Gray-Wolf

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/documents/WMO_1108_EN_web.pdf A snapshot of our cooling planet......

I think we can safely say that in the short term continued mass loss and Albedo drop is pretty 'nailed on' though Pete? I have to wonder how this 'storage' of melt in the pack below the surface will pan out? Surely there comes a point where the snow is saturated? How does this extra load impact slope stability and will it possibly lead to rapid mass loss/sea level hikes when it works it's way seaward? We have seen mass loss double over the period of storage so what rate is Greenland melting? Should we be looking at last years 'record melt' as needing upward revision to account for the melt still 'in pack'

Surely PDO warming does not just 'appear' in the system? For the oceans to be shedding heat (during PDO+ve) it must have gained it from somewhere 'down the line'? We know that a negative PDO phase coincided with the 'dimmed' period, post war, and I'd expect that low solar,dimmed and PDO-ve brought us some pretty chilly winters but it must also have been the time that the oceans were storing up heat for the positive phase which enhanced the 'post dimmed' slot prior to us again becoming dimmed and slipping into PDO-ve? I would also note that the past few years have seen a lot of 'Drive by' sceptisism where bat and ball are taken home as soon as counter evidence/better factual explanation are presented? I envisage this trend to continue as evidence for the impacts of AGW accrues (esp. during the Arctic albedo flip 'global Weirding' phase?). To claim you have a better/alternate understanding of the climate shift we are in does demand a rigorous process of investigation? You know full well that there is oodles of evidence stacking up behind the general AGW assertion and so should expect any alternate theory to be up against the world as we know it today? To say "Boo Hoo, you bullies will never change...." really does not plead ones case very well? I'm sure nobody is defending AGW as if it were a prized possession of theirs and most all would welcome AGW theory to be found wholly wrong (and of no great concern to humanity) but parading minor climate forcings as though they overpower mans forcings needs evidence and data to show how science got it wrong. surely that is not too much to ask for and forms the basis for any intellectual investigation of a 'claim'?

Maybe if folk looked at the ocean as a battery (well, it's becoming acid enough...LOL) that stores the warming until we get to a point where it can be released (El Nino etc) folk might understand things better? The last number of Nina's have pulled a lot of heat into the equatorial waters so we need wonder how large a Nino all that warmed water could bring us? and what on the Energy that goes into the PDO-ve (warming the 'horse shoe') what becomes of all that energy once PDO flips back positive? It's alright looking at atmospheric temps in isolation but when you look at the big picture, and see where this surplus of energy is being spent, you haveto wonder what will occur when phases flip and that energy is free to enter the atmosphere instead???

If stew would bear in mind that those 'small increases' took a huge amount of energy to warm such a huge body by that amount he might be a little happier that the oceans take most of this 'available energy' and not the atmosphere? Sadly once the 'warming' has started the rises in temp amass pretty fast and so , once the water appears back at the surface, this huge amount of energy is no longer needed to raise the cold up-welling to ambient temps and so is available to work on the atmosphere. These 'cold sinks' do not last for ever. We have seen the 'cold sink' that was Arctic Sea Ice dwindle away to near nothing over summer and so freeing up energy, once spent on melting ice all summer, to other climate tasks (permafrost melt/general warming). I shudder to think what will happen when the Oceans change from 'heat sink' to warm driver!!! For one it'll not be able to be the CO2 sink it currently is and that isn't going to help things!! I do think it selfish/short sighted to look at what the energy imbalance is doing to our world only to dismiss it as it does not yet impact your life? Would folk be the same around a burning fuse or would they be mindful of the bomb at the end of the fuse??

So , meanwhile back at the thread..... I expect the issue with Water Vapour to be fully resolved, from what we know today we see water vapour and clouds as a positive forcing so i would expect that the various ways this forcing works will be shown to the point that nobody can try and hide behind it whilst denying all else? I remember jethro bringing up water vapour many years back (just prior to the results of the Indian Ocean study which gave us our first answers to what the extra water vapour was doing) and still trying to push it as a 'great unknown' , great enough to question the rest of our predictions of how warming would manifest, even as the first evidence for 'changes' was amassing. To date the evidence still goes to show that 'clouds' are helping speed up the warming and not 'reflect away' energy from the atmosphere but then past warmings should have hinted to the fact that 'eventually' the planet warms to the point climate can again become 'quasi stable' at that level of GHG forcing?

