Global Sea Ice Area Second Highest On Record

December 26 global sea ice area is second highest on record. The exact opposite of what experts both predicted and report.

ScreenHunter_5596 Dec. 28 21.43

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

About stevengoddard

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

39 Responses to Global Sea Ice Area Second Highest On Record

  1. The expected, at least by this observer, of the solar dip which started 3 or 4 years ago. CO2 doesn’t drive climatic temp, rather its a function of the temperature.

    • markstoval says:

      Agreed. CO2 does not drive climatic temperatures. We live on a “water world” and water in all its forms has a much, much greater impact on climate than CO2 ever could.

  2. Andyj says:

    Here’s another http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
    ’tis so true! CO2 does not drive temperatures. Thank God, or life would of been erased from day one.

  3. Marsh says:

    CO2 going up & up with temperatures going way down… now that AGW theory is truly stuffed!
    You’re right : the connection with CO2 and Temperature is minimal ; probably just a lag effect.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface. They act like a giant hot water bottle smoothing out our climate by absorbing and releasing the energy from the sun.

      Cold water absorbs more CO2 and warmer water absorbs less CO2 and if saturated before cooling will release CO2. The Ice cores show CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. The oceans over turn in about 800 years.

      Over time the CO2 in the air has been bound as peat and then coal on land or as shells then limestone in the sea. This has left C3 plants over 95% of plant varieties, at the edge of CO2 starvation. Mankind releasing CO2 is saving life on this planet, not destroying it.

      From the Royal Society:
      Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution

      Abstract

      The decline of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 65 million years (Ma) resulted in the ‘carbon dioxide–starvation’ of terrestrial ecosystems and led to the widespread distribution of C4 plants, which are less sensitive to carbon dioxide levels than are C3 plants. Global expansion of C4 biomass is recorded in the diets of mammals from Asia, Africa, North America, and South America during the interval from about 8 to 5 Ma. This was accompanied by the most significant Cenozoic faunal turnover on each of these continents, indicating that ecological changes at this time were an important factor in mammalian extinction. Further expansion of tropical C4 biomass in Africa also occurred during the last glacial interval confirming the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and C4 biomass response. Changes in fauna and flora at the end of the Miocene, and between the last glacial and interglacial, have previously been attributed to changes in aridity; however, an alternative explanation for a global expansion of C4 biomass is carbon dioxide starvation of C3 plants when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels dropped below a threshold significant to C3 plants. Aridity may also have been a factor in the expansion of C4 ecosystems but one that was secondary to, and perhaps because of, gradually decreasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Mammalian evolution in the late Neogene, then, may be related to the carbon dioxide starvation of C3 ecosystems.

      • rah says:

        Gail, or anyone else that may have this knowledge: Is there any evidence that there has been any time in the earths history when CO2 was the primary temperature modulator of earths climate?

        • Gail Combs says:

          No,
          Aside from the fact this is a water world, the CO2 levels have never been much lower than today and therefore CO2 has been at the ‘saturated’ end of the logarithmic scale during the entire life of the planet. Any effect of CO2 has been in the ‘noise’ range.

          From WUWT:

          Geologic CO2 over 579 million years: from a revised model of atmospheric CO2 over phanerozoic time (note data is ‘modelled’)

          Temperature over 65 million years:

          CO2 vs Temp over 600 million years:

        • Daavid A says:

          In my view SW solar radiation reaching the surface of the oceans is what drives long term climate cycles. The surface received SW radiation is modulated through cloud cover changes, location changes (poorly understood and affected by multiple solar cycle patterns.

          Residence time of any energy input is the major determination in how much any given change can affect a system. The oceans not only moderate all energy inputs, they receive and make the total energy in the system far greater then if we only had dry land.
          Through moving this warmth towards the poles, they make the earth far warmer then it would otherwise be. An increase of ten watts of SW radiation entering the deep clear oceans will still be there tomorrow, net week, net month, next year, maybe next decade, and maybe next century.

          The same ten watts of LWIR striking the same part of the ocean may very slightly accelerate the water cycle, and will vanish from the earth today. Not all watts are equal in their capacity to change earth’s energy budget.

  4. Dave G says:

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2014/12/what-if-obamas-climate-change-policies.html

    Ocean Acidification also in question… looks like Climategate all over again.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Ocean Acidification has never been in question. Ocean Acidification has always been a straight out LIE! It is also part of the CAGW myth.

      Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma.

      Bolin & Eriksson (1959) correctly state: “First we see that if the partial pressure of CO2 varies and the hydrogen ion concentration were kept constant, the relative changes would be the same in the sea as in the atmosphere. As the total amount of CO2 in the sea is about 50 times that in the air, practically all excess CO2 delivered to the atmosphere would be taken up by the sea when equilibrium has been established.” They further cite Revelle & Suess (1957) that: “most of the CO2 due to combustion has been transferred into the ocean and that a net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere of only a few percent has actually occurred. Callendar’s deduction has therefore been rejected”. They also accept an atmospheric lifetime of about 5 years. This is all in accordance with the laws of chemistry and the carbon isotope ratios of the atmospheric CO2 (Segalstad, 1996)…..

      Bolin & Eriksson (1959) goes on to model an ocean without its primary chemical buffer agent calcium carbonate and without organic matter (like all later carbon cycle modellers also have done)…. [this is why Ocean Acidification is part of the CAGW myth.]

      Experimentally it has been found that CO2 and pure water at 25 degrees C reaches 99% isotopic equilibrium after 30 hours and 52 minutes; after shaking (like wave agitation) 99% equilibrium is reached after 4 hours and 37 minutes (Gonfiantini, 1981). At 350 ppmv CO2 in the air, the equilibrium concentration of carbonic acid in pure water will be about 0.00001 molal at 25 degrees C. This chemical equilibrium is reached within 20 seconds (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). At the same temperature, at pH-values between 7 and 9, CO2 reaches 99% chemical equilibrium with water and calcium carbonate in about 100 seconds (Dreybrodt et al., 1996)…..

      Carbonated beer, soda “pop”, and champagne are good analogues to the CO2 distribution between atmosphere and ocean. In both cases they manifest the equilibrium governed by Henry’s Law: the partial pressure of CO2 in the air will be proportional to the concentration of CO2 dissolved in water. The proportional constant is the Henry’s Law Constant, giving us a partition coefficient for CO2 between air and water of approximately 1:50 (Revelle & Suess, 1957; Skirrow, 1975; Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; Segalstad, 1996). We have all experienced that carbonated drinks contain much more (about 50 times higher concentration) CO2 than the air under the bottle cap above the carbonated water. This fact is in harsh contradiction to the Bolin & Eriksson’s “buffer” factor claim that the air will contain much more CO2 than the carbonated water, when trying to increase the partial pressure of CO2 from the assumed pre-industrial level of 290 ppmv (pressure less than 0.0003 atmospheres) to a pressure of about 3 atmospheres in the CO2 above the carbonated water in the brewed drink bottle.

      From their untenable conditions Bolin & Eriksson state: “It is obvious that an addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will only slightly change the CO2 content of the sea but appreciably effect the CO2 content of the atmosphere.” . . . “The decisive factor is instead the rate of overturning of the deep sea.” From: “the fact that the top layer of the ocean only need to absorb a small amount of CO2 from the atmosphere”, and a CO2 lifetime of 500 years for the deep ocean, Bolin & Eriksson (1959) reach the conclusion that: “an increase of the atmosphere’s content of CO2 of about 10 percent would have occurred in 1954. This value compares very favourably with the value of 10% given by Callendar (1958) as the total increase until 1955 deduced from a careful survey of all available measurements.” By over-simplifying the properties of the ocean the authors were able to construct a non-equilibrium model remote from observed reality and chemical laws, fitting the non-representative data of Callendar (1958).

      At this point one should note that the ocean is composed of more than its 75 m thick top layer and its deep, and that it indeed contains organics. The residence time of suspended POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) in the deep sea is only 5-10 years. This alone would consume all possible man-made CO2 from the total fossil fuel reservoir (some 7200 giga-tonnes) if burned during the next 300 years, because this covers 6 to 15 turnovers of the upper-ocean pool of POC, based on radiocarbon (carbon-14) studies (Toggweiler, 1990; Druffel & Williams, 1990; see also Jaworowski et al., 1992 a). The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect”, because POC can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990).….

