Solar Minimum 2009, Global Cooling and the Record Breaking Winter

[owedtojoy]

Munnkeyman was referring to the reflection of sunlight from polar ice. Seeing that each polar region has 6 months of continuous darkness then the measurements of the respective summer ice extent are relevant which the Antarctica has 3 times more of than the Arctic.

Gobbledygook.

Is this suppose to be "proof" that "75% of the ice that reflects in the oceans" is in Antarctica?

Even that statement itself is not coherent or making any sense.

You are talking pure shyte when you say than Antarctica has 3 times more (sea?) ice than the Arctic.

Here is the sea ice area of the southern hemisphere:



And here of the northern hemisphere:



Now, please explain to us why teh Antarctic has "75% of the ice that reflects in the oceans"?

[owedtojoy]

I provided you the evidence of the extent of the ice retreat in the Arctic during the Medieval Warming Period and you refused to read the concerning research paper.

Was that in the paper about China, the one about New Zealand, or the one about the Inuit trading with the Vikings? You claimed these are proof that Arctic Ice had disappeared in medieval times?

The only fantasies I can see around here is your claim on doing a phD in Trinity, as you should have had no issue in being able to download that paper and all the other ones that were presented to you.

I have quite enough to read without downloading irrelevancies and red herrings.

Anyhow Munnkeyman is handling this friendly, enlightening debate about Arctic Ice very well, there is no requirement for any tourists here to hamper and distract. Goodbye, ta.

He is making too many allowances for your appalling ignorance, and the way you wallow in it.

[SirCharles]

Here what scientists at NASA are saying:

NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 2)

The Solar Cycle

Small fluctuations in the sun's output occur over a roughly 11-year cycle (peak-to-peak) and vary by as much as 0.25 watts per square metre(W/m2). This may sound sound small, but it's rather substantial when compared to Earth's energy imbalance - that is: the difference between energy (heat) entering and leaving Earth's atmosphere - the global warming-caused imbalance.

The NASA analysis has this imbalance at 0.58±0.15 W/m2 (Hansen 2011), whereas Loeb (2012) has it at 0.50±0.43W/m2. Either way the solar cycle-induced change in energy received from the sun (0.25 W/m2) is large compared to Earth's energy imbalance.

Because of the ocean's thermal inertia (it takes a long time to warm up), global temperature change caused by the sun's variabilty lags solar irradiance by about 18 months. The 'trough' in the solar cycle (figure 1) was therefore still exerting a cooling influence on surface temperatures in 2011. However this is expected to quickly change to a warming effect over the next 3-5 years because the sun is on its ascent to the peak of the next cycle. As circled in figure 1 - extra sunlight has gone into the oceans in the last 18 months. This warming is a 'train that has already left the station' so-to-speak, and will soon manifest itself in global temperature.

[Cassandra Syndrome]

February Solar Statistics

Average: 33.1 Sunspots

Maximum: 61
Minimum: 9

A dramatic decline in solar activity in February. This Monthly average is the sharpest decline during a solar maximum in a century. It will have a notable impact on the smooth average, and may indicate that Solar Cycle 24 has already peaked.

Solar Cycle 23 /24



Last 6 cycles



Entire officially recorded sunspot numbers from 1700

[SAT]

Gobbledygook.

Is this suppose to be "proof" that "75% of the ice that reflects in the oceans" is in Antarctica?

Even that statement itself is not coherent or making any sense.

You are talking pure shyte when you say than Antarctica has 3 times more (sea?) ice than the Arctic.

Here is the sea ice area of the southern hemisphere:



And here of the northern hemisphere:



Now, please explain to us why teh Antarctic has "75% of the ice that reflects in the oceans"?

Your chart refers only to sea ice. The Antarctic is a huge ice covered land mass (not included in your data), whereas the Arctic is largely open sea. I suspect the 75% refers to the total ice coverage not just the sea component.

[SirCharles]

Maybe that's more comprehensive for you, SAT.


(Source)

And CS is still dreaming of sunspots, plop, plop, plop...

[owedtojoy]

Your chart refers only to sea ice. The Antarctic is a huge ice covered land mass (not included in your data), whereas the Arctic is largely open sea. I suspect the 75% refers to the total ice coverage not just the sea component.

If you are comparing apples with apples, then you should include Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago along with the Arctic sea ice to make a total northern hemisphere ice total.

CS's was talking about "the ice that reflects in the oceans", which I presumed to mean sea ice.

If you think he meant land ice, then you should ask him, or he should explain himself.

[rash mulligan]

February Solar Statistics

Average: 33.1 Sunspots

Maximum: 61
Minimum: 9

A dramatic decline in solar activity in February. This Monthly average is the sharpest decline during a solar maximum in a century. It will have a notable impact on the smooth average, and may indicate that Solar Cycle 24 has already peaked.

Well CS it looks like the IPCC may have finally got something right when they made this statement last November.


IPCC

The IPCC report says:

"Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain"

[andrejsv]

Maybe that's more comprehensive for you, SAT.


(Source)

And CS is still dreaming of sunspots, plop, plop, plop...

Moving away from linear trends and using exponential extrapolations? It seems an act of desperation.

Yes, total ice extent is low, but it seems to be stabilizing. So what if Antartica gets more ice and the Artic less. That's good news in my view.

[owedtojoy]

Moving away from linear trends and using exponential extrapolations? It seems an act of desperation.

Yes, total ice extent is low, but it seems to be stabilizing. So what if Antartica gets more ice and the Artic less. That's good news in my view.

I am not sure if you understand what you are looking at.

The upper charts in Sir Charles' post are LAND ice, measured by mass.

The lower one is GLOBAL SEA ICE, the sum of Arctic and Antarctic ice, measure by area.

Linear trends or exponential trends - the picture is essentially the same. The exponential trend does suggest an acceleration, that is all.

Both show a significant downward trend. Only someone half-blind and with rose -tinted spectacles could claim a "stabilisation". But at least it is an improvement from the usual denier claim of a "recovery".

Here is a Gompertz curve fitted to Arctic sea ice extent.