Arctic Sea Ice Stabilizes, No Trend Reduction In More Than 10 Years As Solar Cycle Starts Off Weakly

[Crick]

Typical interglacial period behavior. Nothing to see here.

I thought we were in a cooling phase of our interglacial cycle.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Typical interglacial period behavior. Nothing to see here.

No, we are beyond the interglacial peak. It should be getting colder very slowly. Instead it is getting warmer rather quickly as geological time scales go.

 

[ding]

I thought we were in a cooling phase of our interglacial cycle.

The geologic record is littered with examples of cooling and warming trends in interglacial periods. They look like saw teeth.

 

[ding]

No, we are beyond the interglacial peak. It should be getting colder very slowly. Instead it is getting warmer rather quickly as geological time scales go.

Says who?

 

[luiza]

. We are currently living through one of the greatest data hides in the history of physics with this sunspot hoax,

Just a snippet to indicate the official sunspot count for Solar Cycle 25 is completely falsified by Air Force and SWPC .

Data for January 10 , photos not included
The Air Force forced SWPC—at gunpoint, we presume—to undercount sunspots by more than 100 again today. The official count was 82, with a sunspot number of 142. But the photos were published at Solen.info, proving the fudge. As you can see, there are 11 active regions, plus about 140 spots, giving us around 250 for the sunspot number.
But the Air Force refuses to divide regions as they should, as is easy to see just by noticing how large that inset photo is for 13182. It should be split into three for the purpose of sunspot number.
Even Solen finds their divisions suspicious, as you see, having to tell you that SWPC is treating S8155 and 13181 as the same, when they clearly aren't. Those two fudges alone allow them to jettison 30 from the sunspot number. They have also just ignored the first region S8133, though there is a large multiple spot there. Also conspicuously ignored S8163.
Solar flux is also way up today in the biggest spike of the Cycle, again indicating they are sitting on the sunspot number. I remind you they are doing this to hide the monthly spike I predicted for January of 190, which we would be hitting but for all this fudging by the Air Force. We are currently living through one of the greatest data hides in the history of physics with this sunspot hoax, which is why I am making reports every few months. Without my logging of this crime against science, the future might never know of it.
Next day: Sun spots continue the hard spike, and even with huge fudging the Air Force couldn't keep them below 200. They surpassed 200 for the first time this cycle, with 201 being reported as the sunspot number today. However, according to the published charts, that is still 125 too low. There are 16 active regions, with Air Force ignoring half of them, or combining them. Then they undercounted by about 45, giving us a fudge of 125. So the real sunspot count should be about 325.
By far the highest of this cycle, going off the charts.

 

[psikeyhackr]

. We are currently living through one of the greatest data hides in the history of physics with this sunspot hoax,

Just a snippet to indicate the official sunspot count for Solar Cycle 25 is completely falsified by Air Force and SWPC ..

Hiding the Sun is no problem:

Current sunspot cycle activity - Solar Cycle 25; Space weather, solar storm and geomagnetic conditions, and radio propagation forecasts

 

[Crick]

Too Funny Crick....

Your own graph calls you out.... The short term, starting in 2008, becomes a zero average loss. This span of time is now significant enough to say the loss has stopped.


View attachment 747509

As long as we're cherrypicking, how about that stretch from 2015 to 2018? The mass loss rate was twice the long term trend.

Care to explain what would have caused the declining trend to end when Arctic temperatures have done this:

climate4you Polar temperatures

 

[mamooth]

Do you know what happened in that time frame? The sun shifted its output in what is being called solar dimming. This was a shift in Down Welling Solar Radiation (DWSR) in a very narrow band of the suns output. The loss of about 10% of the DWSR in the 0.2-0.8um that shifted into the 1.0 to 1.6um region.

Nah. That's justs some crazy stuff you mad up. That is, you just faked it. Your name here should be MrFudgy, because you fudge everything.

If it's not, I'm sure you can point us to the data that says what you claim.

You can run now. You always do, without fail, when you're challenged to back up your fraud.

 

[mamooth]

Antarctic sea ice is at record low levels.

Scientists Report a Dramatic Drop in the Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice - Inside Climate News

The new year started with the familiar refrain of climate extremes, as scientists with the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Jan. 3 that the sea ice around Antarctica dropped to its lowest extent on record for early January. “The current low sea ice extent … is extreme, and frankly we...

insideclimatenews.org

In the 1980s, Dr. Manabe predicted, using models, that Antarctic sea ice area would initially increase, due to the freshening of the surface water caused by runoff from the continents glaciers. He also predicted that rising ocean temperatures would eventually overwhelm that effect, and sea ice area would come crashing down.

