Government Scientists Explain Sea Ice

The drop in sea ice area from 1979 to 2006 was caused by global warming melting the Arctic, and the rise back to 1979 levels since 2007 was also caused by global warming changing wind Antarctic patterns – and freshening the south polar seas through glacial melting.

ScreenHunter_1822 Aug. 09 17.29

So basically, the competing processes of global warming and global warming have cancelled each other out.

After hearing mindless crap like this from government scientists, useful idiots in the press nod their heads and imagine they are hearing cutting edge science.

About Tony Heller

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

36 Responses to Government Scientists Explain Sea Ice

  1. Robert of Ottawa says:

    A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

  2. geran says:

    Can you imagine how confused the polar bears are?

  3. James the Elder says:

    Again no peaches this year due to all the warming killing the blooms in this hottest of years.

  4. JeffK says:

    Only global cooling — their 1970s theory before Hansen and Gore– could explain that graph. The ice first shrank from sublimation (evaporating from lower humidity) and then as the colder air area expanded over more humid adjacent areas, it created more ice all over again. They were right before they were wrong, and won’t admit it, now.

  5. MrX says:

    I wish most people had at least seen temperature graphs for the last 10,000 years and CO2 graphs for the last several million years. Those graphs are fairly clear that everything the warmistas have been saying is pure bunk. We’re heading into an full ice age and out of the current interglacial and the planet is losing atmospheric CO2 over the long run. If aliens are watching us, they must be scratching their heads. This planet could very well be headed toward an extinction event and the warmistas want to help speed up the process.

    • tom0mason says:

      Here’s a news item that the CAGW crowd dislike as it puts a big hole in their hypothesis.

      “Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy,” writes Larry Bell on

      “Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

      “Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”
      Scientists “stunned” by the speed of the cooling

      Apparently climate varies without humans’ involvement, who could have guessed.

      • nielszoo says:

        Don’t you see that proves it. The Romans advanced technology, especially burning all that fuel to heat their decadent baths (kind of like Roman SUV’s) warmed the the poor earth so much it melted all those Swiss glaciers. We’re heading the same way.</sarc>

      • Dmh says:

        and (from the same link)
        … Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years.”
        Such changes can occur very rapidly. His research team was stunned to find trunks of huge trees near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier which had all died in just a single year. They determined that time to be 8,200 years ago based upon oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice which showed marked cooling…
        “Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the Earth ‘tip’ in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in the 1880s, 1920s, and 1980s?”
        … Schlüchter believes that the Sun is the principal long-term driver of climate change, with tectonics and volcanoes acting as significant contributors.

        Can solar radiations change the climate so profoundly in such short period as to make “huge trees” die in 1 year?
        If so, what are we missing in our understanding of solar radiations that is capable of doing that?

        • tom0mason says:

          IMO We are missing the same thing that killed wooly mammoths. Most of these animals that have been found died of the cold suddenly. Indeed some have been found that looked like they were feeding when they suddenly died; so swiftly that they were still stood up.

          It is still a mystery how this and the “huge trees” died so rapidly.

        • tom0mason says:

          I can’t find the original link I wanted so here’s this. They speculate that the animal died falling through the ice.
          “The head of the museum also suggested that the mammoth lived from 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. Scientists have suggested that perhaps the animal fell through the ice, escaping from predators. However, its thought the predators still feasted on part of trapped mammoth.”

        • Dmh says:

          The analogy with the wooly mammoths seems a really good one, but in an even stronger level than the “huge trees” of Schlüchter’s studies, during the Younger Dryas probably.
          The only solar process that seems to be abrupt, drastic and of long duration enough to impact climate like that are the Maunder-type minimums,

          But in the case of the Younger Dryas I don’t know if even a Maunder-type grand minimum would be intense enough.
          Probably, during this type of deep minimums there is a chance that the troposphere may collapse- as in a polar vertex, but for a longer time- and when the atmosphere starts to recover the entire climate is already profoundly changed, to a point that will take a very long time to be back to “before-collapse” levels.