      …..A real buffer can namely be defined as a reaction system which modifies or controls the value of an intensive (i.e. mass independent) thermodynamic variable (pressure, temperature, concentration, pH, etc.). The carbonate system in the sea will act as a pH buffer, by the presence of a weak acid (H2CO3) and a salt of the acid (CaCO3). The concentration of CO2 (g) in the atmosphere and of Ca2+ (aq) in the ocean will in the equilibrium Earth system also be buffered by the presence of CaCO3 at a given temperature (Segalstad, 1996)….

      The whole paper is well worth a read since it uses real world experimental data to tear CAGW to shreds.

      • rah says:

        Anyone that can read and understand the pH scale knows that the term “ocean acidification” is a fabricated exaggeration invented to scare people and not even close to resembling anything to do with science.


        Something that is alkaline or basic as seawater is cannot become acidic without becoming neutral first.

        The acceptance of the terms “ocean acidification” and “sea water acidification” by anyone only serves to prove just how ignorant of basic science they are. The use of those terms by anyone that claims to be a “scientist” demonstrates without a doubt that they are intentionally deceiving the ignorant.

        • cdquarles says:

          Nice. Remember that normal stomach acid is 0.1N hydrochloric acid for which the nominal pH is 1.0. Normal stomach pH with food present is about 4. Pepsin needs a pH around 4 to work properly, if I am remembering correctly. The process that creates stomach acid results in extra bicarbonate ions in the nearby veins, some of which get transported into the duodenum (where the lining also produces bicarbonate for neutralizing the acidic contents discharged by the stomach).

      • ren says:

        Where cool ocean there greater absorption of CO2. In the cool oceans life flourishes.

        • Daavid A says:

          Ren, that is an anomaly chart, so while not cogent to absolute T it is yet an interesting one that appears far cooler then what I have seen elsewhere. Do you know what the baseline is?

      • Gail Combs says:

        You have to neutralize and dissolve all the limestone and basalt in the ocean beds before you can lower the pH by any great extent. Any chemist or geologist that supports ‘Ocean Acidification’ needs to have their diploma put through the shredder. The concept is so ludicrous and so easily proved wrong, I wouldn’t even trust them to flip burgers for fear of them pocketing half the money.

        Yeah, basalt is an acid neutralizer too. Interesting stuff about basalt and the Malthusian nonsense of ‘OH My Goodness, we are running out of …..’ Unlimiting Resources – Basalt for a High Tech Stone Age by E.M. Smith.

        Well there goes the fallacy of Peak Everything and the other reason for Sustainability, Agenda 21 and Neo-feudalism.

        Now If our Elite would be Masters would just get the heck out of the way, we grumpy individualists will build a ‘utopia’ and make money create wealth for everyone while we are at it. Of course then the Elite would not have all the power, control and wealth, so we will never be allowed to reach our potential.

        • ren says:

          Gail Combs this winter will show have claws. Solar activity decreases rapidly again, and will be the next wave in the stratosphere.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thank you ren

        • skeohane says:

          I agree Gail. I live on the western slope of the Rockies, lots of upheaved limestone and basalt. The stream, largely spring-fed, That runs by my house typically runs at Ph levels of 8-9.0. When we get rain run-off into the running water the Ph drops, from the oak leaves and spruce needles I would assume.

      • cdquarles says:

        I’m catching up some after the catastrophic failure of my computer since I’ve repaired it. I understand from biochemistry that calcium carbonate is a key coupling for marine life, but there are a whole host of other cations for carbonates to contribute to ocean buffering reactions [and other anions as well … of which phosphates easily come to mind]. The linked paper is fascinating, yet incomplete. Where are the links to other buffering reactions, ‘inorganic’ as well as other potential biochemical ones?

  5. gator69 says:

    Can you Catholics impeach a Pope?

    ““Our academics supported the pope’s initiative to influence next year’s crucial decisions,” Sorondo told Cafod, the Catholic development agency, at a meeting in London. “The idea is to convene a meeting with leaders of the main religions to make all people aware of the state of our climate and the tragedy of social exclusion.”

    Following a visit in March to Tacloban, the Philippine city devastated in 2012 by typhoon Haiyan, the pope will publish a rare encyclical on climate change and human ecology. Urging all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds, the document will be sent to the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing

    Well, at least we now know he is fallible.

    • markstoval says:

      There are several conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching (infallible doctrinal statements) but the main one is that the teaching is about church doctrine and morals. CAGW is not about church doctrine. As an aside, even a large amount of Roman Catholics don’t really buy the whole infallibility idea.

