Gray-Wolf

It's the wilful neglect of the senators that bugs me Pete. They have a fuller , more joined up view of all the cutting edge science ( via their researchers) but choose, instead, to hunt out the 'whacky Fringe' of the science and by then emptying those contents into the electorate create confusion and maintain the Myth that the science isn't settled? By 'The science is settled' I mean we are as sure as we will ever be that the changes ,wrought by mankind across the oceans,landmasses and atmosphere of our planet will bring consequences for our world. The pedant will grab at areas that are still under scrutiny with no 'definate' answer as 'proof' that we don't know what will occur but within the uncertainty of the exact outcomes it is plain that they will fall in a direction harmful to our current 'style' of living? Recognising the dangers is surely not a 'political' thing? The solutions may become political but then that is why we have politicians to sort out a nations response? Why deny and fiddle with the outline of the problem? Are the solutions a thing that would not favour the political right ( massive Govt. spending and tax hikes) so they deny any issue exists? All a bit Chaimberlin if you ask me? When a country is threatened by another nation the Govt. spends instantly to deal with the issue. When the whole planet is threatened we all sit on our hands and deny any threat?

I wonder why folk look at winter ice as some kind of measure and don't focus more on ice shelf loss/mass loss from the ice sheets? Where we to see, in Antarctica, winter ice becoming multiyear ice then I could grasp it but to see so many folk spending such energies on something that is gone by Feb confuses me? We see similar with Winter snowfall in the N.Hemisphere with similar, if not the same folk?, holding up record high snow cover over winter as significant when recent history shows us that it will all go long before any climatic impacts could be harvested from it? What is the point? For me the increases in Weddell ice cover ( nobody focuses on the areas with less sea ice than their historic norm???) points to the impacts we have wrought from both the ozone hole and background AGW...neither anything to make a song and dance about? We see ocean warmth circumnavigating the strengthened circumpolar current and thinning/collapsing ice shelfs so we know general warming is now getting through so how long before atmospheric warming encroaches further than the peninsula and we start seeing rapid changes ( akin to those occurring on Greenland) across the coastal regions of Antarctica? Surely this is an area more worthy of time spent by folks?

This is in line with the predictions from the early noughties with the current 'slowdown' in the rate of temp increases giving way to renewed rate of temp increase acceleration greater than we saw through the 80's and 90's? Those predictions were made before the rapid albedo flip we have seen since the mid noughties across the Arctic and Greenland and before the renewed Methane spike we have seen since 08'. Should Indo-China also clean up emmisions over the next ten years then any flip to warm drivers will recieve a lot of support from other positive feedbacks. Will it prove enough to silence the climate misleaders? Not a chance!!!

Whatever lies behind our 'pattern shift' that wriggled the jet into europe ( and across the U.S.) this year we can also see the first signs of one of the major 'cold drivers' giving way as we see ocean temps from the PDO 'cold horseshoe' dwindling and going to the first positive values on the index in years so what will the future hold? We were told to expect a 'slowdown' in the rate of temp increase ( in the early noughties) due to a conflagration of 'cool drivers' followed by a return to temp increases in excess of those we saw in the 80's and 90's from the mid teens. Id this report another confirmation that the 'cool drivers' are now coming to an end? Is the energy that has been going into the deep ocean about to be allowed to manifest as air temps instead as PDO flips positive and Nino's increase again? I have concerns about the methane spikes we see ( never mind man's CO2 concentrastions) as the Arctic melts and also that the 'cleaning up' of indo -chinas coal burning )leading to a drop out of particulates and sulphates currently actively cooling the earth ) will enhance any return to a climate predominantly driven by warm drivers?

Should further study give a more detailed picture of the Siberian/eurasian ice sheet in that side of the Arctic ocean it would surely have big implications for the formation ,and former stability, ofthe submerged permafrosts there? If part of their formation included an ice sheet sat on top of them then they needn't have spent the time submerged that we had believed them too? Could it be that they have only seen submesrsion since the end of the last glacial period and so this current meltdown is the first time the deposits have suffered in this way? I know the deposits are 'shallow' and so past ocean ice cover will have helped keep temps low but I can see how they could have remained so pristine if 1,200m of ice sat on top of them better than periods of submersion and freezing? It does , of course, mean that we are in uncharted territory insofar as the stability ofthe carbon reserves stored there and current measurements of losses, and their acceleration, does not bode well for our immediate future.

