Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Record September Growth

Arctic sea ice had its shortest melt season on record, and has seen record September growth.

ScreenHunter_10569 Oct. 01 02.42

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Government funded climate experts say that the Arctic is ice free.

ScreenHunter_10570 Oct. 01 02.46

The End of the Arctic? Ocean Could be Ice Free by 2015 – The Daily Beast

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

146 Responses to Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Record September Growth

  1. ren says:

    Antarctic Situation at 2015 September 28

    Antarctic ozone today: Ozone depletion is now extensive and the ozone hole covers Antarctica. The ozone hole grew rapidly from mid August onwards and is near its largest at some 25 million square kilometres. This is a larger hole than the average of those over the last decade. The ozone distribution is that of mid spring with lowest and still decreasing ozone amounts across the continent, particularly the Atlantic sector, and higher (and increasing) values around the Southern Ocean. Ozone is declining by about 1% per day near the centre of the ozone hole. Values currently range from around 130 DU over West Antarctica to near 400 DU over parts of the Southern Ocean. These highest values are lower than at the same time last year. There are significant differences between the various satellite measurements. Temperatures in the lower part of the ozone layer are below the threshold for Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC) formation over much of Antarctica and the area with PSCs is larger than average, but is now decreasing. Through most of the ozone layer temperatures are below the long term average but are beginning to warm and in the higher parts of the ozone layer are above the PSC formation threshold. The polar vortex is near average in size at most levels except the highest and lowest, where it is significantly larger than average.

    The 2015 ozone hole: Ozone hole levels were briefly reached over the Antarctic Peninsula on August 5 with significant depletion beginning in mid August. Depletion became more widespread by September, exceeding the mean for the last decade and greater than in the last couple of years. The polar vortex was the largest over the past decade in the upper part of the ozone layer from July to September and the area with PSCs was also larger than average during this period.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    Ignoring the error spike, the Antarctic is behaving rather oddly for this time of year !

  3. Koop in VA says:

    This is somewhat funny. Several weeks ago Steven had an article that said there was record arctic sea ice growth in September. At that time I pointed out that at that very moment the sea ice anomaly was actually 1.425 million sq kms meaning that it was 1.425 million sq kms below the recent average for this date. I also made a prediction that the anomaly would grow in the upcoming weeks.

    Well, now the data is in. The arctic sea ice anomaly as of today is now 1.533 million sq kms. So within a couple of weeks Steven posts two articles that talk about record arctic sea ice growth and in that time the sea ice anomaly actually grew (as I predicted) meaning that there is, relatively speaking, less sea ice compared to average now than there was a few weeks ago when he was ventilating about record sea ice growth.

    I’ve only been following the arctic sea ice closely for a little under a year and so I wouldn’t put too much faith in my predictions but I’m guessing that we will fall even more behind the average for much of October and go even further behind the average. I’m guessing we will pass 1.6M sq kms below the average pretty soon because almost all the seas surrounding the arctic basin still are well above average in temperature and above the freezing point of sea ice which I believe is about -1.8 degrees C.

    So two questions: what am I missing? We are falling further behind the average and yet people will lap up that we had record growth of sea ice because Steven reports it. And two: why do you think that the articles aren’t supported by the sea ice anomaly data?

    Finally, any predictions about where the sea ice anomaly is headed later this month? I’m saying it’s going to grow. All of you that think that we are experiencing record ice growth think it’s going to shrink, right?

    • AndyG55 says:

      “I wouldn’t put too much faith in my predictions “….. LOL

      We certainly aren’t going to put any faith in your predictions either. !

      They are based on ignorance.

      We are at the top of the AMO cycle. Depending where exactly we are, we will either end up pretty much in the bunch with the last several years.. but we could end up slightly above.

      It will take 10-20 years of the natural cycle until we reach the same levels as the so-called average, (which is based on the peak period of the cycle.)

      For now, Arctic sea ice continues and will continue to climb.

      It bottomed out early.

      Anyway….its of interest only, because we know that it was often down to zero for most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene, and is only so anomalously high because we are still essentially in a very cool period at in the current interglacial.

  4. TripletDad says:

    Do we know why they are only using one sigma for this?…isn’t 2 sigma a better estimate of finding the natural variation about a mean?

    Sea ice extent in recent years for the northern hemisphere.
    The grey shaded area corresponds to the climate mean
    plus/minus 1 standard deviation.

  5. Henry P says:

    Hi Koop’
    It seems from the graph

    that -1.533 happened quite some time ago and that for the last couple of months the trend is up.

    Hence, your guess of -1.6 is not happening and will not happen. My prediction is that we will return to the straight, soon.

    As a whole earth is cooling, as I have shown before
    admittedly it not by so much
    that you would notice it…

  6. Henry P says:

    I am puzzled as to why the latest graph is not showing correctly

    this is the reference graph

      • Koop in VA says:

        Oh, that’s interesting. I copied the one that had the current number of 1.533 and this one pops up. Maybe that’s what you are referring to. Anyway, go Anthony Watt’s sea page and you will the “live” data which is significantly different than what either you or I posted.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yep, That’s been happening. Pasting graph links seems a hit or miss affair.

          Anyway.. please remember that this mythical average is all based on the 1979 starting point, which just happens to be the low point in the AMO. (Arctic sea ice pretty much follows the inverse of the AMO.. as will be shown over the next several years of sea ice)

          That AMO has now reversed, so the general year by year decrease in Arctic sea Ice will now also reverse. You can see that it has basically levelled out

          Its been a sort of cherry-pick in that the satellite data just happened to stat just at a peak in sea ice extent.

          In the much longer term of the current interglacial, the Arctic sea ice level is actually anomalously HIGH, something which people refuse to understand and accept, especially if they are trying to rant about “global warming/climate change”

          Are you one of those people refusing to look at the longer history ?

  7. Henry P says:

    the latest graph is not showing what the latest results are
    I suggest you go to the page
    to see the -1.533 that is Koop is telling us about.

