File this under short term trends matter when we say they matter.
From The Montreal Gazette
BY RANDY BOSWELL, CANWEST NEWS SERVICE
Arctic Ocean ice cover retreated faster last month than in any previous May since satellite monitoring began more than 30 years ago, the latest sign that the polar region could be headed for another record-setting meltdown by summer’s end.
The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center had already warned earlier this spring that low ice volume — the result of repeated losses of thick, multi-year ice over the past decade — meant this past winter’s ice-extent recovery was superficial, due mainly to a fragile fringe of new ice that would be vulnerable to rapid deterioration once warmer temperatures set in.
And, driven by unusually hot weather in recent weeks above the Arctic Circle, the polar ice is disappearing at an unprecedented rate, reducing overall ice extent to less than that recorded in May 2007 — the year when a record-setting retreat by mid-September alarmed climatologists and northern governments.
The centre reported that across much of the Arctic, temperatures were two to five degrees Celsius above average last month.
“In May, Arctic air temperatures remained above average, and sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace,” the Colorado-based centre said in its June 8 report.
The centre pegged the retreat at an average of 68,000 square kilometres a day, noting that “this rate of loss is the highest for the month of May during the satellite record.”
Ice loss was greatest in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, “indicating that the ice in these areas was thin and susceptible to melt,” the centre added.
“Many polynyas, areas of open water in the ice pack, opened up in the regions north of Alaska, in the Canadian Arctic Islands, and in the Kara and Barents and Laptev seas.”
Read the rest of the story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Joe Bastardi says:
June 15, 2010 at 12:53 pm
The hysteria, if ( when) I am proven correct, will simply shift to the southern hemisphere, were the warmist refuse to look now.”
When they get to looking at the southern ocean they are going to have a ball. They are sure to notice that our polar bears have died out already!
anna v says:
for one that properly leaves out ice). What if salt water freezes well below 0C? What if currents are carrying lots of North Atlantic water up under the sea ice?
June 16, 2010 at 4:49 am
A bit of physics helps. Have a look at the arctic temperatures on the side panel:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Note that blue line? It is the line where the atmosphere is warm enough for the ice to start melting. Note that it has barely touched the line so any diminution of ice cannot be due to temperature and melt, up to this time. Elementary physics.
What else can it be? Ocean currents and wind currents working in tandem.
Lets look at the current ocean temperatures in the arctic:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html
Read the scale, it is from -2C to 0C at present.
So, if the water cannot be melting the ice and the air cannot be melting the ice…
What if the DMI temperatures north of 80 Lat. were just an “average” value, calculated from a model?
What if the Unisys SSTs were entirely computer generated in ice-covered areas? (see
Let’s see what did David Barber predict in the past?
“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice (2008) for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.”
So, we should believe him now for what reason? His past performance? Same holds for piomas … past performance has been poor.
I also see Robert mentions the reduced albedo for lower sea ice extents but never mentions increased radiation from open waters. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pro-AGW person mention this, wonder why?
“”” sandyinderby says:
June 16, 2010 at 8:36 am
George E. Smith says:
June 15, 2010 at 2:29 pm
thanks George but I hadn’t read it previously. “””
Glad you found it useful sandy; if only one person ever finds something useful; or even memory refreshing; I’ll always consider it worth my time to make the effort. After all; others who post here add to my knowledge.
Not sure if you are up on the Brewster angle thing. In general, light reflects and refracts at an optical interface boundary, in a manner that can be largely explained from Maxwell’s equations for the electromagnetic field; but this is all summarized in the Fresnel Formulae for polarized reflection and refraction at such a boundary. Treating the light as two polarized waves; one with the electric vector perpendicular to the plane of incidence (containing the incident, reflected, and refracted rays, plus the surface normal) and the othe with the electric vector in the plane of incidence, the Fresnel formulae show the in plane reflected component goes to zero at Brewster’s angle; Arctan (N1/N2) (Brewster was a Scottish scientist); so the reflected light is plane polarized; and that is why your polarized sunglasses remove that reflection from the water.
