sculptor

If the prognostications of the sun going into a grand minimum are correct, and we just exited a grand maximum, is this a very odd occurrence? Looking for previous times when this happened, the best I've found was this from Ilya Usoskin: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/...008-3Color.pdf Sunspot activity (over decades, smoothed with a 12221 filter) throughout the Holocene, reconstructed from 14C by Usoskin et al. (2007) using geomagnetic data by Yang et al. (2000). Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively. If Ilia is correct, then changes of this magnitude seem to have happened rarely, and at the beginning of the holocene. Darned curious? Your thoughts? rod

as/re schism: The game ain't worth the candle I'd rather discuss the science. grand maxima grand minima milankovitch ....anyone?

as/re rate of change of CO2 We really do not have any firm data on rates of change going back beyond the limits of the ice cores which have not been garbled by drift.(If you have data I've missed, Please share.) Claiming rates of change before the limits of the data is speculation and conjecture. Speculation is essential for the advancement of science. We should always recognize it when we use it or see it. When i last was at university, it was still conjectured and being taught that paleotemperature changes in and out of glaciations, and within glaciations happened at a glacial pace. The same was claimed for sea level rise and fall. These has since been proven false. When it happens, it happens damned fast. Changing much much faster than it has over the last century. Moving ten degrees C within a few(4) decades. All that we can really do is to watch for subtle changes that might swing the balance, much like watching nature's trim tab. For growing glaciers, we most likely need warm water and cold atmosphere for snow growth rates exceeding 5 ft/yr. ............................... as/re the solar cycles Is it unusual for us to go from a grand solar maximum into a grand solar minimum without a pause in the middle? Do we have the data necessary to determine usual and unusual? ......................... I'm beginning to doubt that the current usage/assumptions of the milankovitch cycles is firmly grounded in reality. The expected results in the ice cores do not quite line up with the supposed influence of the cycles. One core showed an approximate 38600 year cycle where a 41,000yr cycle was expected. Perhaps, the periodicity of the cycles are altered by the magnetic and gravitational influences of the other bodies within this solar system? Within our travels through the galaxy? .............. Have you seen any papers delineating percentage of the last centuries heat gains between solar and anthropogenic? Aside from the US army's prognosticator on the subject---69% solar, I've not found any claimed numbers. Please share if you have. ...................... Buffy, I was listening to Tchaikovsky, while reading you. We change the meanings of the language by our usage. The language evolves through our influence. (Part of me is just crazy enough to long for what Confucius called "true speaking" wherein each word had only one meaning-----------------forever. I suspect that that is the definition of a "dead language": Saved from extinction by like minded loonies.? )

as/re relative strengths: There's the rub. There is currently a great schism in the scientific community between the solar scientists, and those focusing on the anthropocene. It seems as though the anthropocene guys are ignoring the astrophysicists, and some of the solar scientists are beginning to refer to the anthropocene guys as though they were mentally ill, or have chosen ignorance as a way of life. Some solar scientists are completely dismissing the AGW claims. These guys really need to get over their personal problems and combine their research so that we actually can have some semblance of a consensus as to the relative forcings of man vs the sun. In the meantime. we amateurs are left with our own biases to lead us to our own guestimates. The CO2 levels ain't "unprecedented". Many times in the past we have had much higher global average temperatures and much higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2. .................. as/re :ignore all of the science," Some folks just don't love the research. Some pretend to understand the science. Some have personal agendas. Some just want to seem important. Some "scientists" seem to think that hyperbole is a valid communication device. I suspect that these brazen fools do more harm to the science than even the most ardent luddite could. Personally, I worry often about rampant willful ignorance, and the oft voiced desire for someone to do something about something that is not understood or well thought out. Kind of like how teenagers drive. meanwhile, I have Tchaikovsky's 6th on----a tad heavy on the strings for my tastes, but i really do like it.

