Arctic Ice Extent Currently Higher Than 2005
March 28, 2015
By Paul Homewood
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html
For anybody alarmed at record low Arctic ice claims, it is time to put things into perspective.
Arctic ice extent is certainly below average for this time of year, but this is largely due to the lack of ice in the Sea of Okhotsk. This has no effect on the overall state of Arctic ice, not least because it is not in the Arctic! In any event, this ice quickly goes in spring.
Currently, however, ice extent is higher than it was at this date in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2011.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html
Certainly no sign of any downward spiral there!
66 Comments
Trackbacks
- A New Little Ice Age Epoch Has Begun| Earth & Space News March 31, 2015 : Conscious Life News
- SW Watch, Top Articles, Storm Alert | S0 News March 31, 2015 | TheSurvivalPlaceBlog
- SW Watch, Top Articles, Storm Alert | S0 News March 31, 2015 -
- SW Watch, Top Articles, Storm Alert | S0 News March 31, 2015 | Know More Buzz
- Claims Of New Warming ‘Pause’ As Arctic Ice Melt Stabilises | Atlas Monitor
- Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #175 | I World New
- The problem of O3 in the atmosphere and its relation with cooling/warming. | dmhscratch1
- SW Watch, Top Articles, Storm Alert | S0 News March 31, 2015 – [NewsVideo.Us]News Video | News Video
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Here’s a nice chart for the last fifteen years; what we need is a chart for the last 6-1/2 billion years. It would be interesting to compare how the difference in the magnetic pole location and and geographic pole location affected climate in general, as well as before the Atlantean continent sunk below the waves. Possibly the lemurs could get us a few more records from the Fortress of Solitude?
False predictions about climate,
False predictions galore;
False predictions about the weather
That we have in store.
Yet we keep on believing
The predictions we’re given,
By some irrational fear
We seem to be driven.
Read more…
Thanks, Paul.
Also,
Thanks, Paul! I love your blog, you have a lot of great info on here! I have a question (I hope it’s not a stupid question) If the Sea of Okhotsk is not part of the Arctic, why is it factored into the Arctic Sea Ice Extent?
Good question!
Convenience I would guess.
My guess is because it is part of the Northern Sea Route (NSR) by which Russia conducts shipping from Atlantic to Pacific.
I don’t wish to be rude, but that is a stupid guess! There is no northerly maritime connection whatsoever between the Sea of Okhotsk and the Atlantic without entering the Pacific.
Thanks for the correction. My bad.
The Northwest Passage (NWP) goes through Baffin Bay, Canadian Archipelago, Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea and the Bering Sea. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) used by Russia goes through Barents Sea, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, Eastern Siberian Sea, to Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea.
Paul,
1981-2010 Average. Key point – we are discussing a local, recent time-frame average, not some absolute number. From that same data we derive said average, we also derive standard deviation, I would assume. And then we compare current ice measurements to that standard deviation.
So what we have found is that we have no idea what next year’s or following year’s ice extent will be; but we find it freezes up in winter and thaws over summer and reaches a minimum in September.
Predictions, forecasts, scenarios; use what word you like, of an impending (another great word), “death spiral” (silly, overly dramatic adjective) of Arctic ice extent have been repeatedly disproved and relegated to “it might happen someday” status. Well, anything at all might happen someday. No real science here.
Interesting phenomena, and worthy of further observation. That Arctic ice extent is trending up, down or varying about an as yet unknown mean, is anybody’s guess.
But it’s interesting that for that one small increment of time this minimum ice extent, a meaningless, makes it into every news media and numerous science blogs with the implicit connotation that rather than being an entirely random combination of local weather events, is the fault of Mankind and a deviation from “normal”.
There are quite a number of people who figured out that the ice is ruled by the temperature of the water that gets to it,
in fact they knew that back in 1922
Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950. Antarctic ice is already increasing.
The real question is: what ultimately rules the amount of energy going into the oceans?
Not just the Warm currents, also the wind direction & Storms either breaking up the Ice and blowing it out of the Arctic or Compressing the Ice, so it looks less but is thicker.
Add to that the Ice Breakers continually chopping it up doesn’t help it stay in one piece either.
@ AC
True, but anyone investing in the arctic for whatever purpose is doomed to fail…
I wonder if they will ever build undersea bases like they used to show in the old TV Sci Fi programmes & films?
Under the Arcftic Ice would be interesting for exploration.
Ice and ice ages – which btw dominated earth when counted in years – donot promote life – at least not the one for which carbon is needed. I am not sure what you think you will find underneath the ice?
Well, the Russians are investing, but they’re building nuclear ice breakers!
Well the they can try and break up the ice, but they will not be able to ‘warm” the weather.
It will be cooling. There is a slight chance that we totally miss the EM switch due on the sun 2016. If that happens warming could be delayed by another Hale cycle. This is what I suspect let to the LIA….
Paul, I just looked at the Cryosphere site, with especial emphasis on the comparison page. I tried to compare March 28, 2005 to March 28, 2015. It comes up ‘no data’ for the 2005 date.
I then tried to compare the 27th, 26th, 25th… each time, it came up ‘No data’ for 2005.
I haven’t checked to see if there was a problem with satellite imagery for those dates in 2005, but it feels wrong….
For the 15 year sample you chart, the trend ( Linear regression) is definitely DOWN – warmists are gleeful. On the website you have cited for that data it shows a distinct downtrend even since 1980 when they started using satellite data – the warmists are ecstatic. However if you look at the graph on the Antarctic tab, it shows an uptrend of almost the exact same magnitude, +10 anomaly to -10 for the Arctic and -10 to +10 for the Antarctic. The warmists never show that chart preferring to make believe the Antarctic does not exist for purposes of discussing sea ice extent. A good article on Arctic sea ice extent can be found here:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/07/17/analysis-shows-that-arctic-sea-ice-melt-extent-mostly-occurs-in-natural-cycles
Looking at it from 2004, the ice trend is definitely UP.
My own data set shows global cooling started from 2000.
It appears most official data sets – which btw are not properly balanced – shows global cooling from 2002:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2016/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
So, my findings are that the sun reached maximum output around 1995 looking at maximum temperatures but you can also look at from minimum temperatures;
Note that the plotted graph cuts the zero line around 19 or 20 years ago.
Earth reached its maximum output around 1998-1999 [looking at means].
Naturally, I would expect ice to increase only a few years after the definitive drop in global temperatures.
So what we see happening with arctic ice is consistent with global cooling taking place. Natural global cooling may in fact be the cause of droughts (and warming) in certain places whilst other places around the equator will get wetter. More clouds around the equator will amplify the cooling in the years to come.
henry says
my findings are that the sun reached maximum output around 1995
henry corrects
although nobody corrected me, the statement is largely incorrect.
The sun must have reached minimum output (maximum spots) around 1994/1995 as far as the lowest wavelength (highest charged) particles is concerned. One Hale cycle on (22 years), it is now moving towards its “quietest” time, around 2016, (lowest sunspots) which in terms of the Gleisberg cycle means its absolute brightest moment of the whole 88 year cycle…
If you are interested in the rate of increase, the ice is moving up at +0.012 million square km/annum since 2004. = 0.13 km2 up
Ron says
Note this information comes from TAR, IPCC Third Assessment Report
Henry says
perhaps this is where the problem is.
I am interested in finding out how the ice extent in the arctic was evaluated before the 1950ies?
Anyway, historical knowledge from my lessons at school, informs me that Willem Barentz was convinced that a NW passage existed, and indeed that it did exist, around AD1100, as this would explain the quick development of the Viking dynasty. Sadly, Willem and his crew got stuck in the ice around Nova Zembla and they all froze to death, around 1543 that was, if my memory serves me correctly.
We all know about the sun cycles that govern us, but – to this day -, as evident from the lack of articles on it on this blog, we simply refuse to admit that they actually exist?
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
To quote from the above works:
….. spaced around multiples of 1470 years. The De Vries/Suess and Gleissberg cycles with periods close to 1470/7 (~210) and 1470/17 (~86.5) years have been proposed to explain these observations…..
Myself, I have proved that the 87-88 year Gleissberg cycle exists, just by looking at maximum and minimum temperatures on earth. In fact, my own investigations led me to it.
FWIW, the winter here in Japan has been unusually mild, and we only had about half the normal snowfall. In a normal winter, the prevailing north westerlies flow from the Siberian high pressure system. This winter, Siberian temperatures were warmer than normal, and the north westerlies were less persistant. It seems reasonable that the reduced Sea of Okhotsk ice extent is a result of this winter’s weather pattern. Weather, not climate.
In Tokyo, the trend is also down from 2004. at a rate of -0.01K/annum.
Deciding too celebrate Earth Day, it seemed appropriate to turn off the house lights and go for a nice drive.
Noticed no difference here in Vancouver BC.
Earth hour
Since we are close to the Spring ice maximum, some historical context is in order.
The extent of ice in the Nordic Seas measured in April has been subject to a reduction of ~33% over the past 135 yr. Nearly half of this reduction is observed over the period ~1860–1900, prior to the warming of the
Arctic. Decadal variations with an average period of 12–14 yr are observed for the whole period. The observation series indicates that less than 3% of the variance with respect to time can be explained for a series
shorter than 30 yr, less than 18% for a series shorter than 90 yr, and less than 42% for the whole 135-yr long series. While the mean annual reduction of the April ice extent is decelerating by a factor of 3 between 1880 and 1980, the mean annual reduction of the August ice extent
is proceeding linearly.
The August ice extent in the Eastern area has been more than halved over the past 80 yr. A similar meltback has not been observed since the temperature optimum during the eighteenth century. This retrospective comparison indicates accordingly that the recent reduction of the ice extent in the Eastern area is still within the variation range observed over the past 300 yr.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014%3C0255%3AAATOSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Sorry the graph link didn’t include the figure caption:
Figure 16-3: Time series of April sea-ice extent in Nordic Sea (1864-1998) given by 2-year running mean and second-order polynomial curves. Top: Nordic Sea; middle: eastern area; bottom: western area (after Vinje, 2000).
Note this information comes from TAR, IPCC Third Assessment Report.
Ron says
Note this information comes from TAR, IPCC Third Assessment Report
Henry says
perhaps this is where the problem is.
I am interested in finding out how the ice extent in the arctic was evaluated before the 1950ies?
Anyway, historical knowledge from my lessons at school, informs me that Willem Barentz was convinced that a NW passage existed, and indeed that it did exist, around AD1100, as this would explain the quick development of the Viking dynasty. Sadly, Willem and his crew got stuck in the ice around Nova Zembla and they all froze to death, around 1543 that was, if my memory serves me correctly.
We all know about the sun cycles that govern us, but – to this day -, as evident from the lack of articles on it on this blog, we simply refuse to admit that they actually exist?
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
To quote from the above works:
….. spaced around multiples of 1470 years. The De Vries/Suess and Gleissberg cycles with periods close to 1470/7 (~210) and 1470/17 (~86.5) years have been proposed to explain these observations…..
Myself, I have proved that the 87-88 year Gleissberg cycle exists, just by looking at maximum and minimum temperatures on earth. In fact, my own investigations led me to it.
henry, the original source was:
Anomalies and Trends of Sea-Ice Extent and Atmospheric Circulation in the Nordic Seas during the Period 1864–1998 by TORGNY VINJE, Norwegian Polar Institute, Oslo, Norway 2001
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014%3C0255%3AAATOSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
well, here is my source and it does not seem to tie up
especially looking at the second graph, even if we do allow 0.5K higher for the CWP (until 2000)
@ Ron
on second thought, seeing that the temperature curve must be the inverse of the ice extent, the two investigations do tie up a but the Vinje report mislead me a bit by showing that particular binomial curve (correlation R2=0.22 which is very, very low, definitely not significant on any statistical level)
I note from the ice core data that there was an uptrend [in temperature] from 1840 onward.
Re your comments concerning the Okhotsk sea. I think most people do not realise just where it is and how far it is from the North Pole.
The answers are surprising. The Okhotsk sea is in the Pacific Ocean. It is not in the Arctic Ocean or within the Arctic circle or connected to the Arctic ocean. Despite having no connection with the Arctic, the Okhotsk Sea is included in the Arctic sea Ice figures
The southern extent of the Okhotsk sea is the Japanese island of Hokkaido. The distance to Hokkaido is staggering. Abashiri which is a japanese city on coast of the Okhotsk sea is over 5,100 km (3,100+ miles) from the North Pole.
To give some perspective to this distance, consider this: All of the UK as well as Germany, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands are within 5,100 km of the North Pole.
Most of France is included within this distance which even includes part of the Mediterranean near the the Italian city of Genoa.
In North America, all of Canada would be included but so would all or part of 15 US states.
If one applies the same distance criteria from the South Pole, then this distance would easily include all of Antarctica as well as part of New Zealand and about 1300 km of South America.
The use of the term Arctic Sea Ice is therefore misleading and either the Okhotsk sea should be excluded or the term Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice be used instead.
Good points. Here’s a bit more on Okhotsk and East Siberian Seas:
“Here we show that interannual variations between the September Arctic sea ice concentration, especially in the East Siberian Sea, and the maximum Okhotsk sea ice extent in the following winter are positively correlated, which is not explained by the recent warming trend only. An increase of sea ice both in the East Siberian Sea and the Okhotsk Sea and corresponding atmospheric patterns, showing a seesaw between positive anomalies of sea level pressures over the Arctic Ocean and negative anomalies over the mid-latitudes, are related to cold anomalies over the high-latitude Eurasian continent. The patterns of atmospheric circulation and air temperatures are similar to those of the annually integrated Arctic Oscillation (AO). The negative annual AO forms colder anomalies in autumn sea surface temperatures both over the East Siberian Sea and the Okhotsk Sea, which causes heavy sea-ice conditions in both seas through season-to-season persistence.”
Masayo Ogi; Bunmei Taguchi; Meiji Honda; David G. Barber; S繪ren Rysgaard (2015), “Summer-to-winter sea-ice linkage between the Arctic Ocean and the Okhotsk Sea through atmospheric circulation,” https://arctichub.net/resources/435.
Ice is three-dimensional; “extent” only measures two of those dimensions; “warming” and “cooling” refer to the total amount of thermal energy in the system, which is loosely related to the total volume of ice but ignores energy stores at any significant distance above or below the air/water surface. Given all that, it’s hard to see how the ice extent gives us any information about large-scale warming or cooling of the arctic biosphere.
True. The whole exercise of measuring in the Arctic is problematic given the conditions. With the satellites we are getting some confidence in the extent numbers (though there are uncertainties during the melt season). Estimates of ice volume are even more prone to error.
I’m expecting good “surprises” this summer, for us skeptics.
The ice is high in N. Canada and there are large stretches of MYI, possibly greater than in 2005-06.
This will make a big difference with respect to previous years at this year’s minimum.
Some say that when the ice starts to accumulate around the Baffin island it’s a sign that a long period of cooling in coming… and that’s precisely what’s happening.
Another related thing, IMO, is that the PDO is having an *abnormal* period of warming since 2013. This is only similar warming oscillation (in amplitude) to the present one (nearly +2.5 C in ~ 2 years period) is what happened in the late 1950’s
and it is certainly taking its toll on the Pacific side of the Arctic ice.
I was *not* expecting this high amplitude PDO oscillation, but there it is and I don’t know how to explain it very clearly yet. (… of course it’s *not* CO2 that’s causing it: 100% guaranteed! 🙂
I was expecting the PDO to reach no more than 0.5 C in 2014, in continuation to the clear downward trend of the previous years.
I guess the additional 0.5-to-0.6 C is due to the last year of solar max of the present cycle in 2014, which was stronger than the previous years, except for the end of 2011.
The radiations had a spike last year (despite strong oscillations), especially at the beginning and end of the year, and this may have filled Earth’s oceans with an additional amount of heat (energy).
The strong PDO+ also took its toll on the Antarctic ice that had it’s steady increase of the previous 2 years partially halted, modulated, in the 2nd semester.
This year, solar radiations so far have been lower than 2014 and 2012, and comparable with the first 9 months of 2013, which is a *very good sign*, IMO.
@dmh
You are right of course, this is exactly in line with my results that predict global cooling.
I also figured out why it is globally cooling -while the sun is getting brighter…..
Ask Paul to publish my results?
Why do you say the Sun is brighter?
The sun is brighter because it has fewer spots.That is logical?
Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
I had now already found three exact confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the more energetic particles coming from the sun. It appears (to me) that as the solar polar fields are weakening,
more of these particles are able to escape from the sun to form more ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides at the TOA. In turn, these substances deflect more sunlight to space when there is more of it. So, ironically, when the sun is brighter, earth will get cooler. This is a defense system that earth has in place to protect us from harmful UV (C).
Thanks for the reply. I agree that less spots make the Sun brighter in the visible spectrum range, but it also seems to make it “less bright” in other ranges, specially higher than visible (UV, X, etc.), where the intensity follows closely the SSN.
According to NASA the F10.7 radio flux is now close to cycle C20,
but, as the graph that you posted shows, the polar fields are decreasing systematically since C20.
I tend to believe that the decrease of the magnitude of the polar fields is having an important cooling effect on Earth’s climate, due to less energy coming through the IMF.
In particular, the aa-index is showing a similar pattern
during the exact same period that the magnitude of the polar started to decline.
Note how we’re back to levels before 1939 (below 20 nano-T) since 2006, therefore, the present levels of radiation are clearly *different* from C20, despite the similarity of the F10.7 flux.
I agree that O3 is playing an important role in the present cooling, the “pause” is obviously caused by less energy coming from the Sun, mainly after C22.
Higher energy particles in the IMF could also increase cloudiness.
@dmh
you say:I tend to believe that the decrease of the magnitude of the polar fields is having an important cooling effect on Earth’s climate, due to less energy coming through the IMF.
Henry says
Thx for your comments, it makes for an interesting blog write now. There are only a few of us who figured it and I think you only have it half right but you are definitely on the right track….
The best proxy is looking for what heat is coming through the atmosphere, in terms of maximum or minimum temperatures. I show you minimum temperatures because here I obtained R2=1:
It shows the acceleration/deceleration of warming in K/annum2
This was a balanced sample of weather stations, unlike most of the global data sets where weather stations and satellite data are grossly unbalanced.
There is exactly 42 years of data in that graph there, so that is almost exactly two Hale cycles. Obviously, it is not rocket science to figure out that this is again almost one half of the Gleissberg cycle of 87 years. My various calculations show that around 2016 we will reach the bottom of the A-C wave going down, and if all goes well in 2016 the switch is turned to move up again. [that all goes well in not 100% certain, if there is or was an imbalance in the solar system there could be a delay of the switch]
I calculated the date 2016 in three different ways, the most stunning result came form the position of the planets. But you can also see it from that graph of the declining polar field strengths. Note that [in your mind] you can draw a parabolic binomial from the bottom to top and a hyperbolic binomial from the top to the bottom representing average solar polar field strengths both coming to a top/bottom of around 2016, representing the lowest ever field strengths in about 88 years. Previously it was in 1927.
So the mechanism for the cooling period that we entered, is as follows:
declining solar field strengths =.> more of the most energetic particles released =.> more harmful UV (c) => more ozone, more peroxide, more nitrogenous oxides formed TOA =.> more normal sunlight deflected to space => less energy coming trough the atmosphere=> differential T between poles and equator rises => more clouds around equator and less clouds and rain at certain top latitudes => more global cooling (due to the fact that insolation is 684 at the equator and 342 on average.
Hence, I am saying that around 2021 we will see the great droughts coming back to the great plains of America again.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
let me know what you think?
Thanks Henry, I’ll post my comment in a new thread below, because this one is becoming too “narrow”, please read it there.
@moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP, April 6, 2015 7:09 am,
You said that the best proxy is the heat coming through the atmosphere, do you mean for the solar polar fields? If “yes”, based on what assumptions would you use the heat as proxy?
I tend to believe that they are indeed related, but not in a direct way.
If you compare e.g. the aa-index graph of my previous post with the average solar fields, e.g. ( |NP|+|SP|/2 ), you’ll see that the fields have been decreasing systematically since cycle C21, but *faster* than the geomagnetic perturbation, probably indicating that the energy of the IMF is not linearly, or even in an approximately linear, relation with the fields.
Your estimate of 2016 as the bottom of the amplitude of the polar fields is very interesting.
It coincides with an estimate I read in another blog about the point at which the surplus energy on Earth accumulated during the grand maximum of the XX century will become zero (due excess of outgoing long wave radiations (OLWR) in recent years over incoming energy) and it’s also (approx.) *the year predicted by Livingston-&-Penn* for the sunspots to become virtually invisible (Maunder-type of solar cycle).
In the latter case, the cause of the Livingston-Penn effect (whatever it is) would be the “imbalance in the solar system” that you feared in your comment.
You said that you analyzed the “A-C wave” to get 2016 as the year of minimum. What do you mean by “A-C wave”?
Do you have a link to a more detailed information about your calculation?
You said that 2016 would be the “lowest ever field strengths in about 88 years. Previously it was in 1927”, but how do you know about the fields in 1927, if the Wilcox data only goes back to 1976?
http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
Leif Svalgaard has an analysis of polar faculae count, as proxy for the polar fields, dating back to the beginning of the XX century,
(from “Polar Fields and Cycle 24.pdf (Space Weather Week, 2006)“
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf)
but it shows the amplitude not varying very much in this period, contrary to what happened since cycle C21.
Your model for the cooling process is interesting, but I believe the present solar cycle has less UV radiation than the previous ones, because the general intensity of the cycle correlates directly with the UV intensity. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
On the other hand, weaker magnetic fields would shield less cosmic radiation, which could cause more cloudiness.
I’m convinced that this phenomenon is actually happening, specially in years of low radiations like 2008-09, and I tend to agree with the general thesis of Svensmark in this respect.
Hi Dmh
it is getting both more interesting, and more complicated.
It should be possible for you to imagine that you can put a mirror at my results for the speed of warming/cooling for the future, seeing a hyperbole rather than a parabole for the next 43 years, same as for the results of the “scissors” graph, seeing the solar polar magnetic fields reaching their minimum at 2016 and then [slowly] climbing up again?
Again, my own results (the curved parabole) show almost half of the whole 88 year Gleissberg cycle. A Gleissberg cycle consists of 4 Hale-Nicholson cycles. All of this was already observed by Arnold
Click to access arnold_theory_order.pdf
This is the report that I started off with and I found his report to be largely correct. Except that there is a ca. 5 year difference between my observations and his observations.
I say 1995 was the end of global warming and not 1990.My configuration of the planets is also the same but there is a time delay (I can elaborate on that later)
I happen to be an expert in both statistics and chemistry, physics was not my strong point but I just generally noted from processes like atomic fusion, that, to contain the energy, you need a strong magnetic field. So it just sort of came natural for me to assume that declining solar magnetic fields would release more of the most energetic particles from the sun.
For an understanding of what ozone (+peroxides + nitrogenous oxides) actually does, you have to try and understand the basic solar spectrum and the spectra of the individual gases. That gets quite complicated.Just to be brief: As they get formed [to protect us!] they also deflect certain certain wavelengths, to space, especially some of the normal UV. That means less warmth into the oceans.(70%)
Leif’s belief in sunspots and other proxies are not relevant to me as I don’t think such measurements that far back in time can really be compared but with today’s technology.
He still beliefs “sunspots” are a good proxy going back in time to 1900.
Anybody? Really?
@dmh
here I show how I came to 2016. This work was done in 2012, so it includes all results up until 2012. Note that this is a “best fit”, showing that 2016 must be the turning point. If that does not happen, if we don’t make the turn in 2016, I don’t know where we will end up.
Thanks Henry, I believe the cooling will continue after 2016 because the solar radiations are lower this year than 2014, comparable to 2013 or even lower.
If this is true, it would indicate that the solar maximum of the present cycle C24 ended in 2014 and in the next 5-to-7 years (possibly more?) the intensity of radiations would only decline on the average, with consequent cooling of Earth’s climate.
Another factor are the Sun’s polar fields,
http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
which seem to be increasing (now including the NP) as they’d do in a normal cycle, e. g. like C23. However, the previous declining trend of magnitude since C21 is very clear in if extrapolated would suggest that the fields’ magnitudes would not rise much above their present levels. In this case, the SP would reverse soon and remain low for the rest of the cycle.
We actually don’t know if this will happen or not, but *if it does* it would be (IMO) a definitive proof that C24 is, in fact, the initial cycle of a grand minimum.
If we are in a grand minimum, the cooling would continue far beyond the end of the present cycle.
I don’t know yet how to predict this because I’m not sure about the causes of grand minimums. Then, I’m watching the evolution of the polar fields, aa-index, etc. to form a provisional opinion.
@dmh
dont miss my comment herehttps://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/when-the-amo-turns-forget-global-warming/#comment-41344
The wave will turn up in 2016, but it is still cooling until 2038….
Hi Henry, thanks for the link. Interesting discussion there.
I’ll read it carefully and post a comment later, in this thread.
That every place on earth is on its own curve, depending on the [average ] composition TOA, became clear to me from this work, on one single weather station in Alaska. It also confirmed the turning points: 1927, 1972, 2016.
note comment here
@ HenryP April 13, 2015 12:40 pm:
Referring to your comment at
You said that [according to Trenberth] O3 is responsible for ~ 25% of back radiation (into outer space) from the total incoming from the Sun. This is a large number and it’s important in the analysis of the influence of O3 in the present instability of Earth’s climate, especially at the polar regions.
I believe O3 is a key component of this instability. The importance if O3 for Earth’s climate is perhaps, the most difficult to access. Nobody seems to have all the answers.
I believe the O3 hole in Antarctica will continue and possibly increase, as the radiations will probably lower from now on and the continent will get colder.
Usually the O3 hole at Antarctica is associated with the seasonal cooling of that continent, e. g.,
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/67/7/10.1063/PT.3.2449?dm_i=1Y69,2LFVV,E4CSKB,9H5SN,1
due to meteorological conditions, not a general cooling trend, associated with the competition between warming from the Sun and warming by non-emission of radiations back to outer space by the atmosphere (meteorology).
Similarly, due to lowering radiations, an O3 hole should appear in the Arctic as soon as the ice extent starts to get back to average levels again, probably in a couple of years.
It’s not clear from your comment how important are the nitrogen oxides and peroxides to enhance back radiation, i. e. percentually, to accelerate the cooling.
Your comments at
seem to indicate that the solar radiations are in direct relation with the average magnitude of the polar fields, but (if that is what you’re saying) I disagree with this assertion.
In summary, I believe the Sun has entered a new grand minimum phase where the radiations will probably get lower from now on, for an indefinite period of time.
The polar fields seem to be reflecting this trend, but it’s not very clear (IMO) what connects the radiations and the magnitude of the fields.
I don’t see a minimum of solar power happening in 2016, but I really believe the radiations will get lower in the years ahead, and possibly much lower if the predictions of a Maunder type minimum come to pass.
ps.: the statement
“Usually the O3 hole at Antarctica is associated with the seasonal cooling of that continent … due to meteorological conditions, not a general cooling trend,”
made in the article I linked, is the result of an incorrect analysis IMO.
I believe the intensity solar radiations are the key to understand the historic evolution of O3 in the atmosphere, as you suggested in your comment.
DMH SAYS
You said that [according to Trenberth] O3 is responsible for ~ 25% of back radiation (into outer space) from the total incoming from the Sun.
Henry says
No. Please check carefully, I said it is ca. 25% of all that is back radiated by the GH gasses.
I doubt there ever was a ozone hole or to be even scared about it. I think above the oceans there is more moisture and it looks plausible to me that peroxides are formed here preferentially to ozone. Peroxides also have absorption in the UV and visible range,
as can be seen in the graph. That means the light will scatter away (50% in the direction where the light came from) where it absorbs strongly.
It is just that nobody looked for it or even measured it. Perhaps this part is included in what is referred to as Raleigh scattering? Only Trenberth can tell us.
Nevertheless, even the recovery of ozone in the SH is also happening since 1995 and percentage wise the recovery of ozone in the SH is much spectacular. But this is bad news, because that means less energy in the SH oceans, which is our energy store for the whole of the world.
The sun is now at its brightest point in about 87 years and you would expect more heat being produced there. But less heat is coming through our atmosphere because of the back radiation by more components being formed by more of the extra energetic particles being released by the sun.
it is ironic, is it not?> the atmosphere is defending us against harmful radiation, but now we will get a bit cooler…..