Gray-Wolf

Hi Crikes! I think you need look into the 'speed' at which past CO2 increases/decreases occured at? I know we have now confirmed the tight relationship twixt temp and CO2 concentrations but that was when 'Nature' fed in CO2 at Her rates and not at the speed we have ( with the negative forcings we have also brought to bare having their impacts). As far as i can gauge we have placed CO2 into our atmosphere 10x faster than mother N. has ever been able to? This being so I'd expect a 'lag' compared to past rises? The important message is what past levels of CO2 have allowed temps to arrive at? 400ppm also saw 1/3 of Greenland ice free and all of West Antarctica ice free and this is not the case today either? We can understand how slowly ice sheets respond to slowly rising temps but find it harder to do the same with warmth? We know the oceans take over 90% of that extra energy and they are very slow to then pass on this warmth to the atmosphere but , and this is an important 'But' , once oceans are up to temp they take just as long to 'cool' when conditions alter meaning any short lived climate 'blips' for cooling are easily dealt with by that mass of warmed water? For me it is a warning of what we have to come if we sit and allow it to occur? Sadly we will be closer to 450ppm before we start to really become concerned about what we have done ( under the present climate of dismissal/disinformation of climate issues?) . 450ppm is the level at which Antarctica first started to add ice sheets so will that commit us to total loss of permanent ice across the planet ( and the albedo impacts this carries with it.....not to mention the dormant portion of the carbon cycle the ice sheets hide).

I think That I've also overlooked something that in Forums like this is also an important contributor to maintaining the 'great Divide'. I am sure we are all aware that certain industries ( and individuals), that feel threatened by the discoveries science is bringing to us with regards to our rapidly altering planet,have organised and funded an international disinformation campaign aimed at both the science and the lead scientists working in the discipline. We first saw this with the tobacco industry when it became scientifically clear that it was a major health risk. Strangely both folk that worked for the tobacco industry, and the techniques that were developed in that campaign, are again being employed by this small group of wealthy and powerful individuals? As such we should also include personal 'greed' within the elements that cause disharmony within the debate? From lobbying of U.S. politicians to 'grants' toward the running of the 'anti science' movement. On this site we , oft times, see materials that are proffered by these organisations used to disrupt debate or mis-inform the readership. Folk with concerns about what the science is showing us have no such resources at their disposal, nor do they resort to the nasty tactics we see employed by this group. As long as they can maintain the 'illusion' that the general science is far from settled then the general publics less likely to call for their elected leaders to employ the measures that we are being told are necessary 'Now' to offset the worst of what we have committed the planet too. I have often remarked that it appears grossly unfair that such minority groups receive equal time within the debate? In British politics political parties are given a 'proportional' amount of air-time to their parties following? Where this debate governed in a similar way then for every 99 minutes of time spent on explaining the issues we would have minute of rebuttal by those unable to accept the science? This would allow a fairer picture to emerge to the global population of both how serious and pressing our global issues are but also how sure science is that it is correct in it's interpretation of the observations? As it is the general public are treated to equal say for the minority scientific understanding helping maintain the idea that our 'understanding' of what we have set into motion and the resulting impacts is a long way from having overwhelming scientific support? As with anything in life you will only make an 'informed' decision if you have as full an understanding of the issue as is possible? As such i worry that many folk who are more than able to make such a decision are being robbed of that opportunity by this small , disproportionately vocal group of funded 'disruptor's'? Folk know how my understanding of the broader scientific consensus give me cause for concern over our futures ( though I am aware some folk also 'skew this in an attempt to 'demonise' both myself and my posts) and that 'understanding' leads me to believe that at some point, as with 'tobacco' the science will be given a fairer hearing. I just hope that we have neither missed the opportunity to be able to make a meaningful mitigation of that which we have set into motion and that the folk who have intentionally facilitated the current confusion are treated far better than they themselves treat those with whom they set themselves against? EDIT: S.I, , there is a world of difference between honest 'errors/mistakes' ( by which scientific understanding 'grows' once discovered and understood?) that are naturally made in the pursuit of understanding and folk sitting down to discredit research by finding every single missed 'crossed 'T' or dotted 'I' and focusing on such to discredit the whole of the research? Peer review is set up to 'manage' glaring errors and save us from seeing gross errors or misrepresentations of 'fact'? This area is now also under the assault of the 'funded groups' as many of their own assertions do not stand up to such rigorous investigations by fellow scientists? It is a great shame and waste of opportunity to attempt to guide society away from their scientist who, from personal experience, sacrifice much in life to bring us the research that is showing us so much. Would those individuals do the same with medical professionals who have trained over long years to bring us the benefits of that 'experience and knowledge'? Surely only a fool would reject such?

