Is the wild weather these past two years partly the result of climate change?

[Ottawa Blizzard]

Do people here think the wild weather (bitter cold and snow in western Europe and US, warmth in northeast Canada) these past couple of years is partly the result of climate change? The climate change theory (and I believe it is just a theory) states that clime zones will shift. Let's face it, it's not supposed to be snowier in Paris and Washington than in Montreal or Ottawa. I realize the negative AO played a big role in this, but Brett Anderson of accuweather has mentioned a theory (not his) that the lack of sea ice helped to cause the extremely negative AO which in turn pushed the below normal temperatures south. In 2009-2010, and early January 2011 it was often almost as cold in DC as it was in Quebec city and Labrador!

[skierinvermont]

First of all, I don't think you can ever say a single event occurred because of climate change unless you can show that said event would have been physically impossible in the previous climate. Causation is actually a pretty grey subject if you think about it.

It is better to talk about the change in frequency of a particular event. For example, 12" snowstorms in October may go from a 1 every 20 year event to a 1 in 25 or a 1 in 15 in the 'new' climate.

But to answer your question, in the long-run climate change will certainly decrease the frequency of October New England snow because it will simply be too warm to snow no matter how negative the AO. Now, is it possible near the beginning of this warming process the lack of arctic sea ice could have some complex interaction with the AO? Sure.. I've read things to that effect but I'm not entirely convinced. The general theory I've heard is that the warmer arctic lessens the N-S temperature gradient, slows the jet stream, and allows it to meander more leading to more severe and persistent blocking.

[WeatherRusty]

Do people here think the wild weather (bitter cold and snow in western Europe and US, warmth in northeast Canada) these past couple of years is partly the result of climate change? The climate change theory (and I believe it is just a theory) states that clime zones will shift. Let's face it, it's not supposed to be snowier in Paris and Washington than in Montreal or Ottawa. I realize the negative AO played a big role in this, but Brett Anderson of accuweather has mentioned a theory (not his) that the lack of sea ice helped to cause the extremely negative AO which in turn pushed the below normal temperatures south. In 2009-2010, and early January 2011 it was often almost as cold in DC as it was in Quebec city and Labrador!

There has been nothing fundamentally different during the past two years as it pertains to our slowly evolving climate (in human terms not geologically) than was the case just a few years earlier. However, we know the Earth to be about a half degree Celsius warmer today than just 4 decades earlier. The climate has therefor changed on a time scale of decades. It is generally warmer and there is more moisture in the air.

The weather that is occurring is taking place in this changed environment and therefor is being fueled by higher sea and air temperatures along with a more moist atmosphere. The arctic environment and condition of the sea ice has been changing more quickly than changes anywhere else on Earth. The system is all tied together. Changing something in one place or large region affects adjacent areas in a multitude of ways and can have far reaching consequences. The rapidly changing arctic is not isolated, it's effects on the system ripple outward to affect ocean and atmospheric circulations for thousands of miles.

The same two years have produced unusual flooding events all around the globe. At the same time some of the worst droughts in many decades have been occurring around the world. The surrounding Mediterranean regions have been drying out for decades, especially in winter when they have traditionally received the bulk of their precipitation. And here we go again with the Oct. 29-30 east coast snow storm which has caused so much damage to the power grid, just a month or so after tropical storm Irene did much the same here in southern New England. Not to mention the tornadoes. People are pulling their hair out in frustration. Floods, droughts, snows, tornadoes and hurricanes. Don't you just love our weather? Throw an earthquake in for good measure, season it with a little Japanese gamma radiation and be on high alert for falling space junk !

[tacoman25]

Do people here think the wild weather (bitter cold and snow in western Europe and US, warmth in northeast Canada) these past couple of years is partly the result of climate change? The climate change theory (and I believe it is just a theory) states that clime zones will shift. Let's face it, it's not supposed to be snowier in Paris and Washington than in Montreal or Ottawa. I realize the negative AO played a big role in this, but Brett Anderson of accuweather has mentioned a theory (not his) that the lack of sea ice helped to cause the extremely negative AO which in turn pushed the below normal temperatures south. In 2009-2010, and early January 2011 it was often almost as cold in DC as it was in Quebec city and Labrador!