    [I am not saying that I put much trust in these data. I only trust the data that I have been able to verify myself]

    • Henry P says:

      that’s what I said (go to )
      but you would have to admit that -1.533 is not exactly the latest result.
      The latest results show an uptrend
      never mind the fact that we have no idea from the satellite data how thick the ice really got….

      • Koop in VA says:

        I guess it depends on what you mean by “latest results show an uptrend”. When the latest dubious article on arctic sea ice was put up here a couple of weeks ago the anomaly was -1.425. It then went down to somewhere around -1.30 or so. And then in the last week it went to -1.533. So I would argue that the latest trend is actually going the opposite of what you are saying.

        But since this is sea ice and changes are relatively slow to happen you might mean by “recent” in the last decade or so. If that was your point, then I understand what you are saying and agree to a point. Yes, 2007, 2011, and 2012 were all lower (had greater negative anomalies) and 2015 didn’t get down to those levels. But in both extent and in volume we are on a decades long decline and this was a key prediction of AGW. This would in turn cause positive feedback loops which would further increase the temperatures.

        I guess the frustrating part is that some deniers won’t even admit that “skeptical” scientists accept that putting CO2 into the atmosphere will raise global temperatures. But there are idiots on all sides of this issue and there are plenty in the global warming crowd as well.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “But in both extent and in volume we are on a decades long decline and this was a key prediction of AGW. ”

          FFS, would you read and LEARN. Prove you are NOT one of those idiots you talk about.

          Here is the AMO, a well known driver if Arctic sea ice

          See how it was low in the late 1970’s. See that it has now peaked and is starting to head back down.

          Working just on the short period of satellite data means you are just working with the upward slope of the AMO hence the decreasing sea ice.

          Also look at the longer picture and you find that for most of the Holocene summer Arctic sea ice levels were much lower, often non-existent. The real peaks were in the middle of the LIA

          The decline in sea ice since 1979 is a NATURAL CYCLE, and is still anomalously high compared to the rest of the Holocene except the LIA.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I guess the frustrating part is that some deniers won’t even admit that “skeptical” scientists accept that putting CO2 into the atmosphere will raise global temperatures.”

          There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that that CO2 will raise temperatures.

          In fact there is absolutely NO CO2 WARMING signature in the whole 36 years of the satellite data.

          Nor is there any acceleration in sea level rise,

          Nor has there been any decrease in Arctic sea ice levels which is not part of the natural cycle.

          CO2 warming is FAILED HYPOTHESIS.

          This has been proven many times… but you are unable to lower your brain-washing to even start to comprehend.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Human emissions of CO2 are guestimated as 3% of the natural emissions (97%) per year.

          #1. Blaming ‘Accumulation of CO2’ on humans only works IF the CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is long.

          In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources….

          …Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a “rough estimate”]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: “This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean”….

          With such short residence times for atmospheric CO2, Essenhigh (2009) correctly points out that it is impossible for the anthropogenic combustion supply of CO2 to cause the given rise in atmospheric CO2. Consequently, a rising atmospheric CO2 concentration must be natural. This conclusion accords with measurements of 13C/12C carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2, which show a maximum of 4% anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (including any biogenic CO2), with 96% of the atmospheric CO2 being isotopically indistinguishable from “natural” inorganic CO2 exchanged with and degassed from the ocean, and degassed from volcanoes and the Earth’s interior (Segalstad, 1992)….

          @2. Only by stating CO2 “drives” changes in water can the warmists get their models to “work”
          Water trumps CO2 as a climate driver.
          1) in the amount present in the atmosphere
          2) the number and width of the absorption bands soaking up energy from sun and earth
          3) the amount of earth surface it covers (70%)
          4) the amount of heat it absorbs and retains compared to the atmosphere
          5) its effects on the amount of heat that reaches the earth thanks to absorption and reflection( albedo)
          6) the lag time between increased temperature (mainly ocean) and CO2. (The amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean is known to be dependent on the temperature of the water.)

          Water is THE big player in the climate game NOT CO2, but the politicians can not regulate and tax water easily. Therefore CO2 had to be “linked” to the changes in climate caused by water and called the ‘Forcing’ while water is called the ‘Feedback’

          #3. There is a key piece of evidence that Warmist can’t erase, that shows the earth is currently at the very bottom of the normal range of CO2 levels. That evidence is that two whole new group of plants evolved several million years ago specifically to cope with catestrophically low CO2 levels. They developed a new method of photosynthesis called C4 which permits greater water efficiency and the ability to photosynthesise in higher temperatures at greatly reduced CO2 levels. An even more robust adaption called CAM was evolved by plants like cacti which we now see living in deserts. The kicker is C4 and CAM come at a high energy price and are not competitive with the C3 pathway when there is an abundance of CO2.

          Another piece of less obvious evidence is while C3 plants maybe able to just barely survive at 200 ppm THEY CAN NOT GROW OR PRODUCE SEED! Also the less CO2 the slower the growth and the longer to maturity. During glaciation this means plants bump up against

          #1. Lower CO2 due to colder oceans and Henry’s law.
          #2. Last frost/first frost problems.
          #3. More stomata and thus more water loss under the drier conditions and greatly expanded deserts during glaciation.

          In January of 2013 it was 395 ppm and in 1985 it was 50 points lower at 345 ppm. So despite the fact that CO2 was higher, the Earth was losing energy at a higher rate to space. CO2 was not blocking the energy from escaping despite all the claims that increased CO2 prevents heat from escaping the Earth. The Earth 30 years later was losing a significantly larger amount of energy to space than it was in the past. — John Kehr, Chem Engineer. (I can not provide a link to the article “Misunderstanding of the Global Temperature Anomaly” 2013/03 because of Word Press CENSORSHIP.)

  8. Jason Calley says:

    After some unspecified number of decades of global warming, isn’t it inconvenient that global sea ice still manages to go above average? After forty or fifty years of rising temperatures and warming oceans shouldn’t global sea ice be BELOW average pretty consistently? Yes, I know that Arctic sea ice has been somewhat below average (just as it has done in the past). But I also know that Antarctic sea ice has been above average (and it has probably done that before also). Add them together and look at the record; sometimes higher, sometimes lower, not any trend to speak of big enough to matter.