Glacial ice begins as snow, which has high porosity and low density (.07 - .18 g/cc). Snow that survives the summer season undergoes a progressive transformation into more compact granules and finally into ice crystals. As the snow becomes buried under successive seasons of new snow it compacts and the crystals melt at grain-grain contacts. Melt pore water flows into empty spaces and re-freezes. The material near the surface of a glacier has a density from .4 to .8 g/cc and is known as firn or neve. This transformation can take from days to years, depending on the frequency and severity of freeze-thaw cycles. With further compaction and recrystallization the firn reaches a density of .8 - .9 g/cc and becomes ice. This final process can take years in temperate glaciers or hundreds to thousands of years in polar glaciers. From here; http://people.hofstra.edu/j_b_bennington/33notes/glaciers.html So how warm are this polar waters to become to evaporate enough water to 'replenish' the mas loss we see? How much more to 'grow' the glaciers? By the time we have achieved this what will those temps be doing to the ice sheet behind? To me it appears a non-sense that any kind of 'balancing act is going on when we look at the mega tonnage of ice that we shed from Greenland/antarctica in a post noughties 'average year' ? We know precipitation rates increase as we warm the atmosphere and it is able to hold onto more moisture but can anyone get their heads around the amount of 'increase' we need to see to produce an extra tonne of ice and how long it would take for the snow to go through the stages needed to turn it into ice? We may 'raise' the land surface by adding snow on top of it but is that really comparable with the decompression of an ice sheet due to acceleration of the drain glaciers ( as the data on snow and ice density above shows )??? To me it's like the folk who claim Arctic 'recovery' when a sub 2m slab of ice regrows where once a multimetre floe of paleocryistic once stood. Sure , from above it might look white and cover the same piece of ocean but really??? Recovery??? Let us say the ice sheet deflates , through ablation and drainage, 20m and that shortfall is made up by 21m of snow is anyone really ,seriously, going to see this a a 'fair exchange'???? By using 'the average' time it takes snow to change into glacial ice and replenish the snout losses what levels will global temps be at? What levels will CO2 be at? Anyone care to guess how much rain a 1mm skim off the global oceans would produce? Hmmmm, now that's an awful lot of extra rain dontchathink?

I do not think anyone 'brushes aside' the fact that the current turnaround in Arctic temps began over a hundred years ago Four? What is a nonsense is suggesting that it is in any way comparable to the scale of ice volume loss we have witnessed since the 1950's? We need not revisit the 'High Arctic' surveys that were carried out through the 30's and 40's, and what' ice conditions' are described in the papers, suffice to say it is indeed silly to try and say that ice levels were anything other than reflective of 'The Old Arctic' with mighty Paleocryistic eddifices standing four storeys high in areas now season nor the Ward Hunt shelf ( now lost) that were still present, nor the 'ice islands' so large that they attracted U.S. air bases and could be tracked on radar for decades ( and where so long lived as to be mistaken as 'Islands' by Capt.'s who gave then names!). Global 'Dimming' slowed down the rate of Arctic decline , as indeed it did for global temps, for forty Years but ,post the 'clean Air' acts warming again resumed at an enhanced rate. Nor is anyone denying the 'Natural cycles' that exist and impact the Arctic in a cyclical way? We are losing the globes 'air conditioning unit' at a rapid rate of knots esp, since ice became so thin as to allow the type of large scale total melt out we have become accustomed to since 07's unexpected 'crash'

