One illusion nourished by Alarmists is created by an overemphasis on warm surface temperatures at the Pole, without regard to how deep or superficial that warmth may be. For example, currently the waters north of Bering Strait and Alaska are still open, which means that surface temperatures over that water remain close to freezing (at least until that water skims over with ice.) Also there is the addition of some Pacific Air due to south winds to the east of an Aleutian Low and west of a Pacific-coast Ridge of high pressure. Though temperatures are below zero (-17 Celsius) over the Pole itself, they are much milder on the Pacific side of the Arctic Sea.
In order to emphasize polar warming, Alarmists like to shift to a map which shows whether the temperature are above-normal or below-normal. Called an “anomaly map”, this can make below freezing temperatures appear cherry red and even white hot, if they are above-normal. Currently the anomaly map shows that while the Pole itself is below-normal, the areas north of Alaska and Bering Strait are indeed above-normal, even “white hot.”
These temperatures, as much as thirty degrees above normal, are added into the data which is used to find the “average” of the entire planet, and (especially during winter) is a reason the planet is said to be “running a fever”, (though in fact it’s roughly only a quarter-to-half degree above normal).
I think these areas of thirty-above-normal in the arctic creates a disproportionate uplift in world-temperatures, and fosters an illusion of warming which does not in fact exist. I think this is not only because a slight increase of moisture creates a big rise in temperatures in arctic conditions, (whereas the same increase would have nearly no effect on temperatures further south). It is also because I watch air-masses, and see how inconsequential these thirty-above-normal air-masses can be, as they come south.
I got in the habit of watching air-masses because the old-school weathermen of my youth actually labeled them on their maps. For example, a high pressure in Canada might be “pacific-maritime” or might be “arctic”, and this told you something about its origins.
For example, in the long range the GFS has been foreseeing that the Pacific ridge of high pressure would break down and Pacific Air would flood over the Canadian Rockies and have a Chinook make the middle of Canada above-normal. Here’s the nine-day-forecast from a couple of days ago:
The above map shows a surge of Pacific, above-normal air pushing east right across Hudson bay. However, so far, such dreams haven’t come true; the air hasn’t had a Pacific source-region, but rather an Arctic source-region, from areas often thirty-above-normal. Yet does that air remain thirty-above-normal as it reaches central Canada?
The answer is “No”. In fact the air is increasingly below normal as it surges south.
Why does the thirty-above-normal air become twenty-below-normal air? Three reasons.
First, “above” and “below” are relative terms, and, where zero degree air may be “above normal” over the Yukon, the same air, even if it warms five degrees on its way south, will be far “below normal” when it reaches Nebraska.
Secondly, we are entering the darkest fifth of the year in the north, and air sometimes actually gets colder coming south, especially over fresh snow-cover. Days are simply too short, while nights are so long they contribute to cooling. Winter is winning. It will not be until February that we will again start to see arctic air-masses warmed much by sunshine in Canada. Warmth must be imported from the south to uplift temperatures in the arctic, or drawn from bodies of water, which are rapidly freezing-over even as I write.
Lastly, the thirty-about-normal air is actually a thin and unsubstantial air-mass, largely reflective of open water, and also reflective of heat being lost upwards to outer space. If you don’t believe me, watch the anomaly maps. You may see thirty-above-normal air head north, (especially from tendrils of the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic) but it is doomed; it never returns south as thirty-above-normal air. In fact it rapidly cools, becoming twenty-above-normal air, ten-above-normal-air, and even finally becoming below-normal . Copious quantities of the planet’s heat are being lost every day.
To stop this squandering of our heat we need the pattern to become more “zonal”. Keep the heat down south where we need it, to lower our heating bills, and trap the cold up at the Pole, going around and round the Pole in circles. The long range forecasts keeps hinting at this, with mild, west-to-east Chinooks appearing on the long-range maps. There is even a hint of cold now being zonally trapped up at the Pole, in the DMI temperatures-north-of-eighty-degrees-latitude graph (with temperatures now sinking down to averaging normal, despite the thirty-above-normal air towards Alaska and Bering Strait):
But…….So far the Pacific Ridge has refused to break down as forecast. It starts to slump south, but then springs back to life. It will be interesting to see if this resiliency persists, (as it did in the frigid winter of 1976-1977), or whether a frigid November gives way to a more benign December, (which is more often the case). As I watch I’ll be wondering what exactly makes the ridge build and persist, and what weakens it. I don’t think anyone is sure about that.
Much may hinge upon the next two large areas of the open water to freeze, the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas north of Bering Strait, and Hudson Bay far further south. (And when I say “hinge upon”, I wonder if I may be hitting upon a yet-to-be-understood variable that influences the positions of troughs and ridges, and whether the pattern is zonal or meridional.) These large expanses of open water can flash freeze with astonishing speed, and as soon as they even thinly skim with ice there is less heat and moisture released into the arctic air, and less of the updrafting which promotes low pressure. There is lot more happening than meets the eye, as we watch the “extent” graph go through its yearly process of rocketing upwards, more than tripling the area covered by sea-ice in the Northern Hemisphere (though do not expect sensationalist headlines, “Sea-ice Nearly Quadruples”.)
The sea-ice largely forms to the north where the sun is brief and low, or has set entirely for the winter, and therefore it has little effect on how much sunshine is bounced away from the earth (albedo) (with Hudson Bay being a slight exception). Snowfall, which can whiten lands further south, has a greater effect. It has fallen earlier than normal in North America, and over the last weekend much of Montana and the Dakotas were whitened. Montana is slightly larger than Germany, and though we consider it a “northern state”, it is the same latitude as France. South Dakota is at the latitude of France’s Mediterranean coast. To have snow so far south so early in November, (breeding the cold air which a snow-cover breeds, during the shortest days), does not bode well for a benign winter, and is reason to hope for a Chinook. (Chinook apparently means “snow eater”, and could push the edge of the snows north in a hurry.) (Note also the sea-ice is just starting to form on the western shores of Hudson Bay.)
Much now will depend on the effect of the large area of open water remaining north of Bering Strait. It is now totally surrounded by snow-covered lands, in both Asia and North America.
Wait and see. One event I envision is for that open water to create enough of an updraft to attract the Aleutian Low north, which dents the Pacific-coast Ridge south and interferes with the pouring of cold air down into North America, allowing Pacific Air to pour east and form Chinooks in the lee of the Rocky Mountains. Perhaps that is what the computer models keep seeing in the long range. But, on the other hand, if waters north of Bering Strait flash freeze, the Pacific-coast Ridge might extend further north, creating a cross-polar-flow sucking the coldest air in the northern hemisphere from Siberia across to Canada and thence south into the USA, where Alarmists will have their toes froze, and blame it on Global Warming.
Some of the world’s biggest rivers drain north into the Arctic Sea, and are one of the amazing “variables” one needs to wonder about, in order to understand the many reasons arctic sea-ice varies so much.
First, one needs to focus on the fact that the flow of such great rivers, (the Lena into the Laptev Sea, the Ob and Yennisey into the Kara Sea, and the Mackenzie into the Beaufort Sea), varies enormously, for the obvious reason that, in the summer, snow and ice melt, and, (because waters cannot drain downwards and feed a “water table” due to permafrost), they feed the entirety of the thaw into rivers, but then, in the winters, the entirety of that water freezes, and rivers go unfed. In the case of the Lena River, in places the river can rise sixty feet in the spring floods, and as much as 100,000 times as much water is pouring into the sea in June as did in early April.
The infusion of fresh water into a salty sea creates a freshwater “lens” near the deltas, because the waters do not immediately mix. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, so it tends to be at the surface, and fresh water freezes more readily, because it has a higher freezing point. Therefore water by the deltas and close to the shores tends to freeze first.
“But wait”, you may ask, “Is not the water close to shore warmer than water further out to sea?” Yes, but only initially. During June the river water is made less icy by long summer days, however by September the tundra such rivers wander through is swiftly freezing over, not only dramatically reducing the amount of water entering the rivers, but also the temperature of the water within the rivers. Also the water that has already reached the sea is rapidly losing its heat to the darkening sky overhead. This tends to create an updraft over the coastal waters, which allows the colder air over the tundra to flow out to sea to replace the air that has risen. This “land breeze” becomes more likely as the temperature difference between the ocean and the tundra becomes more dramatic. For example, this year October 12 temperatures over the Kara and Laptev and East Siberian Seas hovered close to freezing, while (due to fresh snow-cover and radiational-cooling) temperatures just inland in Siberia were far colder.
The swift refreeze of inshore waters was noted by both whales and whaling ships, who fled such waters in early September, (the whales because they cannot breathe under ice, and the whaling ships because sail-powered boats were lousy ice-breakers and could be stopped by as little as an inch of new ice). However scientists of that time, far from the actual situation, came up with an interesting theory, due to their study of the density of salt water as opposed to the density of fresh water.
Water is wonderful stuff, in that it gets less dense as it freezes. If ice behaved like substances such as iron or gold it would sink as it solidified, and the bottoms of our oceans would gradually fill with sunken iceburgs, likely eventually preventing life from continuing, (or even evolving), on earth. However our ingenious Creator made ice float.
Furthermore the process of water becoming less dense as it chills starts before the water actually freezes, so water at thirty-three degrees Fahrenheit will float above water that is thirty-five, if the water is fresh. But scientists noted that as soon as water gets salty this characteristic is lost, and water at thirty-three degrees will sink below water that is thirty-five.
Therefore it seemed obvious to scientists in the days of whaling ships that, as you moved away from the arctic coast, the process of diffusion would cause the “freshwater lens” atop the sea to become more salty, until the salinity reached the magic point where the coldest water was no longer less dense than slightly warmer water, whereupon the sea could not possibly freeze. Why not? Because, as the saltwater at the surface approached the freezing point, it would sink and be replaced by rising warmer water. It became “settled science” that the sea at the North Pole must be open.
It was believed that the constantly sinking cold water at the Pole drew a branch of the warm Gulf Stream at the surface north from the Atlantic, and also drew north a branch of the warm Kuro-Siwo current from the Pacific, and provided access to the Open Polar Sea. This “settled science” was the basis of the expedition of the Jeannette in 1879, which involved the Jeannette getting stuck in the ice for two years before being crushed by the sea-ice. Although all of the crew successfully evacuated the sinking ship onto the surrounding ice, less than half made it back to civilization alive, whereupon “settled science” received some needed revisions.
“Settled science” continues to need revisions, even to this day. (It would require revision even without the stupidity of a politically predetermined result, arrived-at before data is even gathered, let alone processed, due to the needs of nitwit politicians.) It requires revision because, although the laws of nature do not change, our understanding of how such laws play-out does change, especially in cases where many variables are involved.
For example, it still is somewhat theoretically baffling that vast stretches of open water freeze in the Arctic Ocean in a matter of days and sometimes hours. After all, the laws of nature do not change, and salt water at thirty-two degrees will sink below salt water at thirty-three, and therefore it should be theoretically impossible for the surface water to get cold enough to freeze, especially as the temperature of the water must sink below twenty-nine to freeze, because of the salt involved. Yet the edge of the sea-ice can extend miles during “flash-freezes”, and the entirety of Hudson Bay can skim with ice in a mere week. How does nature defy science with such brazen chutzpah?
When I was a young man I lived on the coast of Maine, and got to watch during the very cold winters of the late 1970’s as sea-ice formed and made life difficult for the fishermen, lobster-men, and clammers, who paid their bills by being able to access open waters.
Such men have to deal with brutal realities, and tend to keep their eyes wide open for “bad omens”, and, (even though they at times forecast incorrectly and are then “false prophets”), they do observe things that indoor people never notice, and they tend to have an uncanny ability to foresee oncoming bad weather even when the Weather Bureau is still oblivious. (For example, a mere glimpse, through low scud from the east, up to high clouds veering to the south, alerts them to the fact “steering currents” are bringing the storm causing the east winds straight up from the south towards them.) From such observant men I learned it was a bad omen when a winter sea took on “that oily look”.
“That oily look” was a bad thing because it often indicated a situation where spray froze on the gunnels and rigging of their boats, and, in a worst case scenario, this would make the top of the boat heavier than the keel, at which point the craft would turn upside down, which made life difficult.
I suppose it is because Climate Scientists do not get out enough, and must labor long hours indoors by hot computers, that I have never heard them describe seawater as “taking on that oily look”. For the most part the refreeze of arctic waters, as they describe it, begins with slushy stuff they call “pancake ice”, which doesn’t address the problem created because, if cold water sinks, the surface water should never get cold enough to freeze and make “pancake ice” in the first place.
The refreeze would be sensible if the ice only extended out from preexisting sea-ice that was already floating, but, as we now watch the yearly refreeze, we will often note “islands” of sea-ice popping up on the maps, far from any other ice. How is this possible, if cold saltwater sinks? How can the water get cold enough to freeze?
My take is that the water gets cold enough to freeze by becoming airborne. Often arctic situations arise where the air rushing above the water is far colder then the water is, and a speck of spray uplifted into such air becomes super-cooled, and will immediately freeze if it hits the rigging of a ship, but, if no ship is available, it falls to the surface of the water, and immediately freezes.
Because that speck of spray is now ice it doesn’t matter that going through the phase-change from liquid to solid released heat. Ice at thirty-two will bob merrily atop colder water, even if the water is twenty-nine. And, as soon as that speck of spray exists as the tiniest iceberg, it can be a sort of seed-crystal for the growth of more molecules of ice. Water chilled by gales in the proximity of the tiny iceberg, rather than sinking, attaches to that microscopic “edge” of floating sea-ice. And it is at this point the water takes on “that oily look”.
In essence “that oily look” is nature’s way around the fact that cold saltwater should sink, and that it should be impossible for the North Pole’s salty waters to freeze in the manner freshwater lakes do. “That oily look” indicates a microscopic layer of slush exists on the surface of the sea. Because the very cold winds persist, it doesn’t take all that long for the layer to become more than microscopic, and for the slush to thicken and for “pancake ice” to form.
Now, before I become too puffed up and swagger about bragging that I have the refreeze all figured out, I have to confess I have witnessed the refreeze occur without the “pancake ice” stage. Not only did I see it from afar, (through the eyes of the wonderful O-buoy cameras), but I witnessed it first hand during a record-setting cold spell at the start of February on the coast of Maine (I think in 1979). The weather made fools of fishermen that year, for they had stated with great authority, “If the hahbah hasn’t fruz up by January 15th it tain’t goin’ t’fruz at all,” and then the harbor promptly did what they said it couldn’t.
The weather was dry with a steady north wind for days, and at one point we experienced something like a week without temperatures getting above five (minus fifteen Celsius), and the sea froze not as lumpy grayish pancake ice, but as black ice, smooth as glass and surprisingly transparent, and with a slight white dust of salt exuded from the ice and drifting across the the black surface. It is completely beyond my ability to explain the physical dynamics of such a flash freeze, but it was not beyond my ability to take advantage of the rarity, and go skating on the smooth sea. In fact my older sister and I skated from the Harraseeket River in South Freeport down to the Royal River in Yarmouth, (primarily over shallow mudflats and only occasionally [and very nervously] across tidal streams). The fishermen’s wives stated we were fools and were risking our lives, but I prefer to modestly think it was a feat never done before nor since. (I should also mention the salt wasn’t too good for my skates.) Lastly, it is this sort of first-hand observation that teaches one that nature has nuances one doesn’t consider, when contemplating natural laws indoors by a warm computer.
One fisherman shared a first-hand observation, (IE: told a tale), describing something I have never myself witnessed. He was motoring slowly through bitter cold, to avoid making any splash that would get ice on his decks. There was no wind and no spray, and the water, though it had “that oily look”, was steaming like a cup of tea, so great was the temperature-difference between the water and air. Fishermen call such steaming “sea smoke”, and it made the day gray. Then it started to snow fat, lazy flakes. These flakes, when they landed on the water, didn’t melt. The water temperature was around twenty-nine, and the melting point of snowflakes was thirty-two. For a while the snow got heavier, and the fisherman stated the snow atop the water continued to accumulate until it was more than an inch deep. He was motoring slowly through white fluff as unsubstantial as froth.
Here again we have the first-hand experience of a man with no scientific training, which might give people sitting by computers an inkling of how ice can form atop the arctic sea even though cold water sinks.
Many such men existed in the 1870’s. They had existed for centuries, because back then the way to get oil was to drill whales rather than bedrock. Whales had grown more scarce due to the growing need for oil, and to find them, more ships ventured into the arctic than currently do. They followed the whales, and noticed no whales ever headed north towards a supposed “open polar sea”, even when the sea-ice was disgorged to the south into the Atlantic (as was the case in 1817) and the waters to the north were wide open. Whalers also knew from experience open waters one year were no guarantee there would be open waters the next, and also that gales from the north could bring crushing sea-ice south, and they had best be ready to turn tail and flee like the whales did, in such situations, or their ships would be crushed. But so great were the profits the risks were deemed worth it, and crushed ships were a supply of firewood for the Eskimos of that time. In 1871 31 ships were trapped and lost all at once, and 1219 people, including some women and children, successfully escaped and eventually made their way to Hawaii.
Considering this vast amount of crushing ice came from the north in 1871, during the time of the sea-ice minimum, a certain amount of skepticism regarding existence of an “open polar sea” likely existed among whalers. Tapping into these first-hand observations might have saved the men aboard the Jeannette a lot of trouble in 1879. Instead, the “authority” of that time was consulted, a mapmaker named August Heinrich Petermann.
The irony of August Heinrich Petermann’s maps was that he did seek out whalers as well as explorers and gleaned as much information as he could. He lived at the end of decades of daring exploration in the arctic, fueled partly because Britain had a 600-ship-navy sitting idle after Napoleon was defeated, and partly because the Arctic passed through a period of low sea-ice extents. Not only was there the phenomenon of the practically-open Arctic Ocean of 1817, due to sea-ice being shifted down into the Atlantic to a degree where it grounded icebergs on the coast of Ireland, but there apparently were low amounts in the Northwest Passage as well. In 1819 William Parry was able to sail further west in the channel that now bears his name than was possible for many years afterwards (and was impossible to do last summer.). The sea-ice then recovered with a vengeance, leading to the doom of the Franklin expedition in 1845, and also leading to a gradual shift towards searching for different routes across the Pole. Seeking a new route was a reason for the complete debacle called the “Polaris Expedition”, 1871-1873, up in Nares Strait between northwest Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago, (wherein the captain was likely poisoned by a jealous rival for a beautiful young woman they’d left behind in New York City). All these expeditions, both the well-run ones and the doomed, (and even the rescue efforts to find the doomed), increased information about coastlines, and August Heinrich Petermann was brilliant when it came to gathering all this coastline-data and producing the world’s best maps. However he was a bit of a dullard when it came to gathering a different sort of data, namely the first-hand observations of whalers who knew the actual nature of the actual sea, and likely should have been consulted, regarding the possibility of an “open polar sea”. Such homespun wisdom was dismissed, because the whalers were not scientists nor cartographers. Instead those who said “polar seas must be open because cold salt water sinks” were consulted, and August Heinrich Petermann’s maps contained an “open polar sea” because…well…because he drew the maps.
Let us be unkind, and rather than calling the maps “mistaken”, let us call them “fraud”, used by Petermann to lobby one of the richest men in the world, James Gordon Bennett Jr., to fund a Jeannette expedition doomed to failure, for it was seeking open water where open water wasn’t. (This noble and tragic adventure is described in great detail by the historian Hampton Sides in “In The Kingdom of Ice“).
One sadness of the Jeannette expedition is that the men hauled the scientific records they had collected back, as they grimly fought their way over ice and open water and frozen tundra, towards the safety of civilization, and those records survived even when many of them didn’t. Therefore Petermann’s thirst for more knowledge was in fact fed, but at a great cost, and it didn’t produce the answers he expected. (An irony was that, though the Jeannette sank, strewn about the hole its sinking left on the sea-ice were items, left behind as the crew headed south, and these items eventually showed the drift of the sea-ice. The items crossed the arctic, atop sea-ice which then flowed down the east coast of Greenland to Cape Farewell at Greenland’s southern tip, and lastly a bit up the west coast of Greenland to near Julianehåb, where the items were flotsam identified as being from the Jeannette, in 1884. This in turn led to Fridtjof Nansen’s marvelous exploits, attempting to drift across the Pole locked in sea-ice aboard the Fram, between 1893 and1896.
Due to the adventures and misadventures of early whalers and explorers, we actually have quite a lot of first-hand observations of where the edge of the ice was and how the sea-ice moved, from the past. Unfortunately there seems to be the same problem today that afflicted August Heinrich Petermann 150 years ago. First-hand observations from the past are ignored because they do not come from Climate Scientists, nor satellites, and instead misleading concepts are put forth because…well… because they affirm the misleading concepts.
Let us continue to be unkind, and rather than calling the misleading concepts “mistaken” let us call them “fraud”. However, rather than using the mistaken beliefs to lobby James Gordon Bennett Jr. for money, modern men now use their mistaken concepts to lobby bloated governments. Worst, rather than sending a mere 33 men aboard the Jeannette into danger, the modern mistaken views may be sending billions of people into unnecessary danger.
It seems to me no one should perpetuate such a fraud if they love their fellow man. First, who willfully lies to those they love? And second, who willfully places those they love in danger?
The closest I have seen to an attempt to look remotely loving, while justifying the perpetuation of mistaken concepts, contains a dismal assumption. The dismal assumption is that mankind is going exhaust its resources, and we are therefore all doomed to begin with. Consequently, considering seven billion are going to die anyway, we might as well “cull” the seven billion in an orderly manner. Hmm. I suppose the death of seven billion is acceptable if it is unavoidable, but is it unavoidable? Or is it merely a product of pessimism?
Such gloomy views have been around at least since Thomas Mathis wrote “An Essay on the Principles of Population” in 1798, and they have constantly been proved incorrect. Sadly, while it is no sin to be incorrect, such cynicism has all too often been an excuse for subjecting others to various forms of slavery and disadvantage, and, when one blithely talks about reducing the world population by seven billion, such gloomy assumptions also seem a thinly veiled justification for massive and unprecedented genocide.
Rather than expressing faith, hope, and love towards fellow man, such gloom demonstrates deep distrust towards man’s ability to solve problems, when in fact one especially lovable quality of free people is their ability to invent gadgets and techniques which do solve the very problems that the gloomy see as absolutely insurmountable.
I have lived long enough to see quite a number of doomsdays come and go, involving not merely the alignments of planets and the prophesies of Daniel and Nostradamus, but concepts such as “peak oil” and “peak population”. It is fascinating to now look back at the published ideas of “The Club of Rome” in 1970, and to see how utterly incorrect some of their assumptions were. Much that was seen as “unsustainable” has been merrily sustained. Third world nations such as India have not devolved into the wastelands-of-mass-starvation which the gloomy so confidently foresaw, but rather are better fed and better off.
What the gloomy failed to foresee was Ingenuity Manifested, within things such as “The Green Revolution”, yet their failures-to-foresee do not cause the gloomy to alter their forecasts, for they see such progress as merely “delaying the inevitable”, and they double-down on their pessimism. At it’s worst, their pessimism actively creates poverty. It is as if they are so irked by troubles not arriving in the manner they foresaw that they make trouble, just to prove themselves correct.