    A couple million square kilometers either way is not that big a deal. In fact, the “Arctic will be ice free!” folk have said that for them, under a million km^2 is what they mean by “ice free”. It is hard to get excited by a deficit that is essentially barely worth counting according to the CAGW enthusiasts.

    • Koop in VA says:

      As a person that accepts the science, and hence accepts that pumping billions of tons a year of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere will actually, slowly, inevitably raise the global mean temperature all other things being equal, what I would say is that I too am puzzled by Antarctic sea ice. I too would have thought that since we are told that the earth’s poles will warm more quickly than the rest of the earth that I would expect both poles to lose sea ice. The dynamics are totally different as the geography is totally different but I would, as a layperson, guess that the Antarctic would be losing volume and extent as well.

      With that said, while “skeptics” like to harp on scientists that make fringe predictions and that are ultimately (and quickly) proven wrong, it is important to note that most sea ice scientists predicted the arctic to be “ice free” toward the end of this century. More recently they revised their predictions downward because the arctic sea ice was melting faster than most of their models predicted. Last I heard was that the consensus date was 30 to 40 years away.

      Anyway, I freely admit that I don’t know how quickly they predicted the Antarctic to be sea ice free and if it is slower or faster than predicted. And if it is slower than predicted than whats the positive feedback loop that would reduce warming? Anyway, good questions to answer but the larger point is that despite claims to the contrary here the arctic sea ice is actually shrinking faster than most sea ice experts predicted.

      • ren says:

        How can decrease ice when the temperature drops?
        Approaches the minimum of the solar cycle and ozone decreases.

        • Koop in VA says:

          Hey ren,

          I hear you are not a native english speaker and that’s cool. Your english is probably better than my “science talk” and so I will try to understand the translation of your science to english.

          Ok, so I think, as a layperson I would expect that as temperatures rise that ice extent would decrease. I can understand though that in a really super cold region (the Antarctic) that it could warm up and yet still gain ice extent because ice formation does not rely on one variable (temperature).

          Anyway, you flip it around a bit and ask: how can ice decrease when temperatures decrease?

          I’m not exactly sure what information that image is trying to convey but can you point me to something that explains the interaction of ozone levels and sea ice development? I hadn’t heard that before but it would make sense that there might be some correlation between the two.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Last I heard was that the consensus date was 30 to 40 years away.”

        They are going to look very stupid as the Arctic sea ice levels increase over the next 20-30 years now that the AMO has switched. 😉

      • wizzum says:

        Do you know just how Fing cold Antarctica is? how in the lords name do you expect that place to be ice free?

      • AndyG55 says:

        “I freely admit that I don’t know how quickly they predicted the Antarctic to be sea ice free ”


        They predicted lower Antarctic sea ice, and it GREW to the largest extent in the short term record..

        So they came up with “excuses” and said it was because of “climate change” making the sea ice grow..

        Then the sea ice level started to drop.

        SOOOOOOOO funny watching Gaia make FOOLS of them…

        (actually, they don’t need Gaia’s help.. they do it all by themselves.)

  9. Henry P says:

    you can see that result -1.533 is not the latest?

    • Koop in VA says:

      I’m not sure what you are saying. The graph that you and I both posted shows old data. The current anomaly according to the source we are both citing is -1.533. That is the latest/most recent data.

      The graph with -1.245 is from what, maybe March of this year? Hard to say for sure but definitely many months ago.

      • Henry P says:

        the red dot (-1.533) is below the most recent result, which, seems to me, is more like -1.3?
        [I am still puzzled why it gives us that stupid -0.893 result every time]

  10. Henry P says:

    Koop says
    and hence accepts that pumping billions of tons a year of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere will actually, slowly, inevitably raise the global mean temperature

    Henry says
    no it does not
    if there were any man made warming at all you would see some chaos in this curve:
    but there isn’t
    You are simply clueless because you have not collected any data of your own neither have you made any determination of your own. You only rely on what others tell you or want you to believe…

    we are in a series of solar cycles [currently the sun is actually at its brightest/hottest point in 87 years]

    you can pump as much heat in the air as you like

    nature still will triumph

    God loves us!

    • Koop in VA says:

      Ah, yes, I’m clueless. It’s really hard having adult conversations on the internet. Sigh.

      And, yes, we are in a series of solar cycles. From everything that I’ve read we have experienced a rather historic minimum of solar activity for quite awhile and the recent solar maximum was one of the weakest on records.

      I would be curious to see your source for A) brightest equalling hottest and B) that the sun is the hottest in 87 years. If that were true that would certainly be news to me and I would welcome better understanding our current situation. Thanks.

      • Henry P says:

        I can try and teach people wanting to learn
        I cannot help the ignorant (sigh)
        it is past 23h00 here
        I am going to sleep

      • AndyG55 says:

        Read and LEARN if you are capable.

        The latter half of last century is classed as a “Grand Solar Maximum”.

        The current cycle is very low, and the next is predicted to be even lower.

        • Koop in VA says:

          Based on your writings here, it would seem to be that condescension is one of your defining characteristics. I suffer from that at times so I can’t be too harsh without being a hypocrite. But I’m curious why you are aiming this at me. You have Henry here saying the sun is the hottest in 87 years. I assume you know that this not true because, as you say, solar activity was far greater in the tail end of the last century. But instead of correcting your wayward supporter you take a condescending tone toward me.

          And I also understand to some extent that the recent solar activity is baffling our astrophysicists. This was not predicted, it is not understood, and, of course, the models should be updated with this information because it is one of the 4 main drivers of global temperatures as I understand them.

          Finally, while I understand that we disagree on the big picture, this thread is about arctic sea ice. Are you intellectually honest enough to admit that the series of articles on arctic sea ice in the last several weeks greatly mislead people who read them? I mean two weeks ago he had the same article about record sea ice growth. Since that time the anomaly has grown and yet, here he is, saying yet again that there has been even more record sea ice growth.

