Arctic Ice Discussion (the Refreeze)

[4wd]

Re. The calibration issue, the 'swell' is hardly some new unexpected thing.

The ice will always have been affected by wave swell at least around the edges and probably tides have influence over the entire area too.

We've had reports , since07', of swells working under the pack

Like with the recent methane fixation, you've just seized on this snippet out of context in that no-one was looking for 'swell under the ice' let alone measuring it until recently

Edited December 9, 2011 by 4wd

[BornFromTheVoid]

2 images showing the ice loss across the Kara Sea (E of Novaya Zemlya) over the last 2 weeks, which is now 350,000km2 below average. The losses are even stretching into the Laptev sea in the E central Russian coast.

Whilst there have been gains across other parts, they're simply in line with the norm. The large losses in the Kara sea has put the area anomaly back over 1,000,000km2.

Hopefully some rapid sea ice growth in Hudson will close that gap, as it's still 2 weeks and ~270,000km2 behind where it should be.

[Gray-Wolf]

Worrying that the other ice surrounding has thinned to the same thickness as the recently frozen Bering straight? If the disruption is so great thats a lot of warm water influx/WAA on the eastern flank of the L.P. (and by inference ...and buoy data....a lot of movement into the straight on the western flank!

If we have another couple of months of high positive AO (with it's signature L.P. over Fram then we will start summer with less multiyear ice than the previous 3 years?

With In-Situ melt at such high levels this past year (and low transport) leading to the second lowest melt on record you have to wonder about a year with normal export levels on top of the same level of in-situ melt???

If we are to lose more of the multiyear over winter then melt, in-situ, will be even higher( due to higher salt content of first year ice?) next summer? couple this with the odds being more stacked towards a 'normal range' of ice export out of the Basin?

Anyhow , lets hope for a solid pack and a similar year without summer exports eh?

[knocker]

2010 SPIKE IN GREENLAND ICE LOSS LIFTED BEDROCK, GPS REVEALS

SAN FRANCISCO – An unusually hot melting season in 2010 accelerated ice loss in southern Greenland by 100 billion tons – and large portions of the island’s bedrock rose an additional quarter of an inch in response.

That’s the finding from a network of nearly 50 GPS stations planted along the Greenland coast to measure the bedrock’s natural response to the ever-diminishing weight of ice above it.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/greenlift.htm

[Gray-Wolf]

This is why it's so sad that the IPCC did not include very much in TAR4 about the 'ice sheets' due to lack of knowledge of how they'd react? I think it's widely accepted that they will not respond by a 'steady straight line melt' and will ,in part, respond to 'weather' over single years. The other point is the 'mechanical collapse' of sections when ice loss drives it. You can envisage an increasing melt (as more bedrock is exposed or surface area is increased due to 'sag') punctuated by sporadic collapses in the structure of the sheets. Such collapses could lead to rapid hikes in sea level over just a few years which may well lead back into further losses due to 'float off' and further collapses.

If we look at Greenland we can see that , at present, there is a central basin below sea level (suppressed by the weight of ice above?) open to invasion by the ocean if the 'lip' is breached by the Glaciers that drain the ice above?

With 'grounding lines' retreating up the glaciers that connect the basin to the seas such an event seems merely a matter of time until it occurs.

As you can imagine a 'mechanical collapse' would not be dependent of Air temps being above freezing but on gravity and the structure involved.

We see a similar process occuring in Antarctica with Pine Island being the latest shelf retreating. Pine Island alone drains 40% of the WAIS behind and it's loss would also have implication for sea level rise should we see the glaciers to the rear speed up in line with other glaciers once the 'supporting shelf' is removed.

Though we know 'melt' is what raises the sea level that 'melt' can occur in the ocean itself once the ice is transported there. To think that in-situ melt will be the way we see Ice sheets impacted by AGW is wrong and the largest impacts will be driven by mechanical collapse (be it of shelfs/glacier fronts or the ice sheet behind) and 'draining' via the glaciers connecting with the oceans.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

Sea ice extent recovering a little as Hudson bay begins to freeze over, the NH now 830,000km2 off average on CT.

