Not exact matches
In the NH a lot of land surrounding the
arctic ocean is subject to the combination of decrease in seasonal snow cover (with
climate warming), and decreasing albedo due to vegetation
feedbacks.
As for your V&V discussion, I don't see the relevance of it in this talk, but in the context of physical science of
climate change we have overwhelming evidence of model usefulness and verification (water vapor
feedback, simulating the Pinatubo eruption effects, ocean heat content changes, stratospheric cooling,
arctic amplification, etc).
Hence, one gets a positive
feedback whereby the warming of the
arctic leads to ice melting which lowers the albedo of the earth and thereby leads to further warming of the
arctic (and global
climate system as a whole).
Of course all this rolls back to US through
climate feedback from
arctic sea area.
It is intellectually dishonest to devote several pages to cherry - picking studies that disagree with the IPCC consensus on net health effects because you don't like its scientific conclusion, while then devoting several pages to hiding behind [a misstatement of] the U.N. consensus on sea level rise because you know a lot reasonable people think the U.N. wildly underestimated the upper end of the range and you want to attack Al Gore for worrying about 20 - foot sea level rise.On this blog, I have tried to be clear what I believe with my earlier three - part series: Since sea level,
arctic ice, and most other
climate change indicators have been changing faster than most IPCC models projected and since the IPCC neglects key amplifying carbon cycle
feedbacks, the IPCC reports almost certainly underestimate future
climate impacts.