The thing is members of congress are not 'scientists' in the field of climate studies and so should be informed by the wider body of science? To ingnore what the vast majority of those scientists are reporting, in favour a a few crackpots, show neglect and a wilful act of misrepresentation of the folk who put them into congress? Scientists attacked and their works wrongly criticised impacts a person in a job they are trained for. Threatening their family/colleagues on the basis of their research does not compare with highlighting the shortcomings of a politician in my book?

I'd like to see the papers showing this Sparks as only last week we saw the first reports from the korean/japanese team that appear to have evidence that a continental ice sheet covered the eurasian side throughout that period( helping keep the submerged permafrosts out of the equation) and the sea level hikes had nothing to do with Greenland melt and all to do with East Antarctic ice sheet losses? It would appear that it is tied in with the earths orbit allowing for summers that are hotter but northern hemisphere winters that are colder? I can'trecall whether it is our 'angle of tilt' , our orbital shape ( circular or egg shaped) or when we are closest to the sun ( Jan at the present) or some odd combination of all three? What is becoming obvious is that the southern hemisphere bore the brunt of the last thermal max and the north remained cooler with attendent ice sheets?

I just don't know what to make of things at all? In past year the folk who deny anything 'odd' occuring in the Arctic have been the first to point out how the record melt would aid ice regrowth come seasons end? Does that mean we should now expect slower regrowth come seasons end ( and continued bottom melt of the older surviving ice for longer?) The longer I study the Arctic the more it resmbles my monica with everthing turned upside down from what it used to be! I have no doubt that in the end all the ice will go one year and then we will have a very novel state with all the pack being FY ice come the next melt season. We are told that this will mean ever earlier 'melt out dates' and the fate of the Arctic will be sealed but how will we get to that point? Has last years record melt aided in the changes that have been so benificial to the ice this summer or is it just 'natural variability to blame? If it's all 'natural then we are closing in on the next 'perfect storm' year and the end of Arctic ice, if it is a pattern shift instigated by last years record low then what are we to expect?

The majority of fireballs (bright and long lasting with tail and 'colour') I saw came in from a ENE direction so to the left of where I'd positioned myself? It might be worth you're while to shield out as much of the light pollution that you can as accidental streetlight exposure ruins your night vision for an age and there were a lot of near instant 'streaks' from the smaller ones that I would not see were I more exposed to light pollution? Maybe a couple of sheets over the washing line could blank out the worst of the 'interference'?

Just thought i'd share a little nugget that the Artful dodger came out with when reassuring posters about a clumbsy troll that appeared over at Nevens place. He said the Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stone and in the same way the age of denial will not end because folk run out of things to deny.......they'll just be too busy dealing with the impacts of climate shift to keep up with being stupid........

Sadly ( for most ) the best time is after 1 a.m. as the earths rotational spin then adds into our orbital speed allowing the dimmer ones to burn more brightly. If you face east but take in as broad a view as you can then your peripheral vision will notice the edge ones ( if they're fireballs you'll have time to look and see them) otherwise just deckchair/hammock it with a brew/few tinnies and duvet coat/sleeping bag whilst you do your mental filing as you wait. Last night gave me an average of 1 every 3 mins but some arrive in clusters so that spreads out their frequency. The fireballs make it worthwhile though! Greens through purple and very long tails as they streak through...magic!!!

I just hope that those 'exhales' are nothing to do with sink failures or CH4 degradation!

Sat from 12:30 and gave myself a 'limit' of 50 went to bed at 2:30 with 66 in the bag and 15 or 16 of those were fireballs. Brightness defo picked up after 1.am as our spin added into the speed of the collisions and i heard one 'POP' from an overhead fireball. It's been over 7 years since we've had such clear moon free skies to watch them and i'd forgotten how addictive it is with the " I'll go in after the next one...." business. Here's hoping ISON leaves some rubble for our pass through it's tail from Jan 12th next year?

Sounds like folk backing away from something very quickly? I'm sure it was a NASA article that had it as a 'comet of a lifetime' or have I just been reading Media reports?