Didn't they put the reason for Larsen B's collapse at the door of storms over in Bering? I'm sure I'd read something ,way back then, explaining the importance of swells generated on the other end of the planet in the final collapse and breakup of that section of shelf? I'll have a dig around and get back to you. Here we go; MacAyeal and his colleagues discovered the effect of these waves after an iceberg they were studying, named B-15A, abruptly shattered on October 27, 2005. B-15A was a large iceberg, about the size of Luxembourg, which had run aground off of the coast of Antarctica. It broke up on a calm day with locally mild weather, puzzling observers. MacAyeal and his colleagues retrieved a seismometer that they had previously installed on the iceberg and analyzed the data. They discovered that just before the breakup, the seismometer recorded long, low swells that had rocked the iceberg and pounded it against the coast. MacAyeal traced the swells back to a surprising source--a giant winter storm off the coast of Alaska five thousand kilometers (eight thousand miles) away. from here; http://earthdata.nasa.gov/featured-stories/featured-research/after-larsen-b If you imagine the process that is occuring to allow these fractures to form across the shelf then that 'undercut' can become a very big hydrolic pump when a swell enters it at the wide end, compressing the water closer to the grounding line. Any weakness in the ice above will be impacted by this compression. EDIT: The loss of Pine Island is another example of the 'retreat' of glaciers 'grounding lines' as warmer waters impact the bases of these ice shelfs. We now know that these waters, perculating through the submarine canyons and so flowing under the strengthened circumpolar current, have reached the Ross Embayment ( fed by most of the major outlet glaciers from the East Antarctic Ice Sheet). As P.I.G. retreats the outflow accelerates due to the loss of the friction that the old 'grounded section' used to provide ( removal of the butress) and so the draining of the West Antarctic ice sheet Accelerates impacting global sea level rises. Again these events are far in advance of the current models used to predict future sea level hikes which is why so many eyes were on P.I.G. to see just how quickly this change is occuring. If I am reading things correctly then even without the slowing of the circumpolar current ( driven by the circumpolar winds alledgedly strenthened by the Ozone hole) Ross Embayment is now seen to be in as much danger as the Ice shelfs around the W.A.I.S. and so the E.A.I.S. could also begin to impact sea levels hundreds of years before we expected it to? The other thing is 'climate matching'. when we look at past epochs with 400ppm CO2 we see a West Antarctic island with no ice at all.....is this where we are now headed? But then someone will point out to interior snowfall and increases in precipitation.....when you consider just how much freshly fallen snow goes into making 1cm of glacial ice you'll quickly realise just how much we would need to see AGW increase snowfall to balance the scales?

Ain't seen many Wasps but certainly heard them scraping the reed fencing for pulp to build their nests with! Hadn't realised just what a good amplifier the reed tubes were until a searched out the first of the 'odd scraping noises' I heard in Early May!!!

Another 'winter Calve'??? I'd noted a drop in extent and wondered if they were having some 'heavy weather' down there and this would suggest, to me at least, that this is the case? The Seasonal Sea ice is not very good at 'damping out' swells so a pounding Southern Ocean Storm may have contributed to it's breaking off?

The only possible connection was the revised prediction from one study that had their model showing 2016 as the earliest we could expect 'an ice free Basin' with the plus or minus 3years caveat? In some quarters they insist that all of Arctic science is telling us that the Arctic will be ice free in 2013??? Silly isn't it? Personally I've said that before 2020 we will have our first ice free basin and this is based upon the occurance of the 'Perfect Storm' scenario as we saw in 07' ( the studies then showed it occured every 10 to 20yrs but that the two previous 'perfect storm' seasons had been ten years apart?). After the run of 'average Arctic summers' producing melts below 07's record. I find it hard to believe that a proper 'Perfect storm' melt season would do anything other than totally decimate the ice before we got to August of that season? EDIT: Hi J.B.! but what if we see synoptics that do not allow 're-freeze'? If we see a 'stormy Autumn' then the constant mixing of the surface layers of the ocean, apart from shedding a lot of heat into the atmosphere, would not allow ice to form? With such a topsy turvy season ongoing I'm not ruling out anything!!! EDIT:EDIT; Thanks Four! I rest my case (LOL)

It's this to-ing and fro-ing between areas stew, it's making a mess ofmost all of the serious threads as any 'correction' of mistaken /incorrect posts on the sceptics thread is not allowed 'in-situ'? We may 'correct' inaccuracies but we must not do so on the thread where the mistakes occur. We are asurred it is for the best and the readership will be bright enough to sortit out for themselves??? I do think that the Arctic is changing from the way it used to opperate and so we cannot rely , during this 'transition period', on observations that once held true? I'm sure if we find an anologue of this season's weather in the pre -07' record we will find what happened back then will be very different to what we are currently witnessing across the pole? We are told that the next week will provide another week of heavy losses and that now Beaufort, which reportedly had very thin ice, will join in the fun? I'm finding it hard to believe just how quickly the year is catching upto the other high loss years even with such a ripplingly slow start to the melt season proper. If I am right in thinking that the 'slow start ' also masked a physical degradation of the basin then any 'gain' we appear to have made from the cold/cloudy months will prove to have been merely an illusion?

EDIT: Let's not go there?

Webcam2 has been showing 'open water' to the left mid distance for a number of weeks now? I discussed the possibilities of what the 'crackopalypse' event , in feb, would bring to the pack and the same must applyto the areas impactedby PAC13? Does a well fragmented pack hold onto 'meltwater lakes/pools' or do these instantly drain into the ocean below ( and so how does this impact albedo and melt rates?). The Buoy data would appear to show that the stations beyond 80N have no surface snow any more so melt must have been ongoing there for a while? This season has brought up a number of questions that only the passing of the season ( I believe) can answer? Better than watching snow melt though?

