Gray-Wolf

Since I saw Mark Serreze mauled in 2007 I believe that I have witnessed a 'trend' for scientists to be ever more cautious/conservative in their proclamations of how climate change will impact society? Am I alone in seeing this or have others noted similar?, does it bleed away the impetus for action from the general population if folk are only fed the 'low end' predictions instead of all the possible consequences including the ' high end' predictions?

[*]Members [*]2,543 posts [*]Gender:Male [*]Location:swansea Posted Yesterday, 17:30 One of the coolest summers in Arctic recorded this year Some data even showing a refreeze well over a month early, http://arctic-roos.o...i1_ice_area.png charts show over 100000sq km higher in the Arctic than this time last year ,with the Antarctic also at record sea ice levels ,the press is very quiet compared to the scaremongering of this time last year.,this proves that newspapers are dominated by GW alarmists . [*]Like This [*]Unlike [*]Back to top [*]Quote [*]MultiQuote [*]Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With the upcoming Arctic storm and temp high temp records falling across the Arctic regions I'm wondering if we are seeing KL again focusing on DMI's 80N algorithms? With a full six weeks of melt season in front of us and a very large Cyclone ( sub 980mb) forecast for the Basin this week I wonder if the same song will be being sung come Aug 20th?

The circumpolars ( winds and current) would not allow such a development to occur? As it is we see the peninsula pushing out beyonf the impacts of the winds/current and what do we see occuring? Yup! the fastest temp rises on the planet. When the circumpolars again ease off as the ozone hole heals all that 'warming is poised to inundate coastal Antarctica with rapid resulting impacts.

Certainly the year of lows and this one has all the ingredients to drop below 980!!! We may not have seen 'losses' from the last low but one look at the concentration maps show us just how fragile huge areas of the basin became because of it? Another low ( and one that appears comparable with last years GAC12) will not do ice retention hopes any favours at all with , like last year, a lot of ice already very vulnerable and about to 'blink out'? We also se a strong di-pole setting up so a double whammy with loss through Fram now looking a strong possibility. A long time before the Le Grand Madame even appears in the wings of this years 'Melt Season' production ........ just how close to 2012 could we find ourselves in this ' one step forward, two steps back' of a melt season we are having? Just when I think we've 'got off lightly' with one potential period of loss another potential period of losses looms large! Never a dull moment eh? A word to those who are itching to cry 'recovery'......keep your powder dry for another two weeks at least!!"!!

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/31/artic-methane-catastrophe-empirical-evidence I knowe it's snooze paper but the ref's are good. I am notreasured that we can ignore the contribution we are now getting from both land based permafrost meltdown and the East Siberian submerged permafrost. Much later down the line we are best not to ignore the River Delta cathrates as the ocean warmth becomes an issue to the depth the reside at? We already see the Bermuda triangle releases and we can see how warm the anoms around the gulf are becoming each summer?

I've been reading that the Russian researchers that did the studies over the east Siberian shelf ( and found the km wide 'chimneys') suddenly went on extended leave and then came back without putting out the findings of their 2011 expedition?? Anyone got any more info on the validity of this 'tale'? I remember some newspaper reports on the trip as they were heading back to compile the findings ( hence the growth from 10m chimneys into km wide structures in a years time span) but nothing since? If you recall seas Capt.s were reporting 'boiling oceans' over the deposits and there was a hastily assembled international study team sent off to investigate. Emmisons are still seeming to increase over the peak output periods but nothing reported nor any 'return trips'??? Maybe if you don't look you don't find worrying changes in the deposits?

My biggest worry is the ocean sinks esp the southern Ocean which already appears to be slowing down it's acceptance of CO2? Anyhow I thought the ocean was just a 'bank' for the CO2 and as temps rise it can't hold onto as much of the stuff?

Surely web cam 2 is near to breaking ( and draining) soon? Could it be that we see a smooth transition to ocean and the central area is on a 'raft midst open water .if we look to the mid July images you can see the 'ridge' that the equipment sit on. EDIT: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50775/abstract Saw the above and wondered what was replacing the advected waters from the Arctic ocean? Are we seeing a very big alteration beginning that leads to disruptions of ocean currents world wide?

