Arctic Ice Rapidly Growing

ScreenHunter_694 Sep. 18 11.27

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008

Apparently the world’s leading experts were wrong

the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013

- John Kerry, US Secretary of State

John Kerry: We Can’t Ignore the Security Threat from Climate Change

ScreenHunter_409 Jan. 18 21.32

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013′

James Hansen : ‘This is the last chance’

6/23/2008

“We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes,” Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. “The Arctic is the first tipping point and it’s occurring exactly the way we said it would.”

Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.

NASA warming scientist: ‘This is the last chance’ – USATODAY.com

June 26, 2013

The alarming loss of sea ice which has grown worse each summer over the past several decades, has taken a sharp turn for the worse: this year the loss is right in the middle, the most resilient part of the ice cover. This could lead to a completely ice-free Arctic Ocean by September.

Unprecedented hole is growing in Arctic sea ice – Fairfax Climate Watch

ScreenHunter_165 Jul. 17 11.51

Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013 | Sierra Club Canada

About these ads

About stevengoddard

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

226 Responses to Arctic Ice Rapidly Growing

  1. @NJSnowFan says:

    Not sure where I got this chart but it was created by James Hansen in 1988. N hem temperature variation and solar irradiance..

    https://mobile.twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/380225825263456256/photo/1

    • Andy Oz says:

      Mann’s imaginary hockey stick coming back for an encore on his twerk. :D
      I wonder why Hansen lost the plot after 1988? Or did the NASA check and balance guys all retire. Good thing he never got into the Shuttle launch calculations.

      • David says:

        Hi Gail COMBS

        Your information is old and out of date!! and as it says if you have the ‘aptitude’ to watch the video!

        I have also provided the links where your cherry picked data comes from when you read ALL the data together it may help you on your quest!

        Link one: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/#gtemp
        LInk two: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
        Link three: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html

        And a link to explain about cherry picked data.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/2/

        Thank you.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Why did Hansen lost the plot after 1988? That is fairly easy to explain.

        The USA signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 12/06/92 (ratified 21/03/94 )
        The official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change redefines “Climate Change” Here is the official definition:

        “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

        http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php

        At this point the US bureaucracy went to work for the United Nations to implement their wishes no matter what the data said. In other words an international body determines what our laws will be and then our US bureaucracies will do what ever is necessary to see that those internationally agreed on changes become law.

        GATT and the World Trade Organization provide an excellent example of how this works.

        Under President Reagan (Yes a Republican) Dan Amstutz, VP of Cargill, wrote the draft Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) as USDA undersecretary for international affairs. Amstutz also wrote the “Freedom to Farm Bill” later known as Freedom to Fail that wiped out third world farmers, USA farmers, the US Strategic Grain Reserve and set-up the 2008 food crisis orchestrated by Goldman Sachs. Amstutz also worked for Goldman Sachs and was president of The North American Export Grain Association. (Grain Traders)

        Ten years later in 1996, under Clinton, Amstutz’ work was put in place as the WTO complete with the AoA was ratified and the “Freedom to Farm Bill” was made in to law. A year later WITHOUT congressional approval the USDA and FDA trashed the US food safety system using hands on inspection and testing that had given the US ‘the safest food in the world’ for the International HACCP regulations. HACCP turned inspection over to the corporations and USDA and FDA inspectors no longer inspected anything but paperwork. Most of the US food testing labs were shutdown.

        I graphed the CDC food borne illness data for the three years before and the three years after the introduction of HACCP. The incidence of illness doubled. The Propaganda arm of the internationalists jumped into action and twisted this news by pointing the finger, not at the corporations and bureaucrats who were the real villains but at independent farmers who were the target. The propaganda campaign worked and the “Food Safety Modernization Act” Co-sponsored by Richard Burr (R) was passed making US farmers answerable to the regulations written by the Ag Cartel within the WTO.

        In all of this the USDA and FDA was working FOR international corporations, the UN and WTO and AGAINST the best interest of Americans. Stanley Painter, Chairman of the National Food Inspection Unions, stated this in his testimony at the congressional hearing on the Hallmark Dower Cows:

        “..when we see violations of FSIS regulations and we are instructed not to write non-compliance reports… Sometimes even if we write non-compliance reports, some of the larger companies use their political muscle to get those overturned….Some of my members have been intimidated by agency management in the past when they came forward and tried to enforce agency regulations and policies. I will give you a personal example…
        the agency summoned me to come here to Washington, DC where agency officials subjected me to several hours of interrogation including wanting me to identify which of my members were blowing the whistle on the SRM removal violations. I refused to do so….I was then placed on disciplinary investigation status. The agency even contacted the USDA Office of Inspector General to explore criminal charges being filed against me

        It was not until August 2005 that over 1000 non-compliance reports – weighing some 16 pounds — were turned over to both AFGE and Public Citizen that proved that what my members were telling me was correct – that some beef slaughter facilities were not complying with the SRM removal regulations… on the same day those records were released, I received written notification from the agency that they were dropping their disciplinary investigation – eight months after their “investigation” began.

        http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1870

        USDA – closing down testing labs from the State of Texas Ag department.

        . “USDA is moving toward supporting fewer labs nationwide, with the remaining labs serving as regional labs and supporting larger geographic areas..” (wwwDOT)tahc.state.tx.us/agency/TAHC_Strategic_Plan_2009-2013.pdf

        References
        HACCP:
        johnmunsell(DOT)com/articles/HACCP-Disconnect-From-Public-Health-Concerns.html

        THE FREEDOM TO FARM ACT, Congressional record on problems:
        thomas(DOT)loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:S28MR0-0011:

        USDA Shielding the Corporations:
        Humorous chronology of John Munsells fight to get recognition of ConAgra’s tainted meat:
        (wwwDOT)cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/latest/jolley-five-minutes-with-john-munsell–a-trip-to-the-woodshed-with-the-usda-114324559.html

        SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy
        (wwwDOT)whistleblower.org/sites/default/files/Shielding_the_Giant_Final_PDF.pdf

        Council on Foreign Relations: Goldman Sachs Created the 2008 Food Crisis
        (wwwDOT)cfr.org/united-states/fp-goldman-sachs-created-food-crisis/p24904

  2. Ben says:

    In 2018, what are the odds the USA Today reporter will look at his notes and suddenly see that Hansen actually stated 20 to 40 years?

  3. stewart pid says:

    Steven / folks … could I request some help playing whack-a-mole with the alarmists over at a Bloomberg site?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-16/bipartisan-pettiness-on-climate-change.html

    • slimething says:

      All they do is refer to the consensus logical fallacy, heat hiding in the oceans to explain the lack of warming, etc. etc. etc.. It is not worth the time to argue with the blind being led by the blind.

      If you really want to get their face red, demand an explanation for why the hot spot is missing. That is the main tenet of “greenhouse” theory.

    • Gail Combs says:

      That Bloomberg article is from September of 2013.

  4. Ragtag Media says:

    The Prez’s Idiot mouth pieces were on the hill today:
    Energy Secretary, EPA Administrator Testify on Climate Change

    http://www.c-span.org/Events/Energy-Secretary-EPA-Administrator-Testify-on-Climate-Change/10737441523-1/

  5. R. de Haan says:

    It’s NASA with it’s 2013 Aerial Tour of the Arctic showing how crazy the entire idea of a melted Arctic really is. Just watch this incredible video: http://wordlesstech.com/2013/08/22/amazing-aerial-tour-of-the-arctic/

  6. Ben says:

    Robertv, RagTag Media, and R. de Haan,

    Thanks for the links!

  7. Mkelley says:

    “An angry climate…”? This guy is a world class ‘tard, though about normal for a Sierra Clubber.

  8. It is I only says:

    Arctic Ice Rapidly Growing. But only on the surface.
    At the bottom in the depth it’s melting because of Man Made Global Warming!
    Trust me! I am a “respected” scientist!
    Would I tell porkies to you?

  9. Ray says:

    I came upon your blog by accident when researching something and I was flabbergasted by your claim that Arctic ice is “rapidly growing”. The only evidence you provide is a 17-day span in September! Well, OF COURSE the ice will be increasing during that period as the ice-melting season has come to an end and the ice-growing season has begun! Thus you’re looking at SEASONAL VARIATION, not a climatic trend. Are you really telling me that you don’t know the difference? That being the case, are you really in a position to make the comments you make about climate change?

  10. Ray says:

    Clearly, you’re bluffing. You have no idea what the graph says and you’re doing your best to hide that fact. The x-axis data goes from 1-September through 17-September. There’s nothing on the graph that indicates a multi-year trend of ice increase. And yet you have the gall to call your blog “Real Science”? You need to act like an adult and stop pretending that you know what you’re talking about.

    Interesting, too, that your like-minded followers didn’t pick up on the problem, either.

    • Ray, stop being a moron.

      The graph shows exactly what I said it does. “Arctic ice growing rapidly” and that it got nowhere near the ice-free state predicted by the world’s leading experts for 2013. If you click on the link below the graph, it shows a 65% increase in ice area over the date of last year’s minimum.

      Instead of making a fool out of yourself here, why don’t you go harass the other morons who predicted an ice-free Arctic in 2013.

      • Ray says:

        The graph shows what happens EVERY YEAR during September. It’s not an indication of global cooling nor is it a refutation of global warming. In fact, the exact opposite happens 6 months later – as it does EVERY YEAR. Thus, it is merely seasonal variation. How the hell can you not see that when you proclaim your blog is “Real Science”?

        The link below the graph is merely a raw data set, not a graph. Are you also admitting that you can’t tell the difference between graphs and data sets?

