and the deep water currents they create on a global scale. I have read that virtually all of the water on this planet cycles through the antarctic over time.
My question is,,,,,, how can we study the ice without studying the massive release of brine from ice creation process, the brine currents at depth, and have a reasonable understanding of the overall cycle of sea ice and its impact on our climate?
To me, they go hand in hand.
Dr. Deanster says:
July 23, 2013 at 5:03 am
….. I don’t see any link between the increase melt in ice and CO2, but warmer oceans producted by decreased clouds as noted here:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/5/1721/2005/acp-5-1721-2005.html
… would be consistent with an increase in antarctic ice formation. Thoughts??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is a very interesting study. There has certainly been a shift in the jets from zonal to meridional circulation.
Also see” NASA: Solar Variability, Ozone, and Climate
Dr. Lurtz says:
July 23, 2013 at 6:41 am
As the Sun’s output is reduced, UV down to long term low levels [easily monitored by the Flux], the Trade Winds will decrease. This will cause the Oceans currents [forget that ridiculous salinity thing], to decrease. The PDO and AO will “go away” since they are driven by the currents. Both Arctic and Antarctic ice will “increase suddenly”, actually due to reduced deep warm currents and limited Summer melting.
As the Earth’s orbit [and Earth tilt] causes the apparent moving of the Sun to the Tropic of Capricorn, this year will be the essential end of Solar Cycle 24….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
I have a few nits to pick.
“[forget that ridiculous salinity thing]” Can’t do that because it has a lot to do with ocean circulation. That gets very interesting in regards to Drake’s Passage which restricts the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) and sends part of it up the coast of South America towards the equator. Think Bob Tisdale and ENSO.
“this year will be the essential end of Solar Cycle 24‘” Again, I doubt it. It may be the solar cycle maximum but if other weak sunspot cycles are anything to go by Solar Cycle 24 will drag on for more than the usual number of years before minimum and the start of cycle 25.
Excellent addition to the growing list of failed CACCA predictions. The model-forecast tropical tropospheric hot spot is still missing. The atmosphere is still warming less than the surface & later, contrary to the Mann-made GHG hypothesis, in which it should warm first & more. Now this puts the icing on the cake.
@Rob Ricket says: Clearly, other factors (besides very modest delta t’s) are influencing the Antarctic sea ice extent. Nonetheless, the current aggregate polar extent is running well above the 30 mean. IMHO, the Antarctic extent will smash previous records in September.
Rob I never intended to argue there were no other factors contributing to changes in Antarctic sea ice extent, but I was arguing the Arctic sea ice extent is confounded by 2 major factors that are not significant in the Antarctic. Antarctic sea ice is indeed very dynamic due to battling winds.
Much of the sea extent depends on the strength of the katabatic winds blowing from the interior. Those winds create the open water polynya (that the penguins depend on) and that open water is a major ice factory- new ice is continuously made and then swept equator-ward. Katabatic winds are as reliable as the trade winds and affected by the continental temperatures which have not risen. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Ninos, the Southern Annular Mode and blocking high pressure systems impact the strength, duration and direction of any winds that may oppose the ice-expanding nature of those katabatic winds. For example the Amundsen Low circulates in such a way that it can counteract the katabatic winds and drive sea ice towards the peninsula while simultaneously enhancing the katabatic winds and expanding sea ice over the Ross Sea. The Amundsen Low shifts from east to west depending on the seasons and the PDO and EL Nino.
CO2 advocates point to less sea ice along the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula as an omen of things to come. However that is the only region where there is less ice and it is not due to melting. The opposing direction of the winds near the peninsula will push the sea ice against the coast, causing sea ice there to expand less in the fall, and retreat more rapidly in the spring. Statistically that creates less sea ice extent in the Bellinghausen and Amundsen Seas, but the ice was simply compressed and concentrated along the coast. Counterintuitively more coastal ice caused one of the greatest breeding failures for Adelie Penguins. The loss of sea ice cover allows greater ventilation of heat which is why they observed a dramatic warming during the winter ice season along the western peninsula. During the summer when the ice has mostly melted, that dramatic trend disappears.
From Massom, R. (2006) Extreme Anomalous Atmospheric Circulation in the West Antarctic Peninsula Region in Austral Spring and Summer 2001/02, and Its Profound Impact on Sea Ice
and Biota. Journal of Climate, vol. 19.
“The net dynamic effect of the strong and persistent north-northwesterly winds was extreme compaction of ice into bays and against the western Antarctic Peninsula and adjacent islands.”
“Strong winds with a dominant northerly component created an unusually compact marginal ice zone and a major increase in ice thickness by deformation and over-rafting. This led to the atypical persistence of highly compact coastal ice through summer. Ecological effects were both positive and negative, the latter including an impact on the growth rate of larval Antarctic krill and the largest recorded between-season breeding population decrease and lowest reproductive success in a 30-yr Adélie penguin demographic time series.”