For example, back in the days when I was skating on sea-ice along the coast of Maine, we were supposedly “running out of oil”. Jimmy Carter was president, and appeared on television at the White House wearing an absurd sweater, telling us we needed to all turn down the thermostats in our houses. The “oil producing nations” had demanded higher prices for oil, and the United States was no longer a member of that club. There were long lines at gas stations, and traffic on highways slowed to 55 mph, by law, to save gas. In a “National Geographic” I saw a graph which authoritatively stated “peak oil” would occur in 1980. Because we were “running out of oil” we dutifully did what smart people do, which is to prepare for the inevitable. We put wood stoves into our houses, and, to heat our water, we put solar panels on our roofs (to this day the smartest use of solar power, because a tank of hot water in your basement stores solar energy far more cheaply after sunset than a battery does, especially when it comes to running your hot-water-heater.) But…
…But the simple fact of the matter is that we did not “run out of oil”. This seemed to peeve some people. Prophets of doom dislike being proved false prophets, and drag their feet in the face of progress.
When new oil was discovered, the pessimists did everything they could to make oil-exploration difficult, (with new regulations), and then, when “fracking” made it possible to glean more oil and gas from areas which were assumed to have been largely “exhausted”, they did everything possible to make “fracking” a dirty word. But me? I am amazed such pessimists can gripe. Why? For I am utterly amazed and deeply impressed by the ingenuity displayed over the past forty years. If you had told me, when I skated sea-ice in Maine and Jimmy Carter was president, that, in forty years, the USA would be exporting oil and gas, while an oil-producing OPEC nation like Venezuela would be in a state of ruin, I would have laughed in your face. I was wrong, and am somewhat glad I was wrong, but others seem irate they were wrong.
I am aware I am starting to rave, and seem to be drifting far from the subject of sea-ice, but have no fear. I will revert to sea-ice shortly. However I must discuss “the irate” a bit, because they even enter discussions about sea-ice.
I think “the irate” are those who are sure things are “unsustainable”, and are equally afraid they may be the ones who will eventually suffer, when we run out of food and fuel. Consequently they become ruled by fear, rather than love. They are so sure famine is coming that they see it as frugal common-sense to be misers of food, blind to differences between being sensible and being stingy. Clinging to what they have, they see others as a threat, rather than seeing others as brothers and sisters who we can work together with, to avoid famine.
In actual fact the word “sustainability” involves sustaining all people, not just those who have a selfish viewpoint wherein “sustainability” only sustains their position of privilege.
The fact of the matter is that “sustainability” is one of those tricky words, able to be used to justify evil because it sounds so good. Another such word is “non-violent”. Surely “non-violent” is usually a good word, but a man who stands by and does nothing violent as his mother, wife and daughter are raped by a stranger is not a saint; he is a yellow coward. In like manner, a man who talks about “sustainability” when primarily interested in preserving a status quo wherein he has, even as others are “have-nots,” is not a saint; he is greedy.
One quality of those trapped within such a state-of-mind is that they tend to propose rationing, rather than proposing increase. (Quite often the “rationing” is hypocritical, where “have-nots” need to cut back even as the elite “haves” continue to enjoy lavish lifestyles). The royalty wishes to remain royal and prefers the poor to remain peons.
This seems a bad attitude, like that of a man so concerned about a shortage of potatoes that he hoards them rather than planting any in the spring. It is the antithesis of the attitude of a man like Norman Borlaug, whose work with improving strains of wheat may have saved a billion people from starvation. Instead it is a “bad attitude” which not only failed to help a “Green Revolution” occur, but at times even was a stumbling-block attempting to prevent “the Green Revolution’s” manifestation. It remains a bad attitude that not only fails to help a “Fracking Revolution” manifest, but is a stumbling-block attempting to prevent its manifestation. Tragically, souls with this attitude not only fail to love, but are a stumbling-block that seeks to prevent the beauty of love from manifesting.
What an odd state-of-mind! In the name of “rationing” it allows one to deny others, enslave others, even exterminate others, all in the guise of “becoming sustainable”!
I think I know this selfish state of mind, having experienced it myself as a young man on the coast of Maine. My experience was as follows:
I knew of a small beach which was usually deserted, especially after school let out for the summer, because the secluded cove was owned by a small college. After the college closed in June I took a young woman to the beach with nefarious motives. When we got there another couple was strolling the same beach. I found their presence annoying and even frustrating (perhaps for biological reasons), and noticed my mind became crabby and began producing intellectual discussions about the problems of over-population and crowded beaches. My view was that the world would be a better place if the other couple could be “disappeared”. The young lady I was with was somewhat shocked by my negative attitude towards my fellow man. Instead of being warm towards me, she shot me a look of distaste and walked over to the enemy, involving the other couple in a conversation. Though initially glum about involving myself with anyone besides the young lady, I went along with her, and somewhat to my surprise discovered I had a wonderful time swimming with strangers. (Perhaps the cold water of Maine had the same effect as a cold shower.) The strangers turned out to be fascinating people who broadened my mind, and also told us of a good, nearby snack-bar. So we went and got an excellent lobster roll. It may not have been the roll I wanted, but at least the afternoon was not a total loss.
Such experiences were quite common during my misspent youth. My attempts at seduction were a long series of debacles and fiascos, (and explain why I first became a father at age 38, rather than at age 18 as I planned), (and also why I was at times a very crabby young man). I did not get what my ulterior motives desired, but sometimes perhaps we should feel sheepish about our ulterior motives, and count our blessings for what we actually get.
I bring this up to own the fact that, because I did once wish two very fine people could be “disappeared” from a small beach, I should be included with those who wish seven billion very fine people could be “disappeared” from a small planet. However hopefully I was a little different, in that I recognized my logic was ruled by lust’s frustration, and was not exactly the sort of logic that scientists dub “objective.” Others seem sadly less self-aware. They seem ruled by ulterior motives without the awareness they are ulterior.
What is “ulterior”? The definition of the word “ulterior” is “lying beyond that which is evident.” “Ulterior” therefore is that which is undiscovered, and should be of interest to all researchers.
However an interesting thing about human nature is that we often are unaware of the value of things until we are deprived. Subjectivity has its value, for we never value water until it is a hot day and we have none. A person with lots of water could call fighting for a sip of of water “silly behavior”, but only until they themselves were subjected to extreme thirst. Then they discover they too can be “silly”. It is only when confronted by such desperate impulses within the self that one faces truly spiritual dilemmas, regarding how one will respond. Will one punch a small child to gain a sip of water? Or will one suffer, so the child can drink?
For this reason the people who, one way or another, experience great thirst, can be the people who through subjective suffering gain objective wisdom. This is not to say they always make the right choices. They may have even punched a child one time, and faced great chagrin before, the next time, they did better, and allowed the child to drink first. However in the end they have an awareness of thirst which people who have always had water lack. For such people thirst is a reality they understand, while, for those who have never thirsted, thirst remains “ulterior.”
Blessed are the poor and they who suffer, for they are down-to-earth and are aware of essentials. Pity the rich, for they have little idea of the “ulterior” that motivates them. Like a cigarette smoker who has never run out of smokes, the rich are unaware of how crazy they would become if deprived, but such craziness rules them all the same.
The wealthy sometimes become aware that something is missing, and feel depressed despite having everything they could possibly obtain (in material terms). They then can afford to hire very expensive psychiatrists to help them look within for “subconscious” causes for their depression. Basically they are halfheartedly seeking to become more self-aware of “ulterior motives”, but often they don’t really want to see what the psychiatrist attempts to point out, and put up a fight, and the psychiatrist then can become quite rich by prolonging the battle. Psychiatrists use all sorts of fancy words for how people deny the truth, and their clients have all sorts of clever ways of arguing that the fancy words do not apply to them and their particular case, and all of this expensive talking, and talking, and talking, can seem very humorous to the poor, who have managed to become aware of “ulterior motives” without spending a dime.
In the worst cases the wealthy, despite seeking education in fine institutions and colleges, and despite being under the guidance of the best professors and psychiatrists and gurus, have no real reason to call the uneducated “stupid” or “deplorable”, (though too often, in their vanity, they do exactly that.) Why? Because sometimes the poor are far smarter. Why? Because sometimes, in seeking to avoid the pains of life, we avoid the very Truth that teaches. It matters little if you avoid pain with heroin, or by accepting a corrupting bribe, or by marrying a rich person you detest, or by disdaining good advice; if you successfully avoid pain you are possibly ruled by your “ulterior motives”, and are potentially much less likely to become aware of such “ulterior motives”. Meanwhile, in this sort of worst-case-scenario, the poor face pain every day, and become far more aware of “ulterior motives”. Therefore the poor can become far more able to rule such cravings and desires, while their so-called “rulers” are basically addicts ruled by a fear of withdrawal. In such a topsy-turvy society we can sometimes see what seems utterly impossible occur, wherein the underdog abruptly stuns the champion; the small David defeats the huge Goliath. History is full of examples of small nations seemingly appearing out of the blue and rising to a sudden prominence that shakes the mighty. (The Mongols were just a bunch of feuding Hillbillies, and then along came Genghis.)
Yet, although history is replete with such examples, and although the wealthy often adore historical novels, movies and plays, they too often miss the point, the underlying narrative, which is that Truth matters, and is a joy to those who can bear the pricks of pain involved with seeing Truth. Instead some become so lost in avoiding pain that they become comfortably numb, and wander midst an attitude of unawareness.
This “unaware attitude” seems comical, in an ironic way, to the poor and aware. I recall the fishermen of Maine used to joke about the attitude of wealthy people who retired to Maine. The fishermen stated, “The moment them wealthy folk gather up their loot ‘n’ move, from makin’ money in them big cities, t’down east here in poor, old Maine, they want to burn the bridge at Kittery behind them”. (Kittery is at the southern border of Maine).
The “unaware attitude” often seems a sort of selfish, NIMBY attitude that deprives others after satisfying the self, and even a strange and sad proof of Henry Ford’s statement, “If you say ‘I can’, or say ‘I can’t’, you are right.”
Why? Because it is people who love who make a better world, who beget a “Green Revolution” and a “Frakking Revolution”, while it is pessimists who deem love impossible who make the world worse, and who fight progress, and desire deprivation.
One of the pricks of Truth I’ve felt was seeing I too was such a pessimist: If I’d had my way, back when Jimmy Carter was president, a rogue wave would have swept two strangers out to sea just before I arrived at the small beach, and I would have had my way with a young woman. And then? I suppose that, (because the purpose of sex is procreation), I might have become a father far earlier than I actually did. Yet, as a young father, after increasing the “overpopulation” myself, I might have then insisted the population of earth (back then) was too high at 3.5 billion, and, with a flippant disregard for others, claimed that any further “overpopulation” was immoral, and that the 4 to 5 billion conceived since were somehow “unsustainable.” (It was beyond my ken, at that time, that a future increased-population of 4 to 5 billion could possibly be enjoying bigger meals and a longer life-expectancy than had ever before occurred on earth.) (The word “liberal” supposedly means “generous”, but the “liberals” of my youth wished to “ration”. What is so generous about cutting back?)
But I confess I was of that mind-set. I sowed in a negative manner, and reaped negativity in many ways. But, unlike some other liberals, I was honest about my experiment, and my personal motives were not quite as “ulterior” as the motives of others now seem to be. I may have utterly failed when it came to seducing a young woman on a beach in Maine, but I succeeded in discovering there is life after such failure. In like manner, I discovered there is life after the world-population surpassed 4 billion, 5 billion, 6 billion, even 7 billion. Rather than the hell predicted, billions of children were born, enjoyed decent childhoods, and became young adults full of the hopes young adults have.
Let me put it this way: Do you believe in democracy? What chance would my former belief have, in an election today? I claimed that the billions born in my lifetime should not be born, but here they are. Now suppose we vote about whether they should have been born. Who will win that election? Me, or the billions of vibrant young people? And, after the results were tabulated, who should change their views? Me, or them?
The answer was fairly obvious to me, even before the four to five billion were born. Even before Jimmy Carter stopped being president I sensed my so-called “liberal” views were not truly liberal, because they were motivated by greed and not generosity, and lust and and not love. I needed to shed greedy and lustful “ulterior motives”. It was painful not to get what I desired, but in the long run my life was better for putting my desires aside, and accepting the Truth even when it didn’t fit the “script” I had written for myself, about how my life should be. Truth is always better.
How? Well, explaining that would involve explaining how things worked out over the next forty-five years. It would be a long and involved answer, take pages upon pages, and is not the question you should be asking. Instead you should be asking:
What does this have to do with sea-ice? Well, there are two main reasons.
The first is that some involved in the subject of sea-ice seem to have ulterior motives. Their motives are not the simple ulterior motives that August Heinrich Petermann had, when he lobbied for money to discover the “open polar sea”, but are much greater whoppers.
Even though Petermann was deluded, at least he yearned to map the arctic better. Such betterment could be hoped to end his delusion with hard facts. But modern arctic investigators? They own ulterior motives which, when push comes to shove, could care less about any further discovery in the arctic. Therefore there can be no betterment and no end to delusion.
What many modern arctic investigators seemingly care most for is “funding”. Perhaps the funding was originally seen as a way to further research, but at some point the research was neglected, and finding funding became the focus. In some ways money became such an ulterior motive that researchers entered a strange reality wherein the motive became more real than the science, and in order to justify this motivation they went so far as to attempt to replace what is real with what is false.
I don’t think, even in my misspent youth, I was ever quite so absurd as that. I may have had unrealistic dreams, but I could be brought down to earth by a woman’s disapproving glance, and then was forced to recognize the difference between what was hopeful fantasy and what was false. I might be extremely annoyed when my attempt to seduce a young woman on a Maine beach was interrupted by another couple. However, if I had attempted to “replace the reality”, what would I have done? Shoot those two innocent people dead, and then attempted to proceed with my seduction? I was never close to becoming that evil, because such behavior owns an ugliness utterly unlike what my nefarious activities desired. “Disappearing” others was too ugly to be included in my beautiful fantasy of seducing a beautiful babe. However, among certain arctic researchers, “disappearing” the data of other researchers has been acceptable, and even has been tantamount to what they were hired to do.
Going into the dreary details of such destruction of data is depressing, and I don’t want to linger long on such a subject. However it has been widespread. The cause has seemingly been because the poor, or even the not-so-poor, are susceptible to bribes.
For example, when parts of the temperature-record of Iceland was “disappeared” the chief meteorologist of Iceland threw a fit, until he met with those who had lots of money. Then he abruptly was OK with parts of the temperature-record of Iceland being “disappeared”. I fear he was bribed.
I myself have never been the chief meteorologist of Iceland, and therefore have never been subjected to bribes. I’ve never had my “ulterior motives” tempted to such a degree. Therefore I will not criticize a man in whose shoes I haven’t walked. (Maybe he used the money to pay for a friend’s expensive cancer treatments. Who am I to judge?) But I will say that the altered record is bullshit, and arctic record-keeping seems full of such bribery-induced nonsense. So many arctic records are obviously incorrect (if you have studied the subject) that you need to screen the data with the assumption you are dealing with a pack of liars.
For example, just look at the old records and compare them with the modern “adjusted” records. Here is the sea-ice “extent” graph from 1976, when Jimmy Carter was president.
This graph documents very low extents in 1945, 1953 and a record-setting low in 1960. This was followed by an extraordinary “recovery” by the winter of 1962-1963, but then sea-ice again began melting away to far lower levels.
The above graph represents a lot of hard work done by many dedicated scientists, yet is currently spurned. Why? Because they did not have satellites back then, and therefore the hard work of decent men is deemed “inadequate”.
OK, OK, OK. Be that way (though it seems snobby and dismissive to me.) Let us look at only the “satellite record”, as it was graphed in 1980, (beginning in 1973, though we have pictures from the first Nimbus satellite going back to the mid 1960’s).
There are some interesting differences between the early 1970’s in this graph and the prior graph. It would be fascinating to learn the reasons, which would involve looking at the data. However both graphs agree sea-ice was at low levels, in the early 1970’s, much like today’s. Down near 6 million km2. Certainly not up around 8 million km2. Yet look at the modern, “adjusted” graph, for the same period.
How is it possible to “adjust” the sea-ice totals for a very low year upwards roughly 2 million km2? Are such “adjusters” aware what they are saying about the dedicated scientists who worked back at that time? They are in essence calling them idiots, for recording the data they recorded, (even as the past experts often worked in extreme and dangerous arctic conditions).
Before I myself dismiss such scientists who lived in the past I need to see a clear analysis of their data which shows exactly why they were in error. None has been forthcoming. In fact all the analysis of data I myself have done seems to show that the ones in error are the modern “adjusters”. They claim sea-ice was thick in cases where we have first-hand records, and sometimes photographic evidence, that the waters were open. The “adjusters” have no business adjusting the records of honest and decent men who are no longer around, and cannot defend themselves. In fact, if anyone needs adjusting, it is the “adjusters” themselves.
I rest my case: You cannot deal with modern arctic data without sensing you are dealing with liars. You are dealing with people who accept bribes, perhaps because they feel Truth doesn’t make them enough money, and even feel that Truth might be a bad thing, because Truth might put them in jail for forgery.
I do feel a certain pity for such people. Perhaps they spent years studying the arctic in college, burning the midnight oil, and when they graduated they discovered the general public could care less about arctic sea-ice, and no jobs were available, and they faced working an ignoble job in a fast-food restaurant, flipping burgers. Oh, the pain! But just then they got tempted by a bribe. They could skip flipping burgers, if only they conceded to becoming an “adjuster”.
The problem with such pity is that perhaps all people deserve such pity. Few get paid for what they most enjoy.
I too burned the midnight oil, but rather than arctic sea-ice I studied poets. I studied Shakespeare and Milton and Shelly and Chatterton and Keats and Dylan Thomas and Frost and Dr. Seuss. And when I graduated I discovered the general public had no use for my knowledge, and no jobs were available, and I faced working in a fast food restaurant, flipping burgers. Oh, the pain! But in my case no one tempted me with a bribe. So I had to flip burgers.
Flipping burgers wasn’t so bad, nor were the hundred other jobs I had to take that were “beneath me.” In fact, the pricks to my ego were a gateway to the ordinary life of those who are the salt-of-the-earth. In some ways it was an honor to be humbled, because I became part of what makes life possible. Your roof doesn’t leak? Don’t thank experts about poetry or arctic sea-ice. Thank the roofers, and I got to join their ranks for a little while.
Not that I didn’t whine. What poet wants to quit a composition about beautiful clouds because he has to work under a blistering sun, hammering nails on a hot, noontime roof? Only now, many years later, do I feel honored that, (even though many are not thankful for what doesn’t happen), I am why your roof doesn’t leak.
I am also why roofers have nails, because I worked in a nail factory. And when you look at the label on a bottle of wine or ketchup or a can of sardines, understand I have made those labels. When you open the sardines, understand I worked in a cannery. When you ride a high horse, understand I shoveled the stables. I have worked making and lubricating ball bearings large and small, and even computers need ball bearings. And that is only six jobs of a hundred, and each was an insult to my ego, for I felt I should instead be paid for my poetry. Yet each insult made my poetry better, more down-to-earth, more real. In the end I feel my so-called “bad fortune” is far better than the fortune of a so-called “sea-ice expert”, who thinks he is better off accepting bribes to perpetuate propaganda. I wouldn’t like to be in his shoes, when he looks in the mirror.
This brings me to my second point, which is that such negative behavior never results in good. It may seem “right”, but it is the negative side of Henry Ford’s statement, “If you say ‘I can’ or say ‘I can’t’, you are right.” The side-of-the-negative is the side that states, ‘I can’t’. It states “starvation will be widespread by 1980” and denies the “Green Revolution” will happen. It states “the United States will be an oil-importer forever” in 1974, and can’t imagine the United States exporting oil due to the “Fracking Revolution” in 2019. In essence it is a negative shadow, which cannot face the light of Truth.
Opposed to this depressing power is, I would like to suggest, a positive power that affirms Truth. Not that Truth needs affirming. Truth remains perfectly true even if every person on earth denies It. In fact reality is the other way around: We do not sustain Truth; Truth sustains us. And it is for this reason that underdogs can display such an ingenuity and prowess and even power, if they honor integrity and honesty, that they unseat the mighty. It is why little David could defeat huge Goliath. In a sense truthfulness taps into the greatest power on earth, Truth itself, releasing benefits which those who cling to power and money don’t believe can ever come about, and therefore don’t include in their financial forecasts, (and all other forecasts as well.)
The difference between Truth and dishonesty is symbolically like the difference between a bud that is grafted to a root, and a bud that isn’t. The first will thrive while the second will wither. The pity is that some see the fruits the bud produces and seek to hoard such produce, (money, power, the admiration of others,) in a manner disconnected from the root. By doing this they in essence seek a byproduct of growth even while cutting themselves off from growth’s nourishing root.
The irony is that we can see the foolishness of such behavior when others do it, but tend to be blind to examples of our own foolishness, (or we excuse our own foolishness as being some sort of “necessary evil”). For example, we’d call it foolish if we saw a farmer who so overvalued a byproduct such as manure that he spent all his money on manure and none on feeding his animals, yet at the same time we might be maxing out our credit cards and running a deficit budget all our own. In like manner Communists see the irresponsibility of Capitalists while Capitalists see the irresponsibility of Communists. All too often both fail to look within to see if they are securely grafted to the root of Truth, or are merely seizing upon byproducts.
One quality that seems associated with those cut off from Love’s root is a sense of impending doom. Madame de Pompadour stated, “Après nous, le déluge,” and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez states “The world is going to end in twelve years.” Often the sense of doom leads to drastic measures, guillotines and purges and genocides, which seem a self-fulfilling prophecy, bringing about the very dooms they seek to avoid. Hitler’s hate of Jews and Slavs did not save Germany from ruin, and Stalin’s hate of farming Kulak did not save Russia from starvation. All of Maurice Strong’s dishonest manipulations to “save the planet” left him an exile, an old man hiding from justice in a Peking apartment. To me all these examples seem proof of the second half of Henry Ford’s statement: If you say “I can’t”, you’re right. The greatest irony is that some basically waste fortunes, pouring money down a rat hole, unaware all their efforts are cutting themselves off from the root that creates fortunes in the first place. In my view George Soros has literally expended billions to say, “I can’t”. (I’ll never understand how he could pour such fabulous amounts down a rat-hole, when he might have spent it on me).
At this point I’d like to suggest the chilling effect of cutting yourself off from the root of Truth is like the chill now descending upon the arctic tundra, freezing things up and shrinking the flow of arctic rivers to a trickle.
(There. I told you I’d get back to the subject of sea-ice, and I’ve done it).
What seems to happen to arctic researchers is that a compromise which initially seemed slight becomes acerbated. They felt a little compromise, perhaps 5% of the time, would result in funding which would allow them to conduct honest research 95% of the time, but such compromise turned out to be like a small spot of cancer which spread. How did it spread? Well, if the honest research discovered a Truth which went against the “Arctic Sea-Ice Death Spiral Theory”, they needed to hush it up or they might offend their patron. And, because the “Death Spiral Theory” was like the “Open Polar Sea Theory”, it was dead wrong, and all research would tend to disprove it. Therefore all research, not 5% but 100% of research, would need to be hushed.
It would be absurd to conduct good research only to crumple up and throw away the honest results. Why bother even fund the research? Why even bother have science or scientists? Yet such absurdity may explain why we now have a sixteen-year-old girl speaking before the United Nations as an authority on sea-ice, as scientists sit on their hands and are mum.
Cynical Sophists seem to resort to such sentimental tactics when the bankruptcy of their belief has been revealed, in all its sophisticated sterility. (When logic fails, resort to emotion.) Surprisingly, such tactics can be effective, primarily because young women do have heart, which many Sophists lack. However, once the heart is involved, there may be consequences Sophists never intended. The heart is closely associated to Truth, and can veer a person’s path from safe topics into political-incorrectness. It can therefore be dangerous to involve a teenage girl in political calculations, for they can be like a loose cannon on board a pitching ship.