The thing about these theories is that they always seem to pop up after the fact. After the mega-Nino in 1998 (and the epic flooding it brought to CA), AGW causing more and stronger Ninos was all the rage. Then after Katrina and the record-breaking 2005 hurricane season, it was AGW causing more hurricanes. Now with the colder and snowier winters many places have seen recently, the finger of blame is once again being pointed at AGW - through the sea ice theory.

Bottom line is that it just seems like every time something in the weather grabs headlines, these theories appear. It's like no matter what happens, humans have to be the cause somehow. The alarmist AGW drumbeat must go on.

[skierinvermont]

The thing about these theories is that they always seem to pop up after the fact. After the mega-Nino in 1998 (and the epic flooding it brought to CA), AGW causing more and stronger Ninos was all the rage. Then after Katrina and the record-breaking 2005 hurricane season, it was AGW causing more hurricanes. Now with the colder and snowier winters many places have seen recently, the finger of blame is once again being pointed at AGW - through the sea ice theory.

Bottom line is that it just seems like every time something in the weather grabs headlines, these theories appear. It's like no matter what happens, humans have to be the cause somehow. The alarmist AGW drumbeat must go on.

Very very few scientists if any were convinced that AGW would cause more hurricanes. That was mostly a media thing. And it is still widely believed (with good evidence) that there is a good chance AGW will cause fewer but more severe hurricanes.

Likewise I don't believe there was ever any consensus that AGW would lead to more El Ninos. It was a hypothesis, and still is. Again, it was simply a case of the media latching onto it.

If you got your science from peer-reviewed journals instead of the mainstream media you wouldn't have the impression that science is making up theories after the fact. It's just getting press coverage after the fact. "The drumbeat must go on." You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

[tacoman25]

Very very few scientists if any were convinced that AGW would cause more hurricanes. That was mostly a media thing. And it is still widely believed that there is a good chance AGW will cause fewer but more severe hurricanes.

Likewise I don't believe there was ever any consensus that AGW would lead to more El Ninos. It was a hypothesis, and still is. Again, it was simply a case of the media latching onto it.

If you got your science from peer-reviewed journals instead of the mainstream media you wouldn't have the impression that science is making up theories after the fact. It's just getting press coverage after the fact.

You're younger than me, you probably weren't paying as close attention back in 1998 and 2005. There were a number of articles/studies published in scientific publications that supported these theories. Of course the media plays a role in it, which is what the alarmists want and why the public perception of AGW is so distorted. Of course they were hypotheses, but my point is that they were theories that played right into the idea that AGW has to be behind anything severe/bad that happens - we are to blame, not Mother Nature.

Which is why it is not surprising in the least that all of the sudden AGW is once again being pointed to after the severe winters recently.

[skierinvermont]

You're younger than me, you probably weren't paying as close attention back in 1998 and 2005. There were a number of articles/studies published in scientific publications that supported these theories. Of course the media plays a role in it, which is what the alarmists want and why the public perception of AGW is so distorted. Of course they were hypotheses, but my point is that they were theories that played right into the idea that AGW has to be behind anything severe/bad that happens - we are to blame, not Mother Nature.

Which is why it is not surprising in the least that all of the sudden AGW is once again being pointed to after the severe winters recently.

There's this awesome thing called the internet which lets you read stuff published years ago.

Link or it didn't happen.

I've read all about both the more frequent El Nino hypothesis and hurricane frequency/strength predictions and both were on going areas of research before and after the 1998 El Nino and Katrina. There is no observable shift in the research after these events. In fact, the research after Katrina was much more supportive of decreased hurricane frequency than the research before 2005.

[tacoman25]

There's this awesome thing called the internet which lets you read stuff published years ago.

Link or it didn't happen.

I've read all about both the more frequent El Nino hypothesis and hurricane frequency/strength predictions and both were on going areas of research before and after the 1998 El Nino and Katrina. There is no observable shift in the research after these events. In fact, the research after Katrina was much more supportive of decreased hurricane frequency than the research before 2005.

I don't have to provide you any links. You (should) already know the facts on this, if you have really done the research. It is well known that this research was out there and that it got a lot more publicity after the events happened. The media didn't just make it up. You are missing the point: it's not that the science necessarily pops up after the fact (though in some cases it probably does, as with this supposed -AO/arctic ice link), but these scientific theories getting all this attention right after these events demonstrates the mindset that we must somehow find a link to AGW when anything severe/bad happens.

