Giant ice chunks washing ashore on Cape Cod

Just what you’d expect from 3 decades of dangerous global warming

iceberg-cape-cod
Chunks of ice washed ashore in Wellfleet (Image from Dapixara Photography)

CBS Boston has published a story with photographs of giant Icebergs washing ashore at Cape Cod, many of them metres thick.

According to CBS Boston;

WBZ-TV Chief Meteorologist Eric Fisher says this could be a “once-in-a-generation” event due to the extraordinary amount of ice on the Massachusetts Bay. Fisher says the ice won’t be around for long.

There have been several remarkable images left from the record-setting winter, including the nearly frozen waves captured off the coast of Nantucket last month.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/03/09/giant-icebergs-wash-ashore-on-cape-cod/

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe reports:

Suzanne Kreiter/Globe staff

The beaches of Cape Cod are taking on an Arctic look, even as the temperature warms.

Months of bitter cold created huge sheets of ice that are now breaking up and washing ashore. In Wellfleet, there are chunks of ice reminiscent of those found in much harsher climates.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/10/mini-icebergs-washing-ashore-along-cape-cod/jZJ8RIkyG9Rztlv0eJ3kMO/story.html

I guess nothing says “dangerous global warming” like a frozen ocean, or pictures of giant lumps of ice washing up on American beaches.

h/t IceAgeNow, story submitted by Eric Worrall

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
207 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
H.R.
March 11, 2015 2:24 am

Global warming… it’s worse than we thought.
(Neat pictures!)

Reply to  H.R.
March 11, 2015 1:23 pm

Also very neat were the pictures of the “Slurpee surf” (pure slush) on Nantucket in February, which briefly became ice along an ocean shoreline. The above pictures are from the “cold” side of Cape Cod (Massachusetts Bay.) What was amazing about the situation on Nantucket is that is on the “warm” side of Cape Cod, much closer to the Gulf Stream.
https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/amazing-cape-cod-sea-ice/
I got a chuckle out of the fact that all this happened right after Mann said the blizzards in Boston were caused by warm water off Cape Cod. Mother Nature really seems out to make certain Alarmist look like the fools they are.

Eric
Reply to  Caleb
March 12, 2015 6:51 am

The “cold side” of Cape Cod is not in Cape Cod Bay (Massachusetts Bay)….the “cold side” is along the eastern side of the Cape…open Atlantic waters. Cape Cod Bay is warmer than the open Atlantic, but colder than Nantucket Sound to the south. Of course, this time of year it’s ALL cold, despite alleged “warming”…

Reply to  Caleb
March 12, 2015 9:19 am

Now you have me wondering, Eric. I know from experience that the water coming into Buzzard’s Bay via the Cape Cod Canal from Massachusetts Bay is much colder than the water in Buzzard’s Bay, but that is on the southwest side of the Cape. I’ll have to research the outer Cape.
I know a cold current comes down from Maine into Massachusetts Bay from the north. I also know that Great White Sharks are seen at the elbow of the Cape, at Chatham, but not in Massachusetts Bay, and I always assumed it was because the water was colder. Now you have me thinking about the wide sand-flats on the north side of the Cape. Maybe they do allow the water to warm, at least during the summer.
I wonder if there are water temperature readings, from harbors on the Cape, listed somewhere.

Lawrence
March 11, 2015 2:29 am

Surely it won’t be long before the climate change community request billions in additional research funding in order to understand why it is getting colder… That’s the beauty of “climate change”, which ever way it changes they can still ask for funding to understand why.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Lawrence
March 11, 2015 7:00 am

Punishment from Gaia. Earth’s a living system and we broke it, now pay your indulgences, heathen. /snarkasm

Glenn999
Reply to  PiperPaul
March 11, 2015 4:04 pm

If Gaia wants humans off the planet, she can just get real cold…

Manfred
Reply to  Lawrence
March 11, 2015 10:43 am

Lawrence, I consider that the ‘why’ is well understood, even defined. In fact, it is preordained. The ‘how’ requires further understanding.
‘Climate change’ is a politicised term clearly defined by the UN: http://unfccc.int/files/documentation/text/html/list_search.php?what=&val=&valan=a&anf=0&id=10
All four definitions provide indirect and direct anthropogenic causation.
The deliberate confusion levered into an axiomatic term betrays its purpose.

Duster
Reply to  Manfred
March 12, 2015 12:31 pm

The last time the planet was this cold it ended in the greatest extinction in the geological record.

ren
March 11, 2015 2:31 am

If this prediction comes true, then east US will flow air from Alaska.comment image

Neil
Reply to  ren
March 11, 2015 5:59 am

Why?
I’m learning this stuff; please explain your reasoning so I can learn.

ren
Reply to  Neil
March 11, 2015 7:44 am

In the stratosphere jet stream moves along the boundary temperature. The jet stream at 500 and 700 hPa in the troposphere like in the stratosphere (in winter).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_nh_f192.gif
Try browsing this site.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/

rh
Reply to  Neil
March 11, 2015 7:58 am

You should go to weatherbell.com and watch the Saturday Summary videos. The video from this past Saturday is particularly good at showing this.

Reply to  ren
March 11, 2015 1:01 pm

ren,
Those stratosphere temps, look to be about what I would expect to measure under a clear sky with my IR thermometer from my frontyard (N41 W81).

ren
March 11, 2015 2:37 am

“The storm this weekend will run into just enough cold air to bring rain and spotty ice for a time in the mid-Atlantic, but more snow and ice farther north in part of New England.”
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2015/650x366_03101550_hd23.jpg
Cold air will win out by midweek.
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2015/650x366_03101950_hd33.jpg

wws
Reply to  ren
March 11, 2015 6:30 am

I love to see those “winter returns!!!!” pictures – well, at least as long as they show that I don’t live where winter is returning to!!! (It’s Springtime in Texas!)

John
Reply to  wws
March 13, 2015 10:05 am

Continental US landmass is about 2% of the Earth’s surface why is the fraction of that attracting so much attention?
Will we be setting a new record low this year on Arctic sea ice?

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  John
March 13, 2015 10:38 am

John

Continental US landmass is about 2% of the Earth’s surface why is the fraction of that attracting so much attention?
Will we be setting a new record low this year on Arctic sea ice?

No. Arctic sea ice is low, but continues to bounce around its recent usual 13.00 Mkm^2 area. About 7% less than the 1980-2010 average of 14.0 Mkm^2, but right at the 2 std deviations border.
Besides. From today’s sea ice levels, further reduction in sea ice extents only increases heat losses from the Arctic Ocean 9 months of the year. It is during May, June, and July that the Arctic gains more heat than it loses when sea ice is removed/blown away/floated south/melted.

 2015.1206  -0.8459054  13.0373964  13.8833017
 2015.1233  -0.7483619  13.1509361  13.8992977
 2015.1260  -0.6811302  13.2331123  13.9142427
 2015.1288  -0.6500145  13.2745552  13.9245701
 2015.1315  -0.7843597  13.1606741  13.9450340
 2015.1343  -0.9718025  13.0114393  13.9832420
 2015.1370  -1.0003570  12.9876242  13.9879808
 2015.1398  -0.9690272  13.0188208  13.9878483
 2015.1425  -0.9788842  13.0265245  14.0054083
 2015.1453  -0.9363302  13.0834513  14.0197811
 2015.1479  -0.9070375  13.1308460  14.0378838
 2015.1506  -0.9921414  13.0577793  14.0499210
 2015.1534  -0.9990978  13.0527353  14.0518332
 2015.1561  -0.9733058  13.0925064  14.0658121
 2015.1589  -1.0076118  13.0791111  14.0867224
 2015.1616  -1.0098718  13.0876837  14.0975552
 2015.1644  -0.9711090  13.1370230  14.1081324
 2015.1671  -0.9663225  13.1444960  14.1108189
 2015.1699  -1.0232116  13.0893240  14.1125355
 2015.1726  -0.9990324  13.0911684  14.0902004
 2015.1753  -1.0489502  13.0285950  14.0775452
 2015.1781  -1.0835601  13.0080404  14.0916004
 2015.1808  -1.0715467  13.0364876  14.1080341
 2015.1836  -1.1448607  12.9680014  14.1128626
 2015.1863  -1.1524998  12.9796820  14.1321821
 2015.1891  -1.1519341  12.9844103  14.1363440
 2015.1918  -1.1095957  13.0156841  14.1252794
Reply to  wws
March 14, 2015 3:43 pm

@ John, consider that 2% of what? We don’t live on 70 % of the earth’s surface. Many other areas are uninhabitable, and some are only marginal… that’s makes that 2 % extremely important especially since so much of the world’s food is produced here.