On the NSIDC graph we're about about 150,000km2 above 2007, and on the DMI graph we're above 2007 and 2006 and close to 2009, but behind the others.

The shrinking anomaly should continue as the cold air remains over Hudson Bay for most of the next week, so it should be at least 3/4 frozen in the next 7 days, gaining about 4-500,000km2 in the process and taking it close to average. Another area that may see some gains is the see of Okhotsk where westerly and northerly winds off the continent as well as cold uppers look like prevailing for the the next few days.

No significant cold or calm conditions in the Kara sea in the models, so little chance of a large recovery there. Similar situation in the Bering sea, where rough conditions and winds originating from the south may hinder sea ice growth.

[Gray-Wolf]

Anyone ready for another hockey stick?

[Gray-Wolf]

To think that we may now be witnessing the rapid alteration to the climate that has nurtured us in our rapid rise to a technological society makes me wonder why folk are so disinterested in it?

[jethro]

I can't speak for everyone but personally I'm more than a little tired of it all. The past few years have been full of dire predictions and forecasts of imminent doom and I can't think of a single one which has come true.

The story of usual climate variation with a possible slight augmentation courtesy of us isn't attention or headline grabbing, but that's all I can see happening.

There's been way too much over-kill and hyping, folk get bored and switch off when doom fails to materialise.

[Gray-Wolf]

Tired of it? Ah well that'll be where some of us are going wrong then? I certainly can't speak for others but I did not know it was a matter of chioce?

I kinda thought we had brought it on ourselves and , as such, it was up to us to deal with it but I can see the attraction of not bothering to bother?

Here's to not being bothered folks! Cheers!

[phil nw.]

Tired of it? Ah well that'll be where some of us are going wrong then? I certainly can't speak for others but I did not know it was a matter of chioce?

I kinda thought we had brought it on ourselves and , as such, it was up to us to deal with it but I can see the attraction of not bothering to bother?

Here's to not being bothered folks! Cheers!

I and some others just put it down to natural cycles Gray Wolf.

It doesn`t make your opinion less valid though.I enjoy reading all the posts on here and the different pov`s.

I have seen evidence myself last Summer of glacial retreat in Norway and so i accept we have warmed recently.

What you state about less ice in the Arctic over the Summers is backed up by data--there`s no argument there from me.

I just accept that historically the Earth has warmed and cooled before over the centuries -before industrial man -so rather than not be bothered i just think que sera sera.

Regards,Phil

[BornFromTheVoid]

I can't speak for everyone but personally I'm more than a little tired of it all. The past few years have been full of dire predictions and forecasts of imminent doom and I can't think of a single one which has come true.

The story of usual climate variation with a possible slight augmentation courtesy of us isn't attention or headline grabbing, but that's all I can see happening.

There's been way too much over-kill and hyping, folk get bored and switch off when doom fails to materialise.

I guess it depends on what doom forecasts for 2011 one takes for gospel, of which, I'm not really aware of any. It's also down to what an individual decides is significant happenings or not. I'd consider lowest area, volume and 2nd lowest extent as quite significant, but each to their own. The large methane releases, if shown to be as anomalous as believed, could be very interesting indeed.

Almost every single event in the history of the planet could be seen as insignificant depending on your perspective. I'm doing my final year thesis on Arctic sea ice, and there's a good chance I'll do a masters on it also. It's the way it's changing so rapidly that has me fascinated by it. We're in the unique position of having the ability and (while often still in development) the technology to really monitor the change and it's impact on out planet.

There has been some nonsense spewed out about the Arctic, including a lot of c r a p from the blogosphere, but I really think most have the sense to filter out the majority of it.

I have seen the look of "what have I let myself in for" when someone realises the mistake they've made by asking me to describe my thesis, but for someone who has an interest in the Cryosphere, climate change or most things in the natural world, it's difficult for me to see how they could find the Arctic boring, it really is!