And let's face it: scientists are human, they want/need research dollars, and when something in science is related to something in the public eye, it's easier to get funding and have your research get attention. I've talked to people in the research field. AGW has been, and continues to be cash cow for funding.

[skierinvermont]

It is well known that this research was out there and that it got a lot more publicity after the events happened.

Thanks for repeating what I just said.

And your claim that the AO/arctic ice link research was invented after the fact is rubbish. That research has been around for a decade.

[tacoman25]

Thanks for repeating what I just said.

And your claim that the AO/arctic ice link research was invented after the fact is rubbish. That research has been around for a decade.

Yes, I repeated it so you would see that I agree with you on that. And therefore I don't need to provide any links to prove it.

I said "probably". I had never heard of that theory until the past few months. Why didn't we hear about it, where were the predictions of more severe winters in the U.S./Europe due to AGW-caused blocking?

[skierinvermont]

Yes, I repeated it so you would see that I agree with you on that. And therefore I don't need to provide any links to prove it.

I said "probably". I had never heard of that theory until the past few months. Why didn't we hear about it, where were the predictions of more severe winters in the U.S./Europe due to AGW-caused blocking?

Why didn't you hear about it? I guess because you don't read the scientific literature. And I'm surprised because a I remember one such study being posted at eastern a few years ago which you read and debated but I guess you forgot.

Here's the paper posted in eastern published Jan 2009: http://www.colorado....009GL037274.pdf

2 minute search on google scholar:

Here's a review:

http://www.arctic.no...icAND_Globe.pdf

1978: Herman and Johnson theorize that less arctic sea ice lessens atmospheric temperature gradients slowing the mid-latitude westerlies

Royer et al. 1990, Murray and Simmonds 1995, and Honda et al. 1995 provide further supporting evidence.

Alexander et al. 2001.. Desser 2004... many others discussing the relationship.

more recent papers:

2009:http://adsabs.harvar...ClDy...33..937S

http://www.webpages....Wang%202010.pdf

2010:

http://www.cgd.ucar....oss.jclim10.pdf

[WeatherRusty]

Yes, I repeated it so you would see that I agree with you on that. And therefore I don't need to provide any links to prove it.

I said "probably". I had never heard of that theory until the past few months. Why didn't we hear about it, where were the predictions of more severe winters in the U.S./Europe due to AGW-caused blocking?

Talk about skewing the message! Why do you describe it as "AGW-caused blocking"? The pattern change is caused by open sea water releasing heat to the atmosphere later into the autumn season, regardless of what causes the arctic ocean to be increasingly free of sea ice. However, we know the sea ice to be on the decline due in large part to AGW, but you still shouldn't put the cart before the horse.

[tacoman25]

Talk about skewing the message! Why do you describe it as "AGW-caused blocking"? The pattern change is caused by open sea water releasing heat to the atmosphere later into the autumn season, regardless of what causes the arctic ocean to be increasingly free of sea ice. However, we know the sea ice to be on the decline due in large part to AGW, but you still shouldn't put the cart before the horse.

Are you kidding? The low Arctic sea ice is basically the poster child for AGW. There is no way to not associate it with AGW.

[tacoman25]

Why didn't you hear about it? I guess because you don't read the scientific literature. And I'm surprised because a I remember one such study being posted at eastern a few years ago which you read and debated but I guess you forgot.

Here's the paper posted in eastern published Jan 2009: http://www.colorado....009GL037274.pdf

2 minute search on google scholar:

Here's a review:

http://www.arctic.no...icAND_Globe.pdf

1978: Herman and Johnson theorize that less arctic sea ice lessens atmospheric temperature gradients slowing the mid-latitude westerlies

Royer et al. 1990, Murray and Simmonds 1995, and Honda et al. 1995 provide further supporting evidence.

Alexander et al. 2001.. Desser 2004... many others discussing the relationship.

more recent papers:

2009:http://adsabs.harvar...ClDy...33..937S

http://www.webpages....Wang%202010.pdf

2010:

http://www.cgd.ucar....oss.jclim10.pdf

I stand corrected, then.