In terms of Truth, the hope which young girl’s hearts bring to “the equation” can be like the hope of a sunrise-tundra in the spring: A dark, cold tundra suddenly lit by light: tundra moving towards a time when, under the warmth of 24-hour summer sunshine, the trickle of an arctic river becomes an amazing flood and the water rises 60 feet.
Of course the young woman involved should be careful; (after all, Joan of Arc did wind up burned-at-the-stake); however there is at least a chance the young woman’s appearance is an indication the Sophist Alarmists have quit pretending to be scientists, and scientists will therefore be let alone, and allowed to do what they do best, (study Truth). This may result in a Renascence, a revival of Truth, and a surging flood of beneficial knowledge which the negative, cynical and sour never expected.
Initially there may be some hard times for arctic researchers, and some may even have to flip burgers for a while. Why? Because much funding formerly came from people who prefer propaganda to Truth, and who prefer rationing and deprivation to progress and increase. Such people become peeved when ideas such as “The Arctic Death Spiral” are not supported by hard evidence, and I surmise that may explain why the wonderful arctic cameras we once had bobbing on buoys ceased being funded, even as the cost of creating and maintaining such camera-buoys became less. Such cameras undermined the “narrative.” Also further funding may dry up because pouring money down a rat-hole isn’t productive, and even spiritually unwise people recognize a bad bet is a bad bet. But arctic research will continue, even if not funded.
Why? Because some recognize what a frontier the arctic is, and own a craving to be pioneers. This thirst to penetrate the boundaries of the known, and expand the horizons of knowledge, can cause some to strive even when they are not paid for striving. Just as some work fifty weeks just to blow all their savings spending a two-week-vacation climbing mountains, some work long days flipping burgers, and then, in the evening, study charts and graphs involving arctic sea-ice, just for the fun of it. And the wonders of satellites and the internet allow even someone from the Congo to study sea-ice, if so inclined. Older meteorologist stand amazed, for with a click of a computer we now can gather data that took them six months of grueling field-study to gather, in their youth, followed by six months of analyzing heaps of paper in the lab. Consequently we now have no idea where the next genius will appear, or what next marvel will manifest through the study of Truth. Perhaps the next revolution will be called “The White Revolution”, and involve sea-ice.
The Russians seem to have ideas along those lines, and furthermore do not seem to expect sea-ice to vanish, considering they have built so many billion-dollar icebreakers.
Nor does Russia seem inclined to bow to members of Greenpeace, who seemingly desire that the arctic becomes a vast National Park, preserved for the enjoyment of extremely wealthy cross-country skiers. When Greenpeace activists attempt to protest in a politically-correct manner by “seizing” an arctic oil-rig, they run into Russian political-incorrectness.
Russia apparently insists upon control of its northern coast, (15,000 miles of undulating shoreline north of the Arctic Circle), and horrifies environmentalists by replacing diesel-fumes with smokeless nuclear ice-breakers. They plan on developing a northern sea-route, and upon their northern ports being developed, and upon northern resources being exploited. They even have the audacity to plan to build massive nuclear ice-breakers-with-helipads like the world has never seen, within five years.
Not that Russia cares all that much for Truth, or Freedom of Speech, but at least they have the old-fashioned pragmatism which deals with facts, rather than with unfounded idealism and with fabricated theory such as “The Arctic Death Spiral.” And, because they deal with facts, there is at least a chance they will someday receive the bounty that comes from honoring Truth.
Personally I am more interested in a different bounty, which is the wonderment that comes from looking at sea-ice, (and the associated weather), with eyes unclouded by bias or any need to be politically correct. Not that simply reporting what your eyes witness doesn’t get you in trouble. In certain circles you can cause a deathly silence to fall, simply by stating a truth, such as, “Arctic sea-ice isn’t decreasing. There was more arctic sea-ice this September than in September, 2007.”
In some ways I’m getting tired of offending people with Truth. This is especially true when the people I offend are beautiful women. It hasn’t just occurred when I was a young man in Maine, (and the Truth involved was that the woman was beautiful and I was lustful). It’s been going on since I was knee high to a grasshopper, and the beautiful woman I was offending was a young schoolmarm and I was a young truant. You’d think I would learn, but in some ways I seem worse than Rodney Dangerfield when it comes to getting any respect. This has led me to suspect the problem may not lie entirely in myself.
After all, I know better than to bring up the subject of arctic sea-ice at either a Conservative church supper or a Liberal cocktail party. I don’t go looking for trouble. But, when someone brings up the local bad weather in a most casual manner, and someone else responds, “Yes, this Global Warming is really getting terrible”, Truth always compels me to state, “There was more arctic sea-ice this September than in September, 2007.” And then beautiful women look at me aghast. It’s not fair. The situation even seems a sort of set-up. (WARNING: Rant Alert.)
I feel it is high time for old geezers like myself to stand up and be counted. After all, old geezers have rights too, y’know. “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” It is high time to form some sort of blaring political noise, some loud and objectionable “Codger Power”, able to be equally annoying as everyone else.
Life is cruel to us boys. (Yes, another sidetrack from sea-ice has begun, but it involves why the subject of sea-ice is so side-tracked even among scientists of the arctic; IE: I’m not the one who started this sidetracking from Truth.)
I’ve been involved with raising children for decades as a father, coach, and finally, over the past decade, through running an outdoors-oriented Childcare on a farm, and I have seen various child-rearing fads come and go. For a time “experts” stated discipline stifles a child, but then (when “permissiveness” blew up in their faces), they did an 180 degree swivel and the same “experts” then stated “lack of boundaries” make children feel “unsafe”.
Recently an interesting development has involved a seeming realization that Childcare play-areas are set up in a manner which is preferential to the needs of girls. Apparently most girls focus more on “fine motor skills”, while most boys focus on “gross motor skills”, and most indoor play-areas focus more on sitting than on tumbling. Also most teachers are female, and, if asked to be honest, state they prefer teaching small girls, who tend to be more complacent and obedient, than small boys, who tend to be brats.
When it comes to getting-in-trouble, roughly 80% of all children expelled from Childcare situations are boys, and this causes further damage to boys because small children have a deep need to be included. In essence small boys are placed in a situation hostile to what they require, creating a Tom-Sawyer-vs.-Aunt-Polly dichotomy from day one.
Childcare professionals have been aware of this problem for two hundred years, and in fact the word “kindergarten” comes from “children’s garden”, meaning that it was a garden that “grew” children, but also included the idea children didn’t learn by rote at rows of desks, but in “gardens”, through activity and movement called “play”. The originator, Friedrich Froebel, had bad experiences in school and was expelled from many, but eventually became an academic who attempted to define why “play” was important, identifying first ten, and then twenty, categories of “play”.
Considering Froebel’s German ideas came to the United States before the Civil War, we should know better by now than to think children learn by rote at rows of desks, whether such regimentation is called “a class” or “circle time”. But we haven’t learned. Instead schoolmarms are placed in the position of being wicked witches, banning recess and drugging small boys for being boys. It seems little wonder that boys often hate school. The drop-out levels of boys have increased (along with drug-addiction), and girls now are more likely to seek college than boys are. And yet we are supposed to pity feminists? What about old-codgerists? Shouldn’t old boys like myself get a chance to march about and be irate and offended, too?
When I myself was a boy I detested school but loved learning. I could hardly wait to leave school so I could learn something. One reason I opened my outdoors-oriented Childcare was because I did most of my learning while roaming forests and fields, and wanted to share the joy I felt. Yet, as I watched the children at my Childcare, I became aware they were learning a huge amount without me, simply through hands-on experiences while romping.
Call such learning “field-studies” if you will, but such learning required no thesis to be written, and, in the cases of the youngest, it required no words, as they hadn’t fully learned to talk. They would just point at something, and look at me with their eyes glowing delight. It was obvious they were learning, and also obvious they loved learning. School was not a bitter pill. Wisdom was not a thing to be measured by tests. More was learned during recess than in the classroom.
It seems to me that it is later that small children start to ask “why”, and do it to such an excessive degree that it can drive you bonkers. Even when you answer “I don’t know” they immediately inquire, “Why don’t you know?” Sadly, in some classroom situations asking “why” earns one a look of disapproval from the schoolmarm. Perhaps this is one reason I myself began to look out the classroom window. The answers to my “why” questions were not on the blackboard.
It is interesting to note that among the places I liked to wander, when the final bell rang and I bolted out the school’s door, was a place you would not expect a “bad student” to go. When the whim hit me, I’d stop in at the town Library on my way home from school, and wander about looking for something interesting to poke through. Sometimes I’d find a book and become so engrossed the Librarian would have to tap my shoulder and show me the door, at closing, and I’d be late home for dinner. The next day I’d be “kept-after” school for having failed to do my math homework, but perhaps my homework was undone because I had learned more about the Greenland Vikings than my teacher knew, even when she was five times my age.
Skip ahead three decades, to a time when I had children of my own, and became aware that the teachers were teaching my children things about Greenland Vikings (and arctic sea-ice), (and other things), which I knew to be false. What to do? I went to the teachers to have a chat, and lo and behold! Thirty years made little difference; I got a look of deep disapproval from the schoolmarm.
They taught by-the-book, and what the book said was not to be denied. I politely inquired, “Which book are you referring to? I’ve read many on the subject, and many articles in various magazines.” They then became slightly defensive, for the book they were teaching-by was “the textbook”, which had a single paragraph about Greenland Vikings, and a single paragraph about the danger of the “Arctic Death Spiral”, (and some hundred paragraphs suggesting that man was destroying the planet). A bit of delicate, further inquiry informed me that, back in college, the schoolmarm had never studied either Greenland Vikings or sea-ice. But, rather than humbly admitting I might be older and wiser, the young whippersnappers did what schoolmarms always do to me: They sent me to the principle.
As I sauntered down a hallway to his office (thinking, “This is just like the old days”) I could see this wasn’t like the old days. The hallways seemed to reverberate with a lack of discipline, and the noisy classrooms I passed were largely out of control. One boy grabbed a teacher’s chair, which had little wheels, and rolled it out of a classroom, across the hall, and tumbled it down a staircase, laughing his fool head off. Then the boy saw me. I didn’t say a word, but the boy slumped and stopped laughing, and trudged back into his classroom pouting, and took his seat.
I then had a interesting talk with the principle, who was a seemingly jolly, spineless man who informed me that the problem wasn’t the children; it was the parents. We didn’t talk about Greenland Vikings or sea-ice very much. Instead I agreed parents should be more helpful. I proposed having some parents simply walk up and down the hallways, as it seemed to make boys behave better. Being spineless, he agreed this was a good idea, which led to the formation of CARE ( which was an acronym which stood for “Concerned About Responsible Education”) and for a time I wordlessly walked the halls in shifts with two other fathers. It seemed to have a positive effect. I later learned the principle despised me, and said bad things about me behind my back, though he always spoke to me with sympathetic eyebrows, high in the middle and low outside. He was sympathetic even when I stated I had decided to withdraw my children from his madhouse, and to “home-school”.
Home-schooling was my chance to learn what it is like to be a schoolmarm. Although I never wore the clomping, fat-heeled shoes that teachers wore in my youth, I felt I walked in their shoes, and I consequently have far more respect for schoolmarms. (Even your own children can come up with the most fabulous excuses for undone homework.)
One thing I wanted to do was to make school different than I remembered it being. I wanted learning to be joyous, as it was when I learned by hiking through forests and fields (and by browsing libraries and, later, back alleys.) But I was confronted by a harsh reality: Some aspects of learning are not “fun”, namely the stuff old-time teachers called “drill”.
Some things are fairly boring to learn. For example, multiplication tables. Such things are vital to further learning, but I was never very good at learning things unless they were part of some larger logic. For example, I did badly in foreign languages because at the start it was vital to learn a list of meaningless words. However I could manage to learn a phrase or two when it had some sort of value to me: To this day I can say “The woman is very beautiful” and “You are a stupid ignoramus” in Russian (but not much else.)
In like manner I did learn some math, due to good teachers who interested me in figuring out the batting average of baseball players, and how many boards it would take to roof a fort I was building. But I had a hard time learning things that had no personal context or reference point. If I could see no reason, I had a hard time “applying myself”. I can’t tell you how many times I heard, “You have a good mind; why, why, why won’t you learn?” and, “You are an underachiever.”
In actual fact I was an overachiever, when it came to being a stubborn donkey and refusing to allow my mind to budge unless I was interested. In many cases the rare teachers who managed to teach me things I wasn’t interested in were the old-fashioned sort, who had no mercy, and who answered my “why” questions with, “Because I said so.”
The weapon such old-fashioned teachers wielded that worked best (on me) was to threaten to keep me from the forests and fields and libraries and alleys I loved, and one Science teacher got me to do an astonishing amount of dull homework because the alternative was to go to school with her all summer. Another old English teacher was more gentle, but simply forced me to do the same paper over and over until I handed in a draft with every word spelled correctly. (No spell-check back then). (Interesting to note I had a big vocabulary for my age, but couldn’t be bothered to learn to spell even simple words correctly.)
One thing that made those old-school teachers different was their emphasis on “completing your work”. It didn’t matter so much if the work was an “A” or a “D”, but that it was done. There was no “participation trophy” for merely showing up, and “trying” wasn’t an excuse for failing to complete an assignment. Even if you did a poor job, the job must be done. Nor did you necessarily earn approval, even when the job was done. You might earn a smile if you did “A” work, but not if it was “D” work. But even the the glower you got for “D” work was better than what you got for “incomplete” work. Looking back, such severity seems an afterglow from some former time, some echo of “The Puritan Work Ethic.”
At the same time there were new ideas and new approaches younger teachers thirsted to try out. I’ll gloss over these efforts, because for the most part they were ineffectual, and allowed me to escape “drill”. “Permissive” teachers allowed me to skip the rigors “Old School” teachers forced me to face, and let me play hooky. It didn’t matter if they called the work “arithmetic” or “new math”, and it didn’t matter if they called the work “history” or “social studies” or even “social science”. If they didn’t crack the whip, I’d prefer forests and fields to “drill”, and all their blathering about what-to-call-what-they-taught didn’t teach me one iota.
But one element of “permissiveness” did seem especially wrong to me, (and to many other schoolboys), and that was the unspoken need permissive teachers had to be popular. Me and my chums actually preferred the Old School teachers who knew we disliked them, for forcing us to “drill”, and we didn’t much like teachers who felt they had to be our best friend. The word “permissive” somehow meant they had to be “cool” and “popular” and “hip”.
Looking back, it seems to me the kids who were “cool” and “popular” and “hip” were a definite minority at my school, and the rest of us were a thing called “not so hip”. (Or perhaps “normal”). Therefore the efforts of some teachers to be popular looked like they were trying to woo a minority.
For the kids like me it seemed fairly obvious that such teachers were not the cream of the crop; they had not been “cool” or “popular” or “hip” when they themselves were our age, if only because they were not remotely handsome or beautiful, or particularly athletic, or all that smart. (That was why they were teachers, and not something better). Yet they had this odd wish to be what they never were, and thirsted to hang out with the “cool” and “popular” and “hip” kids.
Even to a twelve-year-old such behavior seems a bit pathetic, and is a sight that even seems pitiful: A thirty-year-old man or woman seeking acceptance from a minority of thirteen-year-olds who deem themselves classy, even as many of their classmates deem them otherwise.
A reason classmates disliked some peers who excelled (besides envy) was because some who excelled sneered at fellow classmates who didn’t do so well. But this meanness was dealt-with among peers by peers. We had our juvenile ways of separating the wheat from the chaff, the generous from the mean, and the genuinely admirable from those chasing the veneer of status. We may not have had words such as “politically correct” and “virtue signaling”, but we did have the words “real” and “phony.”
In some ways school involved much grouping and regrouping of small gangs, much shifting from superiority to inferiority to equality, as youth figured out where they were comfortable and where their gifts “fit”. Among athletes one might feel puny but five minutes later among Freshmen one might feel like a giant. Moods soared and moods crashed as hormones ran riot and roughshod, yet midst this chaos there was an awareness that some “got too big for their britches” or “took things too far.” Call it intuition if you will, but it was tantamount to detachment among youth you might deem incapable of anything but reactionary moodiness. Often it popped out of someone’s mouth in a way that resulted in gales of laughter, and a bully blushing (and promising to pound the jester later). Status was a precarious perch, like a game of king-of-the-mountain, and the “uppity” could expect a “comeuppance”. Yet for some status was the end-all and be-all of school, far more important than classes. For others the exact same status was proof the possessor was “phony”, and a person to be pitied. (Epaulets do not make the man).
If even youth can see past status symbols, and pity their peers when they crave such status too insanely (and look like shoppers madly fighting over an object at a sale) then youth can become downright horrified when teachers become equally eager to be included among the “cool” and “popular” and “hip”, and teachers act juvenile too. Such antics are hard to forgive or forget.
I recall when I was at my most awkwardly nerdy I was sneered-at by such a teacher. I likely deserved the sarcasm, but the rebuke was not what irked me. What seemed unforgivable was how the teacher turned away smiling towards the “cool” kids as the “cool” kids laughed at me, drinking up their small-minded approval. It was embarrassing. Grown-ups are suppose to be better than that, yet it was what was called “permissive” in 1964, and is called “politically correct” in 2019. Despite all the talk about “zero tolerance” for any form of “bullying”, it is a form of bullying. If you don’t believe such bullying exists, send a child into a classroom with a hidden camera, and have the child tell the teacher “Global Warming is a fraud.”
The pursuit of popularity at the expense of Truth may have a lot to do with the antics seen in Hollywood and among politicians, but it’s a dead end. It is Much Ado About Nothing. It involves the IQ of a bunch of clucking chickens figuring out their pecking-order. It is sad when people have to spend so much time and energy dealing with such nonsense, when what they really want to do is study sea-ice.
Also the pursuit of popularity has little to do with the true challenge of teaching, which involves the glaring difference between “drill” and the joy of learning. “Drill” may be necessary and be good for you, but so is cod-liver-oil. “Drill” is difficult to swallow. Either one must adopt the lantern-jawed mercy of a boot-camp sergeant, or be a sort of Mary Poppins singing about how “a teaspoon of sugar makes medicine go down in a most delightful way”, but in either case there is an acceptance that drill is, by itself, not delightful.
I thought long and hard about this subject while home-schooling my own kids, as they were forever asking me why should they do what they hated. I had no good answer, so I told them, “Because I said so.” However after I put them to bed I’d stay up late, sipping beer and wondering, “Why do I do what I hate?” I wanted an answer better than, “Because I have to.”
The answer I came up with involved seeing “drill” differently. Rather than seeing it as a bitter pill one was forced to gag down, I saw (or attempted to see) “drill” was the result of another’s joy.
A person in the faded past had endured the hardship, the sweat and strain and pricks to the ego, which led to the joy of revelation. And they then handed you all they worked so hard to achieve across the chasms of time, for free.
What such past people offer may be a thing as mundane as the “multiplication tables.” Learning such tables may be as dull as dust, but we should be thankful we don’t have to start from scratch and figure them all out for ourselves.
In like manner, when faced with a long and dull list of vocabulary words, we should be glad we are not faced with the task of coining such words. Most use words without any understanding of the Herculean efforts made by all sorts of word-smiths across the ages to hammer, distort and anneal the word into its current shape and definition.
One unusual aspect of my childhood was that my mother didn’t desire, (as a feminine equivalent of a man’s “den” or “man-cave”), a kitchen and pantry cluttered with cooking paraphernalia, or a sewing room, or a craft room, or a gym, but rather a library. She was a bibliophile, and even had a massive dictionary on an ornate stand in the dining-room. During the best days of my childhood (when my parents still got along) I sometimes was allowed to join the grown-ups during dinners that included foreign dignitaries, to whom English was a second language, and quite often the massive dictionary was consulted to see if a word was “used correctly”. Sometimes these visits to the dictionary were brief, but on other occasions (perhaps because my Dad could mix a powerful “old fashioned”), the conversations digressed in delightful ways into the various shades-of-meaning the same word might have, the origins the word had, how the meaning had changed over the process of time, and how shades-of-meaning could be different in different lands. (For example, in 1959 the word “fantastic” had a positive connotation in the United States but a negative connotation in India.) Even during dinners without company my mother tended to feel the definition of a word was chiseled on stone, while my father tended to look for loopholes, and the dictionary would be consulted. The result of all this was that, for me at least, the “drill” of learning a list of boring vocabulary words was less distasteful than it might have been for other children.
Drill is made distasteful when it becomes divorced from the amazing people who made the dull facts important. This is never more obvious than in the case of History. One is too often forced to memorize dull dates, but not told the full story. It is amazing how much passion and wonder can be lost through the study of dull dates. After such dreary memorization a bored boy is expected to write, on a test, “Valley Forge occurred in 1776”, without any real understanding of what occurred, or even that George Washington was involved. Where David McCullough’s book “1776” devotes chapter after chapter to what fueled that amazing moment in time, the schoolboy is just given a dull place-name and a dull date. Little wonder some rebel, and call history stupid. History is not stupid, but little wonder some think it is.
If you then add the fact some teachers deeply want to be popular, you can even have teachers who nod, and agree history is stupid. Rather than adding the joy-of-learning to the dull “drill” of history, they throw the baby out with the bathwater, and feel history itself is the problem. They then attempt to find a better way, something other than what actually happened.
Such a revision of Truth, of what actually happened, is called by some “revisionist history” and by others “progressive.” I call it “denial of fact”, and think, if you study history, you can see it often leads to a terrible end.
Inherent with thinking that history itself is the problem is the idea “old-fashioned” ideas are a weakness, and can be replaced by “better ideas”. Yet what happened is what happened; it is the Truth. When you attempt to replace Truth with a “better idea” you venture into the quicksand of utter folly.
I do not mean to suggest all attempts at social reform are folly. History shows us examples where attempts to reform society were beneficial, and where they were not. Therefore the measure of social reform should be the crop it reaps. Does the social reform result in the betterment of all, or disaster?
One of the saddest things to see, looking back in history, is how some so-called “progressive” people came to see their fellows, who had stood by their side as they fought “traditionalists” and rose to power, as being “not-progressive-enough”, and as holding them back. Stalin only rose to power due to the helping hands of many “bedfellow” communists, yet he came to see them as too “old-fashioned”, and “purged” them, (idiotically killing his best generals on the eve of World War Two.) In like manner Mao, after his “Great Leap Forward” had proved to be a leap backwards, had to deal with criticism he deserved from his fellow revolutionaries. Rather than humbly accepting what recent history taught, he instituted the “Cultural Revolution” which saw criticism (recent history) as evil (“counterrevolutionary”), and basically attempted to purge not only all of his best friends, but all of China’s best teachers.
The idea behind this sort of hatred towards tradition and history is the concept that tradition is a sort of weed, and that if you remove the weed something beautiful will grow. I honestly believe that both Stalin and Mao believed they were justified to kill, because something beautiful would result. Each morning they hopped out of bed, expecting that killing best friends and schoolmarms would result in roses. It never did. Apparently weeding isn’t enough. You must also plant.
The process of “planting” involves treating best friends and schoolmarms better than Stalin and Mao did, even when they disagree with you. Rather than seeing Truth as a backwardness and an enemy, it accepts the fact that even when Truth hurts, it is better than the alternative.
If you can follow my logic, you may glimpse Truth is not the dry lists of dull facts one grits their teeth to learn during “drill”. Rather Truth is a relationship. Rather than inanimate like stone Truth is alive. A inanimate stone just sits there. It cannot hurt you unless you go out of your way to fall on it head-first. However animate Truth can hurt you, even when you are minding your own business.