[Gray-Wolf]

I still have difficulty with the folk who so readily dismiss 'proxy' reconstructions for the arctic. If they fully appreciated both the sophistication and ingenuity of the methodology of such then I'm sure they would find it very compelling? As such I , for one, must accept the evidence we are given about how long it has been since the planet saw the levels of CO2/CH4/ice cover etc and so the speed of change we are witnessing coupled with the measurements have me understand that we are living through 'novel times'. The 'Arctic Methane' issue is a recent addition to the burden that a warming planet has brought about. It was never a question of 'if' this was an event that could happen and always one of timing and speed the event.The rapidly altering conditions (rapid when compared to 'climate change' governed by natural forcings) make it ever more likely that we will see very rapid discharges from the permafrost reserves that are submerged. These reserves, in the medium they find themselves in , were always going to degrade far faster than their land based counterparts due to the properties of the 'liquid' (and it's specific heat capacity when compared with 'Air') it is emerged in.

We have been there and measured and wrote papers on the rapidly changing condition in the oceans above these reserves, and now we have a rapidly evolving database of releases of methane, since first noted new discharges in 2003, so we now know that events are progressing towards higher degradation of the reserves in a way that has most specialists 'concerned'.

When I read of upward revisions (again) in the amount of carbon the northern permafrosts hold and of increases in both the visual scale and amounts of methane being measured above the 'plumes' of pure Methane over the East Siberian Sea I naturally have to worry. Anyone with a broader understanding of the subject matter could not fail to be asking questions of the situation there? but as to it being merely a 'Doom' Story or another 'apocalypse'??? those are stories, fictions? this is a scientific event? one that is not hard to either comprehend and to visualise? Water melts ice?Water melts hydrate just a matter of 'how much' and 'when' and how does this dovetail into the warming we have already seen? I ,Like BFTV. am both awed by the rapidity of change in the Arctic and feel privileged to be here to witness such change. It truly is one of the great historical turning points in the Human journey. If you choose to look at the science then you will find it very easy to form a similar opinion to mine on the subject of the submerged permafrosts . It you approach the science not wishing to find that then equally you may succeed in finding that too?

Edited December 17, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Tired of it? Ah well that'll be where some of us are going wrong then? I certainly can't speak for others but I did not know it was a matter of chioce?

I kinda thought we had brought it on ourselves and , as such, it was up to us to deal with it but I can see the attraction of not bothering to bother?

Here's to not being bothered folks! Cheers!

Well perhaps I don't buy into this whole guilt trip nonsense because there are choices, there are always choices. I personally have always lived a life of minimum impact upon the Earth. I was brought up as a farmer's daughter from generation after generation of farmers, the ethos is and always was one of "we're custodians of land with an over-riding responsibility to pass it onto the next generation in a finer fettle than we inherited it". I spend all my working life looking after and maintaining landscapes and eco systems, planting hundreds of trees annually. I live a life of minimum consumption because frankly, bigger, brighter, shinier, newer, holds absolutely no appeal - if it aint broke, it don't get replaced.

Others can wring their hands in guilt if they please, others can reflect their guilt onto the general public by endlessly chastising but I don't buy it because my conscience is clear.

As for the worrying about it....well the entire Greenland icecap could melt and there's not a jot that I or anyone else could do about it, so what is the point of worrying? I face problems with a 'can do' approach I don't approach anything in life with a 'oh my goodness, panic' response.

And when it comes to the Arctic in particular, it's the poster boy of the campaign curiously held up as direct evidence of a faltering climate when all that is happening is it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do - regulate and moderate the Earth's temperature. I find it utterly bizarre that a perfectly working system is held up as proof positive that the climate is in dire straits - for the umpteenth time, the ice isn't supposed to be static, quoting figures of 'less than the last goodness knows how many years' is irrelevant when there isn't a right or wrong level of ice against which to measure.

[Gray-Wolf]

We are discussing a physical event here no our personal MOJO? This is either a physical event that merits concern (due to how we perceive it's impacts upon our planet) or not?

I do not think that the next bit of hydrate to vapourise cares an awful lot about the age of your freezer or size of engine of your car?

It , for me , brings nothing to the thread that purports to look at the Arctic and events now ongoing there?

It seems that the way we can now lose ice over winter may also be changing?

We saw ,earlier in re-freeze, the impacts of the 'Alaskan storm' on ice levels in the region. We heard discussions on whether or not 'slabbing' could occur over such a thing skin of ice (esp. when a high swell was at play) ,about the impacts of swell bringing warmer waters to bear both at the ice front and, due to perturbations driven by a high swell, deeper in the pack.

