mikeworst

Just short of 6" here in Weldon near Corby.

A polite question please. Would it be possible to present alternative research/opinions on this forum in accordance with accepted scientific criteria or are we as sceptical scientists excluded because of our perception of the issue? I am not talking of belief here because belief belongs in the realm of religion or political manipulation. Please let me know so that I can contribute.

I do not get the point. These shelves always do and have to go through a calving event. It has happened for who knows how many millions of years but now a (so called) numerical model is anticipating that the ice front is at risk of becoming unstable?. So what? has this not happened thousands of times before?

Oops it appears that Alaska's Hubbard Glacier is expanding http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/alaska-hubbard-glacier-growth .I will now proceed to duck, avoiding flack and such.

So your excuse if there are a lack of melt ponds is that they are draining away instantly.

Yup had a look "Antarctica is a unique environment, and the complex interactions between ice, ocean and atmosphere have led to a unique set of circumstances that have resulted in sea ice growth. It may be explained by many factors, or most probably by a combination of several." MY takeaway is this - It is getting cold out there Jim.

" The doubling of mass loss does not mean that vast swathes of the continent has suddenly gone above freezing but that the 'buttresses' holding the ice back on land are failing allowing the ice to naturally 'drain' , under gravity, into the fluid ocean ( and ice in a fluid does what?)" Rubbish, what is supposed to be melting these so-called buttresses of yours when temperatures are stable (cold) as are sst? Sea ice in Antarctica is expanding year by year and cannot physically do so with warm seas or land temperatures.

What I would like to know is how anyone including yourself Knocker can take Nasa Giss seriously after all that has been exposed. I proceed to duck.

?

No Knocker this is not the denier thread because there is no such thing, but saying that I hope that you and your fellow clergy will forgive those having an opinion expressing it on this patch of virtual hallowed ground. The arrogance is breath-taking and it is no wonder that our fellow forum users for the most part avoid the climate section.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/12/remember-all-those-breathy-predictions-about-an-ice-free-arctic-by-2015-nevermind/ Hoisted.

I means that roughly 68% of the years plotted fall into this band marked as light grey on the graph. That means that at this point 2004 is on a par with 68/100 of all the years used to establish the average extent.

I will reply later bf because I am busy right now but "Why don't you trust the experts, Mike? And why is it that experts from all around the world, over different decades, are coming to the same conclusion, yet you feel that you know better?" Bf the experts do not agree, there is the rub.

A reply to BFTV:- "One of the interesting things about climate science is that you cannot take one area of invstigation in isolation, it's all connected and you have to understand many different phenomena to make predictions. The scientists that discovered many of the natural climate cycles are often the same ones working on the human influence too." You got that one pretty much spot on. "Without any doubt, CO2 will cause at least 1C of warming, this isn't disputed even among most climate "sceptics". It's how the climate will then respond to that slight warming that matters." Yes that is pretty standard stuff as well but without any doubt is not a scientific certainty or in fact supported. It is theory only. "When we look at the historical record of temperature changes taken from the Vostok ice core, we can see some large temperature swings, and a close relationship with CO2. Now we know that the ice age cycle are largely controlled by the Milankovitch cycles, changes in the Earths orbit and axis. Yes the statement is essentially correct. "But we also know that the Milankovitch cycles by themselves cannot cause the temperatures variations seen, they rely on positive feedback mechanisms to kick in to amplify the warming and cooling. Those feedback mechanisms include CO2, ice/albedo feedback, changes in water vapour and others. From these records, it seems that if you give the climate a slight push, feedbacks kick in and cause very large temperature changes. Your statement lacks any evidence to substantiate your claims about the cycles themselves not being able to cause the variations. While I agree that feedbacks "the current buzzword" are probably involved there is no way we can at this time put any realistic or codged up number (sorry rude) on any such supposed feedback. The ice ages remain a scary and unknown/unpredictable reality of the worlds future and documented past. Documented as in the little ice age and ice core records. There are other theories regarding ice ages out there besides the orbital anomalies including the solar systems passage through the galaxy. "With the CET, we can pick and choose warm and cold months, but the overall temperatures has been increasing, very much in line with global temperatures. Despite the record being so long, we've still set numerous warm month and years record in recent decades. Still, that says little to nothing about climate change in general." Quite so, nothing at all. "As for the cooling scare in the 70s... (other than your mix up with ozone) time to blame the media again! Even then, the majority of scientific studies showed that warming was most likely, but a headline declaring an impending ice age sounds a lot more exciting! Sorry but the scare was real as was the cooling. Where does your majority of scientific studies come from?. Please show your work. Saying all this the whole issue is largely irrelevant other than showing unexpected and unexplained climate variation in a chaotic system. ​As for the empirical evidence by satellite the error bars are wider than the conclusions and there is no evidence that we are retaining or losing energy/heat. If the instruments up in orbit were able to accurately measure the energy budget there would be no dispute but they are not able to do so. We will just just have to wait and see what happens here on the surface where we live. You claims of accuracy in energy flux from satellites are bogus (not your fault) but bogus none the less.