At this point I am moving into mystic territory. I don’t want to go there. I just want to lift the veil slightly, and hint at something. (Whether you choose to explore further is your own business). Let it suffice to say that I feel Truth is not a thing. It is a relationship we all are embarked upon, with whatever It is that made us.
I will say this: Our relationship with Truth is contentious. We all are social reformers in one way or another, and do not believe reality is as it should be. Though we may be like specks of dust upon a very small planet by a small sun in a small galaxy in a infinity giant universe, there are days we dare presume to grab the even huger Creator by the scruff of His neck and demand answers. (Confess. You’ve done it.) What amazes me is that, rather than being immediately incinerated by a bolt of lightning, we get answers. “Seek, and ye will find.”
In his long poem “A Lesson For Today”, the poet Robert Frost ends by suggesting he wants the epitaph on his gravestone to read, “I had a lover’s quarrel with the world.” In other words, if you seek Truth, do not expect an easy road lined with roses.
What holds true for students of poetry also holds true for students of arctic sea-ice. Truth is no outing for the feeble. Often those who stand by Truth win no earthly popularity, nor wealth, and seem to be proof honesty is for losers who want to wind up crucified, hanging from a cross upside-down like Saint Peter. Yet in the long run, even in earthly terms, who was the loser? In Rome, now, a huge building is called “Peter’s”, while “Caesar” is a name we give to dogs.
I often state “Stand by the Truth and the Truth will stand by you”, but this may not play out in the short term, which at one point in my life had me saying “Righteousness is never rewarding.”
For example, at one point the honest meteorologist Dr. William Gray advised the politically-calculating Vice-president Al Gore that Gore’s ideas about Global Warming were not scientific. Rather than being rewarded for his honesty, Dr. Gray saw his funding cut and was marginalized. Meanwhile Gore received awards and made millions for a movie (that British courts stated could not be used to educate British children with, because it included many falsehoods), ironically titled “The Inconvenient Truth.” In such situations it may seem there is no justice, and that the final Truth is that this world is made exceedingly disagreeable (because otherwise we would not seek a better place). But time will tell. Dr. Gray reached the end of his life with dignity, whereas Gore exudes such a halitosis of corruption one dislikes the thought we breathe the same air. (Not that I expect to be invited to his birthday party and stand in the same room, but we breathe the same air even if I flee to the far side of the planet.)
Gore is no different than the rest of us; he too has a relationship with Truth. In the harsh light of hangovers his eyes must seek their corners, amazed over how far he has fallen to become bloated with power and wealth. Yet none of us compare all that well with Perfection. In our relationships with Truth we all receive pricks to our fat egos, but none has fallen so far as to be beyond redemption; (it is said the thief on the cross next to Jesus walked the avenues of paradise only hours later).
In our relationship with Truth we are always teetering, with our hearts and heads never quite in balance: Our heads tend to be too dry and intellectual even as our hearts are too emotional and impulsive. That is why we need Truth to lend us a hand. We need something better than we are, to refer to. The amazing thing is that Truth is always there, offering.
Lastly allow me to repeat myself and state Truth is bountiful. One may not get the money they desire or the fame they desire or the power they desire, (or the beautiful girl on a Maine beach they desire), but in the end they get the best thing, which is Truth. In our constant and sometimes ludicrous efforts to reform society and change the world, Truth is our constant companion and lodestone, offering us feedback in the form of the harvests we reap, which can defy all odds and amaze us. (For example, Jonah felt preaching about Love to the merciless Assyrians was an exercise in futility and complete waste of time and might even get him killed, yet, (when he finally got around to giving being-an-advisor a shot), he saw, to his amazement, the entire bloodthirsty Assyrian nation repented and reformed [and postponed their eventual downfall by some fifty years.])
Truth has power we can’t imagine, which gives us every reason to study it. Under its beneficent sunshine rivers that barely trickle can rise sixty feet.
In terms of arctic sea-ice we need to stop the silliness of “adjusting” the Truth in a way that denies what we already know, and get back to studying what is actually occurring up there. Even a rank amateur like myself can see hints of mysterious powers, atmospheric waves that move the wrong way or cross the Pole, and these ill-defined shapes may be far more than the swirling aftereffects of storms to the south. I like to toy with the idea they may be hinges capable of pivoting vast atmospheric rivers, trapping cold air in the north with a “zonal” pattern or unleashing arctic outbreaks far to the south with a “meridional” pattern. Such changes make a huge difference to farmers, and understanding such changes would be an advantage to all people, for if farmers in Iowa knew a cold year was coming that would kill their corn, they could plant winter wheat instead. In like manner history informs us that massive shifts can occur to the currents of the North Atlantic, making rich fishing grounds sterile and barren seas bountiful. At the very least fishermen could save a lot of gas used searching for the fish, if they knew such a shift was coming and the fish would be moving.
Considering such drastic changes to the ecology of the Atlantic occurred even before light bulbs were invented, it seems silly to now blame such changes on incandescent bulbs, and to imagine we can move the seas by buying curly ones. Rather than thinking we control the weather we should be more humble and see the weather controls us, and seek to understand it. And such understanding does not come by seeking to replace Truth with adjustments, but rather by studying what actually is occurring, irregardless of whether it is politically correct or whether it confirms some preconceived bias. Arctic research deserves greater funding not because it benefits some political party, but rather because Truth benefits all mankind.
In any case, here we sit, having wasted decades preparing for Global Warming that shows no real sign of manifesting. Billions have been squandered attempting to prove something that isn’t true, deranging our energy infrastructure in the process, and leaving us ill-prepared for the onslaughts of winter. And winter is coming.
The “warming” seen on various charts and graphs is largely due to adjustments, but some warming is genuine and cannot be denied. However it may well be due to a completely counter-intuitive cause: Less energy, due to the so-called “Quiet Sun”, may initially have a warming effect.
Ever since I first began paying attention Alarmists have been pish-tushing solar variations, stating they’re incapable of having much effect. They often point out the variations in TSI (Total Solar Irradience) is roughly only a tenth of 1%. Or one part of a thousand. Yet then these same Alarmists turn right around and and say one part in a million can have a huge effect, when it involves the composition of the atmosphere. They can’t have it both ways.
My own take is that a change of only a tenth of 1% in the amount of sunshine striking the earth may seem small, but is actually a stupendous amount. After all, the sun is no small thing, even though you can cover it with your thumbnail as it crosses the sky. Here’s some trivia from “Cool Cosmos”:
“Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot!”
Currently the sun has become more quiet than at any time since the Dalton Minimum (roughly 1790-1830). At times the TSI has sunk to “unprecedented” levels.
The problem I run into, when dealing with the TSI, is that there are variations from graph to graph, and discussions involving things above my head, such as brief drops involving sunspots rotating around and facing the earth (which makes me think a spotless “Quiet Sun” should have a higher rather than lower TSI) and also arguments concerning the sensors used and “adjustments” made to the sensors used in the past. In the end I tend to fall back onto the observations from the Dalton Minimum, before the TSI was measured.
While the start of the Dalton Minimum was fairly quiet, after a decade things became “interesting”: Two of the largest volcanic eruptions of the past millennium occurred in 1810 and 1815, parts of the subtropics experienced summer snows and frosts, and there were extreme variations in the location and amounts of sea-ice, (including the amazing phenomenon of icebergs grounding on the coast of Ireland, that I mentioned earlier.) It seems a “Quiet Sun” had a significant effect, even if we haven’t been able to figure out the practical plumbing of its causes and effects.
One current observation that seems counter-intiuitive to me is that the SST (sea surface temperatures) have become warmer even as the sun has become less energetic. Though the southern hemisphere may now be hinting at some cooling, the northern hemisphere continues well above normal. (Below is the current anomaly map, not showing actual temperatures but rather whether temperatures are above or below normal.)
How could a less energetic sun cause warmer seas? After brooding a bit, it occurred to me that, besides measuring energy with thermometers, we could focus on the energy measured by anemometers. If a less-energetic sun slacked winds, especially Trade Winds, there would be less up-welling of cold water from the sea’s icy depths, resulting in warmer water at the surface, warmer and moister air above the seas, and consequently warmer and moister air working its way to the Pole (where only a small change in moisture jolts temperatures upwards to a far greater degree than the same amount of moisture alters temperatures in the tropics.) This would explain why winter temperatures have been warmer at the Pole, (and much of the slight “Global Warming” we see in honest statistics has been due to winter-warming at the Pole). However in the summer, when above-freezing temperatures at the Pole make slight rises in humidity less influential, the summertime Pole has actually trended cooler than normal by a small degree, which could be caused by slightly decreased sunshine 24-hours-a-day.
The idea that a slight thing like a decrease in TSI could warm the entire Northern Hemisphere may seem a bit preposterous, but if you think of it there are plenty of examples in life of small things having big consequences. Kingdoms can be lost “all because of a horseshoe nail”, a gain of sand can start an avalanche. In terms of meteorology the phrase “tipping point” is often used, (both correctly and incorrectly), and in some cases a hair can make a huge difference. It is like a marble rolling slower and slower up to the peak of a rise, at which point it can either fail to crest the rise and roll backwards, or crest the rise and accelerate forwards. In terms of a computer model and a weather forecast, this can be the difference between a ridge of high pressure being pumped and pleasant weather, or a trough digging and a gale. (Just as an example, there is currently some concern here in southern New Hampshire about winter snows getting off to an early start, and Joseph D’Aleo discussed the topic on his site at Weatherbell, and in the process he looked at fifty “runs” of the European Model, describing how much snow we might get over the next two weeks. Here are 25 of the runs:
Basically what the “runs” state is that we might get two feet of snow or might get none. Not much of a forecast. I suppose it does show storms will be whizzing by, maybe out to sea or maybe to our north or maybe hitting us, (but, because this is November in New England, we already knew that). However what I wanted to emphasize was how small things can make big differences. The reasons the “runs” of the model are so different are caused by quite minor tweaks to the initial data. A “butterfly flapping its wing” can totally ruin a superb forecast.
This is especially true concerning whether the Pacific will generate an El Nino or La Nina. Some sort of “tipping point” is involved, but no meteorologist seems able to pinpoint what it is, for the forecasting is persistently poor. Yet the difference between an El Nino and a La Nina is huge, and has worldwide consequences.
In a La Nina the warm water is “piled up” towards Australia and cold water upwells towards South America, and the world tends to be colder and drier, while in an El Nino the warm water spreads out and cold water sinks, and the world tends to be milder and moister. The Trade Winds are involved, and it is a case where less-is-more. Less winds creates more heat.
In like manner, I suspect a lower TSI might create a less-is-more situation where less heat from the sun initially makes the planet milder. But I stress that word “initially”.
To me it seems that spreading out the heat over a larger area could cause the heat to be lost more efficiently. It would be like your tea being too hot, so you pour it in the saucer to cool it. (Not that I’ve ever done this, but as a boy I asked an old lady what saucers were for.)
(It may not merely be fishermen who own first-hand-experiences that certain Climate-scientists should attend to; old ladies drinking tea may know a thing or two Climate-scientists don’t, as well.)
The spreading-out of milder water not only loses heat to the atmosphere (which then loses heat to outer space), it also moves north to the northern reaches of the Atlantic and Pacific, and melts sea-ice. Alarmists felt the resultant open water in the Arctic Sea would absorb sunlight and cause the “Arctic Death Spiral”, but the open water largely does not appear while the sun is high, but rather appears when the sun is getting low in late August and setting in September. In such situations the open water is not absorbing sunshine, but losing heat to the arctic night. Heat is not merely lost directly, but through the latent heat released during the phase-change from water back to sea-ice, which is far greater during years like this one, which saw more open water, and has already seen much open water swiftly refreeze.
Where some Alarmists suggest that the recent rise in the planet’s temperatures by a few tenths of a degree is a sort of irreversible one-way trend, I tend to see it as an action which will result in an equal and opposite reaction. For example, if you put a small pea on a balance, first it will swing down but then swing back up, as it gradually gets back to a state of poise.
It seems to me our planet is constantly attempting to achieve a state of poise, but constantly subjected to peas that make the balance swing. Even the yearly shift in summertime sunshine from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere and back north again knocks things out of whack to some degree, but the planet keeps working to bring things back into balance. Because the swings have a certain regularity to them, the balancing-work tends to develop a regularity of sorts, and we speak of “cycles”, whether they be the cycles of seasons, or sunspot cycles, or the supposed 60-year-cycles of the AMO and PDO. But these cycles can also get knocked out of whack by things such as especially explosive volcano eruptions, or even asteroids (not to mention things I know little about, involving an “electric universe”, or the 12,000 year cycle of “magnetic excursions” mentioned on the “Ice Age Now” site, or in scary videos such as this one:
One constant, while considering the blows our planet has received in the past and may receive in the future, is our planet’s toughness and resiliency. It is like a boxer who can be pounded but cannot be knocked out. The idea of a “tipping point” being triggered that turns the planet into a hothouse like Venus is patently absurd, (but the idea of a society being triggered into absurdity is perhaps not so absurd), (and may be happening.) There is a tremendous power dragging the earth back towards equilibrium.
At times I think the swings back towards equilibrium manifest in ways that strike us as anything but peaceful. For example, a summer thunderstorm may not seem peaceful, but gets rid of excessive heat and brings things back into balance. In like manner, when some volcano reduces the amount of heat arriving on the planet’s surface, a “zonal” pattern may shift to a “meridional” pattern with the jet-stream contorting into fabulous loops, yet this may just be the planet’s way of redistributing the heat to get things back in balance.
I think this is what we should be watching for, and may already be seeing, in terms of the “Quiet Sun”. But one thing we need to be wary of may be glimpsed to the old (and now “adjusted”) records I showed earlier, which showed a dramatic increase in sea-ice between a record low in 1960 and a high during the winter of 1962-1963. It was a rapid increase of 1.5 million km of ice. Here is that illustration again:
It seems to me that a reappraisal of Vinnikov’s data would be fascinating. What was he witnessing, and what were the causes, and what were the effects? There does seem to be evidence that the world saw quite a dramatic period of cooling at that time, resulting in the “Ice Age Scare” which is so well documented by Tony Hellar’s collection of old Newspaper articles from that time.
The question I ask myself is, “Could we be on the verge of seeing history repeat?” Personally I loath the prospect, as my circulation is not fond of cold winters. I’m not the hot blooded dude I was in Maine, back when Jimmy Carter was president. However whatever will be will be, and it pays to keep an eye to the north in November.
Currently things look a bit ominous. Three weeks ago (October 11) the waters north of Siberia were wide open and snowcover was just starting to expand in Canada.
Now (November 4) the waters north of Siberia have swiftly skimmed with ice, Canada is largely snow-covered, and many of the smaller lakes in Canada have frozen (blue above but yellow below).
I’m now watching for the large Canadian Lakes and Hudson Bay to flash-freeze. As long as they are open they moderate arctic air, creating a sort of landlocked “maritime effect”, but as soon as they freeze, bitter cold can build. Also the pattern is worrisome due to a persistent ridge up the west coast of North America. That may bring warmth to western Alaska (note less snow there) but it tends to drain cold air into the heartland of USA and eventually effects our east coast. During the worst winters it drags frigid air from Siberia across the Arctic Sea, so I’m watching for the waters north of Bering Strait to flash-freeze as well. During the winter of 1976-1977, back when Jimmy Carter was president, we got stuck in such a pattern from November all the way into February. So I’m keeping my finger’s crossed that the west-coast-ridge breaks down, for now that I’m an old geezer I’m more of a wimp. (However if you’re young and like snow it is something to hope for).
If you are an Alarmist, and are stoically hanging on to the “Arctic Death Spiral” theory, what you should likely do is shift to sea-ice “volume” graphs. The DMI graph currently shows surprisingly low “volume”.
The low “volume” is likely reflecting the low overall extent of the past summer and the fact the new ice is still thin, though it may be indicative of a surge of sea-ice exiting south through Fram Strait (which will be interesting to watch as it approaches Iceland in December.) Also it may have something to do with fewer arctic gales piling up fewer pressure-ridges of ice. Whatever the cause, it helps the cause of Alarmists, especially the young whippersnappers who are looking for a good reason to avoid getting a Real Job flipping burgers to pay off giant loans to a Federal Government that printed money to pay colleges that printed worthless degrees. Who would want to face that? I don’t blame some young people for preferring that the world end in twelve years.
As for the rest of us, who pay the taxes and elect the individuals who perpetuate such shenanigans, we expect the unexpected. Just about the only thing safe thing to forecast is that Alarmist forecasts will prove incorrect, for they involve so much that is not Truth. The best we can do is focus on Truth, and have faith that it can produce some wonderful surprises. The climate can change, and dry gulches can fill with living waters, and deserts can bloom.
Stay Tuned…….And stand by the Truth and the Truth will stand by you.
Around a fortnight ago I heard that Alarmist sites were proclaiming that the big guns were being rolled out to blast Skeptics, in order to convince the general public that Global Warming was a “fact” and not a theory, and that only wicked people (like me) denied such “facts”. In actual fact the Alarmists have rolled out pop-guns; not cannons. There has been a shortage of facts, and primarily we’ve seen raving and ranting by young people who are “on strike” because grown-ups are “destroying their world”, (which is basically a delusion, for it is likely there has never been a generation as physically well-off).
(Emotionally, such youth may well be destroyed, but their teachers are to blame for that. The climate itself is beyond reproach. And I could warn such foolish teachers what eventually happens to the teachers in socialist revolutions, but that would take me down a long, sad sidetrack and far from the subject of sea-ice.)
I will only go so far, playing this silly game Alarmists play, wherein they steer far from the facts while pretending they are the realists. As long as the person I am debating is willing to calmly discuss the facts, (and also whether the facts are “raw data” or so-called “adjusted data”, [which is data that has been fiddled-with and therefore can no longer can be called true data]), I can enjoy the conversation. However there are certain conversations that seem highly unlikely to involve any enjoyment.
Having raised two daughters, I am familiar with young women’s extremes of emotion, (though by age sixteen mine were showing some signs of returning to earth). But with daughters one at least owns the love which sees one through feminist storms, and daughters return some degree of that love, even when they’re furious at you. In the case of Greta Thunburg one is faced with a veritable iceberg of antipathy.
And “icebergs” returns me to the subject of sea-ice. Which is what people need to do, when faced with political nonsense. Otherwise one risks being dragged down by the sheer ugliness of untruth. In such situations it is often wise to go for a hike and absorb the beauty of the view. Become aware of the wonder.
This was actually all I was doing, when I first posted about sea-ice back in July of 2013. I was merely sharing a beautiful escape I had found, which offered relief to the heat of July.
But that post embroiled me in the Climate Debate on my own site. (I did visit the “subject”, in a political sense, on other sites, but my own site was for my personal, poetic wanderings, attractive to some 10-20 viewers a day.) Abruptly I had over 500 viewers a day, and all sorts of interesting comments.
My first sea-ice post made me aware of what a huge hubbub surrounded sea-ice, and that, though the subject seems inane, it can get you more attention than driving a Mercedes. Gosh! If I only knew I could get so much attention talking about icebergs I surely would have started much younger, back when I still had the lungs and stamina necessary to chase women. However, because I am largely past such pursuits, I am not as impressed as I once was by superficiality. In fact I am interested in things that didn’t interest me at all when young, such as “peace”.
When I was young I was more interested in stimulation and excitement, but even then I was aware of a richness and depth which could be found in quietude. I even pursued peace, sitting cross-legged and chanting “Aum” for an entire fifteen minutes, when swept up by spiritual zeal, but soon that seemed too boring, and I bopped away from meditation along an erratic path towards gratifications that never were lasting. To be honest, the course of my life displayed a sort of Brownian motion, despite the great gift of owning free will in a free country. Yet one thing did seem to come along with me and to be lasting, namely a sort of intangible and highly subjective sense of beauty.
Beauty is most definitely in the eye of the beholder. One time I was swept into a sort of rhapsody by the beauty of a sunrise, but when I asked a depressed and cynical friend if the sunrise was beautiful, he stated it looked like a vomited egg. For that reason I sometimes am in no hurry to share beauty with sourpusses.
As one gets older one’s initial attraction to mere superficial beauty (which is why people wear make-up) evolves. One is hurt when a person externally beautiful turns out to be cold-hearted, and one is touched when an ugly person turns out to have a heart of gold. One then becomes more aware of a thing that is an “inward” beauty. This in turn seems to have a relationship with a thing called “Truth”.
For some odd reason I have always had the ability to see beauty in situations that few would call beautiful. My depressed and cynical friend once told me, “You could face a pile of stinking shit, and you’d find something positive to say about it.” I had to laugh. It was the Truth. But that only annoyed my cynical friend, for I was finding something beautiful about his insult.
One time I was in an alley of a slum, and rather than be upset by the ugliness and decay all around me, I was entranced by the way a sunbeam found its way into that gloom, and how beautiful the old, orange bricks looked in the sunlight. Also I noted that, in some forgotten past before the slum was a slum, the bricks had been laid with extraordinary care by a skilled mason, at which point my cynical friend accused me of smoking dope without sharing any with him.
I actually did hope, when young, that legalizing marijuana might allow others to see the way I saw. After people smoked they would say things like, “Wow, man, the sky is so blue.” Unfortunately their revelations weren’t lasting, and the long-term consequences of using drugs seemed to lessen revelation, rather than stimulate revelation. Not that there was a definite decrease in intelligence. People remained the same. At age fifty they sounded the same as age seventeen.
When I look back and try to find some logical reason for my ability to see beauty, (rather than just calling it a “gift”), one thing I remember is an amazing collection of old and ugly people. My parents were both wealthy and very active, and chose to delegate the rearing of their children to others, and this tendency was exacerbated when they both were bedridden by polio in 1954. The first “nanny” I recall was an old French woman, the daughter of a French composer, who had no fear of polio germs because she was a Christian Scientist. She looked very much like the face on a box of Quaker Oats: Not exactly the face of a Hollywood movie star, but a person who was very beautiful, simply because of all she had endured in France during years of hardship, without losing faith and hope, nor losing her ability to suffer little brats like myself.
Someday I’ll hopefully write a post called “My Nannies” about the entire collection of fascinating refugees who I was cared-for by, by age nine. All were fired, as not one fully achieved the high standards my parents desired for their children, but they were all fascinating in my eyes. They didn’t ever tell me about the hells they had endured, the lynchings in America’s south, the barbaric behavior of Hitler and Stalin in Europe, but, though I later learned they had endured such ugliness, instead, in their wrinkled faces, was a triumph over evil, the victory of simple, good people over horribly astounding adversity. They shone with an “inward beauty” I was somehow able to see, despite being a naive and gullible child, and I think it stuck with me. Being old and wrinkled has never since seemed the slightest bit ugly to me.
Unfortunately, now that I myself am the old and wrinkly person, some young people do not look upon me with any fondness.
Greta and her ilk shows no sign of having the slightest interest in respecting any elders beyond those who indoctrinated her. She is as prejudiced against old people with differing views as some white people were when they listened to Louis Armstrong’s music at a nightclub, but wouldn’t allow him to drink at the same bar with them. Yet Louis wasn’t soured, nor convinced the world was doomed, but instead sang with hope in his old age:
There is an irony in watching Greta, (who has just sailed across the sea in a boat owned by monarchy), wrinkle her nose and insist her future has been stolen, and comparing her sourness with the sweetness of a man whose life was full of reasons to be bitter, yet who refused to be bowed, and persisted, and insisted on joyous song.
What makes the difference? To me it seems to be a difference between imagination and fact, between a dismal distortion of hope into despair, as opposed to an acceptance of what the present tense holds. Where Greta gripes about a forecast, Louis accepts the weather right now and, if it is raining, sings in the rain.