We now appear to see another facet of this 'new' area in the Kara sea. Obviously we are nearing solstice and so you would rightly expect things to be cooling down nicely there. Recent losses there seem to beg the question as to why both this scale of loss can happen at this time of year and why the pack can be eaten back,not across a broad front ,but in an 'indent'?

Do we have a new dynamic in areas open to solar warming for extended period over summer? Do we see a narrow band of 'cooling' in the surface layer and maintain heat further down the column allowing for in-situ melt (even at mid winter) if the water column is disturbed by stormy conditions?

[Devonian]

Well perhaps I don't buy into this whole guilt trip nonsense because there are choices, there are always choices. I personally have always lived a life of minimum impact upon the Earth. I was brought up as a farmer's daughter from generation after generation of farmers, the ethos is and always was one of "we're custodians of land with an over-riding responsibility to pass it onto the next generation in a finer fettle than we inherited it". I spend all my working life looking after and maintaining landscapes and eco systems, planting hundreds of trees annually. I live a life of minimum consumption because frankly, bigger, brighter, shinier, newer, holds absolutely no appeal - if it aint broke, it don't get replaced.

Others can wring their hands in guilt if they please, others can reflect their guilt onto the general public by endlessly chastising but I don't buy it because my conscience is clear.

I've lived a life rather like yours but my conscience isn't clear. I think our actions are changing the climate, because science point to that conclusion, and as such we are not without blame for what might happen in the future. Why are people like me endlessly chastised for having a different view of what is happening, a different conscience to people like you?

As for the worrying about it....well the entire Greenland icecap could melt and there's not a jot that I or anyone else could do about it, so what is the point of worrying? I face problems with a 'can do' approach I don't approach anything in life with a 'oh my goodness, panic' response.

But if the Greenland ice cap melts there IS something we could have done about it. Stop adding ghg's to the atmosphere in the quantities and rates we do would have been one action. We could also stop the land use changes that effect climate.

I've been concerned about climate change for several decades but I see little panic from people like me - all I see is us labelled either as panicing, or scaremongering or whatever.

And when it comes to the Arctic in particular, it's the poster boy of the campaign curiously held up as direct evidence of a faltering climate when all that is happening is it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do - regulate and moderate the Earth's temperature. I find it utterly bizarre that a perfectly working system is held up as proof positive that the climate is in dire straits - for the umpteenth time, the ice isn't supposed to be static, quoting figures of 'less than the last goodness knows how many years' is irrelevant when there isn't a right or wrong level of ice against which to measure.

I'm sorry but I disagree. I think the evidence is very clear the Arctic seas is isn't doing what it always does.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Well perhaps I don't buy into this whole guilt trip nonsense because there are choices, there are always choices. I personally have always lived a life of minimum impact upon the Earth. I was brought up as a farmer's daughter from generation after generation of farmers, the ethos is and always was one of "we're custodians of land with an over-riding responsibility to pass it onto the next generation in a finer fettle than we inherited it". I spend all my working life looking after and maintaining landscapes and eco systems, planting hundreds of trees annually. I live a life of minimum consumption because frankly, bigger, brighter, shinier, newer, holds absolutely no appeal - if it aint broke, it don't get replaced.

"We're custodians of the land with an over-riding responsibility to pass it onto the next generation in a finer fettle than we inherited", a very good mantra. But why is it only suitable for local issues. Why not global? I feel as though I'm percieving a huge double standard here.

Why bother planting those trees, taking care of eco systems and maintaining landscapes? There's nothing more to it than for financial gains? Surely doing all those things are interfering with what nature does. If an ecosystem is pushed past it's ability to cope with natural stresses due to the added stress of some human interference or pollution, surely we should just let it be if it's only acting as it should. Ecosystems continually change, evolve, die out etc, so we should just ignore any human influences then and simply "walk on"?

Others can wring their hands in guilt if they please, others can reflect their guilt onto the general public by endlessly chastising but I don't buy it because my conscience is clear.