Thanks for posting the link but could we , in future, at least come to the table with the basic facts and not come crying for the bottle at every instant? Orbital forcings are not a 'contentious' issue? We have solid data on the earths past and future orbital path/obliqueness and so must be viewed as 'common knowledge'? I know we are all at differing stages of knowledge concerning recent changes to our planet but the general workings of our planet should not be something that demands a 'Links Please!' surely??? As for the Arctic being similar, 7,000yrs ago, to today this is just conjecture on one much flouted bits of data about drift wood (which would have sunk if it had taken a sea route) on 'raised beaches' of north shore Greenland.....(.Yet the same folk are troubled by the Yamal data)....... The Arctic is showing the first signs of 'ice free behaviour in at least 70,000yrs (as the Pacific diatoms/foram's now in the Atlantic basin attest for). This data appears far firmer than the 'Greenland' data with no other way for the critters to find their way into the basin than by the northern sea route (the same for the Grey Whale that took a trip to the Holy land)

The 'Drought' quote comes from some folk living in the Greenland Capital bemoaning conditions this last winter 'inland' as the Skiing was non-existent due to lack of snow. Indeed , you would expect even heavier snows than during colder times when the atmosphere held less moisture? The drought, like most others, is caused by that pesky anomalous (low ice driven) High Pressure to the south. As we know H.P.'s don't carry much in the way of precipitation when compared to the normal run of Lows seen off the SW tip of Greenland (the 'old spawning ground' of Atlantic Low Pressure!

Which is why you have to look at other evidence that shows conditions were not like today's? Be this Ice shelf evidence or snow patch evidence or glacial moraine positioning etc all point to continuous deep cold allowing both retention and creation of those features? Regional difference in 'ice extent norm' does support all the evidence so rather than folk 'dismissing because it does not fit the theory' folk not accepting the ice free supposition are being far more inquisitive than those who wish for 'ice free' conditions post last glaciation? As BFTV points out we have seen changes in ocean currents over the intervening period so it would good to see paleo plots to figure if we have an extension of the N.A.D. into the Basin at that time? We know the NW corner has gone from ice cliffs and blocked entry to the basin to main exit for 3m+ 'older ice' from the basin in just 200yrs.

No Pete, you misunderstand me. The variability (in % terms) is far less than the reduction due to current global dimming figures. The Solar cycles variability is measured in 0. percentages where as dimming , over some areas, reduces TSI at the surface (compared to that arriving at the top of the atmosphere) by up to 10%. Even if variability proves to be a whopping 3% of what we take to be 'average' it would be more than offset by a reduction in current dimming values (which must occur as the Far East reduces particulate pollutants as we in the west did). Proxy records do not show a 3% variability in solar output even through the Maunder Minimum so I feel sure that any 'surprises' the Sun has to offer in terms of reduced output will be positive as it can only 'reduce' the impacts of the warming and not negate them? With Albedo Flip ongoing (Greenland's 'Snow Drought' appearing to guarantee the predicted plummet in Surface albedo of the Ice sheet there this year), and CO2 through the 400ppm Barrier, I would welcome news of any 'slowdown' in warming! We must try and remember that it is the energy imbalance of the planet we should be looking at (and not just global temps) and the impacts that any 'known' solar extreme would do to this figure.....we know we have plenty of atmospheric warming still to manifest from the current rate of energy imbalance and this 'imbalance' is only set to rise over the near future?

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0704-9 Above goes a long way to showing what i refered to in my post above Once Republicans are allowed to move beyond the 'Fox News Soundbites' and get into the real science they concede that action is necessary to spare us from the worst of what we have set into motion. With folks still talking as though the science is 'flawed' and that we have no idea of the implications even in our Section you have to admire the job done on them by 'The Faux Sceptics' (and human nature?).