Greta complains her dreams have been stolen, but what are dreams? Even in a better world there is no guarantee dreams will come true. Nor is there any certainty worries will manifest; in fact they usually don’t, and even when they do they’re often not nearly as hard to endure as one envisioned. All in all, it is better to attend to today and allow tomorrow to tend to itself; even five-day-forecasts are often wrong, and few lives unfold anything like what we had scripted at age sixteen. We may plan for a pension, but “the best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray”. Conversely, even when one seemingly assures oneself a miserable future by being utterly morose in the present, unexpected fortune can befall one out of the blue. Even Greta’s sour face might tomorrow be the glowing face of a young woman who has fallen in love.
One reason it is better to focus on the present is because it is all we really have. It is where Truth exists. It is filled with beauty, if you only look for it. Sadly, people often miss what they have because they hanker for what they haven’t. It is not only heroin addicts who writhe in their cravings, despite the fact the sun is shining and birds are singing.
This at long last brings me back to the subject of sea-ice. It is a beautiful and wonderful subject, if one simply looks at the Truth, and has no need to distort with bias and “adjustments”, nor any need to advocate some political cause. Even though the sun has stopped shining at the Pole, and arctic birds have fled south, the starry polar night has a beauty all its own.
It is a time of great changes, from perpetual sunshine to perpetual darkness, from melting ice to freezing salt water. The flooding arctic rivers, glutted with meltwater, abruptly shrink to a trickle as melting ceases to the south, and even the south winds become cold, when they come north over a tundra which has abruptly changed from being a swampy ooze to being as hard as iron.
This time of transition is fascinating to watch, as it never happens the same way, because a great many variables are involved. Allow me to skim over the surface of this highly complex subject, to give you an idea of how wonderful it is.
One variable is the amount of sea-ice in the marginal seas, which seems dependent on the state of the AMO and PDO. This year the ice-cover is low and the passage along the coast of Siberia is open. What this in turn creates is the likelihood of air rising over those open waters, for the waters “remember” the summer sunshine in a more lasting way than the sea-ice to the north and the tundra (already snow-covered in places) to the south, which makes the air above those waters both milder and moister than the air to the north and to the south. Because the air is rising low pressure is encouraged, and lows tend to ramble from west to east, from Barent’s Sea through the Kara, Laptev, and East Siberian Seas, all the way to Bering Strait. In the map below (for September 29) the blue areas are places where pressures are lower than normal, (especially along the Siberian coast), and orange areas are where pressures are above normal (especially over Greenland and the Central Arctic.) You can see the suggestion that the open water is effecting the pattern. (Maps courtesy of Weatherbell Site.)
When we switch to the temperature maps of the same time (Sept 29) we again can see the effect of the open water, as compared to colder lands to the north and south. (I prefer the Celsius Weatherbell map because the difference between below freezing (white) and above freezing (purple) is so clear.) Of especial interest to me is the above freezing area towards Bering Strait over the East Siberian Sea, as usually the East Siberian Sea is colder and first to freeze.
Also of interest is the below freezing air just inland of the Laptev Sea coast in Central Siberia. It looks so cold one doesn’t see it is actually warmer-than normal, unless one looks at the temperature-anomaly map for the same time:
In the above map the area inland of the Laptev is so cherry red one is tempted to forget temperatures are in fact below freezing, and get carried away and step outside in a bathing suit. (One has to be careful with anomaly maps.) What the anomaly demonstrates is the after-effects of a large storm that stalled over western Russia, drawing cold air south over Scandinavia and pulling warm air north over central Russia. But remember the warm air is only relatively warm, has chilled as it came north, and is in fact below freezing and far colder then the air it displaces over the Laptev Sea, when it is sucked north because the air over the Laptev Sea is rising.
Also notice the above map shows colder-than-normal air plunging south in Western Canada, as Eastern Canada is above-normal. This is indicative of a loopy, “meridienal” jet-stream, (which is what you look for if you like exciting winters). A flatter “zonal” jet stream has troughs and ridges that are barely bumps, and on the surface beneath have meeker lows that travel west to east without much ado. But it is when the jet stream gets loopy that the fun starts. The storms beat their chests and roar. They can start down at the edge of the tropics and come northeast intensifying constantly until they are full fledged monster-gales as they approach the arctic, actually drilling up into the upper atmosphere and altering the steering currents. This is great fun to attempt to visualize, though it can leave you a bit cross-eyed. How can the steered control the steering? It messes up computer programs, for it is like unruly peasants marching to the castle with torches and scythes to tell their boss they aren’t going to follow his orders.
What you have to watch for is storms stalling, and the upper-air pattern getting stuck in a certain position (or sometimes looking like it is going to pull out of a certain position, but then relapsing back to its former pose.) As the storms stall they often occlude, which means the warm front has caught up with the cold front, and the “warm sector” is hoisted off the ground and starts messing around with the upper atmosphere. Though some take the attitude an occluded storm is “cut off” from the juice that feeds storms, at times an occluded front represents a pipeline of juice still feeding the gale, but feeding-in up a few thousand feet. The massive gale remains massive, and often slows, stalls, and then curves back to the west. What the heck is going on in terms of “steering currents”?
The most elegant explanation for the looping of high latitude gales is that they have escaped the influence of mid-latitude westerlies and nudged into the influence of polar easterlies. And, as is the case with many beautiful explanations, this idea works, but only to a certain degree, after which elegance is thrown to the wind like a rich, fat banker slipping on ice and falling on his butt.
In the most elegant scenarios all the might of the primary gale fades as a secondary storm grows new might, usually to the southeast where the occluded front meets the warm and cold fronts. In the most pretty examples, as the secondary explodes into predominance the primary low’s occluded front turns into a secondary cold front of the secondary gale, and the primary gale just vanishes. This happens often enough to be something I watch for, and it fails to happen often enough to cause me to think inelegant thoughts. Politically incorrect thoughts. Thoughts often begun with the three words, “I wonder if…”
There is stuff going on up there on the arctic coasts that bears further study. I fear we may have a sort of west-to-east prejudice, due to living in mid-latitudes, and that this prejudice manifests as a sort of blindness to ripples that move east-to-west, like our sun. What’s more, polar weather is capable of trickery impossible at lower latitudes, for a cross-polar-flow can make a south wind a north wind in one inch, which can’t happen anywhere else (except the South Pole). This messes with simple concepts such as “Coriolis Effect”, to say the least. But it makes the Pole a splendid place, if you like to wonder.
One thing I’ve been wondering about is what causes a jet-stream to get stuck in a certain location. This is important, because a stuck jet-stream has led to our most remarkable winters. For example, the winter of 1976-1977 saw the jet stream get stuck in a pose where the coldest Siberian air took a cross-polar flow north of a balmy Alaska and then across a frigid Yukon and straight down to where I lived in Maine, and far further, to freeze oranges in Florida and cause “Time” magazine to wonder if an ice-age was starting. But what the wonder should have been was: Why did the jet stream stay stuck? It is a small wonder if the jet stream assumes that position for a week in an ordinary winter, and we get a blast we call “winter’s worst.” But that year the blast began in November and stayed stuck until February. It was amazing how the cold just wouldn’t quit that year, and fortunately I was young and hot-blooded and enjoyed it to the hilt.
Now I’m more than forty years older and would likely call the same weather a pain in the ass, but I remain curious about why the jet-stream stayed stuck. Because it seems scientists are too busy trying to get paid by showing CO2 is the cause of everything, no one has the time to wonder why jet-streams stay stuck. Therefore I have to think all alone, (without the help of those who are supposedly educated, but chose to be slaves).
One thing I have wondered is that, if I was going to push around a jet-stream, I wouldn’t chose to do so when it was charging north, like giant surf that flattens swimmers, or sucking south like undertow that can drag swimmers out to sea, but instead would chose the moment when the mighty wave is reduced to a ripple, at the top of the beach. That “top” is the coast of the arctic. It occurred to me that seemingly small things, along that coast, may effect the jet stream when it is at it’s weakest. Just as a little pebble can start an avalanche that flattens an army, small events on the arctic coast may effect the entire Northern Hemisphere winter.
Not that I can say what the events are, but I do think we should study what happens, and not CO2-caused events that don’t happen. We should study what usually happens, and also study the unusual.
What usually happens is the East Siberian Sea freezes first, followed by the Laptev, and then the Kara, and lastly by Barents Sea to a varying degree. And “usually” as the waters freeze the low pressure systems passing over them lose the addition of heat and moisture, and therefore weaken, first over the East Siberian Sea, and later over the Laptev, then Kara, and lastly Barents Sea.
At this point I am launching into sheer conjecture. It seems to me that the point where a jet stream stops moving north and starts moving south may be a sort of “hinge” which can be moved this way or that way, by small things, and have huge effects on the world’s weather. The swing of a huge gate is determined by a little hinge, and that “hinge” is moved east or west by a scrawny little man with a screw driver.
God willing, I’ll find time to venture some of my ideas about who (or what) the “scrawny little man” that determines our winter might be, in a future post. However the point of this post is not to announce some grand theory, but rather to stress the importance of simply watching the Truth. The Truth knows all about the grand theory long before we get around to discovering it, and Truth toys with it.
An interesting development occurred at the Pole during the last day of summer and first day of fall. As the sun sank beneath the horizon at the Pole for six months, no further warmth could come from the sun, and all warming could only come from the unfrozen waters, or be imported from the south. When the warmth comes from the south I look for spikes in the DMI temperature graph (for the area north of 80 degrees latitude) and we have seen the first such spikes of the autumn:
It should be noted that, while the red line in the above graph indicate temperatures are averaging well above the green line of “normal”, they still indicate temperatures well below freezing and cold enough to freeze the open areas of sea-water.
I like to look at the DMI temperature map of the Pole, to learn the specifics of exactly where temperatures are above normal.
The isotherms in the above map show a pointed area of milder temperatures pushing north from the Atlantic over Svalbard and right over the Pole. I call such impulses “feeder bands”, because they often feed an anomalous area of low pressure over the Pole I’ve dubbed “Ralph”. In the map below the “Ralph” is located north of the Canadian Archipelago.
It is interesting to watch the maps as the winter progresses for other examples of such “feeder bands.” See if you notice what I have noticed:
First, those who own a bias towards favoring the idea the planet is warming tend to become excited when such surging “feeder bands” spike north. My favorite example involves a time a big North Atlantic gale brought a splendid surge north in December, creating a feeder band that lifted temperatures from minus thirty to near freezing at the Pole. In fact one data-buoy, close to the Pole on the Svalbard side, was briefly above freezing for around two hours. This gave the press a wonderful opportunity to indulge in hyperbole involving midwinter melting at the Pole. Because I, as a writer, tend to enjoy hyperbole much more than dull facts, I got a good laugh out of one headline which stated Santa Claus was drowning on Christmas. However I suppose some children were permanently scarred, (which is a good reason not to let children watch the news.)
But then the dull facts rear their ugly head, which involves a second thing to watch for, and that is how swiftly the “feeder band” loses its heat. For example, here is the isotherm map of the Pole 24 hours after the above map:
What I like to do is to open the two maps to new tabs, and then switch back and forth between the two tabs. This makes the changes very clear. It is obvious the heat is lost. Where did it go?
Likely it rose, (which creates low pressure and “Ralph” at the surface.) Because cold arctic air is incapable of holding more than a tiny amount of moisture, the rising and cooling air drops the Atlantic moisture it holds. Occasionally this can be rain, especially down towards Svalbard, but even when it is rain the phase-change from gas to liquid releases latent heat. If the moisture freezes to snow the next phase change releases more latent heat. While the snow or rain may fall without the flakes or drops warming much, the air holds all the released heat. Therefore when the air descends it theoretically should be much warmer due to the released latent heat it holds. Also, while the air chills at a moist adiabatic rate of 3.5 °F / 1000 ft as it rises it should warm at the dry adiabatic rate of 5.5 °F / 1000 ft as it descends. Therefore we can confidently look about the Arctic Sea for warm, descending winds like a Chinook, or the Foehn winds of the Alps. But (cue Twilight Zone music) we see no such warm winds, (except sometimes where winds descend from the heights of Greenland). Where has the heat gone? (Turn up Twilight Zone music.)
I assume it has been lost to outer space. But you watch, next winter, and see if you notice the same thing.
There is another chilling effect of these “feeder bands” that I watch for. I take the view that when these warm surges rush up to the Pole they “bump” the cold air off the Pole, like two children playing king-of-the-mountain. (I suppose the cold air surging south could just as well create a vacuum that sucks the warm air north as it departs, but never mind that.) Watch for displacement of cold air masses far to the south (where the cold doesn’t show on the DMI graph of temperatures north of 80° latitude), next winter. One invaluable site to use, when looking for cold air to the south, is the Ice Age Now site.
Currently, if you go to that site, you can learn that, as warmth spiked to the Pole, there was record-setting cold in Southern Alaska, early frosts in the southern Volga River valley down towards the Caspian Sea, and an early blizzard in Montana. (Don’t look for such news to be front-page in the Mainstream Media.)
Such news interests me, for, while I hold strong views about snow minding its own business and staying up at the Pole where it darn well belongs, I am well aware early snow-cover is a force to be reckoned with. Around here you can feel it even when the snow-cover is a hundred miles to our north, because the north wind suddenly has a cruel and bitter edge to it. Therefore I keep an eye on the snowcover maps.
One thing that occurs to me that doesn’t seem to occur to Alarmists is that the albedo of fresh snow-cover is not only higher than that of dirty ice, but it is likely to have a more powerful effect in the south where the sun is still relatively high in the sky, than it has at the Pole where the sun is down at the horizon or completely set. Therefore my ears perk up at early snow in Siberia and Alaska and northern Canada.
In conclusion, when the temperature spikes at the Pole, it may not be a warming event. It may be indicative of southern heat squandered to outer space, and northern chill bumped south to cool southern landscapes. But use your own eyes, and see what you see, as winter draws nigh.
UPDATE The Finnish Meteorological Institute’s graph of the Northern Hemisphere’s “Total Snow Mass Excluding Mountains” shows that we are off to an early start, when it comes to accumulating snowfall. It looks like we are roughly three weeks ahead of schedule.
There has been a late downturn in the sea-ice “extent” graph.
I find this downturn a bit annoying, because it will encourage Alarmists. It reminds me of a time when I was attempting to persuade a chronic gambler not to gamble, and, as luck would have it, they purchased a winning ticket that day, and came to me and ruffled sixty dollars in my face. Never mind that the sixty dollars didn’t make up for the thousands they had squandered. The sixty dollars gave them hope to cling to, like a drowning man’s straw.
The good thing is that the downturn is an actual reality, and will bring us back to actual reality, which has been a thing discussed less and less in recent years. As a fellow too prone to dreaming and having my head in the clouds, I have learned the hard way of the importance of being down to earth. You can eat neither a dream nor a forecast, and a forecast based on a forecast is often a flaw on a flaw.
I understand that there is a major political “push” planned by Alarmists to promote the Alarmist agenda for the next two weeks, involving Global Warming being a fact rather than a forecast, and I fully expect that rather than facts we will largely see predictions. For example, I recently heard Cortiz state “Miami will be underwater in a few years.” For another example, it was stated that Washington D.C. would be flooded. Such predictions are stated as if they are facts. “Newsbusters” points out the same, dog-eared predictions were made thirty years ago, in 1989.
It used to be that we could have some interesting discussions, examining the facts that went into such doomsday predictions, and comparing them with other facts. Sadly, at some point lesser minds prevailed, and rather than discussions Alarmists took to immediately smearing Skeptics, calling them “Deniers” (and threatening worse, such as the gruesome video which suggested Skeptics, even children, should be bloodily blown-up simply for having a shadow of a doubt.)
In the face of such offenses I prefer to turn the other cheek, and to continue to have interesting discussions, (even if Alarmists stick fingers in their ears), for there is nothing wrong with questioning. It is good to have the curiosity of a child who asks “why”, for often it leads to the beautiful wonder of a child, who really appreciates the beauty of nature as it exists, and isn’t all freaked out about what isn’t (unless you scare them with ghost stories or Alarmism).
So let us at least pause long enough to examine the reasons for the late-season downward blip in the “extent” graph. For one thing, we notice it isn’t seen on the “volume” graph, which has already turned up and is entering its winter period of growth (in the DMI chart):
The above illustration also shows the sea-ice is missing northwest of Svalbard. This ice isn’t missing because it melted. It was shoved northwest by strong east and southeast winds. These winds were created by a pattern that persisted for roughly a week, that had high pressure over the Pole and low pressure roaming the North Atlantic. This moved the sea-ice and heaped it at the northeast corner of Greenland, where the ice is now thicker than at any other place in the arctic.
This shift is a striking change, for those of us who own an iota of memory. Earlier this summer south winds on the west side of Fram Strait pushed sea-ice north and there was no ice at all at the northeast corner of Greenland, and in fact some Alarmists were using the open water there as a reason for alarm. Meanwhile there was more sea-ice along the northwest coast of Svalbard than there was when Willem Barentzs “discovered” Svalbard and made landings on that coast (including the north coast) in June of the year 1597.
In other words, the ice has merely moved from one side of Fram Strait to the other, even as dropping temperatures are gradually increased the “volume”. The reason the “extent” has dropped is because the same amount of sea-ice can contract from being 15% coverage to being a more-compressed 90% coverage. The same sea-ice can tomorrow expand back to 15% spread-out coverage. (An accordion remains the same accordion whether expanded or contracted, but when sea-ice does the same thing there can be the most amazing hullabaloo among Alarmists; wild cheering followed by deep despair.)
I feel some are exclusively focused on the “extent” graph and may be missing more important measures. Other measures matter. We’d call a man foolish if he only focused on his car’s gas gauge and not where his car was going, but some focus only on “extent” and not where the ice is going.
The “extent” graph could fall to a huge degree and not be a sign of warming. This may well have been the case during the period 1815-1817. For some reason (perhaps two huge volcanic eruptions between 1810 and 1815, and many smaller ones), a highly meridianal flow pushed a spectacular amount of the arctic’s sea-ice down into the Atlantic. Whalers were amazed by ice-free waters north of Greenland, stating they may have been able to sail to the Pole had their been any whales in that direction, at the same time icebergs were grounding on the coast of Ireland. This ice-free-Pole (at least on the Atlantic side) sure didn’t make the Irish warm, and in fact Western Europe experienced what was called “The Year With No Summer,” largely due to the chilled Atlantic (though volcanic dust dimming the sunshine may have contributed to a degree.) Had an “extent” graph existed at that time, it would have shown a decline like nothing we have recently seen.
In other words, when we note a rise or fall in the “extent” graph it behooves us to focus on what the sea-ice is actually doing, and what weather pattern is involved. Only then can we look back and see what such patterns brought about in the past, and dare venture a guess about the future, assuming what happened in the past may repeat, though also aware such assumptions don’t always verify. Often we see patterns with two possible solutions; eight out ten times the pattern resolves as X but two out of ten times it resolves as Y; in such situations one watches like a hawk to ascertain which direction the pattern is going.
This sort of wondering seems to me to be far more focused on facts than much Alarmist thought is. Alarmists at times seem overly focused on the print-outs of their computer models, even to a degree where facts are dismissed. To me this seems like drawing the blinds, and ignoring the view of the present-tense skies I most enjoy. To deny in such a manner seems more like a “Denier” than anything I do, and is a reason I prefer Skeptics. In a strangely ambiguous manner Skeptics, who in theory should be dour cynics, strike me as more optimistic, simply because they don’t draw the blinds and instead look up at the ever-changing, dappled skies.
One Skeptic site, loaded with the sort of opinions and news that Google,Facebook and Youtube “screen out”, which I visit is “Weatheraction News”, largely because I find I gain insights I don’t get from Alarmists. I especially like links to the work of a gentleman who perpetually is having a bad-hair-day, named Piers Corbyn, who seems to have a brain capable of frenetically considering about fifty variables at once.
To be honest, I often cannot follow what Piers is talking about, as he paid attention in the sort of Math classes I skipped, (or ,when forced to attend, spent gazing out the window at dappled clouds). Also I have an involuntary response when faced with superior minds, having been fooled by “fast talkers” in my past. I become suspicious, and back away to rub my lower lip, and even scowl. But then I return, because I know facing many variables is a fact of life, (having raised five children), but to endlessly harp upon CO2 as the single, important variable, as some Alarmists do, is as myopic as tweezers. In any case, I usually depart from Piers with at least one new variable to think about.
One interesting tidbit I was given by “Craig”, (host of Weatheraction News), involves a true Climate Scientist of the past named Hubert Lamb. He studied climate back before the subject became so awfully political, and Hubert was able to look at things besides CO2 as causing warming and cooling. In fact the modern mentality of being myopically over-focused on CO2 likely would have struck Hubert as laughable. Therefore his observations are like a breath of fresh air. A snippet of Hubert’s work which Craig shared with me is as follows:
What perked up my ears was the mention of a “heavy ice situation” around Svalbard and in the Greenland Sea. Although the levels are sea-ice are less now, the pattern of the past summer did push the sea-ice to the Atlantic side. Therefore one should at least be curious to see if next winter resembles the very cold winter (In Britain) of 1962-1963.
It should be noted that 1962-1963 winter was a calamity for England, involving suffering that old-timers still like to brag about. The calamity might be worse now, with coal being phased out by an Alarmist policy which is built upon the assumption the world is warming. (Even if you add a half degree to the 1962-1963 temperatures, you still wind up with a frigid winter that could kill people who are effected by “energy poverty”, unless good neighbors invite them over as house guests).
One silly action on the part of Alarmists is to “screen out” all mention of cold weather from media reports. For this reason we heard about the Sahara-heat blowing north to Paris last summer, but not of the Arctic-chill blowing south to Moscow. We heard of heat in Japan, but not of Antarctic chill blowing frosts north in Australia (during their southern hemisphere winter) to within 1500 miles of the equator, at the same time Japan sweltered. In order to get any balance it is crucial to turn to sites such as Ice Age Now, (also “screened” from search-engines), which focuses on the colder temperatures:
Just as it is important to use both eyes, in order to see with depth perception, it is important to note both warm spells and cold spells, in order to wonder with depth. One thing I wonder about is the differences less ice may cause. (There was more sea-ice before the winter of 1962-1963).
This in turn involves the effects caused by the “albedo” of sea-ice versus the “albedo” of open water, which is important to those who subscribe to the Alarmist “Arctic Death Spiral” theory.
Basically this theory suggests that water absorbs heat that ice reflects, and then sun-warmed water will lead to less ice, arriving at a point where there is no ice at all, and then, because reflecting heat is vital to keeping the planet cool, the gradual heating will become “runaway” heating and there will be a planetary disaster.
This theory has been debunked because it depends on cause-and-effect being a sort of vicious cycle, and the cycle has failed to manifest. According to the Death Spiral Theory the sea-ice should not ever increase, from year to year, and should have vanished by 2013, or 2015, or at least 2019, after the very low, record-setting “extent” of 2012. The proof is in the pudding, and the theory failed to prove what its hypothesis stated.
At this point alternative ideas should not be “screened” by Google, but rather be welcomed. Why the heck didn’t the theory work? It is then one wonders wonderfully, and starts to think more deeply. For example, there is geological evidence of open arctic waters and surf-carved beaches from the relatively recent past; why didn’t open water back then lead to runaway warming? Also the sea-ice often doesn’t melt until September, at which point the increasingly low angle of the sun causes open water to stop absorbing sunshine and instead to reflect even more effectively than dirty ice does. Lastly, as the sun sets, open water loses heat more efficiently than ice-capped water does, in essence chilling the planet, and countering any “runaway warming”. And there are other alternative ideas to be considered, if one dares peek behind the “screen”, and visits sites such as “Watts Up With That”.