Seeing as the warm Southern Oceans snuck under the Circumpolar current and is now impacting as far as the Ross Embayment I see no reason why this should not continue? We have to rememberthat past warmings have seen East Antarctica the first place to melt ( with the loss of Ross and the opening of the ocean channel between East and West Antarctica) so our 'tinkerings' with the Ozone have only forestalled the inevitable.....the question has to be will the growing warmth overpower the ozone impact or will the Ozone heal first? Either way it'll be fast.

I'm glad you posted all that BFTV , I'd have been banned for sure! This is the thing though? Surely the crew who demand it to be natural cycles ( either terrestrial or off world) must see that the data demands the cool driver dip global temps for a number of years? Such a conflagration of 'cool drivers' should surely have had us in a mini ice age by now??? so what happens when the 'natural drivers' flip flop back to warming? I would think that there is a natural 'End Time' for such non-sense as the growing AGW signal has already overpowered the 'Natural' ( to a greater extent) so as to allow the increased ocean warming and continued atmospheric warming whilst facilitating the Arctic crash so what do they expect when we see a set of complimentary 'Natural warm drivers'? How long do they have? You look at the recent PDO ( since 98') and have to wonder 'Where is the PDO-ve of Yore?' I expect us to be resurfacing from -ve PDO over the next few years and the Nino predominance that this will bring with it will be a stark reminder of what 400ppm really means ( years ahead of what it's full impact is?) but this is a nothing compared to the 'Natural' forced changes that the rapid disintegration of the Arctic brings with it? They ( Climate misleaders) thought they could ride the coat-tails of the slow uptake of the Greenhouse forcings ( seeing as we've dumped them into the atmosphere at record speeds) but they did not ( cause the models they both diss and cling to didn't warn them) see the speed of the changes now ongoing in the Arctic nor recognise that those impacts are instant. I will try and cling onto my abilities to post here if only to see them all fall silent ( as they try and tell their mates that they WERE right........) . Fun times for us so wounded by their shenanigans

D'ya know ? , no matter how you fight it when figures in authority label you as 'something' it is ever so hard to not find yourself saying " what the Hey! , this is what they think of me ,then this is what they'll get!" Just thought I'd put that out there .....oh! , and thanks for all the Fish........

LOL! Yup , all is hunky dorey! I'm just wondering exactly what a minor mid summer storm like this one is capable of? I've noted that the 'well read' folk have now started to waver on their views of recovery and , dare I say it? , mentioned 'record losses' ??? We either have a feel for the 'New Arctic' or we are stuck looking at the pre- 2010 basin ( when we still entered summer with paleocryistic ice). Well out with the old ( Paleocryistic) and in with the new ( Decayed ice) I say! So , we know how the paleocryistic ice dealt with summer storms ( spread out a bit) but what will it's replacement do under such conditions??? Let's watch for the next 5 days to find the answer.......

I think this is a growing problem knocks , the tip of the iceberg in fact!, We have seen the russian permafrosts melt out and the vegetation above dry off allowing the scale of wildfires we see there. this darkens the surface allowing faster melt ,earlier in the year, below. This leads to a 'warmer' land which in turn impacts the still frozen lands further north. There is no 'switch off' mechanism. it is a climate fuse burning and unable to be stamped out.

Whatever he wants it to be? Very Monkton-esque......

apparently we have a new ice type to add to our cryospheric lexicon....." Decayed ice" is now being used by the Canadian ice service to describe our 'slush puppy ice' . Ask a Climate Misleader why we need new terms if this is not a brand new circumstance!

