Note: I second Steve’s thanks below to Dr. Meier for his essays (part1 and part 2) that enable us to have this discussion.
Back on Feb 9th, 2010 WUWT readers polled that Arctic sea ice would be recovering over 2009, by a wide margin of 69.8%. We’ll see how that pans out this year. We did pretty well last year.
As leader of the WUWT “Ice Team”, I’ll ask that when the time comes, that we all scream for the Ice Team that comes closest to predicting the actual the Arctic Sea Ice minimum, then buy the other team a beer.
The next few weeks will be entertaining, perhaps even stressful, as we watch each twist and turn in agonizing slow motion. But, let’s all take it in stride, no matter who “augers in”, may the best team win. 😉
– Anthony
By Steve Goddard
First, thanks to Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC for taking the time to write up his very informative recent article on WUWT. It is much appreciated. In that article, Dr. Meier made this statement :
As NSIDC states in its most recent post, we’ve expected we may see the rapid decline begin to slow because the melt will soon run into older, thicker ice, which will slow the loss of ice. Steve has said essentially the same thing and indeed we’ve the rate of loss slow over the past few days.
The NSIDC newsletter which Dr. Meier refers to is dated July 6, 2010.
However, it would not be surprising to see the rate of ice loss slow in coming weeks as the melt process starts to encounter thicker, second and third year ice in the central Arctic Ocean. Loss of ice has already slowed in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas due to the tongue of thicker, older ice in the region noted in our April update.
Note that the slowdown actually started a few days before NSIDC published their forecast for it. NSIDC only produces one newsletter per month, so this may just be a matter of timing.
By contrast, my forecast came three days ahead of the slowdown and was very precise.
stevengoddard says:
June 28, 2010 at 10:16 pm
In three days, the slope of the Arctic extent graph will begin to drop off.
Mark it on your calendar.
NSIDC also noted in their July 6 newsletter the possible similarity between 2006 and 2010.
Weather conditions, atmospheric patterns, and cloud cover over the next month will play a major role in determining whether the 2010 sea ice decline tracks at a level similar to 2007, or more like 2006. Although ice extent was greater in June 2007 than June 2006, in July 2007 the ice loss rate accelerated. That fast decline led up to the record low ice extent of September 2007.
By contrast, I clearly noted the similarity to 2006 over six weeks ago – at a time when the extent graphs showed 2010 far below 2006. My observation was made based on PIPS thickness data, which allowed me to make a very early prediction.
Can we find another year with similar ice distribution as 2010? I can see Russian ice in my Windows. Note in the graph below that 2010 is very similar to 2006.
Bookmark this post for reference in September.
June 1, 2006
June 1, 2010
Six weeks later, 2010 extent is very close to 2006 – just as the PIPS data indicated it should be. It is important to note that whether or not PIPS thicknesses have correct absolute values, I am only using it for comparisons relative to other years. The absolute thicknesses are not important – as long as their methodology is consistent from year to year.
‘
Conclusion : The PIPS thickness data has been an extremely good indicator of 2010 Arctic ice conditions. Thanks to reliance on PIPS data, WUWT has been far ahead of the curve in forecasting future 2010 ice conditions.
Coincidence? Not very likely. Theory is fine, but it is difficult to argue with results.
Hah, another week of this and my 6.0-6.2M km/2 predicted in early April (or maybe late March) will start looking better again. 🙂
But I think I agree with the general thrust of Anthony’s intro –it ain’t over till the Fat Lady sings, and she takes forever doing her warmups.
Personally, I intend to try hard to be cheerful and conciliatory in post-analysis whichever end of the stick I end up on that third week in September.
Good report Steve. The thicker multi-year ice makes sense as a leading indicator.
Putting a graph of june 1st beside a graph dated july 14th .. That article was too correctly scientific, you had to twist it.
If you have the time, just go to Modis satellite images and take a good look at the actual condition of the ”thick” ice. It’s all breaking apart. And the ice blocks (iceberg or else) are floating away. With the current giration and winds (not to account the very warm temps), don’t sing to loud as you might be in for a surprise. Beating 2007 is senseless. Being at one of the lowest level – that is showing a trend and not a recovery one.
Thanks to Dr. Meier for once again having the willingness to venture into the lion’s den, and for providing posts which, though I don’t always agree with them, do provide a clear, articulate, and understandable depiction of a view from the AGW which I suspect many here will concede is not that far from their own views.