While surfing through the WUWT site I chanced upon some calculations made by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley suggesting the difference between the albedo-effect of an ice-covered pole and an ice-free pole is far less than I ever imagined, even if the Arctic Sea was open all summer and not merely in September. Due to my handicaps concerning Math, it will take me a long time to properly digest the calculations, but here they are, for those of you less handicapped:
Earth’s surface area is 511 million km2. Minimum Arctic sea ice area is 4 million km2,
or 0.8% of the Earth’s surface. Ice albedo is 0.66 (Pierrehumbert
2011). Assuming ocean-water albedo of 0.06 if all the Arctic ice were to
melt for the late-summer quarter, global mean albedo, now 0.3, would
become 0.3 – 0.008(0.66 – 0.06), or 0.295. However, high-Arctic
insolation is only one-quarter of mean terrestrial insolation, requiring
division by 4; summer ice loss endures for at most 3 months, or half
the Arctic daylight period, requiring division by 2; and the Arctic has
75% cloud cover, requiring a further division by 4. Thus, Eq. (E1) gives
the revised global mean present-day albedo α2
assuming total Arctic ice-melt in the late-summer quarter, which proves
to be vanishingly different from today’s albedo. For total solar
irradiance S = 1363.5 W m–2 and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant σ, the difference ΔR0 in current emission temperature (Eq. E2), and thus in surface temperature ΔT0 given the near-linear lapse rate, is as follows –
This first-order analysis indicates that, even if the entire Arctic icecap were to melt for three months every summer, very little change in surface albedo feedback would arise. Therefore, even if that feedback were nonlinear, it is and, in foreseeable modern conditions, must remain too small to be significant. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of two recent evaluations of snow-cover feedbacks in current climate models: Rosenblum & Eisenman (2017) and Connolly et al. (2019).
If Moncton’s calculations are correct, then a part of me is in a state of high dudgeon. Why? Because such a calculation’s result would mean I have wasted my few remaining brain cells for nearly two decades focusing on albedo, which apparently has a minuscule effect.
Actually I think the effect could be even more minuscule than Moncton’s calculation estimates, for it he uses an albedo of 0.06 for water, which only occurs when the sun is directly overhead. The sun is far lower in the arctic, especially in September when the ice is most likely to be gone. The albedo of open water sharply increases when the sun is on the horizon.
Also Monckton’s calculation doesn’t include the complexities of latent heat, which is released (and largely lost to outer space) as the sea-ice forms, and is created (sucking heat from the local environment and not outer space) as the sea-ice melts.
Actually I didn’t require math to suspect the albedo arguments were flawed. I only needed to study history. If the albedo arguments were valid in the present they must also apply to the past, and when the arctic was ice-free in the past, perhaps as recently as the Medieval Warm Period and certainly in the early Holocene, no “Death Spiral” was evident. The entire theory smelled increasingly bogus to me.
In fact the albedo arguments smelled like a red herring, dragged across the trail to cause dumb hound dogs like myself to veer from the true trail. That is why Monckton’s calculation irks me; because if Monckton could do it, so could climate scientists. The fact they chose not to causes one to wonder about their motives. Of course using the words “climate fraud” likely sets off the algorithms at Google, Facebook and Youtube, and causes a post such as this one to be “screened”. This is foolishness, for, if a fraud existed, “screening out” would perpetuate the fraud rather than nip it’s many buds (flowering into trillions of dollars, if you include all grants and all subsidies for “Green” energy.) Though it might seem wise to perpetuate a fraud if you are part of the fraud, to build upon falsehood is to build upon sand.
I originally began to sniff something bad in the 1980’s, when I became vaguely aware, due to my fascination with Greenland Vikings, that history was being revised and the Medieval Warm Period was being erased. This unease increased when I became aware the history of past hurricanes was being conveniently forgotten, and the unease crystallized as I read a 2006 National Geographic article by Bill McKibben entitaled “A Deeper Shade Of Green,” which seemed to involve chronic amnesia.
My sense some sort of fraud was occurring (and a link given by “Patrick Henry”, at the Accuweather Global Warming chat-page) led me to the now largely (and sadly) inactive “Climate Audit” site run by Steve McIntyre. Back then it was one of the few sites that looked hard at the statistical work being done by Climate Scientists. In 2007, an Article (I think in the Toronto Sun, but perhaps the Star) alerted me to the fact McIntyre had caught James Hansen “adjusting” temperatures in an inappropriate manner, and Hansen had to “unadjust” them.
McIntyre’s discovery attracted such a flood of attention that his website crashed, and for a day or so there was paranoia that the government had “disappeared” him. It was during that time of frantically-searching-the-web-for-information that I discovered the WUWT website, which at that time was new and relatively unknown, (but has now been viewed over 400 million times.) It was then I became aware I was not alone, and that part of my paranoia might not be a mental aberration, but a healthy suspicion.
I think it was on WUWT that I first became aware of “Steve Goddard”, which then was a pseudo-name for Tony Heller, who started up a blog of his own called “Real Climate Science”, largely dedicated to exposing how Alarmists have “fiddled” with the raw temperature data, making the past look colder and the present warmer, which creates an illusion of warming which the raw data does not show. His site, (while at times caustic and hot tempered), is an invaluable asset.
Here is an excellent expose by Tony Heller explaining how cherry-picking the start-dates of graphs can take a trend that is downwards through recorded history and make it look like it is upwards (or vice versa).
Occasionally Heller posts about the sea-ice situation, and it was from such a post I snipped the following graph:
I found the graph fascinating because I was gathering information about low sea-ice “extent” in the past, and the graph indicated that there was a very low extent seen by satellite in 1973. What Tony Heller was pointing out was that graphs produced by people such as Mark Serreze ignore such data, preferring to produce a graph that starts in 1979 and slants steadily downwards.
To me this seems ridiculous. We have too little data involving the arctic as it is, due to the fact there are few visitors, no permanent bases, and we have only recently been able to look down with satellites. Who in there right mind would want the little past data we have to be even less? Therefore I was glad when some decaying film from the first Nimbus satellites was rescued in 2014, and gave us a marvelous view of a low minimum “extent” north of Being Strait on September 9, 1969, with large “holes” in the sea-ice.
I first became aware of Mark Serreze due to how loud he was, back in the day. He was a big proponent of the theory of the “Death Spiral” and at one point stated, “The Arctic is screaming.” He rose to be a professor at the University of Colorado, testified before Congress, and became director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. He knew all the right strings to pull and political connections to make to bring in vast amounts of grants and government funding, and this summer was honored as a “Distinguished Professor”. Me? Well, I grumble that I don’t see what is so “distinguished” about being so dead wrong. There is no “Death Spiral”.
The problem seems to be that some pursue power at the expense of Truth. This is most clearly seen by “insiders”, who sometimes are afraid to speak out about dishonest science, due to fear they will be fired or marginalized, with good reason. Dr. William Gray, who truly was a distinguished scholar and the director of the National Hurricane Center, had the audacity to stand up to then vice-president Al Gore, who by no means was a scholar of meteorology, and Gray saw his funding deeply cut. Much research concerning the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and deep-sea circulation went undone because Gray challenged the “science” behind Climate Science, while vast amounts of money was funneled to Mark Serreze.
It takes a lot of guts to “come out” as an “insider”, especially when one is young and their job is at stake. Most of those who dare question the Global Warming dogma are older, with tenure, or perhaps retired with pensions, and Alarmists find it easy to sneer at their wisdom as being “outdated”, though the laws of nature do not change. What is truly alarming is the danger we may face, if we ignore the wise and follow the the false.
One “insider” who has recently “come out” is Dr. Rex J. Fleming, a former director at NOAA who at one point was handing grant-money out to Alarmists, and who has written a book just coming into print called “The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change“, which explains both the political side and the scientific side. The following interview is enlightening:
Considering what I really desire is to look at the facts, all the political nonsense can get to be a long and annoying sidetrack away from the Truth. To be blunt, Global Warming seems to be a skimmer that gathers the scum of the earth. It gathers politicians that put power before Truth, and “Green” subsidy-hunters who put money before Truth, and the politically-correct who put fashion and popularity ahead of the Truth. And all of them, at some point, turn on those who speak the Truth and savage them. The utter crap I’ve had to put up with the past twenty years for being a Skeptic is not worth going into.
Therefore I am glad to see someone apply humor to the situation, which is what the commentator “Gator” did at the Real Climate Science website recently. (I don’t think John Lennon rolled over in his grave; likely he laughed, as he was not a man who was afraid to spoof political correctness.)
Imagine there’s no Hansen It isn’t hard to do Nothing to shill or lie for And no Michael Mann too Imagine all these people Giving us some peace…
You may say I’m a denier But I’m not the only one I hope someday you’ll join us And blame climate on the Sun
Imagine no alarmists I wonder if you can No screed allowing plunder A brotherhood of man Imagine no more people Scaring all the world…
You may say I’m a denier But I’m not the only one I hope someday you’ll join us And put focus on the Sun.
The appalling ignorance of some Alarmists is a further reason for mirth when they set out to film the sea-ice melting away, and get stuck in the ice and need to be rescued. There have been at least six such cases of Plato’s “Ship of Fools”, which are only laughable when no one dies.
For example, last summer should have been a great summer for filming open water, because the “extent” was low with both the PDO and AMO warm. As I mentioned earlier, a person with good satellite data could have gotten some fine shots of open water at the northeast corner of Greenland early in the summer, and then scooted across Fram Strait and gotten some good shots on the west coast of Svalbard this past week. But the east coast of Svalbard? That would be the one place one would be ill advised to go. So of course that was exactly where the Malmo went with its contingent of 16 docu-journalists, and got stuck. The rats then deserted the ship via helicopter, leaving the crew to handle the dilemma.
While the antics of such Eco-warriors is worthy of a guffaw or two, other dangers brought about by Alarmist ignorance fades the smile from my face. Children are apparently suffering from “Eco-anxiety” brought about by Alarmists telling them the planet is doomed. Also the artificial increase in heating costs brought about by “Green” wind turbines and solar panels has resulted in increasing “energy poverty” among the elderly, who are faced with a choice between eating and heating their homes, and who are dying of pneumonia at increasing rates. The consciences of those who profit off subsidies and government grants should be uneasy, for a society which cannot care for its children and elderly has rot in foundations built upon sand.
What can I do about all this nonsense? Care for those in my small orbit, and write posts such as this one, speaking Truth to power. Include as many links as possible to other such sites, to get around the “screening-out” process of Google, Facebook and YouTube. And Don’t worry; Be happy, for Truth will triumph because it is true. And enjoy the present tense, and what the sky shows.
To return to the subject of sea-ice, the shift to the Atlantic side, when added to the Hubert Lamb observation I pasted in earlier, does make one wary about the coming winter resembling the winter of 1962-1963. Lamb also mentioned a set-up for that winter involved Europe being cold while Eastern Canada was warm, and the JEM temperature-anomaly map (courtesy of Weatherbell) currently shows exactly that:
When one looks at the sea-surface temperature anomaly map one sees the “warm blob” in the north Pacific, which often creates a loopy jet stream, bringing warmth to west Alaska and cold down the spine of the Rockies, at first making the western USA cold as the east remains mild, but eventually overwhelming the entire North American continent with cold.
However in the southern hemisphere something odd is occurring (which Joe Bastardi at Weatherbell pointed out.) It perplexes me, and is this: There seems to be a La Nina trying to form, but usually the cold water upwelling off Peru due to increased Trade Winds pushes the warm surface water west until it piles up around Australia (whereupon Alarmists freak out about coral bleaching, and cause Eco-anxiety among children). But there are no warm anomalies by Australia yet. This gets my wonder-side wondering. Are the Trade Winds less? And is there some other cause for upwelling besides Trade Winds? Where is the cold water coming from?
In any case, the Southern Hemisphere continues colder than the north, and, as most of the world’s oceans are down there, and oceans have a greater influence than the land, I expect a cooling influence as the north expends much of its stored heat in winter storms.
With so much open water at the end of the summer at the Pole, and a loopy jet stream likely, I’ll expect above-normal temperatures up at the Pole until it all freezes over in December.
After the freeze things could get interesting. Stay Tuned.
The summer has been rather ordinary up at the Pole, (all Alarmist vs. Skeptic hoopla notwithstanding). The sea-ice remains at very low levels, which is to be expected with both the AMO and PDO in their “warm” phases.
Not that things are boring. There is always something fascinating going on at the Pole, partly because we know so little about that region. In essence we are all novices, (and don’t be fooled by certain men in white lab-coats who like to put on airs and pretend otherwise). We haven’t passed all the way through a single, entire cycle of the AMO since we started getting satellite observations, and are actually watching what occurs as the AMO moves from its “warm” phase to its “cold” phase for the very first time.
What gets boring is having to deal with the drag of politics. The really spectacular claims of Alarmists, (that the world will end in 12 years, or that all the sea-ice will vanish at the North Pole leading to catastrophic warming), (among others), have largely been debunked as hysteria, through careful research and pedantic logic, and all people who dig a little for facts are quite aware of it, (both Skeptics and Alarmists.) It therefore seems crazy to keep insisting such blather is “settled science”, and also that stating the exact opposite of such blather makes one a “denier”. Such debate is like arguing with a wall, (which I know, for a fact, gets boring, as an old, retired wall-banger).
I heard a good description of such discussions recently. It was described as being like playing chess with a pigeon. Even if you make a brilliant move, the pigeon just knocks your chess-pieces over, poops on the board, and then struts around like it won.
I’m tired of playing chess with pigeons, and yearn for the good old days when there were lively debates among Skeptics and Alarmists in the comment-sections of websites. In particular I recall, back around 2005-2006, Brett Anderson hosted a Global Warming website at Accuweather which he initially moderated very loosely, and an Alarmist who went under the name of “Brookline Tom” and a Skeptic who went under the name of “Patrick Henry” went at each other, day after day, week after week, month after month. What was great was the fact they supplied links to make their points, and if you bothered to read their links you could not help but learn a lot. I think I learned more during those brief years than at any time since. Unfortunately Brett Anderson eventually felt compelled to rein-in the more pugnacious comments, and then swiftly most Skeptic were banned, and the site became an echo chamber for parrots, (or perhaps a site where two pigeons played chess, nodding to each other that the other was brilliant). (Not that some Skeptics haven’t been dragged down to the level of pigeons, on other sites, as they reply to Alarmist pigeons).
I long for a return to the sense of wonder we once had, studying the arctic. For there is a lot to wonder over, at, and about.
One major reason for the current low ice extents is the warm PDO, which brings warmer water up into Bering Strait. This makes a huge difference in total sea-ice “extent”, because during a “cold” PDO the strait remains clotted with ice, and sea-ice can even remain south of the strait. During a “warm” PDO Bering Strait tends to melt out completely, with open water even far north of the strait.
It is at this point my sense of wonder is stirred, because the PDO has failed to follow the cycle I expected it to follow. Rather than working like clockwork, and switching from “warm” to “cold” in the manner a sixty-year-cycle would predict, the PDO was very rude to amateur scientists like myself, for it “broke the rules”.
I am reluctant to mention what I observed, as Alarmists tend to seize upon any anomaly, (and especially an anomaly that leads to less sea-ice), and shriek that it proves Global Warming has been verified. However I am confident that the few who visit this obscure website will not leap to conclusions in that manner, and instead that they will rest content to wonder, along with me. (I’ll add, as a prelude, that I think we may be seeing unexpected effects of the “Quiet Sun”.)
What we were expecting, back around 2000, was for the “warm” cycle of the PDO to swing to the “cold” cycle, and for a time all went as predicted. But then late in 2013 it swung back back to “warm” again, and has remained “warm” ever since.
This spike in the PDO is an “inconvenient truth” for those of us expecting sea-ice to increase in Bering Strait, especially those of us who pointed out sea-ice indeed was increasing in Bering Strait after the low-ice year of 2012. When the PDO abruptly became warm in late 2013 we had to eat our words. However if you have dealings with predicting weather you get used to being humbled in this manner, and rather than sulking you wonder, “What is going on? What didn’t I see? How was I caught so off guard?”
If you look back in the above graph you can see a slightly similar (though smaller) spike around 1957-1962, during the last “cold” PDO. This spike preceded some very cold winters that became part of the “Ice-age-scare” of the late1960’s and early 1970’s. While this observation does not address the dynamics involved, it does suggest such a warm spike in the PDO might be a sign of incipient cooling, and isn’t automatically a guarantee of further warming.
There was another example that does not show up very well in the above graph, but showed up more clearly in the graph I was using back in 2013. (PDO graphs with different authors do differ to a surprising degree, from graph to graph, especially as you move back into the murk of the past, where records become more dubious.) The above graph shows a weak “cold” PDO cycle 1908-1925, with a weak spike 1918-1919. In the graph I was looking at in 2013 this spike was sharper and more pronounced, and caught my eye because I knew the following post-World-War-One winter was very cold in eastern North America. Once again warming in Bering Strait had not resulted in warming in New England.
My attention was further grabbed because, soon afterwards, the winter that followed, (2013-2014), was very cold in the eastern USA, (in many locales a “top ten” winter, in terms of the severity of cold temperatures.) A hypothesis was encouraged.
Such observations tend to counter the Alarmist contention that less sea-ice, especially in Bering Strait, means the world is getting warmer, because in my neck of the woods it seems to indicate the exact opposite: That a very cold winter is more possible than not. Such a lack of sea-ice seems to cause a loopy jet stream, with mild air brought north to west Alaska, but cold air draining south through east Alaska and east of the Rocky Mountains, sometimes all the way to Florida.
While such indicators seem to work best just after the PDO flips from “cold” to “warm”, I am made nervous by any sign of a “warm blob” in the Gulf of Alaska, and open water north of Bering Strait. So I am thinking of getting extra firewood, looking at the current SST anomaly map.
Noting this correlation may be a handy tool to have when purchasing firewood, but it doesn’t address the dynamics of why it happens. And it is here where wondering becomes truly enjoyable, unless you are an Alarmist and must suffer the knee-jerk reaction of ascribing CO2 to be the cause of everything. Even then, one should be able to add numerous other variables to the equation, and enjoy great fun wondering, but all too many Alarmists spoil such fun by denying other variables have power, or even exist. (For example, many Alarmist dismiss the idea the sun can have any effect, stating changes in the TSI (Total Solar Index) are too small to fuss about, and neglect noting larger changes in invisible UV radiation (not included in TSI) and other radiations, and lastly dismissing Svenmark’s observation that when the sun gets weak more cosmic rays are able to pelt Earth from deep space.)
Currently I’m having fun wondering about a counter-intuitive effect the Quiet Sun may be having. Most assume less solar energy must result in lower temperatures, but I surmise it may initially raise them. How? Because less energy from the sun may mean less energetic winds, and when the Trade Winds slacken there is less up-welling of cold water from frigid depths to the west of continents. Less frigid water at the surface allows warmer surface waters to have a greater influence. Because oceans have a far greater influence on temperatures than land does, temperatures (and humidity) may rise worldwide, even though less energy is arriving from the sun.
However I imagine this is a robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul situation which cannot continue forever. As the earth warms due to decreased Trade Winds it is not gaining in terms of total heat, but is withdrawing from its bank-account-of-stored-past-sunshine, which is held in the oceans. As most of have experienced, at least once in our lives, you cannot withdraw more than you deposit for long without getting a notice from the bank.
At this point we are dealing with both tiny and enormous numbers. The entire “warming” that Alarmists are so alarmed about is less than half a degree, and can barely be noticed on an ordinary thermometer or felt by the skin, and, in like manner, variations in the TSI can’t be seen by ordinary eyes. Therefore you may dismiss such variations, if in the mood, but if you are in the mood to be wild-eyed you have only to multiply these small numbers by the vast expanses of mountains and plains and forests and seas our planet possesses, and the result is big numbers. The Press then likes to reduce these big numbers to baby-talk, talking in terms of “Manhattans” and “Hiroshimas”, or (to generate alarm and sell newspapers) by using big numbers like “billions” (in terms of melting ice on Greenland) without bothering to mention the “billions” that melted are only 1/30,000th of the total ice, or that the “billions” will be more than replaced by “trillions” of snowflakes the following winter. (In fact Greenland’s ice would build up clear to the tropopause if the ice wasn’t plastic, and didn’t squeeze out to sea as glaciers and calve off as giant icebergs.)
My own take is that tiny things indeed can result in big reactions. Shifting one small piece of paper on my paper-heaped desk can create an avalanche and a mess on the floor. Also I remember playing in a swamped rowboat as a boy, and how being slightly to the port side would result in such a surge of water towards the port side that, even if you scrambled up the starboard gunnel you could not keep the boat from flipping over. (Great fun, when you are ten years old, but watch out that you don’t lose the oarlocks, or catch an oarlock on your skull.) Using this as an analogy, the flip from El Nino to La Nina conditions is caused by changes so subtle that the world’s best super-computers are constantly embarrassed, attempting to predict such flips, yet the resultant changes cause massive shifts in weather patterns world-wide.
Is this not wonderful? Is there not ample room for wonderment? How boring it must be to believe “the science is settled”, and that there is nothing more to wonder about. To me, admitting ignorance is far more fun than being a know-it-all.
One thing I notice, looking at the above map of SST anomalies, is that, while Bering Strait may be warmer, cold seems to be building in the southern hemisphere. In fact the planet seems out of balance, with far more warmth to the north and far more cold to the south. If this planet were a wallowing rowboat, I would suspect the schoolboy was on the port side and had better shift to the starboard, or else experience a flip.
Also I notice cold water anomalies appearing not only west of South America, (indicative of an incipient La Nina), but also west of South Africa and west of Australia. Perhaps the pumps are primed for a flip? (I’m just wondering.)
It is important to remember we are talking about anomalies, and not actual temperatures. The uneducated look at the above map and say, “Well, of course its colder in the Southern Hemisphere; its the end of winter down there.” They need to be reminded that the above map shows it is colder than winter usually is, in the Southern Hemisphere, and warmer than summer usually is, in the Northern Hemisphere.
It is also important to understand most temperatures are within a degree of normal, in the above map. I have seen times when a shift in the pattern of winds, perhaps associated with the MJO, can shift a vast area of sea-surface from a tenth of a degree one side of normal to a tenth of a degree the other side of normal, and this results in a vast portion of the map shifting from red to blue, or from blue to red. It also results in an outcry from Alarmists and Skeptics alike; if the colors shift in a manner that “supports their view”, it is taken as proof and reason to gloat, but if colors shift in a manner “opposed to their view” there is suspicion, and accusations of fraud. I sometimes think life would be far more peaceful and simple if all anomalies within a degree of normal were white in the above map…….but then, what fun would that be?
One good effect of having a small shift in temperatures create a dramatic shift in colors on the map is that it can alert you to a change you might otherwise overlook. For example the waters around New Zealand were above normal last May
But they have gradually chilled the past hundred days. I hadn’t noticed, until the dramatic shift from yellow to blue alerted me.
In case you are wondering why the heck I am looking at the southern hemisphere in a post about the North Pole, it is because a wondering mind is a wandering mind, and I am notorious for failing to stick to the subject. But also most of the planet’s heat is held in the oceans, and most of the oceans are in the southern hemisphere. If the southern hemisphere chills it is bound to eventually effect the north.
I should also point out a couple of distortions in the above maps. First, the areas in the north look larger than they are, in relation to areas at the equator, which look smaller than they are; IE: Greenland is not in fact the size of Australia. Second, more of the northern hemisphere is shown than the southern hemisphere; the northern margin is at roughly 83 degrees north while the southern margin is at roughly 79 degrees south. This distorts the red area in the arctic and gives one the impression it is larger than it actually is.