        FYI, although I know I’m wasting my time, you can go to the National Snow and Ice Data Center at

        http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

        to see the data graphed (Figure 3). But notice that the current ice increase is but one spike on an overall trend of ice decrease over time (since 1978). The curve is a saw-toothed curve composed of ups and downs, the latest increase being only the latest up-spike among many. And every uptick is followed by, on the average, greater down-spikes and that results in a trend toward less Arctic ice over time (the blue line).

        So, no, the graph doesn’t say what you claim it says as it’s just 17 data points in one month of one year, not a multi-year trend. So you’re the fool here who can’t understand that the graph you’ve posted doesn’t say anything about global warming OR cooling. Stop pretending to know what you’re talking about. People like you just repeat what the conservative blogosphere dictates to you and you clearly have no idea what constitutes real science. But one thing is for sure: what they say about conservatives being anti-science is true – as you demonstrate every time you respond.

        • Are you completely mental?

          Ice is rapidly growing and the highest in a decade.

          http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

          You are proving once again that climate alarmists are the stupidest people on the planet.

        • Ray says:

          You have almost completely ignored everything I’ve said as you presented an entirely different graph to support your beliefs, tacitly admitting that your original graph doesn’t make your point. And you didn’t go anywhere near the web site I provided you with, did you? If you had you’d have seen that the Arctic sea ice level that you think marks a recovery is the fifth lowest level since records began. It’s also “recovering” from the lowest level ever recorded in 2012. But again, this is just an uptick – of which there are many – that is superimposed on the overall trend that shows huge declines since records began.

          Just go to the web site and see Figure 3. It won’t kill you to do that. You’re “recovery” is just one of many such upticks – always followed by downticks. The overall trend is clear as day. You can’t attempt to refute a trend by ignoring the whole graph in favor of just one data point!

          Imagine what the graph you supplied in your latest post would look like if it included the rest of the data from Figure 3 instead of just the last decade. The curve for 2013 would be fifth from the bottom!

          And, BTW, the issue up to this point has only been the areal extent of Arctic ice, not it’s volume. It turns out that ice volume is continuing to decrease so that there is actually less ice in the Arctic even with your “recovery”. That means that thick, multi-year ice is decreasing and that the total “recovery” is just thin, one-season ice that will melt easily and quickly next year.

          And once again I have to note that your original graph makes no argument one way or another for or against global warming. Apparently, in your fever to make your point you neglected to consider about whether it made any sense – just as an obedient victim of the conservative blogosphere would be expected to. Someone versed in real science would know better,

        • You are complete moron and are now spam.

        • Andy Oz says:

          You sure do attract em Steve.
          Evangelical climate alarmism must be tough to cure. Geez….it took me one day when I was 17 to realise the Catholic Church was a confidence scam. Albeit after 17 years of brainwashing by family and school.
          I think this new religion is a three generational thing. Once the 20 something’s see that nothing is happening, they’ll turn on their elder climate scientists. Gonna be ugly.

        • Dave says:

          Ray

          My rule of thumb is dont argue with idiots as they will only drag you down to their level then beat you on experience :-)

          Steven you are completley and utterly wrong and have no idea what you are talking about you just cherry pick stats to suit your point and even that doesnt work you BUFOON!

        • Andy Oz says:

          Arctic Ice Extent is not cherry picking. It’s the alleged northern “canary” that was supposed to prove CAGW and has inconveniently failed. The southern canary is more than 2 standard deviations above average sea ice extent so it’s a double fail. Being reduced to writing insults after CAGW is proven to be a scam just shows how sad and misguided the alarmists are. Christian Science monitor is a safer place for you chappies. Toodle loo!

        • Beale says:

          Several points: first, why begin at 1978? Was this because ice extent was unusually great at that time? I don’t know, but I do know that 1978 was about the height of the global cooling scare.

          Second, whatever dates you choose, you will probably get a trend up or down, and if you choose to assume that this trend will continue indefinitely you will eventually come to a catastrophic result, proving nothing except that your assumption is absurd.

          Third, you have to pay attention to the numbers at the left side of the graph; they don’t start at zero. By my calculation, if the trend line were to continue until all the ice is gone, that point would be reached early in the 23rd century, which is a long time after 2013, or even 2015.

        • Ray says:

          To your first point: First, there was no global cooling scare. That’s a myth that has been thoroughly debunked. Second, the record since 1978 is the satellite record. If you want to see the record from before satellites (since 1953) go to:

          http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/

          Your second point is absurd. The fact is that there IS a trend of decreasing Arctic sea ice. But where did I ever say that one should extend the trend indefinitely or that a catastrophic result should be expected? I simply argued that there is indeed a trend.

          Your third point is really your second point, also wrong. I’m not arguing about all Arctic sea ice disappearing throughout the entire year, nor am I arguing about it disappearing in any given future September (the month for which the data is plotted on the graphs in question). My argument is simply that Arctic sea ice in September is in decline and that the trend is real.

        • Other than NASA, NOAA, NCAR, NSF, CRU, NAS, CIA and almost everyone else, no one was pushing the ice age scare.

          http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

        • Ray says:

          Unfortunately, you’re mixing ideas. Back in the 1970s it was first realized that we are IN an ice age but currently in an interglacial period. It’s a fact that we’re headed for a new glacial period in the future. But this has nothing to do with human-caused climate change and nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.

          As for those few scientists who thought that there was evidence of cooling going on back then, that was refuted and was never part of any consensus of climate scientists.

      • David says:

        I have provided the links where your cherry picked data comes from when you read ALL the data together it may help you on your quest!

        Link one: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/#gtemp
        LInk two: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
        Link three: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html

        And a link to explain about cherry picked data.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/2/

        Thank you.

  11. Ray is right and you are wrong steven, he’s not spamming

    • Dave says:

      TO ANDY OZ

      YES IT IS CHERRY PICKING DATA

      It is not a recovery?? Look at the records from 1979 to 2013 it is not diffcicult to understand, it cleary shows the rapid decline in sea ice extent (the area it takes up) not only this but over the same time 80% of the volume of ice (how thick it is) has also dispappeared.

      WHICH BIT OF THAT CONFUSES YOU?

      • Dave says:

        ANDY OZ

        Also you talk of insults can i JUST POINT YOU TO STEVENGOODRAD POSTS :-)

        He is your messiah after all so by your own judgement it ‘just shows how sad and misguided the DENIERS are’ :-)

        Just so you know im not an alarmist just someone who can undertnsad the facts given to me through maths and make my own descison based on interpretation.

        Not as in your case ANDY which is by being brainwwashed by the OIL and GAS comapnies media engine who of course have our best interests at heart? IDIOT.

        • Arctic ice may pass the NSIDC 30 year mean in the next couple of weeks. Great wailing and gnashing of teeth will ensue from alarmists.

        • Andy Oz says:

          Dave,
          Simple question. Please explain how CO2 caused an increase in the Antarctic sea ice of 2 million sq km more than average. NSIDC shows the ice extent to be 2 standard deviations above the mean. Is the Antarctic canary dead?

  12. Dave says:

    To Stevengoddard

    Which bit of ‘ice reappears in the winter’ is confusing you? tahst not a recovery thats what happens in the winter when there is nmo sun for 6 months ice grows back.

    It is not a recovery?? Look at records from 1979 to 2013 its not diffcicult to understand it cleary show the rapid decline in sea ice extent (the area it takes up) not only this but over the same time 80% of the volume of ice (how thick it is) has also dispappeared.

    Only a completete fool would not be able to this a recovery would be ice extent and volume back to the 1979 average which will never happen!

    • The US is facing a record cold December, because all that hot air from the Arctic is coming down here.

      • Dave says:

        TO STEVENGODDARD

        Thats weather not climate!! It really isnt difficult STEVEN, Just google ice extent average from 1979 to 2013 and ice volumes for the same period .

        It really is just basic maths a child could work it out :-)

        Just so you are awre as you are probably ameriacn the ‘world’ encomases more than just the USA they hide facts like these in books!!

        Global warming means the globe as whole is getting warmer!!

    • Which bit of ‘ice reappears in the winter’ is confusing you?

      Is September now Winter? I’m terribly confused by your imprecise language, Ray.

      • Ray says:

        How did you get that out of what I said? September represents the lowest point in Arctic sea ice and sea ice grows as the fall and winter progress.

      • Dave says:

        To Stark

        I said that not Ray, just goes to show that DENIERS cant read or extarct facts :-)

        Where did anyone say sepetember is winter? again a DENIERS trait ‘just make shit up’

        However just so you are aware SEPTEMBER is when the arctic starts to cool again!!!!!

        Your confusion is probabally being caused by the fact that you are stupid!

        • You’re posting on an article from September which is about September ice & you’re complaining about it not being about something else & then you say that “ice reappears in winter”. I think you’re confused about when Winter is, Ray.

        • Ray says:

          Your comment is silly and amounts to nothing more than an end-run around the entire argument. Thanks for pretending to play.

        • Dave says:

          ### TO STARK ###

          Im not Ray? Thats twice you have made the same mistake is it because you are a retard??

          Please learn to read and digest simple information provided by satatlite data from 1979 to 2013 please, im being serious a child could work it out it really is that simple the ice is metling away due to GLOBAL WARMING :-)

          Of course we all know that DENIERS know best, the best bit is when the Arctic has finally melted you will still say no it hasnt and when it grows in winter it will be yet another recovery, :-):-)

          Your stupidity truely monumnetal :-)

  13. Ray says:

    There’s no more room to reply in the proper place so I’ll have to do it here.

    Andy Oz wrote: “Please explain how CO2 caused an increase in the Antarctic sea ice of 2 million sq km more than average. NSIDC shows the ice extent to be 2 standard deviations above the mean. Is the Antarctic canary dead?”