Hi CraigD far fetched--- far out fersure I have too many tabs open on this old computer to do a thorough search. I found that little tidbit while reading what's new in discussions of the wolf-gleissberg cycles. I think it was a link from a discussion as to the pattern being based on using jovian years as mentioned here in post #61. I cannot remember the path I took in finding that little tidbit, but the astrophysics blogosphere has many inputs on the subject. If memory serves this is an old supposition dating back before the early 80s. one of the early prognostications would have been from Schwentek and Elling circa early 80s I'll try and remember the path I took, but here's a researchgate link to an article by wilson.et.al. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/252842547_Does_a_Spin-Orbit_Coupling_Between_the_Sun_and_the_Jovian_Planets_Govern_the_Solar_Cycle I think that timo also weighed in on the subject Please share your thoughts as to the validity of the hypothesis ............................. as re droughts and floods Nothing I've found in researching paleoclimates during warmer periods, like mis11 and 31 support those prognostications. For mis 11, there was a dig in Tenessee which showed virtually no change from present. The general rule seems to be that colder= dryer, warmer= wetter. Sometimes, it seems that when people do not have faith in their research or product, they fall back on using fear as a sales tool. ......................................... may I borrow your brain to opine on the recent solar maximum Do you think that the much higher than normal solar activity starting circa 1940 could accurately be described as a grand solar maximum? For minima, we have long and short cycle delineation as in...long sporer minima and short maunder minima, is the same applied to maxima?

Have you looked at the long term solar cycles? Would you like me to provide some links? Do you understand that we have most likely just exited a grand solar maximum? From the climate records it becomes obvious that solar maxima are coincidental with higher temperatures on earth, and that solar minima are coincidental with lower temperatures on earth. It seems silly to assume that lower temperatures here on earth are causal to solar minima, or that higher temperatures here on earth are causal to solar maxima----------so until/unless we find some other causal mechanism, the model wherein the sun drives climate extremes here on earth seems the most likely. If it comes to it, remember what I posted for Yoron: I do not care to change people's mindsets. If you want to learn, a good overview would be: "A History of Solar Activity over Millennia"byIlya G. Usoskin Therein, you will find an introduction to the solar scientists and their studies.

Do not doubt my "conclusions" I have no conclusions I have no answers (I once wrote a 17 page paper laying out an hypothesis, supporting it with other studies, and systematically dismissing one null-hypothesis after another, then in the last paragraph, mentioning an unexamined null---------the prof told me that I had "completely sold him on the hypothesis then dashed his hopes in the conclusion"-----I told him that, from me, there were no conclusions, just a series of questions and refinements and ever evolving indications of directionality with no end in sight) What I do have is one hell of an eclectic education, and an inquiring and critical mind and an ability to recognize pattern and the disruption of pattern. Ok? Any thoughts on wolf-gleissberg? Any thoughts on the (most likely) missing components of current climate models? Any thoughts on the works of Emeliani or Eddy?

yes, wasps do eat spider mites one of the reasons i tolerate the occasional sting the bees are the primary pollinators, and the most common in the greenhouse are the large native bumble bees who nest in the ground. outside, there are several local varieties of smaller native bees, but they rarely venture into the greenhouse as/re #66, I do not dismiss the knowledge-----great stuff really, but as quoted from the lake e people, the current models focusing on green house gasses and orbital cycles cannot explain the super interglacials---------which tells me that we need better models before reaching conclusions----- 'so if conclusions are drawn from climate models that cannot accurately encompass climate field data, the models are obviously flawed(incomplete), and their conclusions suspect. You call them answers, i call them conclusions. And, perhaps most importantly, I suspect that too many people expect "answers" from science. Looking back over the history of science, we will find that most "answers" were just wrong. Good starts for further inquiry, but not the ultimate and usually not even the penultimate. Just another step on the road. One of my degrees is in anthropology/archaeology, and I will swear that many of the "answers" of 30-40 years ago have been replaced by new paradigms. Klaus Schmit's gobekli tepe was such a paradigm shifter for anthropology. The lake e findings were such a paradigm shifter for paleoclimatology, and by extension for climatology. The scariest thing about "scientific answers" is that they stifle the real nitty gritty of science which is always the next questions. So, always question the "answers" they are just steps. If we know that A leads to B and B leads to C, do we assume that C is the answer, or do we look for the next step to D and beyond?