In these days of climate misleader pedantry is it not safer to say 'air temps have slowed down' as the warming continues ( if we believe the mismatch between energy in and energy out?). We are looking to why air temps are not increasing at the rate they did through the 80's and 90's and the first thing that jumps out are the Nino/nina distribution? Why folk are acting confused when they know what impact these things will have on global temps I do not know? I would bet that as soon as we swing back into Nino predominance these misleaders will be the first to cry foul as temps jump beyond past warming rates. It is just not fair that they should be allowed such unchalleneged?

I think that the other thing to note is how rapidly the East siberian sector is changing? We had out first 'heads up' in 2010 when this paper was being peer reviewed ( released in 2011) so it's info may well have been in keeping with the early noughty papers it cites but is now out of step with the unfolding reality on the ground. This appears to be an 'new trick' for the climate misleaders ? we see them even parading the TAR4 as proof that things will not be as bad as more recent studies suggest even after the so savagely dismissed it at it's release? There appears to be no consistancy in their behaviours allowing them to grab at anything that serves their purpose even when it is quite aged and superceded? With the Arctic as a whole the changes are way ahead of predictions and the pace of change is very fast so we need be wary of papers that have been superceded by events on the ground? It's like holding up a Whitestar press release for the Titanic claiming it's unsinkable as it breaks it's back before diving to the depths behind you? We saw papers claiming that the Greenland melt had peaked in 2010 paraded by a few members on here even as 2012 was in full swing??? Who , apart from themselves, are they fooling?

I believe they tried to have it thrown out of court using the constitution to defend themselves but the judge threw it out and told them to attend court? They will be roasted ( and rightly so!) and at least endup bankrupted from the settlement. The sooner the climate misleaders get a strong signal that lies and deciept are not a tactic open to them the sooner the science will beable to show them for what they are!

Posted Yesterday, 13:19 Gray-Wolf, on 23 Jul 2013 - 00:03, said: What do you call a person that merely reports on the science they do when they find 'alarming, doomladen' events beginning to occur and know that we are travelling in a direction that will only make the situation worse?? That's precisely the problem, GW. As you said you are reporting on events that are (at least) alarming. This sort of thing is one of the primary reasons why the scientific consensus has not been more widely accepted by the general public. Leave for one side who is right, who is wrong, who is this, or who is that, you are trying to attribute events to climate. This sort of muddle-headed-thinking, vocally, and vociferously, across the political and scientific establishments has done more to damage climatology than any other area of discourse. Certainly more than ClimageGate (of which all of the alleged activities were found to be completely untrue) I applaud you for standing on top of the hill and pointing out 'unusual' events. But you are attributing them to changing climate which, crucially, all of the peer-review evidence summarily dismisses such attribution as impossible. You seem to have forgotten to read those papers, didn't know they exist, or, worse, you are deliberately misleading your readers. Of course, and much much much worse your sin is, attributing events to climate means it works the other way around; and now interested third parties can now join you on top of the hill and point to other event extremes such as cold winters, excessive snow, all indicative of a cooling climate. Don't worry, you are not alone: Greenpeace, at least - probably the most guilty organisation of the proliferation of CO2 output due to their opposition of nuclear power stations - attributed Katrina directly to human-induced climate change saying that it is a 'wake-up call about the dangers of continued global fossil fuel dependency' Al Gore suggested that the warmer Caribbean Waters (a weather event) because of climate change made the storm stronger, and thus the damage greater contrary to all scientific evidence to the contrary. The list is endless .... you are not alone: you are in the company of Nobel Prize winners amongst other accolades. This sort of faulty attribution has done more to increase CO2 emmissions by inaction than other kind of reasoning throughout the whole debate. After all, who really wants to pump out human emmissions if we can possibly help it? If you continue to feed the 'other side' such inaction will be capable of going on well past my lifetime. And I, for one, am sick and tired of reading why one foot of snow in Bedfordshire last January means that the climate isn't warming. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- But that is where it gets riduculous (IMHO) as , until we have such a complex understanding of the climate issues as to say we 'know' then we can only make statements based upon what we 'know' , what we 'expect' and what we see linking those two things? In reality we cannot 'know' that the Sun will rise tomorrow and so by most climatye misleaders standards this would mean awiting it's rising each and every day! As it is the odds that the sun will rise, and continue doing so for over 4 billion years more are good enough to take it as read that the sun will rise. We are at a similar point with areas of climate forcings that we 'expect' to occur. hen we see such events occuring we need look at the 'odds' of it being 'natural' and of it being human influenced to see that the odds are becoming very stacked toward such extreme events ( like a 1 in a hundred years downpour) being driven by the changes man has made to the climate system and not just a random expression of the syastem? Folk can't suddenly decide to be 'purist' in their understandings of their life experience just because it now suits them. We each 'take for granted' many events each day as to do otherwise would be to render us inactive due to the immensity of calculating such at each and every instance. Why do folk 'take for granted' one set of 'unknowns' as 'truths' and yet demand proof for others?? It all appear disjointed and opportunistic to me.