    If you care to look into the issue instead of simply denying it you’ll see that the Arctic has been particularly stormy this year and that this has resulted in increased sea ice. So it wasn’t CO2 – it was weather. And nowhere does global warming theory say anything about an end to wintry weather in the Arctic.

    • Andy Oz says:

      More than two standard deviations above average is weather? That’s cool. So when the Arctic ice is more than two standard deviations LESS than normal that is also weather. Thanks for clearing that up for me, and confirming CO2 has nothing to do with ice melting or freezing.

      • Dave says:

        TO ### Andy OZ ###

        Stop trying to pretend you are clever as you just sound stpuid, you have no idea what you are talking about, it is very amuzing though, if i ever met you in real life i will mock you :-)

        • Andy Oz says:

          Ad hominems standard response from alarmist fleas.
          I can’t help it that you are known as shoelaces, Dave. Hopefully one day you’ll be able to see the light and open your mind.

        • Ray says:

          Why would you even bring up the idea of ad hominem when so many posters on your side use such personal attacks regularly? Steven Goddard has called me stupid, moron and completely mental. So I guess it’s fair to say that you believe in double standards?

        • I apologize for insulting morons like that.

        • Andy Oz says:

          Dave and Ray still can’t explain why the Antarctic sea ice is more than 2 standard deviations greater than average. Come on! Okay I’ll give you a hint. It’s to do with really low temperatures. Or are you denying there is more sea ice than normal? I guess you’re ice deniers!

        • Ray says:

          I have already responded to this.

    • Ray says:

      What do standard deviation units have to do with it? Where’s the boundary in SD units below which you’ll agree that it’s indeed weather and not climate? Got none? I thought not. Yours is a phony argument.

      I’ve got news for you: weather always varies more than climate varies so any measure of deviation for weather will always be greater than it is for climate. Thus you’re argument was dead before you even posted it.

      • Andy Oz says:

        CAGW is a myth the same as Thomas Crapper inventing the flush toilet. There is so much evidence that it is a myth and a massive financial scam that to defend it can only mean you’re in on the scam. I’m sad that you were not taught statistics in school as it might have explained the probability of you being born with a sociopathic tendency. Congratulations on receiving money from extortionate taxes on the poor and underprivileged. Must make you feel all warm inside!

        • Ray says:

          And I’m supposed to take this kind of a response seriously? Is it any wonder that we can’t have any kind of dialog in this country when your side can do no more than to hurl insults and call names? Some of you guys really need to grow up. Well, good-bye, children. Good luck with your conspiracy theories and your spitting contests and your flaming posts and your complete, perhaps intentional, misunderstandings of the facts. You’ve shown me that nothing can get past a stubborn belief system that derives from an irrational political position.

    • Dave says:

      ### TO STEVENGODDARD ###

      CHERRY PICKING INFORMATION AGAIN ARE WE.

      THE BBC ARTCILE YOU ARE QUOTING STATES EARY 1980 THERE WAS 20,000 CUBIC km AND IN 2013 THERE WAS 9000 CUBIC km

      A LOSS OF 11,000 CUBIC KM WHICH BIT OF THAT CONFUSED YOU??

      A RECOVERY WOULD BE 20,001 CUBIC KM NOT DIFFICULT IS IT :-)

      BLESS, IS MATHS CONFUSING YOU LITTLE BABY :-)

  14. Gary B says:

    @Ray, sorry that I’m coming to this a little late. From your 15 Oct 2013 post, I went to http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ to check out what you were clearly upset that @Stevengoddard was ignoring. Namely, a seasonal variation but not a trend. I just checked out your reference, and I have to say that I must not be able to see what you are seeing. Looks like Arctic ice extent is trending above last year’s extent. The graph at http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png shows increase in thickness over that last few years.

    • Dave says:

      The thing is GARY B

      Stevenegoddard is trying to say that this is a sign of a recovery and that all is well and that in fact the GLOBE is not warming the ice is not melting and there nothing at wrong with this as it si all normal.

      Seasonal changes are normal; however, over a 30 year period the trend is there to see the decline in ice extent and volume.

      Also please note after every extreme ice loss there is always a rebound the follwoing years years but only back to the MEAN the MEAN of which is the decline curve.

      Very BASIC maths and very easy to follow unless you are stupid!!

      • Gary B says:

        @Dave, no need to descend into ad hominem attacks.

      • Stevenegoddard is trying to say that this is a sign of a recovery and that all is well and that in fact the GLOBE is not warming the ice is not melting and there nothing at wrong with this as it si all normal.

        No, Ray, learn to distinguish between your own bizarre fantasies, & what people have actually said.

        • Ray says:

          No, child. I’m not Dave. You need to grow up or maybe find some website that caters to children.

        • Ray says:

          And are you really so confused that you don’t realize that Steven Goddard is indeed saying that the sea ice in the Arctic is in recovery and that the globe is not warming? What is he saying, then? What are YOU saying? What the heck is your argument???

        • If you continue to like about things I did and didn’t say, you will be banned.

        • Ray says:

          Are you joking? So you’re NOT saying that Arctic sea ice is in recovery??? But in the reference you linked to you say exactly that.

          From: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/arctic-sea-ice-controlled-by-winter-winds/:

          “The disaster for alarmists is that the winds have reversed and are pushing the ice towards the Pacific side, which is driving the massive recovery in the amount of Arctic sea ice – up 60% from last summer.”

          If Arctic sea ice is not in recovery then what the point of your post? And for that matter, what is the point of this entire thread?

          Go ahead and ban me if you’re afraid of being confronted with your own words.

        • I said that Arctic sea ice extent is up 60% from last summer. Do you believe that is incorrect? Or are you just being hysterical for no particular reason?

        • Ray says:

          You wrote to me: “If you continue to like about things I did and didn’t say, you will be banned.” (I assume that you meant ‘lie’ and not ‘like’)

          This was right after I said, “And are you really so confused that you don’t realize that Steven Goddard is indeed saying that the sea ice in the Arctic is in recovery and that the globe is not warming?”

          That is what I responded to. I did not lie. I quoted you verbatim. In fact it was Stark DickFlussig who tried to correct me and implied that you didn’t say that. I corrected him.

        • I report simple facts here (like ice up from last year) and almost never make future projections. Alarmists see their religion threatened by the facts and go full Spanish Inquisition.

        • Ray says:

          You have completely confused the issue. Again, the issue was that Stark Dickflussig said that you never claimed that Arctic sea ice was recovering.

          But nevertheless, yes you did say that Arctic sea ice is in recovery. And I responded that it’s just one more year along a trend that overall is showing decreased sea ice over time. The saw-toothed graph of Figure 3 in my link shows us that we can expect ups and downs most of the time and that a single year of increased sea ice doesn’t alter the trend.

    • Ray says:

      Yes, it’s trending above the last few years. I have not said otherwise. What I have said is that the overall pattern is a saw-toothed increase over time. IOW, not every year will show a decrease in September ice but that the trend is there as, *on the average*, it works out that each year has less ice than the year before. That’s what Figure 3 in the reference I gave tells you.

  15. Ray says:

    Steven Goddard wrote:
    “BBC reports 50% increase in ice volume. ROFLMAO
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25383373?postId=118192465

    Here’s what the article actually has to say:
    “‘In previous summers, some of the [multi-year ice] migrated over to the Alaska and Siberia areas where it melted. But this past summer, it stayed in place because of a change in wind patterns. And so there’ll likely be more multi-year ice next year than there was this year,’ he told BBC News.”

    So this article clearly doesn’t say what you think it says. What we have is just a change in wind patterns and it amounts to nothing more than short-term change superimposed upon the long-term trend of melting Arctic ice.

    Also from the same article:
    “‘It’s estimated that there were around 20,000 cu km of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,’ he told BBC News.”

    And yet you see this as a “recovery” or an argument against GW? Try reading the articles you link to next time.

    • Ray, you need to decide if you’re posting as “Dave” or “Ray”. Also, you need to learn to distinguish between things that people have said & things that people have not said. You have already claimed that September is part of Winter, so I guess you have no idea what you’re talking about. Perhaps if you can provide a link to a peer-reviewed paper that says that September is Winter, you can win this round, you idiot.

      What we have is just a change in wind patterns and it amounts to nothing more than short-term change superimposed upon the long-term trend of melting Arctic ice.

      No, it doesn’t mean that at all, sorry. You’re just stupid.

      • Ray says:

        That is just plain wacko. I’m not Dave and you have no reason to think I am. And I note that you’re still wallowing on a single point that doesn’t address this debate. Perhaps you find it too hard to understand that when the ice-melting season ends the ice-growing season begins?

        Regarding your second point (although calling it a point may be too generous), even Steven Goddard agrees with me – we just disagree on the direction of the change and its consequences. He posted a graphic showing wind pattern changes. Did you miss that? Yep, I guess so.

  16. John b says:

    LOU the only wanker here is you little man! I have not seen it posted on this thread so go away you little man!

    I have asked Steven direct his views on global warming so as not to get embroiled in semantics he declined, and chose only to insult which seems to be the norm on this site.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/the-vital-long-view-in-tracking-diminishing-arctic-sea-ice/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

    • miked1947 says:

      JohnB:
      You have posted the same link to the fairy tale at Dotearth a number of times. It was worthless the first time and it is still worthless trash now. If you had looked through the past threads on this site you would have found the information you are asking about. I would link more valid historical records but you seem unable to comprehend real science when it is presented in a logical manner.
      You can go back to your fantasy world and listen to your Chicken Little leaders telling you how fast the sky is falling. I will continue to live in the real world and continue to observe real weather variations such as those I have experienced over the last 60+ years.

      • John b says:

        Ah bless you are still in denial, my comprehension is far superior to yours I deal in facts I have no ego on the matter little man.

        I don’t care your views mean nothing?