James at 48
Reply to  ren
March 11, 2015 1:29 pm

And the southern portion of the Laurentide core area keeps adding mass.

Jim S
Reply to  James at 48
March 12, 2015 5:17 am

Got a link? TIA

ren
March 11, 2015 2:50 am

The dark area shows the current position of the polar vortex. The solar wind quite strong.
http://oi59.tinypic.com/ivxowl.jpg
Jet stream has shifted to north. Temperature is currently in Boston increased.

Frederik
March 11, 2015 2:51 am

I bet it won’t take long before the article comes that says “new study finds out that rising CO2 levels are responsible for this cold snap”. i almost dare to bet a house on that follow up!
after all it more and more looks like there’s nothing CO2 can’t do

John
Reply to  Frederik
March 13, 2015 10:07 am

You mean the local cold snap on the east coast portion of the usa that equals 2% of the planet surface?

Skiphil
March 11, 2015 2:53 am

It’s always “climate change” now — that way any exploitable event can be blamed on CO2.
Ice in Massachusetts Bay?? Must be CO2 doing it….

Editor
Reply to  Skiphil
March 11, 2015 5:01 am

There have been very few references to climate change in New England news stories this winter except for the stories from the NCDC and GISS about the global hottest year and months.
It’s hard to exploit that when your mass transit rail system is packed full of snow and ice.

Gary
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 11, 2015 5:59 am

The Boston Globe will get back on the meme with the first 90 degree day in July.

Reply to  Ric Werme
March 11, 2015 12:30 pm

Yes but the North American school system is preaching “climate change” in K-8 so the new generation believes climate change is amongst the greatest threats to our civilization. I agree. Because the indoctrinated will continue to pour money down that rabbit hole till it ices over.

Jay Hope
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 12, 2015 1:44 am

They’ll blame it on the Chinese instead.

LINER011
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 12, 2015 6:32 am

The Globe headline will be, 2015 predicted to have record SNOW MELT, due to global warming.

Espen
Reply to  Skiphil
March 11, 2015 5:31 am

It must be dry ice!

PiperPaul
Reply to  Espen
March 11, 2015 7:07 am

Hey! Dry ice is solid CO2, and temps haven’t been going up as predicted (desired?) while CO2 output has been increasing. So … something is missing – either heat or CO2. We can’t find the heat, so it must be the CO2 that’s missing. Therefore, the missing CO2 went into the creation of dry ice!
Where’s my cheque?

Two Labs
March 11, 2015 3:03 am

But of course! Didn’t you see “Day After Tomorrow?”

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Two Labs
March 11, 2015 8:26 am

I managed to avoid it for years. I can’t decide if Day After Tomorrow, Gravity or Interstellar has the most ‘Ur’. Ur, an ignoble gas, is the element of unreal physics.

olliebourque@me.com
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 11, 2015 10:12 am

To be fair, Hollywood generally gets the physics wrong on all movies. George Pal wasn’t too bad, though.

KTM
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 11, 2015 11:22 am

I’ve only seen Gravity, but the physics early in the movie were so laughable that when Clooney opened the hatch to climb in, I thought they might actually think that was feasible.
Any other movie and I would have immediately known something else was going on and started thinking of the explanation, this movie my first thought was that they were just dumb.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 11, 2015 4:23 pm

All 3!

MichaelB
March 11, 2015 3:05 am

It seems Like Earth is really trying to show the warmists something.

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  MichaelB
March 11, 2015 4:19 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

oppti
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 4:31 am

Extent or volume?
There is a difference.
The extent is low thanks to less ice in Bearing and Okhotsc both in the Pacific.

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 4:40 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 4:46 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 5:13 am

icouldnthelpit: Ah, bless, I think you are a little confused by oppti’s reply. You see, whenever we (sceptics) point out that sea ice is on an ‘up’, we get told to look at the volume. And whenever the volume is on an ‘up’ we get told to look at the extent. So you can see why we might be, shall we say, a little weary of people like you. Now, you have come along and pointed out that the Arctic sea ice extent (strange you never mentioned the Antarctic, but never mind) is struggling. So I am duty bound to point out the volume recovery since 2012:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Which should we be concerned about, the extent, or the volume? Do tell, as we would then like to pop back on here and remind people like you when things aren’t going quite according to your belief. So which is it? The volume is almost certainly increasing from its depth in 2012. And, of course, we are told so often that it is volume that we should be concerned about. Do you agree, or disagree? As you have come on here and disregarded the volume recovery AND the Antarctic. So can I assume it is Arctic ice extent that bothers you most.

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 5:28 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 5:57 am

@icouldnthelpit:
You know that PIOMAS chart is a fabrication, don’t you? It is designed to scare worrywarts like you, and it’s working. But it isn’t an accurate representation. For one thing, it shows the planet’s recovery from the LIA, a process that is continuing with no regard to high or low CO2 levels. And of course, the Antarctic, with 10X the ice volume of the Arctic, is rapidly increasing its ice cover.
In fact, Arctic ice is recovering nicely.
So we can add the Arctic ice scare to the list of alarmist predictions that have failed. It’s a really long list. You say:
For The Antarctic I’m mostly worried about ice…
You’re mostly worried about everything. Tell you what: you do the worrying, and the rest of us will do the laughing. Because climate worrywarts are amusing.

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 6:08 am

Your arctic sea ice chart shows bands of variation over the time frame, with the recent upward tick falling well within those bands. Of course this last upward tick is more than enough to get the skeptics clamoring with great relief: ‘see, arctic sea ice is growing, its not shrinking!’ As they would have for previous upwards ticks.
They do have trouble stepping back from the pixels to see the entire picture.

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 6:13 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Alan Robertson
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 6:59 am

Have you tried looking at the Antarctic sea ice extent, as well?

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 7:15 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 1:51 pm

You can’t just look at the ice at the periphery. A lot of the cold generated in Siberia didn’t head out over the Pacific this year, but instead came over the top of the globe., and down to freeze the socks off Boston. (They’ve been removing three feet of snow from Fenway Park.)
When the cold moves like that it tends to compress ice towards the middle of the Pole. This thicker ice will not show up on the “extent” graph until the thin ice at the edges melts back. More than half of all Arctic sea-ice melts away even on the coldest years.
A wild card this summer will be the effect of the tanking AMO. In January it sank to levels of the “cold” phase not seen in over twenty years. One thing I watching for is for the thicker ice to spread out and drift down into Barents Sea without melting as swiftly as it usually does. (Even though the ice would be spread out, it still counts on the “extent” graphs.)
I wrote a long-winded post about the Atlantic and Pacific storms eating away at the edge of the ice at the periphery last winter, even as cross-polar-flow crushed ice up against Canada:
https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/arctic-sea-ice-maximum-why-so-low/

Streetcred
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 4:43 pm

<blockquote.dbstealey.
You’ve gone back and changed your post on the quiet!
Wow!
That is not possible for a commenter to undertake at this blog … icouldnthelpit, you must be confusing WUWT with one of your CGAW blogs?

Bob Boder
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 5:12 pm

icouldntunderstandit
answer Big Jim which do you want us to look at extent or volume? That way we know what chart to use to prove your clueless!

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 1:39 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Jimbo
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 3:16 am

Arctic sea ice extent was variable BEFORE 1979! See also the 1920s to 1940s Arctic Warm Period. No satellites back then but summer minimum extent was certainly down based on observations of that time.
Now see the 1990 Sea ice extent IPCC AR1 graphic.
http://www.kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/nord2.gif

IPCC FAR (AR1) 1990 Chapter 7, page 224:
“Especially importantly, satellite observations have been used to map sea-ice extent routinely since the early 1970’s. The American Navy Joint Ice Centre has produced weekly charts which have been digitised by NOAA. These data are summarized in Figure 7.20 which is based on analyses carried out on a 1 latitude x 2.5 longitude grid. Sea-ice is defined to be present when its concentration exceeds 10% (Ropelewski, 1983). Since about 1976 the areal extent of sea-ice in the Northern Hemisphere has varied about a constant climatological level, but in 1972-1975, sea-ice extent was significantly less.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

If Arctic sea ice extent recovers then warmist arguments about co2 causing melt is in the water. 😉

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 3:52 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Jimbo
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 4:30 am

icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 at 3:52 am
Jimbo. That stops at 1990! Post something that goes up to the present. The graphs are out there.

The graph is copied from the IPCC 1990 PDF. My point stays the same. Arctic sea ice extent minimum was variable before 1979. The IPCC said so themselves, here it is again.