As for the worrying about it....well the entire Greenland icecap could melt and there's not a jot that I or anyone else could do about it, so what is the point of worrying? I face problems with a 'can do' approach I don't approach anything in life with a 'oh my goodness, panic' response.

I don't see endless chastising, nor do I see anybody panicking over Greenland. Would you mind showing what you mentioned or is this just an exercise in hyperbole?

Strangely enough, I think humanity has the ingenuity to be able to overcome most obstacles, whether self induced or otherwise. Whether we can get the co-operation to make use of the ingenuity is another thing entirely. We already have many theories on how to cool the planet, such as CO2 sequestration or artificially increasing the planets albedo.

Why can't Greenland be seen with a "can do" approach? Or the Arctic?

And when it comes to the Arctic in particular, it's the poster boy of the campaign curiously held up as direct evidence of a faltering climate when all that is happening is it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do - regulate and moderate the Earth's temperature. I find it utterly bizarre that a perfectly working system is held up as proof positive that the climate is in dire straits - for the umpteenth time, the ice isn't supposed to be static, quoting figures of 'less than the last goodness knows how many years' is irrelevant when there isn't a right or wrong level of ice against which to measure.

Yes, the Arctic sea ice is reacting exactly as one would expect given warming world, it's melting. Similarly, somebodies nose would react to me punching it hard enough, by breaking and bleeding. Both working exactly as they should. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing.

Should we just give up on all measurements and record keeping? Or just for the Arctic? There is no right or wrong temperature for the Earth so should we give up on that?

In terms of the Earth itself, yes, there is not right or wrong, too high or too low, good or bad. But for "our" survival, and in the more near term, prosperity, there are a lot of things which can be too high or low, right or wrong, good or bad.

[jethro]

We are discussing a physical event here no our personal MOJO? This is either a physical event that merits concern (due to how we perceive it's impacts upon our planet) or not?

I do not think that the next bit of hydrate to vapourise cares an awful lot about the age of your freezer or size of engine of your car?

It , for me , brings nothing to the thread that purports to look at the Arctic and events now ongoing there?

Hang on a second, you personalised it by asking why folks aren't bothered or interested - I can't speak for anyone other than myself which is why I bothered to explain. You've made endless posts about your own personal perspective on this situation, it's a bit rich expecting other people to listen to your personal views but then dismiss other people's as irrelevant - do you want a two sided discussion or just the opportunity to voice your own?

I've lived a life rather like yours but my conscience isn't clear. I think our actions are changing the climate, because science point to that conclusion, and as such we are not without blame for what might happen in the future. Why are people like me endlessly chastised for having a different view of what is happening, a different conscience to people like you?

But if the Greenland ice cap melts there IS something we could have done about it. Stop adding ghg's to the atmosphere in the quantities and rates we do would have been one action. We could also stop the land use changes that effect climate.

I've been concerned about climate change for several decades but I see little panic from people like me - all I see is us labelled either as panicing, or scaremongering or whatever.

I'm sorry but I disagree. I think the evidence is very clear the Arctic seas is isn't doing what it always does.

I'm not chastising anyone Dev, merely stating my own way of life and personal responsibility - how you or anyone else lives is none of my business.

My own personal GHG consumption is very low, it always has been; with the addition of oodles of insulation, top of the range eco friendly double glazing along with all the other numerous eco/energy saving additions to life, I personally can do no more. As for the Greenland ice cap, apart from an abstract interest there is nothing I can do and I don't spend my life worrying about things I cannot change, I've got more than enough stuff in day to day life to deal with without wasting my energies in such a way.

The Arctic ice varies, it always has done, it always will.

[jethro]

"We're custodians of the land with an over-riding responsibility to pass it onto the next generation in a finer fettle than we inherited", a very good mantra. But why is it only suitable for local issues. Why not global? I feel as though I'm percieving a huge double standard here.

Why bother planting those trees, taking care of eco systems and maintaining landscapes? There's nothing more to it than for financial gains? Surely doing all those things are interfering with what nature does. If an ecosystem is pushed past it's ability to cope with natural stresses due to the added stress of some human interference or pollution, surely we should just let it be if it's only acting as it should. Ecosystems continually change, evolve, die out etc, so we should just ignore any human influences then and simply "walk on"?

I don't see endless chastising, nor do I see anybody panicking over Greenland. Would you mind showing what you mentioned or is this just an exercise in hyperbole?

Strangely enough, I think humanity has the ingenuity to be able to overcome most obstacles, whether self induced or otherwise. Whether we can get the co-operation to make use of the ingenuity is another thing entirely. We already have many theories on how to cool the planet, such as CO2 sequestration or artificially increasing the planets albedo.

Why can't Greenland be seen with a "can do" approach? Or the Arctic?

Yes, the Arctic sea ice is reacting exactly as one would expect given warming world, it's melting. Similarly, somebodies nose would react to me punching it hard enough, by breaking and bleeding. Both working exactly as they should. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing.

Should we just give up on all measurements and record keeping? Or just for the Arctic? There is no right or wrong temperature for the Earth so should we give up on that?

In terms of the Earth itself, yes, there is not right or wrong, too high or too low, good or bad. But for "our" survival, and in the more near term, prosperity, there are a lot of things which can be too high or low, right or wrong, good or bad.

Think global, act local - I can no more make global changes than I can fly to the Moon. If every single person looked after their own square patch of this planet then there wouldn't be the problems that there are. I can look after my patch, because of my job I can look after a fair few acres of other people's too - that's the best I can personally do.

As for evolution of eco systems, yes they change, yes they are altered by humans but there's hardly any wilderness, untouched by human hands left. Very little of this island is natural, folk walk in the countryside thinking what a pleasant land without realising what they are looking at is as far from natural as it's possible to get. Why we insist that there is a natural climate against which to measure the changes of recent decades is beyond me, our contribution to changing the natural world dates back to the end of the last ice age and yet miraculously, the last few decades are super important. It's more an artifact of the collective desire, belief and expectation of being in control - when it comes to nature, we're not, never have been, never will be. We're completely insignificant and I personally accept that. Perhaps it's easier for me to have that perspective because all my life I've known just how much manipulation is required to manage land to our advantage and just how quickly and easily nature will take back cultivated land if it is left unattended.

That's not hyperbole as you call it, the chastising is endemic if you have the attitude of not being whole heartedly supportive of AGW. Ironically I am actually a supporter of the theory, just not a fan of every single variance being attributed to it, nor a believer in the magnitude attributed to humans.

Measuring temperatures and ice levels is important but sadly nowadays there is no such thing as objective record reporting. We no longer have ice levels or temperatures as annual records in a long list, we always have "lowest levels since" or "highest temperature since". The attention is focused upon delivering the AGW message at every opportunity and unfortunately that IMO serves more to make people switch off than sit up and pay attention.

I don't think it's a coincidence that this area is much quieter than it used to be, nor do I think I'm odd in my reaction to the constant bombardment. Folk who are interested in the science from an academic or personal learning perspective will continue to be interested but for the average joe public, (again IMO) are fed up with hearing about it. Whether that's right or wrong is irrelevant, what's relevant is getting the PR side of this debate more in tune with delivering the message in the correct way to ensure folk don't switch off and do see the benefits for all of making personal changes. Currently I see very little evidence of that, what I see are folk tired of the whole issue. From a PR perspective it was utter lunacy for the assumptions to be made about local weather and then published for all the world to read. A couple of years ago we were all told that cold winters were a thing of the past and snow would be increasingly rare, what happens, we get two cold snowy winters on the trot. 2006 had a scorching summer, we were all told to expect more - lousy summers ever since. Academics will see it as weather, not climate. People with a desire to learn more and study the subject more in depth will see it as weather not climate. Joe Public? They see it as proof positive that it's all a load of over-hyped gibberish.

[Gray-Wolf]

I though the quiet order that descended was on the back of the most persistant trouble makers being barred? When the 'truth' became overwhelming many folk appeared to take to stupidity and so lost the privaledge of posting here?

This has saved the remainder of us a lot of agro and the need to defend ourselves constantly against poor science and plain 'lies'.

The way AGW impacts other areas of the world may still have some room for debate (as to the way they will impact over time) but the Arctic, being faster reacting, is well ahead of other parts of the planet in reacting to the 'novel forcing' and so this has meant that argueing against the data merely impacts a persons credibility?

[jethro]

I though the quiet order that descended was on the back of the most persistant trouble makers being barred? When the 'truth' became overwhelming many folk appeared to take to stupidity and so lost the privaledge of posting here?

This has saved the remainder of us a lot of agro and the need to defend ourselves constantly against poor science and plain 'lies'.

The way AGW impacts other areas of the world may still have some room for debate (as to the way they will impact over time) but the Arctic, being faster reacting, is well ahead of other parts of the planet in reacting to the 'novel forcing' and so this has meant that argueing against the data merely impacts a persons credibility?

There were only two people banned GW, that doesn't account for the lack of interest here.

Is that the truth as you see it or the truth as the science portrays it? I seem to remember your truth was the truth of Serrenze, his word was law on this subject - he's since changed his take and accepted he over-reacted and dramatised; I guess he at least apologised for his poor science and gross exaggerations.

Predicting an ice free Arctic and end of the world as we know it scenarios, impacts a person's credibility.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Think global, act local - I can no more make global changes than I can fly to the Moon. If every single person looked after their own square patch of this planet then there wouldn't be the problems that there are. I can look after my patch, because of my job I can look after a fair few acres of other people's too - that's the best I can personally do.

An individual will struggle to make a global difference, but humanity as a collective inhabits this planet, and when it has focused, it has gotten to the moon, and could keep the world in an ideal, stable climate if it really came to it.

The point being, you've stated that there's not a thing we could do to prevent Greenland from melting. I, on the other hand, genuinely believe that humanity could exert a large controlling influence on climate and thus the melting in Greenland.

As for evolution of eco systems, yes they change, yes they are altered by humans but there's hardly any wilderness, untouched by human hands left. Very little of this island is natural, folk walk in the countryside thinking what a pleasant land without realising what they are looking at is as far from natural as it's possible to get. Why we insist that there is a natural climate against which to measure the changes of recent decades is beyond me, our contribution to changing the natural world dates back to the end of the last ice age and yet miraculously, the last few decades are super important. It's more an artifact of the collective desire, belief and expectation of being in control - when it comes to nature, we're not, never have been, never will be. We're completely insignificant and I personally accept that. Perhaps it's easier for me to have that perspective because all my life I've known just how much manipulation is required to manage land to our advantage and just how quickly and easily nature will take back cultivated land if it is left unattended.

I agree that truly natural landscapes are few and far between, at least in the western world. I once again don't believe that we're completely insignificant. We could wipe out 99% of life, leave the planet, destroy the ozone, seed clouds for rainfall, create deserts and a multitude of other things. While it is an almost comforting idea that we're insignificant and thus should just "go with the flow", I think we've already proven otherwise, and that's without really trying.

That's not hyperbole as you call it, the chastising is endemic if you have the attitude of not being whole heartedly supportive of AGW. Ironically I am actually a supporter of the theory, just not a fan of every single variance being attributed to it, nor a believer in the magnitude attributed to humans.

If it's a problem for one side, it's a problem for the other side. You only have to go back a few pages in the "In The News" thread to see the abusive article by Johnny Ball, or even going through most of the climate threads to find random posts taking the p**s out of climate change and those that believe in a significant anthropogenic influence.

What's kinda amusing, is that in my circle of friends I'm considered a skeptic or whatever, but on here I've been accused of being "partisan" after saying that I thought a page devoted to disproving the "climate doom" was far from neutral and it's articles were going to have a clear angle!

Measuring temperatures and ice levels is important but sadly nowadays there is no such thing as objective record reporting. We no longer have ice levels or temperatures as annual records in a long list, we always have "lowest levels since" or "highest temperature since". The attention is focused upon delivering the AGW message at every opportunity and unfortunately that IMO serves more to make people switch off than sit up and pay attention.

But reporting on how the ice is doing compared to the time series we have doesn't have to have anything to do with AGW. The cause of diminishing sea ice is a combination of warming and pressure pattern changes across the Arctic. Essentially a climate change. As you have said, the sea ice acts to regulate the Earth's temperature, therefore I think it's important to track its changes as they will have a big global influence. If we're continually recording lowest ice readings on record, or highest temperatures on record, it's indicative of change, simple as.