          If the anomaly was -1.425 when he last made that statement and it has grown to -1.533 as of now, wouldn’t it stand to reason that if there was truly record growth that the anomaly would actually decrease and not increase? But as always, I’m open to hearing why I’m misunderstanding the data. So hopefully you can correct me or you can you at least concede the point that these two articles were poor, at best, as growing negative anomalies are not indicative of record sea ice growth.

          Do you also want to make a prediction on whether the sea ice extent anomaly is going to further increase in October? I’m on record saying it will go to at least -1.6M, if not more. What say you?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “it would seem to be that condescension is one of your defining characteristics”

          Only to fools with a brain-washed ignorance, who refuse to learn.

          Stop whinging, its pathetic. !!

          Growth so far this year is way above all but 2002 and look at that rate climbing over the last few years

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again, I repeat, the current average is based on a peak in the NATURAL CYCLE.

          Understand !

      • AndyG55 says:

        “It’s really hard having adult conversations on the internet.”

        Especially when Koop is the common factor.

  11. ren says:

    You can see that the ice will increase faster than a year ago (in the straits Canadian).
    There is more on the side of Siberia.

    • Koop in VA says:

      Here’s what I see:

      I see sea temperatures well above average throughout the seas circling the arctic basin. I further see that for most of these seas they are basically ice free and below average (as the -1.533 anomaly would indicate).

      That is why I would expect that the sea ice anomaly would continue to grow and has not yet reached it’s October peak. But I’m just a lay man trying to learn.

      And as far as the Canadian archipelago goes, I would expect that the anomaly there would slightly increase. The current anomaly there is about 180,000 sq km and while there has been a rapid increase in sea ice in the last several days with the water temp so far above average and the current air temperature significantly above average, I would expect the ice growth there to be below average for the near future.

      • Gail Combs says:

        KOOP, look at the label on your SST graph: NOAA MARINE MODELING It is modeled not measured.

        Look at the actual places they measure temperature.

        For comparison, here is the 1981-1990 baseline chart:

        GEE the dark red seems a permanent fixture doesn’t it?

        And this is what NOAA does, they make stuff up. :

        “…From over 600 individual temperature series and more than 540 combined series with records of more than 20 years, the thermometer record in Canada peaked in approx. 1975.” (See Map below. Black diamond indicates stations in use for global temperature.)

        “….By 2009 there are less than 30 locations reporting temperature that are used…”

        Worse they intentionally use warm data to infill areas where they ALREADY have data that was cooler.

        What is this Bolivia Effect?

        Notice that nice rosy red over the top of Bolivia? Bolivia is that country near, but not on, the coast just about half way up the Pacific Ocean side. It has a patch of high cold Andes Mountains where most of the population live. It’s the patch of yellow / whitish mountains near the top in this picture….

        One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990.

        None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.

        So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?

        Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle.

        Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks and high cold desert, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know? (The official excuse given is that the data acceptance window closes on one day of the month and Bolivia does not report until after that date. Oh, and they never ever would want to go back and add date into the past after a close date. Yet they are happy to fiddle with, adjust, modify, and wholesale change and delete old data as they change their adjustment methods…)

        The Russians complained of the exact same thing:
        From the Ria Novosti agency

        On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

        The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

        The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

        The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

        On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

        IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

        The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration…

        Several people have looked at the temperature data and found the same thing. Some, like Frank Lansner don’t even speak English and they live all over the world.These individuals found Government Climate Scientists dropped out rural stations and increased the proportion of stations at airports and other high Urban Heat Island Effect areas. The Government Climate Scientists manipulated and adjusted the data. The Government Climate Scientists refuse to tell what they have done.

  12. AndyG55 says:

    How thick was Arctic sea ice in the 1940’s.. About the same as today.

    Note that 1940 was the previous peak in the AMO.

    Its a CYCLE and the decrease since 1979 was the downward leg from the peak of the cycle.

    That cycle is now at its bottom, and will slowly start to climb as the AMO decreases.

    And the AGW pseudo-scientists will be bathing in egg !

    Does Koop want to be counted as one of those idiots?.. Its seems he is destined to be. 🙂

    • Koop in VA says:

      Do you really think that link is conclusive on the matter?

      • AndyG55 says:

        YAWN !

        Continue to ignore NATURAL CYCLES at your own ignorance.

        • Koop in VA says:

          I don’t ignore natural cycles. Do you think climate experts are unaware of the natural cycles that they themselves discovered? I base my view on their knowledge because I’m not an expert in the field and it is my understanding that they fully take into account natural cycles.

          But maybe I’ve misread you. So are you one of these people that think that doubling CO2 levels will not impact global temps at all?

        • AndyG55 says:

          ” Do you think climate experts are unaware of the natural cycles that they themselves discovered?”

          No.. they use the peaks to fool people like you. That’s why they invariably start in 1979.

          Don did a study on glacier extent, again, see if you can see where so called “experts” want to start looking at the trend. !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “So are you one of these people that think that doubling CO2 levels will not impact global temps at all?”

          I see absolutely no objective proof anywhere.. do you have any?

          There is absolutely no CO2 warming signature in the whole of the 36 years of satellite troposphere temperature.

          There is no CO2 warming signature in sea level rise.

          CO2 does not emit below 15km.

          You have NO PROOF AT ALL, just a hypothesis in which all predictions based on that hypothesis have failed.

    • DD More says:

      Koop – “Do you think climate experts are unaware of the natural cycles that they themselves discovered?”

      No, they should not be unaware, they are just paid to ignore them.

      Koop seems to be either an operator or victim of Psychological operations (psych-ops or psy-ops).
      Which refer to the planned use of psychological knowledge to influence the behavior of groups, organizations or populations. Although associated with guerilla warfare, rebellion and subversion; many marketing and political strategies include psych-ops techniques … including office politics and social engineering.
      Peacetime applications of psych-ops are perhaps most evident in political election campaigns. Common techniques used to influence public attitude and opinion are:
      – using radio and television to distort events
      – manufacturing “news” in staged events
      – recruiting and using opinion leaders and media figures
      – adjusting appeals to group interests (e.g. trade unions)
      Create effective propaganda that changes attitudes This is achieved if people identify with a new or changed mission. Propaganda is used to extend this identification to increase popular support for a mission and provide points of convergence for transformative action.