Yup Dev and much more besides. It is all fairy tales and the summaries are dangerous and misleading.

Well, just in case my previous post was deleted let me assure you mr/mrs Trellis that we sceptics are well aware of the b/super duper reports that emanate from said political organization. What we need is actual empirical evidence aside from the playstation scenarios of virtually all recent so called evidence. Your challenge is, if you wish to accept it, identify any predictions from the IPCC that have come true---this tape will self destruct in 5 seconds. Ok who is old enough to relate to that stuff,lol.

Who knows, the climate is unpredictable and the "experts" have no clue. Did they predict the extent this year???????

Well to be realistic such a huge increase in ice does not support elevated sea surface temperatures or temperature increases of any description be it on land or otherwise. The only reason creatures would be at risk now would be too much ice and freezing temperatures.

Mrs Trellis as has been shown in my previous submission in the sceptical thread you are here just to disrupt or whatever. If Knocker would like to put his point across against myself without histrionics and include only valid scientific evidence without input from WHO, Greenpeace et al bring it on. If you are man enough.

I will post this here, come on Knocker let us have a real evidence based debate on this, you and me, we can open a new topic with only logical argument allowed together with verified observational evidence. You got the balls for that??

Agreed jonboy, of course co2 and the rest of the gasses in our atmosphere absorb and emit certain wavelengths of the light spectrum and this is measurable in the lab but any effect on the real world is not except by theoretical modelling. These models are wont to tell us that the additional (very small) amount of extra back radiation with increasing "greenhouse gas" will increase water vapour that in turn will amplify the back radiation and warm the surface even more. It seems however that this increase in water vapour is not happening and that possibly the theory needs revisiting. Not too long ago there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when the possibility of the sun controlling the climate in some way was mentioned ,there still is, but the main stream has now softened to this idea not only because there is palio evidence to support this but the fact that their pet theory appears to have no legs. Whatever the case may be if it is the sun we will find out in the next few years if not sooner.

Devonian, There is no such thing as small changes to the sun if put in context. The sun provides all the energy that the earth receives. Without it we all freeze and any perturbation in its output will obviously have an effect. We humans on the other hand are more like fleas on a camels butt-hole. Irritating perhaps but otherwise of little consequence.

I am referring to the Nunavut region of Canada that was cold last year and experienced a lot of ice thickening in the archipelago that the passage traverses. There is going to be much ice left over this year to thicken further and make next year impassable, even if the winter is not particularly severe.

Seems that the Northwest passage is a bust this year. The National Geographic cruise has been unable to proceed and the route through Queen Maude is still solidly blocked with 9 to 10/10 thick ice. Time is limited and the onset of the re-freeze is only weeks away There is another ice class cruise liner somewhere in the vicinity of resolute, The Silver Explorer, but she has not updated her log in 6 days and without icebreaker assistance will also not be able to proceed. All other attempts by smaller craft with the possible exception of a steel hulled motor vessel ( Mango) whose skipper seems determined to force his way through, can be written off this season. If this winter is similar to the last then next year will be impossible because of much increased second year ice.

Guesswork, pure chance,assumptions, previous form and cherry-picking. What you have just described is gambling and gambling does not pay off in the long run as the models have amply demonstrated by their performance.