New Paper Indicates There Is More Arctic Sea Ice Now Than For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years


Solar Forcing Of Modern, Historic Arctic Sea Ice

Only Slightly Less Sea Ice Now Than Little Ice Age


In a new paper (Stein et al., 2017), scientists find that Arctic sea ice retreat and advance is modulated by variations in solar activity.

In addition, the sea ice cover during the last century has only slightly retreated from the extent reached during coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age (1600s to 1800s AD), which had the highest sea ice cover of the last 10,000 years and flirted with excursions into year-round sea ice.

The Medieval Warm Period sea ice record (~900 to 1200 AD) had the lowest coverage since the Roman era ~2,000 years ago.

Of note, the paper makes no reference to carbon dioxide or anthropogenic forcing as factors modulating Arctic sea ice.



Stein et al., 2017

The causes that are controlling the decrease in sea ice are still under discussion. In several studies changes in extent, thickness and drift of Arctic sea ice are related to changes in the overall atmospheric circulation patterns as reflected in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). The NAO and AO are influencing changes of the relative position and strength of the two major surface-current systems of the Arctic Ocean.

The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon, coinciding with major glacier advances on Franz Josef Land, Spitsbergen and Scandinavia.  The increase in sea ice may have resulted from the continuing cooling trend due to decreased solar insolation and reduced heat flow from the Pacific.

The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon as PIP25-based sea ice records from the Fram Strait, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea  display a generally quite similar evolution, all coinciding with the decrease in solar radiation.

The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice and surface-water productivity are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation, whereas short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution middle Holocene record was possibly triggered by solar forcing.


Robust substantiation for the trends documented in this new Arctic sea ice record comes from a 2005 paper by Lassen and Thejll entitled “Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea- Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000.”   Shown below is an annotated graph from the paper revealing Iceland’s sea ice cover during the last millennium.  These scientists also link sea ice variations to solar activity, namely solar cycle length.  Notice the direct correspondence between the Arctic trends as a whole (from Stein et al., 2017) and the trends for Iceland.



Lessen and Thejll, 2005

[W]e find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea  may be related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch [sea ice] index and compare it to the similar periodicity found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.

The ’low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries. The pattern is a natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal could be a natural occurrence.

154 responses to “New Paper Indicates There Is More Arctic Sea Ice Now Than For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years”

  1. SebastianH

    “may have”, “could be” … a lot of uncertainties.

    And then there is this:
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/files/2012/09/naam-ice-031.jpg

    Looks totally natural to me.

    P.S.: Your citation mentions a possible decrease in solar radiation? How does that fit to your statement that solar radiation actually increased (decrease of cloud cover)?

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Ah, the Scientific American, a magazine where CO2 is called “The Worst Climate Pollution”…

      http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/20/20-new-papers-higher-co2-global-warming-increase-crop-yields-green-the-earth-reduce-weather-extremes-extend-human-life/

      There is no incentive to explain (again) the difference between surface solar radiation (albedo) and changes in the Sun’s output.

      1. SebastianH

        Ah, notrickzone.com, a blog where authors and commenters call the greenhouse effect a hoax and can’t do proper math …

        1. Sunsettommy

          Ah,Sebastian has no counterpoint to offer……..

          1. AndyG55

            And where insignificant little AGW trolls can’t even produce a single paper to support the very basis of their cult type religion.

            You have FAILED to prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            So far, you have nothing… just empty baseless, unsupportable rhetoric.

            STILL WAITING !!!

          2. SebastianH

            So, I am the one that gets blamed for offering no counterpoint when using this kind of reply and Kenneth isn’t. Interesting.

            @AndyG55: you have yet to explain the energy budget in a convective atmosphere without greenhouse gases or the greenhouse effect respectively, that matches observations. Or is your argument just a selective one? Greenhouse gases exist, except CO2 which is not one of them?

          3. AndyG55

            “You have FAILED to prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            So far, you have nothing… just empty baseless, unsupportable rhetoric.

            STILL WAITING !!!

          4. AndyG55

            The physics of how the radiative gas CO2 works in a convective atmosphere has been explained to you several times.

            It is up to you to drop your brain-washed anti-knowledge and start accepting facts instead of unprovable propaganda anti-science.

            You cannot expect to learn anything when you have so much to unlearn first.

          5. Sunsettommy

            Sebastian whines,

            “So, I am the one that gets blamed for offering no counterpoint when using this kind of reply and Kenneth isn’t. Interesting.”

            You tried, ineptly with your first comment,but fail to address the linked published science papers,Kenneth posted. That means you failed to make a counterpoint.

            You need to lift your game here,as the resident warmist troll,to help the rest learn what you are really saying,which is often nothing of substance.

          6. SebastianH

            We had that conversation, you ignore everything I write … I wont fall for that trap again. Waste of time.

          7. AndyG55

            That’s because what you write is a load of anti-science unsupported, unsupportable propaganda pap.

            STILL WAITING for that paper, you brainless little troll.

          8. SebastianH

            AndyG55 … what is wrong with you?