Regardless, my point about there always needing to be a human cause behind every weather headline is still valid. If this research were mainstream and reflected scientific consensus, wouldn't the IPCC and others have mentioned increased NH blocking (and resulting colder/snowier winters for many places) as an effect of climate change to watch out for? There are many, many hypotheses out there, and it's often easy to find one's that fit the AGW alarmist mindset (everything severe/bad that happens must be Mother Nature's response to how we have "messed things up") after the fact...after the events have already occurred.

[WeatherRusty]

Are you kidding? The low Arctic sea ice is basically the poster child for AGW. There is no way to not associate it with AGW.

Yes, that is what I am saying. The low Arctic sea ice is a product of a warming world due in large part to AGW. To then assume the sciences should then be able to predict secondary effects such as a weaker AO as a consequence, and the effects of this would strongly be present beginning in 2010 is asking a lot more than those sciences are prepared to give.

After the fact calls for an explanation and as I stated above, changes in any one area will have influence on others in ways we may not be fully prepared to understand. This inherent uncertainty is not our friend when we are unsure of what the consequences will be ahead of time.

[Nikolai]

NYC has seen five snow events with 10"+ the past two winters--my personal totals for the five are 24" for 12/26/10, 20" for 1/26/11, 20" for 2/26/10, and 10" for both 12/19/09 and 2/11/10.

This is extremely anomalous--we have been seeing noticeably more large snow events since the 1990s--and I certainly think climate change is part of the explanation... in addition to the other various cycles (long term NAO, etc) we go through.

[ORH_wxman]

The debate about the arctic oscillation is a funny one...about a decade ago all the talk was how the recent +AO/NAO was consistent with AGW and how climate models showed an increase in the AO as the earth warmed.

Now the tune is flipped talking about the "global warming paradox".

[The_Global_Warmer]

The debate about the arctic oscillation is a funny one...about a decade ago all the talk was how the recent +AO/NAO was consistent with AGW and how climate models showed an increase in the AO as the earth warmed.

Now the tune is flipped talking about the "global warming paradox".

Isn't that how science is supposed to work?

[ORH_wxman]

Isn't that how science is supposed to work?

Yes it is. I point it out because we have these ideas often treated as gospel and "the science is settled" type attitude.

Peer reviewed articles stating that the rise in the AO was consistent with the rise in GHGs....now the opposite is being told to us because they didn't account for sea ice? Maybe that's right.

The multi-decadal AO/NAO cycle would seem to be the best explanation to me in the recent decline of the AO since the late 1990s but then again I'm a "skeptic".

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

I will agree that the arctic sea ice is declining. Heck, anyone with a second grade education can see that. What I am still skeptical of, is the human influence in all of this. One thing I do know is this..... If Man-Made Global Warming is proven to be false, then a lot of the scientific funding will cease to flow. This is enough to make anyone question the validity of the so-called peer reviewed studies. In my opinion, this debate will not be settled any time soon neither will the science.

I will also agree that the media is biased and will blame any unusual weather event on man-made global warming....whether or not it can be proven. It just really upsets me to hear some TV weather-girl, who doesn't even know where she parked her car, telling the public that "this weird weather must be the result of man-made global warming". The therory on the loss of arctic sea ice being the driving cause of the -AO.........well, it might be another "chicken or the egg" case. Who's to say that the -AO didn't contribute to the ice melt, especially this year?

An unusual amount of latent heat has been released into the atmosphere the last few weeks due to the above normal re-freeze. What, if any, new influences will this have on global weather? Will the global models have a hard time dealing with this, or will it be uneventful?

To stay on-topic.....I do believe we are witnessing a climate shift and we will have some strange weather events that are a result of this, but it remains to be seen how much of an influence it will have on the mid-lattitudes.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yes it is. I point it out because we have these ideas often treated as gospel and "the science is settled" type attitude.

Peer reviewed articles stating that the rise in the AO was consistent with the rise in GHGs....now the opposite is being told to us because they didn't account for sea ice? Maybe that's right.

The multi-decadal AO/NAO cycle would seem to be the best explanation to me in the recent decline of the AO since the late 1990s but then again I'm a "skeptic".

I sympathize with that. No one should treat a causality like GHGs and AO fluctuation as science is settled. That is very irresponsible. How can you even measure such a thing?

Outside of causality I can't see how they can measure it in any direct way.

Well in modern meteorology and climatology Well pretty much in any observable way up until the time actual parts of the arctic basin/North Atlantic/North Pacific were always ice covered.

Just doing a rough look at it with monthly sea ice extent.