At the Brewster angle, the reflected component (perpendicular) is now about twice the amplitude that it had at normal incidence angle; so the total reflected energy is not too different; even absent the missing polarization.
So it is useful to think of the surface reflectance as being almost constant from normal incidence, all the way up to the Brewster Angle which is about 53 degrees (off normal) for water.
Beyond the Brewster angle, both polartization components of the reflected wave increase rapidly up to 100% with increased angle; which is why a black top road surface can reflect significantly at near grazing incidence.
So the sun issue in the polar regions; particularly the Arctic, is NOT that Critical angle excludes sunlight from enetering the water; but that INCREASING SURFACE REFLECTANCE at near grazing incidence; reflects a lot.
That’s the point; the issue is oblique reflectance; not Total Internal Reflectance.
When we design immersion lenses for LED lamps; there are plenty of design tricks for staying away from the critical angle so that light is not trapped by TIR at the lens surface. But what the hell good is that, if you are between the critical angle and the slightly smaller Brewster angle (internally) where you will still have high reflection losses. So a really good lens design would keep the maximum incidence angle less than the Brewster angle; as well as less than the critical angle where TIR would occur.
I actually have a patent on a high efficiency power LED optical design; and we called it the “Brewster Lamp” for that reason; 100% of the internal flux strikes the lens surface at less than the Brewster angle; so that losses to reflection are minimal. I think the 1996 Ford Thunderbird Tail light assembly has those Brewster Lamps in it.
In reply to anna v @ur momisugly June 16, 2010 at 4:49 am.
A few comments. The DMI temperature is an average of stations north of 80 degrees north. Some areas could be warmer.
Also, the ice cap extends farther south than 80 degrees N.
I am not sure that there is any useful information about ocean temperatures in a map of SSTs when the area covered by ice is estimated at -2 to 0 degrees Celsius.
Finally, you do not need to have temperatures above 0 degrees Celsius to melt ice. Strong sunshine — especially with some soot on the snow & ice — will do just fine.
An Inquirer says:
June 16, 2010 at 12:37 pm
In reply to anna v @ur momisugly June 16, 2010 at 4:49 am.
A few comments. The DMI temperature is an average of stations north of 80 degrees north.
No, they clearly state that it’s the output of their computer model. –
Calculation of the Arctic Mean Temperature
The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area. …from 2002 to 2006 data from the global NWP model T511 is used and from 2006 to present the T799 model data are used.
Richard M says:
June 16, 2010 at 12:24 pm
So, we should believe him now for what reason? His past performance?
Do you plan on applying that evenly- that anyone who says something “may happen”, and it doesn’t, will be rejected from that point on?
George E. Smith says:
June 16, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Thanks once again George, that was a very clear explanation. I’ll have to digest it over a cup of tea and digestive biscuit (what you call a cookie I think).
anna v says:
June 16, 2010 at 4:49 am
villabolo says:
after a number of great shouts,
The ocean waves themselves would never have been a problem in the Arctic Ice Cap area because thirty years ago the area of multiyear ice was so extensive (It actually made up 90% of a very large ice cap) that they would have been suppressed throughout the whole Arctic Sea area.
HOW CAN THE WINDS HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?
**************************************************************************
ANA V SAYS:
“A bit of physics helps. Have a look at the arctic temperatures on the side panel:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php”
“Note that blue line? It is the line where the atmosphere is warm enough for the ice to start melting. Note that it has barely touched the line so any diminution of ice cannot be due to temperature and melt, up to this time. Elementary physics.”
RESPONSE FROM VILLABOLO:
I find it ironic that the home page of DMI/Centre for Ocean and Ice makes the following statement in the very first paragraph:
“Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.”
Please note that they refer to “melting” and “thinning”.
**************************************************************************
ANA V SAYS:
“What else can it be? Ocean currents and wind currents working in tandem.
Lets look at the current ocean temperatures in the arctic:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html
Read the scale, it is from -2C to 0C at present”
RESPONSE FROM VILLABOLO:
Unfortunately it is not possible to see the actual Arctic Ocean since it is cut off from the map. Nor can one assume that the purple color coding automatically implies that the areas further north are at the same temperature.
First, it is known that the shallow waters off of the Canadian Arctic islands are COLDER than the waters further north. Furthermore please notice how the waters to the West and East of Greenland are in the dark blue color coding (1C=1.8F) right up to the top of the map. Also, off the East coast of Greenland to the immediate left (West) of the blue you find the purple, below zero, side by side with the warmer blue that is above zero.
*************************************************************************
ANA V SAYS:
So, if the water cannot be melting the ice and the air cannot be melting the ice, it must be the strength of the currents that moves it to lower warmer waters, and the strength of the wind that pushes it like sails to lower warmer waters. You have noticed how a strong wind can push a boat, no? You have seen the ridges that form from compacted by the wind ice floes?
**************************************************************************
RESPONSE FROM VILLABOLO:
I already mentioned the winds and currents in their proper context in the real world of the Arctic Ice Cap. They have always been there yet the ice cap was not flushed out. I also stated that the thinning, obviously from melting not wind, would have made it easier for the thinner therefore lighter ice to be picked up by the winds. Furthermore I mentioned in my first post that the ice cap was regrowing what the winds were flushing out like it used to decades ago.
Are you serious in believing that wind and NOTHING but wind is responsible for the shrinking and thinning of the ice cap?
THE AIR CANNOT MELT THE ICE?!?! Take a look at this Air Temperature Chart from the Arctic region as put out in the June 8, 2010 NSIDC’s Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/figures/atmosphere2.png
Immediately above those images you will find the following statement:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html
“During October through December 2008 SAT anomalies remained above an unprecedented +4° C across the central Arctic (Fig. A2(A)). This is linked to summer sea ice conditions. The summer of 2008 ended with nearly the same extreme minimum sea ice extent as in 2007, characterized by extensive areas of open water (see sea ice section). This condition allows extra heat to be absorbed by the ocean from longwave and solar radiation throughout the summer season, which is then released back to the atmosphere in the following autumn (Serreze et al., 2009). We expect similar warm fall temperatures over the Arctic in 2009, as in 2007 and 2008.”
Now Ana, if you had read or meditated on my many other statements including the one on Ponding you should obviously expect that the air temperatures were above melting. Furthermore, by absorbing more heat due to the darker color of the water,
they melt a hole right through the ice.
You can see the ponding phenomenon when pictures or videos of the ice is taken during summer.
As for your declaration that the water cannot be causing any warming, which I responded to above, let me bring that issue up again from another angle.
The Arctic Ice Cap has been dramatically shrinking for the past 20 years. It does not matter why it’s shrinking just that it’s shrinking. Are you going to tell me that blue water cannot absorb heat (80 absorption) as opposed to ice that reflects it (80-90 absorption)? This means that as the ice cap is shrinking and exposing more ocean, the water has no choice but to absorb heat.
***************************************************************************
ANA V SAYS:
“Now as far as history goes, surely when Greenland was a Viking colony temperatures were higher than now, the arctic navigable, and nobody was drowning, so what again is the problem with a bit of warmth?”
RESPONSE FROM VILLABOLO:
The higher temperatures in Greenland were a regional phenomenon. The problem with what you call “a bit of warmth” is this. first of all, the fact that the warmth we currently have, does not bother the individual human being is irrelevant. This assumes that all other aspects of weather are unchanged. Bad assumption.
When people are ignorant of something they tend to judge it by egocentric means. They assume that whatever happens in their back yard has to be happening throughout the world or that whatever values they have just happens to be shared by everyone.
The rise in temperature of 1.3F worldwide average, goes beyond affecting the temperature comfort of humans. It puts pressure on weather systems worldwide or certain features of the Earth that could affect the weather or the entire climate.
Visualize a globe of the Earth the size of a baseball. Then wrap your fingers around it pointing towards the ball itself, in all directions, which would represent pressure points bearing down on different weather systems (or the Arctic Ice Cap) throughout the Earth. If one of your fingers were to bear down too heavily on one or more sensitive points then it could collapse or distort those weather systems to the point that it creates a chain reaction of weather events that has consequences for either a region or the entire planet.
One example, the oceans are getting warmer and like Global Warming predicted in the 1990’s it is causing the following. Warmer waters means more evaporation which means more clouds which means more intense rains and floods like the ones we’ve been experiencing. Our civilization, fragile and grossly inefficient as it is, cannot withstand too many disasters in a short period of time.
Or take the Arctic Ice Cap itself. When it’s gone during the summertime it will warm up (estimated 6-9F) evaporate more causing more of the intense rains mentioned above as well as intensifying droughts depending on location. This and other drastic weather changes throughout the Northern Hemisphere will not inspire you to say, “. . . so what again is the problem with a bit of warmth?”
As a final point, let me emphasize the fact that, since we continue to burn fossil fuels the CO2 levels are going to keep rising. An increase toward 1,000 parts per million will give us a temperature rise of 10F averaged out throughout the planet. That would be devastating and our civilization would have collapsed even before then. That means, of course, that we will not even get to the point that we will be able to spew that much CO2 in the first place.
But even if we were to stop CO2 emissions TODAY, throughout the world, we would not be able to prevent the Arctic Ice Cap from disappearing along with the Climate consequences I mentioned above. Furthermore, we would have a time delay-I forget the exact figures-two or three decades before we receive the full heat increase, about 1F, from our current levels of 390 ppm. This assumes no further rise in emissions.
What’s more there are stores of biomass in Siberia that are turning into, at this very moment, into Methane. Believe it or not, Methane has 100 times the insulating ability as Carbon Dioxide immediately after its release which then drops to 60-72X after 20 years and then 20-25X after 100 years. This is due to the fact that Methane is degrading throughout time.
For a very amusing an entertaining video that shows what is happening in Siberia with the release of Methane please watch:
You may have noticed the tipping trees even some distance behind the edge of the lake bed. Those trees are used to rooting themselves in permafrost, frozen soil, that is frozen all the way to the top. Since the permafrost is thawing out (I dare you to guess why) The trees lose their balance and eventually fall.
**************************************************************************
Beware of the cold and prepare for the coming ice ages. It is sobering to study this compilation :
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
The only true prophecy is that an ice age will come again, sooner or later.
RESPONSE FROM VILLABOLO:
SUCH DRAMA.
anna v says:
June 16, 2010 at 8:55 am
“Because at some point meteorologists decided that averages over 30 years describe climate and not weather , and it has been carried over to the global warming studies.”
VILLABOLO REPLIES:
I believe they are called Climatologists not Meteorologists.
villabolo says at 2:25 pm [ … ]
If you can’t spell anna’s name correctly, even when it’s been cut and pasted by you, then there’s no reason to think you’re being accurate about more complicated matters.
Smokey says:
June 16, 2010 at 3:00 pm
If you can’t spell anna’s name correctly, even when it’s been cut and pasted by you, then there’s no reason to think you’re being accurate about more complicated matters.
MY APOLOGIES TO ANNA.
As for you, Smokey, I have never replied in such a manner to people who often times get my name wrong.
Nor did I give Anna the attitude you have given me when I corrected her on her use of the word Meteorologist instead of Climatologist. So if you are consistent in your attitude you should have criticized both Anna and I along with everyone else who makes trivial mistakes. I’m sure when that happens you will get a reputation on this board for being a nitpick.
As for the accuracy of the information I have used I have either given citations or have mentioned well known facts. I have also used basic deductive reasoning in my arguments.
So if you want to question the accuracy of my information or my logic why don’t you simply respond to the issues brought up?
“”” villabolo says:
June 16, 2010 at 2:25 pm
anna v says:
June 16, 2010 at 4:49 am
villabolo says:
after a number of great shouts,
The ocean waves themselves would never have been a problem in the Arctic Ice Cap area because thirty years ago the area of multiyear ice was so extensive (It actually made up 90% of a very large ice cap) that they would have been suppressed throughout the whole Arctic Sea area.
HOW CAN THE WINDS HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?
**************************************************************************
ANA V SAYS:
“A bit of physics helps. Have a look at the arctic temperatures on the side panel:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php” “””
I can’t believe that nobody else seems to get the picture; well I know for sure that Phil does.
Take a look at that ice sculpture. Can’t you see how the refractive index of the water, has concentrated the sunlight and focussed it under the surface to melt the ice BELOW THE SURFACE !!
Well; maybe that’s not a good explanation. Is it just possible that the water that burg is floating on is actually above zero deg C, and it is melting the ice from below. Where on earth does the gulf stream go when it gets up poast the British isles, and Scandinavia into the arctic; isn’t it supposed to cool down and then sink to return to the equator along the bottom.
What better way to cool hot tropical surface waters than to etch away the undersides of a big iceberg; whose upper surface is clearly NOT melting, in that picture.
Now barefootgirl told me I was full of it; and everything I said was wrong; but how else does one explain the morphology of THAT piece of ice ?
IT’S THE WATER !!
“”” sandyinderby says:
June 16, 2010 at 1:34 pm
George E. Smith says:
June 16, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Thanks once again George, that was a very clear explanation. I’ll have to digest it over a cup of tea and digestive biscuit (what you call a cookie I think). “””
Sandy; just a few loose end snippets to complete the story. Critical Angle of course arises because the value of sin(x) is bounded by +/- 1. Tan(x) of course has no such restriction, so the Brewster angle situation arises for light going both ways from air to water; or from water to air. Do a little back of envelope drawing; and some elementary trogonometry; and you will immediately see going in either direction; that at the Brewster angle of incidence; the reflected ray and the refracted ray are exactly perpendicular to each other.
Note that although the relfected ray is linearly polarised at the Brewster angle; the refracted ray is only partially polarised; because most of the energy is transmitted but only a few percent id reflected.
The reflection coefficient for normal incidence on the surface, can be calulated from r = ((N1-N2)/(N1+N2))^2 so for glass with index 1.5 in air r =4% while for air=water with index 1.333, r = 2%
Since at near grazing incidence beyond the Brewster angle, the rflectance increases; the total reflectance for diffuse illumination of a flat water surface is about 3% total which is why they talk about 97% emissivity for water emission of thermal radiation.
Deep clean ocean water is a damn fine imitation of a black body absorber, and radiator.
By the way, Biscuit works fine for me; a cookie is what Micro$oft infests Internet Explorer with. I believe “biscuit” is actually French and means simply “twice cooked”.
villabolo,
I see. It’s OK for you to correct anna, but you appear to be very thin-skinned when someone corrects your mis-spelling of her name. BTW, I wasn’t being insulting, simply matter of fact; details matter, and the alarmist crowd inevitably gets critical details wrong. That’s why they’ve been so consistently wrong about their endless scare stories, like runaway global warming caused by CO2 [CO2=CAGW], coral bleaching, sea level rise, methane, frog extinctions, whale poop, and anything else they can wave their arms about. I detect the same scare-mongering in your posts above. As you will learn, that doesn’t fly here. Provide testable facts, not what-ifs.
Since you are so concerned about the harmless and beneficial trace gas CO2, kindly provide empirical [not model], testable, replicable evidence showing the fraction of warming that has occurred, which is specifically attributable to human CO2 emissions. Then it should be easy to show the climate sensitivity to CO2. When you have a solid climate sensitivity number, we can make accurate predictions. Easy, no? …No. You would be in line for a Nobel prize if you could demonstrate a testable and accurate climate sensitivity number.
The problem here is a noob showing up from whatever warmist blog and rehashing old arguments that have been thoroughly debated and settled here. A good example is your incorrect assertion that Greenland’s medieval warmth was regional. Do a search for “MWP,” and you will find an enormous amount of evidence that the MWP was global in extent. Michael Mann was debunked for trying to show the MWP didn’t exist; claiming Greenland’s prior warmth was regional is simply a fallback position to Mann’s debunked Hokey Stick chart.
The recommended course of action is to use the WUWT search feature to access the archives, and get up to speed before posting comments that have already been analyzed, debated and settled. Start with: MWP. That will return plenty of articles showing that Greenland’s former warmth was part of a global phenomenon. You can branch out from there.
30 years ago they weren’t–or anyway the term hadn’t become predominant in the field of climate/weather standard-setting bodies, so there’s a good chance it was “meteorologists” who made the call.
George E. Smith says:
June 16, 2010 at 3:26 pm
“Take a look at that ice sculpture. Can’t you see how the refractive index of the water, has concentrated the sunlight and focussed it under the surface to melt the ice BELOW THE SURFACE !!”
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
You better watch out for the WRATH OF SMOKEY who dissed me on misspelling Anna’s name! Not that I’m a nitpick or care about misspellings at all, but Smokey might breath fire out of your monitor because you misspelled focused (with an extra ‘c’) and berg (with a ‘u’). Oops, I caught another one but I’ll let Smokey fume about it.
On a more serious note you may have a point about the refractive issue (I can’t see the picture you must be referring to since there is no link). However, it does not explain how large ice floes, ten miles wide, like the one the Amundsen icebreaker discovered, would deteriorate into rotten ice which is much more vulnerable to melting from any direction as well as being more easily disintegrated by ocean waves.
The process that starts rotten ice does involve melting from above and I’ve seen it quite often in videos taken over the Arctic Ice Cap as well as on top of glaciers in Greenland. The following link should easily explain the process that initiates rotten ice.
http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/cc/e5/a80893c24759919867add7104bbe.pdf
Smokey writes,
“Before you repeat the thoroughly debunked claim that there was no Medieval Warm Period, do a WUWT archive search for ‘MWP.'”
But I didn’t yet repeat any claim that there was no Medieval Warm Period, did I? What did I actually say, and what should I read in the WUWT archive to contradict that?
“It is tedious repeatedly teaching noobs the same facts over and over again. Do some reading and get educated.”
Yes, I can see the tedium wears you down. Again, what exactly did I say, to give away that I’m an unread noob compared with you?
Gneiss,
My apologies if you thought I was calling you uneducated, or un-read. I was not, and that’s not what I intended.
New names are easy to spot when they appear, and some of us are sensitive to the stream of folks coming here to re-write history. Recently there was a Mr “S” who came to incessantly argue, and was then lauded on an alarmist blog for doing “yeoman work at WUWT.” Sorry if I misunderstood where you’re coming from. But the Greenland issue has been settled for a long time here. I was sincere in suggesting reading the archives.
You had stated that Greenland was probably cooler than at present. That is contradicted by the GISP Greenland ice core data [from the archives].
Roger Knights says:
June 16, 2010 at 4:03 pm
VILLABOLO REPLIES:
I believe they are called Climatologists not Meteorologists.
“30 years ago they weren’t–or anyway the term hadn’t become predominant in the field of climate/weather standard-setting bodies, so there’s a good chance it was “meteorologists” who made the call.”
Thank you for the info Roger.
Smokey says:
June 16, 2010 at 4:37 pm
You had stated that Greenland was probably cooler than at present. That is contradicted by the GISP Greenland ice core data [from the archives].
No, that graph ends 145 years ago!
jakers says:
June 16, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Richard M says:
June 16, 2010 at 12:24 pm
So, we should believe him now for what reason? His past performance?
Do you plan on applying that evenly- that anyone who says something “may happen”, and it doesn’t, will be rejected from that point on?
No, the point was that several obvious AGW believers were using the “appeal to authority” ploy in mentioning Barber’s name as if he were the god of Arctic knowledge. I was just pointing out the facts.
Most warmist scientists suffer from confirmation bias. I suspect Barber is no different, especially since his prediction failed so miserably. Beware of people trying to regain credibility.
VILLABOLO REPLIES:
I believe they are called Climatologists not Meteorologists.
Do you know when the 30 year time period was selected? Look it up.
Smokey wrote,
“You had stated that Greenland was probably cooler than at present. That is contradicted by the GISP Greenland ice core data [from the archives].”
No, it is not. Look more closely at that graph you just cited.
Well, I can see the graph numbers better than Phil. But if you folks are asking for a different graph, look here.
If you want more graphs, just holler.