        Almost no one on the planet cares about your ancient views.

        • miked1947 says:

          I guess that is why more people are questioning the CAGW movement and the fairy tales told by the IPCC!

        • John b says:

          No they are not only idiots and slack jawed yokels are; however, no one cars what you think, no one takes you seriously, you are just a side show, Steven why have you chnaged user name where is the lttile girl gone from your picture :-)

  17. John b says:

    I cant see how you can argue with this??


    :-)

    • miked1947 says:

      You are correct! No sane person would try to argue with a fairy tale! The ice may have decline from point a to point b and there are similar time periods when the ice has expanded in that region. However it means little or nothing over the long run, because the ice conditions have varied since ice first formed in the region of the globe.
      That cartoon don’t mean Squat!

      • John b says:

        and this happened when in a short space of time? We are talking 30 years here not a gradual change over millennium!!

        What you are doing is smoke an mirrors ice is declining at a rate never seen before.

        And yes it does mean squat they are facts not shit you have just made up!!

        Show your facts or remain a liar!!

        • miked1947 says:

          Total Bull Shit! You are proving you are completely ignorant about historical weather patterns.

  18. John b says:

    Oh and no one cares what fools like miked1947, stevengoddard, lou and the famous latitude say or think you are irrelevant, your views or ideas mean nothing, no one listens to you deniers any more, that’s why you are reduced to back water websites spouting your rubbish to like minded simpletons .

    Really no one cares!

    Mike you spouted some rubbish a few post up about 4 million years :-) the thing is change never happened over such a short period of time and if you think extreme weather events are not happening more often then you are more stupid than I thought.

    Like is aid though no one cares what you people think, you people are well just in denial.

    I hope you all live in areas that get affected first and I hope you all have children.

    children that will one day challenge you and tell you that you are fools.

    One day your children will tell you Dad your wrong, Dad you are stupid, that day will happen and when happens you will remember you were told.
    :-)

    • miked1947 says:

      JohnB:
      What a load of Crap! Weather is always changing and weather patterns are in a constant state of change. My Great grand children come to me to get correct answers when they are told lies by their teachers and idiots like you .They have learned how to recognize members of the Chicken Little Brigade.

      • John b says:

        Yes that’s correct you are learning well done weather changes it always has and always will from one year to the next this will always happen.

        It is entirely different to GLOBAL warming. wow its like I have educated someone.

        • miked1947 says:

          ROFLMAO!
          I expect the next serious Global Warming in about 100K years. Right after the Glacial Maximum the globe has been sliding into since the Holocene Optimum. Sure there will be minor warming periods like the Minoan warm period, Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm warm period. The Current Warm Period is most likely over, but there is an off side chance there will be another warm bump. However the sad issue is we do not know because the temperature data is been so corrupted to promote the idea of some warming that actually did not happen. We have and are experiencing similar weather conditions as were experienced during the 1800s. that little blip between 1979 and 1998 was not even comparable to the warming during the first part of the century.
          And you believe the fairy tales.

      • John b says:

        MIKED1947, Ha great grand children when they get to 25, as I am now they will laugh at you.

        Your children and your grand children probably already mock you? for your old mans views, how old are you like 60.

        I hope you live to see your children eyes, the eyes that wont lie when your spouting your rubbish.

        THEY WILL JUDGE YOU.

        • miked1947 says:

          ROFLMAO!
          I guess that is why they still come to me for advise!

        • John b says:

          Yes children are easily led :-)

          They will grow up and make there own minds based on facts, then they will JUDGE you, it will happen i hope it crushes you as they disaggree, unless you are saying you are barinwashing them?

          Should i call someone are they in danger?

  19. John b says:

    Just to put this into context: I drive a BMW 5 Series, I have 3 TV’s in my house 42″ and 2 x 50″ my girlfriend drives a 4 x 4, I don’t believe in god. I rarely recycle as I cant be bothered, I eat meat. I’m not green, my house is way to big for my needs.

    I don’t hug trees and I think more roads should be built, I don’t like paying taxes and if my bills go up or some polar bears die then fu.ck the polar bears.

    But it does not change the facts the GLOBE is warming :-)

    So go fuck yourselves dickheads, no one cares what you think even hypocritical cunts like me don’t care what you think, Global warming is happening end of story.

    You have what like 10 people who post on this site seriously NO ONE CARES!!!

    you have no sway the majority have spoken you have been left wanting, your time has ended you have no relevance.

    AND ONE DAY YOUR CHILDREN WILL JUDGE YOU.

    LOL

  20. Andy DC says:

    John B:

    Worldwide sea ice is near record highs. How do you explain that?

  21. John b says:

    Ha record highs you are so wrong it is comical. What record highs are these, the last minimum sea extent we have just passed was the 6th lowest on record!!

    Post your source for this lie or remain liar.

    • Andy DC says:

      I am talking about worldwide sea ice, not just Arctic ice. Antarctic sea ice is much above normal, so the two hemispheres combined are at or near record levels. You can see numerous posts on this site that clearly document that fact.

      • John b says:

        If you are atlking about worldwide ice , that being all the ice in the world then it is not a record high levels, it is at record low levels., glaiciers, ice shelvees are all metling, in the warmth!

        Either way it does not make any differwence the GLOBE is still warming, but warming way too fast, wih more and more people being born and more cars being used and more cattle being rasied to support them the little dents we try and make are futile now.

        We have to learn to cope with its consequences.

        Thankfully the USA will be one of the most affected countires, ENJOY :-)

        • Andy DC says:

          It is a well established fact that Antarctic ice is much above normal and worldwide ice is at or near record levels. If you check this blog going back to late December and early January you will see that it is very well documented. Saying the sky is falling is simply not true. If you follow this blog for any length of time with an open mind, you will see the gloom and doom scenarios are simply not playing out as advertised and scientifically documenting the evidence does not make you a tool of Big Oil.

  22. John b says:

    No it is not stop lying. It well documneted by lack jawed yokels, no one else.

    Please read below.

    http://www.livescience.com/23333-antarctic-sea-ice-global-warming.html
    :-)

  23. John b says:

    ANDY, it says nothing of the sort please learn to read before posting rubbish!

    Global SEA ICE is not at its highest on record that is just a lie, you are the mad hatters, people actual just ignore or laugh at you, your views are irrelevant.

    The Antarctic and the Arctic are two different animals one is in land the other is sea ice, to start with.

    And the one on the sea is the one that is melting away fastest, so how you can even state that Global SEA ice is at its highest I have no idea, do you have eyes can you not see???

    not to mention the Greenland ice shelf that is melting faster than ever!!!

    The Antarctic gaining some ice no where near covers the ice loss GLOBALLY that’s why it is called GLOBAL warming and not::::

    local area warming or where you live warming.
    :-)

    • miked1947 says:

      JohnB:
      The only answer to your claims is Bull$hit! You do not know WTF you are talking about.

      • Steve says:

        Why is bull$hit? mike1947 makes perfect sense to me in fact not difficult to follow why are you so entrenched in your views? looks like he touched a nerve and you don’t like the fact you have realised you are wrong!! and global warming is happening. why Deniers get so obsessed about ice i don’t know when satellite temperature reading s prove the globe is warming!!!!

  24. John b says:

    Which bit of this video confuses you??


    :-)

  25. John b says:

    Steven Goddard: As simple jack LOL

    HAHA

  26. John b says:

    Hey Steve remember this? even climate deniers of the highest order are embarrassed of you?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/arctic-ice-increasing-by-50000-km2-per-year/

  27. John b says:

    And this one you have no credibility at all DO YOU? If even your fellow deniers think you are a twat.

    The more I read about you I actually feel sorry for you, and you followers on here are just you aren’t they? that’s how pathetic you are you have to post on your own blog!!

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up-With-That-ignorance-regarding-Antarctic-sea-ice.html

    You have no scientific basis for your lies, so why dot you just admit that you are wrong it takes a real man to admit this, I for one would respect you if could become man enough to say:

    I Steven GODDARD In light of the overwhelming evidence I have realised I have no scientific basis for my past views and I was wrong.
    :-) :-) :-)

  28. John b says:

    WOW Goddard post some of his on shit to prove his shit is right shocker what a dick you are?

    Your are an old man who know nothing, you are a failure nothing changes this.

    DO you want me to post the crayon drawing you did and post it funny as fuck that was? Was reading about it earlier people actually take the piss out of you.

    Oh fuck I’ve dropped goodard, what the goddard was that LOL you are a joke.

    I cant wait till the really press get there hands on you!!

  29. John b says:

    ^^^^^^^^ GODDARD uses crayons LOL :-)

  30. John b says:

    Hey GODDARD how about this, ya whack job!! as you would say. you really are a joke aren’t you, little, little man :-)

    even your “friends” have left you!!

  31. John b says:

    Steven Goddard in his latest FILM BLOG: PLAYING HIMSELF!!!!, he does have good brain :-)

  32. John b says:

    STEVEN GODDARDS pre 1979 bullshit torn to pieces in one simple real graph. Sorry no crayons on this one LOL GODDARD :-~)

    http://uknowispeaksense.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/arcticseaiceextentbackto1953.png?w=500&h=317

  33. Latitude says:

    Appell is off his meds again…..

  34. Steve says:

    Hi Mike1947 again thanks for the complementary insult about my history knowledge! Why post on a site if you can only insult when someone is debating with you? Of course because Deniers are all right and us WAK JOBS! are all wrong and you are an expert so your word is gospel, sorry didn’t mean to offend your sensitive views, we could just wait 20 year come back and see how it all pans out if you can still type by then :-)

    There are lots of graphs / video on this link I could point too, that show ACCELERATED global warming let alone many more graphs and stats from satellites.

