Regular readers may recall some of the posts here, here, here, and here, where the sea ice data presented by NSIDC and by Cryosphere today were brought into question. We finally have an end to this year’s arctic melt season, and our regular contributor on sea-ice, Steven Goddard, was able to ask Dr. Walt Meier, who operates the National Snow and Ice Data Center 10 questions, and they are presented here for you. I have had correspondence with Dr. Meier and found him straightforward and amiable. If only other scientists were so gracious with questions from the public. – Anthony
Questions from Steven Goddard:
Dr. Walt Meier from The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has graciously agreed to answer 10 of my favorite Arctic questions. His much appreciated responses below are complete and unedited.
1. Many GISS stations north of 60 latitude show temperatures 70 years ago being nearly as warm as today. This pattern is seen from Coppermine, Canada (115W) all the way east to Dzardzan, Siberia (124E.) The 30 year satellite record seems to correspond to a period of warming, quite similar to a GISS reported period in the 1920s and 1930s. Is it possible that Arctic temperatures are cyclical rather than on a linear upwards trend?
No. Analysis of the temperatures does not support a cyclic explanation for the recent warming. The warming during the 1920s and 1930s was more regional in nature and focused on the Atlantic side of the Arctic (though there was warming in some other regions as well) and was most pronounced during winter. In contrast, the current warming is observed over almost the entire Arctic and is seen in all seasons. Another thing that is clear is that, the warming during the 1920s and 1930s was limited to the Arctic and lower latitude temperatures were not unusually warm. The recent warming in the Arctic, though amplified there, is part of a global trend where temperatures are rising in most regions of the earth. There are always natural variations in climate but the current warming in the Arctic is not explained by such variations.
2. The US Weather Bureau wrote a 1922 article describing drastic Arctic warming and ice loss. In that article, the author wrote that waters around Spitzbergen warmed 12C over just a few years and that ships were able to sail in open waters north of 81N. This agrees with the GISS record, which would seem to imply that the Arctic can and does experience significant warming unrelated to CO2. Do you believe that what we are seeing now is different from that event, and why?
Yes. The current warming is different from the conditions described in the article. The Weather Bureau article is specifically discussing the North Atlantic region around Spitsbergen, not the Arctic as a whole. The Arctic has historically shown regional variations in climate, with one region warmer than normal while another region was cooler, and then after a while flipping to the opposite conditions. As discussed above, the current warming is different in nature; it is pan-Arctic and is part of widespread warming over most of the earth.
3. A number of prominent papers, including one from Dr. James Hansen in 2003, describe the important role of man-made soot in Arctic melt and warming. Some have hypothesized that the majority of melt and warming is due to soot. How is this issue addressed by NSIDC?
NSIDC does not have any scientists who currently study the effect of soot on melt and warming. Soot, dust and other pollution can enhance melting by lower the albedo (reflectance of solar energy). However, it is not clear that soot has increased significantly in the Arctic. Russia is a major source of soot in the Arctic and Russian soot declined dramatically after the break-up of the former Soviet Union – just as sea ice decline was starting to accelerate. Furthermore, while soot on the snow/ice surface will enhance melt, soot and other aerosols in the atmosphere have a cooling effect that would slow melt. Thus, the effect of soot, while it may contribute in some way, cannot explain the dramatic rate of warming and melt seen in the Arctic seen over the past 30 years.
4. The NSIDC Sea Ice News and Analysis May 2008 report seems to have forecast more ice loss than has actually occurred, including forecasts of a possible “ice-free North Pole.” Please comment on this?
What NSIDC provided in its May report was “a simple estimate of the likelihood of breaking last year’s September record.” This gave an average estimate that was below 2007, but included a range that included a possibility of being above 2007. With the melt season in the Arctic ending for the year, the actual 2008 minimum is near the high end of this range. In its June report, NSIDC further commented on its minimum estimate by stating that much of the thin ice that usually melts in summer was much farther north than normal and thus would be less likely to melt.
In the May report, NSIDC also quoted a colleague, Sheldon Drobot at the University of Colorado, who used a more sophisticated forecast model to estimate a 59% chance of setting a new record low – far from a sure-thing. NSIDC also quoted colleague Ron Lindsey at the University of Washington, who used a physical model to estimate “a very low, but not extreme [i.e., not record-breaking], sea ice minimum.” He also made an important point, cautioning that “that sea ice conditions are now changing so rapidly that predictions based on relationships developed from the past 50 years of data may no longer apply.” Thus NSIDC’s report was a balanced assessment of the possibility of setting a new record, taking account of different methods and recognizing the uncertainty inherent any seasonal forecast, especially under conditions that had not been seen before.
For the first time in our records, the North Pole was covered by seasonal ice (i.e., ice that grew since the end of the previous summer). Since seasonal ice is thinner than multiyear ice (i.e., ice that has survived at least one melt season) and vulnerable to melting completely, there was a possibility that the ice edge could recede beyond the pole and leaving the pole completely ice-free. This would be fundamentally different from events in the past where a crack in the ice might temporarily expose some open water at the pole in the midst of surrounding ice. It would mean completely ice-free conditions at the geographic North Pole (just the pole, not the entire Arctic Ocean). The remarkable thing was not whether the North Pole would be ice-free or not; it was that this year, for the first time in a long time it was possible. This does not bode well for the long-term health of the sea ice
The fact that the initial analysis of potential minimum ice extent and an ice-free pole did not come to pass reflects a cooler and cloudier summer that wasn’t as conducive to ice loss as it might have been. There will always be natural variations, with cooler than normal conditions possible for a time. However, despite the lack of extreme conditions, the minimum extent in 2008 is the second lowest ever and very close to last year. Most importantly, the 2008 minimum reinforces the long-term declining trend that is not due to natural climate fluctuations.
5. The June 2008 NSIDC web site entry mentioned that it is difficult to melt first year ice at very high latitudes. Is it possible that there is a lower practical bound to ice extent, based on the very short melt season and low angle of the sun near the North Pole?
It is unlikely that there is a lower bound to sea ice extent. One of the things that helped save this year from setting a record was that the seasonal ice was so far north and did not melt as much as seasonal ice at lower latitudes would. The North Pole, being the location that last sees the sun rise and first sees the sun set, has the longest “polar night” and shortest “polar day.” Thus, it receives the least amount of solar radiation in the Arctic. So there is less energy and less time to melt ice at the pole. However there is a feedback where the more ice that is melted, the easier it is to melt still more ice. This is because the exposed ocean absorbs more heat than the ice and that heat can further melt the ice. Eventually, we will get to a state where there is enough heat absorbed during the summer, even at the shorter summer near the pole, to completely melt the sea ice. Climate models have also shown that under warmer conditions, the Arctic sea ice will completely melt during summer.
6. GISS records show most of Greenland cooler today than 70 years ago. Why should we be concerned?
We should be concerned because the warming in Greenland of 70 years ago was part of the regional warming in the North Atlantic region discussed in questions 1 and 2 above. Seventy years ago one might expect temperatures to eventually cool as the regional climate fluctuated from a warmer state to a cooler state. The current Greenland warming, while not yet quite matching the temperatures of 70 years ago, is part of a global warming signal that for the foreseeable future will continue to increase temperatures (with of course occasional short-term fluctuations), in Greenland and around the world. This will eventually, over the coming centuries, lead to significant melting of the Greenland ice sheet and sea level rise with accompanying impacts on coastal regions.
7. Antarctica seems to be gaining sea ice, and eastern Antarctica is apparently cooling. Ocean temperatures in most of the Southern Hemisphere don’t seem to be changing much. How does this fit in to models which predicted symmetric NH/SH warming (i.e. Hansen 1980)? Shouldn’t we expect to see broad warming of southern hemisphere waters?
No. Hansen’s model of 1980 is no longer relevant as climate models have improved considerably in the past 28 years. Current models show a delayed warming in the Antarctic region in agreement with observations. A delayed warming is expected from our understanding of the climate processes. Antarctic is a continent surrounded on all sides by an ocean. Strong ocean currents and winds swirl around the continent. These act as a barrier to heat coming down from lower latitudes. The winds and currents have strengthened in recent years, partly in response to the ozone hole. But while most of the Antarctic has cooled, the one part of Antarctica that does interact with the lower latitudes, the Antarctic Peninsula – the “thumb” of the continent that sticks up toward South America – is a region that has undergone some of the most dramatic warming over the past decades.
Likewise, Antarctic sea ice is also insulated from the warming because of the isolated nature of Antarctica and the strong circumpolar winds and currents. There are increasing trends in Antarctic sea ice extent, but they are fairly small and there is so much variability in the Antarctic sea ice from year to year that is difficult to ascribe any significance to the trends – they could simply be an artifact of natural variability. Even if the increasing trend is real, this is not unexpected in response to slightly cooler temperatures.
This is in stark contrast with the Arctic where there are strong decreasing trends that cannot be explained by natural variability. These decreasing Arctic trends are seen throughout every region in every season. Because much of the Arctic has been covered by multiyear ice that doesn’t melt during the summer, the downward trend in the summer and the loss of the multiyear ice has a particularly big impact on climate. In contrast, the Antarctic has very little multiyear sea ice and most of the ice cover melts away completely each summer. So the impact of any Antarctic sea ice trends on climate is less than in the Arctic. There is currently one clearly significant sea ice trend in the Antarctic; it is in the region bordering the Antarctic Peninsula, and it is a declining trend.
Because the changes in Antarctic sea ice are not yet significant in terms of climate change, they do not receive the same attention as the changes in the Arctic. It doesn’t mean that Antarctic sea ice is uninteresting, unimportant, or unworthy of scientific study. In fact, there is a lot of research being conducted on Antarctic sea ice and several scientific papers have been recently published on the topic.
8. In January, 2008 the Northern Hemisphere broke the record for the greatest snow extent ever recorded. What caused this?
The large amount of snow was due to weather and short-term climate fluctuations. Extreme weather events, even extreme cold and snow, will still happen in a warmer world. There is always natural variability. Weather extremes are always a part of climate and always will be. In fact, the latest IPCC report predicts more extreme weather due to global warming. It is important to remember that weather is not climate. The extreme January 2008 snowfall is not a significant factor in long-term climate change. One cold, snowy month does not make a climate trend and a cold January last year does not negate a decades-long pattern of warming. This is true of unusually warm events – one heat wave or one low sea ice year does not “prove” global warming. It is the 30-year significant downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent, which has accelerated in recent years, that is the important indicator of climate change.
9. Sea Surface Temperatures are running low near southern Alaska, and portions of Alaska are coming off one of their coldest summers on record. Will this affect ice during the coming winter?
It is possible that this year there could be an earlier freeze-up and more ice off of southern Alaska in the Bering Sea due to the colder temperatures. But again, this represents short-term variability and says nothing about long-term climate change. I would also note that in the Bering Sea winds often control the location of the ice edge more than temperature. Winds blowing from the north will push the ice edge southward and result in more ice cover. Winds blowing from the south will push the edge northward and result in less total ice.
10. As a result of being bombarded by disaster stories from the press and politicians, it often becomes difficult to filter out the serious science from organisations like NSIDC. In your own words, what does the public need to know about the Arctic and its future?
I agree that the media and politicians sometimes sensationalize stories on global warming. At NSIDC we stick to the science and report our near-real-time analyses as accurately as possible. Scientists at NSIDC, like the rest of the scientific community, publish our research results in peer-reviewed science journals.
There is no doubt that the Arctic is undergoing dramatic change. Sea ice is declining rapidly, Greenland is experience greater melt, snow is melting earlier, glaciers are receding, permafrost is thawing, flora and fauna are migrating northward. The traditional knowledge of native peoples, passed down through generations, is no longer valid. Coastal regions once protected by the sea ice cover are now being eroded by pounding surf from storms whipped up over the ice-free ocean. These dramatic changes are Arctic-wide and are a harbinger of what is to come in the rest of the world. Such wide-ranging change cannot be explained through natural processes. There is a clear human fingerprint, through greenhouse gas emissions, on the changing climate of the Arctic.
Changes in the Arctic will impact the rest of the world. Because the Arctic is largely ice-covered year-round, it acts as a “refrigerator” for the earth, keeping the Arctic and the rest of the earth cooler than it would be without ice. The contrast between the cold Arctic and the warmer lower latitudes plays an important role in the direction and strength of winds and currents. These in turn affect weather patterns. Removing summer sea ice in the Arctic will alter these patterns. How exactly they will change is still an unresolved question, but the impacts will be felt well beyond the Arctic.
The significant changes in the Arctic are key pieces of evidence for global warming, but the observations from Arctic are complemented by evidence from around the world. That evidence is reported in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.
Let me close by putting Arctic change and climate science within the broader scientific framework. Skepticism is the hallmark of science. A good scientist is skeptical. A good scientist understands that no theory can be “proven”. Most theories develop slowly and all scientific theories are subject to rejection or modification in light of new evidence, including the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Since the first thoughts of a possible human influence on climate over a hundred years ago, more and more evidence has accumulated and the idea gradually gained credibility. So much evidence has now been gathered from multiple disciplines that there is a clear consensus among scientists that humans are significantly altering the climate. That consensus is based on hard evidence. And some of the most important pieces of evidence are coming from the Arctic.
Mr. Goddard, through his demonstrated skeptical and curious nature, clearly has the soul of a scientist. I thank him for his invitation to share my knowledge of sea ice and Arctic climate. I also thank Anthony Watts for publishing my responses. It is through such dialogue that the public will hopefully better understand the unequivocal evidence for anthropogenic global warming so that informed decisions can be made to address the impacts that are already being seen in the Arctic and that will soon be felt around the world. And thanks to Stephanie Renfrow and Ted Scambos at NSIDC, and Jim Overland at the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory for their helpful comments.
Thanks once again to Dr. Walt Meier from NSIDC. He has spent a lot of time answering these questions and many others, and has been extremely responsive and courteous throughout the process.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tom in Florida (04:47:26) :
If monthly data is acceptable, that’s readily available at their FTP server. It’s missing two adjacent months of data (Dec 1987 and Jan 1988), but they aren’t critical. I’m not sufficiently interested to go off and make the graph.
On my weather station’s reporting, I used to graph the last 24 hours of data, but switched to 48 hours – that makes it easy and convenient to compare today’s weather with yesterday. It is a tad annoying that NSIDC likes to display the same(!) portion of a year for both hemisphere. Cryosphere has the decency to show an entire year’s data, but in space that covers two years! Both sites would benefit from hiring a tech writer who has a well-worn copy of Edward Tufte’s books.
As for the 1979 to 2008 average, the rationale at the time may have been to have a fixed reference period to permit statements like “Minimum ice extent in 200x is XX% lower than the reference period,” and have that statement be true for several years. Now that the satellite record covers 1/2 a full PDO cycle, now would be a good time to reset the reference period to “the 30 year satellite record.” A lot of meteorlogy records set an average to a 30 year period.
For all that, I’d prefer comparisons refer to the “reference period,” and not “average” and particularly not “normal.” Only the most abnormal weather here has high and low temperatures that are exactly “normal.”
kim (22:04:11) :
He also ignores the effect of a PDO in a cooling phase,
A cool phase PDO leads to increased sea temperatures in the N Pacific so you’d expect it to enhance melting.
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
Nick Leaton (03:06:15) :
If the previous melt was localised around Spitzbergen, why hasn’t he offered any evidence of extensive ice coverage elsewhere at the time?
In 1921 an American/Canadian expedition to Wrangel Island was cut off from their supply shipments by pack ice, two years later the only survivor was rescued.
“The remarkable thing was not whether the North Pole would be ice-free or not; it was that this year, for the first time in a long time it was possible. This does not bode well for the long-term health of the sea ice.”
As others have said, the emotional connection to the melting ice of one’s own lifetime is not exactly science. The Arctic ice has, for the most part, been melting and refreezing for a very long time — or else it would be a hundred meters thick! I’m willing to buy the idea that the recent melting is being exacerbated by fine particulates, in conjunction with warm ocean currents. It was notable a few weeks ago, when Arctic temperatures were already below freezing for days on end, that the ice continued to melt at a good clip.
That said, I would like scientists sure of the unique and terrifying warming of today to spend a calendar year in Greenland, living in the same type of dwellings used by the Vikings, managing sheep, and practicing agriculture as they did. That would be a reality show that I would buy TiVo for!
The sense one gets listening to the Meiers and Hansens and Hathaways of this world is that the fortress is on the verge of being over-run. They’re pushing back the ladders from the top of the walls, but you can see the fear in their eyes as the truth gets nearer.
Dr Meier is insistent on the distinction between a short-term ‘fluctuation’ and a long-term ‘trend’. But given that the Earth’s current atmosphere has been sloshing around chaotically for a billion years or so, how significant, for any such distinction, is the difference between its behavior over, say, a ten-year period and that over a century? Or over a complete interstitial, for that matter?
We should thank Dr. Meier for his responses to the questions and realize that what he has written is a professional opinion and not a treatise on the subject of AWG. He could very well be wrong in his acceptance of the work of others (eg, Hanson’s models), but his own work forms the basis of his opinions. Subject what he says to the same scrutiny you would give to any other claim, but unless there is evidence, to impugn his motives is uncalled for.
Mike Dubrasich – the tectonic rise of the Central American isthmus 5-6MYA had a lot to do with the onset of glaciation as well. It caused major changes to the global ocean circulation patterns. Coupled with the opening of the Drake Passage between South America and Antarctica, the way the Earth handled the energy balance was fundamentally altered. The uplift of the Himalayas and the Indian monsoon are other contributors, too. The Milankovich cycles (variations in orbital parameters of the Earth) regulate the ice ages (“pacemakers” Imbrie called them) by controlling insolation above 65 degrees N latitude. Imbrie was one of the leaders of the CLIMAP and SPECMAP projects that nailed this down in the 70s and 80s.
Well, he was good to answer your questions, Anthony. But he toed the parety line very tightly, except when he admitted, in response 7, that global warming wasn’t, in fact, erm, global:
“…Antarctic sea ice is also insulated from the warming because of the isolated nature of Antarctica.”
“AGW goes unmentioned until his answer to question ten. After reviewing evidence with apparent objectivity in response to Anthony’s questions, he (suddenly) says ….”
That last paragraph does have the air of standard cut-and-paste, press release boilerplate.
Sure, he’s polite and all that. Still, he finds it necessary to hide behind the “authority” of IPCC, and the “consensus” meme. In my book, that makes him just another pathetic bureaucratic pseudoscientist.
Re: John Philips
Are you still working for the UK Met Office?
While it was nice of Dr Meier to answer the questions, clearly these were his written responses to 10 submitted questions. What would have been good would have been some follow up questions to some of his statements if it was a live interview, but I don’t suspect he would have agreed to one of those.
As for his statement that Antarctic was ‘insulated’ from global warming, well I thought Antarctica was still a part of the globe and that it still had atmosphere (with that pesky CO2 in it). So what is insulating Antarctica then? The ocean?
I am puzzled why Dr Meier did not include any references to peer reviewed published papers to support his opinions. E.g. in answer to Q1. “The recent warming in the Arctic, though amplified there, is part of a global trend where temperatures are rising in most regions of the earth.”
I am not persuaded by that statement, especially in view of the articles available on WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Are+global+temperatures+down
Nevertheless, our thanks are due to Dr Meier for his courtesy and it is devoutly to be wished that this important line of communication can be continued. The next months will reveal many more opportunities to revisit the subject of “AGW, true or false?”
We could ask them to explain the change they made to the historical sea ice records in March 2007 (which contributed significantly to the record low sea ice area numbers in 2007).
The March 2007 sea ice data was reduced by 750,000 km2 while the previous record in 1995 was adjusted upwards by 500,000 km2. The changes made to all years just made the sea ice trend look like it was a straight line going down (while before there were ups and downs and a slight downward trend.)
This Before and After animation shows the changes made (which were never explained by the NSIDC.)
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2918/anomalykm3.gif
Meanwhile, the Sun will set for the winter and six month of darkness will set in at the North Pole in just a few hours.
Most of the explainations the good doctor offered have been out in some form at Real Climate for years. I have to give him an A+ for consistency. The explaination for the the divergence of surface temps between the NH and SH (the Ozone factor) is pure conjecture – it is model based. And none of the old newspaper articles from the 20s and 30s that I read explicitly mention Spitzbergen as the only source region of warming. The old Wash Post article from 1921 was fairly explicit mentioning the Artic Circle. But then again, Doctor Meier assumption of a regional temp variations of the 20s and 30s isn’t far off. It’s just that he is making an assumption. His certainty is at best 50/50. In that case, his explainations hold no more wieght than do ours. The only difference is we make our uncertainty evident.
There have been several questions about ice extent for the whole year. Dr. Meier has informed me that daily data is not available on the NSIDC web site. However, you can get equivalent data here.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
The average daily extent for 2008 has been higher than any of the previous three years, and as Steve McIntyre posted – April, 2008 had the third highest April extent on record.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3066
Bill,
I simply don’t understand how data can lead to a conclusion when the size of the adjustment is larger than the amount needed to reach that conclusion. That’s me as a layman saying that. If the data is already in the right ball park, before and after adjustment, then fine. If the adjustment is what sways it one way or the other, then not fine.
Yes I get that there are times when data needs adjusting, but the point is, how can we really check and confirm that the adjustment is correct? Before we base something else on it?
On a related note, there seems to be this thing where scientists simply go forward with the evidence that they have. But why don’t scientists sit back and say, sure, all the evidence we have, on its own, points to warming… but, we have only surveyed 1% of the system, and no matter what we have so far, there must be 99% out there that is unknown and relevant.
Instead, scientists just seem to say, well, the bit of evidence we have says this, and that’s the end of the story, and we can just assume the rest will continue to confirm our theory, and we know enough already.
We seem to spend a lot of time talking about what we know, and yet it’s what we don’t know that really matters.
Is it simply that scientists are people paid to “know” stuff?
Bill Illis (06:22:11) :
Only in a simple model! Sunset is defined as the time the upper limb of the Sun goes beneath the horizion (assuming the event can be viewed). (The UK and other places may say the center of the Sun, but the US has always referred to the upper limb.)
The solar radius is 16 arc-minutes, the atmosphere refracts sunlight by some 34 arcminutes, possibly more in cold conditions, so the sun won’t set at the North Pole until the center is 50 arcminutes below the horizon. That will be around the 24th.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/RST_defs.php has more details.
BTW, at “reasonable” latitudes, i.e. where fast food restaurants are located, the time between sunrise and sunset is about 12 hours and 9 minutes on the equinoxes. Every claim you’ve heard about the equinoxes are the dates the day and night lengths are both 12 hours long is wrong!
“That said, I would like scientists sure of the unique and terrifying warming of today to spend a calendar year in Greenland, living in the same type of dwellings used by the Vikings, managing sheep, and practicing agriculture as they did. That would be a reality show that I would buy TiVo for!”
I always thought that that would be a good lesson, at least from an anthropological point of view. The problem as I understand it is that the Norse in the Northwest Settlement had quite a bit more grazing land available to them back in the 11th and 12th centuries. Thier cattle and sheep grazed in pastures at least 10km inland. They also had schools of Cod not too far offshore to supplement thier diet (which is a good indication of how warm the SSTs were between Canada and Greenland). When the end came, it came quick (according Fagan). The Northwest settlement could have died out in under 5 years. The problem today is that those grazing pastures are now just beginning to re-emerge from 500 years of ice. I don’t think anyone today can replicate the harsh life-style the Norse were subjected to in the 12th century.
What I find so interesting is that there appears to be an unspoken assumption that observations of the past, such as 1922 arctic observations or 1750 sun spot counts, are somehow equivalent to today’s.
We are collecting more data today, hopefully more accurate and consistent even though we still haven’t figured out what to do with it.
Phil. (05:40:07) The PDO also leads to cooler global temperatures, so you’d expect it to enhance freezing.
Your errors are of omission, not commission. You fool yourself to think you fool others.
============================================
What the hell does he know about Tribal Native teachings. I bet wearing gortex, shooting with high powered rifles, and driving snowmobiles has more to do with loss of Tribal Native teachings than ICE Loss. Does anyone really like seal meat when you can order a Big MAC Super sized? Think about, a lot of European gave up seal and whale meat for a good Angus burger, why won’t we let the Alaskan natives do the same thing. Now this guy is not only a scientist but also an antropologist … quite the renaissance man we have. BTW my tribe’s range extends into Alaska. I’d be happy to share some of our ancient tribal teachings. How to rot salmon perfectly in dirt pit, so you can have a good nasty smelling stew anytime during the winter, How to dig clams with a stick, and proper candle fish oil receipes. Also, how to throw cannonballs with your barehands. My tribe actually did this. When European ships fired off a few rounds to wake the natives up for fur trading, members of my tribe found the cannonballs, brought them to the waters edge, and attempted to throw them back, much to the amusement of the Europeans who natually had to fire off a few more so the sport could continue. etc.
Walt (04:46:34) On the basis of van Loon’s prediction of a mild winter and a cold summer I’ll predict now that this winter’s Arctic ice maximum will not exceed last winter’s and that next summer’s melt will be even less than this year. I also believe the value of the Arctic ice as a proxy for global temperature will overwhelm the strong local effects on ice. I believe that because the temperature drop over the last year has been so dramatic.
=============================================
John McDonald (07:03:13) That’s pretty funny. I knew of a doctor in the lower 48 who recognized a case of botulism because she’d been a nurse in Alaska and had seen cases caused by your rotting fish.
=================================================
The arguement that previous warming was regional and the current warming is not is false.
Were we seeing similar ice melt across both polar regions then a case could be made we are seeing a global phenomena. However, the melt is restricted to the Arctic and there is nothing comparable in the Antarctic. The current Arctic melt is a regional phenomena, which may be occuring over a larger region than earlier melting.
As a general rule, I distrust anyone whose argument shifts from anthropogenic climate change to GHG warming, to global warming. Shifting of the basis of the argument (as Dr Meier does above) in this way is a sure sign you are reading propaganda rather than science.
“Weather is not climate.” That statement always bothers me. The statement “A second is not time” follows the same logic. Climate is in fact weather averaged over time, so any weather event is a part of climate. How big a part is solely dependent on the time that weather is averaged over to obtain “climate”.
Here’s another one “Such wide-ranging change cannot be explained through natural processes.” Would not the statement “Such wide-ranging change cannot be explained through natural processes with the knowledge we have now of how these processes work” be more accurate? Are we so arrogant now that we think we know all there is to know?
In “The Chilling Stars,” (2nd edition published last month), Swensmark has an explanation for the historical contrariness of Antarctic temps vs. the rest of the globe. Anarctica is isolated, and a cloudy blanket keeps that ice-covered area warm, while cooling (by solar reflection) the rest of us. Thin clouds let the sun in for most of us, while increasing heat loss down south.
OT–It looks like we have a SC 24 sunspot.