            Sunsettommy, I had this conversation before … no need to (again) go down this rabbit hole.

          9. AndyG55

            Nothing wrong with me..

            Just getting very bored of WAITING for you to support your baseless AGW religion with something other than fantasy and make-believe.

            All you ever put forward is a load of anti-science unsupported, unsupportable propaganda pap…

            … Because that is ALL YOU HAVE.

            Stop taking those magic mushrooms and get back to REALITY !!

        2. William Lawrence Hyde

          Ah,Sebastian is demonstrating the well known confusion common to all young people…

        3. jimmy_jimmy

          No it is you that has failed to prove why, according to your high priest Al Gore, the apartments along the lower east side are not under water due to SLR. It is you who has failed to sail your boat through the north west passage…silly rabbit, tricks are for kids

          1. SebastianH

            Not really … my point was just that the change of the ice extent doesn’t look natural. Does it look natural to you? Did Kenneth make a “counterpoint” to that observation?

          2. AndyG55

            “just that the change of the ice extent doesn’t look natural”

            Oh dear.. seb stoops to the very base-level of his AGW religion.

            “doesn’t look natural”…… roflmao !!!!

            The sum total of his argument !!!

          3. sod

            “Oh dear.. seb stoops to the very base-level of his AGW religion.”

            global sea ice area hit a record low in the satellite data in January and does not look natural. fact.

            http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b7c8c7f9f4970b-pi

          4. AndyG55

            Wow.. it “doesn’t look natural” to sob either

            sob meets seb in the very depths of anti-science.

            and citing Neven.. Shirley, you must be joking !!!

            roflmao

            AGW apostle and ice worrier extraordinaire!!!

            ZERO historical perspective, just like all the low-end Arctic worriers.

            Just like you , just like seb.

            Climate Change Deniers, every one of you.

    2. Sunsettommy

      Sebastian,

      I used to have a subscription to S.A. but gave it up when political propaganda showed up,making absurd claims. I see that Kenneth already pointed out one example.

      You didn’t post a link for your chart,which is misleading anyway.

      DR. Meier himself cited papers that states there were a lot less Summer ice in the Arctic,in the early Holocene. I have seen other published papers that also say similar.

      It is a growing recognition of the Arctic region,having little to no Summer ice,in the early part of the inter glacial,that you warmist bigots try hard to ignore.

      At another blog,Jim Hunt and Griff have been repeatedly shown published science papers,showing evidence of low to zero Summer ice,early in the inter glacial period,they ignore it or try hard to trivialize it. They are like you being a climate bigot,deliberately ignoring evidence that do not fit with your sick leftist enviromental climate views.

      Here are a few examples:

      Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162?np=y

      and,

      Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue.

      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F

      1. SebastianH

        Sunsettommy and Kenneth,

        I know you like the argument “but it changed in the past, so the current change must be for the same reason” and that’s fine. But is it really the case?

        Here is a link to the website that contains the graph: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/arctic-sea-ice-what-why-and-what-next/

        Here is a paper of a reconstruction over the past 1450 years:
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

        It doesn’t look natural … also the acidification of the oceans doesn’t look natural. There was another acidification event 252 million years ago, that killed a lot of species. It’s speed was slower than it is today …

        1. Kenneth Richard

          SebastianH,

          So what year, or what concentration threshold (350 ppm? 370 ppm?) did CO2 take over from natural factors in causing the Arctic sea ice to decline? Why did the Arctic cool for ~40 years (1940s to 1980s) relative to the 1920s to 1940s period just as CO2 concentrations were simultaneously rising? Why did it take so long for CO2 to “kick in” and start melting sea ice and warming the Arctic? Why did natural factors stop influencing the Arctic climate in the 1990s, and how does that work from a physics standpoint?

          Regarding ocean “acidification”, it looks as though you hadn’t graced us with your presence and substantive “rebuttals” as of late December when this article (below link) was published here. (I don’t see your name among the commenters). I challenge you to read the entire article and all the dozens of paper summaries regarding ocean acidification. Reading the comments could be informative too.

          You have said you are here to learn. Read up on ocean “acidification” and then get back to us regarding your claims.

          http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/29/the-ocean-acidification-narrative-collapses-under-the-weight-of-new-scientific-evidence

          1. SebastianH

            Here is what happens if you have some “natural” period fluctuations and add an exponential curve: http://imgur.com/a/IkdQh

            There is no “take over”, it’s a continuous process. Natural events are dominant, but the change from the exponential curve is there too. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

            Here is the current graph from HOT-DOGS (http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/hot-dogs/bseries.html) regarding pH: http://imgur.com/a/dYIFC

            https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5134/trouble-at-sea-what-fossil-fuels-are-doing-to-our-oceans

            https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia

            Of course this is all a AGW-scam to steal your money …

          2. AndyG55

            “Do you understand what I am trying to say?”

            Yep, your usual load of fantasy BS.