    And to compare 65 million years of “””warming””” to the last 100 years of accelerated warming is a very fragile premise.

  35. Steve says:

    hi mike1947 as per previous question?

    I said the man made made effects would make those natural warm periods even warmer as in if whatever caused the so called “”medieval warm period” happened now the man made effects would make that warm period even warmer!!

    I asked if you understood that?

  36. Gail Combs says:

    ” why is global sea ice such an important factor”
    ……….
    LONG version – ALBEDO (from engineers)
    At today’s sea ice extents, the “edge” of the Arctic sea is a tiny ring ~ latitude 78 -82 north in mid-September. The “edge” of Antarctic’s sea ice minimum is also a “ring” – but that ring is about latitude 66 south. This is closer to the equator, so much more energy is reflected from the Antarctic sea ice. At maximum extents, the “edge” Arctic sea ice is at its closest point to the equator at latitude 72 north, not even as close to the equator as the minimum Antarctic sea ice! At its maximum, Antarctic sea ice extents is much, much higher at 59.2 to 59.0 latitude. Closer to the equator than even the most southern tip of Greenland!

    ….Albedo of Arctic sea ice changes only based on day-of-year. Albedo starts high at 0.82, stays steady at 0.82 until May, decreases through the summer to a low of 0.46, then rises again to 0.82 until about September, then remains at 0.82 until the end of December. This is from Dr Curry’s measured data.

    1. Albedo of sea ice does NOT change with latitude.

    2. Albedo of open ocean changes with every HOUR of every day as the solar elevation angle changes each minute. Specifically, open ocean albedo does NOT change explicitly with latitude, but latitude affects the overall SEA change over day-of-year AND latitude and hour-of-day (HRA), These changes are based on the earth’s declination and geometry and is strictly and specifically defined. But, Hour-of-day and day-of-year CANNOT be separated from latitude.

    3. Opposite the above, the yearly maximum solar radiation occurs in early January at 1410 watts.m^2. The minimum solar top-of-atmosphere radiation occurs July 3, when the Arctic sea ice is decreasing strongly day-by-day, BUT while Arctic sea ice is between min and max. Roughly, the edge of Arctic sea ice is between 74 and 76 north.

    At the point of maximum solar radiation at TOA, the ANTARCTIC sea ice is is a wide “ring” slowly varying from 59.2 south (last October under 1370 watts/m^2) to about 64 south latitude (in January under 1410 watts/m^2) to a minimum sea ice extent at 3 Mkm^2 (in March at 70 south latitude back down to 1360 watts/m^2). So, when the TOA solar radiation is at its maximum, ARCTIC sea ice is dark. When the top-of-atmosphere radiation is at its max, Antarctic sea ice is not at its minimum.

    Net effect: As a whole, Antarctic sea ice is MUCH, MUCH closer to the equator every day of the year.

    Overall, increased heat losses from open ocean in the Arctic (when Arctic sea ice is at a minimum in late August-September) are much greater than increased heat absorbed into that open water. More sea ice loss in the Arctic => More heat loss from the planet and a net cooler planet.

    The opposite happens in the Antarctic: More sea ice around Antarctica means more heat reflected from the planet and a net cooler planet.

    It is not really necessary to “combine” or group the other two parts of the Antarctic

    Up north, the Arctic Ocean STARTS at 70 north latitude, and this IS the southern limit of the Arctic Ocean. Essentially ALL “Arctic sea ice” then cycles between 70 north latitude (at MAXIMUM extents at 14.0 Mkm^2) and 80 north (if 4.0 Mkm^2). In the future, this minimum could go even closer to the pole: if there were 1.0 Mkm^2, all the arctic sea ice is a little beanie cap from the pole to 85 north latitude.

    The Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING at all times of the year.
    The Antarctic sea ice cycles between a minimum of of 4.0 Mkm^2 at latitude 70 south, to a maximum of of 19.5 Mkm^2 at latitude 59.2 south.

    The Arctic sea ice only varies between 72 north and 82 north.

    On EVERY day of the year, Antarctic sea is exposed to 2 to 5 times the radiation that Arctic sea ice receives, and is therefore Antarctic sea ice is 2 to 5 times MORE important to the earth’s heat balance than the Arctic sea ice….
    R. A. Cook PE1978

    A second comment from Cook

    The second assumption about Arctic Amplification, and easily the second most important assumption in the entire CAGW religion, is how the CAGW dogma assumes the albedo change as the polar icecap reduces will affect future climate. Sea Ice vs Open Ocean albedo does matter, and, in truth, really deserves a long conversation in its own entire thread, but let’s look at few important things.

    One. Continuously increasing positive Antarctic Sea Ice anomalies between 70 south latitudes and 59 south latitudes every day of the year for the past 15 years DO affect the world’s heat balance, but Arctic sea ice declines since 1979 – which occur between 78 north and 85 north in September each year do NOT affect the earth;’s heat balance.

    Two. Arctic sea ice albedo DOES change routinely over the year, and is lowest during the yearly June-July-August melt season. Actual Arctic sea ice is NOT the pristine Wikipedia-approved laboratory values you so often see quotes: 0.95, 0.90, 0.86, etc) Actual measured Arctic sea ice (Curry, JGR 2001, Applications of SHEBA/FIRE Data to Evaluation of Snow/Ice Albedo Parametrization) is available for 13 years now, but seldom accurately called out. Figure 1 of Curry’s measurements shows the following:
    From DOY = 1 (1 January) to 133 (May 14), albedo is basically that of new snow over old ice. 0.8228
    From DOY = 134 to 278, albedo decreases from 0.82 down to at minimum curve fit at 0.460 on Day 206 (July 26), then increasing back to Day 278 (Oct 6).
    From DOY 279 – 365 (6 Oct – 31 Dec), measured Arctic sea ice albedo returns to that same snow-covered ice value of 0.82
    Numerically, this is a flat line = 0.8228 until DOY 133, a sinusoid dropping to a low point = 0.460 at DOY 206, and a second flat line after DOY 279 until 365: The sea ice albedo best-fit curve is
    sea_ice_albedo = 0.06803 + 0.02015 *cos(0.03561 * DOY – 4.1809)
    Actual data points scatter somewhat of course, but the measured lowest arctic albedo was 0.386 on DOY 223. Next lowest measured albedo was 0.41 on DOY = 208.

    Three. Of the 19.5 million square kilometers of Antarctic Sea Ice, all but a little bit 3.0 Mkm^2 immediately around the continent melts every Nov-Dec-January (Antarctic summer, Arctic winter). Thus, Antarctic sea ice is always “first-year” ‘ice, and ice thinner and cleaner (with greater quantities of fresh snow from the near-continuous storms around Cape Horn) than the multi-year (darker) Arctic sea ice. Until more measurements are published, that 0.82 albedo is valid all year.

    Four. Sea ice DOES reflect slightly more energy into space all year than does open ocean water, but the actual open ocean albedo is NOT the very dark, pessimistic foreboding but Wikipedia-approved 0.061. Now, understand that the “standard” 0.061 water albedo IS correct, but ONLY for very diffuse light under completely clouded skies.

    So, if the skies are cloudy the open ocean albedo is low, BUT the top of the clouds DO reflect some 30% of the potential solar energy present, the clouds absorb some 30% of the potential solar energy present, and so only 30% of the potential solar energy can be absorbed by the open ocean.

    Five. Do not ever let anybody conn you into using the “pure physics” laboratory-theoretical pristine-perfectly-calm conditions for a perfect-reflecting pure-water surface Fresnel equations either! THOSE values are NOT correct in the real world at any time.

    Rather, actual open-ocean direct-sunlight clear-sky measured-albedos – YES, WITH REAL OCEAN WAVES ! – have been available for many years, but these are seldom used: Most importantly, they CANNOT be used in “average” monthly “average albedo” tables or annual albedo summaries. See, solar absorption into the ocean (or ice) and solar energy reflection from the ocean (or ice) is a constant, minute-by-minute surface interaction very dependent on the latitude, amount of clouds and percent of clear sky, atmospheric air mass (how much light is absorbed merely passing through the even a “perfect atmosphere” to get down to the ocean’s surface), atmospheric clarity, and the day-of-year, solar declination angle, hour-of-day. The latter three combine to define the ever-changing solar elevation angle SEA each minute of each hour of each day.

    (SEA is also written as solar zenith angle SZA in many papers = which is the angle DOWN from the vertical to the sun’s position. SEA is the angle of the sun UP from the horizon to the sun. I will use only SEA to keep one consistent term in use. Many building and solar panel calc’s require plotting azimuth angles for each minute, but – since we are only talking flat surfaces of ice and water at the earth’s sea level, we will ignore the solar azimuth angle and altitude albedo corrections.)

    So, what is this “measured open-waters, clear-sky, direct-sunlight, wind-corrected” ocean albedo? Jin (GRL 2004) Figures 1-5 plot it rising from 0.035 at SEA = 71.8 to a 0.25 maximum (and a 0.21 average) at SEA = 9 degrees), but they only used the values as albedo vs SEA as look-up tables. Payne, (JAS, 1972) Figure 4 also plots it (rising from 0.040 at SEA = 74 to 0.44 at SEA = 8 degrees) but he does not offer a numeric solution.
    Rutledge and Schuster (P5.17, Multi-Year Observations of Ocean Albedo from a Rigid Marine Platform) plot both clear-sky direct radiation and cloudy sky (diffuse radiation) albedos in their Figure 4: If any can post that image, nothing will more strongly emphasize the difference between direct and diffuse radiation behavior reflecting from the real-world open ocean!
    Briegleb (1986) does give a equation, but it does not correct for wind conditions:

    albedo_direct_sun_clear skies = 0.026/(mu^1.7 +0.065) + 1.5*(mu-0.1)*(mu-0.5)*(mu-1.0)

    where mu = sine of that hour’s SEA. (Curry has quoted this equation in her papers.)
    Pegau and Paulson (International Glaciological Society, 2001, The Albedo of Arctic Leads in Summer) worked under the SHEBA ice platform with Curry’s team, and corrected Breigleb for wind speed:

    albedo_direct_sun_clear skies (SEA, wind) = 0.026/[(mu^1.7 + (-0.0002w^2 + 0.0076w+0.0266)] + 1.5*(mu-0.1)*(mu-0.5)*(mu-1.0)
    where mu (again) = sin(SEA) (or cos SZA) and w is in meters/sec.

