Sea Ice Climate Schizophrenia?

Guest essay by Jim Steele

Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

I just finished reading the paper Influence Of Internal Variability On Arctic Sea-Ice Trends by Swart et al (2015) in the journal Nature Climate Change and discussed by Anthony here. The paper might be better titled a Statistical Justification For The Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Melt as they concluded, “Thus, pauses in sea-ice loss, such as seen over the past eight years, are not surprising and are fully expected to occur from time to time.” In other words, we should still trust the models and ignore skeptics who cherry-pick the current pause and thickening of sea ice.

They also determined, “according to the models there is about a one in three chance of a 7-year period with a positive sea-ice trend, despite strong anthropogenic forcing.” And to their credit they also reported that the enhanced sea ice loss between 2001 and 2007 was rare, but plausibly enhanced by natural variability concluding, “Thus, both the enhanced sea-ice loss during 2001–2007, and the recent period of near-zero trend are consistent with the supposition of internal climate variability onto the background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline…”

However the “elephant” mired in the thickening Arctic ice was, if this paper was truly anything more than an excuse for the lack of an Arctic sea ice death spiral, and the “background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline” is a global phenomenon, then why wasn’t their analysis extended to the condition of global sea ice and Antarctica? Why cherry-pick just the Arctic?

Without access to their models, I can’t directly ascertain their statistical probability of a pause in Antractica’s hypothesized sea ice decline, but their Figure 3B (below) suggests the probability is zero. The black line represents the modeled probabilities of a increasing pause‑lengths based on observational data. A probability of a 30‑year pause (or increase in sea ice) between 1979 and 2013 is clearly zero. The graph’s other colored lines are probabilities for pauses based on different projections of CO2 concentrations throughout the 21st century referred to as Representative Concentration Pathways. The Wiki graph at the end of the article illustrates the CO2 trajectory for each RCP.

clip_image002

From Figure 3 c: Probability of a pause as a function of pause length in the Historical-RCP4.5 experiment over 1979–2013 (black), and in the future over 2066–2100 under the RCP2.6 (blue), RCP4.5 (cyan) and RCP8.5 (red) experiments. The horizontal dashed line represents a probability of p = 0.05. A pause is a period with a trend ≥0. Only ice extents ≥1 x 106 km2 are considered.

Thus it is more than likely, the observed 30_year “pause” in Antarctica sea ice “decline” is NOT “consistent with the supposition of internal climate variability onto the background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline”. It suggests the model’s supposition of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline is need of serious reconsideration!

Their study was strictly a statistical analysis, independent of the various causes that might be attributed to the changing sea ice patterns at either pole. So it doesn’t matter how many hypothetical reasons may be conjured up to explain Antarctica’s growing sea ice. Based on their analyses, the models’ inability to predict a 30‑year trend in growing Antarctica sea ice “despite strong anthropogenic forcing”, can not be explained by CO2 driven models or random variability. As I have argued before Antarctica sea ice growth is a better indicator of climate change and there are very good reasons to believe the loss of Arctic sea ice is better explained by ocean and atmospheric oscillations.

clip_image004

clip_image006

Advertisements

132 thoughts on “Sea Ice Climate Schizophrenia?

  1. Not being the brightest on the block, but why would they use a probability of 7 years if they are looking at and admitting to an 8 year pause in sea ice loss. Please, why not use the existing data point? Getting a tad inconvenient?

  2. I suspect if they’d also done an analysis of Antarctica they would never have got their paper published as that would have called into question their statistical assumptions. The speculations are always hidden in the assumptions. The statistical calculations afterwards merely give a veneer of mathematical certainty.

    • When one suggests that the temperatures during the MWP or RWP, etc. were higher they say that those were just N. hemisphere events. More and more proxy data suggests they were more global. But, even if you grant them the argument that it was limited to the North, they still have no leg to stand on as the current warming is also mostly in the Northern hemisphere. Even when you play by their rules they lose.
      If you use GISS (Land-Ocean) from NASA website, one of the most extreme measures, it has only warmed ~0.6 degrees in 65 years. That’s less than 1.0 C per century, much more in line with recent papers by folks like Nic Lewis, for example. They have snappy comebacks for everything, but many of them contradict their other snappy comebacks. For example, if more heat is going into the ocean and worse, the deep ocean, then it suggests that the time frame for warming will be extended greatly due to the much greater mass and heat capacity of the oceans. I’ll be glad when it stops being a religion and goes back to being a science.
      And yes, I am a publishing physical scientist so I am “allowed” to have these opinions.

    • “””””…..And to their credit they also reported that the enhanced sea ice loss between 2001 and 2007 was rare, but plausibly enhanced by natural variability concluding, “Thus, both the enhanced sea-ice loss during 2001–2007, and the recent period of near-zero trend are consistent with the supposition of internal climate variability onto the background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline…”…..”””””
      If my memory serves me well, Wasn’t the dramatic arctic sea ice loss of 2007 the result of an arctic ocean storm that broke up the sea ice, and sent it out into the North Pacific, where the ocean currents naturally carried it south to where it could only melt.
      I.e. it did NOT melt in the Artic.
      just asking.

    • dear Will,
      Antarctica is situated at the other end of world, its glacier mass is landbased, and surrounded by the Great Ocean, its the reverse of the Northpole.
      You can can make an addition of the type 1 + 1 = 2 ?
      Start thinking!

      • Martin, The Antarctic’s setup is then perfect for balancing out the primary problem with the Arctic, the fact that it has no anchor, no landmass, and is thus highly susceptible to storms and weather patterns. The Arctic Ice Extent has as much to do with prevailing wind patterns as temperatures.

  3. According to the models, anything is possible – if you just run the model a sufficient number of times.
    The trouble is that model guys don’t know enough mathematics to think beyond a latitude-longitude grid.
    A lat-lon grid is OK for low and middle latitudes, but it is woefully inadequate for polar regions. There is a “finite element method” for an optimal selection of a grid. But even in an article titled “The Finite Element Sea Ice-Ocean Model (FESOM) v.1.4″ we read “To avoid the singularity [on a triangle covering the North Pole] a spherical coordinate system with the north pole over Greenland (40◦ W, 75◦ N) is used.”
    http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/7/663/2014/gmd-7-663-2014.pdf

  4. The study described above reminds me of the old joke proof allegedly proving 1=0.
    I never realized that one could earn scads of grant money by writing up old jokes as, cough cough, research and publishing it in a respected journal.

  5. If “Their study was strictly a statistical analysis, independent of the various causes that might be attributed to the changing sea ice patterns at either pole.”
    There would be no reason to conclude there is “strong anthropogenic forcing.”
    It definitely reveals some preconceived conclusions [by] the paper’s authors.
    SR

    • Here is another preconceived conclusion:

      PROFESSOR PETER WADHAMS (Arctic sea ice expert)
      WWF – Before 2013
      Catlin Arctic Survey – results
      “It shows we’re getting a big contraction of the ice cover in summer now, which never used to happen. And once it starts happening, it’ll never stop.
      “The amount of open water generated is so great that it’s absorbing a lot of radiation in the summer, and it warms up by several degrees. It takes much longer to cool down in the autumn, so the next year’s cycle of ice growth is disrupted, and so it goes on.
      http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/tackling_climate_change/results.cfm

      Now we are told by others that pauses can now happen according to models.

