Gray-Wolf

Paul, I've read and re-read my post and wonder where you could have, on two occasions now, decided that the post was not 'on topic'? There is a P.R. problem within this issue and I believe it to lie where I (and others) have highlighted. Up until this issue we were willing to train up individuals to 'deal' with the 'science' that we needed in our lives with very little concern for the science itself. Enter the very real concerns about what human pollution is doing to our world and we see science thrust to the forefront of everybody's minds? After the killer smogs of the mid 1900's we decided to act on the impacts of urban pollution and the developed world acted upon the threat. In the 80's we isolated a threat to the ozone layer and very quickly acted as a global unit to stop the issue (on science far less 'certain' than the climate science we have today) so what is the difference between then and now? The difference is the P.R. exercise that the main polluters, and those with vested interests, have engaged in to enable them the opportunity to act , B.A,U, throughout a period where most all of science has been advising we seek for , and adopt, alternative energy sources. It is not truly a problem that science created but a problem that has been created for science by those seeking both to discredit individuals and question small areas of the science and claim 'all' is tainted by any discrepancies they tease out. And I am sorry Pete but Science is full of individuals who do understand their topics far better than you or I and I personally would choose to bow to their training and experience in their fields than spend my time attempting to undermine their hard earned status. Climate change, and warnings of such change, have seemed to appear both 'distant' and unimaginable. The P.R. machine from the side seeking to discredit the science/scientists are the ones who labour to show the science as 'doom mongering' as another way to disengage and dissinterest the public from the topics at hand. As to why past warnings are waved around as some kind of 'proof' that nothing will come of the AGW threat I cannot understand. HIV has been covered by BFTV but what of 'Bird Flu'? this is still a threat waiting to manifest so we still do not know how it will eventually impact. Mad Cow? we took the threat serious enough to make sure it's impacts were limited and did not go unchecked within the food industry. What other 'doom mongering stories' are folk refering to? If it is merely the 'sensationalism ' of the press when dealing with such well what do you expect of them? They are only out to sell papers not hand out Gospel truths to the world? If we look at the science alone we find a consensus that we will face global problems from the past150yrs of global pollution. Where is the issue in this? If science told you they were 99% sure that if you did a certain thing you would die 50 years earlier than you ought would you listen to the science or continue on with the 'thing' that was 99% sure to kill you young? All of a sudden we have begun to question science that tells us we cannot continue to live as we are without consequences. Is this logical or does it reflect the P.R. campaigne that has been waged against the science?

Firstly I believe that we see the fossil fuel lobby paying for the best P.R. representation in it's attempts to publicly discredit the findings that current scientific investigation into the impacts of human generated pollution brings us. As such the ownership of the media must be a very useful tool in their attempts to undermine the current scientific consensus. At the moment there is only one area of change advanced enough to be bringing widely felt impacts today. This change is across the Polar region, an area science told us would be our 'Canary in the coal mine'. Far from 'over-estimating' changes the science was as shocked as the general public to see the 07'; event unfold up to 30yrs in advance of their best estimates. Of course the impacts of this 'advancement' of the predicted Arctic meltdown will have ramifications on all other areas of study as the changing of any one parameter naturally does. Your reporting of the widespread belief in how 'wrong' the science appears to be, amongst the general public, would seem to confirm what I suggested in my last post (that the folk with the most to lose from enforced changes has had a wide influence on the perceived credibility of science as understood by the general public). My understanding of where science believes us to be headed brings me a real cause for concern over how those impacts will impact both my life and the lives of my children. To see what I believe to be 'greed' bring about this level of confusion of what is understood within the general public brings me great sadness. Where 99% of scientists in this field of study accept that we will be impacted by change the wider public believe that not only is the science not settled but that the science may well just be another 'scare story' with little or no substance to it. One side of this debate had actively paid to bring about this situation and , understandably, many folk will choose to believe the 'happy ending' than the dire warmings. How do we think we would view the 'Science' had the same folk, engaged in the current deceptions and filibustering, where being paid to promote the science? how many people would hold the doubts,you report they have, about the science? As things stand how do you , as a person interested in weather, see the changes in the Arctic impacting our hemispheres weather (AGW aside)?Do you feel that such massive changes will promote no response in the broader circulation of the northern hemisphere's atmosphere? My own view is that the folk spreading the 'disinformation' have only focussed on the current science and this did not involve the scale of Arctic change that we see today. For them they believed they still had upward of 30yrs of time where 'natural variation' to climate could be used to throw dissent on what science was telling us. As it is change is now with us and the experience of the folk impacted by last years weather extremes in the U.S. has given many, what they believe to be , first hand experience of climate change at work. Further extremes driven by the Arctic meltdown will only go to further reinforce that science does know what it is warning us about even if it does not have the 'detail' some demand. Surely even the 'scale' of the changes Science sees us enduring should have us take stock of what we are able to do to mitigate the worst we could expect? The current expansion in fossil fuel use shows us that both industry and politics are not reacting to the threats even if the public are now increasingly aware that change is now occurring (above and beyond 'natural variability'). Like some horrid 'self fulfilling prophesy' when our 'leaders' finally accept that we must rapidly adapt to offset the worst of the changes they will , like you have, just cite their 'fact' that the science was not settled up until that point.