And then I wonder why some folk appear to remain blissfully unaware of all that is studied whilst claiming there is no such evidence........ Jump over to the manmade thread where I posted the link to the current research looking at where our ice sheets resided through the last major glacial epoch. We all know about the one that crawled across the north Sea to envelop us and the U.S. equivalent but we were missing the info from eurasia ( were we not?) .We could see that the Majority formed the habitat for the Mega Fauna ( whose remains are now melting out in quantities so fast as it to form the basis of the current Ivory trade) but not the home of a vast ice sheet. Happy juice? Look at the international study of the Submerged permafrost and the 'discovery' of those 'chimneys' venting methane at such a rate as to allow it free passage through the ocean overburden ( rather than disolving into the waters) then jump forward to the last mutterings from the lead scientists about the growth of those 'Chimneys' from features 10's of metres across to in excess of 1 km across over the space of one year ( 2010/2011). What is your understanding of the future of the amazon rainforrest? The fact that we have seen it undergo 2 " 1 in 100yr" droughts in the past 10yrs may bring you a hint? Couple that with the movement of the Tropics toward their respective poles and the blanks fill in further. Hheck the NOAA report card for the global climate in 2012. you will find the north slope records in there. Happy hunting!

It increasingly appears that the 4th ice age included a massive ice sheet that entered the Arctic ocean from the Siberian side and was present throughout the Eemian warm spell? This means that the troubling permafrosts were never exposed to the warming that they currently see so we cannot rely on their past stability in temp/GHG concentrations that mimic those of today. It appears self evident that this is their first melt out by the surface deformations that recent studies had discovered growing at alarming rates. Any past destabilisations would have left scars from those eruptions on a scale ( over km's across) of those we see evolving today? I'm sure the plots from this years emissions will once again be an increase on past years but we hear nothing of the alleged 'ongoing' scientific study of the region? If 'm missing an expedition then I'd be grateful of it's details and itinerary ( still awaiting the Sharakova report from 2011??). As for the Delta deposits in front of the planets major river delta's ( mainly Nile and Amazon ) we would need to either see ocean depth become shallower ( not seemingly likely) or ocean temps take a leap upwards? With what we have seen with deep ocean temps over this alledged 'warming pause' I can see ocean currents enabling a rapid temp rise as warmed deep ocean currents return to the surface allowing more heat to be taken up ( and not spent on as much warming of the cold upwelling waters) at the depths where the deposits reside? 'Definates' are good when running simple calcs but the planet is a far more dynamic place than the economists 'all other things being equal' pre-requisit. We only need to see a short term rise in ocean temps in a particular location to suddenly see big eruptions made possible? Looking at the Amazon I have to wonder what occurs to river temps themselves when the land alters from forrest to grassland and the rains become merely seasonal? Does a warmer river discharging over the deposits at the Delta pose a threat to the stability of those deposits? Anyhow my concerns are with the permafrosts ( terrestrial and submerged ). The climate report from 2012 shows a record high temp from the north slope permafrosts ( Alaska ) so I wonder how they fared this summer through Alaska's heatwave? Siberia is also again heat blighted and burning so what of the permafrosts there?

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/08/116_140972.html I'd been reading around the debate sparked by the 'Methane costs' debate and realised that many of the arguments against the scenario are pretty shaky to say the least? The above is further evidence of why we cannot look to 125,000yrs ago a a useful comparison to what we see occuring in the east Siberian Shelf sea today. As I have said before the first time i encountered the submerged permafrosts was during my A level Geography back in 1982 and at that time we were taught we had many thousands of years before we could expect any degradation of the deposits. Much has changed over the intervening period but it appears that many folk still cling onto the old philosophy and make no account for the past 5 years of worrying developments/changes to those deposits. I would implore folk to 'watch this space'.

Nice to see you still popping in here BFTV! I am enjoying your info over in the Sea ice Forum though! Cocentration Fig's are looking a bit dire post storm and i have to wonder how much of that ice has the legs to get through to re-freeze? The area beyond 80N, which should have the protection of re-freeze earlieast, looks the worse off and the areas where re-freeze won't begin until mid sept might still find itself becoming very thin by the end of the season? The real messeage of the season has to be just how poorly the ice has done even with a near perfect 'ice retention storm' for the whole of the season? What are we to expect should we face a season more conducive to melt? Sadly , as with surface temps globally, I think we will face a barrage of blog comments about 'recovery' up until the next major drop in the basin.......