In the larger reality the ice 'records' are down to mankind and his 'experiment' with destroying ozone? The changesin temp the loss of ozone produces in the Strat perculate down to the surface promoting cooling across the EAIS, stronger Circumpolar winds and by this a stronger circumpolar current. Once the ozone hole is gone we will see those winds reduce and the EAIS temps rise. If you want a peak at whatthis means take a look at the Antlartic peninsula which pokes out beyond the influencs of those winds/currents ( for those who don't know it is the fastest warming place on the planet!) Those "Climate Misleaders" have chosen a lame duck by looking at Antarctica as a proof of an oppositeof AGW as it will rush to' normalise' with global forcing once the human element of the Circumpolars is reduced tothe point that the 'warming' overpowers them allowing heat into the interior. We already see the circumpolar current overcome by warm southern ocean waters perculating below the C.C. ,via deep canyons, and easting the base of some of the W.A.I.S. drain glaciers/shelfs.

I'd say that the main body of ice across the Central Arctic is far more fragmented than the approach to last summers GAC12 BFTV? The ice is riddled with the impacts of both the Feb event and from the Persistent Arctic Cyclone13? Yesterdays image from the pole shows a mush with the odd floe embedded within it. Why is this important? Well the swells created by the cyclone will not be damped out by contiguous ice ( last year the swells did not reach through to the atlantic side of the pack) so the smaller ice rubble will be bobbed and tumbled by the wave action increasing melt across it's whole surface ( instead of just slowly rising and falling as swells pass underneath). With winds expect above beaufort5 this may have a lasting impact on the seasons melt this year ( in the way we saw on the Beaufort side of the pack during last summers cyclone?).

It appears that the massive east Antarctic Ice sheet is far less stable than was previously thought? Recent studies have shown that it partially melted over the last period we saw global temps/co2 levels similar to todays. We already knew that Greenland and West Antarctica melted over this period ( 3 -5 million years ago) but had thought EAIS 'stable' from around 14 million years ago. It looks like over 60ft of extra sea level rise that we had not accounted for...... now i can better understand why the IPCC are loathe to start looking at the possible impacts of sea level rises over the coming century!

Well that was a nice way to be shaken from bed! Looks like the show is in 'interval' but the fun and games are already forming to my south for part 2!

They are talking about the northern sea route being clear by early Aug this year? Plenty of time for Ships Capt.s to watch the 'boiling oceans again as the travel through the east Siberian sea. Folk should check out the methane outputs around that region through May , June and July.......yet more records being broken.

Climate misleaders....... I like that a lot! Tell it how it is Jen and don't pull any punches! Alarmist? , Doomsayer?? What do you call a person that merely reports on the science they do when they find 'alarming, doomladen' events beginning to occur and know that we are travelling in a direction that will only make the situation worse??? Eventually all those 'ditherers' will begin mumbling their excuses as to why they could not , at the time, agree with the likes of myself and helped generate the level of public support needed for the necessary changes to become a political 'Must'. I have always maintained that delay will cost lives down the line , millions of lives, yet the ditherers ( clever deniers? ) have helped place us on that path as 'we did not know enough at that time......' Yeah , right and I'm just a visionary.......