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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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].

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.

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.

More cyclomania, but still no 1500-yr Bond-cycles:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23564975

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.

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.

“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?

The SH Sea Ice Area graph looks scarily flat from 1980 – 2013.

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

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.

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.