“The scientists observed less perennial ice cover in March 2007 than ever before, with the thick ice confined to the Arctic Ocean north of Canada. Consequently, the Arctic Ocean was dominated by thinner seasonal ice that melts faster. This ice is more easily compressed and responds more quickly to being pushed out of the Arctic by winds. Those thinner seasonal ice conditions facilitated the ice loss, leading to this year’s record low amount of total Arctic sea ice.

Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

“The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.
”

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001_prt.htm

Lockwood 2006 was cherry pickin good

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/image022.jpg

Read the paper. Fröhlich and Lockwood account for magnetic field variations, both solar and geo.

So, according to you, Lockwood was right in a 1998 letter that was little more than speculation, but is ‘incorrect’ nine years later after analyzing the accrued data on the matter.

That’s rich.

Luminous. Lockwood cites about doubling of solar magnetics during 20th century are totally disparate from his erroneous TSI conclusions in the subsequent paper, solar irradiance output is different from solar magnetic output, I am sure he stands by both conclusions.

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar
variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some
detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was
a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century
and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism
that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates
about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in
global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability,
whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar
variation is amplified.

The pdf:

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/22pepd

It is only in denialist-world that science works in reverse.

adhom: your argument is wrong because you are an idiot.

not adhom: your argument is not necessarily correct simply because you publish in a spurious journal.

Chris O’Neill: “Not half as suitable as using the satellite radiation measurements.”

windansea: “that makes sense, lets only use data that goes back 30 years”

From windansea’s earlier quote: “the role of solar activity in the global warming in the RECENT DECADES”

i.e. according to their abstract, their interest was RECENT DECADES. Windansea should try reading his quotes before he decides what the period of interest is.

“if solar magnetics might influence cloud formation”

Sure, just like GCR. Any other fairytales?

The carbon from the early Earth’s mostly-CO2 atmosphere is not now in coal from land plants in the Carboniferous — it will never be back in the atmosphere from any fossil fuel.

It’s mostly in chalk, limestone and dolomite, from the era when life began using it in the oceans.

“White Cliffs of Dover.”

http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/acolvil/sediment/divisions.gif

never go there, I found the graph here

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264

then clicked on the source for the CO2 data, looks legit to me.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

let me guess, the solar physics stuff is over your head and so you are reduced to adhoms about me and Italian astrophysicists.

Not half as suitable as using the satellite radiation measurements.

that makes sense, lets only use data that goes back 30 years to decide how a 5 billion year old star affects our climate, and lets only look at TSI, no fair to see if solar magnetics might influence cloud formation.