      • “…it warms up by several degrees….”
        ////////////
        Is there any evidence supporting this contention?
        What is the average surface temperature of the Arctic ocean in the area where there is summer ice melt? Has does this compare to the surface temperature say 10, 20, 30 years previously?

      • Is there any evidence supporting this contention?

        Common sense tells us that negative feedback is indicated in arctic sea ice, otherwise the system would lock into one extreme and never recover. The ice free period during the holocene optimum indicates that PROFESSOR PETER WADHAMS is incorrect. His predictions are reading more and more like a fairly tale and less and less like science:
        “This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates”.
        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice
        “It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,”
        http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/4084c8ee-fa36-11e2-98e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2hozOJWog
        “The extra open water already created by the retreating ice allows bigger waves to be generated by storms, which are sweeping away the surviving ice. It is truly the case that it will be all gone by 2015.”
        http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/arctic-sea-ice-will-vanish-within-three-years-says-expert-1-2493681

      • ferdberple, Prof. Peter Wadhams has now changed his 2015 / 2016 ‘ice-free’ Arctic ocean to 2020. I wrote about it here.

      • Nonsense; if the open water gets hotter in the summer, then it must be radiating at a higher rate than when it is colder in the autumn, ergo it is actually cooling faster when it is hotter, than when it is colder.
        “Cooling in the sense of radiating LWIR thermal radiation.”
        When the sea ice is open water, the arctic works much better at getting rid of the excess heat that gets transported there by “ocean convection”, which I’m sure vastly exceeds what solar energy is collected in the arctic, and is deposited DEEP in the arctic ocean and not on the surface.
        Well JMO.

  6. Anthropogenic CO2 forcing is falling into the noise of climate variability.
    Look at the forecast temps for the next 30 days in the Alaska-Bering Sea Region. The Arctic Sea ice anomaly is very likely about to get a whole lot smaller by mid-March 2015 when the ice extent peaks. And the Antarctic sea ice extent has been trending well above average all Austral summer, and it’s about to bottom out and …. only God knows if the south island Kiwi’s will be able to sleddog-it to Patagonia in 7 month’s, but it may come close.
    Ultimately, nature is going to do whatever nature wants. I’m all for conserving resources, limiting impacts on extraction of natural resources, stopping over-fishing, drift netting, etc. But to credit only the 2nd half 20th century temperature rise as primarily to human-CO2 is voodoo Cult Cargo-esque witchdoctor-ism, a self-deception that Dr Feynman warned about. Doing so consigns millions of 3rd World poor to a North Korea-like continuation of poverty and misery for generations.

  7. So…in essence you saying its a useless piece of science but still useful for the man made warming cause.

    • It’s not a useless piece of science. It’s not science at all. Since it’s useless non-science it’s a useless piece of s—.

  8. Whether or not ice is growing or declining should really be measured by volume, not by surface area right? For the issue of land ice melting and sea level rise anyway. Volume is harder to measure but NASA has their Grace system which has been showing an inconsistent pattern but an overall average decline in Antarctic ice volume of about 147 billion tons per year, though strangely the NASA Grace page only has data through July 2013. I know nothing about the validity or reliability of Grace data, but I would think an ice volume measurement like that would be what you talk about instead of ice area when discussing Antarctic ice level changes.

    • Steve Since as you indicated we have no real idea what the volume was pre-Grace system, and little experience as to what the Grace system is telling us, it the volume argument is much like the number of angels on the head of a pin. Truthfully the area argument is on the same level. Of course I assume you know as indicated by the paper above that won’t keep the climate charlatans from making more models and with the output of said models write more papers with grand predictions as to how bad we are harming the environment unless we repent out evil and vile ways. I sometime wonder is it that climate charlatans really believe what the rubbish they publish or it the money gravy train just too good.

    • Steve Thayer

      I know nothing about the validity or reliability of Grace data, but I would think an ice volume measurement like that would be what you talk about instead of ice area when discussing Antarctic ice level changes.

      No.
      The continental (cross-Antarctic) average air temperature has been steadily going DOWN since records began.
      ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
      There is NO recorded Antarctic average temperatures going – except the 3% of the (mostly rocky!) peninsula going up towards South America. And THAT area has little “continental (land) ice that can melt. Some>? Yes. But not much. That Peninsula is the only getting warmer. )
      So, there is NO evidence of continental ice melting other than the GRACE satellite calculations. And, the problem is, THEY depend entirely on CHANGES in the relative gravity fields detected (imputed) by the two satellite going overhead of land areas and oceans and ocean floors. But! There has been no calibration of the gravity causes of that perceived change (a few micro-millimeters difference between the two satellite distances) against the land mass going up, the ice getting thicker, the ice getting thinner, the land mass going down, or a combination of any or all of the four going on at the same time in two different valleys.
      They are measuring land mass changes UNDER CONTINENTS – with NO original values to judge ANYTHING from their “data”. TWO drill holes have been completed in all of Greenland’s icecap. NONE have been completed in Antarctica. Like measuring the change in mountain heights in West Virginian Appalachians and Denver’s Rockies by GPS, then deciding the height of the Mississippi River bottom in between in March, May, and October two years prior to the drill holes. It might be right. Or it may not be.
      But they have NOT “measured” land ice mass loss. Re-read the mass of Antarctic land ice. Those values are above. How many years does it take to melt 1% of the Antarctic land ice at this rate?
      One?
      Ten?
      100?
      500?
      5000? If you do not know immediately, you have no business quoting the propaganda pushed by the GRACE of Gaea.
      Sea ice area melt rates are used until they failed to generate enough worry and hysteria.
      Then, sea ice volume melt rates are used when sea ice area calculations show no problem occurs.
      Then, when sea ice area calculations proved the hysteria false, they moved to assumed land ice melt rates.
      (And, by the way, from today’s limits, for 9 months of the year, losing more Arctic sea ice increases net heat loss fro the Arctic Ocean. ONLY in the three months of May, June, and July does the ocean actually absorb more energy from the sun than it looses do to increase LW radiation, more evaporation, and more convection and more conduction. ) Yes, by August 12, the open water up there begins to re-freeze. There is a short 80 day melt season.
      In the Antarctic? More sea ice ANY month of the year = more solar energy reflected back into space and more heat loss from the planet.
      There is NO “Arctic Death Spiral.” None.
      Now, land ice melt rates are used when sea ice melt areas fail their alarmist needs.
      Now, continental land ice covers 97% of Antarctica, and its area is not changing. It’s heights (inland) are not changing – much field measurements show many areas are increasing in depth. Antarctic SEA ICE areas are steadily been increasing since 1992. THOSE record-breaking sea ice area increases ARE reflecting ever more and more solar energy back into space.
      Does that fact trouble you at all?

