Eye-roller Claim: one year of Arctic data enough to proclaim ‘danger ahead’

From the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO and the “one year of data is good enough to predict danger when you let science die” department comes this ridiculous study with an equally ridiculous PR headline. Of course, their science was so robust, they had to use a polar bear image in the PR to tug at heartstrings.


Danger ahead?
Wind, sea ice patterns point to climate change in western Arctic

Polar bear reaching out paw to touch ice. CREDIT Wikimedia Commons, free use. Photo credit: Mario Hoppmann

A major shift in western Arctic wind patterns occurred throughout the winter of 2017 and the resulting changes in sea ice movement are possible indicators of a changing climate, says Kent Moore, a professor of physics at the University of Toronto Mississauga.

Thanks to data collected by buoys dropped from aircraft onto the Arctic Ocean’s sea ice, Moore and colleagues at the University of Washington, where he spent the year as the Fulbright Visiting Chair in Arctic Studies, were able to observe this marked, anomalous shift in Arctic wind patterns and sea ice movement during the winter of 2017.

Their study is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Usually, the western Arctic has relatively stable weather during the winter; it is home to a quasi-stationary region of high pressure known as the Beaufort High, which promotes “anti-cyclonic” winds that travel in a clockwise direction and move sea ice along with it. By contrast, the eastern Arctic has a more dynamic climate where cyclones are a common winter phenomenon with storms moving from Greenland towards Norway and the Barents Sea.

“Last year, we looked at the buoy tracks in the western Arctic and saw that the sea ice was moving in a counter-clockwise pattern instead and wondered why,” Moore says. “We discovered that storms were moving in an unexpected direction from the Barents Sea along the Siberian coast and into the western Arctic, bringing with them low-pressures that caused the collapse of the Beaufort High.”

Moore and colleagues believe that the low-pressure systems were able to make inroads into the western Arctic because of an unusually warm fall in 2016 resulting in thinner and less extensive sea ice. During the winter, this allowed for more oceanic heat to be transferred to the atmosphere and provided an additional energy source for these storms.

“As a result of this additional energy source, the storms did not dissipate over the Barents Sea, as is usual, and were able to reach into the western Arctic,” Moore says. “We reviewed more than 60 years of weather data from the Arctic and it appears that this collapse has never happened before.”

Generally, the Beaufort High drives sea ice motion throughout the Arctic as well as impacting ocean circulation over the North Atlantic Ocean. Any shift in movement patterns has the potential to affect the climate in these regions, as well as the Arctic ecosystem that depends on predictable areas of open water and ice.

For example, as a result of this collapse, sea ice was thinner along the coast of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, as well as in the southern Beaufort Sea last winter. Such changes can disturb Arctic food webs, stressing marine mammals and polar bears, especially if they are ongoing.

“If this becomes part of the normal pattern – even if it happens every few years – it will mean that the climate is changing,” Moore says. “We are still exploring all of the specific impacts.”

###

Collapse of the 2017 winter Beaufort High: A response to thinning sea ice?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL076446

Abstract
The winter Arctic atmosphere is under the influence of two very different circulation systems: extra‐tropical cyclones that travel along the primary North Atlantic storm track from Iceland towards the eastern Arctic; while the western Arctic is characterized by a quasi‐stationary region of high pressure known as the Beaufort High. The winter (January through March) of 2017 featured an anomalous reversal of the normally anticyclonic surface winds and sea ice motion in the western Arctic. This reversal can be traced to a collapse of the Beaufort High as the result of the intrusion of low‐pressure systems from the North Atlantic, along the East Siberian Coast, into the Arctic Basin. Thin sea ice as the result of an extremely warm autumn (October through December) of 2016 contributed to the formation of an anomalous thermal low over the Barents Sea that, along with a northward shift of the tropospheric polar vortex, permitted this intrusion. The collapse of the Beaufort High during the winter of 2017 was associated with simultaneous 2‐sigma sea‐level pressure, surface wind and sea ice circulation anomalies in the western Arctic. As the Arctic sea ice continues to thin, such reversals may become more common and impact ocean circulation, sea ice, and biology.

