<
No it's not. Neither of the papers the notrickszone article speaks off are about "Arctic/Greenland ice recovery" as you claim. That is entirely the interpretation of notrickszone.
The first paper is about a sea ice reconstruction at Disko Bugt, West Greenland over the past 5000 years while the second paper your denier blog refers to studied "Atlantic multidecadal variability in Arctic sea ice" and which specifically mentions in its' abstract (partially highlighted by notrickszone): "This observational evidence supports recent modeling studies that have suggested that Arctic sea ice is intrinsically linked to Atlantic multidecadal variability. This may have implications for understanding the recent negative trend in Arctic winter sea ice extent, although because the losses have been greater in summer, other processes and feedbacks are also important."
The only source for a "Arctic/Greenland ice recovery" claim is a WUWT article by Paul Homewood, hardly comparable to peer-reviewed science published in respectable journals.
Why do you always rely on second-hand sources (mostly on denier blogs) instead of trying to understand the referenced papers yourself? Is there perhaps an important element of 'wishful thinking' involved?
The Arctic Ice Extent has always been naturally variable. "Climate Clown" Specialists (like Grungo and linlyons) will always point the finger at humans simply because they have trained themselves to do so, ignoring the obvious ebbs and flows of natural climate variability in favor of an alarming viewpoint. They have also been trained to see recent natural climate extremes that have happened for millions of years as problematic and human induced. That's why they are considered to be "Climate Clowns".
Excuse me, but you've been saying "It's gonna start cooling next year" for several years now.
And it hasn't. It's gotten warmer.
So notrisckszone is saying "it's gonna start cooling next year".
Maybe I won't hold my breath waiting.
Clearly solar cycles could have an effect.
That's the problem, many things probably have an effect.
It makes no sense to pick just one of 'em and say, "That's the problem."
And that's what you, and that article, just did.
You read an abstract of a single study and you come to your own conclusions based off the abstract? Wow, just wow! How do you do it? I am amazed!
ok
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018214001540