That's what we've seen. Once more, what the science predicted was exactly right.

 

[mamooth]

. We are currently living through one of the greatest data hides in the history of physics with this sunspot hoax,

And the purpose of this undercounting sunspots hoax is ... what?

Is it your contention that the US Air Force controls sunspot-counting across the entire planet?

 

[ding]

Antarctic sea ice is at record low levels.

Scientists Report a Dramatic Drop in the Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice - Inside Climate News

The new year started with the familiar refrain of climate extremes, as scientists with the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Jan. 3 that the sea ice around Antarctica dropped to its lowest extent on record for early January. “The current low sea ice extent … is extreme, and frankly we...

insideclimatenews.org

In the 1980s, Dr. Manabe predicted, using models, that Antarctic sea ice area would initially increase, due to the freshening of the surface water caused by runoff from the continents glaciers. He also predicted that rising ocean temperatures would eventually overwhelm that effect, and sea ice area would come crashing down.

That's what we've seen. Once more, what the science predicted was exactly right.

Pretty typical for an interglacial period.

 

[Old Rocks]

You never addressed post one CONTENT in the first place as you deflect to something else.

The chart in YOUR link supports Post one you never read it is why you look dumb every time you do this.

Here is a similar chart based on PIOMAS. View attachment 641257

Damn, but you are one dumb fuck. Yes, there is variation in the decline of the polar ice, however, one look confirms that the trend is definitely down. You could get an even steeper curve from 1980 to 1985.

 

[Old Rocks]

We have sea ice data on previous interglacial cycles?

Actually we do. Proxies. Look it up.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I thought we were in a cooling phase of our interglacial cycle.

We are but that reality is too much for you to handle.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Damn, but you are one dumb fuck. Yes, there is variation in the decline of the polar ice, however, one look confirms that the trend is definitely down. You could get an even steeper curve from 1980 to 1985.

I notice you are disputing PIOMAS data which does show no more decline after 2008 as stated before while you run back to 1980-1985 which no one here is disputing.

Your defections are too easy to spot, your desperation is easy to see.

Too funny!!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Too Funny Crick....

Your own graph calls you out.... The short term, starting in 2008, becomes a zero average loss. This span of time is now significant enough to say the loss has stopped.


View attachment 747509

He is very determined to ignore it because he has no way to beat you except to lie to himself over it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No, we are beyond the interglacial peak. It should be getting colder very slowly. Instead it is getting warmer rather quickly as geological time scales go.

It has been cooling for around 3,500 years which has been known for a few decades.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Nah. That's justs some crazy stuff you mad up. That is, you just faked it. Your name here should be MrFudgy, because you fudge everything.

If it's not, I'm sure you can point us to the data that says what you claim.

You can run now. You always do, without fail, when you're challenged to back up your fraud.

He posted two links which you ignored by ranting instead.

POST 34 is explaining it in some detail your one attempt in the thread was an utter failure.

 

[Crick]

Do you know what happened in that time frame? The sun shifted its output in what is being called solar dimming. This was a shift in Down Welling Solar Radiation (DWSR) in a very narrow band of the suns output. The loss of about 10% of the DWSR in the 0.2-0.8um that shifted into the 1.0 to 1.6um region. This change made little effect of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). What it did do was move energy from a region our oceans could uptake that energy and store it and place it in a region where the energy is defeated in the evaporation layer of our ocean.

I don't expect you to understand this. You can read more about why --> Zone1 - Is Long-Wave Infra-Red Radiation Capable of Warming Earth's Oceans?

A second of my postings: Solar Dimming... What is at stake With This Change on our Sun?

You really are desperate, aren't you. Let's see some links to some studies published by real science journals. Nature. PNAS. WMO for god's sake. You're talking earth-shaking news. The scientists must be going nuts about it. Let's hear what they have to say.

 

[Crick]

I'll keep looking but the first dozen or more scholarly articles returned for "solar dimming" got me studies on geoengineering proposals. I did find, that the sun's normal 11-year cycle began its minimum back in December 2019 and is expected to continue till 2030. Nothing new there. So, what is different about this minimum than any other minimum; numerous of which global warming has already passed through?