IPCC FAR (AR1) Chapter 7, page 224:
“……Since about 1976 the areal extent of sea-ice in the Northern Hemisphere has varied about a constant climatological level, but in 1972-1975, sea-ice extent was significantly less.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Time will tell what will happen over the next decade but I certainly won’t act to reduce greenhouse gases based on the minimums since 2005. PS Antarctic sea ice extent has been much lower in the past. Is it a cycle? Like I said time will tell. I am patient.

Jimbo
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 4:34 am

icouldnthelpit, read these as I hope they may offer you a little more insight into variable climate change – coz that’s what the climate does!

Abstract
The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism
The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.7°C…..
dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C4045:TETWIT%3E2.0.CO;2
————
Abstract
The regime shift of the 1920s and 1930s in the North Atlantic
During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a dramatic warming of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. Warmer-than-normal sea temperatures, reduced sea ice conditions and enhanced Atlantic inflow in northern regions continued through to the 1950s and 1960s, with the timing of the decline to colder temperatures varying with location. Ecosystem changes associated with the warm period included a general northward movement of fish……
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2006.02.011
————
Abstract
Early 20th century Arctic warming in upper-air data
Between around 1915 and 1945, Arctic surface air temperatures increased by about 1.8°C. Understanding this rapid warming, its possible feedbacks and underlying causes, is vital in order to better asses the current and future climate changes in the Arctic.
http://meetings.copernicus.org/www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/04015/EGU2007-J-04015.pdf
————
Abstract
……(a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale……
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL038777/full
————
IPCC – AR4
Average arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. Arctic temperatures have high decadal variability, and a warm period was also observed from 1925 to 1945.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html
————
Abstract
Arctic Warming” During 1920-40:
A Brief Review of Old Russian Publications
Sergey V. Pisarev
1. The idea of Arctic Warming during 1920–40 is supported in Russian publications by the following facts: *retreating of glaciers, melting of sea islands, and retreat of permafrost* decrease of sea ice amounts…..
http://mclean.ch/climate/Arctic_1920_40.htm
————
Abstract
…..Winter season stable isotope data from ice core records that reach more than 1400 years back in time suggest that the warm period that began in the 1920s raised southern Greenland temperatures to the same level as those that prevailed during the warmest intervals of the Medieval Warm Period some 900–1300 years ago. This observation is supported by a southern Greenland ice core borehole temperature inversion……
Climatic signals in multiple highly resolved stable isotope records from Greenland
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379109003655

Jimbo
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 4:48 am

icouldnthelpit, see huge holes in the Arctic sea ice. Antarctic sea ice was also highly variable. I hope you are seeing the bigger picture now.

2014
…..What the researchers didn’t expect were “enormous holes” in the sea ice, currently under investigation. “We can’t explain them yet,” Gallaher said…..
“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

Jimbo
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 5:03 am

icouldnthelpit, are you willing entertain various explanations for Arctic sea ice minimums since 1979?

Abstract
Martin W. Miles – et al – 2013
A Signal of Persistent Atlantic Multidecadal Variability in Arctic Sea Ice
Satellite data suggest an Arctic sea ice–climate system in rapid transformation, yet its long-term natural modes of variability are poorly known. Here, we integrate and synthesize a set of multi-century historical records of Atlantic Arctic sea ice, supplemented with high-resolution paleo proxy records, each reflecting primarily winter/spring sea ice conditions. We establish a signal of pervasive and persistent multidecadal (~60-90 year) fluctuations that is most pronounced in the Greenland Sea, and weakens further away. Covariability between sea ice and Atlantic multidecadal variability as represented by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index is evident during the instrumental record, including an abrupt change at the onset of the early 20th century warming (ETCW). Similar covariability through previous centuries is evident from comparison of the longest historical sea ice records and paleo proxy reconstructions of sea ice and the AMO. This observational evidence supports recent modelling studies that have suggested that Arctic sea ice is intrinsically linked to Atlantic multidecadal [natural] variability. This may have implications for understanding the recent negative trend in Arctic winter sea ice extent, although because the losses have been greater in summer, other processes and feedbacks are also important.
Geophysical Research Letters
doi:10.1002/2013
__________________
NOAA
“Climate mechanisms in the Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic are very active research topics, and our understanding of their causes and effects is far from complete. The importance of this wide-ranging research activity is very well stated by Dr. Nate Mantua, a researcher at the University of Washington, as he speaks about the PDO: “Even in the absence of a theoretical understanding, PDO climate information improves season-to-season and year-to-year climate forecasts for North America because of its strong tendency for multi-season and multi-year persistence. From a societal impacts perspective, recognition of PDO is important because it shows that ‘normal’ climate conditions can vary over time periods comparable to the length of a human’s lifetime.””
__________________
Abstract – 2013
Dr. Marcia Wyatt and Dr. Judith Curry
Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century
Marcia Glaze Wyatt and Judith A. Curry
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/
— — —
‘Stadium Waves’ Could Explain Lull In Global Warming
Posted Oct 10, 2013 | Atlanta, GA
“The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum, first in the West Eurasian Arctic, followed by recovery in the Siberian Arctic,” Wyatt said. “Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal.”he sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal.”
http://www.research.gatech.edu/news/%E2%80%98stadium-waves%E2%80%99-could-explain-lull-global-warming
__________________
22 March 2012
“Could Arctic Sea Ice Decline be Caused by the Arctic Oscillation?
…In 2002, a paper was published in the Journal of Climate entitled Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation, where the authors (one of whom, Mike Wallace, was a co-discoverer of the AO) shows that changing wind patterns associated with the AO contributed to Arctic sea ice declines from one decade to the next: from 1979-1988 to 1989-1998….”
[Dr. Roy Spencer]
__________________

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 6:14 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Jimbo
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 11:34 am

icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 at 6:14 am
Jimbo. I’ve honestly no idea what your point is?
Is is that ice extents have varied before? Who says they haven’t? Certainly not The IPCC as you’re quoting from their 25 year old report. What’s different now is that The Arctic extent is seemingly in a death spiral.
Are you saying it’s just variability? That the ‘mini recovery’ of the last 2 years will continue (I’ve seen a few on here say that)?

My point is that summer Arctic sea ice extent will grow over the next decade. The ‘death spiral’ is dead. The minimums since 1979 are natural.

Bob Boder
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 5:02 pm

icouldntunderstand;
I actually feel sorry for you, what did you do to Jimbo for him to take you to the wood shed like that.

jai mitchell
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 5:24 pm

@Jimbo
Research performed on Baffin Island last summer proves that the arctic is now warmer than it has been in the last 120,000 years. By collecting exposed mosses on the edge of receding glaciers on Baffin Island and radiocarbon dating them, they have found the last time that they added new growth. Video here:

Story here:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29462-greenland-reels-climate-disrupting-feedbacks-have-begun

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  jai mitchell
March 12, 2015 6:38 pm

jai mitchell

Research performed on Baffin Island last summer proves that the arctic is now warmer than it has been in the last 120,000 years. By collecting exposed mosses on the edge of receding glaciers on Baffin Island and radiocarbon dating them, they have found the last time that they added new growth.

See? It HAS BEEN warmer before. It has been warmer,and colder, before – when CO2 levels were both higher, but not much more dangerously lower! – than now!
And nothing bad happened.

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 13, 2015 12:40 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 13, 2015 6:06 pm

icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 at 7:15 am (replying to Alan Robertson.)

Yes. Antarctic winter sees growth, summer sees it all melt away = Antarctic minimum shows not much change.

Wrong. Dead wrong.
At 2.5 million sq km’s each of the past 3 years, the Antarctic sea ice at minimum is more than 35% ABOVE the “average” Antarctic sea ice minimum of 1.7 million sq kilometers. Don’t know who gave you your talking points, but they lied to you. And the Antarctic sea ice maximum is growing even more – setting records last year in June (about its midpoint) with a sea ice anomaly the size of Greenland; and an “excess” sea ice anomaly in September 3/4 the size of Greenland, greater than the entire surface area of Hudson Bay.
Arctic sea ice has been – the past 2-1/2 years – solidly within 2 std deviations of its 1980-2010 averages almost every day. Not all days, but most days stay in that band. Almost every has been below average, but within 2 std deviations of that average. Worse, the more sea ice area lost between August and April, the more energy lost from the Arctic Ocean by increased evaporation, convection, LW radiation, and conduction. The Arctic is doing its job of cooling the planet.
Antarctic sea ice has – more than 85% of the time – EVERY DAY been MORE than 2 std devotion GREATER than average for the past 3-1/2 years. EVERY DAY. It has been 25% to 42% GREATER than average. All seasons of the year, including the minimum just past – at +32% above average.
The past 12 months, the Antarctic reflected back into space 168% of what the Arctic absorbed through ice loss. So? You are dead wrong on all counts.