Plain Language Summary
The warming that the Arctic is currently experiencing has garnered attention in both the popular and scientific press. Indeed the retreat and thinning of the region’s sea ice is one of the most significant and irrefutable indicators of human influence on the climate. In addition to these long term trends, the past several years have seen record warmth and extreme events in the region, such as above‐freezing winter temperatures at the North Pole, that may be harbingers of even more dramatic changes in the future. In this paper, we document a recent and previously unknown consequence of this warming: the collapse of the winter Beaufort High that occurred as a result of the intrusion of North Atlantic cyclones into the western Arctic. This phenomenon occurred, for the first time, during the winter of 2017 and resulted in a reversal in surface winds and sea ice motion across the entire western Arctic. We argue that the extreme warmth during the autumn of 2016 resulted in reduced sea ice extent and thickness in the eastern Arctic that persisted into the winter of 2017 allowing extra‐tropical cyclones from the North Atlantic to intrude into the western Arctic

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “Eye-roller Claim: one year of Arctic data enough to proclaim ‘danger ahead’

    • “As the Arctic sea ice continues to thin…”

      But the ice isn’t. NRL shows ice thicker than last year, especially on Eurasian side toward Laptev Sea. DMI “volume” graph shows increase over last year. Even PIOMAS shows volume flat for several years.

  1. We saw over 50 papers, trying to explain “the pause”.
    How will they explain the fact that Arctic temperatures are currently below the 44- year average, for the first time in many years?

    • The Arctic temperatures were below average in the fall of 2017 and were throughout the entire summer.

      • You are correct, RW. I phrased that inappropriately and should have said, “for the first time, on this date, in many years”.

  2. “..even if it happens every few years – it will mean that the climate is changing,” The climate is ALWAYS changing. It is a chaotic system. Do these people get their degrees from a mail order site?

  3. Well didn’t they use just one tree in *that* study? So they are just being consistent and using just one year now!

  4. It was a warm winter. At this very moment it’s a bit colder than normal. link The sea ice seems still to be building. Usually at this time of year the ice has just peaked.

      • goldminor
        Keep an eye on the Pacific side of the Arctic on the 24th. As there will be a major push of warm air into the Arctic from there. The way jet stream forecast is looking l would expect temps to rise at least 10C in the Arctic around that date.

      • Yes its there ready and waiting, and on the 24th the jet stream will “open the gate” and allow it to flood into the Arctic. Maybe not quite on the same scale as the one earlier this month. But still interesting never the less.

      • “taxed March 20, 2018 at 2:14 pm
        goldminor
        Keep an eye on the Pacific side of the Arctic on the 24th. As there will be a major push of warm air into the Arctic from there. The way jet stream forecast is looking l would expect temps to rise at least 10C in the Arctic around that date.”

        10°C would bring 245°K, i.e. -28.1°C up to a grand total of 255°K, i.e. -18.1°C.

        Well below salt water’s freeze temperature of approximately 270°K, i.e. -2.1°C.

        Of course if it’s the alleged polar surface fresh water, then the freeze temperature is right back at 273°K, i.e. 0.0°C.

        All you intimated is that Arctic surface waters under the warm front will freeze a little slower.

        Big whoop.

      • ATheoK
        l said “at least 10C” just to cover myself, but am expecting it to be more.
        The jet stream forecast suggests its going to be a big jump in temps.

      • Had a look at the latest forecast and its now looking like this inflow into the Arctic will only last for around 24 hours before its cut off again. So l think there will be a sharp spike in temps on the 24th, but its now looking limited to 10C to 15C. But the jet forecast does suggest that this warm inflow will circle the Arctic.

      • Looks like some warming, but not enough to push the cold out of the way. Notice how this wind likely aided the other entrance to remain closed to warm air masses from the Atlantic side. That is important in the scheme of things as it means that Europe stays cooler than on average. I am curious as to how long this pattern can hold in place.

  5. If one year of data is enough, then we are headed for another Little Ice Age with the 4th N’or-easter snowfall about to hit the North East US on Wednesday.

    Washington, D.C. may see its highest accumulation of snow in years, with forecasters predicting anywhere between 7 to 10 inches by Thursday morning. Washington DC has never recorded 10 inches of snowfall in the month of March from a single wx event.
    In New York City, forecasters expect anywhere between a foot to 16 inches of snow. In New England, heavy snow is expected with a total accumulation of more than 14 inches.

  6. This warm period in the Arctic was preceded by ” sudden stratospheric warming.” This last happened in 2013 and one theory was that the warm air came from South West China, the Taklamaken Desert to be precise. This warm wind was launched, as from a ski jump, by the Himalayan foothills into the stratosphere, then ran downhill to the Arctic, finally draining into the pothole of frigid air at the Pole toward the end of the long Polar night. As the warm air descended it was compressed and it’s temperature rose. It disrupted the Arctic Vortex, resulting in the “Beast From the East” in the UK, and epic snow falls in the Eastern US>

    • “J. M. Davidson March 20, 2018 at 11:17 am
      This warm period in the Arctic was preceded by ” sudden stratospheric warming.” This last happened in 2013 and one theory was that the warm air came from South West China, the Taklamaken Desert to be precise. This warm wind was launched, as from a ski jump, by the Himalayan foothills into the stratosphere, then ran downhill to the Arctic, finally draining into the pothole of frigid air at the Pole toward the end of the long Polar night. As the warm air descended it was compressed and it’s temperature rose. It disrupted the Arctic Vortex, resulting in the “Beast From the East” in the UK, and epic snow falls in the Eastern US”

      How does that work?
      Exactly?

      Mountains slope right into the ground.
      No jump going downward.
      A near vertical lift going upwards.

      The Himalayas’ range from 27°N through 31°N approximately 5,700 km to 7,000 km+ away from the Arctic.

      If it’s warm air from SW China’s Taklimakan desert, that is located at least 700 km away from Nepal’s Himalaya peaks, and 1,000 km away from where the Himalayas’ form a substantial arc, near Kathmandu

      Any winds from the Taklimakan desert would hit the mountain arc of the Himalayas at an angle causing a great deal of turbulence. Nor would winds launched nearly straight up be aimed towards the Arctic.

      Ignoring normal effects on warm lower level air masses subjected to rapid elevation miles into the atmosphere.
      Warm? I think not.

  7. Indeed the retreat and thinning of the region’s sea ice is one of the most significant and irrefutable indicators of human influence on the climate.

    Irrefutable? The author of this sentence must not get out very much. Perhaps he is a less than “Fulbright Visiting Chair in Arctic Studies.”

  8. ” … sea ice was thinner along the coast of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, as well as in the southern Beaufort Sea last winter. Such changes can disturb Arctic food webs, stressing marine mammals … ”

    I’d say that Marine mammals are more stressed by thick sea ice that hinders/blocks their access to the air they breathe rather than the bounty of phytoplankton that flourish in areas of less sea ice which apparently ‘disturb’ the food web.

    • Yes, more of the idiocy that believes that warmer = worse for life, and colder = better for life. I guess the consideration of the differences in the amount of, and diversity of, life at the poles vs. in the tropics has never occurred to them.

  9. More of the climate creep’s favorite game: “heads we win, tails you lose”.
    Now these fear mongering jerks not only ignore history and rewrite data records. Now they also redefine “climate signal” to mean “one season of out of context data”.

  10. If the entire Arctic Ocean melted permanently, what danger would that present, except MAYBE a few animals here & there?

    It won’t of course, but the point is there isn’t any “danger”. Improvements for commerce would occur, tho.

    • Unless those animals were “climate researchers”, they would be smart enough to leave when they notice heavy duty melting.

  11. The story’s importance lays only in the supposed connection to fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

    Take that away, and it’s, ‘oh, look, the arctic is changing again. We don’t know why, but shifts happen all the time.

    Honest modesty in the face of ignorance: non-existent in consensus climate science.

    Physical understanding of the climate is poor and hasn’t improved in 40 years. A good deal of the blame for that is the huge diversion into unproductive modeling.

    Climate models do not solve the problem of the climate energy state. Climate modelers are not scientists. They have contributed nothing to our understanding of the climate.

    • Agreed – current climate pseudo-science not only has not advanced human understanding of climate, it has set back the advancement of knowledge about climate for decades (and counting), due to the false and baseless “certainty” regarding human-based climate effects and the preoccupation with promoting that point of view.

  12. GW research canceled, because of too much ice!
    ———————————-

    ‘A wake-up call’: Thick, High Arctic ice flowing south thanks to climate change, researcher says
    Scientists studied Arctic ice near Newfoundland after planned expedition cancelled due to climate change

    After a Canadian icebreaker was diverted from a research mission in the Arctic to assist with never-before-seen levels of ice off the coast of Newfoundland, a climate-change researcher is sounding the alarm about the potential for increasingly treacherous conditions in the North Atlantic.

    A team of scientists from five Canadian universities had planned to head out on the icebreaker CCGS Amundsen to study the effects of climate change.

    But because of the hazardous ice conditions off the coast of Newfoundland, the vessel was diverted to assist with search-and-rescue operations in the area, helping ferries and fishing boats navigate the Strait of Belle Isle. A Canadian Coast Guard assistant commissioner told CBC News at the time the ice conditions were more severe than anything the region had seen before.

    Read the rest here:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/arctic-sea-ice-research-1.4583150

    • If glaciers reach Manhattan, they’ll still be blaming it on human CO2 emissions.

    • Actually the ice was so much thicker because it was compressed. If you go through the NRL maps day by day you can see the ice, that extended far out to sea from Newfoundland in early February, “shrink.” In fact east winds from the series of nor’easters that afflicted the eastern USA crunched the floating ice to the west. This caused the “extent” of the ice to go down as the “thickness” went up. My guess would be that the “volume” was roughly the same. But it was tough on ordinary boats to have ice that is usually scattered or only a few feet thick suddenly be heaped up twenty-five feet thick.

      I take issue with the reporter’s statement that the boats were experiencing “never-before-seen levels of ice”. Maybe the reporter had never seen them before. Maybe the youngest captains, as well. But if you go through the history of the Hudson Bay Company, and the records of the British explorers of the Northwest Passage during the first half of the 1800’s, you realize the flow of ice down the west side of Baffin Bay and along the coast of Newfoundland has, and still can, vary greatly. Some years there is little, some years there is a lot, some years the ice freezes solid to the shore and becomes “fast ice”, some years big areas of fast ice break lose and swirl south.

      The reporter quoted a “climate scientist” who suggested the shifting of the ice was a new thing, and that before Global Warming all the ice was fast ice. This is incorrect. The transport of sea-ice and big bergs of glacier ice out of Baffin Bay has gone on since the earliest reports were recorded. It is a natural flow, much like the flow of ice down the east coast of Greenland, and a somewhat similar flow down the Pacific coast of Siberia.

  13. I have suggested that those reporting on change in the climate use ” ever changing climate”. This would seem to be clumsy and difficult.
    May I suggest the use of the plural, “changes”. So simple and so accurate.

    E.g. Climate changes.

    I hope.
    Wonderful site even though the mathematics from some, is beyond me.

    Long may you all keep contributing.

  14. “This phenomenon occurred, for the first time, during the winter of 2017 and resulted in a reversal in surface winds and sea ice motion across the entire western Arctic.”

    Yikes! It IS unprecedented!

    We are all gonna die!

    Oh, and please send money.

    • Ah, so they are using this classic logic form:

      If……..SWAG
      Then…..
      We have proven AGW
      But…..
      We need to study how much worse it is than we thought

    • “For the first time”. I can’t imagine they looked (through the little bit of arctic history we have gathered) all that hard. So somebody fund them, so they can look deeper, and eventually state, “Oh…..never mind.”

      The simple fact of the matter is we have only had satellite data (if you include early Nimbus pictures) since 1969, which is only 49 years of an AMO cycle of 60 years. That means we have eleven years to go, of seeing data which ought to be fresh and new. Rather than interested and exited about learning about the final eleven years of the AMO cycle, I fear we are going to have to put up with eleven years of these hysterical children shrieking and running in circles about how what we are seeing is “unprecedented”.

      DMI has an archive of graphs of past year’s temperatures to the lower left of the current year’s graph. If you glance through the past you can discover some amazing spikes and valleys, that must have involved some fascinating arctic weather maps. For example, check out the year 1972. From mid February to mid-March the temperatures first rocket from the bottom of the graph to more than half way up, and then plunge back down to where they are now. (235K to 262K, and then back down to 243K). This must have involved some very interesting weather maps and shifts of arctic sea-ice. I’d like to research further, so, if you can’t send money, send maps (or a link to archives),

      • I should add that, while they do say that they reviewed “more than sixty years” of weather data, they lack the humbleness to confess the data from the earlier time is very sparse.

        On my own site I have puzzled over the “new” pattern ever since it unveiled itself around Christmas 2015. I dubbed the anomalous low pressure at the Pole, “Ralph”. I saw it be fueled from a number of different “feeder bands”, not merely the North Atlantic. It wandered about, fading and then reincarnating, irregardless of whether the ice was thick in the winter or thin in the summer, until last autumn, and since has faded.

        I have enjoyed much conjecture about the causes of “Ralph”, largely focused on the AMO and the “Quiet Sun”, but conjecture is only conjecture. It may have been due to a surplus of milder air created by the big 2015 El Nino the planet needed to be rid of, but that leads to further conjecture about what caused the El Nino. Wonderful stuff, but we should be humble and confess wondering is just wondering.

        One thing the “new” pattern did is shatter a lot of people’s confident predictions about how the Pole would behave. Some people assume more authority than they should. It’s sort of funny to watch them when reality humbles them. Either they get so quiet you can’t even hear crickets, or they invent marvelous excuses.

        We should expect to be wrong, for the Arctic is showing us something new. It’s a frontier. When an unexpected landscape is revealed, delight in it.

  15. “We reviewed more than 60 years of weather data from the Arctic and it appears that this collapse has never happened before.”

    Unprecedented in the existing records.
    Then they propose a hypothetical..
    If this becomes more regular
    Then
    That is climate change
    BUT
    We have to explore the impacts.

    We see something new in the weather
    If…….. It becomes more regular
    Then…..
    It will be a climate change.
    But…..
    We need to study the impacts.

    Duh. There is nothing wrong with their logic.

      • Except your TITLE implies they only looked at 1 year.
        That is WRONG
        They looked at 60.
        Further, they did NOT warn there was danger, They explicitly said

        IF this continues
        THEN
        that would represent a change in climate ( you know 30 year averages)

        AND they didnt argue that there was SURE danger, they specificly say the have to study more.

      • I believe its ERA-1, freely available. But its one of those datasets that you cannot include in a SI because its terabytes..

    • We don’t have 60 years of arctic weather. Prior to the satellite era, we have a handful of sensors widely scattered and none near the pole itself.

      • We actually have about 1000 years of data, and it shows it was warmer and less ice before. Read up on norse settlements on Greenland…..

      • “We don’t have 60 years of arctic weather. Prior to the satellite era, we have a handful of sensors widely scattered and none near the pole itself.”

        Nonsense. First there are more than a handful. YOU are confused by only looking at GISS and HADCRUT that select samples of stations.

        second… re analysis. FFS. the same systems that give you the DMI temperature charts.

        tested, validated..

        here is a recent study

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00014.1

      • IF it’s less than several thousand, it’s just a handful.
        And still, no permanent measurements from the arctic ocean itself.

    • I agree the logic is working for them.
      All lines of reasoning lead to . . .
      We want more money. Beautiful.

  16. “………..their science was so robust, they had to use a polar bear image in the PR to tug at heartstrings.”

    Seriously?

    Don’t these people read anything other than their own PR?

    Even a layman like me knows about Susan Crockford, and whilst some might not believe her research entirely, it must pose numerous questions on the credibility of using PB’s as icons of a warming world. I mean, these man eating bears are multiplying at a prodigious rate since people were banned from shooting them.

    • Scot, the way to tell Susan Crockford is right is to follow the smear campaign against her enjoined by bear experts Michael Mann and S Lewandowski.

      • Gary

        That kind of illustrates my point. Even when people in the climate campaign as ‘revered’ as Mann reduce themselves to smearing other credible scientists (and I’m certain Mann knows eff all about polar bears) on subjects out-with his expertise, none of these numpties momentarily emerge from their climate change stupor to say “hang on, something’s not quite right here”. And if they do, they duck back down under the sanctity of their duvet before their words have reached the door.

        It’s little people scared of their own shadows. I sometimes think I was one of those little people, but in reality, I’m too gobby to stand by and watch whilst wrong is perpetrated by others. Even my colleagues.

  17. “As a result of this additional energy source, the storms did not dissipate over the Barents Sea, as is usual, and were able to reach into the western Arctic,” Moore says. “We reviewed more than 60 years of weather data from the Arctic and it appears that this collapse has never happened before.”

    Yet, the polar source regions in Canada and Siberia/East Asia have generated what seems as an endless supply of very cold polar air masses.

    • And so it must be C02! I mean 60 years obviously contains all the possible natural variations there might be, and I can prove that by….er….

  18. Whoa—those 4 noreasters MUST predict doom and an ice age for the Eastern United States. I KNEW it!!

  19. A other major warming event is due in the Arctic on the 24th. As a large mass of warm air pushes into the Arctic from the Pacific. With cold air pushing down across Canada and NW eurasia on the 26/27th.
    On the 27th heavy snow/rain is likely to be expected in the Great Lakes and eastern Canada area. As warm air from the Gulf bumps into this cold blast from the Arctic.

  20. “We don’t know why this happened, but if it happens, say every few years, then – CLIMATE CHANGE!”
    These climate numpties are always looking for their canary in the gold mine which will spell doom for the Arctic, and for our climate.

  21. It’s been -16C at night here in Ottawa, Canada this past week and continuing. I can’t see how the Arctic Ice this year is in danger when at 45N latitude the river here was blasted in late February and its freezing over again. With the high El Nino of 2016-2017 and its half year hangover now cleared out, we will be back into the two decade Pause this coming year.

  22. Per NSIDC’s Charctic Interactive graph, today’s (20 March 2018) Arctic Sea Ice Extents is down just a little bit from yesterday: Close to the past few years Arctic Sea Extents on this date, but still just a little bit less than the most recent 10 year average.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    Now, what nobody in the CAGW group is willing to publicize are a few inconvenient facts:
    1. The sea ice in the Sea of Okhotsk and Bering Sea remained solid and at recordable levels (at very low levels, but were still at recorded levels) for the first time ever through the months of July and August in BOTH July and August of BOTH 2016 AND 2017 !
    2. Further east, the recent 2016-2017-2018 sea ice levels in the Hudson Bay and Gulf of St Lawrence remain well above their recent averages from Dec 2017 through today’s date. (Not above their all-time time sea ice extents, but above recent levels on most dates. )
    3. Down south, the Antarctic sea ice retreated from its otherwise steady 1992-2015 increases in late 2015, 2016, and 2017. It had previously set an all-time high sea ice record in June 2014 when just the excess sea ice around the Antarctic (the daily Antarctic sea ice anomaly) exceeded the entire area of Greenland!
    Well, the Antarctic sea ice is well within 1 std deviation of its long-term average on this date, but has increased a “mere” 1/2 Greenland in area from last year’s 2017 daily extent.

    Sobering. Unlike Arctic sea in September up at 78-79 latitude, Arctic and Antarctic sea ice at this time of year, arctic sea ice down in the 60 latitudes DOES reflect significant amounts of solar radiation. It DOES cool the planet when sea ice increases at 60 degrees north or south.

  23. It is much worse. Temperature outside climbed 15 degrees C just from 6 am to 2 pm. If it continues uninterrupted for just four days, the whole planet will boil!

  24. Blocking high: global warming! Change! Doom!

    Dissapation of blocking high: global warming! Change! Doom!

  25. “As a result of this additional energy source, the storms did not dissipate over the Barents Sea, as is usual, and were able to reach into the western Arctic,” Moore says. “We reviewed more than 60 years of weather data from the Arctic and it appears that this collapse has never happened before.”

    I heard Joe Bastardi say on the radio today that the current weather patterns we are experiencing are very similiar to patterns in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

    Perhaps the author of this study should consult Joe Bastardi if he wants a good history of our weather.

  26. One data point offers immense advantages–from there you can go any direction your ideology takes you!

    • Yesterday the temperature went from -2C to nearly 11 C in just 4 HOURS. Scary, or what?

      O calculate that by the end of the year we will be out radiating the sun.

  27. Danger ahead?
    Wind, sea ice patterns point to climate change in western Arctic

    ….one year later…
    Wind, sea ice patterns point to climate change back in western Arctic

    Danger behind.

Comments are closed.