      The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) was created in 1937 to alert the public to political propaganda. The IPA identified seven basic propaganda tricks: Name-Calling, Glittering Generalities, Transfers, Testimonials, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon. According to Combs and Nimmo (1993), “these seven devices have been repeated so frequently in lectures, articles and textbooks ever since that they have become … synonymous with the practice and analysis of propaganda.”

      Psych-ops operations have maximum effect with people who:
      – have little education
      – accept information uncritically
      – benefit from the proposed change
      – want to believe the propaganda
      – do not wish to understand their own motivations

      How many effects can you check mark off Koop?

  13. AndyG55 says:

    Nice graph from Paul, that illustrates the growth this year

    • Koop in VA says:

      Does that graph support or refute the contention that there was record sea ice growth in September?

      We all know that arctic sea ice will grow in October. You have failed to provide a prediction about whether the sea ice extent anomaly will grow during October or not? Why the reluctance?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Apart from 2002.. yes.

        Why not.. because there are too many variables.

        Its still anomalously HIGH compared to the rest of the Holocene.

        That is something that you REFUSE to admit.

        • Koop in VA says:

          Thanks for the belly laugh. Ah, that was good man!

          Apart from 2002…. ROTFLMFAO

          Look, we are both human and we both make mistakes. That obviously goes for all of us on this thread.

          Can we not call a spade a spade and definitively say that September wasn’t a record month for ice growth in the arctic? Yeah, it was high. But I’m guessing that had more to do with the low ending figure of August 31 than the high ending figure of September 30 because the data shows that we are still a million and a half sq kms below the average for this time of year

        • AndyG55 says:

          Certainly your “experts’ have never predicted that Arctic sea ice will increase at greater rates year after year, as they obviously are.

          You are the one being laughed at, and will really be laughed at as being a gullible fool as the Arctic sea ice levels increase over the next several years due to the switch of the AMO.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “below the average for this time of year”

          Below the SHORT TERM AVERAGE based on starting at the peak in 1979.

          The long term average of the Holocene is MUCH LESS summer sea ice.. often zero through the first 3/4 of the Holocene.

          Again.. you IGNORE REALITY… base-line IGNORANCE and refusal to learn.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Refusal to admit the reality that ALL the current Arctic sea ice scare is based on the fall leg of the NATURAL CYCLE.

        It defines the IGNORANCE of the Arctic sea ice scare.. and you seem to be part of that ignorance.

      • AndyG55 says:

        The only prediction I will make is that over the next several years, the Arctic sea ice levels will continue to grow. (With its normal jumping around due to Arctic weather)

        Because that is a NATURAL CYCLE heavily influenced by the AMO.

      • It is measuring 15% concentration. the DMI graph uses 30% concentration. You are making an apples to oranges comparison.

      • wizzum says:

        Dude, you need to get your head around the differences between absolute extent, anomalies and the area of a circle formula.
        Have a scotch or doob or whatever, look up at the moon and contemplate how this works on a monthly cycle. Then sober up go inside and do the math.

        • AndyG55 says:

          wiz, you have to realise.. Koop isn’t very intelligent.. as he keeps pointing out.

          Do not have any expectation for him actually understanding anything..

          No precedence.

  14. AndyG55 says:

    And in this one you can see the beginning of the AMO forced turn-around, as older ice starts to increase.

    • Koop in VA says:

      I’ve heard of the PDO and AMO but don’t know much about them, especially in regards to how they affect arctic sea ice extent. Do you have a decent source that explains it? The quick search I did also didn’t show the current measurement that shows the flip. Do you have that? Thanks.

      • AndyG55 says:

        The graph is elsewhere in this thread.. twice..

      • AndyG55 says:

        Go and hunt for some of Gail’s posting.. which you obviously have also bother NOT to read.

        I’m passed trying to educate people who don’t want to learn.

        Did that when I was teaching maths in high school 20 years ago.

        • Koop in VA says:

          Math teachers are under appreciated and underpaid. Thanks for doing that. What courses did you teach in high school?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Everything. Remedial to high level analysis, calculus etc

          You get a load from the low IQ who show no willingness to learn (like you)…

          … to students can actually be taught to understand and think for themselves (unlike you)

  15. AndyG55 says:

    Gees its going to be fun over the next few years watching the Arctic sea ice catastrophists 😉

    • Koop in VA says:

      Do mainstream scientists that say that the arctic will be “ice free” by the end of the century count as “catastrophists”? I frankly would expect that in the next few years that arctic sea ice extent would go down and would challenge, if not beat, the recent records set in 2007, 2011, and 2012. But I don’t know if this is predicted by experts in the field or not.

      So do you believe that the AMO has more of an effect on arctic sea ice than El Nino or the PDO? I freely admit I have not heard a discussion one way or another so I have no clue.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Do mainstream scientists that say that the arctic will be “ice free” by the end of the century count as “catastrophists”? ”

        No, just to be laughed at. A prediction that far out is totally MEANINGLESS. !

        • Koop in VA says:

          That’s a weird comment to make. To say that climate predictions within a 100 year time frame is meaningless seems baffling. What do you think is the proper time frame for climate scientists to make predictions for?

          I know that in 1992 with the first IPCC report they predicted global warming moving forward and we are warmer now than in 1992. They also predicted that the arctic sea ice would decrease and it has. Some skeptics merely deny this. You seem to be saying that it is accurate but that it is completely natural.

          But I could be misreading where you are coming from because I haven’t read enough of your overarching viewpoint.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “What do you think is the proper time frame for climate scientists to make predictions for?”

          A time frame where it can be validated, and their job is on the line if they are wildly wrong.

          Not going to happen in climate science.