It appears that as the A.A. increases and consolidates the Polar Jet becomes less powerful and more sinuous in nature. With summer temps leading to a lessened temp difference between the Arctic and temperate regions it already appears that the area from pole to Sub-tropical jet is becoming more one large amalgamated region? Should this continue we will see the temp difference in the boundary between pole and temperate region become so undefined as to effectively lose the Jet completely/ How often, over last summer, did the wind speeds within the polar jet drop so low to have it disappear from the plots completely leaving only 'jet streaks' where the winds accelerated out of the amplified curves? What I do not understand is how the sub-Tropical jet will respond to these continued alterations to the North? Will we see a hasty move north and strengthening of the Jet? Will the Depressions formed serve as a giant heat engine bringing ever warmer air further north? Are we really on the edge of a set of changes that will radically alter the weather patterns we are used to in the northern hemisphere? Again i do not feel we have long to wait to see this question answered for us.

As far as the 'Science' is concerned we have not seen such treatment since the initial debates over Darwin's 'Origins' publication. At that time it was extreme Religious viewpoints that decided to play the man and not the ball, this time it appears that it is the conservative/Republican mindset that provides us with the 'nasty' attacks on the scientists in an attempt to taint their scientific findings. In Darwin's time the upset to the literal reading of Genesis that came with the notion of natural selection caused the problems by challenging the way man,beast and environment were created. Today the upset is caused by the 'fear' that rapid changes to our 'settled' way of being will dramatically change our life experience and expectations. Not only is it the 'fear' of such changes but also of the 'costs' that any attempts to mitigate will bring to global economies. As ever the folk who gain most from today's status quo stand to be most impacted by any 'forced/planned' changes to the global economic/industrial model. These bodies also have vast amounts of money/resources with which to both defend the current model and resist any changes to it that we are told we should make . It is the utilisation of this potential that we have seen , over the past 20yrs, to bring about delays in a global response/acceptance to both the science and the implementation of the ways we are told we must adopt to mitigate the scale of the impacts future change will bring to the planet. Money has been 'invested' in both widespread media disinformation of science's findings and the discrediting of the 'scientists' engaged in the studies. Science was not equipped to deal with this onslaught nor did it expect that it's warnings of damaging change would be met with anything other than global gratitude for the warnings, ahead of times, that should have enabled us to offset the worst impacts of the changes. Scientists are just that 'scientists'. They are not schooled in P.R. skills and did not ever consider that their day to day efforts to understand our changing planet would lead to both public vilification and death threats to self and family. I think we are now seeing science rapidly evolve it's own P.R. 'techniques' as a response to this new climate of insult and assault now and actively organise it's responses to the attacks launched against the science. In the end it will be the physical changes that will 'win the day' over whether change is occurring 'above and beyond' natural variability but sadly the 'lead time' that science gave us to try and offset the worst of the impacts of the changes will have been squandered by the Capitalist elite as they protected their own personal interests. In a very 'Orwellian' way 'Big Brother (industry)' will have brainwashed swathes of the general public, by it's wholesale propaganda, into believing that the science is far from settled and that we do not need to concern ourselves with the changes now under way as all is well with the world. The only fly in the ointment are those horrid men in white coats scaring the few gullible fools as they fight to re-new their grants. EDIT: Paul, how do we discuss the various 'factions', that we see engaged in the wider climate debate, without referring to the names that each faction is commonly known as?