        • tom0mason says:

          An alternative way of seeing a sudden cooling is that the jet stream does the loopy trick but the majority of it stays below the 40° N latitude. The global circulation of air masses from ground level to the ozone level could significantly change. The result is the mid-latitude cell (Ferrel cell) and Polar cell join into one very cold but very windy hybrid weather super cell, dragging polar cold air south very rapidly, and for a significant time. Snow and frost covering ensures that albedo is high reflecting the sun’s warmth away. All normal weather processes are changed as the top third of the planet rapidly cools.

          Imagine 2 cells per hemisphere instead of 3.

          But this is all speculation, and hopefully will never happen.

        • Dmh says:

          Your idea of abrupt climate change is realistic IMO, I believe it suggests a clearer mechanism for my “atmospheric collapse”.
          I was very impressed to see the actual power of polar vortices to alter the climate worldwide last December, by following the UNISYS chart, when the SST of all oceans changed abruptly in a matter of a few days– with strong cooling in the NH and warming of the SH– just to go back to normal again when the intensity of the vortex decreased.

          My original idea of collapse was partially inspired by the following very interesting article by the Chiefio, about the Stratosphere,

          in which he describes the normal state of near collapse of the Stratosphere at the poles during the winter
          ”During the winter, the polar Troposphere is essentially zero and the Stratosphere extends to the surface. In essence, the Troposphere ought to be seen as a 3/4 sphere (or so) that wobbles back and forth from one end of the planet to the other. Similarly, the Stratosphere ought to be seen as a 3/4 sphere (or so) that is touching one pole in a polar vortex and rising up, spinning as it goes, spreading out toward the other pole – thinning all the way. As the year progresses, this spinning vortex like band shifts from anchored at one pole to anchored at the other”

          and the essential importance of the radiative processes in this “layer”/component of the atmosphere,
          ”The stratosphere is simply the place where convection is not important. The place where radiation is the dominant form of heat transfer and where radiative physics matters.”

          ”… the temperature of the troposphere decreases with height, and saturation vapor pressure decreases strongly as temperature drops, so the amount of water vapor that can exist in the atmosphere decreases strongly with height.[due to lower temperature] Thus the proportion of water vapor is normally greatest near the surface and decreases with height…”

          Then we could have the following process to drive the “collapse” that I mentioned,
          ”…Recently, the Sun ‘went quiet’ and the atmospheric height dropped. IMHO that is a direct measurement of the change in net surface heating. In response to lower heat input, the convective / precipitation process shortened. In response to lower levels of UV (dramatically lower) the Thermospheric temperature dropped and most likely ozone formation dropped too.”

          In this case, if the Sun remains ‘quiet’ for a long time and the conditions appear for the formation of a NH polar vortex at low latitudes, it could bring a steady imbalance of the Troposphere, for some time, where the conditions usually prevalent only at the poles (during winter) would extend to a larger part of the globe for an indefinite time, causing a kind of step change in the climate of the entire world.
          It would be like the “day after tomorrow” type of sudden change, though not the unrealistically one created by AGW as in the movie, but due to the accumulated effect of low radiations ”forcing” the normal atmospheric processes, beyond a certain threshold.

        • tom0mason says:

          I believe we have both speculated a bit after Chiefio blog piece. The other thing of note to throw in is the expansion and skrinking of the atmosphere dependent on the sun’s activity. No one has come up for a realistic explaination of the mechanics but it happen as all the satellite companies and NASA know. Of course it’s CO2 according to …all the usual.

    • Gail Combs says:


      Worse the idiots do not seem to even care. “I want control of the world and I want it NOW!” That is their moto.

  6. I particularly enjoyed reading that golbal warming was causing a rise in sea temperatures in the antarctic, and that was causing the ice sheet to melt from the underside. Sounded good — that is until some inquisitive scientists actually went down there to look and found that it was volcanic activity under the sea bed that was warming the water. I suppose next there will be a report that global warming is heating the earth’s core and that’s what’s causing the increase in such activity.

  7. emsnews says:

    In five days it is going to be only 68 degrees during a sunny day here in upstate NY!

    This has been a cool to cold summer and will be like October in mid-August. I and my neighbors are making firewood like crazy, there is naked fear here for the winter that looms.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Remember to prod them to GET OUT AND VOTE! and to also browbeat all their friends and relatives. Remember that the EPA is now going after wood stoves and fireplaces. They really do want us to freeze to death!