          3. AndyG55

            If its 100%, then that means that our emissions are 100% responsible for GREENING the planet’s biosphere by some 15-20%.. (whatever the value is now)

            That is ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL. 🙂 🙂 🙂

            All environmentalists should be REJOICING. 🙂

            https://s19.postimg.org/acl8ewfqr/CO2_green_p_LANET.jpg

    3. David Johnson

      HA! Et Tu Brute. May have, could, might, exactly the same language as used in so many AGW scare papers!!

      1. Don Andersen

        Can you imagine a scientific paper on climate EVER making definitive pronouncements. I haven’t seen one – that I can recall – that didn’t contain many “could” statements.

        BUT ……the most common thing mentioned in papers is “more research is needed” …….

    4. AndyG55

      poor seb, understanding of actual science will always be a big stumbling point for you.

      Your whole knowledge is what could be more appropriately called ANTI-knowledge.. Based on anti-facts.

      You have so much to unlearn before any truth can hope to get past the brain-washed emptymess that exists as your feeble thought processes.

  2. Sunsettommy

    Sebastian,

    Dr, Meier states over at WUWT, he even criminally cite yet another published science paper,that you will probably ignore:

    “Can the Arctic really become sea ice-free during summer?

    It has been suggested that the Arctic really can’t lose all its sea ice during summer because there isn’t enough energy to melt all of the ice in the short summer. There are a couple of reasons why this thinking is faulty.

    First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/nsidcs-dr-walt-meier-part-2/

  3. Sunsettommy

    Sebastian,

    Dr, Meier states over at WUWT, he even criminally cite yet another published science paper,that you will probably ignore:

    “Can the Arctic really become sea ice-free during summer?

    It has been suggested that the Arctic really can’t lose all its sea ice during summer because there isn’t enough energy to melt all of the ice in the short summer. There are a couple of reasons why this thinking is faulty.

    First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/nsidcs-dr-walt-meier-part-2/

    1. AndyG55

      ““Can the Arctic really become sea ice-free during summer?”

      And if it did, would it be a bad thing?

      The economic benefits for commercial transport would be undeniable.

      The benefits for the people living up there would be huge as well. Fishing, transport, reduced heating costs, etc etc

      Sure the people might have to change their life style for the better (can’t have that now, can we).

      I see only benefits..

      Which now the AMO is starting to turn, will probably never be realised in many our life times.

      Try again in another 60 or so years, hey !!

  4. David Johnson

    Sebastian “looks totally natural to me” Ah! My thoughts when I look at unadulterated graphs showing temperature and sea level rise.

  5. Stephen Wilde
    1. SebastianH

      I’ve read it. Thank you for a great example of fantasy physics.

      1) “water vapor is lighter than air and contains more energy in latent form which heats the air around it when condensation occurs during uplift.” – Condensation cools the air, that’s why clouds exist at a certain height and that’s why the wet adiabatic lapse-rate stops at a certain height

      2) backradiation is ignored, yet it is measurable.

      3) it’s implied that one can just define a Tropopause at some height and temperatures increase going downwards, even with an inert atmosphere. That’s confusing cause with effect.

      4) “hence that ‘additional’ energy must be held at the surface over and above that which is required” … yeah, right and how would that work? The surface is radiating continuously, you’d have an unexplainable energy build up.

      Should I go on?

      Can you quantive the amount of energy that convection is transporting away from the surface? How does that number compare to radiation from the surface?

      A quick exercise for your fantasy physics: imagine that you could give the Moon an atmosphere consisting of inert gases. Would the average surface temperature change? Remember: only the surface can radiate energy back into space in such a scenario.

      1. Sunsettommy

        Sebastian, do you know what a COGENT response is?

        1. SebastianH

          I should be more polity, thank you for reminding me.

          1. SebastianH

            polite

      2. Stephen Wilde

        1) Latent heat is released when condensation occurs. No getting around that.

        2) All that is measured is the temperature of the air at the height along the lapse rate slope where the IR sensor is triggered by optical depth (atmospheric opacity). That is not a representation of any net thermal flow, it is a measurement at a single location.

        3) If there is no thermal inversion within the atmosphere then the top of the atmosphere can be treated in exactly the same way since that would then be the location of an equally irregular contact point with space.

        4) conduction and convection draw thermal energy from the surface so that radiation to space is reduced. You cannot have the same parcel of surface energy involved in two processes simultaneously. Surface energy can be either radiated to space OR conducted and convected up and down within the atmosphere – not both.

        1. SebastianH

          1) Condensation usually heats the surface that the water vapor condenses to and not the air around it, doesn’t it? Otherwise that would stop condensation because the surrounding air could contain more humidity then and kind of “self warm”.

          2) Spectrometers do not measure temperature. They measure actual radiation that is received. The net thermal flow is the difference between upwelling and downwelling radiation, and the direction is usually from the surface to the atmosphere.

          3) If there is a gradient all the way to the top, then the atmosphere ends where it reaches temperatures too low for gases to exist. It doesn’t “begin” at a magical boundary where it is warm enough for gases to exist in gasform and becomes warmer going downwards.

          4) “You cannot have the same parcel of surface energy involved in two processes simultaneously” – Indeed! The surface has a certain average temperature and the resulting amount of radiation is emitted by the surface. Additionally conduction and evaportation happen and convection transports air parcels through the atmosphere to maintain the lapse rate. Without the non-radiative energy transfers the surface would be even warmer.

          And since not everything of that released energy is radiated to space and since the surface does not receive enough energy from the sun to maintain the temperature and because you can actually measure the backradiation, the greenhouse effect is as real as it gets.

          Once again: imagine a hypothetical atomsphere around the moon. How would its average surface temperature change if the atmosphere were totally transparent to any kind of radiation?

          1. AndyG55

            “Once again: imagine a hypothetical atomsphere ”

            Ahhh… there you go again.

            REALITY is never part of your pseudo-science , is it.

            Brain addled imaginings and fairy tales, its all you have.

            There is NO ATMOSPHERE AROUND THE MOON

            Capeeeeesh !!!

            Why must you always PRETEND !!!

          2. AndyG55

            So funny.. 🙂

            You are getting more and more INCOHERENT day by day.

            Time for you to take a psychiatric break.

          3. AndyG55

            Who is your AGW “minder” ???

            I hope they have a good medical plan for your treatment.

          4. SebastianH

            Childish replies …

          5. AndyG55

            Well at least you didn’t come back with yet another incoherent, anti-science, make-believe rant.

            Well done, little trollette.!!

      3. Stephen Wilde

        “Can you quantive the amount of energy that convection is transporting away from the surface? How does that number compare to radiation from the surface?

        33K in conduction and convection

        255K in radiation to space.

        Total-288K surface temperature so that the 33K is the energy required to hold the mass of the atymosphere off the surface against gravity in hydrostatic equilibrium.

        GHGs not needed 🙂

        1. SebastianH

          That’s temperatures or temperature differentials. It’s not the amount of energy. Temperature and energy is only “equal” when radiating into nothing (0K).

          So in your world the surface radiates 370 W/m² (it’s average temperature) and ca. 100 W/m² by conduction and evaporation. Convection is transporting this in a relatively slow motion up to a certain height where only ~240 W/m² radiate into space. The rest is conserved in a magical energy reservoir that will never overflow. Right?

          1. AndyG55

            Sorry seb , no magical reservoir.

            You are hallucinating from those mushrooms, yet again.

            Seriously.. what are you taking that makes you dream up this monumental CRAP you go on and on and on with ???

            “So in your world the surface radiates 370 W/m² (it’s average temperature)”

            No, that is the Trenberthian world, which your gullible, pitiful mind inhabits !!

          2. SebastianH

            AndyG55, so what is the correct amount then?

          3. AndyG55

            OMG.. still playing the ignorant fool, is that really all you have.

            Why don’t you learn something yourself.

            You have proven you have zero intention of learning from others.

            Go ask your mentors.. they will tell you all the crap you WANT to hear.

          4. SebastianH

            Tell me the average amount of radiation that you think is emitted by the surface. No hard numbers means you are just talking bullshit and just “feel” reality is something it might not be.

          5. AndyG55

            Oh dear, you poor little child…. still the TOTALLY INABILITY to produce a single paper.

            Huff and puff all you like, but you haven’t produced a single relevant item yet.

            Why does someone who seems to think they know everything, need my help ???

            Waiting for that paper.. waiting .. waiting… waiting !!!

          6. SebastianH

            Bla bla … it’s pointless to debate with you, you are not about facts. You are just playing the clown here in the comments.

          7. AndyG55

            STILL waiting for your proof of CO2 warming.

            It is you that is continuing to be totally DEVOID of facts.

            Facts.. you don’t have any facts.. just baseless, unproven suppositions.

            No CO2 warming in either satellite temperature data set.

            No CO2 warming signal in sea level rise

            OLR increasing when your religion says it should be decreasing.

            https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/outgoing-radiation-vs-temp-noaa.jpg?w=1860&h=1110

            OLR has R² = 0.96 relationship with temperature over NH….. No room for ANY CO2 warming… no sign of any CO2 warming

            http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NH-by-Olr-Temp.png

            Heck.. there is No CO2 warming signal anywhere except in the fevered imaginations of the most gullible AGW cultists..

          8. AndyG55

            Remind us all what has been happening to global humidity, seb

            Isn’t CO2 meant to heat the oceans, that would lead to more evaporation ??

            https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/global-humidity.jpg?w=620

            Seems that FACTS are very much against you, little trollette.

          9. SebastianH

            You do know how relative humidity and temperature are connected, do you?

            And of course OLR is decreasing in the relevant wavelengths: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

            https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif (direct link to chart in that paper that compares 1970 levels to 1996 levels)

          10. AndyG55

            “However, a more recent paper by Brindley and Harries in the Journal of climate in 2003 (here) raises some doubts about these results, saying that “the IMG sampling is too sparse and yields results that differ from the true case by up to 6.0 K”. They also make the cautionary statement that “Comparisons with the observed IMG–IRIS difference spectra show that these uncertainties due to sampling presently limit the conclusions that can be drawn about climatically significant feedback processes”.

            This more recent paper, by the same authors, saying that the errors were much larger than previously thought and urging caution in the interpretation

            Brindley and Harries, 2003 investigates these issues which were not properly investigated in Harries 2001.

            The measurement period for the Harries 2001 paper included all three months of April, May and June. But the April-only clear-sky measurements tell a very different story from Harries 2001.

            It shows that between 1970 IRIS and 1997 IMG, despite atmospheric CO2 rising 37ppm during that time, CO2 has basically had no heat-trapping effect:”

            I’ll repeat that last sentence, because I know you have trouble with basic comprehension

            “CO2 has basically had no heat-trapping effect”

            The earlier Harries paper was effectively DUMP.. by Harries himself.

            Get up to date seb.

            You puny AGW religion is being left behind.

          11. AndyG55

            from B & H 2003. April 1997 spectrum minus April 1970 spectrum, as measured by two different satellites over a patch of Pacific Ocean (roughly 150W to 180W by 10S to 10N). Dotted lines are error bars from sampling (0.3K)

            http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oBuqiiyjE8U/VlgXqsbb2iI/AAAAAAAAC2o/XvRDX4-fvps/s1600/peashooter.png

            There’s supposed to be a much deeper absorption (a more negative value) near wavenumber 700 right at the left of the graph. But it’s hardly below the line at all.

            If anything B &H have disproven the CO2 heat-trapping theory.

            OOPS !! poor seb.. still floundering in the dark

            WAITING, Waiting…… yaaaaaawn !!!

          12. SebastianH

            Well, thank you for the correction then. Except for the last sentence it was almost civil.

            I still can’t see too much change in the TOA longwave flux https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_anom_toa_longwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000toseptember-2016.png

            According to thermodynamics the outgoing energy should be the same as the incoming energy over longer periods of time, shouldn’t they?

          13. AndyG55

            WAITING, Waiting…… yaaaaaawn !!!

            “outgoing energy should be the same as the incoming energy over longer periods of time, shouldn’t they”

            Only if you think there is no work done by that energy on the planet’s surface

          14. SebastianH

            Only if you think there is no work done by that energy on the planet’s surface

            And what kind of work is done on this planet’s surface?

  6. AndyG55

    Seb also DENIES that energy absorbed by CO2 is thermalised to other the rest of the lower atmospheric gases.

    Also DENIES that the gravity thermal gradient exists and controls the atmosphere by convection an other air movements.

    Also DENIES that CO2 does not emit much below 11km.
    https://s19.postimg.org/s6jyed10z/stratospheric_cooling.jpg

    What he does believe is that a 0.00001 increase in atmospheric CO2 can warm the ocean…

    His whole “belief” in AGW is based on DENIAL !!

    You have Buckley’s chance of getting him to comprehend or accept anything that is contrary to his baseless belief in the AGW cult religion

    1. SebastianH

      Seb also DENIES that energy absorbed by CO2 is thermalised to other the rest of the lower atmospheric gases.

      No I’m not.

      Also DENIES that the gravity thermal gradient exists and controls the atmosphere by convection an other air movements

      Let’s just call it lapse rate. And no I am not denying that it exists.

      Also DENIES that CO2 does not emit much below 11km. https://s19.postimg.org/s6jyed10z/stratospheric_cooling.jpg

      You keep bringing up this image and still don’t get what it is displaying: cooling in Kelvin per day per wavelength. You can measure the radiation from CO2 (and all other gases) with a spectrometer on the ground looking up: https://i2.wp.com/www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg or https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gw-petty-fig-8-1.jpg

      What he does believe is that a 0.00001 increase in atmospheric CO2 can warm the ocean…

      It does warm the oceans like it causes warming of any other surface. That’s the law of thermodynamics. The surface is emitting to and through a warm (compared to absolute zero) atmosphere and therefor will get warmer to get rid of all the incoming energy. Simple physics, not fantasy deniosphere physics.

      You have Buckley’s chance of getting him to comprehend or accept anything that is contrary to his baseless belief

      This statement fits you like a glove. It’s weird how we view each other, isn’t it. But like in Highlander, there can be only one. Guess who is correct? The one who thinks the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist and magic is the cause of the warm temperatures on the surface? Really?

      1. AndyG55

        ZERO evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere. You have NEVER produced any, because it doesn’t exist.

        Sorry that your comprehension of basic physics is so woefully bad.

        CO2 DOES NOT warm oceans either. That is a myth just like everything else you “believe”

        There is No CO2 warming signal in either satellite record.

        There is No CO2 warming signal in sea level rise

        There is No CO2 warming signal anywhere…… because it isn’t happening.

        You anti-science fantasyland AGW religion is a FAILURE.

        1. SebastianH

          Yes, the mythical unicorn CO2 … has no effect that AndyG55 doesn’t want it to have …

          1. AndyG55

            When you can provide a paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere, THEN it might become more than a fantasy, a myth, a fairy-tale.. a LIE

            You have FAILED monumentally so far.

            All you have is your unsupportable, anti-science, religiously gullible “belief”

            There is No CO2 warming signal in either satellite record.

            There is No CO2 warming signal in sea level rise

            There is No CO2 warming signal anywhere……

      2. AndyG55

        “Let’s just call it lapse rate”

        Ok, a lapse rate define purely by gravity and specific energy of the air. Interrupted only by H2O.

        CO2 has zero effect on lapse rate.

        Well done seb…… tiny, tiny steps. !!!

      3. AndyG55

        “and magic is the cause of the warm temperatures on the surface ”

        Poor seb.. there you go drifting off into your fantasy AGW religion yet again.

        If you don’t know what causes warm surfaces on this planet.. you are basically BEYOND HELP !!!

        1. SebastianH

          Take the Moon, slab on an atmosphere and tell me by how many degrees the average surface temperature will change! Lets see if you fantasy physics come to the correct conclusion …

          1. SebastianH

            An inert atmosphere without greenhouse gases.

          2. AndyG55

            Your brainless little hyPATHETICal nonsense again.

            Venus has 97% CO2, and its surface temperature is pretty much exactly as you expect from the gravito/thermal effect alone.

            All major atmospheric planets have the same gravity thermal effect, irrespective of atmospheric composition.

            Sorry if you don’t know these basic facts.

            But we are very used to your abject brain-washed ignorance.

            No.. its worse than ignorance.. it seems that everything you think you know about climate is basically WRONG !!

            A true brain-washed AGW cult devotee, that’s for sure.

          3. AndyG55

            see, you STILL want to fantasise.

            What is it with you and actually producing proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere..

            You have been nothing but a massive FAIL, so far.

          4. SebastianH

            Why do you change subject? By how many degrees would the average surface temperature of the moon change if you would give it an atmosphere consisting of inert gases?

            You are confused regarding the lapse-rate. It’s not the cause, it’s the effect. On Venus the cloud cover is essentially the surface which absorbs (and mainly reflects) solar radiation. It warms up enough to emit the incoming energy back to space, but also emits the same amount towards the surface. It’s the same greenhouse effect as on Earth. The surface receives very little radiation from the sun, but it can’t emit to space until it reaches a pretty high temperature.

            Now back to the moon …

          5. AndyG55

            “Why do you change subject?”

            You are the one trying to bring up yet another fantasy, unprovable imaginary piece of meaningless nonsense.

            Why are you doing that ?

            Is fantasy and stupid analogies all your life is built on.. certainly seems to be.

      4. AndyG55

        “Seb also DENIES that energy absorbed by CO2 is thermalised to other the rest of the lower atmospheric gases.

        No I’m not.”

        Are so you finally admit that CO2 does thermalise to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere, Happens in the lower atmosphere, y’know.. below about 11km.

        Now all you have to do is figure out what happens after that, and you’ll be getting somewhere near basic comprehension of why CO2 does not cause warming in a convective atmosphere.

        tiny steps for you, seb…. tiny steps..

        Try to keep making progress…. although I totally expect you to fall on your arse, or do another massive face-plant again, almost immediately.

        1. SebastianH

          You seem to think of this like it’s a linear effect. First the radiation leaves to surface, then it’s absorbed and then immediately thermalizes. At last the energy stays there and gets transported by convection to a higher level and then escapes to space via radiation. Correct?

          Well, surprise … it’s not one after the other, it happens simultanously. You can measure the IR radiation from CO2 and other gases on the surface looking up. Would that be possible if the world would behave like you imagine it?

          1. AndyG55

            Would a world as you “IMAGINE” it be able to prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere?

            Seems not. !!

  7. Richard111

    It goes on and on.

    When the sun is shinning CO2 absorbs energy in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands. This will warm the air slightly, you do the math, but warm air rises and cools. That energy did not reach the ground. A cooling effect.
    When the sun is not shinning CO2 radiates, via conduction from the air, over the 13 to 17 micron band only. Please go and do the math, less than half that ‘back radiation’ can reach the ground and it can’t warm anything.

    1. SebastianH

      Let’s do the math then …

      You have a perfect black body that emits 1000 W/m² into vacuum/space. What is its surface temperature?

      Now you surround it with a hull consisting of the same perfect black body material. How does the surface temperature of the original change?

      The same math applies to planets and atmospheres.

      1. Richard111

        Hmm…1000 W/m² is near as dammit 91.3c but how far away is the ‘hull’ and how thick is it?

        Be aware the ‘hull’ will radiate back slightly less than it will radiate out. This ‘back radiation’ will delay the cooling of the central blackbody but cool down it will. No external energy source (like a sun).

        1. SebastianH

          Distance and thickness is not important and doesn’t change the surface temperature of the central body.

          The 1000 W/m^2 are to be seen as constant and caused by some type of internal energy source. The central body has to emit this amount of energy … Always

          1. AndyG55

            “The central body has to emit this amount of energy … Always”

            So just another fantasy object.. is that what you are trying to tell us.

            Totally unrelated to any planetary reality.

            Yes, seb… we already know you live in a fantasy world.

      2. Stephen Wilde

        The ‘hull’ doesn’t convect up and down internally so the analogy fails.
        Nor does it observe the Gas Laws.

        1. SebastianH

          It doesn’t matter what is happening inside the hull. Do the math … And that’s why the surface of Earth is warmer than it would be without a hull.

          1. AndyG55

            Please point us to the mythical “hull”

            No aircraft has ever flown into it….

            No-one I know has ever seen it…

            It must be a figment of some drug-addled inner -city AGW loonie’s hallucinogenic imagination.

            No blanket, no hull, just a convective atmosphere controlled by the pressure gradient.

            Wouldn’t you agree, seb . !!

          2. SebastianH

            The atmosphere is a form of hull around our planet.

          3. AndyG55

            “The atmosphere is a form of hull around our planet”

            roflmao !!!

            The hallucinogenic are strong with this one..

          4. AndyG55

            “”The atmosphere is a form of hull around our planet.””

            Really, someone with a LOT more time than I have, really ought to start a list of “STUPID THING AGW CULTIST SAY”

            This would be one of them, for sure.

            Mind you.. it would nearly be a full time job, just with seb and sob…

            and

            believe it or not…

            …there are many more out that that would be competing hard for the “dumbest AGW thing ever said”. !!

      3. AndyG55

        Ahh……. the mythical “black body”

        How about we get back to REALITY, seb !!

        Are you any more capable of that, than you are producing a paper that proves CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere?

        1. SebastianH

          How about demonstrating you can do the math for this theoretical case first? If you can’t then talking about reality is pointless.

          1. AndyG55

            How about you stop toking on those mushrooms or ‘erbs, or whatever it is you are FANTASISING with, and actually find some sort of REALITY.

            You know, the REALITY that CO2 does not cause warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Off you trot and find some other “hyPATHETICal”

            Don’t forget to take an extra sniff of that hallucinogenic stuff you are so, so fond of.

            REALITY.. that is what is real..

            Until you can face REALITY.. you are nothing but a dried, brainless prune.

            Is that what you are, seb ?????

          2. AndyG55

            “talking about reality is pointless.”

            Talking about REALITY to you will ALWAYS be pointless. !!

            Sorry your brain has had to put up with the abuse you have given it.

          3. AndyG55

            There is help you can get..

            …. but first you have to admit that you have a problem.

          4. SebastianH

            Thought so … you can’t do the math or wont do the math because it would disagree with your view of the world.

          5. AndyG55

            Yaw…. stick to your imaginary, fantasy make-believe world, little boy. Its all you have.

      4. AndyG55

        so the Earth is now a boat with a hull.

        WTF weird weed have you been smoking, .. or was it an injection of DRAINO. ??

        The Earth is NOT surrounded by a hull or a blanket, but a gaseous atmosphere.. didn’t you learn anything in kindy ???

        …… you are in fantasy realm yet again.

  8. richard verney

    The Early Earth’s atmosphere consisted mainly of hydrogen sulphide, methane and some 200 times (if not more) CO2 than we see today. It was extremely rich in so called GHG’s

    Against this background, how did the atmosphere cool?

    Why was there not runaway global warming?

    1. SebastianH

      What do you think? Why did the hot Earth cool down?

      1. richard verney

        Because so called GHGs (which made up more than 95% of the atmosphere) were not sufficient to prevent the atmosphere from cooling; they did not act effectively so as to trap the heat, or to delay the heat loss.

        The CO2 in the atmosphere was able to get sequestered into rocks, which is a very slow process involving geological time scales, at a rate faster than the CO2 and water vapour could trap heat, delay cooling.

        The planet had running water some 4 billion years ago, but notwithstanding the very rich GHG composition of the atmosphere, there was no runaway positive water vapour feedback loop.

        This gives an insight into the efficacy of the so called GHGs and the argued positive feedbacks.

        1. Robert Folkerts

          richard verney says

          “Because so called GHGs (which made up more than 95% of the atmosphere) were not sufficient to prevent the atmosphere from cooling; they did not act effectively so as to trap the heat, or to delay the heat loss. The CO2 in the atmosphere was able to get sequestered into rocks, which is a very slow process involving geological time scales, at a rate faster than the CO2 and water vapour could trap heat, delay cooling. The planet had running water some 4 billion years ago, but notwithstanding the very rich GHG composition of the atmosphere, there was no runaway positive water vapour feedback loop”

          Richard, might I suggest this is all speculation, as to the original state of the earth.

          No one was here to observe it. Just speculation based on various assumptions.

          Actually, not a whole lot different to the AGW nonsense.