Jimbo
Reply to  MichaelB
March 11, 2015 4:58 am

Italy and Greece see the first signs of an early spring. Italian village kids won’t know what snow is.

Daily Telegraph – 10 March 2015
The village that got eight feet of snow in one day
Italian village has broken records after it received a dump of more than eight feet (2.56 metres) in 18 hours …
=======
March 10, 2015
Greece – Many villages blocked by more than 2 meters (7 ft) of snow
http://iceagenow.info/2015/03/greece-villages-blocked-2-meters-7-ft-snow/

Bob Boder
Reply to  Jimbo
March 11, 2015 5:08 pm

Don’t you know that this is only weather not climate, climate only happens when we have a heat wave doh! just ask Warren and Icouldntunderstandit.

Reply to  Jimbo
March 14, 2015 3:57 pm

@ RA COOK… of course you probably know that a probe was sent down to look at the ‘thin’ ice in Antarctic, what they got was 3 to 5 times ticker than their estimates.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  rishrac
March 14, 2015 5:25 pm

rishrac

of course you probably know that a probe was sent down to look at the ‘thin’ ice in Antarctic, what they got was 3 to 5 times ticker than their estimates.

Yes. That measurement (of the actual Antarctic sea ice thickness) was an “interesting” surprise to the CAGW community. It violated ALL of their assumptions. 8<)

Ursus Maritimus Bipolaris
March 11, 2015 3:07 am

No, no.no.nooooo ….. it can’t be! The models are right so it MUST BE FAKE!
Its faked, just like the moon landings and,and, and 911 … its the CIA thay faked it…. its fake ice! They got the jews in Hollywood to make fake ice in those movie studios they all control. They are obviously in league with Putin who is trying to mess with our heads so he can sell more gas to rescue the Russian economy and he has done secret deal with the Koch brothers and Big Oil to fool us into not believing about global warming is destroying the earth.
Why won’t anyone listen…. why, why, why… don’t you .. sniff… believe me…. you know it must be true.

Tony
March 11, 2015 3:08 am

Is this a first?

Brute
Reply to  Tony
March 11, 2015 3:20 am

Safe money is on “this is the nth + 1”. Don’t forget the age of the planet.

Tony
Reply to  Brute
March 11, 2015 3:37 am

As the cliché goes, is it the first “on record”?

Brute
Reply to  Brute
March 11, 2015 12:43 pm

The geological record.

RH
Reply to  Tony
March 11, 2015 3:45 am

I think I read somewhere that during the little ice age, Boston got a couple of feet of snow in June and July.

Reply to  RH
March 11, 2015 1:55 pm

Not true. In 1815 there was snow in the air during every summer month, and frosts that killed three separate plantings of corn, but not “feet of snow.”

Jimbo
Reply to  Tony
March 11, 2015 5:14 am

Tony
March 11, 2015 at 3:08 am
Is this a first?

Nothing is a first when it comes to the weather. Or is that climate change?

Boston Evening Transcript – Jan 26, 1888
Cold Wave on Cape Cod
Wellfleet bay is frozen solid, and the ice on ponds is over fifteen inches thick in places.

March 11, 2015 3:17 am

Sarc on: Oh but look at all this global warming on the West Coast pushing up into Alaska, which is displacing the Arctic and moving down the East Coast. In 20 years the tropics will be in the Arctic and the Arctic will be in Florida.

Jbird
Reply to  wickedwenchfan
March 11, 2015 4:11 am

During the years when the Laurentide and Scandinavian ice caps were at their greatest extents, Alaska was virtually ice free as were parts of Siberia. The thickest parts of the Laurentide ice dome(s) were found to be just south of the area now occupied by Hudson Bay, which is more or less where the so-called “Polar Vortex” has been setting up in recent years. There are some who believe that the Earth’s mean temperature doesn’t actually have to change in order for ice ages to occur. It’s a simple transformation (freezing) and redistribution of H2O from the ocean to the land surface possibly brought about by severe changes in the jet stream (along with other factors).

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Jbird
March 11, 2015 5:21 am

Parts of Alaska also reminded ice free because it was too windy for glaciers or ice sheets to form.

ren
Reply to  Jbird
March 11, 2015 5:52 am

100 %.

ren
Reply to  Jbird
March 11, 2015 6:15 am

Look why the polar vortex hangs over Canada. This is consistent with the magnetic field to the north.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/10endpg.jpg

BFL
Reply to  Jbird
March 11, 2015 6:36 am
Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Jbird
March 11, 2015 8:52 am

It is possible that the Earth’s axis has shifted a bit and that the shift causes ice to build up on land. I am not speaking of precession, I am talking about the pole shifting. The Earth actually has three poles in the core, the mantle and the lithosphere. The lithosphere can shift over the mantle because of the eccentric build up of polar ice, as is happening in Antarctica now. It can move very quickly – not like the sea-floor-spreading rate.

tty
Reply to  Jbird
March 11, 2015 9:52 am

Not too windy – too dry. The windiest place on the planet is Adelie Land in Antarctica, which definitely isn’t ice-free.

Silver ralph
Reply to  Jbird
March 11, 2015 10:28 am

>>Pole shift theory.
We know that the lithosphere has not shifted, because of the Hawaiian chain of islands. Straight line – no shift.
Ralph

Jbird
Reply to  Jbird
March 11, 2015 11:41 am

Ren; That’s a pretty interesting map you’ve got there if it is showing magnetic field displacement – nice correlation with several things. Will you share your source?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Jbird
March 12, 2015 2:38 pm

Silver Ralph
Suppose the centre of rotation were the Hawaiian Islands. While I find your observation attractive, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence for sudden changes in the pole(s). Lake Titicaca shorelines are one example, and the seal level shorelines on E Ireland and W Wales are another. Neither requires a shift of the Lithosphere, just the pole, as probably happened in 3100 BC, by about 1/2 a degree.
I will keep watching.

ren
Reply to  Jbird
March 13, 2015 7:17 am

Jbird :
The Earth, 1: The Upper Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and Magnetosphere
edited by Charlotte W. Gordon, Vittorio Canuto, W. Ian Axford

Sturgis Hooper
March 11, 2015 3:32 am

If it happens next year, that will be once in the next generation.
Didn’t Caleb write about his youthful adventures on New England ice?

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
March 11, 2015 2:04 pm

Yes I did. Anthony published it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/a-retrospective-fun-with-sea-ice/
I must add I never recall seeing bergs back then quite as thick as the ones drifting up on Cape Cod now. This winter’s cold must have been colder than the late 1970’s. Or else perhaps the water was chilled more this year, by the very cold November and some cold shots in December and early January, before the cold clamped down and held in late January. In the the winter of 1976-1977 the winter clamped down early, but relaxed in February.

Mick
March 11, 2015 3:37 am

Dry ice or rotten ice? 😉

Aussiebear
March 11, 2015 3:40 am

I am sort of confused. Climate Change/Global Warming is causing Arctic Amplification because it is warming twice as fast as everywhere else. This is causing the Jet Stream to “meander” southwards.
What I want to know, if the Jet Stream is meandering south because of this heat build up, why is the southern push so cold. Where is the “heat”?
Just asking.

Doug
Reply to  Aussiebear
March 11, 2015 3:49 am

The heat is on the west coast of the US, where mountain snowpack is 17% of normal and spring flowers are over a month early. These variations are nearly all weather, not climate—-there is a “global” in global warming (and cooling), but we humans can’t resist taking our local conditions as indicative of something.

Paul
Reply to  Doug
March 11, 2015 4:24 am

“The heat is on the west coast of the US…we humans can’t resist taking our local conditions as indicative of something”
Can you clarify then, doesn’t “Global Warming” mean the globe is warming? And since that doesn’t seem to be the case, Climate Change, (warmer OR cooler), would by definition need to be local?

Editor
Reply to  Doug
March 11, 2015 5:11 am

“… would by definition need to be local?”
Not in my book (or any systems engineer, fluid dynamics person, or climatologist). Given the global warming since the 1970s is only some 0.7C°, any regional change beyond that should be balanced by a region with an opposite anomaly. That was one of the central points I tried to make in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/08/1934-2015-a-tale-of-two-februaries/
This year’s weather (couple years, actually) has obvious connections to that ridge in the Pacific NW, and that connects back to ENSO state and other less obvious phenomena. Another point in my previous post is that we’ve seen all this before – this isn’t climate change, local or global, it’s just weather.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Doug
March 11, 2015 5:33 am

Snow on the beach in Los Angeles.