I think you need to look at the areas of lost snow /ice compared to gains J' to see just how silly that notion is when the final km sq figure is arrived at? The supposed 'balancing act' really does not hold water at all. the other thing you must entertain is the amount of solar Antarctica is receiving across those extra few thousand of km's compared to the amount of solar the Arctic basin ( land and ocean) is currently open too ( one being in the depths of winter and one being in the latter phases of summer). Do you see what I'm saying? To me the albedo flip is one of the most immediate and worrying drivers in our current 'climate chaos' allowing a for a very different energy equation for the planet. Surely a sudden leap in the amount of incoming solar that can be captured by the planet must show effect? Couple that with an ever enhanced atmospheric ability to hold onto re-radiated heat and you must encounter changes? Please do not merely focus on 'ice' though. This dance was lead by the collapse of summer snow cover across the N.Hemisphere and , worryingly, even the abnormally high ( neah 'record') snow cover we have seen since 2009 still drops to record lows by late May re-opening bare earth for the summer sun to warm/melt. We know that the earth is in 'imbalance' by our measures of energy in ,energy out and many now accept that the oceans are soaking up this 'extra' . Ice sits on water so eventually this uptake will only go to compound the ice loss situation. As for the 'air temps'? Well , once again we have seen max temp records set around the Arctic basin ( due to loss of influence from ice/snow cover?) with Greenland setting a new all time high temp record. I am sure we still have room for natural variation in the levels of snow and ice driven by 'weather' over melt season but it will take an awful lot of 'weather' to rebuild the giga tonnage of ice/snow we have lost compared to the mid 20th Century 'norms'?

Anyone knowing anything about the cost of gaining a 'watertight' patent will know it's not a thing for a small setup esp. where you are up against multibillion dollar opposition? I find it easy to imagine folk being forced to let their patent slip ( due to the doubling costs each year) only for 'other parties' ( that can afford the outlay for no profit) to then take up the patent........ Saying is easy .......'doing' , once you know what you are talking about, a very different matter!

The thing is the larger process is again a slow process ( like CO2's full impacts on global temps?) with a lot of permafrost fringing the Arctic basin slowly melting. The scale , once again , of the wildfires across Siberia must twitch some folk ( knowing that the ground below will heat faster due to the loss of albedo over the coming years once snow cover clears). We are also seeing the increased mixing of the surface waters of the basin, losing the old stratification that made the basin 'unique' to any other world ocean, due to the storms ( like the current one) hitting whilst open water is present ( last years GAC12 gave buoy readings showing interactions down to 200m!). No matter what becomes of this current season the trend is clear ( as with global temps) but you can bet your bottom dollar 'natural variation' will be labelled as 'other' by the very folk who hold out for 'natural variation' being the root of all the current global changes.........

I suppose that depends on whether you view pollution and destruction of eccosystems as 'morally right' or whether we should still be dumping our nastier ways in favour of more sustainable, kinder to our planet, ways Jax?

C'mon Sparks! plenty of prophets around at the same time as the Nazerene but only one who got both the religious leaders and occupying forces wound up enough to martyr him? I'm sure in 50yrs some of the targets of today's climate misleaders will be looked on very differently? one might even go so far as to ask why more attention was not paid to their warnings of what must have appeared the obvious consequences of delaying climate action, to us now, from the data we were harvesting?

When do you imagine the impacts of the ozone hole began to stir things up down there Kieth? I've always thought that the process of strenghthening the circumpolars (winds then current via the winds) began during the mid 80's as the spring hole blossomed over the pole? I understand you are reluctant to see man's hand in climate chaos but what of his hand in smashing the ozone? is that up for question too? Oh! and by the way, what were the type ofppm's of the atoms doing the damage to the atmosphere?

I'd rather hope that moderation here is fair and balanced knocks? Why would there be a wish to only silence to silence the likes of yuorself who , daily, bring forward news, papers and opinion (from both sides of the debate?) whilst other posters bring nothing of substance that must be challenged at each posting (for the sake of those searching for real info?) and appear to go about that business unmolested? I suppose the historical Nazerene faced similar merely through his message?