I do honestly think that we know the extent of the sun's variability well enough not to have to expect the unexpected Pete? We have tied up so much Solar in 'Dimming' that the amount of energy that could make it down to the surface , once the pollution drops out of the sky, is far greater than any know swing in solar output? As I've said before should a Maunder like minimum arrive we could still see surface TSI rising due to 'clean air' measures across Indo-China? I think we will be around to see dramatic changes to the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets(from alarming mass loss to outright collapse) but hope to the gods we do not see East Antarctic come on line!!! The loss of half of Ross would signal this event and lead to rapid sea level hikes (inches over decades) for a period? I have no doubt we will live to see enough 'extreme changes' that AGW is no longer questioned and world efforts to minimise impacts are taken?

Not good. Less snow means we get to the 'dark layer' a lot quicker and eat into the pack faster (further darkening the snow). If we see the Anomalous high set up over Southern Greenland then the folk touting lasts years 97% surface melt as 'freak' or '164yr cycle' will have to have a re-think (IMHO).

So, lets draw back to the Question posed? Would better PR be a help? With so many folk ( in the developed world) living such a fast paced life then 'soundbites' appear to be what most take away from any news report. As someone engaged in trying to untangle the truth from the lies the Faux Sceptic 'soundbites are all that rattle around my head. Maybe it's because they were cleverly crafted to do such a job or maybe they are just 'outed' at such frequent intervals that you can't help but pick them up (like the 'Summer Hit' from Ibiza)? The only soundbites have from mainstream science ,doing a similar thing in my head, are the one's the Faux sceptics took out of context and treated in the same way as their 'soundbites' as such any 'non-thinking' person, when cornered on the subject, will try and redeem their intellectual status by reeling off the things first to mind (and justify them later) and these are those 'common soundbites' ground into their sub-conscious. Push the person further (into justification) and they become defensive (as they know they do not know the answers but do not wish to appear shallow or Sheeple like). Had they a formed opinion then their response would not have been so at odds with their understanding? The Job of science is to inform the people of the current situation (Yes!, we are still warming, Yes! sea levels are rising and now 'melt' is the biggest contributor, Yes! CO2 is at a high not seen in 800,000yrs, Yes!, permafrost ,glaciers, Ice sheets, sea ice is melting, No! Antarctica's slight increase in winter Sea ice does not 'offset' Arctic losses nor balance mass loss from either ice sheet, No! Antarctica is not cooling......)

Hi JAX! I think that you will find it is in those 'historical records' that you will find the answers as to what is occurring today? Not being 'Cleva' I tend toward the 'Big Picture' so look at Sea Levels, CO2 conent of the atmosphere, temp reconstructions, ice cover etc and just 'pattern match' to see what our current 'mix' promises in the future?

I'm still out on the' Raised beach offerings' BFTV? The Fetch would suggest regional open water but the wood types would necessitate ice transport (or they would have sunk) to get them from point of origin to Beach? During our glacial epoch thermal maximum I would expect weather systems to have a little more 'Oomph' to them (as we are finding with our weather today!) so local storms pushing high swells does not trouble me nor does Tsunami waves from collapsing ice, mid basin, from the failing glacial cover either for that matter? EDIT: T.R., the point of improving the Climate science 'PR' is to enable their message the same weight as the paid PR of the Faux Sceptics side? With such a wealth of evidence from climate science giving each paper the gloss that Faux science does to their cherry picked doozies will take a committed effort and guidance.

I have never found 'conclusive evidence' of ice free conditions? I've seen papers that give evidence of local ice free periods but then we know that warming/cooling on a regional basis is far commoner than 'global warming/cooling? Were we to have seen an 'ice free Ocean' 7,000yrs ago then why do we have land based snow patches , now disappearing, over 12,000yrs old? Surely we would have as bigger impact on land based snow as we see today with ice free conditions impacting temps 1,500km inland?

Don't fret Pete! there's " ice sheets to go at and a whole Planet full Oceans to warm.....

So compared to last year we are just approaching the point where it's 'padding' of peripheral sea ice had gone? This year we have inflated ice levels over sea areas that had not carried that much ice in a long while so I'd expect that we still have some 'rapid losses' to show before we get into the business of melt season proper (Late May onward)? I'm still wondering how the extensive fracturing will stand up to the rigors of 'melt season proper' as , by then, the frozen leads will be melted out and the 'friction' of floe on floe will be rounding off the ice floes? Come any wind/current forcing such 'rounded' floes will mover far easier and so 'faster'?