  9. New Study: More Arctic Sea Ice Now Than For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

    […] Full post […]

  10. Arctic Sea Ice | Pearltrees

    […] New Paper Indicates There Is More Arctic Sea Ice Now Than For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years. By Kenneth Richard on 2. March 2017 Solar Forcing Of Modern, Historic Arctic Sea Ice Only Slightly Less Sea Ice Now Than Little Ice Age In a new paper (Stein et al., 2017), scientists find that Arctic sea ice retreat and advance is modulated by variations in solar activity. In addition, the sea ice cover during the last century has only slightly retreated from the extent reached during coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age (1600s to 1800s AD), which had the highest sea ice cover of the last 10,000 years and flirted with excursions into year-round sea ice. The Medieval Warm Period sea ice record (~900 to 1200 AD) had the lowest coverage since the Roman era ~2,000 years ago. […]

  11. New Paper Indicates More Arctic Sea Ice Now Than For Nearly All Of Last 10,000 Years | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
  12. The Ice-Age cometh | Scottish Sceptic

    […] NotaLotOfPeopleKnowThat has an interesting graph which they post from NoTricksZone: […]

  13. James Marusek

    IP25 is a sea ice proxy, a direct proxy for sea ice coverage. PIP25 is the phytoplankton-IP25 index. It is the further development of the IP25 index, based on the coupling of the environmental information carried by IP25 (sea ice) and the brassicasterol (open-water phytoplankton productivitiy).

  14. New Paper: More Arctic Sea Ice Now than Most of Last 10,000 Years - Principia Scientific International

    […] – See more at: notrickszone.com […]

  15. Andy1

    Can you post a link to the original article please?

    Andy

  16. Andy1

    Can you post a link to the original article please

    Andy

  17. Andy1

    Thanks Richard,

    I’d already downloaded the PDF but as I saw nothing in it that looked like

    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17-768×496.jpg

    I wondered if we were talking about the same thing.

    Where did that graph come from when it is not in the actual paper?

    Andy

    1. AndyG55

      “I saw nothing in it that looked like”

      Was that because of wilful Blindness.. or wilful ignorance.

  18. sod

    “The “20th century”, “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” annotations were added, corresponding with their accepted dating from the last millennium.”

    yeah. and in your scientific way of doing things, the ““Medieval Warm Period” ” does not need a time period, it simply always is the high/low point in the graph.

    so in your first graph, you conveniently place the MWP somewhere more than 1000 years ago,

    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17.jpg

    while in your second graph the same MWP is only about 800 years ago.

    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Iceland-Koch-Since-1200.jpg

    Science at its best!

    1. AndyG55

      OMG, sob thinks the MWP lasted 10 years or something.

      The display of IGNORANCE from him just continues and continues.

  19. sod

    dispatch from the real world, the pause most likely is gone:

    “Next month’s anomaly would have to be lower than 0.2C to reduce the trend slightly.

    To get a flat or negative trend since 1998, the March anomaly would have to be -3.8C.

    The decimal point is in the correct place!

    For the 1998 trend to return to flat or negative values by the end of this year, the annual average anomaly for 2017 would have to be -0.16C.

    We have 2 months data already, at around 0.5C warmer than that, so what would the average temperature anomaly for the rest of 2017 have to be to get a flat/negative trend since 1998?

    -0.26C (Mar-Dec)

    The most recent year the annual average anomaly was that cool was in 1985. The annual average then was -0.35C.”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2017-0-35-deg-c/#comment-239198

    1. AndyG55

      YAWN,

      Thanks for highlighting that transients events disrupt linear trend calculations.

      Got anything else you would like to copy/paste without comprehending or understanding ??

    2. AndyG55

      UAH has Feb 2017 as 4th warmest February,

      RSS has it as 5th warmest.

      There is still absolutely NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of the satellite data.

      El Ninos are nothing to do with CO2 warming, because CO2 does not warm oceans and El Ninos are an ocean cooling event.

      1. sod

        “UAH has Feb 2017 as 4th warmest February,

        RSS has it as 5th warmest.”

        there was to be a la nina. it did not show up. Temperature was supposed to drop. it did not happen. “4th warmest on record” nearly made to an olympic medal!

        “There is still absolutely NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of the satellite data.”

        there is. you missed the message: the pause is GONE.

        1. AndyG55

          No there isn’t. You are WRONG as usual.

          The ONLY warming has come from El Nino events, which are totally unrelated to CO2

          The very FACT that you have to use those events to show any warming proves this point.

          In the periods apart from the two main EL Ninos, THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING

          No warming from 1980 to 1997.5

          http://s19.postimg.org/y6om3sbjn/RSS_Before_El_Nino.jpg

          No warming from 2001 to 2015

          http://s19.postimg.org/im6e8dgxf/RSS_pre_2015.png

          Capeeeesh !! Comprehend????

          No, I don’t expect that you CAN comprehend.

  20. CO2isLife

    Climate “Science” on Trial; How Does Ice Melt In Sub-Zero Temperatures?
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/climate-science-on-trial-how-does-ice-melt-in-sub-zero-temperatures/

  21. New Paper Indicates There Is More Arctic Sea Ice Now Than For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years

    […] – New Paper Indicates There Is More Arctic Sea Ice Now Than For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years: […]

  22. Dennis

    the church of global catastrophic warming will never turn their ideology, will never accept any studies, showing less catastrophic agw so they are the so called deniers, not the skeptical scientists!

  23. Optimist

    One of my pet peeves is the lack of consistency of the time line in graphs. Why do some show time flowing from right to left while most others show it the other way round?