Congratulations also to Anthony. One of the leading reasons I believe that this site is closing in on 50 million hits is that you have been willing and able to recruit and offer presentations from across the spectrum of this debate and to maintain a forum where they can discussed contentiously but mostly without acrimony. It’s a bit sad that this site is such a rarity in that regard, but it is a credit to your personal decency that so many who often disagree with most of your visitors are willing to take the step of exposing their opinions here. I know the amount of abuse and defamation you are exposed to due to your stance on these matters is beyond what I, or probably most of the others here, could imagine enduring, but I think you should take a good deal of reassurance from the fact that so many feel comfortable appearing here and putting their views on the line. The people who seem to really care about discovering the truth in this debate know who you are and, as I do, deeply respect your tireless efforts and honesty. Thanks again for all you do.
REPLY: Thank you Dave, most sincerely. -Anthony
“If you have the time, just go to Modis satellite images and take a good look at the actual condition of the ”thick” ice. It’s all breaking apart. And the ice blocks (iceberg or else) are floating away. With the current giration and winds (not to account the very warm temps), don’t sing to loud as you might be in for a surprise. Beating 2007 is senseless. Being at one of the lowest level – that is showing a trend and not a recovery one.”
Thank you Captain Obvious, I think it was stated in this article “it ain’t over until its over” and you post here “you may be in a for a surprise.”…WOW, I hadn’t thought of that after reading the article! Captain Obvious strikes again folks!
And yes, they talked about how weather influences this as well, and talked about why they used the charts they did. Any other blaringly obvious posts you want to make? I am on a role, and my six shooters full.
Dave Wendt says:
July 14, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I absolutely agree!!!
Some of us posters, readers, doctors, researchers, etc. are advancing in science even though hurdles and barriers challenge the way.
Regg
It is called prediction, followed by verification of the prediction. That is what we do in science.
DMI shows a cooler than normal pole-how does that translate to warm?
Regg,
My forecast is JAXA 5.5 million km^2 for the minimum.
What is your prediction?
Stevengoddard writes:
“Six weeks later, 2010 extent is very close to 2006 – just as the PIPS data indicated it should be.”
Yes, you are presenting good evidence that PIPS data is a very good indicator of melt time. That is an important achievement and you can be proud of it. But leave it there. Please don’t say that you predicted the melt time. If you predicted it, then you should have some confirmed hypotheses about melt time which explain how you go about predicting melt times. But your explanation is that you have discovered that PIPS data is a good indicator. Let us embrace humility and be an example to the world.
I am confidently predicting a normal ice minima (or at least 1SD) for NH ice this summer based on sea ice concentrations succintly visualized by CT and SGoddard up to this date. This of course will seem complete off the planet by most but LOL anyway. I am also predicting that the next 6 months will mark the end of the AGW theory based solely on meteoriological data
Steve, while I tend to side with you on the ice discussion, simply saying the same thing, a little louder, is perhaps not the best way to “win”.
Why do you think the tools you use are better? What do you disagree with in Meier’s evaluation and why? I mean, Meier basically said in the nicest way possible that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Surely you can address those points?
I agree though, the proof is in the pudding. If you “win” the extent prediction, that is awfully hard to argue with. Good luck!
By contrast, my forecast came three days ahead of the slowdown and was very precise.
Steven, I’m still really curious. On what was your forecast based?
The whole dialogue about ice melt in the Arctic, both recent and in the distant past, calls to my mind an image: Knights jousting on icebergs. The Knights are clad in the heavy armor of “their science”, impenetrable, protective, expensive, and can fit just one Mann at a time. Their steeds, or in this case, supporting scientistis, are bred for bearing heavy weights and to charge straight ahead, incapable of moving from side to side, as in lacking flexiblility, when conditions warrant. Their lances are pointed to enemies both real and imagined. Their shields at the ready to deflect any and all blows. In the beginning, the landscape was desolate and as far as the eye could see. And, with the warmth of enlightenment, the solid ice begins to crack in huge chunks and proceed in a Southernly direction, each ice sheet becoming somewhat smaller and smaller. Undetered, the Knights joust, amongst themselves at times, but more often with footman who seek to usurp their iceberg. More than jousting however, the Knights bellow at adversaries across an increasing gulf created by a gently warming current of skeptical interest on a Southern route, towards a more middle or equitorial location, that will diminish their territory, and, in the end, their existence. My image is neither a wish nor a prophesy, just an image of the passage of an idea, from whence it came, to where it is, to where it is going.
That daring young man
On the flying Serreze.
Quick, go find a net.
==========
There’s a good chance that all the remaining ice is “rotten” and will melt off in very quick fashion the next 6 weeks. If it doesn’t, then the long term trend is still down.
Meanwhile, Alberta just got a nice July snowstorm: http://bit.ly/aog95c
Anthony, you said;
“As leader of the WUWT “Ice Team”, I’ll ask that when the time comes, that we all scream for the Ice Team that comes closest to predicting the actual the Arctic Sea Ice minimum, then buy the other team a beer.”
Well I’ll drink to that…. UNLESS….. you’re gonna let Willis pick the beer. I say this because he seems to think, for some unknown reason, that Corona is actually BEER. LOL
I’m in for 6m km2.
I view this on the level of the breakup contest for the Yukon. Good sporting fun.
But where does it leave the Polar Bears?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10658955
“Canadian biologists say polar bears in the Hudson Bay area of Canada are slowly but steadily dying out.
Canadian biologists say polar bears in the Hudson Bay area of Canada are slowly but steadily dying out.
Polar bears in the Hudson Bay area of Canada are likely to die out in the next three decades, possibly sooner, as global warming melts more Arctic ice and thus reduces their hunting opportunities, according to Canadian biologists.
The animals in western Hudson Bay, one of 19 discrete sub-populations of the species around the Arctic, are losing fat and body mass as their time on the floating sea ice gets shorter and shorter, according to the researchers from the University of Alberta.”
It gets silly after those paragraphs.
“If the decline in the sea ice continues – as predictions of global warming suggest it will – it is feared that the bears could die out in 25 to 30 years, or perhaps in as few as 10, if there are a succession of years with very low sea ice cover”
MattN
The only thing that is going to “win” is a correct forecast. I am just setting the record straight and detailing my methodology.
Günther
The sharp decline in June was due to areas outside of the Arctic Basin (like the Hudson Bay) melting out. It became clear at the end of June that Hudson Bay would be clear of ice on July 1, and that there was almost no thin ice left to melt anywhere. As a result, ice loss came to nearly a hard stop on July 1.
At some point later in July, it will probably start to pick up again.
Günther
BTW – I knew that there was almost no thin ice left at the end of June, because of PIPS.
Well, the JAXA data for the 14th is now up and its another “huge” 43,000 sq km loss, making the average for the first 2 weeks in July approx 55,000 sq km per day.
Incidentally, the first 2 weeks of July 2006 averaged over 83,000 sq km per day (although it did slow to about 63,000 sq km during the latter part of the month). Not sure how accurate the comparison tool on Cyrosphere Today is, but when compring July 12th 2006 with this year, it appears the ice concentration is much greater in the Arctic Basin this year.
Does this perhaps have any bearing on the slower rate of loss now the majority of ice outside the basin is already gone? And what does this mean for the remainder of the melt season?
Perhaps the most startling difference to me is whereas at 27th June this years ice extent was 618,000 sq km below the 2007 figure and guys like Anu were preparing to have their summer vacation at the North Pole, just 17 days later the difference is 300,000 sq km the other way (2010 above 2007). Thats some turnaround and goes to illustrate how quickly things can change.
I wonder where Anu is btw. Haven’t seen him post for a couple of weeks?
The preliminary JAXA number is in for 7/14/2010 — 8087344. We only had 43.6k sq-km melt today. The final number usually shows the Arctic Sea ice significantly higher, so expect the final melt to be in the 30’s. This continues the slow melt trend of the last week.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
Can we do analyses like these for Antarctic ice or do we not have the thickness data?
Even if we do have thickness data, I suppose it is a significantly different animal, it being an island surrounded by open ocean.
Can we expect mea culpa from Romm, for this exceptionally clueless piece from May 24?
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/24/arctic-sea-ice-extent-volume-nsidc-record-steve-goddard/
Any volunteers to remind him in his comments section? I can’t do it, because I would get censored or selectively edited.
Warren says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:20 pm
It gets silly after those paragraphs.
“If the decline in the sea ice continues – as predictions of global warming suggest it will – it is feared that the bears could die out in 25 to 30 years, or perhaps in as few as 10, if there are a succession of years with very low sea ice cover”
Actually, I think I agree with them Warren. According to wikipedia, the font of all human knowledge, the life expectancy of a polar bear is about 26 years. So I can almost guarantee that the bears living in Hudson Bay right now will mostly all be dead in 25 to 30 years time.
/sarc off
As I posted previously, the more negative AO winters tend to have a slower melt in the summer all else being equal. Of course, not all summers are equal, but the trend definitely holds fairly strong.
The last 3 decently -AO winters have been 2009-2010, 2005-2006, and 2000-2001, of which the previous 2 have had high mins (2000-2001 a very high min). The middle case, 2006, we obviously know a lot about because its on the jaxa record. It flattened out very fast with the extra multi-year ice held in along with a non-hostile pattern for ice loss in summer. The summer pattern still matters a lot, but the Beaufort Gyre being enhanced in the -AO winters tends to really help out in the prevention of major ice loss after those winters. 1995-1996 is another good example. 1996 had a very weak melt.
In contrast, if you look at the lower extents in history (compared to years around them), they generally followed major +AO winters. 1988-1989, 1994-1995, and 2006-2007 are good examples. This isn’t an airtight argument because there are still other factors and as a result a few exceptions to the rule, but its good evidence that the winter AO might play a significant role.
We still have a ways to go to see where 2009-2010 finishes. Its been flattening a lot recently, but it doesn’t mean it still cannot be an outlier and finish pretty low.
Smells like Teen Ice.
=============
I completely agree with Dave Wendt’s comments about this site.
Cheers to Anthony for a monumental task [the search for truth] made palatable…in the form of WUWT. I love this place!
Meanwhile, thanks also to Steve Goddard for his incessant assault on the sea ice misinformation police.
Looks like ice thickness and girth….matters.
Good ole’ PIPS. If its good enough for the mightiest Navy in the known universe, it should be more than good enough for R Gates.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Anthony got it right in one image: Aerial manoeuvre, the Full Serreze.
I think that the minimum Arctic sea ice extent will be slightly larger than in 2009.
Now, I still don’t have a “Dr.” before my name (could have collected doctorates by the dozen but was too fastidious). Which means that if I am right, I am “lucky,” and if I am wrong… but I am never wrong, that’s the problem.
Coincidence? Paul the Octopus predicted all world championchip matches correctly he had been “asked” about. So if something that is not made to predict certain things still produces good results does not mean it actually works. For how long are you using PIPS to make your predictions? If it worked for you for a decade – well, it probably just works. If you only do it for 2-3 years you cannot know whether it works (just saying, since you begged the question yourself).
Matthias
The odds of correctly predicting ten consecutive football matches are 1024/1
“stevengoddard says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Matthias
The odds of correctly predicting ten consecutive football matches are 1024/1”
That is only true if both teams are equally good, and if there is no tie.
The odds of correctly predicting ten consecutive football matches are 1024/1
Yes, but an octopus has 8 arms. 😉
The sharp decline in June was due to areas outside of the Arctic Basin (like the Hudson Bay) melting out. It became clear at the end of June that Hudson Bay would be clear of ice on July 1, and that there was almost no thin ice left to melt anywhere. As a result, ice loss came to nearly a hard stop on July 1.
Steven, thanks for the answer. There is one thing I don’t understand. Why didn’t the 2007 ice loss have a hard stop at a certain point? Is that because 2007 had a lot more thin ice?
At some point later in July, it will probably start to pick up again.
Why will it start to pick up again if there is no thin ice left to melt anywhere?
PS I’ve only just noticed it, but in the article’s title it says NSDIC (should be NSIDC).
“Can we expect mea culpa from Romm, for this exceptionally clueless piece from May 24?”
I think comments are closed, at least I can’t seem to respond. Smart of him to do that. Some of the comments are priceless in there. They are just so cute and smug, I wonder what their excuse will be when there’s 2M km^2 more ice this September….
Steven,
the question was for how many years PIPS has been used for prediction, not what the odds are to guess 10 consecutive football matches.
FYI
For those who aren’t pilots: there’s no aerial maneuver called The Full Serreze. The picture is an aircraft in a spin. Been there, done that, a few times. Easy to do. Full throttle, yoke all the way back, mash one rudder pedal to the floor. The trick is coming out of it alive. In a forgiving aircraft like the Cessna 172 I flew all you have to do, aside from beginning the maneuver a few thousand feet AGL, is cut the throttle, let go of the yoke, and apply a little rudder in the direction opposite the spin.
Curious about the name I googled Full Serreze and found a Dr. Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center who has a history of making dire warnings about arctic ice loss.
Good one, Anthony.
Matthias
PIPS has been used by the Navy for decades as their operational ice model.
Günther
Winds have been spiraling away from the pole, lowering the ice concentration. That means more water is being heated by sunlight, and eventually this will show up as ice loss in the graphs.
If you look at JAXA by eyeball, you see a point ~Aug 5 where 2006, 2008, and 2009 are practically right on top of each other. I suspect 2010 will likely closely join that grouping on that date.
So what drives what happens after that date, from Aug 5 to the end of September and minimum? To me, it seems likely that the available amount of multi-year ice is the major answer (tho certainly wind and tide play a role).
2007 “headed for the basement” quite early, starting around July 5 or so. So far, 2010 shows no such inclination. The rapidity of the May/June melt for 2010, in my mind, is an artifact of the late surge to maximum in late March of this year. The youngest ice is the thinnest ice, and in retrospect it makes sense that such a late surge in extent would melt off correspondingly fast.
Returning to 2006/2008/2009. . . .look at the “sag” (i.e. post Aug 5) difference between 2008 and 2009. Why is it there? It’s there because 2009 had much more second year ice than 2008 did (after the 2007 outlier). 2010 has more 3rd year ice, and much more second year ice at this point than 2009 did and far more than 2008.
Am I suggesting that wherever 2010 is on Aug 5 that I expect the “sag” difference to be of the same amplitude between 2010 and 2009 as it was between 2009 and 2008? Well, that would be nice, but I suspect not –there has got to be some kind of asymptotic ice-age maturity function going on here.
So, anyway, back in late April I began telling WUWT that I would find anything that wasn’t truly eye-poppingly unusual between May 1 and July 1 unintersting, and that my next major checkpoint was July 1-July 15, just completed. In my view, that policy has been confirmed by events.
And now my next major checkpoint is Aug 5. See you there.
David says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:35 pm
I think I saw him commenting on some other threads within the past few days, but he doesn’t appear to be commenting on sea ice currently.
Most of the AGW crowd here has either departed from the Sea Ice discussion or are switching tactics back to the “long term trend is still down” approach. See, for instance:
Thrasher says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:38 pm
&
Regg says:
July 14, 2010 at 4:56 pm
They don’t seem to realize that, though the long term trend is still down, the point is to show that the claim(s) of no summer sea ice by
20082013 don’t look to be coming true.-Scott
Steve
this is what I am trying to get at:
Mr Meier said in his first article:
“2. Validation of PIPS (see references above) has been done for sea ice extent, concentration, and motion near the ice edge (an important factor in the day-to-day changes in the ice edge). This is because the ice edge is the area of operational interest – i.e., the focus is on providing guidance for ships to avoid getting trapped in the ice. Very little validation was done for ice thickness estimates, particularly in the middle of the ice pack.”
The way I understood it is that PIPS isn’t really made to forecast thickness, espcially with view to PIPS’ purpose of making practical predictions for only a few days into the future.
Now, to connect this to my question: You seem to rely on their thickness data nonetheless, stating how well it apparently worked, but also asking whether this be merely a coincidence. I was wondering whether you might believe it could be merely coincidence after all in light of PIPS not being meant for thickness prediction (or rather: did I get this correctly?).
So when I ask for how many years you have used PIPS thickness data to predict a slowdown in melt, the question could be rephrased to ask whether even though PIPS may not have been made with thickness prediction in mind, does it still reliably work for melt slowdown predictions of yours nonetheless? And if it worked for you not only once or twice, but rather reliably, then this would suggest that your predictions are not merely coincidential.
Maybe I am missing the obvious and the question is silly altogerher, but certainly your second answer also did not address my question. The question was not for how long PIPS is in use, it was for how long YOU used PIPS thickness prediction for your own predictions in slowdown of melt. Or at least that was what I was trying to ask in the first place. Was my queston simply “weird” / off the mark in this context or is it you not wanting to state for how many years you did your predictions based on that PIPS data? Or both? 🙂
Prediction: 5,301,000 sqkm
Matt
I have been using PIPS for six weeks, and so far everything has been close to perfect.
I calculated that in order to stop the long term downwards trend, the summer minimum would have to be 22 million km^2.
Isn’t it NSIDC?
REPLY: Yep fumble fingers on my part, fixed -A
Steve–
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say 22M km/2 is not in the cards this year.
However, bending the decline of the LT “less downwards” would only take about 5.5M km/2, right?
Actually, if one tossed out 2007-2009 like they didn’t exist, what would one expect 2010 to come out at based on 2006 and earlier long-term trend?
To me, that’s a more interesting number –but the reason I say that is I consider 2007 and recovery from 2007 to be an “outlier” event (and I put 2008 and 2009 in that “recovery from the 2007 outlier” catagory).
stevengoddard says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:40 am
I calculated that in order to stop the long term downwards trend, the summer minimum would have to be 22 million km^2.
Yes, but I’d prefer the terms “eliminate” or “cancel” to “stop.” If we allow anything other than a first order regression, a few more years of increase could justify a claim that the downward trend has “stopped”.
Let me suggest a 10 year moving average as a reasonable measure of the long term trend. It’s long enough to approximately capture whole solar cycles while still being round. If the 10 year moving average stops decreasing, the the long term trend can fairly be described as stopped. We might get there in ~4-5 years but it’d surprise me. I’m of the camp that says the recovery from the Little Ice Age isn’t done yet.
Here’s a prediction – in 3 days ice melt will speed up again.
Source – looking at the GFS charts that suggest a change from the current pattern of low pressure over Beaufort sea cycling cool air around the Arctic Basin, back to a dipole pattern with southerlies pushing warm air from the Asian continent into the Arctic, and compacting ice towards Greenland. Currently some very patchy ice near the north pole should make the ice pack quite easy to compact if this wind pattern happens as forecast.
Steven, you got it wrong and Dr Mieir told you so. Just swallow the pill and stop saying that you always said it before.
You (at last) found something scientific to show you how things works in the Arctic and again you pull all of what is happening on your behalf stating you are predicting this or that.. C’mon, the Pips is telling you that, can’t you show just a tiny bit of humility.
As per doing prediction on the Arctic or else, i don’t see that as funny. In fact it is quite stupid trying to make fun out of something that could lead to disaster. While you’re joking about the sea ice, the permafrost is melting – and that is dangerous for the locals, but also for the industrial pipelines sitting on top of that melting permafrost. Just ask you’re friend taking care of those pipeline – it cost millions just to make sure they don’t move. If the permafrost starts to move, make it multi billions – and the risk of disaster, or even simply to shut it down – economic disaster then.
What’s the difference between 2006-2007 and the upcoming 2010, who cares.. As more and more years are with less ice cover, we’re just closer to see a tanker hitting the ground, an offshore rig collapsing in the Arctic, a spill of crude oil all over that place. That’s whats at risk. But you’re too busy having fun with the cryosphere graphical view.
Try to think beyond your noze instead of laughing at that situation – this is serious stuff not only to the AGW proponents, but for all the industrial world making big bucks on top of the world.
Regg, your post might just be the perfect poster child for what is wrong with the Alarmist crowd. The arctic was warmer in the Medieval times than now. The Vikings tried to farm in Greenland based on a short term warming and then were driven out by the sudden cooling that occurred again. Whose fault is that?
Maybe the problem isn’t the globe warming. Perhaps its people who expect the climate to remain stagnant. The climate was warming coming out of the Little Ice Age. It was going to warm regardless or not if we helped it along a bit. The Little Ice Age killed a lot of people with famines and starvation. Maybe we should try and make the climate go back to that great time in the 1600s when it was freezing? Lots of farmers would probably lose millions on crops and famine would hit with less food.
Get off your high horse already. The climate changes whether we think we can control it or not. It will change if we all stopped burning fossil fuels.
On a side note, another very slow day of melting in the Arctic.
Warren says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:20 pm
It gets silly after those paragraphs.
“If the decline in the sea ice continues – as predictions of global warming suggest it will – it is feared that the bears could die out in 25 to 30 years, or perhaps in as few as 10, if there are a succession of years with very low sea ice cover”
I’d suggest that the Canadian authorities sacrifice a few of these underweight bears to make sure that there isn’t some horrible disease process going on, like what’s affecting the Tasmanian Devils.
[REPLY – They already permit the Inuits dry gulch around 300 a year, as it is. ~ Evan]