Arctic Ice

[kiwistonewall]

In any "difference" map, remember that you are looking at the difference between two images produced from radar reflections. The blue area isn't necessarily all open seas sea, but areas of ice below a certain threshold (if the computers interpret the data correctly) usually 30%. So some of that blue sea would look more like the image I posted previously, sold ice covered by pools of melt water. Some of it would be gaps in the 30% ice turning solid, which wouild be faster than open water freezing.

They do fly over & try and recalibrate the programs and instruments, but that just leads to the problem of comparing season to season.

The satellites change. The software has changed. And the ice is always changing. Keep that all in mind, and appreciate the great job the Ice folk do in getting the data produced as quickly as they do. But remember the limitations, and be slow to draw conclusions.

So all we can say is that the instruments are registering a lot more ice than there was a few weeks ago. This is likely a combination of ice already there being picked up due to surface changes, and to new ice forming.

I'm not jumping to the conclusion that it's getting very cold up there, very fast. The other explanation is that the ice never melted as much as the charts showed in the first place. Maybe its a bit of both.

[LadyPakal]

In any "difference" map, remember that you are looking at the difference between two images produced from radar reflections. The blue area isn't necessarily all open seas sea, but

My post wasn't in response to or arguing with yours. Just something I'd been doing for the last few weeks that I thought was interesting and figured that others here might also be interested in seeing. It can be difficult to see subtle changes on a day to day basis.

I have no comment to make on the validity of the blue area being completely open seas, full of broken or surface-melted pack ice or even that the 'new ice' isn't a mass gathering of white plastic bags. It may be for all I know - they do seem to get everywhere! :o

I do think it best to compare like-with-like, as it were, when looking for differences - hence why I didn't compare cryosphere with the NOAA charts. I have to assume (in the absence of data saying otherwise) that the NOAA use the same method each time to calculate their charts.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi kiwistonewall!

Thanks for your input and for joining our merry band :o

I have had issues myself when folk have taken as 'gospel' the data plots esp. when folk use them in competitive ways (we've beaten you or you were soooo wrong)

When people use the 'ice extent' graphs they can often confuse 'growing ice' for ice that has fragmented and relaxed outwards ( still showing more than 30% concentration) and ,obviously, they are opposite ends of the spectrum.

If we look down south at the moment those who wish to see it will call for an ice build (at the very end of the freeze season when the ice is fragmenting and being blown ocean-wards by the Katabatic winds off the continent???) and take issue if challenged.

I'm sure that as time and technology move on so will all our understandings of the processes and cycles of the cryosphere but ,sadly, we're no there yet!

Edited October 10, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

I have had issues myself when folk have taken as 'gospel' the data plots esp. when folk use them in competitive ways (we've beaten you or you were soooo wrong)

Who has said that ?, question was whats happening re the red line and we have some answers some or all of which maybe right

Its not a competition

[Winter Wonder Land]

Hi All,

Surely if you use the same method of measuring ice growth and compare the results year on year you get a good indication on whether the water is freezing at a faster rate or not on previous years. It is only when you use different methodologies and use this in your arguments can cause an issue. This meaning you might be measuring different things.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi All,

Surely if you use the same method of measuring ice growth and compare the results year on year you get a good indication on whether the water is freezing at a faster rate or not on previous years. It is only when you use different methodologies and use this in your arguments can cause an issue. This meaning you might be measuring different things.

Too true! it is the 'interpretation' of the petty pictures that seems to cause us all concerns

[stewfox]

My take is pretty straight-forward. It's very cold up there, overall infact. Plus, the winds are different this year, so no hammering the ice naturally, which occured last year. It had nothing to do with CO2, agw, ghg etc..the winds what done it!

Below is proof of the above graph (ice extent) Wow!

- DATE - EXTENT(KM²) DAILY GROWTH(KM²)

10 5 2008 5,731,406 95,625

10 6 2008 5,849,219 117,813

10 7 2008 5,999,063 149,844

10 8 2008 6,209,219 210,156

Where is the link for this ? I cant seem to find it or the graphs ??

Is Oxford still 'safe'

Too true! it is the 'interpretation' of the petty pictures that seems to cause us all concerns

Edited October 13, 2008 by stewfox

[Nick L]

Where is the link for this ? I cant seem to find it or the graphs ??

Is Oxford still 'safe'

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

I think that is the link (same figures anyway), it is an excel file, scroll down to the bottom for the latest data.

[Gray-Wolf]

Nature Reports Climate Change

Published online: 9 October 2008 |

online: 13 October 2008 |

Standing on the brink

Mark C. Serreze & Julienne C. Stroeve

Despite some recovery of the Arctic summer sea ice this year, the signs suggest the transition to a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean is underway.

Each year since 2002 has seen pronounced seasonal minima in Arctic sea ice extent, serving as exclamation points on a more general downward trend. According to analyses by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, the seasonal minimum for 2008, occurring on 14 September, entered the books as the second-lowest of the satellite era, probably the second-lowest of at least a century, and just behind the standing record set in 2007 .Could a rapid transition to a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean be underway? We'll never know except in hindsight, but evidence is growing that if not, we're at its doorstep.

<H4 class=figure-heading>Figure 1: The 2008 Arctic seasonal sea ice minimum.</H4> Map shows sea ice on 14 September 2008, the date of the minimum, when ice extent was 4.52 million square kilometres. Yellow line marks the extent for September 16, 2007. Inset graph, daily ice extents for the 1979–2000 average (black line), 2007 (dotted line) and 2008 (blue line). The 2008 minimum stands as the second-lowest of the satellite record. Courtesy of National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Full figure and legend (98 KB)

The implications are many. As the summer sea ice cover disappears, the Arctic will become more accessible. Summer 2008 was the second year in a row that the Northwest Passage through the straits of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago was navigable, at least to ice-strengthened ships. The Canadians maintain that they own the passage. The United States doesn't agree. The Northern Sea Route, along the shores of Eurasia, also opened briefly. Milder ice conditions will make it easier to drill for oil and gas in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, where new leases are being sold. The US Coast Guard set up temporary bases this summer at Barrow and Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, from which they tested their readiness for a busier Arctic. Potential environmental impacts abound. Polar bears have an uncertain future, as do other ice-dependent species. Coastal erosion is a growing problem for many Arctic communities. Evidence is emerging that loss of the sea ice cover may have impacts on atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns extending into middle latitudes^{2, 3}.

Younger and thinner Sea ice extent is typically defined as the ocean area covered with an ice concentration of at least 15 per cent.Arctic sea ice extent naturally waxes and wanes with the seasons. A quarter-century ago, the seasonal range was usually from about 16 million square kilometres in March to 7 million square kilometres at the end of the summer melt season in September. Over the modern satellite era, which began in late 1978, Arctic ice extent has shown a downward linear trend in all months, with the largest decrease occurring in September Including 2008, the decline in September sea ice extent stands at about 12 per cent per decade. The linear trend is misleading, however, for the September decline seems to have accelerated since 2002. The extreme seasonal minima of 2007 and 2008 reinforce this tendency. The acceleration is consistent with a growing feedback process linking changes in ice extent and thickness.

Sea ice thickness is best described in terms of a statistical distribution. Consider the situation back in the mid-1980s, when the system was still in a reasonably steady state. In April, about 40 per cent of the distribution of ice would consist of young and fairly thin ice that had formed the previous autumn and winter, the remainder being thicker ice that had survived one or more melt seasons. Generally, the older the ice — the more melt seasons it has survived — the thicker it is. The distribution would change with the seasons. Most of the young, thin ice melted out to form open water areas. Some of the older ice thinned in summer, and a bit melted out. Absorbing solar radiation heated up dark open water areas, with some of this heat melting more ice — a natural feedback process. Ice surviving the summer thickened again the next autumn and winter. Over the course of each year, growth exceeded melt. This difference is roughly balanced by the net export of ice out of the Arctic and into the North Atlantic via Fram Strait.

ISTOCKPHOTO.COM / JAMES RICHEY

In recent years, by comparison, the thickness distribution has shifted. Less of the spring ice cover is old and thick; more of it is young and thin⁵. Ice volume (and mass) has hence declined. Because the ice is thinner at the start of the melt season, open water areas develop earlier than before and become more extensive through summer. The feedback that boosts the seasonal melt process is therefore stronger. The past few years have seen the distribution shift to even thinner spring ice, resulting in even larger open water areas absorbing solar radiation, and an even stronger feedback.

Under a 'business as usual' emissions scenario for the twenty-first century, simulations from the current generation of coupled global climate models — which contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report — indicate that the Arctic Ocean will become seasonally ice-free, or nearly so, anywhere from 2040 to beyond the year 2100. All of the simulations show declining September sea ice over the period for which there are observations, but with large model-to-model scatter^{4, 6}. Nevertheless, consensus on the direction of the simulated change is strong evidence for a role of greenhouse gases in the observed trend. Although large scatter in both model projections and model 'hindcasts' of the past is sobering, a more disturbing finding is that almost all of the hindcast trends in September ice extent are smaller than what has been observed⁴. Furthermore, whereas most simulations show the September ice loss becoming steeper with time in the twenty-first century, as would be expected in response to a growing feedback, this acceleration seems to have already emerged. In other words, compared with the projections from climate models, we are on the fast track of change. One of the only models that can capture the magnitude of the observed trend is Climate Community System Model 3 (CCSM3) from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.

A further disturbing feature of some simulations of the twenty-first century, most widely studied in CCSM3, is that acceleration of the trend may be especially pronounced, appearing as an abrupt transition to ice-free summer conditions. The transition period may be as short as a decade. Under such a scenario, rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations cause spring ice cover to thin such that it becomes vulnerable to a 'kick' from natural variability that sets the feedback process into high gear. In the CCSM3 simulations, the kicks are associated with an anomalous transport of ocean heat into the Arctic⁷. Other types of kicks — for example, from atmospheric circulation — may appear in simulations from other models.

<H4 class=norm>Sources of speed</H4>So why are we on the fast track of change compared with most of the IPCC simulations? Has the ice already thinned to the vulnerable state in which a firm kick could initiate a rapid transition to ice-free summers? Could the observations be telling us that a kick has already occurred? One explanation as to why the hindcast trends are smaller than the observed one is that as a group, the models are too insensitive to the effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Aspects of the system such as ocean coupling, reflection of light from the Earth's surface (albedo), cloud cover and the ice thickness distribution may all be insufficiently represented. It is probably no coincidence that CCSM3, one of the only models that can simulate the observed magnitude of the September trend, has a robust treatment of sea ice processes. An alternative explanation is that natural variability has contributed especially strongly to the rapid disappearance of sea ice. A reasonable conclusion is that both arguments have merit⁴.

A study published several years ago argued that recent (through 2004) extreme minima in September sea ice extent could be in part understood as a response to the strongly positive phase of the winter Northern Annular Mode, an important mode of large-scale atmospheric variability, from about 1989 to 1995. When the mode was in its positive phase, shifts in surface wind patterns flushed part of the Arctic's store of thick, old ice into the North Atlantic through Fram Strait, leaving thinner ice prone to melting out in summer⁸. In other words, although the thinning process was dynamically driven by wind rather than driven by heat, it still acted as a trigger. Perhaps when we look back ten years from now, it will be acknowledged as the event that initiated a rapid slide towards a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean. Other studies⁹ provide intriguing evidence of oceanic events triggering recent pronounced ice losses.

The emerging view is that if we're still waiting for the rapid slide towards this ice-free state, we won't be waiting much longer.

Perhaps the trigger was pulled more recently. The summer of 2007 was characterized by an unusual pattern of atmospheric circulation, featuring high surface pressure over the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska and low pressure over eastern Siberia. This led to strong and persistent warm winds from the south over the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas, fostering extremely strong melt. After the resulting record-low ice extent in September, unprecedented in satellite observations, over 70 per cent of the sea ice cover in spring 2008 consisted of young, fairly thin ice — an even more extreme situation than in spring 2007.

The eyes of the science community and fascinated citizens worldwide were therefore focused on 2008. Would there be a new record minimum in September of 2008, suggesting the start of a rapid slide, or would there be some recovery? In the end, there was some recovery, albeit only from lowest to second-lowest ice extent. We'll see what happens next year. With sharply rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the change to a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean seems inevitable. The only question is how fast we get there. The emerging view is that if we're still waiting for the rapid slide towards this ice-free state, we won't be waiting much longer.

The original figure caption stated that the yellow line marks the 1979–2000 extent for September 16, 2007. It should, of course, have stated that the yellow line marks the extent for September 16, 2007. Corrected: 13 October 2008

=========================================================

Ooooh , the doom mongers!!! everywhere you look, doom mongers........or maybe folk reflecting the world about them???

Edited October 14, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

Standing on the brink

ISTOCKPHOTO.COM / JAMES RICHEY

=========================================================

Ooooh , the doom mongers!!! everywhere you look, doom mongers........or maybe folk reflecting the world about them???

A cute polar bear and a alarmist headline you know that will only work with Sun readers

ps Hows the record re -freeze going ? I think I can see the ice from london

[Mondy]

From the above inaccurate, alarmist report:

Despite some recovery of the Arctic summer sea ice this year, the signs suggest the transition to a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean is underway.

LOL, Some recovery?? It's MEGA!

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

[Thundery wintry showers]

Is it actually possible for people to take up a position that isn't at one extreme or the other? Sometimes I really wonder.

The article itself raises many good points, although the pictures are indeed somewhat alarmist (trust those who deny that AGW is happening to quote the sensationalist pictures and thus dismiss the entire article on the basis of them!). The "ice recovery" the article talks about is the increase in sea ice minimum from 2007 to 2008- which was indeed a small recovery.

However, it does lend a lot of weight to the idea that the climate models underestimate the role of greenhouse gas emissions in determining Arctic ice flow. From what I've seen and heard it seems more likely that "natural" phenomena have been the main reason for the ice melting faster than could be explained by human-induced climate change alone in the climate models. Indeed I would go as far as to say that most of the recent ice melt is probably down to natural forcing with some anthropogenic forcing perhaps adding to it. However, as the article rightly mentions, if the IPCC are anywhere near right about the amount of anthropogenic forcing to be expected in the 21st century, don't expect the ice to recover in the long-term anytime soon, even if natural forcings change to phases that encourage cooler temperatures at the high latitude Northern Hemisphere.

[J10]

Using the IJIS figures, ice extent is now over 1.3m sqkm2 above last years figure on the same day, and also just above the 2005 extent.

Hopefully at the start of the next melt season, the ice extent will be a better position than last years, especially in regard to ice thickness.

[LadyPakal]

A cute polar bear and a alarmist headline you know that will only work with Sun readers

Isn't that what Polar Bears do tho'- hang around ice holes looking for their dinner? The ice must be pretty thick, right on the brink, to support all that weight - or it is one of these melt pools on the surface of the ice we keep hearing about.

[Mondy]

Is it actually possible for people to take up a position that isn't at one extreme or the other? Sometimes I really wonder.

The article itself raises many good points, although the pictures are indeed somewhat alarmist (trust those who deny that AGW is happening to quote the sensationalist pictures and thus dismiss the entire article on the basis of them!). The "ice recovery" the article talks about is the increase in sea ice minimum from 2007 to 2008- which was indeed a small recovery.

However, it does lend a lot of weight to the idea that the climate models underestimate the role of greenhouse gas emissions in determining Arctic ice flow. From what I've seen and heard it seems more likely that "natural" phenomena have been the main reason for the ice melting faster than could be explained by human-induced climate change alone in the climate models. Indeed I would go as far as to say that most of the recent ice melt is probably down to natural forcing with some anthropogenic forcing perhaps adding to it. However, as the article rightly mentions, if the IPCC are anywhere near right about the amount of anthropogenic forcing to be expected in the 21st century, don't expect the ice to recover in the long-term anytime soon, even if natural forcings change to phases that encourage cooler temperatures at the high latitude Northern Hemisphere.

There is no need fullstop to use images like that. It's not "somewhat" alarmist; it is... and well you know it.

Sea ice recovery is of course mentioned, but they fail to even jot down refreezing is much quicker than 2007.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...north-pole.html

The above is laughable from National Geog. And, as usual, words such as could or might or possibly are used.

[Gray-Wolf]

Lest we forget........

The percentage of perennial ice fell again this year, the amount of multiyear ice along the north of Greenland and Ellesmere island plummeted this year, the amount of meltwater from Greenland was the highest ever recorded this year, the outflow of ice down the east coast of Greenland rivalled last years figures (even with the average summer???) and yet hear we are talking about the annual refreeze of the top of the world as though it has equal significance???

As NASA kindly pointed out last year if we have more 'open water' then we have more opportunity for ice to grow (added thickness on perennial ice doesn't appear on the measures the contrarians favour over winter) and if surface levels consist of 'fresh' and not 'salt water' (courtesy of the summer melt) then the ice will form at a faster pace than if it is undiluted sea water (which is why we put salt on our paths over winter).

None of us would welcome the changes we are witnessing in both polar regions but they are a very 'obvious' sign of the times so it would appear that the contrarians need to disappear the phenomena as, it being melting ice, would seem to indicate 'warming' (heavens forfend!).

As was mooted last winter ice will always form in a place devoid of sunlight for 6 months of the year, the true measure is how it fares over summer and ,to me, to have the second lowest figure ever recorded (and the lowest ice mass ever witnessed) with the fastest ever recorded melt rate through August (ever recorded) over such a left trouser leg poor summer piques my concerns over it's stability and continuity a tad.

If ,again, we find huge rifts opening up in the ice pack this winter too (as the Canadian coastguards treated us to last December) then my concerns will be further twinged.

I cannot remove human influence from what we are now witnessing. The largest climate systems existing will eventually succumb to the influences of warming as the water world heats to ever greater depths (as the Argo buoys now show us) so the NAO is the first we have recorded to show behaviours and patterns above and beyond the remit we believed it to exist within. 98's El-Nino was the first to show 'influence' of external drivers but we will need a few more extreme one's before we can show enough data to convince the majority (I suspect we needn't bother with the minority ) but all the current climate models show augmentation of current climate drivers by the impacts of mans dalliance in his environment.

When we have had the 7,000yrs of chill to regrow the ice shelves lost and the number of years needed to re-grow the glacier masses lost over the past 5 yrs then I'll be content. Whilst we have thin skins of ice being flushed out (along with the remaining multiyear) into the Atlantic (via the arctic Gyre) year on year ,and messing up my summers,then I'll remain one unhappy bunny (or Wolf)!

Last year they called it the 'perfect storm', I dread another such event but suspect it will not be long before conditions again conspire to provide us with one.

EDIT: and ,for the pedant in me, I certainly witnessed enough 'open water' in the imediate around the 'north pole cam' to be unsure as to whether the geographic pole sat above one........

Edited October 14, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

ISTOCKPHOTO.COM / JAMES RICHEY

Hmmmm I'm sure this was ice in 1991...what would mummy tell me?

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

ISTOCKPHOTO.COM / JAMES RICHEY

Hmmmm I'm sure this was ice in 1991...what would mummy tell me?

BFTP

Indeed! LOL.

[stewfox]

Using the IJIS figures, ice extent is now over 1.3m sqkm2 above last years figure on the same day, and also just above the 2005 extent.

Hopefully at the start of the next melt season, the ice extent will be a better position than last years, especially in regard to ice thickness.

At the present rate I see 2006 and 2003 being surpassed in the next week or so ??

[Thundery wintry showers]

The above is laughable from National Geog. And, as usual, words such as could or might or possibly are used.

...as they should be, to acknowledge that climate science is about probabilities not certainties. It makes a refreshing change from the "will", "will" and "will" that we see from the media and politicians.

[stewfox]

---------------

Younger and thinner Sea ice extent is typically defined as the ocean area covered with an ice concentration of at least 15 per cent.Arctic sea ice extent naturally waxes and wanes with the seasons. A quarter-century ago, the seasonal range was usually from about 16 million square kilometres in March to 7 million square kilometres at the end of the summer melt season in September. Over the modern satellite era, which began in late 1978, Arctic ice extent has shown a downward linear trend in all months, with the largest decrease occurring in September Including 2008, the decline in September sea ice extent stands at about 12 per cent per decade. The linear trend is misleading, however, for the September decline seems to have accelerated since 2002. The extreme seasonal minima of 2007 and 2008 reinforce this tendency. The acceleration is consistent with a growing feedback process linking changes in ice extent and thickness.

-----------------

Ooooh , the doom mongers!!! everywhere you look, doom mongers........or maybe folk reflecting the world about them???

Looks like we are at 7million square kilometers now , so I guess that means it taken 2 weeks for the ice shelf to be back on track. Is an accelerated decline in September countered by a accelerated re freeze in October cause for concern. ?

Where does the 7,000 years come from sounds a bit alarmist ?

When we have had the 7,000yrs of chill to regrow the ice shelves lost and the number of years needed to re-grow the glacier masses lost over the past 5 yrs then I'll be content.

[Gray-Wolf]

Where does the 7,000 years come from sounds a bit alarmist ?

The shelf took 7,000yrs to develop, and 3 seasons to destroy

As mentioned earlier maybe we need to accept that now, with larger expanses of open water available for 're-freeze', we need to use 'like for like' comparisons of re-freeze rates for them to be meaningful. This would mean removing from the 'average refreeze rates' the times where large amounts of perennial ice cluttered the 're-freeze' areas.

If you took one area of 1 square km and another of 0.28 square km and put then into freeze mode which would show the greatest

volume of ice growth?? For the last 5 years or so this seems to have been the issue.

Should we ,thankfully, be in a position to claw ourselves back from the brink and build areas of sustainable ice again will we have the same to-do when 're-freeze' doesn't show the fantastic growth some folk are banging on about the past 2 years??, will folk go claiming a 'slowdown ' in the recovery???.

Is it coincidental that the past two years have generated disscussion about 'record ice growth' (if you look back over the blogs/forums you'll see exactly the same 'conversations' occurred, though a few weeks later in the season) on the back of the 2 lowest ice extents? Methinks me sees a pattern emerging here........ B)

[stewfox]

As was mooted last winter ice will always form in a place devoid of sunlight for 6 months of the year, the true measure is how it fares over summer and ,to me, to have the second lowest figure ever recorded (and the lowest ice mass ever witnessed) with the fastest ever recorded melt rate through August (ever recorded) over such a left trouser leg poor summer piques my concerns over it's stability and continuity a tad.

If ,again, we find huge rifts opening up in the ice pack this winter too (as the Canadian coastguards treated us to last December) then my concerns will be further twinged.

Out of interest

2007 we had record melt but a slower re freeze (to date)

I assume each year we have large areas of single year ice which melts and then re freezes. From the stats is single year ice 60%/70% or more of the total ice area ?

Your biggest concern is the inroads in to mutli year ice ???

How much multi year ice was lost this year ? I assume melted multi year ice, becomes single year ice which itself would be easier to melt next season all things being equal .

If multi year ice goes down form 30% to 20% to 10% etc we would expect a rapid re freezes but the fact we have lost this more 'subborn' multi year ice suggest that one day we will have a summer free of ice even if its only for a week

I also assume multi year ice is harder to melt because it tends to be thicker ???

So even if we had a 'large area' of ice re freezing you would be more interested in the multi year ice levels year on year ?

[Winter Wonder Land]

We still do not know if the current melt is natural or man made.... We can surmise as much as we like! I do agree that over the last 2 centuries man has had some influence on the conditions in the Arctic but I feel that this has been over played as an alarmist tool to beat people to become greener.

At present ice recovery over the last few weeks has been good and last year ice had recovered by over 9 million sq.km. I acknowledge the melt was nearly at the same rate over the summer just gone. There are some positive signs in that the water temperatures in the region is a lot less than last year and therefore less energy will be required to reach the same level last winter.

Now people have provided arguments for and against why this has been happening and I am fast coming to the conclusion that scientists just do not know what is around the corner and for all we know in twenty years the Arctic may have recovered.

[pottyprof]

...as they should be, to acknowledge that climate science is about probabilities not certainties. It makes a refreshing change from the "will", "will" and "will" that we see from the media and politicians.

Totally agree Ian.. but you missed the "and from some in here" at the end..