      3000 people a year die in the UK because they can not afford to heat their homes. We really need to toss the DemiRats and RINOs out before the USA becomes like the UK.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    Dmh says…
    Your idea of abrupt climate change is realistic IMO….
    Actually it is well known (among geologists) that the change from the Wisconsin Ice Age to the Holocene happened in one year!

    On “Trap-Speed”, ACC and the SNR
    Perhaps one of the more poignant moments in all of climate science occurred in 1992, documented by John D. Cox, writing in “Climate Crash: Abrupt Climate Change and What it Means for our Future (John Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press, ISBN: 0-309-54565-X, 224 pages, 2005), which describes the initial discovery of Abrupt Climate Change (ACC) and also introduces a main character, Dr. Richard B. Alley:

    “’You did not need to be a trained ice core observer to see this,’ recalled Alley. ‘Ken Taylor is sitting there with the ECM and he’s running along and his green line is going wee, wee, wee, wee—Boing! Weep! Woop! And then it stays down.’ Dust in the windy ice age atmosphere lowered the acidity of the core to a completely new state. ‘We’re just standing there and he just draws a picture of it,”’Alley said.”….

    “In the GISP2 science trench, the tray holding the section of core rolled down the assembly line and then it was Alley’s turn at the ice. “It slides across in front of me and I’m trying to identify years: ‘That’s a year, that’s a year and that’s a year, and—woops, that one’s only half as thick.’ And it’s sitting there just looking at you. And there’s a huge change in the appearance of the ice, it goes from being clear to being not clear, having a lot of dust.”

    Companion pieces to give you real chills: William McClenney is a geologist who has read over 300 papers on the subject (I know he sent me copies) Here are his essays at WUWT. Please note he has a warped sense of humor and can be a bit cryptic. He would fit right in here. {:>D
    The Antithesis

    The End Holocene, or How to Make Out Like a ‘Madoff’ Climate Change Insurer

    Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?

    Glacial Inception: the climatic ‘madhouse’ “Abstract: I used to think there was only one known substitute for intelligence – stupidity. I have since realized that I left out evil”…. Boy, isn’t that the truth!

    A recent comment with more info on the sea level rise at the tail end of a couple interglacials:

    When’s the end of the current interglacial scheduled?”

    Pretty much right about now. – William McClenney

    • tom0mason says:

      “Please note he has a warped sense of humor …”
      Nothing wrong with his humor – he gets me to LOL. It livens up the whole subject.

      Oh, I forgot you said I have a warped sense of humor.
      Ho hum….


    • Dmh says:

      Hi Gail and Tom, thanks for your comments and the links.
      This is becoming so interesting and time consuming that maybe we should start to think seriously about writing a paper to one of these journals, to make it “official”. 🙂
      Tom, regarding the shrinking of the “atmosphere”
      In fact, this article is reporting “news” from 2008-09, as we see in this NASA report of July 15, 2010
      but that doesn’t change the fact that they don’t know what is happening in the Sun, as it was shown few days ago when the SSN went to zero at the middle of the solar max, and no one knows why (they should look for advice with Geoff Sharp).
      From the article,
      “… the researchers found low levels of EUV radiation only account for about 30 percent of the collapse, while the increase in CO2 levels account for another 10 percent at most.
      That still leaves some 60 percent, which can’t be explained by current modelling…”

      They cannot find the explanation of the shrinking because their models are biased, by the old paradigm.
      They are doing a wrong SS estimate and not taking into account the increased ratio of small-to-large spots of the present cycle, therefore they also cannot explain the very-low aa-index (the lower since the records began in the XIX century), but the LSC seems to be in good agreement with the observed low geomagnetic activity,
      They say not a single word about the important changes that are happening on Earth’s magnetic field and its possible influence on cloud cover, humidity, etc., after all, H2O is a molecule with high dipole moment, etc.
      I’m starting to believe that even the 10% they attribute to CO2 (stratospheric cooling) is incorrect/overestimated.

      OTOH, the following comment of William McClenney that Gail quoted,
      “When’s the end of the current interglacial scheduled? Pretty much right about now.”
      is becoming more clearly true in my mind.