Alx
Reply to  Doug
March 11, 2015 5:47 am

It’s not all humans, only the humans who pretend they can predict climate and have figured out how all of the earths climate works as a singular totality. Apparently they have accomplished this needing only mediocre statistical and computer skills and big computers.
Yes weather isn’t climate, except…unless… it supports your side of the argument, than of course it is of primary importance. There are scores of climate research papers that look at regional or local variation and claim, see here it is, voila, global warming in action. I am not sure where the separation line is between effects of climate change and climate change itself. But let’s stick with weather.
Weather vs. climate begs the question where is the cross-over from weather to climate. Is it just area? If so how many square miles? Is it time, then how many years, 10, 30, 100, 1000? These numbers are all fungible, which puts climate science clearly into the bargain bin of junk science, since without a proper testable definition of “climate” what in the world are we talking about?
Is the fungible principle a new precept in science or is it just an unwritten rule of climate science?

Reply to  Doug
March 11, 2015 6:07 am

Catherine Ronconi March 11, 2015 at 5:33 am
Snow on the beach in Los Angeles.

Didn’t happen, it was hail.

Hugh
Reply to  Doug
March 11, 2015 10:11 am

Can you clarify then, doesn’t “Global Warming” mean the globe is warming?

A good question.
The globe is supposed to have higher mean temps on average.
This does not mean every place gets uniformly warmer, or warmer at all, or that temp change is same throughout the day or year, or that the variation on temperature keeps the same.
The thing is noone can predict well.
Arctic ice is on a record low level, Antarctic on record high. Who’d have predicted this?

Reply to  Doug
March 11, 2015 12:42 pm

Actually I think it is because the world is getting “less cold” in places. This has been discussed here over and over but when you average out “normal” high temperatures and “less cold” low temperatures you get an average that is warmer. No heat stress on life; less cold stress. Seems a good thing to me but I am just a retired engineer that graduated many moons ago with a water and pollution specialty in civil engineering and I am sure all that math, hydrology, climate, geology, ecosystem and weather stuff et al they taught us was pretty out of date …

Duster
Reply to  Doug
March 12, 2015 12:56 pm

A very good point. It would be reasonable to argue that unless weather shifts are prolonged enough to result in actual changes in biological community composition, the climate hasn’t changed. In California during the Medieval Climate Anomaly or Drought as it is often referred out here, there were two major droughts that lasted on the order of a century each. Mountain lake levels dropped by up to three meters. Apparently steam flows were severely reduced and there is evidence of saline marsh biota moving significantly inland in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The changes were so severe that the habitability of the Sierra Nevada was seriously reduced for the prehistoric populations living there at the time. The same period sees increases in warfare, indications of disease in human skeletons, and as one source memorably put it “increased sociopathic violence” in the southwest, meaning there is evidence of cannibalism and some really un-nice treatment of captives based upon perimortem bone damage.

Arno Arrak
Reply to  Aussiebear
March 11, 2015 10:01 am

Not surprised you are confused. This has nothing to do with global warming, Arctic amplification, or the jet stream. The fact that Arctic is the only place in the world that is still warming should have made you suspicious or this. What is warming the Arctic is warn water from the Gulf stream, carried north by Atlantic Ocean currents. It was not always so but got started at the beginning of the twentieth century when there was a change in the flow pattern of North Atlantic currents. Prior to this there was nothing there, just two thousand years of slow cooling. Read my paper in E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2012). The initial warming in the twenties and thirties was strong but got interrupted by a thirty year cold spell in mid-century. Warming resumed in 1970 and is still going strong. These people who show the warming curve entirely miss the first part and the beginning of Atctic warming because they start their observations in 1980. Apparently there is magic in this date which happens to be the start date of satellite observations conveniently available. Judging by appearances, the warm water carried north today quite possibly has melted as much as one third of the ice that would have existed between Iceland and the Russian Arctic. It is quite likely that in the absennce of this external heat source the Arctic and the Antarctic ice extents would be similar..

nigelf
March 11, 2015 3:40 am

Looks like the lack of sunspots is starting to show up.

Mike McMillan
March 11, 2015 3:53 am

Cape Cod was formed by glaciers. They oughta’ be used to a little ice.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
March 11, 2015 4:02 pm

Climate alarmists were also formed by glaciers. They are known as ‘terminal morons.’

Geochemist
Reply to  Max Photon
March 11, 2015 5:04 pm

I see what you did there!

mebbe
Reply to  Max Photon
March 11, 2015 7:41 pm

They would say “that’s a big pile!”

Bill Illis
March 11, 2015 4:09 am

There was extensive sea ice all the way down to Chesapeake Bay at 39N this winter until the last week or so. The last time they had ice like this was the winter of 1976-77.
Select “all” here to see the charts from the National Ice Centre.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/products/ches_del.html

James Strom
Reply to  Bill Illis
March 11, 2015 5:45 am

It’s weather until someone shows otherwise, but people were still worrying about reglaciation in 1976-77. Maybe it’s time to revert to that older scare.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bill Illis
March 11, 2015 5:51 am

Tells me there are no such products

Bill Illis
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 11, 2015 7:36 am

Select “All” first then submit.

Reply to  Bill Illis
March 11, 2015 9:08 am

The last time they had ice like this was the winter of 1976-77.

Yup, I remember that. There was four (4) of us who flew down to Chesapeake Bay in January to “duck hunt” ….. but all the boats were frozen in the ice and we couldn’t get out to “open” water to find a duck to shoot at.

Walt D.
March 11, 2015 4:16 am

All we need is a polar bear!

Fred Byrne
March 11, 2015 4:18 am

Clearly, this has been the result of ice melting at the North Pole caused by global warming. The Earth has become unbalanced as a result and is tipping over. The new North Pole is now near Nantucket. We must stop using all heating fuels to allow the Earth to cool once more. Trenberth warned us over and over about the ‘tipping point’. Too late too late it is too late.

Paul
Reply to  Fred Byrne
March 11, 2015 4:34 am

“The new North Pole is now near Nantucket.”
Oh no! Could that huge mass of that floating sea ice cause Isostatic depression, increasing relative sea level rates? It’s worse than we thought AND it is too late.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Paul
March 11, 2015 8:55 am

Don’t ya just hate it when all that future cooling is already baked in?

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Paul
March 11, 2015 8:17 pm

Kinda makes me wonder about the cookbook.

Jbird
March 11, 2015 4:20 am

Given that we are now entering a solar “grand minimum” it seems unlikely that ice on Cape Cod will be just a “once-in-a-lifetime” event. This event will occur again in the near future. Maybe not next winter, but possibly the one after that or the next. Conditions have changed. People need to get used to it.

phlogiston
March 11, 2015 4:22 am

They couldn’t resist “even as the temperature warms” – how pathetic.
Although I’m not sure I would resist either,
if I were writing news copy for MSM with the CAGW AK47 pushed in my ear.

March 11, 2015 4:35 am

The skeptic community should never use the term climate change for a number of reasons but the big one is that the rebranding of Global Warming to Climate Change was a huge mistake by the alarmists and they should be reminded of it at every opportunity.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/so-which-is-it-global-warming-climate-disruption-or-climate-change/
Pointman

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Pointman
March 11, 2015 5:41 am

Great essay, Pointman. You are so right. They have come to despise the phrase “global warming”, which is why we need to throw it in their faces every chance we get.

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2015 5:50 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

rh
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2015 8:15 am

I only use the term global warming. When a denier tells me the more accurate term is climate change, I remind them that all of the supposed changes they talk about are, by their own theories, caused by global warming. By keeping the focus on global temperature, we won’t get distracted by all the weather out there.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Pointman
March 11, 2015 5:44 am

Absolutely. When I’m talking about it to a friend I’m always careful to use the term ‘global warming’.
‘Climate change’ is completely vague as it can mean practically anything you like. But ‘global warming’ is quite specific. It refers to warming, not cooling. And it’s definitely global.
Chris

Doug
Reply to  Pointman
March 11, 2015 8:01 am

When you dig into the details of the predicted “climate disruptions” the mechanism is always warming. Without global warming, none of the changes will occur, so I always feel justified in using GW instead of CC.

eyesonu
Reply to  Pointman
March 11, 2015 10:18 am

Pointman,
You make a good point and I hope many heed your comment. Global Warming is the original meme and should be the prime reference used when referring to the CAGW narrative. It is not unacceptable to further refine that to ‘Catastrophic Global Warming’. It is what the “believers” pitched from the start.
Warning: “Fag Nation” is no longer acceptable. It is now LGBT and you could go to jail for referring to the original self defined identifier. So some caution my be required in the use of “Global Warming”.