People are entitled to switch off if they like. If somebody only follows the attention grabbing headlines, they're inevitably going to get fed up and disillusioned. Will happen with anything, whether it's the solar storms that will batter Earth in 2012, or the solar minimum that's gonna plunge us into a new little ice age. That doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to monitor the sun's cycles, nor does it make it any less fascinating in my opinion.

I don't think it's a coincidence that this area is much quieter than it used to be, nor do I think I'm odd in my reaction to the constant bombardment. Folk who are interested in the science from an academic or personal learning perspective will continue to be interested but for the average joe public, (again IMO) are fed up with hearing about it. Whether that's right or wrong is irrelevant, what's relevant is getting the PR side of this debate more in tune with delivering the message in the correct way to ensure folk don't switch off and do see the benefits for all of making personal changes. Currently I see very little evidence of that, what I see are folk tired of the whole issue. From a PR perspective it was utter lunacy for the assumptions to be made about local weather and then published for all the world to read. A couple of years ago we were all told that cold winters were a thing of the past and snow would be increasingly rare, what happens, we get two cold snowy winters on the trot. 2006 had a scorching summer, we were all told to expect more - lousy summers ever since. Academics will see it as weather, not climate. People with a desire to learn more and study the subject more in depth will see it as weather not climate. Joe Public? They see it as proof positive that it's all a load of over-hyped gibberish.

I agree with this part, though it is the media that pushes for the stupid headlines and scare tactics. Also, with most mass media controlled by just a few, and the fact that good old "telling it as it is" journalism just doesn't sell, I doubt we'll be seeing changes any time soon unfortunately.

[cooling climate]

Posted : 18 December 2011 04:16:30(UTC)

Mabey this needs a separate thread?.

This 'long running (Arctic sea ice Thread) has really been seriously infected and destroyed with the worst kind of unscientific doom and gloom..

Arctic sea ice conditions and comments regarding such. are rare here now.

Mabey Gandalf ,Gray Wolf and other adherents of non scientific assumtions and guesstimations should start up their own' dreadfull senario' reactionary thread and leave the rest of us to' science 'or the simple pleasure of' observation.'.

I have to say ,I have never come across such a sense of gleefull hopelesness in my life,

Trying to be objective and/or scientific is a total waste of time, in this case. IMO.

This post has been copied from the weatheroutlook (two) Arctic thread and

I have to say I whole heartedly agree with this post. Your non stop rantings

from you Grey Wolf have ruied there thread and this one.

Non stop speculation and bull sh-t about the Arctic ice has put a lot of

posters off coming into this thread.

You should have your own thread where you can wallow in your own

catastrophic prophecies and all the other bile you are so full of and leave

a new thread that can be made which will not be flooded and suffocated

by you and your disciples endless persuit of armageden.

Get a life.

Edited December 18, 2011 by cooling climate

[pottyprof]

I agree with this part, though it is the media that pushes for the stupid headlines and scare tactics. Also, with most mass media controlled by just a few, and the fact that good old "telling it as it is" journalism just doesn't sell, I doubt we'll be seeing changes any time soon unfortunately.

And this is what I've said for a number of years. Governments have had the chance to put out the right signals via state controlled TV and radio and in the press if they so wished. They are the ones who have failed the world. Not just in this country but the world over. They have failed because of the over hyped rubbish and in turn there has become a battle of words day in and day out. I'll be honest and say that personally I have switched off to the subject now.

As this is the Arctic Ice thread, any further deviations from the subject matter will be deleted without any further notice and I refer everyone to the forum rules.

I though the quiet order that descended was on the back of the most persistant trouble makers being barred? When the 'truth' became overwhelming many folk appeared to take to stupidity and so lost the privaledge of posting here?

Amazing how we can prove a point. Someone has only been back here a couple of days and look how quickly the quality posts have disappeared. I think we shall have to reconsider our options should this continue.

[Methuselah]

A subject such as this (where scientific evidence must vie with political and vested interests, on both sides) is bound to become heated at times. But, as long as everyone remains polite and curteous, there should be no problems...