Grey Lensman says:
July 23, 2013 at 2:12 am
Re: Russian nuclear ice-breakers
Is this suggestion in response to Sven’s question about the ice around Novaya Zemlya, or in general for the whole European & Siberian Arctic Ocean coast?
Either way, it is IMO a good question.
Gail,
The salinity issue came about from the floating/mixing of fresh water with salt water. Where the Gulf Stream sinks, there is no fresh water, it is all salt water [between England and Iceland]. The Gulf Stream is a warm salt water current with the same approx. salinity as the rest of the ocean. This the confluence of warm salty ocean currents and cold dense salty Arctic waters.
http://www.planetextinction.com/planet_extinction_gulfstream.htm
The “essential” end of Solar Cycle 24 is my determination due to the low values of Flux; the area under the Flux curve as supplying the total energy warming the Earth. Cycle 24 will continue as measured by spots, but Flux values between 70-100 means that the heating is over!
In fact, increased Antarctic sea ice with moderately increased CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf,
page 795.
“milodonharlani says:
July 23, 2013 at 7:45 am
Grey Lensman says:
July 23, 2013 at 2:12 am
Re: Russian nuclear ice-breakers
Is this suggestion in response to Sven’s question about the ice around Novaya Zemlya, or in general for the whole European & Siberian Arctic Ocean coast?”
I don’t really think so, as they had these ice-breakers already in the sixties.
According to DMI is is the coldest melt season since their records began in 1958. You can check out their interactive dates. Just click a date and see the temperatures. NB the link is:
Just a thought, as I read through this, it occurs to me that length of day (LOD) has been considered as a governing factor in ice-ages. I do not have a reference handy, but I know it has been discussed in some papers.
I have spent considerable time thinking about forcings as ‘tipping points’, realizing that the ones mentioned in the popular press, such as the decline in arctic albedo causing increased warming and so forth are bogus and may actually serve an opposite effect. One forcing that serves as a ‘thermostat’ is, no doubt, the fact that water covered with ice gives up less heat to the atmosphere than water not covered with ice. Since the sun is going away from the north pole about the time the arctic ocean’s albedo is bottoming out, I don’t see that that is a positive feedback. The open water in the absence of sunlight may serve as a negative one though.
But here is one physical characteristic I had not previously considered; LOD combined with polar sea ice as a positive mechanism for cooling. Like a figure skater pulling in her arms to spin faster; take water away from the tropical oceans and deposit it at the poles in the form of ice and what happens? The arctic polar ice cap may not be nearly as effective in shortening LOD as the antarctic ice cap, but even so, the effect would be to speed up the Earth’s rotation.
We have experienced some truly massive earthquakes in the last 3 or 4 years. The 9+ earthquake that occurred in Chili reportedly shortened LOD by 7 milliseconds. Several others had an effect on LOD as well. I don’t know what effect that has on our climate, but, to the extent that it does, I believe increasing polar ice caps, especially in the antarctic, would have the same effect, based on the fact that mass is being transferred closer to the axis of the sphere.
Does anyone see a flaw in that? Does LOD govern global surface temps moreso than other factors? Could a shortened LOD drive increasing polar ice caps which drive LOD yet shorter? Could that be the beginning of the end of the current interglacial?
Just occurred to me as I read this article.
Oh no! The Antarctic sea-ice disappears every year! That must be why polar bears went extinct there. /sarc
Good post, Jim Steele.
Thanks for engaging Dr. Steel, the clarification is appreciated.
Gail … it is an intriguing study indeed. Particularly the observation by Satellite of a “decrease in OSW! As we all know, SW is visible light, and a decrease in OSW would be indicative of a decrease in albedo. GHGs play no role in SW radiation, only longer wave IR.
Couple that with the fact that SW penetrates the oceans, and you get an increased deposit of heat in the subsurface layers of the ocean .. which then can be carried away to other parts of the globe.
My problem with GCM’s is their insistency of holding the entire “input” side of the equation as a relative constant. For example, the NASA article you noted focused on the Stratosphere/Troposphere interaction, but says nothing about Clouds, which was the primary driving force of the decreased OSW in the study. Less OSW equals an increase in energy input into the system. Granted, they said it was accompanied by an increase in LW radiation to space thus maintaining equilibrium which again doesn’t quite jibe with the GHG theory, .. there should have been an imbalance and increase in temperature. … instead we have a balance with an increase in temperature, which, IMO, means we have some additional heat input from some other source, [maybe the stratosphere], or that stored heat was being released from the ocean, and it’s movement around in the system caused the increase in temps.
At any rate, Just trying to fit pieces together. Either way, I don’t necessarily see a role of CO2 in this picture … soot maybe, warmer ocean currents probably, but not CO2.
Is Michael Mann an honest broker? I only ask because in his bio page he lists among his
The northern north Atlantic Ocean once suffered from an invasion of cod. 🙂
Jim Steele,
you could also have added soot. As you point out there are so many factors, aside from co2 induced air temperature rise, that it’s very difficult to disentangle. Many Warmist climate scientists are fully aware of the factors but remain mostly silent and let the uninformed activists scream from the top of their lungs about a tropical Arctic. It’s really sad. When things do turn around they will push the ice-free forecasts forward. This is how they work.
In another “it’s just the weather and not the climate”.
It’s just not going according to plan. This is a sure sign of an impending ice age. 🙂
@Sedron L says: In fact, increased Antarctic sea ice with moderately increased CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991.
It wasn’t actually predicted, and in fact he suggested initial surprise. Manabe then suggested an increase in freshwater as the best explanation for his modeling results writing, ” It is surprising, however, that the sea-ice thickness in the G integration increases significantly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent despite the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is consistent with the slight reduction of sea surface temperature mentioned earlier (Fig. 10a). It will be shown in section 9a that, owing to the intensification of the near-surface halocline caused by the increased supply of water at the oceanic surface, the convective mixing of cold near-surface water with warmer, underlying water becomes less frequent, resulting in the increase of sea ice and slight reduction of sea surface temperature.”
If we look at real life observations, the freshwater “explanation” for growing Antarctic ice is not supported as we find the freshest water by far is in Arctic. Here’s a link to the global salinity from the NASA’s Aquarius project: http://www.earthtimes.org/newsimage/nasa-aquarius-satellite-maps-salinity-oceans_229.jpg
@Jimbo you could also have added soot. As you point out there are so many factors, aside from co2 induced air temperature rise, that it’s very difficult to disentangle.
Indeed we could add many other factors but it becomes overwhelming fro an essay and even a book. What is scientifically dishonest is the attempt to reduce the cause every weather event to single variable, CO2.
Dr. Richard Lindzen from Massachusetts Institute of Technology says, ““That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades.”
@Jimbo When things do turn around they will push the ice-free forecasts forward. This is how they work.
I think that is only true for the Michael Mann’s and Kevin Trenberth’s of climate science who have hitched their wagon of fame and fortune to catastrophic global warming and yelled the loudest. There are hundreds of climate scientists investigating the role of natural variations on recent trends. They typically conclude that they still can not separate natural causes from human. Without clear cut observations, they remain quiet because being branded a “denier” by Trenberth or Mann could ruin their careers and squelch any funding. Like Dan Shectman who just got the Nobel for quasi-crystals, he was labeled a quasi-scientist by Linus Pauling and thrown out of his research group for not recanting his observation of a quasi-crystal, and the science of crystals does not even approach the politicization of climate science. Scientists can be a self-promoiting and vengeful lot. However I believe, if and when things do turn around, we will see the floodgates open as those scientists sitting on the fence will then have defensible observations to support their skepticism, and fend off the speculation of bad models.
jim Steele says:
July 23, 2013 at 11:31 am
Hope you’re right.
Shechtman’s grueling experience is sadly common in the history of science. If citizens knew how common, they’d pay less heed to the false prophets of climate doom & their co-conspirators in the media & government.
Dr. Lurtz says:
July 23, 2013 at 6:41 am
“As the Earth’s orbit [and Earth tilt] causes the apparent moving of the Sun to the Tropic of Capricorn, this year will be the essential end of Solar Cycle 24. Between Cycle 24 and Cycle 25 [25 is projected to be less than 24], we will experience the “New Cold” due to non-existent Solar heating [simply a quiet Sun with virtually no Sunspots or Flux activity].”
Solar activity is expected to remain weak and much the same for the rest of this year and next year, then decline through 2015-2020, as a weaker solar cycle I’d expect there to be smaller sunspots and for the sun to be blank more often for the rest of this cycle but, having said that, the sun has a tendency to “sputter” towards solar minimum.
If I understand you correctly; you mean that by the end of this year, the heat reduction from the sun will become evident and more noticeable to us on earth as we experience the effects of the reduction in the suns output in comparison to recent solar cycles, which sounds plausible.
MattN says:
July 23, 2013 at 5:16 am
2012 set a new record high for ice extent around Antarctica, but Figure 2 does not reflect that. Why?
Because it’s anomaly data which doesn’t necessarily peak when the absolute maximum is reached.
Apart from that the CT data is area not extent.
My interest is in weather rather then climate, so l look at these things from the bottom up.
Like “what would the weather / jet stream need to be doing so a ice age could form”.
After taking a interest in this since the end of 2010 l feel am begining to understand what was happening. Over much of the NH the Polar jet would need to split in two and go zonal. Then the southern part of the jet would need to push up north and join up again and go deep into the Arctic.
A jet stream that is swinging north and south will cause cooling, but not a ice age.