KTM
Reply to  eyesonu
March 11, 2015 11:31 am

Yes, even the term “homosexuals” is now viewed by some as a slur. I saw some old television footage from a gay pride parade from several decades ago, and everyone they interviewed used the term “homosexual” to describe themselves and others.

Reply to  Pointman
March 12, 2015 6:43 am

When did this ‘rebranding’ happen, the WMO and UN have been using ‘Climate Change’ since at least 1988?

Alx
March 11, 2015 5:21 am

Could be photo-shopped photos.
Or maybe deniers with stolen snow machines created these ice chunks in a secret lair and released them for maximum affect.
Or maybe this probably explains why we needed “Global Warming” to morph into “Climate Change”.
I recommend for more affect, we morph “Climate Change” to “Climate Mange”. No one likes mange, and the word itself sounds terrible, where as “change” could sound like a good thing.
I mean look at the Earth including it’s climate, it remains unpredictable in often marvelous ways.

Awesome Post
Reply to  Alx
March 11, 2015 7:38 am

Climate Menagerie is much better. It’s more difficult to spell too, so it will automatically increase the ‘reading grade level’ in student reports about extrapolating local weather events to global extents.

Jason Calley
Reply to  Alx
March 11, 2015 12:30 pm

Especially when talking with a true believer, I always name it “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.” I usually just use the acronym CAGW in comments, but in a conversation it is always the full name. If they call it Climate Change or Climate Weirding or anything else I remind them that we are talking about a dangerous man made warming of the entire planet caused by CO2. If it is not Catastrophic, or not Anthropogenic, or not Global, or not Warming, then they must be talking about something else and can we get back to the original subject, please? After all, they bought the concept, hook, line and sinker, so don’t let them “word-walk” away from it.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 11, 2015 5:38 am

Meanwhile, Capracotta Italy may have set a new world record for most snowfall in a 24-hour period — 256 centimeters, or 100.8 inches:

The official U.S. record 24-hour snowfall, 75.8 inches, was measured in Silver Lake, Colorado, from April 14-15, 1927, according to Weather Underground weather historian Christopher Burt. However, a February 1963 event in Alaska may have topped that.
Globally, the 24-hour snow record belongs to Mt. Ibuki, Japan, where an incredible 90.6 inches was measured on Valentine’s Day, 1927.

Another village (Pescocostanzo, about 16 km / 10 mi southeast of Capracotta) saw 240 centimeters / 94.5 inches) of snow.

March 11, 2015 5:38 am

Give me half a billion in funding, and I’ll tell you why the climate is changing. Heck, I’ll do it for free.
The climate has ALWAYS been changing, up or down, since this planet was formed. When oceans and the air-blanket we have started to interact, stirred by the sun and the lunar/solar tides, climate change began– and it’s been going on ever since. Not much you can do to stop it or change its course either. When a planet that’s 8,000 miles in diameter and that weighs six sextillion tons decides it wants to change a couple of degrees up or down, there’s not much you and I can do about it— anymore than we can stop it in its orbit.

Chris Wright
March 11, 2015 5:40 am

This reminds me of a recent episode of Alaska Railroads. It showed massive chunks of ice being pushed up onto the ground as the river started to melt (I think they did mention it had been a hard winter). Some big chunks of ice actually ended up on the rail tracks. There was no mention of climate change, fortunately. What’s the betting that they would have presented this as further proof of global warming?
Chris

Scott
March 11, 2015 5:41 am

It’s either climate change or a pause, both prove climate change, an obvious example of an extreme weather event where I live is that one day it will pour rain and another day there will be absolutely zero precipitation. Send me a million$, thank you

Gary Pearse
March 11, 2015 5:45 am

Good luck on this being the once in a lifetime occurrence!! The death spiral of arctic ice works in mysterious ways. I didn’t note NSIDC or Cryosphere today recording this +15% frozen ocean off the coast of Massachusetts in their graphics. If it was frozen there it must have been frozen right up to the Gulf of St. Lawrence which was indeed frozen.

Eliza
March 11, 2015 6:16 am

Looks like the persons maintaining that we are entering an ice age due to solar activity are looking more credible every year

jbird
March 11, 2015 6:36 am

There ought to be a way to measure the cooling effect of the ice and its albedo on local temperatures. Certainly, persisting ice in the Great Lakes region as well as sea ice off of the New England coast should impact temperatures in the summer months as well as next fall and winter in that region.

EdA the New Yorker
March 11, 2015 6:37 am

Fred Byrne at 4:18.
“The earth has become unbalanced, and is tipping over.”
Thank you for bringing this possibility to our attention. The US Navy needs to look into this immediately.
http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q&feature=YouTube_gdata_player

Reply to  EdA the New Yorker
March 11, 2015 1:24 pm

EdA were did you get that too funny exchange and how did the Admiral manage to remain sitting and straight faced? But on the down side it shows just how cowardly bureaucrats are when they are talking to people that might influence their funding.

Reply to  EdA the New Yorker
March 11, 2015 1:39 pm

Hey, Hank used the correct word – “capsize”.

BruceC
March 11, 2015 6:51 am

I thought Cape Cod rang a bell. That’s where M. Mann said SST’s were 11.5C (21F) above normal last month.comment image

Gary Pearse
Reply to  BruceC
March 11, 2015 8:10 am

I guess that’s why the sea ice went out early in Cape Cod.

Jake
March 11, 2015 6:53 am

I’m going to the Cape this weekend … I can’t wait to find these things!!

Oscar Bajner
March 11, 2015 7:15 am

Is that an Canis Bogus I see all stranded and alone on the icy wastes, or just another dog that won’t hunt?
I agree with pointman that skeptics and any other interested sane persons should continually replace “Climate Change” with “Global warming” in conversation or publication.
If “Climate change” cannot be avoided then it must be emphasized that there is no singular “climate” as the planet has a range of climates. Such distinctions may just bring
enlightenment to the population of undeniers at the margin.
At the present rate of “pause” or “hiatus”, in trading terms, the alarmist group are maxed out on their temperature long, leverage is at an all time high, the market is at the end of a very long bull run, is currently in stag, and once it reverts to the mean and ursus makes his shaggy pelt felt, may just let us witness the largest margin call in the history of margin calls.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Oscar Bajner
March 11, 2015 9:33 am

Please don’t call it ” The pause ” It is not a pause until it starts warming again. Until then the warming has stopped.

Resourceguy
March 11, 2015 7:18 am

Kerry will just send out government ice breakers to protect his sail boats while pushing the carbon tax campaign trail in warmer climates.

Steve Oregon
March 11, 2015 7:18 am

Wouldn’t all of that ice be staying put where it belongs, up yonder, if it were not for AGW?
Clearly we have crossed a tipping point with the relocation of all this ice.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Steve Oregon
March 11, 2015 9:01 am

They came ashore to get away from all that Mannian warmer sea water. They are actually climate refugees, running up hill trying to out-pace man-made global warming. Hear that, Willis? Climate refugees at last!

Walt Allensworth
March 11, 2015 7:20 am

not to worry… the scarealarmists are now predicting accelerating warming at a rate not seen in the last thousand years.
Never mind that they’ve been predicting this for the last 18 years, and we know how well that worked out for them.

Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2015 7:23 am

The lamestream media is keeping mum about this; probably busy trying to figure out how to spin it into “climate change”.

beng1
March 11, 2015 7:37 am

There’s also some coastal sea-ice off the US southern Delmarva Peninsula. Quite rare — 1977ish.

March 11, 2015 7:45 am

If we’re able to edit posts here would someone tell me how? I hate when I make spelling errors or when my auto-correct changes a word on me. I was under the impression that we can’t edit our posts. Thanks.

Paul
Reply to  NancyG22
March 11, 2015 8:56 am

It appears the mods have the ability to modify posts, the rest of us are stuck with our mistakes.

Reply to  Paul
March 11, 2015 9:36 am

[Snip. You overstepped again. ~mod.]

Paul
Reply to  Paul
March 11, 2015 11:05 am

Oops, looks like Phil got modified by a mod…again.