Whilst i take on board what was said a little up the thread I still feel that the 'divide' is not healed but made wider by allowing uncorrected gibberish , from both sides?, to remain unchallenged within threads? Were it the model thread then 'corrections aplenty' would appear and our many 'novices' ( certainly me among them) learn by those addendum's? to think that folk will happily go off to google every 'snippet' is , for me, a big step away from the day to day reality I recognise? Simple corrections of 'factual' information do not only 'stick' in a persons mind ( due to the 'correction' highlighting the 'error'?) but also help educate the original poster ( who may have actually sought to deceive and is shown the folly of that action?)? As was said early on in the thread the issue may be created by nature and not by design? Some folk, and I'm sorry Dawn but I see this as true, are more 'Conservative' in their 'world view' due to a differing ability to 'emote' comparedto some others . Asbergers http://aspergersquiz.com/ is, I believe, one 'extreme' of this gradation of the human condition with HSP (or innate sensitiveness as Carl Jung originally coined it) being the other extreme? Each and every one of us fit in somewhere along this line of emotional competence. In the U.S. studies clearly show that the more 'pragmatic' a soul is the more 'Republican' they are and so their 'stance' on climate is more easily predictable. So part of the 'divide' must surely be due to our basic phsychological makeup and , as in all things, we will sit more comfortably with that which reinforces our core way of 'being'. Any 'challenge' to those core values is viewed as an assault on our deepest understandings of 'how' the world is and who among us will have their personality questioned without feeling pricked? do we not have posters on here who very quickly resort to the " so we must all return to living in a cave then?" or " well without that computer we wouldn't even be having this conversation..." when the science appears to confirm how poorly the planet is doing? The 'Great Divide' , I believe, merely highlights the two extremes of the human condition and , if so, surely it would be far better to accept it as such and see it not as an 'Us or Them' thing but an opportunity for both flavours of personality to accept the others strengths ( and not deride them as weaknesses) and 'share' in these qualities to afford a broader understanding of the issues to hand? Anyhoo's, we seem to have a lot of folk labouring over the set up of the C&E section and not on the 'topic' of the thread as titled? If someone wishes to further discuss those issues then maybe they would like to set up a separate thread so this subject does not become de-railed or bogged down ?

Me too Sparks ( which is why I thought it best to air it?) Again , notwithstanding what has been said about 'forum guidelines' and 'Selective threads' Truth is 'Truth' and if folk , either through wish or ignorance, wish to post inaccuracies then surely they should be picked up at the point of generation than be dealt with in some unrelated, nay opposite 'flavour' , thread? Am I the only person that values the rights of the 'Lurker' here? Surely we all , in law, owe a 'Duty of Care' to our fellow Wo/Man? It appears that one way of dis-information is to repeat an untruth to the point that folk , with no massive interest, become confused as to what is 'real' and what is 'lie'? Folk need not enter into conversation ( and maybe another of the plethora of 'rules and guidelines' should include the 'right' to correct erroneous data? ) but surely we want a forum full of 'Fact' and not a mish mash of babble ,lies and dis-information? How can we be expected to come into meaningful conversation if we are allowed to grow up on 'Wrong' science? How can we even talk if someone comes to the table , fully believing they are right 'cause they saw it here on NetW' only to be made feel foolish when introduced to the facts? The issues about the 'Pole' highlight this quite well but it is not just 'at the Pole' that we find this occur and folk have found their rights to post curtailed because they saw fit to challenge, and correct mis-information. This move things on further to how the 'debate' is managed. It would appear that some folk generate more 'Work' for the Mod team than others. This is not necessarily due to the nasty posting style but due to the constant complaints , from a small number of posters, that ' The Team' receive, and are duty bound to deal with. When we hear of 'Team Workload' is it due to individuals posting or attempts, by others, to cause 'a stink' time and time again about a certain poster ( we none of us are immune to the 'Shiite Sticks' syndrome no matter how immune we feel we are?) to the point that it is 'easier' for the team to 'ban' the poster and limit their own workload? Other 'Political parties', of past ages , of small number but great intentions, have used this ploy to silence opposition and gain 'Power' beyond their popular remit? We should not allow our site to have this happen here merely to 'ease the logistics of running said site' . If nonsense is posted it should be corrected and we should have some way of this appearing on the thread where the 'nonsense' is posted? I ,for one , have no issue with this being facilitated by mebers of 'the Team' but do feel it important that such errors are corrected so that , when we do meet, we are all singing from the same hymesheet?