    So, in September in the high Arctic when the solar elevation angle SEA is NEVER more than 8-10 degrees above the horizon at ANY time of the day when the sun is even visible, what is the measured clear sky open ocean albedo? Between 0.22 and 0.35.

    Not all that much different from the albedo of the “dirty sea ice” that is melting away. Yes, there is an increase in absorbed radiation in the Arctic above 78-82 latitude when sea ice is replaced by open ocean, BUT it is not very much difference in energy over the 12 hours of even potential sunlight!

    And, although the sun’s rays do heat the open water slightly during those daylight hours, the open water about 78-82 north loses MORE HEAT to the sky over the entire period of the 24 hour day through increased long-wave radiation, increased evaporation, increased convection, and increased conduction than does sea ice!

    Rather than an “arctic sea ice amplification” the numbers show that – during the late melting season under today’s conditions, every square meter of open ocean north of 76-82 north LOSES more heat on a daily basis than does sea-ice-covered arctic waters under the same air conditions!

    The exact opposite, unfortunate, is also true down south:
    Under today’s conditions at Antarctic sea ice extents between 60 south and 70 south latitudes, EVERY square kilometer of increased Antarctic sea ice at ANY time of year reflects more energy into space away from the planet, INCREASES total planet cooling!

    I asked about his information and got

    Gail:

    What you want to look at is the column below called “Direct Radiation Horizontal Surface”.
    Those are radiation received on the equinox for solar radiation at each latitude at noon.

    I’m going to duplicate below a “spreadsheet copy” of a spreadsheet I have for all latitudes for the actual radiation on to a horizontal surface at 12:00 on that “average” 342 watts/meter^2 day. Remember, top-of-atmosphere radiation is going to vary over the year from 1410 (high, on January 3) to the 1320 (the “low” value on July 3 each year). This is for a day in mid-September, near that “average” value on the equinox at time of minimum Arctic sea ice extents….

    I posted all this to refute Dave’s comment above:
    “just goes to show that DENIERS cant read or extarct facts”

    Most of the ‘Deniers’ I have read are geologists, engineers, chemists, physicists…. and unlike Dave can actually read a graph.

  37. Gail Combs says:

    David says: @ March 28, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    So you agree by proxy that extended Antarctic sea ice in the winter means nothing and that its extension is a direct result of global warming.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No the Antarrctic Sea Ice is NOT caused by ‘GoreBull Warming’

    The following is a paper that provides a prediction as to how much cooling to expect in response to the abrupt solar magnetic cycle 24 change.

    Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256

    The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. …. ….These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models. …. …..We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C.

    Changes in the sun change the amount of EUV and UV as much as 7% according to NASA.

    Ozone is formed and destroyed by solar UV (again see NASA/NOAA)

    The polar wind is mainly varying with solar UV flux, since it controls the ionization rate and photoelectron production in the ionosphere. Therefore the polar wind is sometimes referred to as photothermal outflow (Moore and Horwitz, 2007). The auroral outflows, on the other hand, are enhanced during active times, when the solar wind-ionospheric coupling is strong. Since the
    solar wind energy input shows larger variability than the solar radiation, the auroral wind is much more variable than the polar wind. Nsumei et al. (2008) have shown that solar illumination controls the plasma density over the polar caps mainly at low altitudes (below 2.5 RE), whereas it is controlled by the geomagnetic activity at higher altitudes (above 4 RE).”

    http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:210978/FULLTEXT01

    (The north magnetic pole has split and is moving at a right good clip BTW)

    “The change and strengthening of the tropospheric wind systems likely is related to stratospheric processes which in turn are affected by the ultraviolet radiation” explains Achim Brauer (GFZ), the initiator of the study. “This complex chain of processes thus acts as a positive feedback mechanism that could explain why assumingly too small variations in solar activity have caused regional climate changes.”
    Paper: Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum
    (wwwDOT)nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1460.html

    The polar vortex depends on the Brewer-Dobson circulation. When it is strong the polar vortex is well-defined, the polar air stays put, and we get warmer. When it is weak, polar air heads southward over northern continental land masses. But there are no large land masses adjacent to antarctica so southern polar air tends to remain isolated. You can look up the Brewer-Dobson circulation yourself. (The history behind it is rather interesting.)

    06 May 2012 Nature Geoscience | Letter Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum

    ABSTRACT
    Large changes in solar ultraviolet radiation can indirectly affect climate by inducing atmospheric changes. Specifically, it has been suggested that centennial-scale climate variability during the Holocene epoch was controlled by the Sun. However, the amplitude of solar forcing is small when compared with the climatic effects and, without reliable data sets, it is unclear which feedback mechanisms could have amplified the forcing. Here we analyse annually laminated sediments of Lake Meerfelder Maar, Germany, to derive variations in wind strength and the rate of 10Be accumulation, a proxy for solar activity, from 3,300 to 2,000 years before present. We find a sharp increase in windiness and cosmogenic 10Be deposition 2,759  ±  39 varve years before present and a reduction in both entities 199  ±  9 annual layers later. We infer that the atmospheric circulation reacted abruptly and in phase with the solar minimum. A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model. We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago, coincident with a grand solar minimum.

    The quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) is a quasi-periodic oscillation of the equatorial zonal wind between easterlies and westerlies in the tropical stratosphere.

    Solar asymmetry, QBO and climate
    (wwwDOT)atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/SPARC/SPARC2000_new/PosterSess3/Session3_3/Georgieva/doklad.htm

    ABSTRACT
    One of the main problems in solar-climatic influences is the instability of the relations found. Different authors have reported both positive and negative correlations between solar activity and surface air temperatures. We have performed a detailed study making use of global, hemispheric and zonal temperature estimations, as well as of data from individual meteorological stations with long measurement records, to show that the sign of the correlation changes regularly in consecutive centennial solar cycles and seems determined by the North-South asymmetry of solar activity: the correlation is positive when the Northern solar hemisphere is the more active one, and negative when more active is the Southern solar hemisphere. On the other hand, the sign of the correlation between solar activity and different climatic elements reveals a similar dependence on the phase of the quasibiennial oscillation of stratospheric winds (QBO). QBO signals have been identified in a number of geophysical parameters, e.g. sea level pressure, ozone distribution, Earth’s rotation, and its existence has been shown in solar activity parameters as sunspot numbers, solar radio flux at 10.7 cm, green coronal activity, solar neutrino flux, etc. In the present paper we show that QBO exists in solar North-South asymmetry as well, and discuss the relation between the quasibiennial oscillation in solar asymmetry and in stratospheric zonal winds, and its possible implications on climate.

  38. David says:

    Hi Gail and other old people

    Just in case you a racist as well a link from your home service

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

    As above very very easy to follow even for old red neck toothless simpletons like you.

  39. David says:

    Hi Gail and old people

    An american link for you in case you a re racist!

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

    Very simple to follow.

  40. David says:

    Jesus that is funny Goddard uses crayons, classic

    http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/idiotic-denier-graph-of-the-day-august-262012/goddard-uses-crayons/

    You couldn’t make it up. :-) :-) :-)

  41. David says:

    TO GAIL COMBS, please stop posting unnecessarily long post from scientists who are mocked globally, or papers from decades ago no one is interested in your old data which was wrong then and still wrong now, you foolish old woman.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

  42. David says:

    Pretty much sums it for me, DENIERS are so blind it laughable.

  43. Steve says:

    If you have the aptitude to watch this from beginning to end it also explains a lot, in basic terms so it is not to difficult to understand.

    Hope it helps explain why this thread and its silly opening posts are just that, silly?

    I cant understand how anyone can come to the conclusions Deniers do!

    But it seems like you enjoy yourselves so go for it, you may as well just make any shit up! Blame aliens or say the is a cold war going on still :-) , the ‘alarmists’ have hired NASA to carry warmth off the planet i heat pods :-) :-) :-)

    Deniers if you are going to make shit up and have fun at least use your imagination :-)

  44. Steve says:

    Apparently Arctic ice is rapidly melting now!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    LOL

  45. David says:

    This link is very informative and indeed relevant for this thread.

    http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2014/04/piomas-april-2014.html

  46. It is difficult to know where to begin with people as stupid as you as you are.

  47. You are a complete whack job.

  48. Latitude says:

    John…do you own a mirror

  49. You best check with the Christian Science Monitor and Wall Street Journal who both published articles referencing this blog during the past month.

  50. Latitude says:

    “I have no idea what that means?”

    “Anyone who is still in denial in regards to climate change must be so entrenched in their views that you will never convince them no matter what facts you show them.”

  51. John b says:

    Dear Latitude

    I’m not entrenched, I’m just posting facts, I only deal in facts, don’t try and embroil me in semantics I do not care, show me some facts don’t post semantics and we can talk further BOY.

    I just like making fools look like fools, deniers are my favourite as you get so angry

    The same tricks played out by all slack jawed yokels lets try and use smoke and mirrors run along now BOY.