I worry that change is now occuring so fast , and so extensively, that any paper is well outdated before it is released? My personal view is that the 'Natural changes' now occuring ( due to the slow 'drip ,drip, that AGW forcing promoted) are impacting our global circulation to the extent that 'change' is now a yearly thing? I do hope that our current 'Jet stream issues' are a passing phase and that the Arctic Amplification will render the Polar Jet null and void over the next few years allowing the Sub Tropical Jet a bigger influence over our 'temperate' weather regions?

Hi Nogg's , hope you're well? As for the "70's ice age science" there was one chappie who is mortified at the press he got and the 'twisting ' it received. The science was good in that we should be merrily on our way into another cold period (and were doing quite nicely up until 1900 arrived and the northern regions that the orbital forcings favoured to begin the big freeze began to warm. As it is the 70's " ice age now!" should be the main leader for AGW as it shows quite plainly how our forcings not only stopped 1,000yrs of northern cooling but reversed it??? Our conversations with 'the guys in the know' should have wised us up to the fact that the precessional cooling for the next 2 cycles has been offset by the current warming (and the 'normalisation' that will occur due to the GHG burden the atmosphere now carries) so we will not need trouble ourselves with such concerns for at least 46,000yrs? As for "P.R."? I think the psychology of the 'denialist' has been so well explored that we should be looking at the psychiatric 'personality types' that are more readily associated with denialism and not the "P.R." issues (seeing as media seems to be firmly in the control of the 'Denialist' movement? As it is "Fact" will win out in the end. The Climate shift , now ongoing, from the reduction of Summer sea ice and the early, and extensive, loss of winter snow, will prove more than enough to convince the sternest 'true sceptic' that AGW has now forced Nature to respond to it's subtle forcings over the past 150yrs. Nature will always have the upper hand in Climate (unless we instigate a full scale Nuclear Winter that is) and will always try and maintain a 'stable' system. When this is no longer possible I believe that the records show that the planet undergoes a rapid climate shift up to the next level that can be 'maintained'. I firmly believe that we are now beginning to see such a 'climate shift'. Denialist should be pleased as this will be a 'Natural' event, a 'Natural Reorganizing'. and so AGW can take a back seat.

As BFTV pointed out on the other thread the AO so far this winter has been at odds with the extremes of recent years. Is this due to 'Natural' forcings being powerful to over-ride what we have seen recently or was last years mighty melt enough to have caused further changes in the circulation patterns up there? One thing I feel sure of is that it will impact Spring/Summer even if this is only the way snow melt/ice melt reacts? With MetO going for a warmer year , globally, than last year (going into it ENSO neutral) how will we see Arctic temps respond and how will that impact circulation further south? Again, if it is Mother N' overturning the AO then maybe she will also 'overturn' the spring/summer Jet pattern we have suffered since 07', if it is the 'extra' melt last summer then maybe the Jet pattern will be further amplified (and it's frequency reduced) bringing us a better crack at a dry summer? Should we find it to be the latter then an amplified Jet will bring it's own consequences to the Arctic with warmer air pushed further into the basin, more frequently than we have seen of late leading to another record melt year? Another record year would surely lead to even further extremes in northern hemisphere circulation patterns over the following 12 months?

Gotta agree Baracus, this looks like the first real 'Atlantic Snow' for an age? I don't think my son has seen such yet and I have him tonight so it'll long Dog walks come the arrival of the front proper!

With the AO running dead opposite to recent winters so far I am wondering if this will manifest in a different pattern over summer? Because I do see the Arctics role in the Jets positioning and strength I'd kind of hope for a return to a pre 06' jet (grand summer for us here!) or an even more extreme impact (in line with last years melt?) amplifying the jet and shortening it's wavelength (sorry Ireland) bringing us some of the continental blocking and warmth we've seen the near continent have whilst we've flooded over recent years?

If we are indeed to see another year with a sluggish ,amplified Jet then I hope the pattern is intensifying so that the amplitude rises and the frequency shortens (sorry Ireland!) at least then we can enjoy the type of spring/summer the rest of the continent have been enjoying since 07? I know we have a major Oceanic influence but hot weather with the odd cool wet airmass having a scrap with it sounds fine to me!!! At least 'Flash Floods' are more dynamic in nature in a way that River Flooding, or at least the days of rainfall leading up to such is not (believe me!!!).

Two bug bears here. 1/ All folk who accept the science also accept the importance of natural drivers and the climate forcings they bring. It is the 'new' constant forcings that either augment the natural or moderate the impacts of the natural that are being studied. Some folk deliberately try to mislead lurkers by speaking as though all such folk believe in is AGW as a forcing and this could not be further from the truth. 2/ "It's all happened before". we never have such offered up with comparisons of the synoptics driving the initial 'record' compared to the 'drivers' today. We see 'cold outbreaks' today bringing winter weather to the south. In the past this would be an extension of the cold across the polar region, today it is the expulsion of Arctic cold which is replaced by WAA across sections of the Pole impacting ice thickness and formation.

I think it a little unfair to give equal weighting to the 'both sides' portion of the climate/weather change debates. You could be a person who just wishes to believe it is mans doing in the same way some folk wish to say it is not of mans doing. these are two sides of entrenchment. but what of the folk who follow the science and adjust their opinions with the discoveries science brings us? They would end up on the 'side' of the entrenched 'all our fault' folk. Should the folk who accept the stance that the majority of science brings us be labeled as entrenched? That would be like saying the same of folk learning how SSW's impact weather down the line? None of us can argue that Science is not focused on the changes and is constantly showing us mans impacts on the changes. as such the larger side of the debate favours the current science in it's understanding. Whilst healthy sceptisism is good and right denial dressed as sceptisism is disingenuous at best and maliciously misleading at worst. This is not a 50/50 debate. Maybe if we saw this reflected in the posting folk would have a clearer idea of what we currently think is occurring and why the evidence points us this way. as it is we seem to have a minority view pushing equal posting into a thread as if they were on an equal footing with the mainstream scientific view. Even if they have no counter evidence to supply us with the post will appear as a 'drive by' post adding nothing but upset to the thread. Anthoo's. the changes across the Arctic must be causing a big imbalance in the energy budget up there? even I am becoming bored of pointing out just where , how and why this must be true but I am also sure that there will be some one who has done the math and can equate it to the energy imbalance an 'normal' El Nino puts into the climate system over it's life? I , for one, would be surprised if we found this 'new energy imbalance' to be less than a Nino' and , seeing as it is now a yearly event, that climate patterns should be shifting to reflect this 'change' in balance of the climate's energy budget? Unlike the slow scale and minimal forcings we have seen AGW impart to date this 'new' forcing is both huge and instant (with more in the pipeline) and so we should now see the changes occurring due to it's impacts right now . I believe that this is what we do see in the 'record' amount of 'record' weather events now occurring across the global on a yearly basis. If I am correct then this should only intensify with the changes?

I think they feel this is a 'Weather Site' and not a climate one and so 'ne'er the Twain shall meet'......which is odd? Nope, we're just trying to find a way to stop any climate area becoming a battle of entrenched opinions that degenerate into frustrated arguments and end up with aggressive posts that create more work for the team than is reasonable. The whole area became unwelcoming to new posters and was becoming a stale back and forth with no progression or chance for new ideas or threads to take root owing to the beast it had become. We want it to be more conductive to being a discussion forum and it will be back. So let's enjoy the break and not turn other areas into a pseudo climate thread where possible, please? Thanks I am of the belief that whatever caused the changes to snow melt and ice loss across the north that this effect is now self sustaining and self reinforcing. It may be that folk note the change,s since the mammoth 07' melt, to summer weather patterns rather than winter but the impacts of this 'new' , natural, forcing must be huge and must have impact in the climate system. Should those changes prove to be in their infancy then we can expect impacts to be more discernible as time moves on and the change both increase and consolidate. If we are seeing 'difference' in our jet stream patterns then this to is not finished in it's 'changes' with more snow to melt and ice to melt out over summer (so more energy put into the North). I still think we will see the Polar Jet become so slow moving and amplified that it will cease to be recognisable as a 'Jet' under current ways of measuring it and so 'disappear' leaving only the sub-tropical Jet. Should this remaining Jet move north then we can expect even more extreme weather as much warmer ,moister airmasses confront cold northern air masses. When i look at the Mid west , USA, in late spring and see polar air meeting warmed G.O.M. air I have to wonder if this is what we have in store over the coming decades? As for winters? It does appear that lower energy /sinuous Jets will allow inner continental H.P.s to grow and maintain (allowing for very cold 'home grown' temps to arise). Should this prove so then we will only ever 'tap into' such air on occasion and will mainly find the busy Atlantic brushing over us as it is forced north ,around the inner continental block, into the Arctic via Sweden/Svalbard.

When I learned more about what was occuring to global temps in my youth I had to wonder what mother Nature would have to say about it all. Over the Years it has become clear to me that Her built in checks and balances that have seen humanity flourish since the end of the last Ice age are , by design, finate. Over the past 5 years I believe we are seeing the next stage of the changes to our planet beginning. From the re-animation of the portion of the Carbon cycle frozen in the permafrost/under ice sheets to the Albedo changes of a polar region with less 'reflective snow cover' to the increased CO2 emmisions of the soil I begin to wonder whether Nature is hastening us toward a leap in global temps that She is better able to moderate/balance/keep stable. How do you see the impacts , now occuring, playing out over the next 50yrs? Is it something we should be including in our long term development plans? In the end who has the biggest control over climate Mankind or Nature???

Sadly the large No. of Burmese Pythons released both by Hurricane Andrew's impacts on a research institute (thousands released in one go) and owners releasing when the pet has 'outgrown' it's welcome, has had devastating impacts on local wildlife. Egrets/Herons/Racoon/Gators are but a few of those worst impacted by this non-native inhabitant. Conditions in the everglades are even better for the snake than it's home with far more prey items and so larger snake growthy potential than in it's native jungles. The winter of 09/10 did have an impact with cold snaps taking their toll on the population but only weeded out the sickest/oldest member Strengthening the overall breeding population. The the hurricane Andrew population is now the base of up to 5 generations of Pythons topped up with a population of large , Healthy 'released' snakes. Some of the initial fears were that AGW could facilitate their spread as far north as New York but i have not heard of any spread beyond S. Carolina?

I think the expansions off folk into areas of the far north shows us why , over human history, todays ice/snow levels are a rare event? Should we hear what science has to say then it is occuring faster than any paleo event we have logged. From the archeological viewpoint the weapons , up to 16.000yrs old , that we are finding as Canada/North Amwerica's snow patches melt out, we can say it is unprecedented in 16,000yrs?

It would appear that meltwater transmits 3 times the amount of sunlight than older ice types. This has meant that over the past 5 summers, with the continued decline in older ice types, the Arctic ocean has been recieving more energy. Both earlier in the season through the thinner ice but also over a more extensive area due to the expansion of FY ice. Last years discovery of huge algal blooms may be a reflection of this increase in energy available to the blooms? We also had a lot of discussion concerning the 'blue ice' early on in the season. The loss of surface topography (no more varied landscape bar the odd lead and pressure ridges) allows both snow and early season melt out to pond so reducing the surface albedo and so s[peeding the melt. This season again we see a larger portion of first year ice due to the 19% extra open water that expanded last year. How do we break this cycle?

Well the cloud cover is certainly heavy enough for a constant 'snizzle' here so any thickening would only increase the rate? The Radar will only pick this type of snow up as it starts falling (once the journey up the flanks of the Pennines triggers it) so even clouds , not snowing at the coast, could have enough moisture once it's forced up over the hills?

Have a look through the links on this site; http://www.greatweather.co.uk/ I think you'll find plenty to go at?

They seem to 'stall' when things are getting a bit 'skewed' and it's all hands to the pumps? With talk of a small scale polar low developing over the North sea off Norfolk you can imagine things getting quite busy in there right now? If we do see a small scale circulation develop out there then how will that play into the system coming in from the SW???

Well we've got a couple of cm's from this 'squeeze' of the air that loitered over the SW already so anything else is just going to add to that (no melt until it starts to settle kinda thing) so I'm thinking this mornings revisions might prove a tad shy of the reality on the ground (around here at least?). Somehow I think the orange MetO will be back over us by the a,m. ? Looking at the meteosat images of the system coming in I'd hazard a guess at it being a little bit perkier than the mid day view of things?

I think that this year we need also look at the scale of the positive sst anoms across the N.Atlantic up into the Arctic basin? I believe the impacts of the warmer ocean will have an instant impact on the weather the larger patterns drive? We also need ponder why we are seeing such anoms in the Atlantic basin and whether these are a one off or a continuation of an extablished trend? When we look at the preponderance of S.Greenland H.P. systems over the years since 07' I have to wonder about all that clear blue above leading to extra heat in the ocean below?

I'm still seeing the MetO and Beeb having snow over us here from this evening onward??? I just wonder if there will be some orographic enhancement as the airmass pushes up the slopes from Gtr M/cr? As it stands I feel I should back down from any concerns i had yesterday about travel difficulties but then remember my childhood in M/cr and the number of times 'battleground snow' was badly forecasted even hours before the event? I guess it will be a 'nowcast' event with all eyes on the Radar through the day?

I think it very important to ditch the 'How we got here' discussions for the climate/environment threads and stick to the 'here' discussions and how being 'here' might influence our winters in the UK? We have some very novel conditions for our climate system right now and it might prove both educational and informative to explore how those changes will continue to impact the weather we see here? I think it a no brainer that with the amount of extra energy available to our climate system, that the early loss of ice/snow brings, that we will see impacts from the energy such an early meltout leaves redundant? If you look at it another way you could say we have a near permanent 'super Nino's' worth of energy now filtering into the climate system each year. None of us would argue as to whether a 'super Nino' impacts our global climate, season to season, so why would we argue that similar amounts of available energy in the climate system (in a differing geographic position) would not wreak similar impacts across the year? It appears that this has been an effect adding into the 'natural' since the end of the 90's but only since the ice melt componant flared up , in 07', have we started to really feel the impacts of this 'new energy' on our northern hemisphere climate.

This is where I think it important to look at how changes across the Arctic may be lending a helping hand to both AO and NAO? We do have a lot of studies , ongoing, into the role reduced sea ice/snow cover is having on the general circulation of the Northern Hemisphere and, at present, a link between the changes and the circulation appears to be strenghthening as more yearly data becomes available? With current record N.Hemisphere snow cover it will be interesting to see how fast it clears come spring and whether the earlier dates still hold for snow melt even in record high snowfall years? The problem arises in trying to then project these changes into future winters as the Arctic melt grows? Is what we see transitional or the blueprint for future winters? Does the sinuous jet continue or do we see the polar Jet die and the sub tropical jet swing north? (when you look at some of the jet plots this last summer wind speeds were so low as to 'disappear' lengthy sections of the Jet with only small streaks visible on the plots.....will this year show us similar?) One thing is certain, we are not in a period of time with parallels to all the current climate ingredients to enable us to 'pattern match' with and , if the science is accurate, this gap is set to widen between what we know and what we now experience?