Buty this is a separate topic of 'moderation' Paul? What has been removed from the sceptic thread over the past few days have been 'factual corrections' and not snides, pokes or other? I have always believed that the threads 'serve' the lurker ( the 'views tend to support this understanding?) and so they deserve the best possible service. You have tried to bring this about by attempting to limit bickering but removal of facts , merely because they 'correct' the previous assertion ( for the sake of clarity lest the 'lurkers' be mislead and that 'confusion' leads to further unecessary debate), smacks of tossing the baby with the bathwater?

But Dawn? Is what you accuse me of not just what you have done? for years now i have aked , nay pleaded, to understand why folk take on so. no matter my protestations folk still displace what they will onto me. no matter how carefully I feel I post folk tell me that I meant something other? It is the science Dawn and I feel some folk try to demonise the person who causes them most discomfort ( look at the way the leading lights of climate science are portayed , then dismissed?). Again I'd ask you play the ball and not the man? Further up someone said folk grasp onto that which better suits their own personal agenda and I feel that there is a lot of truth in that. I believe that what Pete says about 'presentation' ( and the funding/grooming that allows such 'slick' presentation) also gives off an 'air' of authenticity to any old codswallop....otherwise marketing would be a non-event and comps are merely squandering millions for nothing? The 'bottom line' is the data is solid. When folk take such 'facts' and either bin them and say otherwise, or twist them out of recognition, to eek out a point I have to ask "Why"? Surely it is not to serve the truth nor the science and' if not', then what?

Were that true Pete then it would come down to what bobby appears to be saying in that it has nothing to do ( for most) with the science but is merely a bandwaggon on which to air personal/personality grievances on? This is where I maybe 'miss the cart' ? I have often tried to understand why many folk appear so hostile to my concerns by thinking that the 'News' is hitting them like a bereavement and that they 'react' in line with a person suffering such a loss? ( Denial being the first stage, followed by blame/anger?) but maybe really the folk that shy away, or argue blindly, with accepted science do so out of something other than 'sceptisism'?

Though i do not know I would suspect that the early phase of our universe was far more turbulent that what we have today? With all the mass we see being confined into a much smaller area plus a much larger 'residual' from the B.B. itself?

What is it about the 'discussion' about simple facts and figures that can cause such peturbation? Surely the 'data' itself is mute so it has to be in the interpretation where problems arise? General 'science' , those involved in the day to day study of 'change' seem united in their appraisal of what the data shows but there appears to be a point where this 'agreement' is lost and divides appear. Is it human nature that drives such? Is it certain 'personality types' ( if i may use such a 'grouping'?). For me it has turned a life long passion into a 'burden' so how do you find things?

It is really hard to gauge it Stew? I do not even know if I can trust my usual sources this time around as we are seeing ( I believe) a very novel set up? I 'feel' that it will end up sub 07' ( area) and , if my cogitations are proven fact, then a close thing for another record 'area' year? Before all of this 'stop start' season had started I had posted a new record year ( on the basis of ice type and thickness and an 'average' weather' season) so I suppose I have to stick with that and go down with my ship is She should flounder?

Yup! she looks to have a bumpy ride ahead with both physical and atmospheric 'ridges' to deal with! Will we find anything by the time the disturbance reaches the GOM???

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ Well Chantel has formed and is is moveinmg rapidly toward the Lesser Antilles.

Well things are looking a little more certain from the30% chance disturbance with it now up to a red 60% chance of formation? EDIT: Snap!!!

Well the ice loss contniues even if a tad slower than of late? BFTV posts ( over on the Sea Ice Forum) that we have just equalled 07's 'Million loss weeks' which , considering we are supposed to be having a 'slow/cold' year is no mean feat? It looks like warmer,, more melt friendly, conditions return later in the week so we may see 2013 become the year with the highest 'Million year loss weeks' before the month is out? Ian.

Hi C.R.! I thought the 'regular' showers were 'old tails' and very rarely that we pass through the middle section of the stream ( with rates of well over 100 meteors and hr?) where as this is the tail a matter of weeks after the comet has passed on it's way to the Sun? It will be a very interesting thing to witness ? There was us flying a mission into haley's tail when we could have just waited for the ISS to pass through one to collect samples???

I supose the thing is the 'lowered albedo' horizon is just below the fresh snow so any resumption in the upland melt will reveal , slowly, this 'darkening' and we are back to square 1? We need cold that lasts the whole season so that 'dirty snow' lays buried and can gain more coverage over winter? A ticking time bomb awaiting the next 'record warmth' across the tops?