      • True science looks for the single case that disproves the hypothesis. In this case increasing Antarctic sea ice. Pseudo science on the other hand looks for all the cases that confirm the hypothesis, ignoring that such cases can arise naturally through chance.
        Science is “proven” correct by repeatedly providing reliable predictions of things that are otherwise difficult to predict. A single failed predictions in science is all it takes to prove the hypothesis is wrong.
        Climate science is awash in failed predictions, to the point where they no longer call them predictions. Instead they had to start calling them projections, it became so embarrassing. The same holds true for Global Warming. The term became so embarrassing when it stopped, that Climate Science had to switch the name to Climate Change. This allowed any change in climate, regardless of whether it was natural or not, to be confused with anthropogenic climate change.
        The use of precise terms is what separates true Science from Climate Science. Every term in Science has a precise definition. The term Climate Change has no such definition. Climate Change can refer to natural climate change and/or human caused climate change, with no mechanism to distinguish. This last item is suffice to render Climate Science pseudo science.

    • Steve Thayer, here is something interesting you might like to look at. 1960 sea ice extents.

      “And the Antarctic blew us away,” he said. In 1964, sea ice extent in the Antarctic was the largest ever recorded, according to Nimbus image analysis. Two years later, there was a record low for sea ice in the Antarctic, and in 1969 Nimbus imagery, sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent earliest on record….
      http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2014/nimbus.html

      The paper.

      Abstract
      Anomalous Variability in Antarctic Sea Ice Extents During the 1960s With the Use of Nimbus Data
      The Nimbus I, II, and III satellites provide a new opportunity for climate studies in the 1960s. The rescue of the visible and infrared imager data resulted in the utilization of the early Nimbus data to determine sea ice extent. A qualitative analysis of the early NASA Nimbus missions has revealed Antarctic sea ice extents that are significant larger and smaller than the historic 1979-2012 passive microwave record. The September 1964 ice mean area is 19.7 × 106 km2± 0.3 × 106 km2. This is more the 250,000 km2 greater than the 19.44 × 106 km2 seen in the new 2012 historic maximum. However, in August 1966 the maximum sea ice extent fell to 15.9 × 106 km2 ± 0.3 × 106 km2. This is more than 1.5 × 106 km2 below the passive microwave record of 17.5 × 10 6 km2 set in September of 1986. This variation between 1964 and 1966 represents a change of maximum sea ice of over 3 × 106 km2 in just two years. These inter-annual variations while large, are small when compared to the Antarctic seasonal cycle.
      http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6547200

    • I am sure that I recently saw a report on WUWT of a research paper by a group that sent remotely controlled subs beneath floating Antarctic ice and found that the thickness had been significantly underestimated .
      I assume that the GRACE data applies to , or is most accurate when measuring, land ice, but if floating ice is found by direct measurement to be thicker than previously believed , might there not be cause for questioning the GRACE data?

    • Steve Thayer, we are always learning and things just aren’t as certain as some people claim.

      Abstract – 21 October 2014
      Thick and deformed Antarctic sea ice mapped with autonomous underwater vehicles
      Satellites have documented trends in Antarctic sea-ice extent and its variability for decades, but estimating sea-ice thickness in the Antarctic from remote sensing data remains challenging. In situ observations needed for validation of remote sensing data and sea-ice models are limited; most have been restricted to a few point measurements on selected ice floes, or to visual shipboard estimates. Here we present three-dimensional (3D) floe-scale maps of sea-ice draft for ten floes, compiled from two springtime expeditions by an autonomous underwater vehicle to the near-coastal regions of the Weddell, Bellingshausen, and Wilkes Land sectors of Antarctica. Mean drafts range from 1.4 to 5.5 m, with maxima up to 16 m. We also find that, on average, 76% of the ice volume is deformed ice. Our surveys indicate that the floes are much thicker and more deformed than reported by most drilling and ship-based measurements of Antarctic sea ice. We suggest that thick ice in the near-coastal and interior pack may be under-represented in existing in situ assessments of Antarctic sea ice and hence, on average, Antarctic sea ice may be thicker than previously thought.
      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n1/full/ngeo2299.html

      July 6, 2014
      Lying with Statistics: The National Climate Assessment Falsely Hypes Ice Loss in Greenland and Antarctica
      by E. Calvin Beisner and J.C. Keister
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/lying-with-statistics-the-national-climate-assessment-falsely-hypes-ice-loss-in-greenland-and-antarctica/
      rgbatduke
      July 6, 2014 at 11:19 am
      “Straight out of How to Lie with Statistics, one of my favorite books. Present a cherrypicked slice of the data on a non-absolute scale. In this case we can throw in presenting an irrelevantly short interval — one whole decade. Really? For a climate trend?
      A third problem is that — once again — the data is presented without error bars! We do not know — note well — how much ice there is on Greenland or Antarctica to within one percent, and the entire range of data in either graph is less than a tenth of that, but since we do not get to see either the raw data points underlying the curves above or the error bars per point, we are left with the impression that the lines are accurate to within the width of the line and that the measurement process is not subject to any sort of systematic error that might produce the observed bias without it reflecting any sort of actual trend in the ice volume. For example, even if the curve is based on GRACE data, GRACE can very likely not accurately resolve the full volume distribution of the underlying mass — it effectively projects the mass distribution onto some presumed spherical shell.
      But what shell? If Antarctica and Greenland are continuing their post-ice-age subsidence, then dense magma is flowing out from underneath them, their land surface is falling, and of course their gravitational surface field is reducing. But GRACE cannot resolve this from field reduction due to ice loss without unprovable assumptions being made, and this sort of thing has to at the very least contribute to the probable error. But if the data is presented without that error being shown, the entire “trend” in the data above could be nothing but irrelevant noise….”

    • I’ve always viewed the deflection of the discussion from area to volume to be a prime example of “moving the goal posts”.

  9. What I find humorously amazing about papers of this nature is that the authors just refuse to entertain the idea that the models could be wrong. That the models are wrong is certainly the simplest explanation and certainly best fits all the accumulating data.
    It is as if we are watching people who believe that the earth is the stationary center of the solar system and give ever more convoluted explanations for the strange movements of the planets around the earth (some planets even suddenly appearing to move backwards). The earth centered model is right — therefore all the contradictions must have some explanation.
    The models are just wrong.
    Eugene WR Gallun

    • If the Great Lakes are an indicator of anything, the ice has been clearly way above average for a year out of two, for the past 14 years. Outside it truly feels like the Ice Age is upon us, there is a thickness to the cold air, as if dust was mixing with the humidity?! So model if they wish, and for as long as they wish, since this change will be very rapid. Remember the movie ‘The Day After’, maybe just not instantaneous as in the movie, but then again assuredly quick enough to catch everyone believing the opposite (warming where?) off guard in a big way!

    • it does feel like Ptolemaic Epicycles all the way down, doesn’t it?
      Also, after scanning several dozen papers linked here and elsewhere, I’ve noticed that all too often there is something like “consistent with AGW…” or “Should not be considered inconsistent with AGW…” or “May possibly be linked to AGW…” even when the paper, on the face of it, refutes some aspect of AGW or points to errors in prior work.
      That feels uncomfortably like the “In the year of Our Lord…” and “If his Holiness, the pope shall permit…” that was so common in the 15th, 16th and 17th century writings in Europe. Done then (and now?) to avoid persecution from the establishment. They were also threatened with loss of position, or even imprisonment, torture or death if they crossed the line.