But the red area is definitely there, and there is much open water north of Bering Strait, which one might expect would create a low extent even lower than the low levels of recent years. Instead we are about the same as we’ve been, and do not seem to be headed in the directions of the dramatic plunges we saw in the record low years of 2007 and 2012:
In 2007 the low extents were due to a lot of ice being flushed south into the Atlantic, leaving thin and patchy ice behind in the Arctic Ocean. This summer some ice was flushed south, and sea-ice crushed up against Svalbard in a manner we didn’t see last year, which increases extents on the Atlantic side. However that flow was countered by a “wrong-way” flow north, especially the second half of the summer, which actually pushed ice north and away from the north coast of Greenland, condensing ice in the Central Arctic (and making it harder to melt.)
In 2012 the low extents were caused by a big August gale which churned the sea-ice and mixed milder sub-surface water with the thin layer of ice-water at the surface. This mixing involves many variables currently being studied by dedicated scientists, (despite the fact funding isn’t as easy to find as it was ten years ago). The mixing involves things as seemingly disparate as Siberian rivers, polar sunshine, and how solid the ice-cover was the prior year, all of which effect the layering and temperature and mixing of subsurface water. My assumption is that there has been more mixing at the edges of the Arctic Ocean, and consequently there is less subsurface warmth in the Central Arctic, and also there has been no major August Gale at the Pole (though there have been some decent storms at the edges.)
Just to give you a hint of the complexity of the subsurface situation, and all the variables involved, I’ll scan some of the inflows: There are some wandering northern tendrils of the Gulf Stream on the Atlantic side; there is inflow of Pacific water through Being Strait; there are huge inflows from arctic rivers such as the Mackenzie, Ob and Lena (and others) which flow at a trickle in the bitter cold of winter and then surge to mighty floods in the summer thaws, and which also vary in temperature from month to month; and there is the inflow of melting ice atop the ice, which has variations all its own, involving how much salt is involved, which involves a whole bunch of other variables.
As the seawater freezes it exudes salt, which some assume sinks as brine down through the ice and leaves the ice behind as freshwater ice. However, as arctic explorers discovered, (because they had to melt the ice for drinking water), things weren’t so simple. Rather than downwards some salt is exuded upwards when temperatures are bitter cold, and when the ice sublimates the remaining salt blows about as powder, unable to melt the ice because it is too cold. Therefore, when temperatures first start to rise as the midnight sun first rises on the equinox, this salt melts the ice and forms brine, there can be some very salty downward inflow, but then, as the summer progresses the meltwater becomes increasingly fresh. (Arctic explorers looked for “blue ice” for drinking water, which was multiyear ice.)
Just imagine attempting to include all these variables in a computer model! For example, this summer the west of Russia was much colder than normal, which would make the waters of the Ob River colder than normal as they poured north. You have to have that part of the “freshwater lens” be colder than normal, while the Lena River’s contribution is closer to normal. And if you miss a single thing, a mere butterfly flapping its wing, your modeled result is completely kaput.
If I’m going to be wrong, I prefer to use wonder over using a computer. I observe all the variables, churn them about in the washing machine of mental wonder, and produce an answer that starts, “I wonder if…” It may be wrong, but it is both humble and fun.
One interesting thing about the weather patterns over the Pole the past summer was that often high pressure dominated. The anomalous low pressure over the Pole I dubbed “Ralph” during the past few years was seldom seen, and instead storms marched around the periphery of the Arctic Sea in a more traditional and orderly manner. As I watched this go on, I wondered if the fact it was sunnier at the Pole would make it warmer, and wondered if all the churning around the edges of the Arctic Sea would break up the freshwater lens and the creation of a warm layer, and when the waters north of Bering Strait became more open I wondered if the PDO being warm might make it easier for winds to mix those waters, whereas a cold PDO would create a layer of ice that would allow waters to layer more.
From time to time I allow reality to intrude upon my wondering. For example, despite all the sunshine, it wasn’t all that warm at the Pole. Although it was above normal initially, and seemed to be trending more towards normal than recent years at the start, it was dragged below normal:
I wonder if the temperatures drifted below normal despite all the sunshine because the sun was spotless all summer and the TSI was low. It seems to me that, if there was anyplace on earth the slight dip in TSI would be seen, it would be the Pole during the summer, where the sunshine is constant and the effects of oceans are largely clamped under the ice, until August.
In August the pattern changed, as it always does, usually in a way that fascinates me and gets my “I wonder if…” going. August involves a huge flip in the situation, which it seems to me few properly recognize.
The flip is this: For roughly 300 days the Pole loses energy to outer space, but then for roughly 60 days it gains energy. In fact, if the Pole was a low, flat desert, it would get quite hot, because the sun would constantly be adding heat and never would set. Cold fronts would have had to come up from the south. It would be a bizarre situation worthy of science fiction. Our Creator was wise to put an ice-filled ocean up there.
It is due to this non-stop addition of heat that things get so slushy and there can even be thunderstorms, at the Pole in July, (as has been noted as long as people have gone up there, and not only recently, as some Alarmists claim.) But in August it is over. Abruptly the-gaining-of-heat shifts to the-losing-of-heat, and while the transition is sometimes smooth, like a wave moving up a beach turning around and sucking back down the beach, sometimes the turn-around seems less smooth, like the crack of a whip. Or so I imagine, and I always watch for gales in August, as the flip occurs.
I have only been focused on August gales since the big one in 2012 led to a record low extent in terms of sea-ice, and I likely should research history further and not take the media as gospel, (because the use of the words “Unprecedented” and “Worst” have been abused), but as best as I can tell there have been many more sub-960 mb storms the past few years, with four of the five worst August storms occurring since 2012. But our history does not go back very far, which leads me to another, “I wonder if…”
I wonder if such storms are in part fueled by open waters around the periphery of the Arctic Sea. The coastal waters are shallow and warm rapidly once they become ice-free, at times assisted by floods of fresh, summer-warmed river-water and temperatures up to 80 degrees Fahrenheit on the nearby swampy, mosquito-filled Tundra. This ring of warmer water would create a ring of moisture that could feed into a storm forming over the abruptly cooling Pole. Furthermore, such a situation would be most likely to occur when both the AMO and PDO were in “warm” phases. To verify this “I wonder if” I should look backwards.
The last cluster of polar gales should have occurred around 1960, which was the last time the PDO and AMO oscillations were in synchronized movement from “warm” to “cold”, but which was a time without satellites and almost no human observers out on the Arctic Sea, so such gales would have gone unnoticed.
Now that we are able to use satellites toobserve astutely, (to some degree), there is the ever hungry desire to observe even more astutely. For example, the 2012 gale melted a lot of ice yet the 2013 gale melted far less. Why? I wonder if the waters under the ice were chilled by the first storm and subsequent events, so the 2013 gale couldn’t tap into warm subsurface waters nor have the same ice-melting effect. (We need more funding of research of waters under the ice, not less.)
But now allow me to let reality drag me back from the wonderful world of wondering to what actually happened. This year there was no big, sub-960 mb August gale. However I did note a change in storm tracks, (dramatic to me, if not to others). The low pressure systems, which had been parading around the pole in a humdrum manner, especially along the Siberian coast, abruptly hooked north and crossed the Pole. None was all that big, though the last one became fairly large as it arrived in the Canadian Archipelago. As each crossed the Pole they briefly activated my “Ralph” wonderment.
I am tempted to skip this wonderment, and remain grounded in the facts of what actually happened. In fact I encourage all sensible people to skip the next 4 paragraphs. However if you like fun, read them.
The existence of a “Ralph” crossing the Pole demolishes some lovely ideas which I find beautiful and elegant, but my mind survives this trauma, arises from the ruins, and launches off into new worlds of wonder.
The first elegant idea has air descending on the Pole, flowing south, and then meeting the boundary with the Ferrel Cell, where it is uplifted and heads back north to the Pole. This idea of a “Polar Cell” works fine and dandy when there is a high pressure at the Pole, but the existence of a “Ralph” is a wrench in the works of elegance. Trying to figure out the “circulation” in such “Ralph” events is a serious problem, and a possibility even must be considered that sometimes air doesn’t circulate. Though stating this is an anathema to some, sometimes air may just go up and down like a yo-yo.
The second idea involves the Coriolis Effect bending winds one way as they head north and another way as they head south, and explains why northern hemisphere highs are clockwise and northern hemisphere lows are counterclockwise. But here too a “Ralph” is a wrench in the works. Because, if you strictly adhere to this theory, then, as a north wind arrives at the Pole and, upon crossing the Pole, becomes a south wind, then a counter-clockwise low must instantly become a clockwise high. Doesn’t happen. And when you apply your sense of wonder to why it doesn’t happen, all sorts of delightful possibilities, (even including anticyclonic low pressure and cyclonic high pressure), mess up your mind. But I’ll spare you the details, (until some future post).
The point I am trying to make is that the Pole is not like other places, and challenges concepts that work in other places. To say anything as idiotic as, “the science is settled”, in the face of such challenges is to miss a opportunity to greatly broaden the mind. It is sad, and a reason for pity.
Hello. (I’m speaking with those who skipped the last 4 paragraphs). In terms of reality there is so little sea-ice north of Bering Strait that, had the same situation existed in 1883, the Jeanette would not have been crushed by sea-ice, and its crew would not have had to suffer and in some cases die trying to get back to civilization. Instead they would have sailed open waters. However north of Fram Strait the ice early in the summer crushed south in a manner which would have prevented Willem Barentsz sailing where he sailed in 1596, and despite south “wrong-way” winds it still hugs the coast of Svalbard in a manner that has completely silenced those Alarmists who last year stated polar bears were doomed, because waters by Svalbard were ice-free.
One event I watched with interest was the very swift disappearance of thick sea-ice in the East Siberian sea, especially northwest of Wrangel Island. The large amounts of melting sucked up a lot of heat, and the water remains quite cold and will likely refreeze swiftly.
There are some leads of open water near the Pole, but generally the ice is thicker in the Central Arctic, as was noted by the captain of a Swedish ice-breaker this summer, who had to turn back on a trip to the Pole. Another icebreaker had a slow passage of the Northwest Passage, due to clots of ice larger than in recent years. However the Northeast Passage looks wonderfully clear, and I imagine Russia’s efforts to develop a northern trade route are doing well, for the time being.
We have reached the time of year when surface thawing ceases, and any further decrease in “extent” occurs due to melting from beneath the ice. Already the DMI isotherm map shows subfreezing temperatures all over the Pole, where a month ago nearly all temperatures were above freezing.
Although the above map is of air temperatures, it also reflects the temperatures of waters just beneath the air. It shows the imprint of milder waters brought north by the Lena River’s floods to form the “freshwater lens” in the Laptev Sea, and the Ob River doing the same thing in the Kara Sea. It shows the reflection of a Gulf Stream tendril warming the west coast of Norway, with a branch snaking up to the west coast of Svalbard, while also showing the cold currents descending along the east coasts of Greenland and Svalbard. I am particularly interested in the warm waters brought through Bering Strait by the “warm” PDO, which is creating an unusually large area of open water on that side of the Pole.
What some Alarmists seem to fail to recognize is that the open water is not necessarily “warming the planet”, and indeed may cool it. The Alarmist theory is that open water is dark and has an albedo that sucks up heat which white ice would reflect, but, while this may be true in June, the water isn’t open in June, and by late August, when open water appears, the sun is so low on the horizon it glances off the sea-water, and sea-water, (especially when it is glassy), can have an albedo that reflects sunlight as well as, or even better than, sea-ice (especially when the ice is dirty.)
Secondly, open water loses heat more efficiently than water-protected-beneath-a-lid-of-ice does. The sea-surface not only loses heat directly, through exposure to the arctic sky, but loses even more heat as it freezes, for latent heat which exists in water is released as it goes through the phase-change from liquid to solid. Such heat is not so easily lost to the void of outer space if it is released under a lid of ice, as thin ice grows thicker.
In conclusion, if we are rooting for a warmer world, perhaps we should be dismayed when so much heat is transported to the Pole, for it is basically squandered.
This idea counters the “Death Spiral” theory, which suggested less ice at the Pole would result in the Arctic Sea absorbing more heat, which would melt more ice, which would allow more heat to be absorbed, and melt more ice, etc., etc., etc. It was expected to be a vicious cycle, but it simply hasn’t happened.
Instead we are seeing that the summer melt, even with everything going for it, (even with the sun shining and both the PDO and AMO warm), can’t make any headway. In fact, looking at the DMI “extent” graph above, one might even suggest the drop of the graph is flattening-out early, and we might not eve have less sea-ice at the minimum than we last year, and our minimum certainly won’t match the low extents of 2007 or the record set in 2012. The “Death Spiral” has become a snarled slinky.
The next few weeks usually see a lot of hoop-la about the open water around the Pole. I hope people will mind their manners. Don’t play chess with pigeons.
Keep your eyes open for the wonder. For example, when the “Ralph-like” feature crossed the Pole last week, and became a decent storm over the Canadian Archipelago, the south winds to its east side drew a fascinating, “feeder band” of mild air north through Baffin Bay, Nares Strait (between Canada and Greenland), and up into the sub-freezing air over the Pole, making a narrow slot of above-freezing air clearly seen in the isotherm map. What was especially interesting was there was a second slot of above-freezing air thrusting north from the other side of Greenland, up through Fram Strait. What does it mean? ……..I wonder…
(Note: I seem to have offended Google in some way which has resulted in my not appearing when “Arctic Sea Ice” is typed into its search engines. I used to appear in the first few pages. Therefore I would appreciate the reader sharing links to this post, if they like it.)
UPDATE: Over on WUWT the blogger “Javier” linked to this helpful comparison of our current sea-ice melt with the low years 2007 and 2012:
I think this graph demonstrates why some Alarmists were so excited, up until a week ago. The problem seems to be that all the thin ice that could melt has already melted, and only thicker, more stubborn ice remains. Such thick ice can also have an annoying (to Alarmists) habit of even increasing “extent” without any new freezing occurring. This happens when a thick jumble of ice collapses and is spread out like a pat of butter on bread. The “volume” of the ice remains the same, but the “extent” goes up.
This matters little, in terms of the “Death Spiral” theory. According to some, the entire Arctic Sea was suppose to be ice-free several years ago. At the very least the sea-ice minimum should be far below 2012. But, “ain’t happenin”.
I would also like to thank the many who have visited my obscure site today. I had ten times as many views today as usual. This had nothing to do with Google, and likely represents a failure of Google. Instead it had everything to do with ordinary people moving from one site to another, using their own minds as a “search engine,” and telling other seekers where the interesting sites are. I am flattered some think my ruminations are worthy of linking to.
I especially would like to thank “Robert”, who created the wonderful “Ice Age Now” site. He did me the honor of noting this post with a link to this site. I am humbled, for in the past I think I have been less than welcome at his site. Not that I don’t constantly learn enormous amounts by visiting his site, but sometimes the foot in my mouth steps on people’s toes. Despite my blunders, he did me an honor, and the least I can do is return the favor.
Robert’s site, “Ice Age Now”, is an invaluable tool. Why? Because the mainstream media has become too one-sided. An example?
Last summer weather patterns brought warmth north in some places and cold south in others. Paris experienced air up from the Sahara and sweltered, as Moscow experienced air from the Arctic and shivered. The mainstream media only reported Paris and never reported Moscow, likely because Paris supported the Global Warming political narrative, and Moscow didn’t. But where could one turn to learn about cold weather? To “Ice Age Now”.
Robert’s site is not obscure like mine is. People all over the world turn to his site to report, and to learn about, the cold events the mainstream media is downright silly about failing to report. I’m not talking about a few thousand people. His site has generated over 42 million views.
Therefore, when you type “ice age” into the Google search engine, “Ice Age Now” should appear on page one or page two. And back when Google was the best search engine “Ice Age Now” usually could be found on the first page of results. Now it has vanished from the first ten pages (and who searches further than that?) Obviously Google has chosen to become a search engine that has a blind spot, and therefore to become an inferior product. Sad.
I think God gave us two eyes because having two views creates something neither eye owns, called “depth perception”. We are supposedly made in God’s image, and apparently God isn’t a myopic cyclops. Therefore a two-party-system is more Godly than a one-party-system.
In like manner, society should be able to report both sides, both warm temperatures and cold temperatures. There is something downright silly about only reporting hot spells and frowning at those who mention cold spells. It is a parody, like an event occurring in “Gulliver’s Travels“, and yet it is a silly reality we are actually faced with.
How are we to respond? Well, obviously Google, (or the bigwigs behind the scenes), think they are able to control us, and to keep us from talking about cold-spells. I think we should respond by continuing to talk about cold-spells. And one way to do this is to continue to visit “Ice Age Now”, and also to tell friends about Robert’s excellent site. In this manner we become our own “search engine”, and effectively tell Google where they can go. Where they should go is to:
I have many other things I’d rather write about, and in some ways would rather be in my garden weeding than be writing at all, but politics has a way of shoving its snout in your face, when you live in New Hampshire. I blame this political intrusiveness on the fact we are the first state in the United States to hold its presidential primary. If it weren’t for that event, no one would bother with us, for we are barely over a million people. Neighborhoods in New York City hold more people than our entire state does, and we only have two representatives to congress. There is not much reason to notice us, (and I don’t think it is always an entirely bad thing to go unnoticed).
Not that I haven’t craved fame in my life. Writers do hanker to have their efforts appreciated. However when I look at famous people I sometimes thank my lucky stars I never had to suffer what they are afflicted by. Some famous people are wonderful, but the majority strike me as….well, I’ll just say I don’t admire them.
And when I think back to the “popular kids”, (back more than fifty years ago), who I attended high school with, there were quite a number who I also don’t recall fondly. They may have felt they were “popular” back then, but they were not “popular” in my private estimation, and some were downright mean.
I think it was at that time I developed the habit of steering away from the sort of situations where “popular” people go to be “seen”. Not that I didn’t go to some high school dances, but I was usually drawn by a particular woman, and I tended to have such a miserable time that I eventually stopped going.
At some point I wondered if I was just a coward. I pondered that perhaps I was bigoted towards popular people, who might actually be nice, so, to test myself, I went and sat down at the “popular people” table in the school cafeteria. (Yes, a very beautiful woman did sit at that table, which did play a part in my decision to test my courage.) The “popular” people seemed so astonished to see me sit down that they forgot to tell me to buzz off, and I sat at the “wrong” table an entire week, contributing very little to the conversation, and somewhat astounded by how inane the conversation was. I concluded popular people were very boring, and I went my own way, and did my own thing.
Right at this point (1969) “doing your own thing” became fashionable. As a senior in high school I quite accidentally found myself “popular”. All the things I did because I couldn’t bother be politically correct, such as wear shabby jeans and have unkempt hair, suddenly became politically correct. I’d left school the prior June as an unpopular slouch, and when vacation ended and I returned in September I was abruptly “cool”. I was “hip”. I was the dude others wished they had the nerve to emulate. (That was the summer of Woodstock, and of men first landing on the moon, and of Kennedy driving off the bridge.)
I will not deny that being flattered for being “hip” swayed me to some degree. But all too soon fashion moved on to “Disco”, and abruptly wearing shabby jeans and having unkempt hair became emblematic of being a “has-been”. Flattery’s rosy glow faded to the gray of disillusionment, and I became aware that “doing your own thing” is often done because it is the right thing to do, and not always because it is rewarding.
I should hasten to add that being righteous is rewarding, but not in a way the world pays much attention to. The salt-of-the-earth gain no great wealth nor acclaim for being the backbone of the planet. They are why we are fed and clothed and sheltered. They are why things work, and the fact things work is their only reward. They may never be rich and famous, but they raise children and pay their bills and are the reason life goes on. They just “do their thing.”
When I look back through time it seems to me that times-of-trouble arise in human history when societies forget to value the salt-of-the-earth commoners, and become too enamored and infatuated by wealth, power and fame. It doesn’t matter if one is royalty spurning the commoner, or a Brahman spurning the Untouchable, or Hitler spurning the Jews, or Stalin spurning the Kulak. All hell breaks loose when people snub the very people they depend upon. Rather than loving your neighbor it is like sawing the branch you are seated upon.
The American Constitution was devised by men who thought long and hard about why this problem occurs, and how best to avoid the inevitable repercussions. It is a marvelous document, unique in human history, and most people who state it needs to “evolve” and who seek to “improve” it have not thought nearly as long and hard about human nature as the Founding Fathers did. This is especially true among those who refer to America’s salt-of-the-earth people as “Deplorables” and “Climate Change Deniers” and “Bitter Clingers”, and refer to the American Heartland as “Fly-over Country.” Unfortunately many such people were educated to dismiss the Founding Fathers as “rich, white slave-owners”, and to never themselves think long and hard about the mortal desire for wealth, power and fame, and how such desire can corrupt human endeavors in the manner the “Ring of Power” demented its wearer, in Tolkien’s “Lord Of The Rings”.
It seems to me that one thing that sets the American Constitution apart from other forms of government is a premise, (to some degree unstated), that power corrupts and is a vigorous root of evil. Therefore a framework was devised to keep any one person or group from gaining too much power. The three branches apportion power in a way that keeps power dispersed, and the Electoral College does the same thing. Therefore our constitution is very frustrating to those who want all power in their own hands, wrongly thinking that if there is no opposition there will be unity.
Such a one-sided “unity” is a farce. It is the “unity” of a dictator, a Hitler or Stalin or King George, who has little respect for the salt-of-the-earth commoner. It cannot conceive a commoner may do good by “doing his own thing”, and often seeks to outlaw commoner’s small pleasures, assuming “unity” knows better, (“unity” being the personal preference of a tyrant).
The tyrant sneers at the fact commoners may like to scoot across lakes on noisy jet-skis, claiming it disturbs the peace, and therefore bans jet-skis, but then inevitably goes out on the same lake on a diesel-belching, three-story cabin-cruiser. The tyrant scoffs at the commoner’s hot-rod, and demands they use electric golf-carts, while riding in a sleek limousine. The tyrant snubs roasted ribs at a commoner’s barbecue, and passes laws demanding vegetarian diets, yet holds feasts with apples in the mouths of pigs. The tyrant demands commoners use no hydrocarbon fuels, while scouring the skies in their private jets. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. They hunt for sport, but call commoners who hunt for food “poachers”. Tyrants demand commoners, who are relatively faithful and respectful to their wives, bend over backwards respecting women, but then are less than respectful themselves. Perhaps their greatest hypocrisy is to demand commoners be honest, while in private stating it is smart to lie.
My personal view is that one never is wise to lie. Lies always backfire in the end. (I even have a hard time with surprise-birthday-parties). Truth has a purity and sanctity so clear and undeniable that, even among Atheists who who can’t stand the use of the word “God”, I can have uplifting, calm conversations simply by replacing the word “God” with the word “Truth.” Yet some believe it is wise to lie.
It isn’t. Even when you are selling something, and seek to attract buyers by pointing out the good attributes of what you are selling, honesty is the best policy. The moment you introduce a lie into the transaction then what was beautiful gets ugly.
A beautiful transaction is when a person has something a second person needs or wants, and is then rewarded for giving the second person what they need or want. Both people benefit. However, when a snake-oil-salesman conducts a transaction guaranteeing a bald man a full head of hair, promising the buyer they will save money because they won’t have to buy a hat to avoid a sunburned scalp, the transaction becomes ugly when the bald man remains bald. Such sneaky salesmen tend to hurry from town more often than they honor their guarantee, and give the money back.