      Depending on how you look at it, the evidence could be everywhere. For example,
      /1/ Stratospheric cooling

      as Steve and others have noted, the above graph does not show a steady cooling since 1980, it shows 3 periods of steady average temps- 1980 to ~ 1982, ~ 1984 to ~ 1991 and ~ 1994 to present- and 2 step-changes in 1982-83 and 1992-93.
      Therefore, it’s not caused by CO2 and it’s very probably connected with solar radiations as the step changes happened during the solar maximums of cycles #21 and #22.
      /2/ The increased dryness of the high troposphere,

      which also seems to be varying in step-changes, specially the higher altitudes (9 km), although not synchronized with /1/.
      /3/ The abnormal lowering of solar intensity observed recently
      ”According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985. Since then the sun has been getting quieter… Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.
      He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.
      /4/ Etc.
      If the abrupt climate change (towards cooling) is caused by some sort of disruption of the balance between stratosphere and troposphere, with an abnormal strengthening of the “stratospheric component” of the atmosphere (let’s call it SSCA), then we should expect that the evidence in support of this phenomenon would have the usual features of the stratosphere, like low humidity, low dependence on time (due to low convection, low mixing and low dissipation of energy by direct scattering) and a strong connection with solar radiation, having in sight the predominantly “radiative mode” of energy transfer of the stratosphere.
      In this case, the observed phenomena /1/ and /2/ and also the collapse of the thermosphere reported by NASA in 2010, would be evidence in favor of SSCA, and the observations of Lockwood and others, as in /3/, the main explanation.

      Now, if all this is correct, are we / science prepared to pay attention to the evidence and follow the development of such an important event?
      Ice ages/glacial periods are normal aspects of Earth’s climate (at least in the last 1 million years or so), like strong winters but of longer duration, ( 🙂 ) therefore we must be aware of the real changes and take action, organize society in this direction.

      • tom0mason says:

        Well thanks for the update, sorry about the old link it’s from the old bookmark file so…
        Paul Hudson, from what I’ve read, is one of the small group from the Met Office that do not follow the consensus way, so you’ll probably get good info from him (until ‘they gag him).
        Thanks again. 🙂
        Sorry for any poor spelling, errant lettering, etc. but I’m fighting an eye infection – it’s all a bit cloudy right now.

      • Gail Combs says:

        You might like Usoskin A History of Solar Activity over Millennia.

        With comments like “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN, major UN donor and creator of the UN Foundation – one wonders if CAGW is a major case of misdirection….

        Turner is also behind the Pleistocene Rewilding of the USA.

        … If one adopts an end-Pleistocene benchmark, then it is time to bring back the American cheetah, the American camel, the American plains lion, the American mastodons and mammoths, and other species by using proxies from the Old World to restart their evolution in the New, and to restore their vital roles as shapers of ecological landscapes.

        Let’s take the camel as an example. Camels originated here in North America, not in the Old World, around 50 million years ago. They spent most of their time here, but then around 3 million years ago they crossed from Alaska to Siberia and moved down into Asia and into the African continent.
        The camel is a good candidate for rewilding.

        A Bactrian Camel in the Kyzyl Kum desert in Uzbekistan, Central Asia. Photo by Dmitriy Pitrimov.

        If we were to bring back camels, the Bactrian camel for example, as well as elephants, these animals would probably do very well in controlling what is called shrub invasion of the arid West. Cattle and horses cannot eat mesquite, juniper, creocote, but the big browsers can. Camels are especially good at eating toxic shrubs. If you’re worried about your lawn, they cannot eat grass….

        Barlow: First of all, this would not happen on public lands. They would be rewilded on private lands. Right now, the bolson tortoise is being reintroduced on Ted Turner’s private ranch in New Mexico. We are hoping to get to the point where a large private rancher, perhaps in Texas, will work with us on other efforts. There are already all kinds of African game in Texas ranches. There are more lions on Texas ranches than there are in all the zoos in the United States….

        Someone here in North Carolina caught them releasing a pair of melanistic (black) jaguars. Because they are black, all sightings are dismissed as ‘fanciful’. My husband saw one clear the road in one bound and it wasn’t any bobcat or dog. Others in our area see these big cats too.