Reply to  Paul
March 11, 2015 7:57 pm

[snip – Phil. you don’t know what you are talking about here, give it a rest. Nothing nefarious going on. And, unlike you. Mr. Stealey has the courage to put his name to his words. We all look forward to the day when you step up – Anthony]

BCourson
March 11, 2015 7:54 am

New England did have a “year without a summer” in the early 1800s Freezing temperatures in June and July ruined crops. While it was during the Little Ice Age the 1815 eruption of Tambora, in Indonesia, was a major factor in forcing temperatures lower. Source: “Nantucket Weather Book” – David M. Ludlum

ren
Reply to  BCourson
March 11, 2015 8:51 am

Volcano also defeated Napoleon in 1812 in Russia.

Reply to  ren
March 11, 2015 4:58 pm

Which is way impressive as Tambora didn’t erupt until April 1815. Call it a prequel. Cheers –
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/blast-from-the-past-65102374/?no-ist

AJB
Reply to  ren
March 11, 2015 6:08 pm

Not forgetting the unknown one in 1809.

Bob Boder
Reply to  ren
March 11, 2015 7:37 pm

Napoleon defeat Napoleon with his own arrogance.

Gary Pearse
March 11, 2015 7:54 am

Why doesn’t NASA advertise a picture of the sea off Massachusetts for public interest.

Mike M
March 11, 2015 8:05 am

I’m actually encouraged reading that neither of the linked news reports seemed to even remotely imply that human CO2 was responsible for the ice. More so by WBZ saying it is a “once in a generation” occurrence thus implying the truth that it is not something “new”.
OT / BTW – Reminding everyone that we are now down to the FINAL year of the ten year countdown since Al Gore predicted earth will be scorched in ten years if we did not stop emitting greenhouse gases. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2006/01/27/algore_we_have_ten_years_left_before_earth_cooks

Gary Pearse
March 11, 2015 8:06 am

Here is a photo of ice floes in the moonlight off Cape Cod in 1875 from the Library of Congress!
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004680203/resource/

Gary Pearse
March 11, 2015 8:16 am

Here is how serious the Cape Cod ice jamb really is – U-tube:

Mike M
March 11, 2015 8:44 am

Speaking of ice … the famous Emanuel Leutze painting of General Washington crossing the Delaware River on or about Christmas day of 1776 shows that the river was indeed navigable at the time despite chunks of ice in it. Because of that painting the navigability of the Delaware in late December has always been a thorn in the side of warministas. If ice is still forming on the river in late December these days then there certainly has NOT been much in the way of “climate change” since 1776. The only way it could be true is if the painting was a total fake and Washington had actually marched across the Delaware.
Has anyone been able to nail down historical records documenting or related to the navigable status of the Delaware River over time? For example, the river was already being used for commerce back in 1776 which would have been interrupted when the river froze over creating shortages or at least longer lead times for various commodities that arrived via the river.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware#mediaviewer/File:Emanuel_Leutze_%28American,_Schw%C3%A4bisch_Gm%C3%BCnd_1816%E2%80%931868_Washington,_D.C.%29_-_Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2014/01/partial_ice_jam_on_delaware_river_causes_localized_flooding_in_trenton.html

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Mike M
March 11, 2015 9:05 am

Mike M
: Because of that painting the navigability of the Delaware in late December has always been a thorn in the side of warministas.:
Shouldn’t that be “a thorn in their ballooning claims”?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 11, 2015 9:45 am

The painting was done about 75 years after the event in Germany and the ice was modeled on the ice on the river Rhine, so using it as an accurate representation of the conditions in 1776 is a bit of a stretch. The crossing was also made during the night despite the indication of sunlight in the painting.

Mike M
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 11, 2015 9:59 am

You make a good point.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 11, 2015 6:21 pm

Are we saying it wasn’t colder during the Revolutionary War in US. How about this from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/07/science/q-a-537095.html
“Dr. Thaler recounted the results of one of the worst New York winters on record, that of 1779 to 1780, during the Revolutionary War. Exact temperature records were not being kept, but it is known that Upper Bay froze so solid that the British occupying Manhattan could slide heavy cannons five miles across the ice from the Battery at the southern tip of Manhattan to fortify Staten Island.”

Mike M
Reply to  Mike M
March 11, 2015 10:19 am

Phil. ” using it as an accurate representation of the conditions in 1776 is a bit of a stretch.”
Okay Phil, you say it was a stretch so then please tell us, temperature wise … WHICH WAY was it “stretched” exactly? More ice? Less ice? And then next explain THIS:
Elisha Bostwick, Continental Army:

[Our] army passed through Bethleham and Moravian town and so on to the Delaware which we crossed 9 miles north of Trenton and encamped on the Pennsylvania side and there remained to the 24th December. [O]ur whole army was then set on motion and toward evening began to re-cross the Delaware but by obstructions of ice in the river did not all get across till quite late in the evening, and all the time a constant fall of snow with some rain, and finally our march began with the torches of our field pieces stuck in the, exhalters.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washingtondelaware.htm

Reply to  Mike M
March 12, 2015 5:51 am

I already did, it was painted 75 years after the fact in Germany and modeled on the ice on the Rhine which has a different look to the ice we normally see on the Delaware (often the ice is broken up slabs which flow down the river and get caught at the bridge, which didn’t exist in 1776).
Regarding your quote, Elisha’s memory might be a little faulty since the crossing didn’t start until after dark and rather than completing the crossing ‘late in the evening’ it was completed by 3am. The march started at 4am.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Mike M
March 11, 2015 1:17 pm

Mike M
Crispin in Waterloo
On the other hand, Cornelius Vanderbilt (he of the New York railroad tycoon fame of the 1800’s) made his first money in transportation by being able to be one of the few Staten Island ferry captains who could get through the Hudson River ice to Manhattan in the 1810-1815 time frame. That is, the Hudson River regularly froze over completely upstream from Manhattan, completely across from Manhattan to New Jersey, and between today’s Statue of Liberty and Staten Island!
This was over a period of several winters – NONE related to the later volcanic eruptions after 1815.

Mike M
Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 11, 2015 2:40 pm

I don’t understand your phrase “on the other hand” because the Hudson still freezes and the ice is regularly broken up by the Coast Guard. Vanderbilt made his money on steam power. Prior to steam boats there likely wasn’t any vessel capable of breaking up the ice on the river. It is also possible that it got colder after the late 1700’s into the 1800’s because there are accounts of the East River freezing over several times in the 1800’s with the first in this account saying 1813 – http://gothamist.com/2013/01/24/new_yorkers_cross_frozen_east_river.php
But the East River also had a lot of ice this winter as well, not quite as bad as in the 1800’s but wait till next winter – http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2015/02/25/nycs-east-river-ice-floes-are-a-throwback-to-the-1800s-video/ (At least I learned something today, the Brooklyn Bridge was apparently built because of river ice!)
This is the Hudson from only a month ago –comment image?quality=65&strip=color&w=838
My point was that, despite NCDC and GISS homogenization and allowing for short term variation, river ice conditions are showing no remarkable difference between the average climate of back then versus now.

Mike from the cold side of the Range of Light
March 11, 2015 9:57 am

On March 5th NOAA CPC declared and unusual late season El Nino, after a 12 month watch period of watching waiting and possibly hoping for ENSO to give birth to its boy child. So here today a jet stream of pineapple express proportions is bringing (wait for it) something like a tenth of an inch to the higher ski areas of the northern Sierra. To say this is underwhelming is perhaps and understatement.

ren
March 11, 2015 10:07 am

According to AccuWeather.com Chief Long Range Expert Paul Pastelok, “We expect a slow start to spring from the Great Lakes to the upper mid-Atlantic and New England into the first part of April.”
The combination of frequent unsettled conditions, many cloudy days, lingering snowcover, extensive Great Lakes ice and soggy ground will work against lasting warmth building northeastward into this area through the first part of spring.

Mike M
Reply to  ren
March 11, 2015 2:52 pm

Depending upon the recipe of that plus snow covercomment image and how Gulf moisture is pumped northward by upper level wind patterns we could soon begin to see another bumper crop of tornadoes. http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/eaus/wv-animated.gif

Justthinkin
March 11, 2015 1:07 pm

Sigh. They are NOT ice bergs. Ice bergs are calved from glaciers. These are nothing more then frozen water (ice) from spring break-up on the nearby inlets and rivers, or the Atlantic. I have walked on this crap in Canada’s North on the McKenzie river for over 30 years. When the river freezes to a minimum of 25 feet, well, you get a few huge chunks of ice coming ashore. Not big enough for Dean Martin’s cocktails, but big.

Ian Cooper
March 11, 2015 1:31 pm

Further to Ren’s comments and map at Mar 11th 6.15a.m. & BFL’s map as well I always thought it interesting that the places that got the great ice caps were also the places that get the best aurorae observing now, perhaps by way of compensation?