  52. miked1947 says:

    JohnB:
    You are posting the fantasy that supports your religion! The ling view should be about 4 million years and we have some evidence that you are FOS based on long term evidence. Your buddy Revkin is FOS also to publish fairy tales about something he don’t know Jack about!
    I am still waiting for evidence of “Extreme” weather events that are outside normal variations and frequency. The events and frequency have been both worse and more frequent in the past. Cold spells have been longer. Warm spells have been longer. Droughts have been longer. We have experienced some of the mildest weather patterns since the beginning of human existence. And that period has seen some of the mildest weather variations that have been recorded in the geological record.
    I believe that puts you in the denier camp regarding long term “Climate”.
    You can quit using the term Realist when referring to your self as it becomes an Oxymoron when used in the same sentence with some that believe in CAGW such as your self.

  53. Lou says:

    Useless. 1979 happened to be at the highest amount of ice in years. Look at the years prior to 1979. You fail.

  54. Latitude says:

    what long view John….the one no one can predict

  55. Latitude says:

    global warming…climate change…extreme weather

    …irritable climate syndrome

    You have no problem looking like a total fool…do you?

  56. Latitude says:

    “Anyone who is still in denial in regards to climate change must be so entrenched in their views that you will never convince them no matter what facts you show them.”

  57. Lou says:

    Steve posted this plenty of times, you wanker.

  58. miked1947 says:

    Steven:
    That was “Where to Begin”! probably also where to end! John B is a Whack Job.

  59. miked1947 says:

    Latitude:
    JohnB does not realize he is defining himself when talking about denying climate Reality.

  60. John b says:

    Ah bless more insults little man, well done I bet your parents are so proud of you?

  61. John b says:

    Dear Latitude, Really what are your views then so far you have only posted insults and offered no insight as to workings of anything, you little, little man!

    What do think is happening and what are your views of the satellite data in links I have provided?

    Please enlighten us?
    :-)

  62. miked1947 says:

    It is still BS! What you are seeing is a portion of long term weather patterns that have been controlling ice conditions since this Ice Age started 38 million years ago. It has been a period of Maximum and minimum glaciations. We have no clue how long this Ice Age will last. We do have a clue when the next maximum glaciation will happen, as it seems to follow a pattern. The pattern shows the globe is slowly cooling and has been for more than 5,000 years, with minor warming periods.
    35 years is less than a blink of the eye in geological time, especially when we know there are long term weather patterns that last 40 to 80 years, such as PDO, AMO and AO. That does not even take into account the longer term weather evens in the range of 1,00 or even the 40,000 and the 100.000 year cycles that are evident in geological history.

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html#maps

  63. Shazaam says:

    1979 was a recent peak in Northern Hemisphere ice levels. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/missing-arctic-ice-located-in-the-great-lakes/#comment-311604

    And the global cooling hysteria was really in high gear at the time. It’s unfortunate that so much of the 1970’s hysteria is not present on the internet. Though it’s likely also a blessing as today’s warming-mongers could take notes on what tactics worked and what tactics failed with the global cooling hysteria.

    It’s easy to show a decline when you start at the highest point and ignore anything else.

    If it makes you feel better, close your eyes and make believe you are “saving the planet”. Facts are a complete waste of time for the “true believers”.

    Fortunately there is this little thing called reality. It’s damned tough to ignore, and it’s coming your way.

  64. miked1947 says:

    Talk about Pathetic! Pseudo Science at its best! Some would even consider it Pathological Science!
    Increased temperatures in the Arctic region only result in increased biological activity. There are critters, that are part of the food chain that thrive on Methane, as there are life forms that thrive on CO2, and they are also part of the food chain.

  65. miked1947 says:

    You just proved you do not know WTF you are talking about.
    Global SEA Ice is at its highest for this date since satellite records began.

  66. miked1947 says:

    JohnB:
    Quit acting so stupid. The planet warmed even faster during the early part of the 1900s. It warmed even faster many times in the past. We are not pushing up the temperature and the temperature has been close to flatline for close to 20 years. There were times in the 1800s when the temperatures were the same or warmer than today. The are still finding plants that were mature under glaciers where plants can not grow today and those plants grew in those locations in the last 4,000 years. It is getting cooler, Long Term.

  67. miked1947 says:

    I am a Tree Hugger! I used to own a Tree Farm. However I am a Realist about weather and climate.
    My icon is my pet pig that will start flying before the CAGW hysteria becomes reality.
    Go back to your Chicken Little Brigade. You failed to impress anyone.

  68. Shazaam says:

    Reggie? Is that you?

    Have you healed-up after your Brawndo-fueled Arctic Blowtorch packed it in last summer?

    How bad are the scars?

  69. Normally I block spammers, but you are a poster child for alarmist brain damage

  70. Shazaam says:

    Obviously kidde-garden let out early today.

    If your reading comprehension skills are up to reading and comprehending the post you might notice there is a link to follow.

    link reproduced here for the reading comprehension failures: http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/winter/lake-effect-storms-may-ease-as-ice-cover-nears-100-20140123 <— click and read.

    Read carefully, take your time. We know you may have to sound-out the big words. However we can be very patient with the disabled.

    The source data is from the ice concentration maps from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.

    You could make your very own you-Tube with that data. And if you also start with 1979, you can make it sound really scary too. I'm sure you'd like that.

  71. Gail Combs says:

    And the global cooling hysteria was really in high gear at the time. It’s unfortunate that so much of the 1970′s hysteria is not present on the internet….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually it is.

    Nigel Calder was a science writer on the original staff of the New Scientist in 1956. He became editor of that magazine in 1962… BIO

    Calder was very much involved in the reporting on the comming of the next ice age in the 1970. This is his recap HERE

    In that blog article he mentions

    Kukla warned President Nixon

    Those who rewrite the history of climate science to suit the man-made global warming hypothesis hate to be reminded that global cooling and the threat of a new ice age rang alarm bells in the 1960s and 1970s. In the Orwellian manner they try to airbrush out the distinguished experts involved, and to say it was just a scare story dreamed up by stupid reporters like me.

    No, we didn’t make it up. I was present in Rome in 1961 when global cooling was already the main concern at a conference of the World Meteorological Organization and Unesco (see the Unesco reference). The discussions were led by Hubert Lamb of the UK Met Office, who went on to found the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

    A persistent concern of Lamb and others was that the world might return to a Little Ice Age like that of 300 years ago. But the improving knowledge of glacial history, and especially the apparent brevity of warm interglacials, prompted anxiety about a full-blown ice age. George Kukla, together with Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened a conference in 1972 entitled “The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?”, and reported it in Science magazine.

    Kukla and Matthews alerted President Richard Nixon, and as a result the US Administration set up a Panel on the Present Interglacial involving the State Department and other agencies. None of us knew then that the mid-century cooling was about to be punctuated by a warming spell from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s.

    The result was the 1974 CIA REPORT: “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”

    I was an adult in the 1970s and an avid rock-hound/caver/geology-nut so I very much remember the ‘Ice Age Scare’

  72. John b says:

    Hi GODDARD do have to post under so many different names as no one cares about your site? makes it look busy and you can get away with being more insulting.

    The more shit you talk the more the really media will want to find you and when the do you be crushed and it will be funny, and you will be remembered as that crazy fool and your children will be ashamed of you.

    And I will be one of them laughing at you.
    :-)

    ENJOY

  73. I’m not spamming him because he is an excellent spokesman for the clueless. Probably best not to engage him though.

  74. miked1947 says:

    JohnB:
    Steven Goodard only post under that name and AFAIK he lives in Colorado. I live in E TN and we have commentators from all over the world at this site.
    Steven is probably just ignoring your rants, because t=you make such a good case for ignoring the CAGW CLB Morons.
    One day you will wake up and realize the Sky is NOT Falling. It is not a laughing matter!

  75. miked1947 says:

    The more I engage, the worse he looks. But It is time to eat and watch a movie with the wife. ;)

  76. Shazaam says:

    I thought I saw a MHDD “short bus” go by a little while ago.

    Obviously the bus made a “delivery” a little while ago….. ’cause “short bus” is back with us…..

  77. John b says:

    OH my god SHAZ are you still here? No one cares what you say please read the links you provided about weather IM laughing at you they mean nothing you silly old cow!!

    Even GODDARD wont defend your DRIVEL that’s how idiotic you sound and how pathetic your links are!!!

  78. miked1947 says:

    One: It is not Global!
    Two: I would like to see pictures of the satellites they used to measure the amount of ice in the northern hemisphere, during 1900! TIA for your link to the satellite info!
    Even the satellites used during the 40s would be acceptable.

  79. miked1947 says:

    Of course they probably used “Chicken Bones” like the current crop of “Climate Experts” do to measure Mann Made global Warming.

  80. Drewski says:

    miked1947,
    This is from WUWT and it is GLOBAL and, as you can see, it is NOT the highest sea ice ever recorded.
    From WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

  81. Jan 1 global sea ice area was the highest ever recorded in January. Stop being so dull.

  82. Steve says:

    Hi why is global sea an important factor to you?

  83. Steve says:

    Hi they wouldn’t of used satellites data before 1979 as there wasn’t any it would have been data extracted from other reliable sources.

  84. Steve says:

    Hi they wouldn’t of used satellites data before 1979 as there wasn’t any it would have been data extracted from other reliable sources.

  85. Steve says:

    Hi MIke all your posts seem to be insulting people for disagreeing with you and and agreeing with the facts before them? Its not a laughing matter that it is too late do anything about GLOBAL WARMING living with the consequences is the only challenge now. In the next 20 years we will some massive changes im guessing your 67 (mike 1947) so it might not matter to you but it will affect younger generations.

  86. They have satellite sea ice data going back to the 1960s.

  87. miked1947 says:

    Steve:
    Being a few years older, I have seen a few errors coming from “Science”. CAGW is the biggest fraud yet! However you seem to be to blind to see that.