          Look at predictions for “ice free by 2015”.. those people just go on as “scientists (lol)” as if their moronic predictions didn’t matter.

          And there are NO consequences.. they just making wild, useless, meaningless, unverifiable predictions. Is that the level of “science” you believe in… really ?

          The modeller have been proven wildly wrong by reality, but they still keep going….. NO consequences

          That is not science if you can make horrendously erroneous predictions and suffer no consequences…

          … it is politics and/or religion.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Koop in VA says “…What do you think is the proper time frame for climate scientists to make predictions for?…”

          Max of FIVE (5) days. The IPCC even admits their climate models aren’t worth spit.

          …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible
          IPCC 2001 section page 774

          That is why the language was changed from predictions to PROJECTIONS. They are now using that language change to say they never PREDICTED anything so the recent failure of the models doesn’t mean anything…

          If I want an EDUCATED guess of where the climate is headed long term based on facts I will listen to the Quaternary Scientists.

          Past ice ages are due to small changes in the obliquity and tilt of the Earth’s axis, and the changing ellipticity of the Earth’s orbit – the Milankovitch cycles. These changes, thanks to computers, are calculated with high accuracy and supported by many many different scientific studies. The theory in original form is due to Milankovitch. The strongest correlation with the timing of ice ages comes from the amount of incoming solar energy at the 65N latitude, roughly the Arctic circle. The reason is that this latitude is most sensitive to the gain or loss of ice where it can accumulate mostly on land, and because of ice’s ability to self-refrigerate by reflecting sunlight. Dr. Gerald Roe recently put to bed the criticisms of the Milankovitch Theory by re-inventing information that has been known since the 1970s.

          ICE AGES CONFIRMED! The fascinating history of the 1960s through 1970s discoveries that confirmed the existence of the Ice Ages that Yugoslavian professor of mathematics, Milutin Milankovitch predicted.

          William Ruddiman argues that humans have been drastically altering the Earth’s climate for the past 8,000 years, long before the industrial revolution. Human agriculture increased levels of greenhouse gases, (irrigating water as well as CO2) creating an artificially warm and stable climate for the majority of the Holocene and prevented the termination of the Holocene that would otherwise have started.

          A quicky look at desert vs a tropical rain forest data shows water vapor gives much more stable temperatures. link

      • AndyG55 says:

        You haven’t been reading anything have you.

        Remain ignorant.. it suits you.

  16. AndyG55 says:

    Average annual Arctic sea ice increasing since 2006.

    • Koop in VA says:

      I’ll admit that graph intrigues me. Of course, we both know that if you put the graph back to 2000 or 1990 or 1980 it would tell a different story. But something doesn’t seem quite right about 2015. I would have expected it to be above 2007, 2011, and 2012 but below the others.

      Do you know the methodology for that graph? Is it taking the monthly average from NSIDC and then averaging those months?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Do your own research. Follow the graph link and find the url.

        • Koop in VA says:

          So I did my own calculation and used the methodology that I suggested. Namely, I went to, took their monthly averages for 2007 and 2015. For the entire year, 2015 was running below the 2007 average until the most recent month. For example in March 2007 the average extent YTD was 14.33M sq km but in 2015 it was 14.16M sq km. For June 2007 the YTD average was 13.55 but in 2015 it was 13.35. In August and September 2007 it was 11.85 and 11.01 respectively. In 2015, it was 11.81 and 11.01 respectively.

          I’m not saying that my methodology is the best way to go about this but without knowing the methodology of your graph it would look like it may be very suspect. Because an easy to understand methodology is directly contradicting your graph and mine tells you the methodology so others can repeat the exercise to confirm or correct.

        • AndyG55 says:

          So, you didn’t even bother lsearching.. enuff said.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Updated graph to end of September

          A slight upward trend, as one would expect from the reversing AMO.

        • AndyG55 says:

          As rah so eloquently puts it on another thread..

          “In short THERE IS NO DEATH SPIRAL as predicted and there is no evidence that there will be one! We who watch but do not predict the end of ice have seen. The claim of the DEATH SPIRAL was unadulterated Bull Shit! All the words in the world can’t change the FACT that what the alarmists claimed would happen has not happened and there is absolutely no evidence that it is about to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.

          Game- Set- Match.

          Further. The very fact that you and so many others have put so much stock in a body of ice that floats in an ocean who’s coverage and concentration can be changed very quickly by factors having NOTHING directly to do with either the temperature of the water or air is HILARIOUS! Storms, winds, waves and currents effect sea ice greatly. But to hear you clowns one would think they are non factors and that is what really first clued me in to just how DISHONEST or IGNORANT people like you are!”

          Thanks Rah. 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          Really, Its like trying to spoon-feed a tantrumised child. !!

        • rah says:

          Puts it much more nicely than I did. But I’m just an old Army Sgt and truck driver. Sometimes I just have to let the old “voice” come out as it did years ago at times when dealing with recalcitrant, foolish, or thick headed trainees.

  17. Gail Combs says:


    It is interesting that People like Dr Evans and Russian solar physicist by Habibullo Abdussamatov have short term predictions (5 to 20 years)
    You can see the predictions HERE

    The politicians are not only aware of these predictions but scared to death of them because they are well aware that they are true and accurate predictions and not the IPCC politically generated ‘Projections’ That is why they are frantically working to get their much desired World Government locked in now.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yep, It is becoming increasingly obvious that its all a charade.

      These so-called “climate scientists” must have figured out what’s really happening by now and must know they are on a hiding to nothing.

      Pity that the political/religious aspect of this farce means that even when once the truth is totally exposed by Mother Nature’s natural mood swings, NONE of them are likely to suffer any consequences for their lies and deceit.

