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;
and Southern Sea Ice Area has remained above average for most of the last two years;
At the other pole Arctic Sea Ice Extent has remained within the 1981 – 2010 “normal” range for the entirety of 2013;
and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area had it’s smallest decline since 2006;
thus Global Sea Ice Area has remained stubbornly average for the entirety of 2013:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@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?
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.
There’s a journal called Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics which has a similar (but later) paper:
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
I cant find an earlier one, maybe I was wrong about that.
======================================================================
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?)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Ginga Dun says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/20/antarctic-sea-ice-didnt-get-the-memo-that-it-was-supposed-to-melt/#comment-1455783
Henry says
Seth is gone
that happens when you return evil with evil
My last comment to db stealey is also gone.
He is not pushing for an answer, so he probably knows where my comment went….