ChrisDinBristol
March 11, 2015 5:15 pm

Ah, I think I’ve worked out how (badmancaused) global warming actually is responsible. The SW US is abnormally warm, or something, which is definitely due to global warming, as 97% of sane human beings surely know. What’s happened is that the globally warmed SW US has stolen all the global warming from the NE US (which is just the sort of thing it would do, being badmancaused and all) causing local cooling there, and lots of badmancaused ice.
Anyhow, if we took an average, and included Cowton and Way . . .
Next, how Syria stole Antarctic warming . . .

Darwin Wyatt
March 11, 2015 11:42 pm

Wow, I’m guessing JOHN KERRY moved his yacht?

blaz
March 12, 2015 12:42 am

and yet, the world recorded the warmest 12 months on record….go figure ?

March 12, 2015 6:39 am

Phil. you don’t know what you are talking about here, give it a rest. Nothing nefarious going on. And, unlike you. Mr. Stealey has the courage to put his name to his words.
Actually stealey’s posts are sometimes changed without indicating that they have been changed, I am not the only one who has commented on this (although my posts on that subject are censored). In the interest of transparency perhaps you could ask him to mark the changes he makes and date them? I put my name to all my posts and have used the same name on all the posts I have made here.

March 12, 2015 6:51 am

We still see numerous posts claiming that Arctic sea ice is not in a multi decade decline , or that glacial ice has not been declining, in spite of data to the contrary appearing in multiple sources. Is this not just rejection of science, but willful ignorance?

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  warrenlb
March 12, 2015 7:01 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Billy Liar
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 11:51 am

What is happening to Global Sea Ice Extent?

David A
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 10:06 pm

icoundwhatever, You tell me. It is a simple post showing arctic ice thickness measurements. It is not meant to be conclusive. It shows what it shows, and there is extensive collaborating evidence. If you want detail read these three links, and then call me back.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/polar-meltdown/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/greenland-meltdown/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/northwest-passage/
Phil, sorry to disappoint you with what you called not the same datum. However you will be relieved to know that the graphic you dissed IS NASA satellite data, prior to 1979, which matches the historical reports. (You are correct, they were not TOBS adjusted. (-; I will take satellite data over the charts from the 50s.
It is OK Phil, inconvenient data is ignored all the time. Take Heidi here….
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/heidi-demonstrates-how-to-slime-the-public-through-maps/
gives a fine example of cheery picking decades.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
March 13, 2015 6:21 pm

icouldnthelpit
March 12, 2015 at 7:01 am

It’s odd. There seems to also be a fixation on Antarctic Sea Ice Extent here (as a sort of riposte to Arctic Sea Ice Extent) but hardly any mention of Global Sea Ice Extent. I’m beginning to suspect that some posters on here are not sceptics at all.

Global sea ice does NOT matter. The dominant effect of sea ice – at EITHER pole is reflection of immediate direct solar energy from the high-albedo sea ice back into space if sea ice is greater than average on any given day; plus the somewhat smaller absorption of solar energy into the open ocean if sea ice is lower than average on any given day.
So, sea ice at a given latitude on a given day? Might be, or might not be important to the world’s heat balance depending on latitude, season of the year, and day of year.
Total sea ice? Meaningless and distracting – every day of the year.
In addition, if sea ice is lower than normal at some assumed latitude and day-of-year, there may – OR MAY NOT be! – greater losses of thermal energy from the open ocean by convection, conduction, and evaporation and LW radiation than if sea ice is present. This difference in “other losses” depends on air temperature, winds, clouds, relative humidity and upper atmosphere temperatures – so do NOT assume the effect is the same every day, every hour, every season of the year.
Over the entire 12 months of ANY period, the edge of the Antarctic sea ice receives and reflects some 168% of the amount of solar energy received and absorbed into the Artic sea ice. SO, over the course of the entire year … Yes! That 32% – 50% of “excess” Antarctic sea ice matters much more than the 7% of missing Arctic sea ice.

David A
Reply to  warrenlb
March 12, 2015 8:04 am

warren, describe who said it was not in a multi decade decline. Sea ice has been recovering, with large increase in both extent and thickness, due to changes in ocean and wind currents.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
warren, please note this chart begins in 1979. 1979 was a multi decadal high for NH sea ice. It was a multi decadal cherry pick of three decades. Warren, we actually have data prior to 1979. Do you want to see it?
Now warren, notice how NH T had dropped .6 degrees fro the 1940s high…comment image
http://web.archive.org/web/20130621075830/http://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/37739/name/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES
You see warren this cooling trend had been increasing Artic ice for , well multiple decades, See this 1970 NY Times article…comment image
Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.
Now how may decades had this cooling trend been going on for.
International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F40715F7395A13728DDDAC0894D9405B888BF1D3
Ice thickness is a repeated pattern, https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/arctic-sea-ice-is-the-same-thickness-as-1940-2/
According to the 1990 IPCC report, the Arctic sea ice anomaly in 1974 was almost -1.0 million km². Essentially identical to 2014. There has been no change in Arctic ice coverage over the past 40 years.comment image
Now warren, who is being willfully ignorant?

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  David A
March 12, 2015 9:06 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Reply to  David A
March 12, 2015 11:17 am

Now warren, who is being willfully ignorant?
Apparently you are since you appear to think that the anomalies are based on the same datum!

Reply to  David A
March 12, 2015 11:22 am

Here’s a more reliable set of data which actually has the datum period indicated.comment image

Reply to  David A
March 12, 2015 11:47 am

Apologies the annotation for the graph didn’t transfer, here it is:
Mean sea ice anomalies, 1953-2012: Sea ice extent departures from monthly means for the Northern Hemisphere. For January 1953 through December 1979, data have been obtained from the UK Hadley Centre and are based on operational ice charts and other sources. For January 1979 through December 2012, data are derived from passive microwave (SMMR / SSM/I). Image by Walt Meier and Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

David A
Reply to  David A
March 12, 2015 10:08 pm
PCB
March 12, 2015 9:43 am

*FLASH*
The “REAL” (complete) Climate Cycle is approx. 100,000 years long.
Glacial to Interglacial and back.
The ice melts every single time.
.
The data-set they are using to try and predict this cycle is ~165 years. (1880-2015)
If you drew a line 1000 pixels wide (just less than white part of this page) representing the cycle ….
…. 1 pixel would = 1000 years.
You would not even be able to show how long the data-set is to compare it ….
…. because it’s impossible to display 16.5% of ONE pixel.
.
And some other food for thought.
The Interglacials (where we currently are in the cycle) typically last 10,000-20,000 years.
The current Interglacial began roughly 12,000 years ago.
Thus, we have been “in the window” for the next ice age to begin since the time of Christ.
.
http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg
.

PCB
Reply to  PCB
March 12, 2015 10:06 am

I see my math error in the middle comment – can’t see a way to edit here.
The point is the data-set in use is ridiculously small for the cycle they think they are going to predict with it.

Erny72
March 12, 2015 12:05 pm

there once was a Mann from Cape Cod,
whose spring-time beach ice was quite odd.
predictably lame,
he said “it’s the heat that’s to blame!”
no wonder people think he’s a daft sod.
There once was a Mann from Nantucket
whose beach so iced up he could suck it.
“the ice on the beach,
is because there’s more heat”
…if climastrology wasn’t ‘settled science’, we’d just chuck it.

ren
March 12, 2015 1:59 pm

Forecast polar vortex in the lower stratosphere means a significant cooling in the eastern US.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f240.gif
It also seems very cold in Europe.

ren
March 12, 2015 2:01 pm

Such will be the position of the polar vortex at an altitude of about 20 km. Polar vortex shrinks due to the strong solar wind.comment image

ren
March 13, 2015 2:37 am

Frost returns to Boston.
http://oi59.tinypic.com/33enc3k.jpg

Kenny
March 13, 2015 4:46 am

Can someone explain this to me…..I thought the Arctic was getting better.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries_thumb.png

ren
Reply to  Kenny
March 13, 2015 4:54 am

Now the surface of the ice in the Arctic will grow, just like last year (red).
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

ren
March 13, 2015 7:05 am

So how did that turn out? Cold winters are delaying Maple Syrup production for the second year in a row.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/science-speaks-about-maple-syrup/

ren
March 13, 2015 9:22 am

By Alex Sosnowski, AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist
March 13, 2015;
“With the mild weather making a widespread visit to the Midwest and Northeast during the second week of March, millions of people are wondering: Is warmth here to stay?
In short, people should not get used to the mild conditions over much of the northeastern quarter of the nation.”

%d bloggers like this: