“Quote of the week #33: What, no death spiral?” Anthony Watts tries to make hay over the fact that claimed predictions based on the sharp 2007 decline in Arctic ice extent haven’t been met, even though it’s still fairly low. Of course he has to ignore all the explanations that surround the quotes he has plucked in order to do that.
It’s physicist Dr. Joe Romm’s quote, which is actually a post title, from June 5th, 2009 that Anthony’s giggling over when considered in the light of another quote this week in The Sunday Times. I mean, there’s still ice up there!
Anthony somehow fails to detail Dr. Serreze’s explanation, which I would have thought should support the humor:
I said the north pole [meaning the local vicinity of the physical north pole, not the entire Arctic Ocean as Anthony chose to misrepresent it at the time – Ben] might melt out and I was not alone in making such speculation. It did not melt out and I got some flack for this. So be it. As for the “great recovery” of ice extent in 2008 heard in some circles, it was a recovery from lowest (2007) to second lowest (2008).
The quote from Dr. Serreze this week that is entertaining Anthony is in a Sunday Times article by the notorious Jonathan Leake:
“In retrospect, the reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated. The lesson is that we must be more careful in not reading too much into one event”.
But he doesn’t mention Dr. Serreze’s statement that precedes it in the article.
“It has been a crazy winter with Arctic ice cover growing and very cold weather in northern Europe and eastern America all linked to this strongly negative Arctic Oscillation”
Or the article’s second paragraph:
A shift in the chilly winds across the Bering Sea over the past few months has caused thousands of square miles of ocean to freeze.
Perhaps there’s a zinger at the end or the article? Nope:
“On current trends it will still become ice-free in summer by around 2060.”
Anthony might want to wait until the definitive September minimum has been recorded before crowing, although he may be trying to get in there before the record proves him wrong.
I’m glad to hear though that he is now promoting long-term trends as the only relevant climate change evidence. Or is it just momentarily convenient?