Yoron: I do not care to change people's mindsets. I try to do what I think is right. Even with helpers I've hired over the years, I lead, if they want to follow, I'll share my skill-sets. After all those years of education, i chose to work with my hands---------I have referred to it as "outsmarting inanimate objects" . I'd rather change a diaper than a mindset. as/re your earlier, I have found in my studies, that many people focus exclusively within their fields of study, and have not the luxury of an objective viewpoint. Scientists are no different from the rest of us, we all have the ability and curse of narrow focus. Sometimes, that means that they are doing really good research within narrow parameters, which may lead to mistakes of assumption of relative magnitude of integrated forcings. (not seeing the forest for the trees) Case in point, greenhouse gasses are well recognized as feedback forcings, and some go a step farther and assume them to be causal factors. I suspect that that mindset excludes non studied causal factors to the detriment of the accuracy of the conclusions drawn from their studies. (which is, why I mention other potential causal factors) We have so much yet to learn and understand. It seems that no one knows for sure why we enter or exit an ice age, why we have had superinterglacials, why we switched from a roughly 41,000 year glacial cycle at the beginning of this ice age to the current roughly 100,000 year glacial periods common for the last million years. The lake e team, in reference to the superinterglacials said: I suspect that this assumption of unknown "additional climate feedbacks" may interfere with seeing actual causal factors. Not only do we not have the answers, at times it seems that we still need to find the right questions. I view science as advancing by asking better and better questions. I'm not really sure what you were getting at in post #66.

sculptor said Equable meaning free from extremes, I don't understand the argument you are making here. Can you clarify? for the time Julie was referencing, another study in a cave in Tennessee found pollen from C3 plants . which pretty much describes the climate of Tennessee today so, a much warmer arctic, with little change at 40degrees latitude = (most likely) an equable climate So Julie mentioned 1/2 of story. Tennessee is another part. Equable is used to indicate less temperature variation from the equator to the poles. To my ecological mindset, this is a good thing. .................... symbiosis within the gestalt eg: symbiosis---bees and wasps visit the greenhouse. When they're done with the plants, and are buzzing the glass doors, I let them out. They pollinate the plants and eat the spider mites and I am their humble doorman-------------staying humble around wasps and bees is usually a good idea. we have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. My greenhouse plants exhale O and inhale CO2, I exhale CO2 and inhale O. We have a symbiotic relationship. As we have mostly left the land, many symbiotic bargains are no longer being honored. eg: the blackberry plants provide nice juicy berries so that we will eat them, then wander off and poop out the seeds with a little fertilizer so that they can colonize new spaces. If the blackberry plant had a vote, it'd most likely vote against toilets. I ain't bright enough to postulate well about the gestalt. I know we're part of it, and I understand some of the interrelations, but lack a holistic gestalten mind-set that would net me any specifics from the whole. ........ we just put the trotline in, with any luck, we dine on catfish for breakfast