May: down 1,500,000 mil from the 1970s to the 2000s.

June: down 1,500,000 mil from the 1970s to the 2000s

July: down 2,500,000 mil from the 1970s to the 2000s

August: down 2,500,000-2,750,000 mil from the 1970s to 2000s.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I tried to edit it. But it wouldn't let me on the iPhone.

September is 2,500,000km2+.

October and November are both below and are thinner at lower lattiudes.

My point is even at lower lattitides it adds more energy into the system. But specifically in one place while the energy income south of 60N is much closer to a Steady average.

This might explain atmosphere fluctuations.

[JBG]

Do people here think the wild weather (bitter cold and snow in western Europe and US, warmth in northeast Canada) these past couple of years is partly the result of climate change? The climate change theory (and I believe it is just a theory) states that clime zones will shift. Let's face it, it's not supposed to be snowier in Paris and Washington than in Montreal or Ottawa. I realize the negative AO played a big role in this, but Brett Anderson of accuweather has mentioned a theory (not his) that the lack of sea ice helped to cause the extremely negative AO which in turn pushed the below normal temperatures south. In 2009-2010, and early January 2011 it was often almost as cold in DC as it was in Quebec city and Labrador!

Bottom line is that it just seems like every time something in the weather grabs headlines, these theories appear. It's like no matter what happens, humans have to be the cause somehow. The alarmist AGW drumbeat must go on.

Ottawa Blizzard, good to see you back.

If you remember we had the same thing happen in the late 1950's; an amped-up negative NAO. And then again in 1969-70, along with news articles aboiut open water in the Arctic. I don't believe in man-made climate change. I do believe we're coming out of an Ice Age and that much of the ice of the mountain glaciers, Arctic and Antarctic are leftovers from that Ice Age. Just as snow from a blizzard (usually) doesn't vanish overnight, that ice takes thousands of years to get rid of. The fact that man is active doesn't mean that the melting comes from human activity.

So I'm with Tacoman on this.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Ottawa Blizzard, good to see you back.

If you remember we had the same thing happen in the late 1950's; an amped-up negative NAO. And then again in 1969-70, along with news articles aboiut open water in the Arctic. I don't believe in man-made climate change. I do believe we're coming out of an Ice Age and that much of the ice of the mountain glaciers, Arctic and Antarctic are leftovers from that Ice Age. Just as snow from a blizzard (usually) doesn't vanish overnight, that ice takes thousands of years to get rid of. The fact that man is active doesn't mean that the melting comes from human activity.

So I'm with Tacoman on this.

The ice is vanashing overnight.

Sea Ice volume dropped to 4000km3 this summer.

Glaciers gave lost 50-80-90% of their mass. Fastice that is attached to land. Some pieces used to be 50-100 meters thick

Nearly vanished this summer.

Just in October in the Kara Sea a Polynas formed. These are usually only land based features in the arctic and more often in the Antarctic. This summer we had one or two in the ESB another in the laptev. Another huge land based on off the coast of Greenland. Not only did they form they were very very large.

This indicates a lot warmer salty water making it's way to the surface because fresh dense cold water from the early summer sun rips fast threw the FY ice that is brine filled or even 2-3 year Ice that is brine filled.

This is just a few things that are happening because the "mechanics of the ice" cycle has changed.

There is some evidence showing a possible feedback that can cause a slight recovery as we reach a melt out.

My point is this is not natural. The cryispheric system has dramatically been altered. The big jump was early 2000s.

I don't know when we will see the next one bit the arctic is filling up with heat and it seems to have a hard time moving it out threw the ocean. If it doesnt even the fall and winter will see ice growth harder.

[skierinvermont]

Ottawa Blizzard, good to see you back.

If you remember we had the same thing happen in the late 1950's; an amped-up negative NAO. And then again in 1969-70, along with news articles aboiut open water in the Arctic. I don't believe in man-made climate change. I do believe we're coming out of an Ice Age and that much of the ice of the mountain glaciers, Arctic and Antarctic are leftovers from that Ice Age. Just as snow from a blizzard (usually) doesn't vanish overnight, that ice takes thousands of years to get rid of. The fact that man is active doesn't mean that the melting comes from human activity.

So I'm with Tacoman on this.