Hi Rebbecca! I think you could look at it in terms of 'time periods'? Over the long haul it is 'Global Warming' as the planet responds to the CO2 forcing and Albedo Flip this drives. At present you could call it 'Global Weirding' as Low Ice impacts Northern hemisphere circulation at the same time as elevated temps allow more (4% over the past 30yrs) water vapour to be carried in the air leading to extreme weather events becoming over 4 times more common that 'average'. When this period goes critical (no sea ice for most of the year) then the warming pattern will accelerate as the polar Jet collapses and the tropics make a dash poleward (far faster than they are today) extending the 'desert belt' into Mediteranian areas and drifting the warmth rapidly north with the help of a northern jog of the sub-tropical Jet and so would be in 'Abrupt Warming period' If we continue on , B.A.U. then CO2ppm will be heading for 1,000ppm (over double todays) or more depending on how quickly the permafrost reacts to warming. Such levels of CO2 were last seen during the PETM, a time charicterised by no ice sheets, Palms on ellesmere Island , Crocs off Greenland and Lions and Hippo's in Trafalgar Sq! By that time it will be back to Global Warming I think!

I suppose we could cut down on rice and Beef? Other than that it appears out of our hands without Geo-engineering some of the CO2 from the atmosphere (down to sub 350ppm?) as we already have enough 'warming in the pipeline' to cross the '2c above pre-industrial revolution' need to destabilise all of the northern permafrost's and bring their CO2 CH4 into play ? Over past years the Arctic basin alone has had CH4 outputs to match those of all the worlds oceans combined (this without last years, and this years, data) so we are already in a pretty poor situation?

I suppose it depends on how long it takes Asia's 'Clean air acts' to show impact?

Solar just doesn't 'float' as a major forcing in a 'new, and rapid', type of warming. Should we have this level of extreme variability in solar output it would be written large throughout the climate record. Without the 'end of glaciation' type major albedo flip we do not see rapid (decadal) temp rises through the records. i'm all for Solar being a major force in climate variation but this keeps it's influence within the bounds of 'normal' climate fluctuation. Pair it with other forcings (CO2 reductions prior to LIA) and it play a role in major climate variation events but these pale when we look at the current energy imbalance our planet is seeing. As BFTV points out 93% of that energy is gobbled by the oceans and air temps are far more fickle with ENSO/PDO playing a major role in temp moderation (by 'wind' it would appear from the latest literature on the subject). As with Antarctica any year where we do not see the level of warming the forcing demands is another 'year in the bank'. The energy does not dissipate but is stored in other systems awaiting deployment later. As the heat breaks into the Southern Continent we will see just how destructive 'sudden warming' is compared to 'gradual warming'. The pace of warming is outstripping species abilities to migrate/adapt so spurts of sudden warming will devastate ecosystems. As I have been at pains to point out Arctic changes are now beginning to add another major energy forcing into the planet and this year will be another where those changes will be manifest. My hope is that the added impetus in the climate system alters the past 6 years jet pattern shunting flooding North and west of mainland UK. It doesn't solve the issue but 'Heatwave UK' will surely silence the "it's not warming" NIMBY's for a few months and allow us to watch the Arctic Drama in peace!!

How many 'Rant' posts end with the "makes me want to buy a 4X4" or something similar? Almost like a child behaving well whilst the Parent is there only to act badly once they think the autthority figure has gone? It's all a bit 'cutting off ones nose to spite the face' though.......takes all sorts eh?

I don't see how stew? Raise CO2 ,raise temps/sea level? quite simple really?( and repeated throughout the paleo record) Does anyone really doubt that evidence? The way the warming/sea level rise unfolds is the only area where we cannot give precise answers on but, once the forcing is installed, are the results not set in stone (or mud logs)? We are on the verge of breaking through 400ppm CO2, a level last seen 800,000yrs ago, why is it unsafe to look at the conditions across the planet under this regime? Why should we not expect the end point of our CO2 forcing not to be similar to how the planet settled out then?