  88. Steve says:

    Hi Steve as above why is global sea ice such an important factor to you what does it prove? I’m only an amateur at this but with all the information available I don’t see why why it matters in terms of proving Global Warming isn’t happening???

  89. Steve says:

    Hi stevengoddard. Can you post some then please (1960 satellite data). Also why is Global sea so important to you? What does it prove?

  90. Steve says:

    Hi Mike1947 I could point out the same to you! :-) There is lots of evidence pointing towards a warming planet that are man made / induced. The one i normally here is it was once hotter at “insert a time or date here” When the moon aligned with Jupiter and the sun had a hot spot just as earth passed which meant in was warmer etc (exaggerated example :-) ) The thing is if that happened now the man made effect would just make those natural warmer periods even warmer!! Does that make sense to you? Regardless of how important you classify certain species who are we to judge their fate? Then again you could argue it would benefit some species me for one i live in England then again it does rain a lot more now in England, even for country known to have lots of rain (by foreign people) for us that live here the change is very noticeable but then its doesnt snow any more and summer is hotter as a bonus :-):-):-)

  91. miked1947 says:

    I guess history is not one of your best subjects. History shows you are wrong on all counts. Of course I am talking about written history rather than 10 or 20 year history.

  92. Gail Combs says:

    You mean history as shown in this graph?

  93. Steve says:

    Meh, keep your insults mike1947, I don’t care what a pathetic site!! As some posters have pointed out no one listens to old fools like you any more. Goodbye.

  94. miked1947 says:

    That is about right :)

  95. Steve says:

    OH and mike1947 I’m not wrong on any counts? What written history is this i’m wrong on!! I have mentioned no history?

    I said Deniers mention warmer periods back yonder when it was warmer like the medieval warm period which is a load of rubbish anyway if you read about it and digest the information correctly.

    I said the man made made effects would make those natural warm periods even warmer as in if whatever caused the so called “”medieval warm period” happened now the man made effects would make that warm period even warmer!!

    I asked if you understood that?

  96. Steve says:

    hi mike1947 as per previous question?

    I said the man made made effects would make those natural warm periods even warmer as in if whatever caused the so called “”medieval warm period” happened now the man made effects would make that warm period even warmer!!

    I asked if you understood that?

  97. Gail Combs says:

    ” why is global sea ice such an important factor”
    ……….
    Short version – ALBEDO
    If more snow and ice do not melt then more solar radiation is reflected. This means the net amount of energy the earth receives is reduced. The more the net energy is reduced the more snow and ice accumulate.

    Why does that matter especially now? Because we are just passed half precession when glacial inception occurs. (The Little Ice Age was right on time BTW)

    What is the amount of energy received from the sun at glacial inception?
    I extracted the 21 June solar insolation @ 65◦ N for several glacial inceptions from the 2012 paper, Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?

    The 21 June solar insolation @ 65◦ N varies between 463 W m−2 and 500 W m−2.
    We are presently at 479 W m−2 (21 June solar insolation @ 65◦ N ) That means the earth is within the window where glacial inception has occurred in the past.

    To give you an idea of how much the solar insolation can vary over time:
    Holocene peak – around 523 W m−2 @ 60N June
    Depth of an ice age – around 437 W m−2 @ 60N June
    NOW (Modern Warm Period) – 476 Wm-2 @ 60N June
    From (www)1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/berger_insolation/insol91.jun

  98. miked1947 says:

    Steve:
    I agree! At 1000 ppm CO2 the temperature “May” well be .0001C higher due to human influences. However due to the scale of natural variability, that is seen in historic records, we can not separate human influences from natural influences. Therefore it does not matter if the globe experiences conditons similar to the MWP, RWP or even the Holocene Optimum before the next Glacial Maximum.It could be the result of either natural influences, as seen in geological records or human influences as promoted by the Chicken Little Brigade. One thing I do know, Humans will adapt to weather conditions, unless idiots like you convince the majority to waste money on meaningless efforts like CCS or reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

  99. David says:

    Antarctic sea ice always melts completey in the summer its extended growth in the winter has almost no effect on the amount of heat absorbed by the sea in the summer?

    So you agree by proxy that extended Antarctic sea ice in the winter means nothing and that its extension is a direct result of global warming.

    Thank you for agreeing. you are learning.

  100. David says:

    Hi mike1947 you are almost there keep trying! its not 0.0001c higher it is a lot higher it is hotter now that the so called MWP you are aware that is load of crap the MWP that is, it wasn’t even a global event!

    Anyway at least you have admitted that there is global warming and that it human induced

    So we’ve established my proposal is sound in principle, now we’re just haggling over figures…………..!

    Thank you for agreeing it takes big man to change his views I am truly impressed pity there aren’t more like you.

  101. Latitude says:

    the preceding public service announcement was brought to you by AstraZeneca

    ….makers of Seroquel

  102. miked1947 says:

    ROFLMAO!!!!

  103. Gail Combs says:

    David says: @ March 28, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    So you agree by proxy that extended Antarctic sea ice in the winter means nothing and that its extension is a direct result of global warming.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Did you bother to read my comment?

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/arctic-ice-rapidly-growing/#comment-332091

    Are you really that DENSE?
    Let me put it in very simple terms.

    With a quiet sun the earth could descend into an ice age NOW as in this coming decade. The switch from the Wisconsin Glaciation to the Holocene HAPPENED IN THREE YEARS!!

    Extended Antarctic sea ice in the winter (and summer) means less solar energy because the sea ice from the Antarctic is much closer to the equator than Arctic ice. We are ALREADY at a low enough solar energy that several geologists state glacial inception is possible. IF Antarctic sea ice continues to grow it could be the switch to flip the earth into an ice age. Even the IPCC agrees the climate is a chaotic system. That means it is stable around one strange attractor and then enough changes in the system happen to switch it to another strange attractor.

    Lesson from the past: Present Insolation Minimum Holds Potential for Glacial Inception (2007)

    …Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

    In other words generating as much CO2 as possible just might keep the earth out of an Ice age. Global warming with a solar insolation AT glacial inception is the last thing to worry about!

  104. Gail Combs says:

    I think it means we have enough information about how the climate really works and we know that CO2 is still climbing although the temperature stopped climbing almost two decades ago, to not be swayed by the hyperventilating and breathless prose of the propagandists.

    You have to be really dumbed down with out an ounce of curiosity or independence to still believe in Gore’s Bull about warming.

    Heck, even Gore doesn’t believe the bull he spouts.
    1. he bought a mansion WITH FIREPLACES on the seashore of semi-tropical California.

    2. He has cashed in his Green energy stock and bought Natural Gas Pipeline stock.

    3. His ‘Carbon Foot Print’ is bigger than some African countries. (Which royally ticks them off by BTW)

  105. David says:

    Al gore WTF! why do I care what al gore does.

    My opinions are my based on maths and the fact that the planet is warming?

  106. David says:

    Gail seriously I don’t no where to start with this can you not read?

  107. David says:

    Hi Gail and any one else

    Pretty easy to follow even for you very mature old people with your smugness’ seriously I hope you children are the first to be affected and that you witness it.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html

  108. David says:

    Hi Gail

    All this happening during a solar minimum really are YOU DENSE woman.

  109. David says:

    Hi Gail and old people

    An american link for you in case you are racist to our British information!

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

    Very simple to follow.

  110. Steve says:

    Come on its not that easy, where is the smoke and mirrors, you should have cherry picked some of the data then waited until the exact time of the correct season to make sure the figures hit home harder.

    Us ‘alarmists’ should learn to sue DENIER tricks, to be fair soon they wont be able to spread lies….!
    :-) :-) :-)

  111. David says:

    Gail and this one can help for the short sighted and stupid please read and let me know what you think.

    Thanks

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/#gtemp

    Very very simple to follow.

  112. David says:

    Jesus that is funny Goddard uses crayons, classic

    http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/idiotic-denier-graph-of-the-day-august-262012/goddard-uses-crayons/

    You couldn’t make it up. :-) :-) :-)

  113. Steve says:

    If you have the aptitude to watch this from beginning to end it also explains a lot, in basic terms so it is not to difficult to understand.

    Hope it helps explain why this thread and its silly opening posts are just that, silly?

    I cant understand how anyone can come to the conclusions Deniers do!

    But it seems like you enjoy yourselves so go for it, you may as well just make any shit up! Blame aliens or say the is a cold war going on still :-) , the ‘alarmists’ have hired NASA to carry warmth off the planet i heat pods :-) :-) :-)

    Deniers if you are going to make shit up and have fun at least use your imagination :-)

  114. David says:

    I would like to add this following information, global warming is happening whether you like it or not, are you arguing it is not happening or it is not man made please clarify deniers??

    Link one: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/#gtemp
    LInk two: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
    Link three: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html

    And a link to explain about cherry picked data.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/2/

    Thank you.

  115. You’re posting in an article from September which is about September sea-ice.

  116. Steve says:

    Apparently Arctic ice is rapidly melting now!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    LOL

  117. Steve says:

    Hi Stark yes i know i have posted a link which highlights cherry picking data!

  118. David says:

    Steve its ok I’ve re-run my maths using denier logic and maths and my findings are below.

    Global warming is in full swing, the Arctic ice is now rapidly melting, thanks for proving our maths correct with your simple babble I don’t know why we didn’t think of it earlier.

    So there you go debate is over global warming proved to be a fact by deniers logic, ice in the arctic is rapidly melting, if ice is melting then that means it must be getting warmer!!

    We told you we were right and you helped us prove it thank you :-) :-) :-)

  119. David says:

    This link is very informative and indeed relevant for this thread.

    http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2014/04/piomas-april-2014.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s