point by point Judgement call................hmm another posted a query as to my "position" I really don't have one. I may voice one from time to time as a conversational tool, but nothing is anchored in stone, or anchored at all really, kind of like being hooked by a snag in a river, I'll pause awhile and examine the snag before drifting along on my quest for knowledge to quench my insatiable curiosity. (about me) I am just a very curious fellow, I always have been. When i was in highschool and got driving privileges, I ditched school to go to the museum(I got caught doing this once at the museum of science and industry when i walked around a corner and right into the chest of one of my teachers---------busted) I spent the better part of 13 years sucking what knowledge I could out of the professors at 5 different universities. I once described my quest as, "finding a likely professor, knocking him down, pulling out my knowledge sucking straw, and sucking his little brain dry before moving on to my next victim". Mostly i post to get feedback. One thing I miss about the universities, was that I never hesitated to interrupt a professor to clarify a point of knowledge----delightfully, none of them ever seemed to mind. So, hello professor, you are the proxy today ....... By symbiosis, I tend to want to focus on the minutia of our relationships to each living entity as an individual species. With large groupings, like plants, it's simple. The primary producers want more CO2 and we want food and oxygen and energy, homes, tools, and toys, etc. If we keep feeding them more and more CO2, we should probably start looking at other nutrients they might need, especially if we can get the CO2 up over 600ppm. We are one small part of a shared co-evolutionary biom that has been changing for millions and millions of years, and found many comfortable balances through adaptation to constant change. Species rise to prominence or dominance altering the balance. action = reaction and every living thing finds or alters a niche. We're the smart ones. We're the ones who should understand our myriad symbiotic relationships with each and every individual. Curiously, I'm rather convinced that our "primitive" hunter gatherer ancestors had a much more intuitive understanding of that which I would intellectualize. ......... as/re equable climate. Curiously, not all scientists who recognize evidence of this in their special study niche phrase it as such. for example: ........... as/re permafrost CH4 It'll be a bit of a race as the temperatures rise and the permafrost melts, the trees are marching north and some of the stalwarts in the leading ranks are the aformentioned CH4 eaters. Balance has to remain a suppositional guess until we have better data as/re the leading edge of the treeline. (and, that is also supposition)

as/re superinterglacials: If you've not yet seen it, I'd like to recommend viewing Julie Brigham-Grette's presentation before the nsf for an introduction to super-inter-glacials. When first I saw this, Julie became my current favorite "fifty foot tall woman". She is a giant, stand on her shoulders and see farther. (and, she is darned cute too) here's a link:

I'd like to address the comments made by Buffy, Eclogite, and Yuron concerning the 10-11 year down trend mentioned previously. In and of itself, the short trend of small change seems meaningless. However, when I noticed it, something kept tugging at the edge of my consciousness and stored memories. I first began studying climate during the time I took the meteorology series at Southern Illinois University circa 1971-72. Picked it up again at Florida Atlantic University, then again at The University of Illinois in Chicago(circa '77-'81)...............so, many of the dusty old memory files are stored in different places, so it took me awhile to understand why I thought this seemingly small and insignificant change in trend might be an indicator of something of more import. Please follow as I try to explain: First a brief history into the evolution of an idea(shoulders of giants...). In the 1850s Rudolf Wolf published his construction of solar activity based on limited materials(no Chinese nor Arab data) going back to 1700. Along with the @11 year cycle, he also found an @83 year cycle between minima and/or between maxima for that time-frame. This latter was all but forgotten until the early part of the last century, when the cycles and Wofl's comments were "rediscovered" by Schmidt, Turner, Clayton, etc...and gained the attention of Wolfgang Gleissberg. Gleissberg dedicated much time and effort, and no small amount of print to expanding and expounding the knowledge. After which, the minimum to minimum had been known as the Gleissberg cycle until quite recently(credit where credit is due), Wolf reentered the picture, and now the cycles are known as Wolf-Gleissberc cycles. One little problem with setting actual dates for the turning points of the bottoms or tops of Wolf-Gleissberc cycles is that they are based on sunspot numbers which are somewhat subjective in nature. There are at-least 3 different commonly used ways of recognizing sunspots and then counting them. It seems somewhat confusing at times to be looking at the same dates and seeing different numbers.The length of the cycles is not constant - it varies quite considerably (approximately 85 ± 15 years)Alternately, the Gleissberg cycle is not a cycle in the strict periodic sense but rather a modulation of the cycle envelope with a varying timescale of 60 – 120 years That being said:The last Wolf-Gleissberg minimum happened sometime around 1910, which is about when we started our recent warming trend(see noaa graph above--post #39).The top has variously said to have happened in 1997. 1998, or 2005.Even the 1997 number at 87 years would have stretched beyond the Wolf average of 83 years. Gleissberg, however offered a range that runs from 70 years to 100 years and is normally referred to in Jovian years, as it is thought that the cycles are governed by Jupiter's torque on tidal bulges of the sun(see Ian Wilson's tidal torque theory). Either way, if their observations and hypotheses hold true, we were due for a turn down in solar activity. And that is exactly what we are seeing(so far). Every time we've seen a dip in solar activity into a minimum, we have also seen a dip in global temperatures. Professor Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth and Environmental Studies, the University of Western Australia, recently presented a paper in Poznan, Poland, in which he described the sun as the major control of climate, but not through greenhouse gases.”There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate. Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling". So, with that knowledge in hand, we look at the recent change in trend, which seems insignificant on it's own, but in light of Wolf-Gleissberg seems to hold the potential for more radical change. The trick is always in sensing the difference between real change and background noise. Ok: If we accept the likelihood that Wolf-Gleissberg et. al. were onto something, then we should expect the most likely conclusion would be global cooling for the next few decades. We also had a Wolf-Gleissberg / solar minimum around 1900 which had much less impact than the named Maunder or Dalton minima(aside from some failed crops in the late 1880's)Which would equate to less reliability for any prognostications as to a bottom of the most likely coming minimum. Do we expect a small drop in temperatures, or something a tad more violent like the winter of 1709 during which the harbor at Venice froze over? and tens(hundreds?) of thousands died of malnutrition and cold.If the Suess-deVries cycle holds true, we just may see that again soon. Landscheidt anyone? alternately: Superinterglacials(a superinterglacial lasts over twice as long as a "normal" interglacial and is usually much warmer)We have the seeming 400,000 year alignment of the orbital(milankovitch) cycles which coincides with that which was during the last superinterglacial mis11. It was much warmer then, with a forested arctic, and mostly melted greenland and collapsed westantarctic ice sheets. So, maybe the 400k pattern means something? Curiously : That pattern seems interrupted. It holds true between mis31 and mis49(both superinterglacials) and again for 55 to mis 77(2 more superinterglacials).The alignments give hope for an extended holocene interglacial, but the gaps remain unexplained with current knowledge. Ok so, on the one hand, we have most likely cooling as/re solar output.On the other hand we have the possibility warming of being in a superinterglacial, And anthropogenic atmospheric forcing. The next few years should really be interesting.Has the science adequate instrumentation in place to understand what we will be experiencing?

Fear, has always been much like a big neon sign saying "LOOK HERE". Truth be known, I am a rather timid fellow---in the army, someone said that there were 3 ways of approaching fear of battle. Those who were afraid before the battle were timid Those afraid during the battle were cowards and those who were afraid after the battle were fools being in one category does not preclude being in another category. Fear may indeed be a survival mechanism---(though i would prefer the word "apprehension") If "fear" keeps us from examining the causal factors of that fear, then fear may become an extinction mechanism. This from the youngest general that the us army has ever had: "Ride to the sound of the guns." (of course, the damned fool ended up riding to his death)

If I may be so bold: is a judgement call, which is most likely a product of an emotional response fear. Is fear not an emotional manifestation of ignorance? Do we not fear that which we do not know? Let us examine the role trees play in the CH4 part of the carbon cycle: While examining previously declared CH4 "hot-spots": Symbiosis has been, is now, and will most likely always be the best lens through which to view our biom. The plants were here first. They may let us think that we're playing the tune, but they are the self constructed fiddle. May i suggest looking into the more equable climates of previous warmer periods within the paleoclimate records?

Why is climate change mostly viewed in the negative?

my carbon footprint is negative I'm lighter than air When i got here to Iowa, I consulted the local forester from the dnr. He came out and looked at the land and my planting plan, made a few recommendations, and gave some advice. Following which I rototilled the spots for the trees, crawled around on my hands and knees and planted mixed 1458 trees for a biologically diverse forest. With the care in the planting, and watering and weeding, i now live and work in a CO2 eating forest full of birdsong and oxygen. The forest eats about 35 tons of CO2 annually. While digging the foundation for my studio, I had the backhoe guy dig a frog pond----this was 23 years ago and I was unaware of the chytrid, but the frogs got a pesticide free pond. We lost the green frogs but still have leopard frogs, pickerel frogs, tree frogs, peepers, and toads. The evenings are full of frogsong. The guy who sold the place bragged that it was the worst rated corn farm in the county. Over the years the forest has rebuilt almost 6 inches of rich forest soil over the brown fayette sub soil. The buildings are super insulated with r38-r44 walls and r60-r80 ceilings, with most of the fenestration on the south and east walls. I built an attached greenhouse/solar collector which supplies over 1/4 of the heating load---eg: it is 50 degreesF outside today and 100 degrees in the greenhouse(on a day with full sun, it gets over 129 degrees), and that heat is blown down to the lowest basement under the garage. The set-up heats the thermal mass down there to eighty degrees, which warms the air which rises to warm the house and studio all night long. (the greenhouse is where I was working when i fell off the scaffold) I garden and compost through a flock of free range chickens. Most of what I buy to eat comes from less than 30 miles away from here. I suppose that i could be a little bit greener, but could die tomorrow satisfied in the knowledge that I am not, was not and will not be part of the ecological problem. My one son once accused me of being a conservationist, to which i responded: "well, I would've been a conservationist if there was anything here worth conserving. The old maps showed a forest here, so that is what I recreated----------call me a recreationist" ................. I see a lot of problems with our society, and agw is real low on the list. Up the list are overuse of aquifers, pesticides, herbicides, monoculture, overspending on useless wars and prisons and under-spending on science and education. The ridiculously high cost of education, and debt, enslaves millions to the yoke of the economic imperative. The lake el'gygytgyn project cost less than one fighter plane, and completely reformed our concepts of previous interglacials. We need more investment in science. That being said: reduce your consumption repair rebuild and reuse everything that comes under your control, then recycle be green plant a tree, or 2 or 3 or.....1458, then nurture them until they're big enough and old enough to take care of themselves. Do this, and you will enrich your life far beyond that which you could do with the power of money.

as/re: Whadd'ya mean "we" white girl ;)

Point here being that sure there are "potential influences" that we have no evidence for, but really, betting your public policy that something that is NOT happening, and which we have no conclusive evidence might happen soon, is risky at best. Buffy: You seem to be defending an AGW position. True?

oops yer right i should have posted 35 decades, not 35years! Thanx. To quote the president who was in when i exited the army: "I misspoke myself". I ain't quite where I'd predict a continuation of the down trend If cycle 25 turns out low, and 26 follows making for a grand minimum, then, yeh, most likely . Are you familiar with the work of Gleissberg and the (now called) Wolf-Gleissberg cycles? If the concept is accurate, then we may be in for a much longer downtrend. But, I have a "look closely, then wait and see" attitude. So, that ain't actually my argument----just a conversational foil. as/re picking trends I chose the preceding years only because they were the preceding years. You are correct, in that we have had several up trends and downtrends in a (potential) Gleissberg cycle's uptrend. so picking just a few years could yield different trends, both up and/or down. If cycle 25 is lower than 24, then we'll know more in a decade or so. From the charts posted, one could honestly say that the last decade was the warmest on record(for the years available). and One could honestly say that the recent trend is down. These are not mutually exclusive. Given Gleissberg, and given the low cycle 24, and prognostications of a lower 25, if I were to bet with even odds, I'd bet for lower temps in 10 years. This is by no means a prediction of trend. Just pocket change on a hunch. Conversely given our similarity to mis 11(as re the 400kyr pattern in milankovitch cycles, I'd also bet on warmer temperatures 1000 years hence in direct contrast to Emiliani's hypothesis).

Buffy lol ain't this amazing, I'm actually certain that you are reading the chart wrong, and it seems that you are absolutely certain that I am reading the chart wrong. ok maybe a longer term chart will help?....: Please note the period from roughly 1910 to 1937 We were below the baseline 20th century average, but warming toward that baseline. We went above in '37 below in 46 above in 51, etc and began the recent climb in mid '60s, faltered below again, then resumed the climb in heat above the baseline again circa '77. From the baseline, we;ve only gained .6 degrees, for the century .7 degrees, and from the 1919 low a full degree. Just because 1910-1937 was below the baseline does not mean that we were not warming then. We were in a warming trend from 1911 to 1944, then cooled for 6-7 years. Just because we are still above the baseline does not mean we are still warming(not cooling), The chart is rough, but shows us topping out(at max temperature above the baseline) in '98, '05, and 2010 The anomalies are either above or below the "baseline" = 20th century average The change relative to the preceding indicates gaining or losing heat = trend.---which is currently down Choosing a 10 or in the above case 11 year trendline just smooths the change out to a decade. here's the link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global If you look at 1900-1999, the trendline shows us gaining about .7 degrees over the last century. At the loss-trend of the previous 11 years --.02 degrees per decade we have 35 years to erase those gains. Are we on the same page now?

Turtle: That's a tad nihilistic for my taste. We are an amazing species and are creating new technological miracles almost daily. Maybe nothing we can do about it today but i cannot/willnot predict the future. In defense of New Orleans, (I ain't kept up with it but) a couple years ago, New Orleans was the 5th busiest port in the world. We are still the world's biggest food exporter and much of that goes out through new Orleans. If given the option of either rebuilding the port where it is, or dredging a deep ship channel farther up-river, I'd opt for rebuilding where it is, knowing that the option may not last more'n a century or 2 or so.

LOL (does NOI mean "no offense intended? if so, then noi) (pardon me for one more LOL) as re the noaa chart Amazingly, every single time I have posted that curio(graph), people completely misunderstand why i posted it. :huh: Here's noaa's blurb on the anomalies: So, they're extrapolating from their blended average over the past century as a baseline. Which translates to we're still warmer than the 20th century average. With 2-thirty year warming trends during that century, that should come as no surprise. True? What i was attempting to reference was "trend"(albeit a very small and short one). But their trendline does indeed support why i posted the referenced the chart. ok? Have you ever been looking for something and while staring right at it not seen it? I have, which is one of the reasons why i openly share my known biases ----just in case I was staring right at something and not seeing it. That is not, however the case for this chart. The trend is towards cooler, not from the baseline average of the last century but, from our maximum gains. (at the current 11 year rate---.02 degrees C per decade) the warmth gained from the last century should last quite awhile longer before hitting the last century baseline. (not to worry) ............ santa is a motive spirit or concept, and seems to be alive and well. (When my sons were of an age when they doubted santa, i suggested: "Just write santa a letter and see what happens" My son cedric took my advice and just before christmass received several packages "from santa" with the return address washington dc.) ..... lol, the passover bunny who kept saying "thank GOD I'm not a lamb"?

afterthought: According to the lake el'gygytgyn people, supported by cores near the Siple station and the taylor dome: The West Antarctic ice sheet completely melted during mis11, so maybe the isostatic depression there ain't as deep as in east Antarctica?

Is knowledge improvement optional? From my perspective, it seems an ongoing thing, much like the flow of a river. I do not know if we all need to improve our knowledge, but it seems though, unless we actively oppose it, it will happen of it's own. Fortunately, i fell off of a scaffold yestermorn and have given myself a few days off from scaffolds and power tools, so I have time to sit here and read(improve my knowledge). OK as to your linked: First, They are communicating their findings for the ice over the Amundsen sea: The Amundsen sea represents a very small part of West Antarctica. To extrapolate from that to all of west antarctica is a rather bold step. Which was certainly not taken in the linked article, but was implied by the headline. Also they themselves say: If you will reference the above topo map, you will note a ridge along the seaward side of the amundsen sea. This grounding point has not been adequately breached to induce a rapid(as in less than a few centuries) destruction of the sea floor grounded ice inland of those ridges. Seriously "four feet in a few centuries" who could know what weather will alter that trend in the intervening centuries?