  18. rah says:

    Sometimes I just get fed up with their ridiculous BS! They write paragraph upon paragraph of stuff and never admit that the predictions by the alarmists were wrong. And they go on and on as if a little change from one year to the next is indicative of anything having to do with climate! You know that thing one of their own grand Poobahs said can only be gauged over a period of THIRTY YEARS! A seasonal change is sea ice at the Arctic is indicative of warming while pooh poohing things like record ice on the Great lakes and some pretty damned severe and snowy winters over the same period also. it’s ALL WEATHER! Just like that Hurricane Joaquin is WEATHER. But we know there are two things for certain about that hurricane that will happen if it comes ashore. We will see weather people standing in the wind and rain and telling us how windy and rainy it is. And there will be dumb asses that will crawl out of the woodwork and blame it on human activity.

  19. @AndyG55,
    “That is not science if you can make horrendously erroneous predictions and suffer no consequences…

    … it is politics and/or religion.”

    I am more of an engineer than a physicist so I don’t have the problem with being held accountable for bad advice. That might include being thrown in jail if something I designed failed with lives lost.

    Academics were shocked when some of their colleagues were held accountable:

    It is hard to imagine the climate fraudsters being held accountable in this way but it is something we should demand.

    • Gail Combs says:


      You should have ‘seen’ Jan Pearlwitz go ballistic when I mentioned he and his buddies were responsible for the fuel poverty deaths in the UK and I wanted them up on trial. The real fun is toward the end of the post where Pearlwitz finally tossed in the towel and ran away never to be seen again at this website.

      They really really do not like the tables turned. Dragging them off their pedestal atop the moral high ground and through the nasty results of their ‘advice’ must be a real shocker. Especially after scientists were jailed for manslaughter for not predicting earthquake and instead providing ‘false assurances’ in 2014.

      Manslaughter conviction overturned for Italian geologists, but other scientists are still fearful: Scientists failed to predict an earthquake in 2009, and the case will continue to affect scientists for years to come

      PE Engineers have always been liable for bad judgment but scientists have been given a free pass until now. Now people are starting to realize that bad scientific ‘advice’ is just as dangerous as bad engineering and want scientists who give bad advice that causes damage and death to be responsible like Engineers are.

      If you want to stand on that lofty pedestal atop the moral high ground and give pronouncements to the Great Unwashed, do not be surprised if the Great Unwashed decide to drag you to trial, (if you are lucky) when they figure out you are just Conmen in the pay of the Elite.

  20. AndyG55 says:


    “It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

    (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
    President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 [13]

    Look at the date.. 🙂

    • AndyG55 says:

      And from the great John Daly..

      “As we can see from recent history, both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice is certainly subject to variation. But it would be a mistake to assume that a brief period during which the Arctic is in a thinning cycle is anything more than that – a cycle. We know from past history that it has been subject to earlier retreats as suggested by the opening quote from 1817.

      Part of the problem lay in the fact that useful data on ice extent and thickness only dates from the 1950s, yet our temperature record from Jan Mayen Island at the edge of the Arctic shows that the Arctic was warmer during the 1930s than it was during the 1990s. Unfortunately there is no comprehensive ice data from the 1930s. Instead such data begins in the late 1950s, at a time when the Arctic was entering into the grip of a known cold spell. As that cold period ended, it is hardly surprising to find thinner ice during the latter warmer period.

      There is also the strong correlation between the NAO and the state of Arctic ice, a strongly positive NAO in the last decade increasing the flow rate of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic, while it was predominantly negative during the cold period of the 1960s, resulting in a reduced flow rate of Atlantic water and thus a reduced propensity for ice melt.

      The strong positive NAO of the last decade is not unprecedented. While some might wish to associate this with human-induced `climate change’, it is clear from the NAO record that it was also strongly positive during the early decades of the 20th century and even earlier. In other words, the NAO is a real natural cycle, not a manifestation of `global warming’.

      Variability in sea ice thickness has no implications for sea levels. Since ice sea displaces its own weight in sea water, thickening or thinning of sea ice has a zero effect on sea level.

      The freezing Arctic air which descended on North America and Russia during the 2000 winter shows that the Arctic atmosphere has lost none of its frigid bite, thus ensuring further renewal of sea ice.

      The limits on the thickness of Arctic ice are determined by how low the air temperature can get, and on how warm and fast-moving the subsurface water is. Air temperatures measured in the Arctic region show no recent warming, thus discounting the possibility that recent thinning of ice could be caused by atmospheric warming above the ice. Rather, the thinning of ice in the 1990s is clearly associated with a warming of the sub-surface ocean, as shown by the SCICEX data, caused in whole or in part by the strong NAO increasing the flow rate of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean.

      There is nothing in the data to suggest anything but natural cycles at work.”


  21. Henry P says:

    anyone still wanting to argue that the sun is not at its brightest in 87 or 88 years?

  22. Gail Combs says:

    Continuing the answer to Koop in VA’s question:
    “What do you think is the proper time frame for climate scientists to make predictions for?”
    What is the reason why IPCC admits their climate models aren’t worth spit?

    …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible…
    IPCC 2001 section page 774

    “And so begins the list of errors.” ~ Dr Evans

    New Science 4: Error 1: Partial Derivatives

    The climate models, are based on partial derivatives of dependent variables, and that mathematically is an ABSOLUTE NO NO! “The climate models model a hypothetical world where all things freeze in a constant state while one factor doubles. But in the real world, many variables are changing simultaneously and the rules are different.” ~ Dr Evans

    This is backed up by the MIT Course Notes on partial derivatives

    ….For example, in thermodynamics, three variables that are associated with a contained gas are its

    v = volume,
    T = temperature,
    p = pressure,

    and you can express other thermodynamic variables like the internal energy U and entropy S in terms of p, v, and T . However, p, v, and T are not independent variables. If the gas is a so-called “ideal gas”, they are related by the equation

    (1) pv = nRT
    (n, R constants).

    To see what complications this produces, let’s consider first a purely mathematical example…

    [Math Equations removed]

    These answers are genuinely different — we cannot convert one into the other by using the relation z = x2 + y 2 . Will the right ∂w/∂x please stand up?

    The answer is, that there is no one right answer, because the problem was not well-stated. When the variables are not independent, an expression like ∂w/∂x has no definite meaning. To see why this is so, we interpret the above example geometrically…..