        Wolves have also been released and of course there are the coyotes.

        The Rewilding Institute

        • Dmh says:

          Thanks Gail, some wild ideas there at “Rewilding Institute”, but why not, learning with Nature is always the best way to go.
          I already knew Usoskin’s paper, “A History of Solar Activity over Millennia”, probably from one of your comments here or It’s an important review paper and a *must read* for anyone wanting to have independent understanding of the important events happening in the Sun.
          His recent results showing chaotic-like pattern of solar grand minimums, with “a degree of self-organization or “memory””, indicate that the “memory-less” dynamo model is only a first approximation, it cannot explain grand minimums like the Maunder and the Sporer ones, not even if the tidal effects due to spin-orbit interaction with planets is included as in the SIM models.
          IMO the grand minimums and the direct connection of solar radiations with glacial periods, could indicate also the existence of long term forcing associated with the movement of the solar system with respect to neighboring stars.
          We are at the early stages of a real understanding of these phenomena.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thanks Gail, some wild ideas there at “Rewilding Institute”, but why not, learning with Nature is always the best way to go…..

          The big problem with “rewilding” is the predators do not stick to game animals. One neighbor had his sheep herd wiped out, another lost all his calves for the season and a third found his horse with a huge hole chewed through its side. Ribs and all. We had our dog, a German Shepard, killed.

          Also the US government used to keep records on wild animal attacks on humans. Since the “rewilding’ craze record keeping has been dropped.

          This is the typical response of “officials” to city coyote problems:

          GLENDALE, CA
          … said Troy Hardin, an environmental scientist for the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base. “We demand the open space, then we don’t want to share it.”

          Animal Rights Activists go even further:

          …Clutching her daughter’s death certificate in her hand, a visibly upset Cathy Keen told council members Tuesday that she was there to counter animal rights activist Pamelyn Ferdin’s suggestions that 3-year-old Kelly Lynn Keen died of some sort of blunt force trauma….

          Ferdin, a former child actress, said again Wednesday that she does not believe the girl died from a coyote attack. “I stand by my beliefs that a coyote did not kill (the girl).”…

          Keen and her husband, Robert, had been watching cable access coverage of the Glendale City Council meeting when they heard their names mentioned during public comments by activists opposing city plans to trap and kill coyotes.

          “I’m not here to discuss whether or not to trap coyotes, but when coyotes walk into your front yard, you have a problem,” Keen said. “And I will not be accused of child abuse, and I think Glendale needs to be responsible for their children.”

          In an interview Wednesday, Councilman Frank Quintero rebuked animal rights activists for the comments.

          “Leaving aside the merits of trapping coyotes, what the activists said at the dais was cruel and absolutely uninformed,” Quintero said.

          “Knowing the mother, it broke my heart that they would do that to her. When they were making the accusations, I was considering stopping them.”….
          link [Original article removed from net.]

          This attack was on the daughter of a family friend who is a police officer. It happen in Lowell a city just outside Boston in his yard. link

          …when he turned and saw a coyote lunge at his daughter, who only weighs about 28 pounds, and bite her in the leg.

          Martignetti said he hit the animal with an aluminum shovel, then kicked it before it released his daughter, who he hurried, along with his son, into the family garage.

          As he told his family to get inside and call 911, the coyote charged Martignetti, alternatively pacing in his driveway and running at him, knocking him down several times.

          On one charge, the animal bit Martignetti in the leg and knocked him down before he managed to finally get in a kick that sent the animal fleeing.

          If I recall correctly one CA city after several attacks on toddlers started trapping, shooting and poisoning coyotes. The death count was something like 50 coyotes in a square mile.
          If you think they are only snacking on livestock, think again.
          Adults are not safe either: A rising Canadian folk singer was killed by coyotes this week in a national park in Nova Scotia,

          ” A 3 year-old girl was attacked and killed by a coyote when she was playing unattended in her front yard. …” Some Reported Coyote Attacks on Children.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The coyote problem especially in cities, give a completely new meaning to “Gun Control”

          aka – Don’t hit your neighbor when you are shooting the coyotes attacking your toddler.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *