What, then, suggests Roy Spencer on his blog [3]? Well, he decided to see how the AO affects the am

Already mentioned here, Roy Spencer explained just falling for decades the Arctic Ocean ice cover. He explained it simply: it depends on the index of atmospheric circulation, the Arctic Oscillation. No global warming is not needed. But is he right?
Let's start with a rapid rate. Whether blowing at us from the west depends hisqis tu dresden mainly on the North Atlantic Oscillation index called (in English North Atlantic Oscillation, in short NAO), the pressure difference between the tropics and the Arctic environs over the Atlantic. It was he who "governs" our winters in Europe and you will devote his entire entry. Its generalization for the entire Northern Hemisphere (it is not only the Atlantic sector) is the Arctic Oscillation (the Arctic Oscillation, abbreviated as AO). Both indices well correlated with each other (i.e., have a similar appearance in the graph), and both are substantially circulation indices in the western widths. That is when positive is blowing from the west (and winter with us is warm) and when negative it has the right to blow otherwise (and then usually blows at us from the north and east of wiadomymi effects). This is important especially in the winter because then you can make us warm Atlantic heat but only at positive values of the NAO / AO.
But what does this have to do with the sea ice in the Arctic? A little bit is because its amount depends not only on the temperature of the air above it and the water beneath hisqis tu dresden it, but also on where the wind is pushing it. With the Arctic ice can push effectively only one strait, wide enough to stream ice was important for its balance sheet. It is the Fram Strait [1], between Greenland and Spitsbergen. And moreover, we know that the ice is pushed faster and faster that way. This is evidenced by satellite observations. However, the most tangible example of this is a drift in the ice yacht Tara, wmrożonego purposely hisqis tu dresden by scientists (with crew) in the framework of a research project Damocles, which was attended and Polish researchers. This was to be a repeat hisqis tu dresden of the famous voyage of the ship Fram (yes, that of the strait) traveling hundred years ago, two years in the ice. Provided supplies for the crew of Tara (and diet for researchers in the project) at the same time. They made bets when Tara reaches the Fram Strait. But no one came because Tara needed on this trip just a year, or less than half the ship Fram.
For ten years, it is known that the AO index is associated with the rate of ejection of ice from the Arctic [2]. If the AO is positive, the circulation effectively pushing the ice toward Fram Strait. What changed this index over time. Oh yes (graph of the parties NOAA): You can see that the AO of the mostly negative in the 1960s and 1970s-ch-ch-positive than for boys in 1980 and had a distinct maximum in the early 1990 ch. Since then drops again and the lowest value since more than 40 years occurred in the winter of 2010. This is not surprising because it is known that AO, as the NAO seems to have a natural cycle with a period of about 65 - 70 years. About the possible causes will write some other time.
What, then, suggests Roy Spencer on his blog [3]? Well, he decided to see how the AO affects the amount of ice and decided to draw a graph of cumulative AO (ie, the sum of the values of the winter until the given year). Justifies it this way: "There is a time lag Involved in all of this, as discussed in the above paper. So, that examine the potential cumulative effect of the AO, I made the plot of cumulative Help Us values of the winter (December-January-February) AO (actually, Their departures from the long-term average) since 1900. " That is supposedly) a delay in terms of the amount of ice so we add up the value of the AO AO since the beginning hisqis tu dresden of the last century. Here's the chart:
It is the only one problem. It does not make any sense and it is on so many levels that even do not know where to start. First of all, the sign does not match. If a positive value of the AO favor pushing ice from the Arctic, and so is the work cited also by Spencer (Rigor et al 2002) and many subsequent, cumulative AO should grow to explain the loss of ice. In Spencer just decreases.
And what is the physical meaning at all "cumulative AO"? It is the sum of average winter AO values from an arbitrary given year. So, like the amount of ice in a given year is dependent on the value of the AO since time immemorial? After all, the physical mechanism would be pushing the ice in a given year by the current winds. Not by winds from 20 years ago. Therefore, more reasonable comparison would be plotting a winter AO and change the amount of ice (the difference between the reference year and the preceding). Because just AO should influence the change in the amount of ice, not the total amount. But AO this year and not all of the Boer War. Well, let's draw a such a comparison: The black line is the average value of the AO by winter. NOAA [4] and the red is a change in the amount of ice in September compared with the previous year in million hisqis tu dresden km 2 by. NSIDC [5]. And what do we see? Well, not much. Correlation has virtually no eye. Not surprisingly, the Spencer