The ugliness gets profound when some deem others “suckers” and “chumps” and “sheeple”, and think a good way to get rich is to gain another’s confidence with a lie, and then never deliver what they promised. If such people succeed with their con-artistry, they think that the money they then ruffle is proof that what they have done is wise, and they build upon a quicksand foundation which assumes success comes from harming others. However what they do does not go unnoticed, by the salt-of-the-earth commoner, or by God.
The average American has long been bombarded by commercials. One once could escape by turning off the TV and radio, and driving on a back road that had no billboards, but now one has advertising logos even on their dashboard and lapels and shoes; their wife’s pocketbook is a portable billboard; and even their little children’s toys are often a sales pitch. Madison Avenue spends billions to find better ways to convince people to want what they don’t need, and of course politicians noticed this phenomenon, and hired Madison Avenue to get people to buy into their election promises. However the average American is not as stupid as some sellers think. Just as mosquitoes developed a tolerance to DDT, and required larger and larger concentrations of spray, until in some places spraying no longer was feasible, lying to the American public required larger and larger audacity, until it finally fooled so few that Donald Trump was elected.
I think Trump won because he simply spoke the Truth. It sounded harsh and impolite to many, but to the salt-of-the-earth commoner it was a breath of fresh air. They had grown weary of being lied-to by bald-faced hypocrites, who basically said, “Trust us,” and then broke the trust again and again and again. And the bald-faced hypocrites? They were terrified, for they could not simply flee to the next town like a snake-oil salesman. Their power, which had seemed made of rock, abruptly seemed made of sand, and the commoners, whom they had mocked as chumps and sheeple, were rising like a tide.
This was actually exactly what the Founding Fathers intended to have happen, as they thought long and hard about how to devise a government. They knew very well that some become so enamored of money, power and fame that they will hurt others to gain such inanimate things, and then will hurt others to keep them. They knew this because they themselves had money, power and fame, and were well aware of the hazards such possessions bring. For example, even though Jefferson owned slaves he was able to criticize slavery, stating, “We hold the wolf by its ear.”
Like bosses everywhere the founding fathers had to deal with sloth and theft among those who worked for them, and were forced to dole out punishment to employees who broke the trust, yet at the same time they were mere “employees” of King George, facing punishments the king felt forced to dole out to them. Perhaps it was because they could see things from both sides, and then gathered together to think together long and hard, that they came up with a Constitution which comprehends that sloth can occur both in employees and in bosses, as can theft. Therefore they attempted to devise a system wherein all people, both rich and poor, could call-out others when they detected sloth and theft. Which is exactly what Donald Trump did, regarding the so-called “elite” in the so-called “Swamp” of Washington D.C.
The response of the so-called “elite” has been telling. Rather than accepting the results of the election, they doubled down on their dishonesty, wasting over two years attempting to inflate a false narrative that the Russians had somehow “stolen” the election, with Donald Trump complicit. They did not want to heed the results of the election, because the electoral college majority was telling them that the public was sick of the elite’s dishonesty, and tired of seeing the elite with their hands plunged up to their elbows in the cookie-jar of taxes. The so-called “elite” were then faced with a choice between democracy, and destroying democracy to cling to power, and many seem to have chosen destruction.
The salt-of-the-earth American commoner can’t help but think, like Queen Gertrude in “Hamlet”, that the elite “doth protest too much, methinks.” The public has undergone weary decades of seeing lies exposed, and seeing the exposure bringing no penalty to the elite. President Clinton was nicknamed “Slick Willy” because no wrong-doing stuck to him; he could lie, “I did not have sex with that woman”, and then, when “that woman” stated the truth, he just laughed it off. Consequently the public became so accustomed to lies they were no longer all that shocked by lies, or by corruption going unpunished, and indeed were so jaded that they rather expect to be lied to. The elite kept up a pretense of morality, thinking the common man consisted of fools to be fooled, but Abraham Lincoln stated “You cannot fool all of the people all of the time,” and it turns out he was right.
Just as an experienced fisherman can scan the smooth surface of a still lake, and spot ripples that tell him where the big fish move beneath the surface, an experienced person can look at the smooth talk of a skilled politician and spot the lies beneath the slick guff. In some sad cases the politician is fooling only themselves. Wise people recognize when a smile is not genuine, and where it may even hide the malice of a murderer. While people avoid leaping to conclusions, and don’t want to be guilty of developing an entire conspiracy-theory from a single, suspicious detail, people do notice when such coincidences pile up. “The List” (of deaths associated with the Clintons) has been kept since the 1990’s:
When Jeffrey Epstein was recently accused of allegedly running a sort of upper class whorehouse staffed by underage girls, cynics in my little town wondered aloud how long it would be before, (because Epstein “knew too much” about Bill Clinton and other “elites”), he would commit suicide under somewhat mysterious circumstances, and be added to “The List.” Then, when Epstein did commit suicide, a new cynical joke could be heard making the rounds among the local folk. It was to facetiously say, with very round eyes, “I know nothing about the Clintons. Nothing! Nothing! Nothing!”
Though spoken in jest, the humor does describe how repellent the elite have become in the eyes of the common man. Call the reaction “fear” if you will, but a common man with teenage daughters or granddaughters cannot think highly of men who attended Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged whorehouses. What is so elite about such depravity? And the fact such privileged people could look down their long, depraved noses and sneeringly label common men “deplorables” calls the very sanity of the elite into question. Do they never examine their own behavior? Or do they see a mirror as a thing only used to make sure their make-up is applied correctly, to hide the ashen hue of their spirits with the falsified rouge of health? (After all, the original “bigwigs” wore their big, faux-healthy wigs to hide their patchy baldness, caused by syphilis.)
I personally am so repelled by the rich and powerful and famous I want little to do with wealth and power and fame. I far prefer the small garden of a small man in a small town. The small pleasures of raising five children cannot be measured in money. Upon the edge of poverty one has a chance to be wholesome, and in that wholesomeness one owns riches surpassing that of billionaires wading in the reek of “The Swamp”.
Furthermore, I’m getting old. Though I likely will work until I drop, I am of “retirement age.” I can’t do what I once did, and must adjust my ambition downwards to some degree. While I don’t abandon the helm entirely like King Lear did, I do hand some batons of life’s relay-race to the young, who have ambitions that see a future I won’t live to see. Not that I don’t plant orchards, but I know I won’t live to see the apples. Rather than overrule the young, I respect their new ideas, for they are the ones who must reap crops I will never witness. Not that I don’t give them more advice than they sometimes ask for, but I have a different attitude toward power than The Swamp’s: I can give power up.
This retiring attitude is something I’m good at, for in a sense I’ve been retiring ever since I stopped going to dances as a teenager. It is part of being a writer, and is also called “withdrawal”. However it also makes Donald Trump a man beyond my comprehension, because he doesn’t retire and he doesn’t withdraw. To be quite honest, he puts me to shame. How does he take on The Swamp with the tenacity and courage he displays? It can only be because God formed him very differently than God formed me, and he is able to derive pleasure and zest from what would be, for me, a living hell.
There are times he makes me feel like a complete sissy. I feel like an anxious mother watching her child climb a tree or tall cliff. I can’t bear to watch, and turn away, not because I don’t admire what Trump is attempting, but because I don’t want to see him fall and be crushed.
I fully expected he would be assassinated by now, and am amazed by his survival and by what he achieves. One of his greatest achievements has been to so alarm the people addicted to wealth, power and fame that they have stopped pretending to be nice. They have thrown off their sheep’s-clothing and revealed themselves as wolves. Of course, some of us knew they were wolves all along, but if we said so we would risk being accused of “having a conspiracy theory”. How could we call a sweet, adorable lamb like Slick Willy a wolf? He had such a nice smile, as did other wolves. But now they are showing their fangs. Formerly they pretended to be part of a two-party-system and to be like Harry-Truman-democrats, but now their dictatorial, one-party-system tendencies towards tyranny are undisguised. Groups like Antifa resemble Hitler’s Brown Shirts, and clearly stand against the two-party-system our Founding Fathers established as a great and noble experiment.
I find their attack upon America deeply troubling. I lose sleep, and find politics bad for my health. Because it will do no one any good if I get sick, I prefer to retire to my garden. I have run my race, and it is up to the young to carry on.
But as I squat and weed, listening to birds sing, and watching thunderheads bloom in the summer sky, a little voice whispers in my conscience. “Have you been intimidated? Are you a coward? Have the bullies of Antifa silenced you?” If you pass by my garden you may hear me muttering to myself, from time to time, as I wrestle with this voice.
I certainly haven’t been silent on the web, concerning arctic-sea-ice and Global Warming. My posts on this site have been viewed by over a hundred thousand people, and my other posts and comments (on sites less obscure than this one) have been seen by millions. I have been part of a process that has exposed the falseness of a false narrative, to such a degree that thinking-people (including some cynical Alarmists) are well aware Global Warming has no scientific basis that justifies it being called a serious threat, and only exists as a political tool used to seize money and power.
Ten years ago there were wonderful and lively discussions involving the actual climate-science involved, but now such discussions have devolved to name-calling. I even heard a wonderful description of arguing-with-an-Alarmist: It was described as being like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how brilliant your moves are, the pigeon just knocks your pieces over, poops on the board, and then struts around like it won.
To a certain degree one just gets weary of arguing with pigeons. It producing nothing, whereas weeding my garden produces delicious vegetables.
But then I pause, and think my arguments did produce something. It produced a degree of censorship from Google. If you type in “Arctic Sea Ice” on Google, you can scroll down through page after page of search-results, and not see any mention my past posts, though some of my posts have thousands of views. Formerly my posts appeared in the first few pages of search-results for “Arctic Sea Ice”. So my posts did have an effect. They forced some at Google to take off their sheep’s clothing. They think they have “silenced” one party in a two-party-system, (me), but what they have done is to “show their hand”. They cannot claim to believe in the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press when they, in essence, burn books. If they wanted silence they have gone about it the wrong way, for they have been too loud.
Having bragged (to a degree) about having had this effect, I cannot claim to owning much desire to become more deeply involved. Such one-party-system-people have a sort of reek about them, and I do not usually feel comfortable when in the proximity of a skunk, even when it wears a lovely fur coat. I would like to just be done with such nonsense. Let the young carry on with the battle. I have played my part. I’ll just become one of those silent people who do not appear in polls, (because I hang up when a pollster calls me on the phone), but I’ll still vote when the day comes.
But then that whisper occurs again in my conscience: “Have you been intimidated? Are you backing off because you are afraid? What if Donald Trump did that?”
When I heard a Trump Rally was going to be held only 45 minutes from my front door I had no desire to attend. While I like live concerts, I am uncomfortable once crowds get much larger than a hundred. I admire great athletes, but would rather watch them on TV than attend a Superbowl. There is something about a crowd that makes me uncomfortable, perhaps because I’ve seen crowds turn ugly, and also because I have seen involuntary goosebumps of thrill rise on my own arms, and know I am not unmoved by the group-think of a mob. I prefer to stand back and watch from a distance and mull things over. I am a retiring sort, and even these words I now type are words I will mull-over and rewrite many times, before I set them free. Spontaneity is not my middle name.
However when I heard a local branch of Antifa was calling for people to come and disrupt the Manchester Rally, seeking to intimidate people from showing Trump any support, a bit of spontaneity ruffled my feathers. I may be retiring, but I’m not dead yet, and I can’t stand the way Antifa calls Trump a bully for bluntly speaking truth, and then turns right around and behaves in a bullying manner, speaking balderdash propaganda. To argue with Antifa is another case of playing chess with a pigeon. Rather than speaking opposition to their concept of a one-party-system, sometimes it is better to simply show opposition by attending a rally.
However when the day came I was very busy with work at my Farm-childcare, and it seemed unlikely I could get in to the rally. The 12,000 who gained entrance to the arena arrived before 4:00, and I wasn’t off work until 5:30, and it would take me another hour to drive in through rush-hour traffic, and on the radio I heard parking was just about non-existent and that the traffic was especially terrible near the rally. To top it off I was dead tired. I decided to spend my time praying the rally wasn’t bombed, and went to bed before the rally even ended.
The next morning I didn’t bother listening to the news, for I knew networks would report a highly negative view of whatever had occurred. Instead I searched through the web until I found a film of the actual rally. I find it interesting to form my own impressions, and only later to listen to the impressions the media gathered, which they then brazenly state are opinions “everyone” should share.
Quite often I see the media’s impressions are in lock-step, as I switch from network to network, right down to the talking-heads parroting the same exact words, yet their impressions are so different from mine that you would find it hard to believe they were of the same event. The Press takes things so far out of context it becomes downright humorous listening to the “experts”, who make such an ado-over-nothing they resemble people throwing a tizzy over the warped view they see in a circus’s fun-house mirror, as if unaware their views are warped.
At his rallies Trump often states something, and then gestures towards the Press, poking fun at what they will make of his statement, and how his statement will be warped when it appears in the next day’s papers. Where the Press once had the ability to make or break a politician, Trump has emasculated them by pointing out a reality which all now call “Fake News”. He has turned the tables on them, for rather than the Press manipulating the politician, the politician is tweaking the Press, making them prance like puppets, and playing them like a violin.
I feel I have watched a deterioration of the media that has taken decades to manifest; a crumbling of the trust the public has in the news they are told. It began during the Vietnam War, and the irony is that back then it was the Press itself that stood up against the purveyors of propaganda. How times change. Now even events which were accepted as well-researched-truth sixty years ago are called into question by the unrelenting scrutiny of countless, private, investigator-bloggers on the web, and, while there are a lot of paranoid rants and nonsense to be sifted through, some attempts to manipulate a gullible public are exposed by bloggers in ways that brook no doubt. (For example, some horrific pictures of bomb-blasted, weeping children crouching by gory and apparently deceased mothers in Syria were rendered far less heartrending when before-and-after pictures revealed the mother and child laughing as they put on bloody make-up usually used to make triage-training more realistic for EMTs, and then relaxing after the photo-shoot; IE: The entire bloody scene was a scam created to move public opinion.)
It doesn’t matter which “side” one is on, one gets tired of having their heart played as if it were an inanimate violin, and one wearies of what seems to be a general acceptance of lying. Especially exasperating is that, rather than the Press working to make amends for past failures, by working harder to sift through various views and versions of truth, and by honestly seeking to show all evidence, the Press has seemingly abandoned all attempts at objectivity in favor of a total devotion to a one-sided one-party-system. Bias appears to have become a sort of virtue-signaling; reporters appear eager to be purveyors of propaganda, (though their eagerness perhaps demonstrates a child-like and frantic attempt to please Big Daddy, enacted by frightened employees leery of being fired).
As I watched a replay of the Trump rally I did not see anything like what the media described and reported. The media saw racism, because the crowd was 94% white, but the simple fact of the matter is that the population of New Hampshire happens to be 94% white. What the media was seeing was simple demographics, but at times they snarl like wolves at people merely being what people have no control over being. Meanwhile Trump looked glad to see everyone. Right off the bat this made him a mile more likable and winning than the suspicious, hostile media.
Then Trump began to talk about what he has been attempting to achieve, which the media seldom mentions. Instead the media has reported what never happened. They have clogged newscasts with misinformation, focused on how Trump’s election was due to Russia and not his supporters, which is a theory now disproved. The crowd seemed far more interested in what Trump was actually attempting, and untroubled by the three years of false accusations, (both before and after Trump’s election).
Because the media has been such a abysmal failure, in terms of telling the truth, in a sense Trump was doing what the media should do but doesn’t do, as he described his agenda at the rally. As he listed what he was trying to achieve there were some topics I recognized but others I didn’t, and as he described his critics there were some I had heard about but many I hadn’t. However when I thought about “what I already knew”, it occurred to me very little came from the mainstream media. Instead, much I have learned has come through diligent searches of non-mainstream websites. Sad to say, but the mainstream media offers almost no actual information.
For example, concerning the subject of illegal immigration, the media’s focus has largely been upon ideas, and not facts; they discuss the idea that “borders” are racist, and upon the ideas of individuals who feel “open borders” are a good idea, and upon the idea that Trump’s promise to “Build the Wall” is bound to be an abject failure.
To some degree I can commiserate with such no-borders idealism, for it holds the beauty of John Lennon’s song, “Imagine.” However, as a man who has lived long and still works hard “past retirement age”, I can look back across decades of experience and am well aware people have limits; people have to draw-the-line. I’ve seen that, while in a Perfect World there would be no borders, we do not live in a Perfect World.
I may be an old grouch, but once I was young and brimming with idealism, and visited a hippy commune where “everything was shared”. After an evening of profound talk I went to bed, and when I woke the next morning I couldn’t find my pants, (which were new bluejeans). When I meekly brought up the fact I had no pants, it turned out someone else had “shared” them. When I suggested it would be difficult to avoid arrest if I headed out into the world without pants, I was “shared” some pants. They were the most ragged, frayed, filthy, and in-need-of-mending-and-patching pair of pants I have ever worn in my life. This experience awoke me to the fact idealism can get ugly. I said I did not agree “sharing” was a good thing, and wanted my own pants back, which did not go over too well among the idealists at that commune.
It is experiences such as this which turn “Songs Of Innocence” into “Songs Of Experience” (William Blake) and leads to slightly cynical statements such as “If you’re not Liberal when young you have no heart, and if you are not Conservative when older you have no brain.” (Winston Churchill and many others). Many old hippies know exactly what I am talking about, even as many youngsters haven’t a clue.
In the end we come back to the dilemma the Founding Fathers were striving to deal with, when they wrote the United States Constitution. This dilemma boils down to facing the fact we do not live in a Perfect World, and that vices such as sloth and theft occur in the rich and poor alike, the young and old alike, and the Liberal and Conservative alike. In the face of our mortal weaknesses, (whether you call them “foibles” or “sins”), it is obvious a one-party-system cannot succeed, for eventually it will pit the old against the young, the rich against the poor, or masculinity against femininity. Instead a two-party-system must evolve, where there may be some discord and conflict, but good things such as “harmony” and “marriage” are also possible. “Vive la difference”.
Lastly, for a two-party-system to work, there must be a division between the two parties of some sort. There must be “borders”. There must be male and female, rich and poor, Liberal and Conservative, and buyers and sellers. This may not be utopia, (for in the State of God-Realization absolute Unity exists), but we are not God-Realized, and in fact we had darn well better recognize we haven’t realized God yet, or else we are possessed of such arrogance we are doomed to disaster.
Some members of the media bewail what they call “polarization”. Despite a superficial praise of “diversity”, they don’t like the existence of differing views. I think this is what lies behind the dislike some express towards the Founding Fathers, for the Founding Fathers not only accepted the fact views do differ, but devised a system to handle the differences.
If the Press desires to function in a healthy manner it needs to describe both sides of an issue, which involves departing from the idea-world of idealism and descending into the nitty-gritty landscape of facts. But if a Press is captured by bias, it becomes so affronted by differing views that it cannot handle them, and flinches into a sort of reflex of bashing. They leap to conclusions. When covering the situation at our southern border they are quick to report the idea that illegal immigrants are held in “concentration camps” and “drink from toilets”, but are slow to fact-check such distortions. Because the Press offers a dearth of facts, it is up to the president to say there is news the mainstream newspapers are not mentioning, which is what Trump does at his rallies.
I hope you recognize the irony. Fifty years ago the president (Johnson) was the purveyor of propaganda, and people turned to the Press (Cronkite) for news about Vietnam. Now the tables are turned. Rather than the Press, people turn to Trump for news. More news is dispensed by Trump, during a rally, about the situation at the United States southern border, in fifteen minutes, than is heard in months on mainstream media. What’s more, Trump not only reports about his own views, but also about his opponent’s views, and he does so in a cocky, off-hand manner which infuriates many.
I think I see one reason he infuriates some people. In their eyes he over-simplifies, and is breaking their complex system of rules, which happen to be rules that in many ways stifle free speech.
This exposes a second irony. Fifty years ago the people speaking freely and in a refreshing manner tended to be celebrities such as “The Smothers Brothers”. (It is interesting to watch reruns of their old shows from the 1960’s, and to realize what seems so innocent (to us now) eventually caused such a fuss (back then) that they were taken off the air.) Now celebrities tend to avoid causing a fuss, and spend most of their time fussing. They are far too busy virtue-signalling and being politically-correct to dare be so refreshingly incorrect as to bring up the Truth.
There is something about Truth that is refreshing. What’s more, it is something salt-of-the-earth commoners recognize and respond to, whether the speaker is on “their side” or not. It is for this reason that a good debate between two opposing politicians can be a delight to listen to, providing the opponents treat each other with respect, in a sense “loving their enemy”. But when that respect is absent then one sees the recognition of Truth bring about a quite different and somewhat rabid response, where the humorous jibes are absent and instead hatred of Truth manifests.
I saw a bit of such hatred, in a small way, after I watched the video of the Manchester Trump rally. I liked what I had watched, and was musing to myself about the strange similarity between Trump’s performance and an old Smother’s Brothers show: Despite the great differences in political views, there was an impishness and good humor I associate with Truth. Then I checked the clock.
I had found time to watch the long rally because insomnia had awoken me at three AM, and I saw that I still had a bit of time before heading off to my Farm-childcare, so I thought I’d scroll down and check-out the comments-section, which was below the video. I was curious how people had responded.
I was taken aback by the negativity of most of the comments, which were full of foul language and generally bashed supporters of Trump as being racist pigs. It took me a little while before I noticed seven straight comments by the same person, and then scanned backwards and saw that same person was responsible for many earlier negative comments. Further scrutiny showed other individuals were doing the same thing, and that most of the comments were written by roughly ten people, repetitively cranking out the same disproved talking-points, such as Trump being put in office by Russia, illegal aliens being forced to drink from toilets, the electoral college being a dumb idea invented by rich, white slave-owners, and so on. When anyone replied to such comments all ten Trump-haters piled on them, stating disparaging things about their sanity and their mothers, using fairly ugly language.
To me this suggested the ten people were “doing their job”, and I wondered if they might even be paid to do it, perhaps with the money George Soros is so generous with. They didn’t seem to have another job they had to get to, judging from the time-stamps beside their comments. They’d been at their job for hours.
With a second glance at the clock I decided I had just enough time to reply to one comment before work, and I chose a particularly snide comment about how only fools accepted Trump as a leader, because he wasn’t a legitimate leader as he had not received a majority of the popular vote. I pointed out Abraham Lincoln had only received 39% of the popular vote, and headed off to work.
A couple hours later a member of my staff contacted me in great alarm about negative comments appearing on our Childcare’s Facebook page. When I checked, it struck me as humorous. The site contains pictures of small children at play, with innocuous comments such as “Susie looks so sweet” and “Johnie is so cute”, but abruptly the comments switched to “You’re talking through your pie-hole,” and “Parents must be insane to let their children near a fascist pig like you.” However I doubted my wife would see the humor, and sought to find out how the leftists had tracked me down.
It turned out the original video of the Trump Rally had appeared on a Facebook page, and therefore when I replied, in the comments section beneath the video, my Facebook site had automatically appeared by my comment. Yikes! What a mess!
To extract myself from the mess I went back to the original video and deleted my comment, which “disappeared” me from the discussion under the video, and also “disappeared” the nasty replies to my comment from my business’s Facebook page.
However I don’t take kindly to being silenced in such a manner. Such a silence might make Antifa happy, and might make George Soros feel he invested his money wisely and perhaps even clap his hands in glee, but such silencing is unhealthy to those who seek to nourish Freedom of Speech, and understand the refreshing, healing quality Truth has, when spoken aloud.
Therefore I have refused to be silent, and have gotten up early all week to write this essay. Please share it if you like it. I have the sense the coming election will be particularly nasty, and it is particularly important to have all views, even mine, heard.