Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Record September Increase

5 Responses to Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Record September Increase

1. Gail Combs says:

   September 27, 2015 at 12:48 pm

   Looks like it is closing in on 2005. Since there is already plenty of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year ice left this summer, it should be interesting.

   The solar F10.7 Flux is continuing to nose dive from the higher values of last year.

   http://www.solen.info/solar/images/solar.png

   From NOAA:
   http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-10-cm-radio-flux.gif

   AP Progression (Ap Geomagnetic Index) has shown a slight increase but still is now where near that of the relatively weak cycle 23 peak. It usually lags Sunspot number. (more next comment)

   http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif

   Solar variability and climate change’ Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature
   E.W. Cliver •and V. Borikoff •
   Air Force Research Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts
   J. Feynman
   Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California

   Abstract.

   …Our analysis is admittedly crude and ignores known contributors to climate change such as warming by anthropogenic greenhouse-gases or cooling by volcanic aerosols ….

   Introduction.
   ….In particular, various authors have noted that solar irradiance proxies and global surface temperatures declined for an interval during the middle of the present century while the concentration of greenhouse gases such as CO2, which cause global warming, rose monotonically. …

   Discussion
   The implication is that the geomagnetic minimum between cycles 23 and 24 (in -.•2007) will not exceed that of the 1996 geomagnetic minimum(18.6 nT) which itself wa s slightly lower than the 1987 aa minimum (19.0 nT), and that the underlying trend in solar irradiance will and that the underlying trend in solar irradiance will continue to be fiat or downward. As of this writing it appears that the average aa value for 1997 will be even lower (-.•16nT) than that of 1996.

   Such a leveling off or decline of the long-term solar component of climate change will help to disentangle its effects from that of anthropogenic greenhouse warming .

   More at : http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-paper-argues-current-lull-in-solar.html

   Of note Bob Weber said “According to my solar flux model, we will experience a downturn in SSTs when solar flux (F10.7) attains a consistent level below 120 sfu/day on a monthly basis….” Well Bob it looks like we are there now.

   Reply
2. Gail Combs says:

   September 27, 2015 at 12:55 pm

   Since the Feynman paper is written about the aa index and I showed the recent Ap index here is the difference:
   NOAA:
   Major Magentic Storms 1868-2007
   According to the AA* criteria

   A simple global index of magnetic activity is produced in France from the K indices of two nearly antipodal magnetic observatories in England and Australia. This index aa, is the 3-hourly equivalent amplitude antipodal index. Daily average AA may be derived similarly to Ap. An historical advantage to using aa rather than ap is that these indices have been extended back in time through scaling of magnetic activity from magnetograms of earlier observations. The aa indices are derived from 1868 to the present. An AA* index has been derived that is the counterpart of Ap* but is available for a longer span of years. However, the AA* is derived from indices from only two magnetic observatories whereas Ap* incorporates indices from more observatories.

   Because of the difference in units of presentation, the values of AA* and Ap* are not the same so that different major magnetic storm onset and end threshold values are used for the two series. However their comparison for the years of overlapping coverage show that relative frequency of occurrence of major storms per year are similar. Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and.or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects. Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900….
   https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/geomag/aastar.html

   Note they stop the graph at 2007 before the 2009 nosedive. Also note the aa index generally peaks after the sunspot peak as it is doing now.

   https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/geomag/image/aassn07.jpg

   Reply
3. Ron Clutz says:

   September 27, 2015 at 3:18 pm

   MASIE is also showing the Arctic Ice Rebound, and has now provided their records fore the last 10 years. Analysis here:
   https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/arctic-ice-rebound/

   Reply
4. Barbara says:

   September 28, 2015 at 1:50 am

   Hi Gwen: Is the J. Feynman, JPL, the daughter Joan of my hero Richard Feynman?
   Thanks.

   Reply
   • Gail Combs says:

     September 28, 2015 at 5:21 am

     J. Feynman is Joan Feynman his younger sister that he instilled a love of science in.

     One of my mother’s earliest memories is of standing in her crib at the age of about 2, yanking on her 11-year-old brother’s hair. This brother, her only sibling, was none other than Richard Feynman, destined to become one of the greatest theoretical physicists of his generation: enfant terrible of the Manhattan Project, pioneer of quantum electrodynamics, father of nanotechnology, winner of the Nobel Prize, and so on. At the time, he was training his sister to solve simple math problems and rewarding each correct answer by letting her tug on his hair while he made faces. When he wasn’t doing that, he was often seen wandering around Far Rockaway, New York, with a screwdriver in his pocket, repairing radios—at age 11, mind you.

     My mother worshipped her brother, and there was never any doubt about what he would
     become. By the time she was 5, Richard had hired her for 2 cents a week to assist him in the electronics lab he’d built in his room. “My job was to throw certain switches on command,” she recalls. “I had to climb up on a box to reach them. Also, sometimes I’d stick my finger in a
     spark gap for the edification of his friends.” At night, when she called out for a glass of water, Riddy, as he was called, would demonstrate centrifugal force by whirling it around in the air so that the glass was upside down during part of the arc. “Until, one night,” my mother recalls, “the glass slipped out of his hand and flew across the room.”

     Richard explained the miraculous fact that the family dog, the waffle iron, and
     Joan herself were all made out of atoms. He would run her hand over the corner of
     a picture frame, describe a right triangle and make her repeat that the sum of the
     square of the sides was equal to the square of the hypotenuse. “I had no idea what it meant,” she says, “but he recited it like a poem, so I loved to recite it too.” One night, he roused her from her bed and led her outside, down the street, and onto a nearby golf course. He pointed out washes of magnificent light that were streaking across the sky. It was the aurora borealis. My mother had discovered her destiny.

     That is when the trouble started. Her mother, Lucille Feynman, was a sophisticated
     and compassionate woman who had marched for women’s suffrage in her youth. Nonetheless, when 8-year-old Joanie announced that she intended to be a scientist, Grandma explained that it was impossible. “Women can’t do science,” she said, “because their brains can’t understand enough of it.” My mother climbed into a living room chair and sobbed into the cushion. “I know she thought she was telling me the inescapable truth. But it was devastating for a little girl to be told that all of her dreams were impossible. And I’ve doubted my abilities ever since.”

     …. It wasn’t until her 14th birthday—March 31, 1942—that her notion of becoming a scientist was revived. Richard presented her with a book called Astronomy. “It was a college textbook. I’d start reading it, get stuck, and then start over again. This went on for months, but I kept at it. When I reached page 407, I came across a graph that changed my life.” My mother shuts her eyes and recites from memory: “‘Relative strengths of the Mg+ absorption line at 4,481 angstroms . . . from Stellar Atmospheres by Cecilia Payne.’ Cecilia Payne! It was scientific proof that a woman was capable of writing a book that, in turn, was quoted in a text. The secret was out, you see.”…..
     http://www.aas.org/cswa/status/2003/JANUARY2003/MyMotherTheScientist.html

     Thank goodness my parents did not do that to me. It was my brother who told me I was too dumb to take science in high school. Not one to back down from a challenge, I got a chemistry and a physics (and Calculus) text book each summer and studied hard. Then I breezed through high school math and science since I was reading my brothers first year college textbooks.

     Reply