      • Indeed, including the fury of the True Believers when Galileo announced that the earth went around the sun. They want to burn us at the stake like the ISIS guys are doing.

      • That feels uncomfortably like the “In the year of Our Lord…” and “If his Holiness, the pope shall permit…”

        That is exactly what it is. It is paying homage to the powers that be. Hey, generally not a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you or keeps you butt out of the dungeon. Fortunately there are people willing to stand regardless of the consequences.

    • Man is never wrong. It is the climate that is wrong. The climate needs to start obeying man’s models!

    • Eugene
      Whether they are wearing rose colored glasses or blinders, either way it does not make for good science. Where are the truly courageous ones who are willing to challenge the orthodoxy. I know it might threaten their career, but for the sanctity of science, they may need to take one in the gut for the Gipper.

    • Read about epicycles, the mathematical model that explained the retrograde motion of the planets while preserving the Earth as the center of the universe.
      But, I wonder how many people have ever studied the history of this theory? It was popular for centuries. And, it was more accurate than the competing model (Heliocentric), due to its infinite adjustability.

      • According to Kuhn’s book, The Copernican Revolution, the Ptolemaic model really was more accurate until Kepler figured out that the planetary orbits were ellipses, not circles. (I recommend the book, by the way.)

  10. Just more ad hoc hypothesising to save the narrative, to save their ‘theory’ (more accurately speculation) from being falsified.

  11. How can anything be modelled when most of the science is unknown? These are not models in any sense. They are simply programmed politics.

    • Yet but they give such nice answers to the politicians. Funny the answer to any problem to most politicians is to take more money out of yours and my pocket. Hey I think I just found the answer to this question I just asked from above, somewhat corrected for clarity ” I sometime wonder is it that climate charlatans really believe what the rubbish they publish or is it that the money gravy train just too good.” I should have know better I believe the old quote by who I do not know was ” Just follow the money”!

    • Programmed support for politicians is probably more correct. The politicians need support for their continual subsidies to windmills and solar-cells, for their taxation policies against industry, and for their international treaties changing the world power structure. So ‘peer reviewed’ papers in ‘international scientific journals’ from compliant academics, with sound bite length useable quotes are precisely what is needed for the politicians to keep the gullible believing that something must be done. And it is still working even though everyone can see the man behind the curtain.

  12. It’s time to stop wasting time paying any attention to the fraudulent nonsense dribbling incontinently from the climate establishment.
    Warming and melting have not paused – they’ve stopped.

  13. The empirical evidence seems to show that there is a strong correlation between 30-yr AMO warm/cool cycles and Arctic Ice Extents.
    The current AMO warm cycle peaked in 2007 and it’s now cooling down until the 30-yr AMO cool cycle starts around 2020.
    It’s hilarious how the CAGW alarmists completely ignore the Antarctic as it doesn’t support their failed hypothesis. Antarctic ice extents have clearly been increasing for the past 35 years, but the alarmists just make feeble excuses that this is caused by decreased ocean salinity from melting Antarctic land ice…
    Since ICESAT data shows Antarctic land ice is actually increasing by around 40 GT/yr, the Warmunists simply ignore this, too, and only refer to GRACE data, which shows a slight 60 GT/yr decrease of Antarctic land ice– too bad there is 23,000,000 GT of Antartic land ice….
    Arctic Sea Ice Extents are the last line of defense before the CAGW hypothesis collapses under the weight of empirical evidence disconfirming CAGW’s catastrophic projections.
    “Catastrophic”: Sea Level Rise, global temp trends, ocean acidification, severe weather frequency/intensity, polar bear extinction, runaway methane concentrations, falling crop yields, etc., just aren’t cooperating with the failed CAGW hypothesis.
    CAGW has become a joke. All Warmunists can do is make contrived and feeble excuses as to why ALL their projections are so far off from reality and have been relegated to ranking years as global temp trends flatten and fall..
    I predict that in five years, this CAGW scam will be laughed at and eye-rolled into oblivion. Taxpayers just aren’t swallowing the CAGW propaganda anymore, and it’s driving the leftists crazy..

    • I fear you are wrong. The belief has become so entrenched among our elite. It will take a generation to flush all the charlatans out of climate science for one thing. They start the indoctrination in grade school.

  14. Loss of sea ice in the Arctic and growing sea ice in the Antarctic can easily be explained by the laws of a Physics. We all know warm air rises and cold air sinks. Therefore more warm air is rising upwards to the North Pole at the top of the world, obviously producing a warming effect. It is quite well established that Warmness can melt ice.
    Similarly, cold air is sinking to the bottom of the world at the South Pole, obviously causing a cooling effect. It is equally well established that coolness can make is grow.
    The vexing question is “Why is this happening now and not in the past?”
    Of course the answer is that Gravity around the equator is getting weaker and more saggy, having less ability to hold warm and cold air in its proper place. We all know that as something ages, it gets weaker and more saggy around the middle. The Earth is getting older all the time, hence the cause of the signs of ageing.
    It’s pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it. I worked it out and I don’t even have a degree in Physics.
    Where do I apply for some grant money for my findings?

    • Sorry, but the idea isn’t new.
      The CFCs did the same thing. Being heavy molecules they sank to Antarctica after being generated in the industrial North. 😉 But give it a try, after all some people are still living off that one.

    • Should I fear the polar axis flipping again with the changes in sea ice mass going from south to north and back again?
      After all, the English recently drove all the way to the north pole (oops, I guess that means summer sea ice wasn’t melting) and now the north pole is running off towards Siberia at record-breaking speed!

    • This makes perfect sense. Just look at a global map. Continental drip is obvious. So, gravity is pulling the continents and the cold air to the South pole.

      • Joel Hammer (replying to David the Voter)
        This makes perfect sense. Just look at a global map. Continental drip is obvious. So, gravity is pulling the continents and the cold air to the South pole.

        It actually worse than you think!
        See, four of the major tectonic plates (continent-sized drippy land masses) have a sharp pointy end, and a rounded or dull end, right? (Africa and, South America, India are the worst. North America uses the FL peninsula like an anchor, or it too would be headed south ever faster.) Fortunately, India used to be headed north, and its will take a few years to bounce off of the Himalayas and head south as well.
        But gravity means the pointy end of the all of the others lets them slide easier going south – towards the south pole. So they will collide with Antarctica faster, increase the Antarctic land area and then its ice accumulation, and force the remaining Antarctic sea ice even further towards the equator.
        obviously, now that Africa has started south, Europe will follow.

  15. I do find it interesting that the fact that decreasing Summer sea ice means an increased cooling effect rarely gets a mention. The midwinter maximum doesn’t change all that much and so the lower the midsummer extent the more water has to freeze to get back to the midwinter maximum
    Bluntly, the currents are always taking heat to the Arctic where it melts (or tries to melt) the ice. In the warmer months with the aid of the Sun this is enough to melt the sea ice, however the water is always giving up its heat and so without the Sun the ice grows in Winter. (There are factors like ice being an insulator helping to prevent heat loss but I’m trying to keep it basic)
    Assuming for the sake of simplicity that sea ice is only 1 metre thick then for every 1 million square klms that freeze the ocean is giving up enough heat to freeze a full 1,000 cubic kilometres of sea water.
    Putting that into perspective on the sea ice page the average extent went from roughly 15 million down to 7 million square klms. This means that every year some 8,000 cubic klms of water got frozen. Now if we look at 2012, extent went from over 14 million down to 3 million square klms, which means that an impressive 11,000 cubic klms were frozen that Winter. Heat loss for that year in the Arctic was nearly 50% more than the average heat loss in the 1990s.
    We should also remember that this is a minimum estimate as heat is constantly being transported to the Arctic to slow the freeze. The 11,000 cubic klms frozen in 2012/13 represent the final imbalance between heat transported to the Arctic and heat radiated into space and not the total heat lost.

    • We are covering those heat gain, and heat loss, calculations each month for the Antarctic and Arctic sea ice in the State of the Sea Ice series. 22 of each month.

      • Thanks, I will look better next time. 🙂
        It just doesn’t get mentioned much and so most of the general public aren’t aware of it.

  16. There is more Sea Ice because the Oceans are Warming.
    As the Oceans warm they are capable of absorbing more CO2 and are therefore ‘acidifying’ ever more rapidly.
    Result Acid-ice.

  17. The key question is:
    Is the 18 year alleged temperature non-rise ‘hiatus’, even as CO2 increase continues to rise uninterrupted at all, and sea ice expands to record levels, never before seen in the modern technological era:
    (A) Is this consistent with global warming as a serious global ‘problem’?
    (B) Or is it consistent with no significant problem apparent, at all?
    _
    What would Earth answer, (A) or (B)? {assuming earth were actually an observer/persona with ~4.5 billion years of experience of such things}
    Now apply Occam’s Razor objectively, yourself, as per it’s practical principles and see what you get when you answer which it’s most consistent with, (A), or (B)?
    That’s “the science” being ‘settled’, scientifically.
    _____________
    Occam’s ra′zor
    The principle in philosophy and science that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity, and hence the simplest of several hypotheses is always the best in accounting for unexplained facts. Also called law of parsimony.
    [1835–40; after William of Occam]
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Occam%27s+razor

    • Yes, Unmentionable, CAGW is getting sliced and diced by Occam’s razor.
      All these CAGW…. apologists (I’m trying to be kind) can do is “homogenize” the data to manipulate GISS and Hadcrut4 global temp data to stay within 2 SDs of CAGW predictions, concoct elaborate excuses as to why their silly hypothesis has crashed and burned, and repeat mindless memes of “97%” consensus, “it’s worse than we thought”, “Climate Change is Real”, ad nauseam….
      Given how brainwashed this generation has become by the MSM, leftist hacks and public schools, it’s no wonder this CAGW….hypothesis (I’m being kind again) is still blindly believed by so many clueless automatons…
      Anyway, people are slowly getting bored with CAGW, which is followed by apathy, and then the whole….CAGW hypothesis will just be eye-rolled into obscurity.

      • At this point, because of the obvious cooling over the past 5-10 years, at least in the northerly latitudes, I’m betting it will finally collapse in a gale of laughter.

  18. Steele says:
    “Antarctica sea ice growth is a better indicator of climate change” and refers to a link where he has written:
    “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.”
    It might be the case that Steele is referring to what he thinks himself. That he has developed a climate model with that result. However, that is not the case for other climate models like CMIP5:
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig12-28.jpg
    Perhaps Steele could clarify who predicted ice nearer the equator would disappear first?

    • Rooter,
      Help me understand the question. I don’t see what is controversial here.
      Every year in real life the Antarctic sea ice expands towards the equator during the April-Oct period and then retreats back closer to the pole during the balance of the year. Is this not consensus that increased warming will accentuate this pattern?
      Separately, the graphs are hard to interpret. The scatter during the historical period presumably is from backcasting the models.

      • It is controversial when Steele is making a claim about what is predicted that is not true.
        What you think is the consensus is not that interesting. The plots are not difficult to interpret. More retreat in the north.

    • Rooter, you always try to make your arguments so personal, and then follow it with a irrelevant graph.But since you request clarification here are the basics.
      First I’ll assume you are aware that there is a freeze/melt line somewhere between the equator and the poles. As the season warm that line moves poleward. Likewise as temperatures rise due to projected warming that line is projected to move towards the poles. That is pretty fundamental. That’s why all the alarmists like Hansen and Parmesan also predict plants and animals will be forced poleward. If I may ask rooter, do have any science background?
      Second I don’t know why you would need an authority to confirm such a basic concept, but since you always ask so nicely here is a graph from the USGS publication showing how they project Bering Sea Ice freeze/melt lines to evolve in a warming world. http://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/ocn657801448
      Notice in the graphs for each month the current freeze/melt line is green, yellow is the 2045 projections , and red is the 2090 projections. I hope this has been helpful.
      http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/100387150.png

    • Looks like Rooter has made a startling discovery, GW starts at the poles and moves towards the equator. Eventually the poles will look like an ice donut. The subsequent donut hole filled with melted sea ice has real estate developers considering opportunities for sea side resort development. They are consulting with Prof. Peter Wadhams as to when to start construction. Imagine a condo, on the water, at the North pole. Great opportunity.
      Rooter please consider this investment opportunity at http://www.passive/aggressive/with/irrelevant/graphs.com

    • Jim Steele is trying to defend his claim that the Antarctic seaice will have to be reduced faster than the Arctic sea ice by showing projected freeze/melt lines for the… wait for it: Arctic sea ice.
      That sure makes a lot of sense. Why make it real simple: Show the projected freeze/melt lines for the Antarctic? We know why. Then it would be clear that Steele just made up what is predicted. Models project less sea ice decline in the Antarctic in spite of that ice edge is closer to the equator.
      Ps: A bit ironic that Steele think it personal to comment on claims he is making. What else should I do when commenting on a post he has written?

      • Rooter you are truly an Slandering Sou vintage internet sniper with no integrity. First you try to denigrate my statement” “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.” as me making stuff up.
        So I readily show results of climate models that predict exactly that and provide a reference. Unable to admit you are again woefully wrong you do the classic slandering Sou fabrication of what I said. Where did I ever say “Antarctic seaice will have to be reduced faster than the Arctic sea ice by showing projected freeze/melt lines.”
        Then you do the classic Slandering Sou “wait for it” line just like your recent blog trying to muddle the issues. Sou you are laughably transparent!
        The fact remains from the same post I also wrote 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.”
        You Rooter/Sou are muddled in your thinking than the models. You are incapable of following a clear comparison of the dynamics affecting between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-sea-ice–climate-change-indicator.html , so all you can do revert to more lies and accusations to defend your ignorance.

      • Rooter/Sou Please share your science background. It appears you wish to keep your background in the dark, but I want to be sure I can explain things to you at a level you can understand.

      • Jim Steele says:
        “Rooter you are truly an Slandering Sou vintage internet sniper with no integrity. First you try to denigrate my statement” “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.” as me making stuff up.
        So I readily show results of climate models that predict exactly that and provide a reference. Unable to admit you are again woefully wrong you do the classic slandering Sou fabrication of what I said. Where did I ever say “Antarctic seaice will have to be reduced faster than the Arctic sea ice by showing projected freeze/melt lines.” ”
        This is getting very confusing. Sou? That sure ain’t me even if you want that. But to recap: Your assertion was “Antarctica sea ice growth is a better indicator of climate change” with a link to your own site where you give this reasoning for that:
        “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.”
        The problem is of course that the models does not have projections where Antarctic seas ice declines faster. On the contrary. You are just making that up. Only your model predicts that.
        And of course will the seaice “closest to the equator” be the first to melt. After all that is where you find the seaice melt lines! That does not mean that Antarctic sea ice decline must be bigger than for the Arctic sea ice.

      • Rooter/Sou First the coincidence between your rhetoric, snarkiness and lack of scientific understanding suggests a very high probability probability (as defined by the IPCC) that you are one in the same. Untl you verify who your are and your science background the evidence is against you.
        Second, like Sou you always create a straw man argument by fabricating what sone one has said, and you continue to hand wave your straw man here with versio of “That does not mean that Antarctic sea ice decline must be bigger than for the Arctic sea ice.”
        The point I made, was the melting in the Arctic is happening deep inside the Arctic Circle because it is a function of the volume of intruding warm ocean waters into the Arctic modulated by ocean oscillations. To illustrate why it is not CO2 warmed air temperatures melting the Barents/Kara sea ice, I pointed to both the simultaneously frozen Hudson Bay far to the south of the Arctic Circle, as well as Antarctic sea ice equator-ward of the Antarctic Circle. If rising air temperatures were related to the melting in the Arctic would should all those regions declining. I never ever said the Antarctic sea ice must retreat faster than the Arctic, that has been your own creation with which you have become obsessed with and then try to attribute your own ignorant nonsense to me. That again is classic Slandering Sou, whether or not that is truly who you are.
        So I ask again what is your verifiable science background?

      • Jim Steele says:
        “I never ever said the Antarctic sea ice must retreat faster than the Arctic, that has been your own creation with which you have become obsessed with and then try to attribute your own ignorant nonsense to me.”
        Right after I provided this quote:
        ““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.”
        Encore:
        ” Antarctic sea ice is mostly located outside the Antarctic Circle (Figure 1) and should be the first to melt due to global warming theory. ”
        Jim Steele must the deny that he is the author of this page:
        http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-sea-ice–climate-change-indicator.html
        Well. I cannot provide any proof whatever for Steele being that author. If Steele says that that page is not his writing I must apologize for me believing he actually was the author of that page.

      • Rooter/Sou
        You are obsessed with flaunting your ignorance to twist my words in way that you suggests i wrong.
        fact #1 The paper I discuss here argues that there is a “the background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline”. It argues the Arctic melts fast sometimes and slow at others.
        fact #2 There is no sea ice decline in the Antarctic.
        fact #3 In the essay you linked to I did indeed write, http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-sea-ice–climate-change-indicator.html I never discuss if Antarctic sea ice should melt fast or slower, simply that is not melting at all.
        fact # 4 the CO2 predicted “background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline” suggests ice closer to the equator would melt first and the freeze/melt line would progress poleward.
        fact #5 the melt in the Arctic Ocean is not a function of a change in the atmospheric freeze/melt line but a function of the intruding warm ocean water.
        fact #6 my argument presented at http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-sea-ice–climate-change-indicator.html is simply this: the melt observed in the Arctic is due to warm water intrusions and compared to the Antarctic the because the Circumpolar Current blocks those intrusions there has been not melting but an expansion. It is not a matter of faster or slower rates of melting, if there was truly a “background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline” we would expect some melt, as predicted by all the CO@ driven models as I quoted in Landrum above.
        What you fail to understand both here and at your slandering blog is that natural variability in either the Arctic and Antarctic predicts varied rates of melts superimposed on “the background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline.” In the Antarctic natural variability shows periods of less growth and more sea ice growth (see chart at end of the essay here), but the longer term sea ice of growth is far greater than natural variability can predict
        Fact #7 Both you and Slandering Sou share the very same style exhibiting : – wait for it – absolutely no scientific comprehension, an obsession for internet sniping at skeptics, snarky twisted comments and a love for character assassinations to cover your own ignorance.

      • Jim Steele’s facts:
        “Rooter/Sou”
        That is not a fact. I know that very well. Steele cannot know me better than I do. That is a fact.
        “fact #1 The paper I discuss here argues that there is a “the background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline”. It argues the Arctic melts fast sometimes and slow at others.
        fact #2 There is no sea ice decline in the Antarctic. ”
        Both ok. No sea ice decline is a fact. The paper’s evaluation of faster and slower melting seems reasonable. It is a hypothesis. The problem is of course the juxtaposition of those point. The Arctic is not the Antarctic. Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic there is ocean surrounded by continents. That makes a huge difference. That is a fact unknown to Steele.
        “fact #3 In the essay you linked to I did indeed write, http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-sea-ice–climate-change-indicator.html I never discuss if Antarctic sea ice should melt fast or slower, simply that is not melting at all.”
        This is what Steele wrote (as we now know he did write this):
        ” Antarctic sea ice is mostly located outside the Antarctic Circle (Figure 1) and should be the first to melt due to global warming theory. ”
        What kind of fact does this lead to. Has something to do with Steele’s credibility.
        “fact #5 the melt in the Arctic Ocean is not a function of a change in the atmospheric freeze/melt line but a function of the intruding warm ocean water.”
        What on this earth is “atmospheric freeze/melt line”? ??? A totally new concept. Of course will warmer water lead to more melting. And we know that the ocean has accumulated and will accumulate vastly more heat than the atmosphere.
        “fact #6 my argument presented at http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-sea-ice–climate-change-indicator.html is simply this: the melt observed in the Arctic is due to warm water intrusions and compared to the Antarctic the because the Circumpolar Current blocks those intrusions there has been not melting but an expansion. It is not a matter of faster or slower rates of melting, if there was truly a “background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline” we would expect some melt, as predicted by all the CO@ driven models as I quoted in Landrum above.”
        Very confusing. Of course warmer water will make it harder for the sea ice to survive. It is that warming ocean water that Steele must explain. The warming cannot be explained by itself.
        “What you fail to understand both here and at your slandering blog is that natural variability in either the Arctic and Antarctic predicts varied rates of melts superimposed on “the background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline.” In the Antarctic natural variability shows periods of less growth and more sea ice growth (see chart at end of the essay here), but the longer term sea ice of growth is far greater than natural variability can predict ”
        More confusion. For one: I do not have a blog.
        The rest all hinges on what natural variability is. How does Steele know how much is natural variability.
        “Fact #7 Both you and Slandering Sou share the very same style exhibiting : – wait for it – absolutely no scientific comprehension, an obsession for internet sniping at skeptics, snarky twisted comments and a love for character assassinations to cover your own ignorance.”
        Difficult to understand what this is supposed to be. Very factual it is not. Perhaps it is another example of how Steele is practicing “Related Teaching moment: Tolerance and Respectful Debate”

  19. The current Arctic sea ice loss is nothing compared to 11,500 years ago. During the Younger Dryas, Arctic sea ice extended to the North Atlantic down the England. In a matter of decades, sea ice disappeared in the North Atlantic and it was all natural ocean cycle.

      • I’m not talking about seasonal variation. Sea ice in the North Atlantic disappeared both in summer and winter after the Younger Dryas. And winter in northern Europe warmed by 22 C. Broecker attributed this warming to thermohaline circulation.

  20. “The results of this study showed that the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortex plays an important part in
    the mechanism of solar-climatic links. The vortex strength reveals a roughly 60-year periodicity influencing
    the large-scale atmospheric circulation and the sign of SA/GCR effects on the development of baric systems
    at middle and high latitudes. The vortex location is favorable for the mechanisms of solar activity influence
    on the troposphere circulation involving variations of different agents (GCR intensity, UV fluxes). In the
    periods of a strong vortex changes of the vortex intensity associated with solar activity phenomena seem to
    affect temperature contrasts in tropospheric frontal zones and the development of extratropical cyclogenesis.”
    http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf

      • Conclusions
        In this work we carried out the investigation of the response of atmospheric pressure at the level
        1000 hPa to Forbush-decreases of galactic cosmic rays in both hemispheres. A significant pressure growth
        with the maximum on the 3rd-4th days was revealed over Northern Europe and Western Siberia in the
        Northern hemisphere. In the Southern hemisphere two regions of a pronounced pressure growth with the
        maximum on the 4th-5th days were found. The first region is located between South Africa and Antarctica,
        and the second one is between Australia and Antarctica. In both hemispheres the pressure growth was
        observed at middle latitudes, ~40-70°N and ~40-70°S, correspondingly. It was shown that most prominent
        pressure deviations are associated with the climatic atmospheric fronts, Arctic and Polar, which are the
        regions of most intensive cyclonic activity. At the same time the significant pressure growth is observed in
        the regions of low geomagnetic cutoff rigidities that allows precipitation of particles with minimum energies
        from ~ 0,1 to 2-3 GeV. The obtained results suggest that the variations of low-energy component of galactic
        cosmic rays strongly modulated by solar activity may influence dynamic processes at middle latitudes, so
        these variations may be considered as an important link between solar activity and the lower atmosphere.
        http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Artamonova_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf

  21. I thought ‘natural variation’ was out. Everything is due to AGCW, CC and/or ACD. At least that is how the Warmunista Commentariat respond when questioned about the validity of their ‘facts’.

  22. It is a character trait of the Left and other totalitarians(tyrants and would be tyrants) to be paranoid. This is the way they are. They really ALL need to see psychiatrists plus be locked away from society. Their ravings should not be believed, let alone acted upon by anyone.
    It is their paranoia that is our only weapon.
    Now go forth and rattle their cages. Make the poor little dearies soil their diapers. Make them go off the deep end to be locked up in the nut house.

  23. @Eugene WR Gallun
    …It is as if we are watching people who believe that the earth is the stationary center of the solar system and give ever more convoluted explanations for the strange movements of the planets around the earth (some planets even suddenly appearing to move backwards). The earth centered model is right — therefore all the contradictions must have some explanation…The models are just wrong…
    That, of course, is exactly what happened. And for exactly the same reasons – the researchers of the day had all bought into the standard model – which was that the Earth was at the centre and the planets all followed circular orbits. This was a geometrically elegant construct (rather like string theory) and it complied with the religious requirements of the day perfectly – and matched the observations so long as you cherry-picked them a bit and fiddled the data a bit…. And then, as better data was gathered, it started being difficult (just like the Pause), so the mathematicians started producing complex justifications based on Epicycles to keep their world-view intact.
    The comparison is exact, even up to major scientists losing their positions as they espouse the new theory. It would be interesting to study that history in detail – because that’s what’s going to happen again…

    • The comparison is exact, even up to major scientists losing their positions as they espouse the new theory.

      It has now even got support of the Pope to make the parallel even more exact.
      But don’t hold your breath for any change soon. It took centuries for an apology to be forthcoming for the Galileo ‘disagreement’.

    • So a lot turns on the validity and the importance the theorists give to the contradictions. Is it a minor thing, something that will easily fit into the theory as soon as we understand it better, or does it destroy the theory? At first, either position could be right. The warmists, though, with their denier attacks and the unacknowledged elasticity of their theories to morph to explain whatever happens to be going on outside the window, all the while assuring us that the only way to save us is getting rid of capitalism and very resentful that people are resisting, aren’t playing fair. Still, people aren’t as dumb as they’re given discredit for, they know at some level that the AGW theories are one-size-fits-all, they can smell the propaganda a mile away, and you can tell by how low most people rank AGW on their list of problems in the world.

  24. Coeur de lion. I have an interest in the UK Met Office – has anyone detected a language creep in their Climate section? Towards being less dogmatic? They have a chance of looking very stupid.

  25. So we could say CO2 forcing is just noise in the greater scheme of natural variability,
    Or we could say natural variation is just noise in the greater effect of CO2 forcing,
    Or we could say we don’t know but it is interesting and we like arguing our opinion like football fans might argue who is a greater quarterback, Joe Montana or Tom Brady.
    Unfortunately you cannot get government grants making a case for Joe Montana.
    More unfortunately, poorly substantiated or clearly dis-proven opinions (like ice free Arctic) still carry weight in the public arena.

    • “The writers investigated the greenhouse effect using their adiabatic model, which relates the global temperature of troposphere to the atmospheric pressure and solar radiation. This model allows one to analyze the global-Figure 6. Near-surface temperature in the Arctic vs. solar activity (after Robinson et al., 2007) [17] .temperature changes due to variations in mass and chemical composition of the atmosphere. Even significant releases of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and have no essential effect on the Earth’s climate warming. Moreover, based on the adiabatic model of heat transfer, the writers showed that additional releases of CO2 and CH4 lead to cooling (and not to warming as the proponents of the conventional theory of global warming state) of the Earth’s atmosphere. The additional methane releases possess a double cooling effect: First, they intensify convection in the lower layers of troposphere; Second, the methane together with associated water vapor intercept part of the infrared solar irradiation reaching the Earth. Thus, petroleum production and other anthropogenic activities resulting in accumulation of additional amounts of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.”
      http://file.scirp.org/Html/4-4700320_51443.htm

      • Wouldn’t it be interesting to have Monckton utilize these assumptions of this paper in his simple climate model rather than the IPCC assumptions?

  26. All the natural causes aside the UN should place a 10 year ban on shipping in the Arctic. The continued breaking up of the ice by shipping does lead to extended ice loss. The only manmade cause in the equation.
    It would be interesting to know the actual extent of this.
    Not that it serves the “cause” so no chance of it happening.

  27. “…background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline”
    And how exactly does this radiatively-forced decline work? There is no net heat gain in the Arctic sea from either the water or the ice. The Arctic seas have a net heat loss all year, relying on heat imported from the South to remain liquid. This is easily demonstrated with lakes further south:
    The Arctic summer is about 6 weeks. The season is called ‘construction’. Sachs Harbour, hardly a northern outpost, has a 6 week period above freezing. Let’s consider it.
    Find a large lake further south and look at the ice cover on the lake after 6 weeks of a period with the sun at a similar elevation above the horizon as we see in Sachs Harbour. It starts much earlier of course, and then count forward 6 weeks and look at the ice on the lake. Melted yet? Nope. At the end of May in lakes around Kapuskasing – hardly a climate cold spot – are still covered in ice. Yet there is much more ‘radiative forcing’ in Kapuskasing than in Sachs Harbour during that six weeks. The core claim for CO2 forcing is not supported.
    Arctic sea ice is melted from below when the rapid cooling from the top backs off. This is basic physics. This is basic science in the form of measuring temperatures above and below the ice and watching it change.
    Does an ‘increase in radiative forcing’ accelerate the decline? Well apparently not because the trumpeted 400 ppm CO2 is not having any effect at all in increasing the rate of sea ice loss. That it accelerated into 2007 and again in 2012 is not much support for the hypothesis. That could just be the known sea water temperature increase that invaded through the Bering Strait – a well-documented happenstance that is clear enough. There is not yet any demonstrated “long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline” and using the words ‘long term’ does not adequately address the criticism that sea ice extent or thickness or total mass has little or nothing to do with CO2. Certainly nothing discernable from natural variation.
    Obviously the Antarctic contra-example is a death knell for the CO2 and ‘radiatively forced’ sea ice loss argument.

  28. First, nobody knows anything about the factors controlling Antarctic sea ice. Second, cause of Arctic ice loss is well understood. The science is settled but unfortunately the people still talking about it are ignorant of it. First, they don’t even know that Arctic warming started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century. Prior to that there was nothing there but two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. Second, they also don’t know that the warming was not steady but was interrupted by cooling for thirty years in mid-century. Kaufman et al. discovered Arctic warming and, like all true believers, immediately attributed it to the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. But this is impossible. Laws of physics demand that in order to start greenhouse warming from scratch you must increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This did not happen. Furthermore, high resolution temperature record in NOAA’s Arctic Report Card for 2010 indicates that warming was interrupted in mid-century by cooling for thirty years and then resumed in 1970. It is highly probable that the sudden cause of the original warming was a change in North Atlantic ocean current system that started to carry warm water of the Gulf Stream into the Arctic Ocean. The fact that warm water was actually reaching as far north as Svalbard was verified in 2011 by direct temperature measurements of Spielhagen et al. The cooling in mid-century would then be caused by a temporary resumption of the former flow pattern of currents. Such reversals are quite impossible for any greenhouse warming to execute. There is one aspect of this temperature history that could be troubling. In nature, whatever has happened before can happen again. The repeat of a cooling spell such as happened in the last century would wreak havoc with transportation and resource exploration that a warming Arctic has made possible. The apparent increase of ice cover recently bears watching. For more information, read E&E 22(8):1069-1083(2011).

  29. The study was of ARCTIC sea-ice (perhaps they should have put it in all caps in the title), so you can’t infer anything about Antarctic sea ice from the graph shown. We all now the northern hemisphere is warming faster than southern because it has more land mass and thus less heat capacity on/near the surface.
    This is so obvious that I can only guess it is yet another baiting tactic by Mr. Steele, and I will anxiously await for him to “hook” me with his reply.

    • Then why is it so cold here in the northern hemisphere? (While in the southern hemisphere, at least where I was a few months ago, the temperatures were the same as usual.)
      Maybe you can convince people in the UK that their pensioners aren’t really dying from the cold – they can’t be, because it’s warming!

  30. “Thus, both the enhanced sea-ice loss during 2001–2007, and the recent period of near-zero trend are consistent with the supposition of internal climate variability onto the background of long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline…”
    Statistically, such reversals should be becoming fewer and fewer. If it’s going to go on forever like this, then so what’s the problem? His woeful “statistics” are transparent to anyone who uses his head without the statistics. If it’s going to be 6C warmer in 2100, there must be some point where these reversals are “statistically” unlikely.

  31. I don’t think that there should be a “long-term radiatively forced sea-ice decline”, because increased greenhouse gas forcing of the climate is expected to increase positive NAO/AO states, which is the wrong sign for increasing ocean transport into the Arctic:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
    I don’t think that the natural variability is internal either, rather it functions as an amplified negative feedback to solar wind variations. Yes the Antarctic is the pole that should be used as direct proxy for forcing of the climate. It shows a slow increasing trend in sea ice extent since the mid 1990’s from when the solar wind pressure/density/temp trends declined.

    • Under normal conditions, the magnetic field lines inside plasmas don’t break or merge with other field lines. But sometimes, as field lines get close to each other, the entire pattern changes and everything realign into a new configuration. The amount of energy released can be formidable. Magnetic reconnection taps into the stored energy of the magnetic field, converting it into heat and kinetic energy that sends particles streaming out along the field lines.
      http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/science-of-magnetic-reconnection/#.VNO699KG-Sp

      • Or maybe also refer to fast proton of galactic? Whether GCR flux magnetic field can connect to the Earth’s magnetic field and generate heat and kinetic energy? It is known that the proton streams are directed along the Earth’s magnetic field lines.

      • Ren, there are continuous effects of the solar wind coupling in the polar regions. High altitude winds and circulations from Joule heating, and ozone destruction by nitric oxide propagation.

      • “When a neutron is put into a magnetic field produced by an external source, it is subject to a torque tending to orient its magnetic moment parallel to the field (hence its spin antiparallel to the field).[19] Like any magnet, the amount of this torque is proportional both to the magnetic moment and the external magnetic field. Since the neutron has spin angular momentum, this torque will cause the neutron to precess with a well-defined frequency, called the Larmor frequency. It is this phenomenon that enables the measurement of nuclear properties through nuclear magnetic resonance. The Larmor frequency can be determined by the product of the gyromagnetic ratio with the magnetic field strength. Since the sign of γn is negative, the neutron’s spin angular momentum precesses counterclockwise about the direction of the external magnetic field.”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_magnetic_moment

  32. Sorry if this has already been mentioned. I lack the time to read all the comments.
    The “death spiral” is not allowed to “pause”, because it was explained as a simple process of cause and effect. Less ice was suppose to make water warmer which would cause less ice which would make water even warmer. And so on. A nice, simple feedback.
    The “death spiral” is not described as a state of balance. It involves a “tipping point” and then an avalanche. Once the avalanche has started, it is not allowed to “pause.” The fact things “paused” and actually reversed after impressive increases in open water in 2007, and again in 2013, basically shoots the idea of a “death spiral” down in flames.
    Sorry you Alarmist fellows. The “death spiral” has itself spiraled to death. Avalanches do not pause and go the other way. Perhaps someone ought introduce the idea of a “death pendulum”, after studying the works of Edgar Allen Poe.

Comments are closed.