      This pope is very, very popular among Roman Catholics, but he is, sadly, uneducated in both economics and science.

    • Gail Combs says:

      If ONE (1) Church in the USA distributes that crap they are in violation of Johnson’s tax law which does not allow churches to get involved in politics.

      • philjourdan says:

        The law is invalid. The government is forbidden to restrict religion by the first amendment to the constitution.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I am well aware of that Phi, but it is always nice when one of the unconstitutional laws can be used to bite the Warmists on the rump. A really nice Catch-22. Strike down the law or don’t use the church to spread political BS. Take your choice.

    • “Can you …”

      We can be lapsed again.

    • philjourdan says:

      Gator, you do not go to your doctor for advice on fixing your car, nor do we seek guidance from the Pope on scientific matters. But he is human and is entitled to his opinion. and we are just as entitled to ignore him on the matter.

      • rah says:

        The problem is that the Pope speaks for a major religion. The implications of his statement of support for the UN IPCC agenda is disturbing because he has a wealth of scientific knowledge within the Vatican system. Either the alarmists have gained control of the Vatican’s scientific community or the Pope is willfully misleading his flock for nonscientific reasons ignoring good information from his scientific advisors. Is it to the Churches advantage that as majority of the flock remain in the relative 3rd world squalor they currently live in? Because that will be the effect if the Pope gets his way.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The progressives have often used the Christian religion as a water carrier. ‘Altruism’ was always ripe for exploitation by the Socialists.

          Hedges goes so far as to name the ‘Five Pillars’ of the liberal (Progressive) class: the Democratic Party, churches, unions, the media and academia

          Hedges Laments The ‘Death Of The Liberal Class’ (Don’t I wish) Seems Hedges is completely clueless about who his ‘masters’ really are… either that or he is a darn good liar.

          …From organizing workers to preventing war to making the economy more green, journalist Chris Hedges argues that, for decades, liberals have surrendered the good fights to corporations and ruling powers.

          In his new book, Death of the Liberal Class, Hedges slams five specific groups and institutions — the Democratic Party, churches, unions, the media and academia — for failing Americans and allowing for the creation of a “permanent underclass.”

          Hedges says that, for motives ranging from self-preservation to careerism, the “liberal establishment” purged radicals from its own ranks and, as a result, lost its checks on capitalism and corporate power.
          In his latest book, Chris Hedges excoriates liberals and liberal institutions for failing America. The liberal class, he writes, continues to speak in the prim and obsolete language of policies and issues. It refuses to defy the corporate assault of virulent right wing, for this reason captures and expresses the legitimate rage articulated by the disenfranchised. And the liberal class has become obsolete, even as it clings to its positions of privilege within liberal institutions.

          You can learn more about Chris Hedges’ five pillars of the liberal class and how each one has failed in an excerpt from “Death of the Liberal Class” at our website. That’s at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION.

          And the US government FUNDS NPR with our tax money???

    • mjc says:

      It’s been done before…but not for around five hundred years, unless one counts the ‘retirement’ of the last Pope.

  6. brockway32 says:

    No, no. The experts quite clearly predicted both less sea ice and more sea ice. See note under: Snow, Tornadoes, and Hurricanes.

  7. cheshirered says:

    This story relates to area, so is irrelevant.
    Extent is the crucial parameter.
    If extent is not playing ball, then volume is all that matters.
    If neither extent nor volume are playing along, then area is the only true indicator of global sea ice collapse.
    Except when it’s the second highest on record, in which case it becomes irrelevant.
    And round and round the greens will go, frantically lying and spinning, blinded in their own self-delusional fog of denial.

  8. Tom Moran says:

    2nd highest for the day of 12/26 as Steve pointed out. Not 2nd highest out of all days. That would be either a day in 1985 or 1988 from my precise measure of finger scrolling at 23 million km sq

  9. A C Osborn says:

    But you still get Green commenters on lots of Forums saying that the Polar Ice is melting away, that just can’t face or repeat the truth.

  10. Hell_Is_Like_Newark says:

    Is this in part due to the AMO starting to head into negative territory?

  11. buzorro says:

    On the 23rd you posted an article stating that sea ice thickness was ‘third’ highest…

    Doesn’t a typical volcano eruption spew out enough CO2 to negate all of our attempts to lower CO2 emissions?

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 )

Connecting to %s