Except of course arctic sea ice and global glaciers are at the lowest levels of the last 1000 years and in many cases 10,000 years. And this is despite the fact that sea level and glacial volume had stabilized over the last 2000+ years prior to this past century so it is clearly not a continuation of melting from the ice age. And nearly all are continuing to melt rapidly. Please inform yourself.

[WeatherRusty]

Except of course arctic sea ice and global glaciers are at the lowest levels of the last 1000 years and in many cases 10,000 years. And this is despite the fact that sea level and glacial volume had stabilized over the last 2000+ years prior to this past century so it is clearly not a continuation of melting from the ice age. And nearly all are continuing to melt rapidly. Please inform yourself.

In support of what Skier is saying here......

A picture is worth a thousand words, so for anyone who thinks the world has been naturally warming since the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 yrs ago, I present you with this:

[LakeEffectKing]

In support of what Skier is saying here......

A picture is worth a thousand words, so for anyone who thinks the world has been naturally warming since the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 yrs ago, I present you with this:

Provide the smoothing calculations please for the proxies....I presume they are some multiple decade long or so smoothing...so cherry picking one yearly anomoly is pretty much meaningless. (ie...Comparing apples to cat turds......) So your picture is worth a thousand dung piles.

I improved it for you ....just a bit....

[skierinvermont]

Provide the smoothing calculations please for the proxies....I presume they are some multiple decade long or so smoothing...so cherry picking one yearly anomoly is pretty much meaningless. (ie...Comparing apples to cat turds......) So your picture is worth a thousand dung piles.

I improved it for you ....just a bit....

Nobody is saying that 2004 is the warmest year in the last 10,000. There's a decent chance there have been warmer years if we had precise enough data. The point is that those warmer temperatures occurred with much greater solar radiation. And yet we are close to or have already passed them and continuing to warm with much lower solar radiation.

The only point I was making initially was refuting JBGs erroneous claim that current sea level rise and glacial melt is a continuation of melting from the end of the ice age. Global sea level and glacial volume stabilized 2-4 thousand years ago probably due to a combination of 1. the deep oceans finally warming and expanding which would take a few thousand years once the ice age ended, 2. the large glaciers and ice sheets finally melting and reaching an equilibirum which would also take a few thousand years after the ice age ended, and 3. some moderate global cooling that took place 3-5 thousand years ago.

[LakeEffectKing]

Nobody is saying that 2004 is the warmest year in the last 10,000. There's a decent chance there have been warmer years if we had precise enough data. The point is that those warmer temperatures occurred with much greater solar radiation. And yet we are close to or have already passed them and continuing to warm with much lower solar radiation.

The only point I was making initially was refuting JBGs erroneous claim that current sea level rise and glacial melt is a continuation of melting from the end of the ice age. Global sea level and glacial volume stabilized 2-4 thousand years ago probably due to a combination of 1. the deep oceans finally warming and expanding which would take a few thousand years once the ice age ended, 2. the large glaciers and ice sheets finally melting and reaching an equilibirum which would also take a few thousand years after the ice age ended, and 3. some moderate global cooling that took place 3-5 thousand years ago.

Ummm....A. I didn't imply the above (first bold) (strawman). B. I certainly was curious as to why the annual 2004 GISS temp was plopped onto an obviously long timeframed smoothing graph.....and C. Does the "picture of a thousands words" not imply we should be in awe of the 2004 temp vs. the very endpoint of the graph (black line of present)???????

D. ....(second bold)....

I was replying to Rusty.

[skierinvermont]

Ummm....A. I didn't imply the above (first bold) (strawman). B. I certainly was curious as to why the annual 2004 GISS temp was plopped onto an obviously long timeframed smoothing graph.....and C. Does the "picture of a thousands words" not imply we should be in awe of the 2004 temp vs. the very endpoint of the graph (black line of present)???????

D. ....(second bold)....

I was replying to Rusty.

No I do not believe that when Rusty said "a pic is worth a thousand words" he was saying you should be in awe of 2004 vs the rest of the graph.

I believe he was reinforcing my point that current sea level rise, glacier and ice sheet melt, and temperature increase are not a continuation of the end of the ice age. Sea level and ice sheets had stabilized and temperatures had been generally decreasing.

He was pretty clear that this was his point if you read what he wrote:

"A picture is worth a thousand words, so for anyone who thinks the world has been naturally warming since the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 yrs ago, I present you with this:"