    About a year ago Dr Evans introduced a new theory on Jo Nova’s blog for ‘peer-review’ and criticism. He then went back to the drawing board to revamp the theory, add to it and is now presenting that the theory in bit size pieces : New Science Parts 1 thru 8 Parts 1 and 2 are math heavy but Dr Evans explains each step. And yes Dr Evans has two formal papers on this theory but he is patiently going through it step by step so those of us with rusty math skills can follow what he is done. He is also answering questions and criticisms.

    The index to the older theory and discussion/criticisms are HERE

  23. Henry P says:

    that is the wrong picture. It is not the latest picture made on 03/10/15.
    I wonder why that happens?

  24. rah says:

    Crap! It did the same thing. That’s the image from Sept 29th and the one I tried to post was from today Oct. 3rd!

    Anyway I think the magnetogram as posted above provides a clearer image of sunspot activity compared to what your posting. Is your image MDI Continuum? SOHO offers quite a few different imaging options.

  25. Gail Combs says:

    Henry P,
    I have not yet had a chance to look at the other chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere. Thanks for giving me a shove in that direction. (Ozone is complicated enough!)

    Do not forget that while El Nino will cause a temporary warm spike in SST, long term it is actually a radiator of ocean energy to space. Look at the Nimbus satellite graph:


    Every El-Nino flagged on the graph represents a significant spike in radiation to space compared to the years immediately before. This is not surprising since something that is hotter is going to radiate more powerfully.

    NATURE: Ice ages looked like El Niño

    CO2Science: El Niño Activity and Sea-Ice Extent in a South Pole Ice Core

    What was done
    In the words of the authors, “an annually dated ice core recovered from [the] South Pole in 1995, that covers the period 1487-1992, was analyzed for the marine biogenic sulfur species methanesulfonate (MS),” after which “orthogonal function analysis [was] used to calibrate the high-resolution MS series with associated environmental series for the period of overlap (1973-92).” This procedure allowed Meyerson et al. to derive a five-century history of (1) ENSO activity and (2) southeastern Pacific sea-ice extent, the latter of which parameters they say “is indicative of regional temperatures within the Little Ice Age period in the southeastern Pacific sea-ice sector.”

    What was learned
    Among other things, the authors noted a shift at about 1800 towards generally cooler conditions. This shift was concurrent with an increase in the frequency of El Niño events in the ice core proxy record, which is contrary to what is generally predicted by climate models…

    Last but not least El Niño events provide the massive amounts of airborne moisture needed to build glaciers.

    El Niño plus Polar Vortex sounds like a bad combination.

    I am no expert on this I leave that to Bob Tisdale:

    …An El Niño discharges heat stored in the form of warm water from below the surface of the West Pacific Warm Pool, or as Trenberth et al. (2002) noted “the heat is stored in the western Pacific tropics.” That discharged warm water rises to the surface through upwelling and releases heat to the atmosphere during the El Niño (primarily through evaporation), and then all of the remaining warm water that was discharged by the El Niño is subsequently redistributed around the global oceans at the conclusion of the El Niño, some on the surface and some below the surface of the oceans. Let’s rephrase that because it’s important. The discharge phase is the release of “the heat [that] is stored in the western Pacific tropics”, which is taking subsurface warm water from the West Pacific Warm Pool and initially relocating it into the eastern tropical Pacific where it is upwelled to the surface and then subsequently redistributed at the conclusion of the El Niño. One of the byproducts of that discharge of warm water from “western Pacific tropics” is the release of heat to the atmosphere, and that’s what many persons focus on, but it’s only a portion of the discharge phase….

    • AndyG55 says:

      Its hard trying to explain to the rabid alarmist that an El Nino is actually an ocean COOLING event. 😉

      The alarmista are still hoping for a atmospheric temperature spike from the current El Nino, but it doesn’t seem to want to happen… I wonder why that might be. 😉

    • rah says:

      Gail I understand that an El Nino is a radiator that releases heat into the atmosphere and ultimately a good part of it into space. But in the mean time I suspect that we here will get an influx of warmanistas braying about a warming world.

      When the real question is what is going to happen in the next 18 to 24 months after the El Nino abates especially with the AMO negative and with the continuing slide in solar activity. I just hope we don’t have a large Pinatubo like eruption for the alarmists to blame the precipitous drop in temperatures that should occur during that period and to exacerbate what is already going to be a rather cold time.

    • Henry P says:

      Gail says
      I have not yet had a chance to look at the other chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere. Thanks for giving me a shove in that direction. (Ozone is complicated enough!)
      Henry says
      I don’t think we have any data series on the peroxides and N-oxides.You will get stuck there.
      We have to go with the ozone data that we got.
      I noticed that the graphs of ozone in the SH also started an uptrend since 1995.

      1995 was the neutral “average” point when we look at the fall in the solar polar solar field strengths, we are now one full Hale Nicholson ahead of that point. The effects of this will become evident in about 6 years from now. I am afraid that wide spread droughts are on the cards, in major farming areas as we also had in 1934.

      What this will do to putting food on the table for 8 billion people……?

      One cannot think that such a small change in temps. can cause such a shift in rainfall patterns.
      We urgently need to shift major farming production to lower latitudes.

  26. Henry P says:

    Imagine if we were to take 1971 as the date where a new Gleissberg started, then we are now (2015) exactly halfway. My prediction is that the graph above will develop in the next 43 years exactly as the mirror image of the previous 44 years.

    However, we also know from the inference of my data that global warming started around 1950, which is also the date when ozone started going down.

    It can be calculated from my data on maxima that the zero point on the speed for warming occurred sometime towards the end of 1995.

    the dates 1971, 1950 and 1995 are significant.

    William Arnold suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year Hale solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.
    Observe from my a-c curves:
    1) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa) : 1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
    2) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points: 1927, 1971, 2016
    Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:
    1) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other): 1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
    2) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus: 1919, 1965, 2009,
    In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 6-8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that appears to switch the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of warming….!!!! Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets appear to have some interference as well either shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).

Leave a Reply