Your readiness to jump to dismiss evidence presented here suggests that you seem to be digging yourself deeper into a blinkered sceptic (bordering on denialist) mindset, which isn't what I expected when you started to contribute here.

As I've said, I don't usually bother posting in here as it's the same old nonsense being regurgitated. That is why this particular forum is dying. When posters make ludicrous claims about the science being settled and then others use made up words it needs challenging, when I address this nonsense I get told my post is BS I then feel a response is necessary to try and bring a degree of realism. 

I still haven't seen anything yet which couldn't be put down to natural forcings. I haven't seen anything yet unprecedented.

However,something in the last few years has changed. I don't think anybody really knows why or even what.

I'm not going off topic but bear with me. After Katrina we were being warned about hurricanes of this strength becoming commonplace, at the time that made sense as sea temps. in the Caribbean were increasing so that sort of warning was intuitive. It hasn't happened,if anything the opposite is true, one of the reasons I think is because the SST off the West coast of Africa has been cooler. Hurricanes can't spawn like they were. Leading on from that, if hurricanes aren't forming or as numerous as they once were what is the implication for the Arctic, it's all connected? Last year Hurricane Sandy took an unusual track hitting New York, it was an odd storm for other reasons, has this changed things up North?Possibly, but we had already experienced a cold winter the year before in the Northern Hemisphere. Quite a lot of energy would have been dispersed, did that set off/change things in North America resulting in cold temperature records being broken? We don't seem to know. Take a look at the current SST anamoly chart, about a month ago the sea off the West coast of Africa was above average and now at the start of the hurricane season it has gone negative again.This appears to be happening more and more. This line of reasoning is incredibly simplistic I admit. I can't find anywhere that can satisfactorily explain the events of the last few years. The models aren't really working,currently they are just marginally inside the lower guesstimate. I think they struggle to assimilate the information regarding the relationship between the sun and the oceans.I also think there is another large 'piece' missing, some natural cycle we might not even be aware of. The UK Met. office and NASA have both admitted recently that 'climate is a lot more complicated than originally thought'. 

I can give an analogy between the 'science is settled' and the state of fossil fuel. I remember warnings first being given, probably in the 70's that we were running out of oil and gas. I see that Britain is now sitting on enough gas reserves to power every home in the UK for the next 1500 years and that time span is still being increased as more and more gas is discovered. Fracking for oil is about to start in the UK and production in the North Sea is set to increase by approximately a quarter by 2017. The US is set to be an exporter of gas and is also starting on the oil fracking route with expectations to match gas. So much for peak oil.

BTW let me know what you think on that Chinese paper I linked to in the 'new research' thread.

Your readiness to jump to dismiss evidence presented here suggests that you seem to be digging yourself deeper into a blinkered sceptic (bordering on denialist) mindset, which isn't what I expected when you started to contribute here.

As I've said, I don't usually bother posting in here as it's the same old nonsense being regurgitated. That is why this particular forum is dying. When posters make ludicrous claims about the science being settled and then others use made up words it needs challenging, when I address this nonsense I get told my post is BS I then feel a response is necessary to try and bring a degree of realism. 

It is not ludicrous, it is the scientific consensus that AGW is real. In the same way evolution is accepted so is AGW. This is no more ludicrous than saying we have a common ansester with chimps. 

I still haven't seen anything yet which couldn't be put down to natural forcings. I haven't seen anything yet unprecedented.

Then publish your own academic paper in a climate journal. Regadless this claim is based on gut instinct not science. 

However,something in the last few years has changed. I don't think anybody really knows why or even what.

I'm not going off topic but bear with me. After Katrina we were being warned about hurricanes of this strength becoming commonplace, at the time that made sense as sea temps. in the Caribbean were increasing so that sort of warning was intuitive. It hasn't happened,if anything the opposite is true, one of the reasons I think is because the SST off the West coast of Africa has been cooler. Hurricanes can't spawn like they were. Leading on from that, if hurricanes aren't forming or as numerous as they once were what is the implication for the Arctic, it's all connected? Last year Hurricane Sandy took an unusual track hitting New York, it was an odd storm for other reasons, has this changed things up North?Possibly, but we had already experienced a cold winter the year before in the Northern Hemisphere. Quite a lot of energy would have been dispersed, did that set off/change things in North America resulting in cold temperature records being broken? We don't seem to know. Take a look at the current SST anamoly chart, about a month ago the sea off the West coast of Africa was above average and now at the start of the hurricane season it has gone negative again.This appears to be happening more and more. This line of reasoning is incredibly simplistic I admit. I can't find anywhere that can satisfactorily explain the events of the last few years. The models aren't really working,currently they are just marginally inside the lower guesstimate. I think they struggle to assimilate the information regarding the relationship between the sun and the oceans.I also think there is another large 'piece' missing, some natural cycle we might not even be aware of. The UK Met. office and NASA have both admitted recently that 'climate is a lot more complicated than originally thought'. 

 

Yes because the climate is more complex than originally thought. Again, there is a difference between fully understanding the mechanisms behind something like climate change (up for debate) and accepting its existance. With regards to this stuff, again I would suggest publishing your own paper if you are so sure, doing science is inherintaly systematic and while things may seem odd, it is in the human psycology to look for patterns in everything and be biased. This is one of the reasons the scientific method exists, because stuff in the universe works independant of what our conceptions are, and gut instincts in science are not to be relied upon. 

I can give an analogy between the 'science is settled' and the state of fossil fuel. I remember warnings first being given, probably in the 70's that we were running out of oil and gas. I see that Britain is now sitting on enough gas reserves to power every home in the UK for the next 1500 years and that time span is still being increased as more and more gas is discovered. Fracking for oil is about to start in the UK and production in the North Sea is set to increase by approximately a quarter by 2017. The US is set to be an exporter of gas and is also starting on the oil fracking route with expectations to match gas. So much for peak oil.

For an analogy to be a reasonable one, the two systems you are comparing have to have a similar  nodal structure. The nature of the fossil fuel predicamant is directly related to how much there is avalible and our ability to extract it - to make reasonable predictions would require reasonable confidence in these factosr. In the case of science we already have a bank of evidence that isn't going to be 'used up' and if the case is, that we find evidence that contradicts AGW then we will have to reasartain the position. But until that day the burdon of proof has been met and the alternative hypothesis accepted by the vast majority of climate scientitsts over the null hypothesis.    

BTW let me know what you think on that Chinese paper I linked to in the 'new research' thread.

Seems like an interesting paper, ill make sure Ill find a time to read the whole thing when I can. 

---

As I've said, I don't usually bother posting in here as it's the same old nonsense being regurgitated. That is why this particular forum is dying.

You may have noticed that I am posting less here as well for much the same reason - the same old nonsense keeps getting regurgitated, although we might have slightly different views on what constitutes the 'same old nonsense'.  My view is that unscientific rambling and posting snippets of press reports and ignoring the data constitute nonsense.  Fortunately, occasionally Tom visits here and posts hard evidence, but it's an endless battle trying to get the unthinking sceptics to engage with the facts and the science.

 

When posters make ludicrous claims about the science being settled and then others use made up words it needs challenging, when I address this nonsense I get told my post is BS I then feel a response is necessary to try and bring a degree of realism. 

I still haven't seen anything yet which couldn't be put down to natural forcings. I haven't seen anything yet unprecedented.

However,something in the last few years has changed. I don't think anybody really knows why or even what.

Most of us here are rather more measured that this.  You won't find me having stated that the science is settled, other than at the most basic level, i.e. more GHGs mean more energy is held in the climate system.  That is an irrefutable fact.  How the climate system responds to that additional energy is still being understood because we have a highly complex system with multiple variables.   You will find that I am on record as stating often that the complexities are not a reason for complacency.

If you have seen nothing that cannot be put down to natural forcings then I am sorry, but that is quite clearly not true.  Open minded scepticism is fine but ignoring the evidence is not.

 

I'm not going off topic but bear with me. After Katrina we were being warned about hurricanes of this strength becoming commonplace, at the time that made sense as sea temps. in the Caribbean were increasing so that sort of warning was intuitive. It hasn't happened,if anything the opposite is true, one of the reasons I think is because the SST off the West coast of Africa has been cooler. Hurricanes can't spawn like they were. Leading on from that, if hurricanes aren't forming or as numerous as they once were what is the implication for the Arctic, it's all connected? Last year Hurricane Sandy took an unusual track hitting New York, it was an odd storm for other reasons, has this changed things up North?Possibly, but we had already experienced a cold winter the year before in the Northern Hemisphere. Quite a lot of energy would have been dispersed, did that set off/change things in North America resulting in cold temperature records being broken? We don't seem to know. Take a look at the current SST anamoly chart, about a month ago the sea off the West coast of Africa was above average and now at the start of the hurricane season it has gone negative again.This appears to be happening more and more. This line of reasoning is incredibly simplistic I admit. I can't find anywhere that can satisfactorily explain the events of the last few years. The models aren't really working,currently they are just marginally inside the lower guesstimate. I think they struggle to assimilate the information regarding the relationship between the sun and the oceans.I also think there is another large 'piece' missing, some natural cycle we might not even be aware of. The UK Met. office and NASA have both admitted recently that 'climate is a lot more complicated than originally thought'.

I remember the speculation about hurricane frequency - but let's not confuse scientific research with media speculation, eh? This is another area of ongoing research and I don't think we know enough about the cycles that drive hurricanes to state with certainty what is happening.  What we do know if that the source of energy for hurricanes is warm ocean water and that as the planet warms so will the water: more energy equals more potential for more and larger hurricanes.

Don't forget that the oceans are huge and that what is happening on the surface tells you little about what is happening in the vastness below.  The evidence of coral loss due to heat (as well as other factors) and fish species migration should tell you that our seas are indeed warming.

Polarwind cited that MetO quote "the climate is a lot more complicated than originally thought".  I agree - but that is not a reason for complacent denial that anything is occurring that is not due to natural forcings/cycles.   If it's more complciated than thought, how can anyone make such an assertion?  Again, I have said repeatedly here that surely if we don't understand the complexity of a system (and one that doesn't respond in a linear fashion), isn't that a migthy strong argument for being cautious (as regards our GHG emissions)  rather than gung-ho?

 

I can give an analogy between the 'science is settled' and the state of fossil fuel. I remember warnings first being given, probably in the 70's that we were running out of oil and gas. I see that Britain is now sitting on enough gas reserves to power every home in the UK for the next 1500 years and that time span is still being increased as more and more gas is discovered. Fracking for oil is about to start in the UK and production in the North Sea is set to increase by approximately a quarter by 2017. The US is set to be an exporter of gas and is also starting on the oil fracking route with expectations to match gas. So much for peak oil.

That isn't an analogy at all.

What it is is ample evidence of the imperative of finding new sources of energy because without it the fundamental basis of our economy, indeed our civilisation, falls apart.  I have read the history of energy and this was entirely predictable: burn wood until the trees are gone, discover coal, burn coal until oil is found, burn oil until gas is found....  A basic review of English economic history will tell you what happens when aa energy source becomes depleted - economic growth falters.

All this ignores the basic climate issue - every time we find new fossil fuel sources we are sticking yet more carbon into the atmosphere.

What level of CO2 in the atmosphere do you think is safe in terms of ocean acidification and climate change?  We're at 400ppm now, almost 50% up on pre-industrial levels.  Nothing we can do will stop us passing 450ppm around 2035-2040.  If we exploit shale then we're heading past 500ppm after 2050 and towards 600ppm by 2100.  Somewhere along that timeline I hope you will agree that we have a problem.  Personally I think it's in my lifetime and most certainly that of my children.  Not a legacy I would want to pass on.

 

BTW let me know what you think on that Chinese paper I linked to in the 'new research' thread.

I'll take a look.

---

As I've said, I don't usually bother posting in here as it's the same old nonsense being regurgitated. That is why this particular forum is dying.

You may have noticed that I am posting less here as well for much the same reason - the same old nonsense keeps getting regurgitated, although we might have slightly different views on what constitutes the 'same old nonsense'.  My view is that unscientific rambling and posting snippets of press reports and ignoring the data constitute nonsense.  Fortunately, occasionally Tom visits here and posts hard evidence, but it's an endless battle trying to get the unthinking sceptics to engage with the facts and the science.

 

Just want to point out gandalf that under the OED def. I am a sceptic:

"a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions"

I question oppions all the time, and that is a good thing to do. Contraty to what people think I do question AGW and I will continue to as new eviedence comes in. However the honest view at this point, is the burden of proof has been met. So the people that claim AGW is false, are ironically not skeptics  because they believe something which is interlectually indefensible ergo cannot be questioning their held beliefs. Those that claim AGW is uncertain in the sense that 'no one knows e.c.t.' have a very different view to most of the standard of evidence that needs to be met. Under that standard of evidence we would have serious difficulty advancing human knowledge, because things like evolution, gravity and quantum mechanics would also have failed to meet the burdon of proof.  

One further piece food for thought. Those that are AGW doubters and believers in a god or deity (e.g Joe ******i) have a very contradictory viewpoint since they believe in a very high standard of evidence in the former case and a very low standard of evidence in the later case.  

Anyway I hope we can get off this topic soon. Its like being stuck on a never ending rollercoaster. I just want to get back to the sea ice. 

---

Hm, reading your above post I agree with most of the sentiment.

The basic line is 'we don't know'.

From my point of view I like many others looked at the claims for AGW probably in the mid 1990's and agreed with it. It seemed very logical and good arguments were made, but as time has gone on and after the whole subject was politicised and money became involved it became harder and harder to separate the good information from the bad. I genuinely don't know what to believe. I've posted that link to that Chinese paper for example in good faith. It seems entirely plausible, as I stated I would have thought the 'urban heat' would have been a lot more.I'm awaiting on other forums for it to be torn apart like other papers. I haven't been to China, I do have very close relatives who have and I've seen photos of the three gorge dam project before and after for example and reliable first hand reports from a source I can trust.. This particular relative was that fascinated with the whole project that three visits have been made, starting from before the Tiannamen Square incident and the changes have been enormous.

Going back to the subject of this thread, I've been lucky enough to visit Newfoundland,Greenland, Hudson Bay, Iceland twice amongst other places fairly recently. My interest partly piqued by reading about climate and so decided to go and see for myself as by reading about these places I found the information couldn't be relied on in my experience. It's interesting speaking to people who both live and work in these areas and asking them face to face what their take is. I see you want to visit Hudson Bay, go, I thoroughly recommend it. Speak to the residents and people who run the Polar Bear patrols for example.Have a chat as I did with naturalists and experts on the region,they will give you a totally different perspective to what you read from sitting behind a computer screen. In Greenland, at a place I stayed called Kangerlussaq they were getting concerned about avgas delivery as the oil tanker they use hadn't been able to get through the ice to offload it's cargo for two years. Whilst these are only snapshots these are genuine experiences and I could add to them.

So I'm still sat firmly on the fence, I reiterate that something has changed in the last few years, I haven't seen anywhere a reasonable explanation for this. I don't believe anybody knows why or what at present. I still think that the research done so far has provided more questions than answers. I agree with you that the oceans are vast and we have barely scratched the surface (see what I did there?)

I'm keeping a very close eye on things Australian at present as their general election this September is going to get interesting. From what I can deduce the 'climate card' is going to play a major part and there have been some amazing histrionics displayed in their media in regard to the carbon tax. 

Hm, reading your above post I agree with most of the sentiment.

The basic line is 'we don't know'.

From my point of view I like many others looked at the claims for AGW probably in the mid 1990's and agreed with it. It seemed very logical and good arguments were made, but as time has gone on and after the whole subject was politicised and money became involved it became harder and harder to separate the good information from the bad. I genuinely don't know what to believe.

Thanks Beaufort, this is how the Forum should be.

I can understand that position.  To an extent many of us reacted that way.  Even James Lovelock admitted relatively recently that perhaps the evidence of the 1990s was not just reflecting the impact of GHGs.

The reason I cited the expected CO2 levels in the atmosphere is that, even if we are discovering that natural cycles are more influential than previously thought, ultimately they are still just cycles whilst CO2 is on a relentless climb.  At some point the natural cycles will swing back - and unless you think the 1990s were a never-to-be-repeated aberration, then somewhere down the line we're going to see the 1990s in spades, when higher GHGs combine with a more active sun and so on.

What saddens me to an extent is that we have the benefit of current natural cooling but we're using it to do nothing about emissions, rather than using it as a golden opportunity to curtail them.  I just hope we don't look back in 10-20 years and realise we've made a serious misjudgement.

Back on topic, the key to the Arctic ice is volume and until we see the trend reverse there's only one outcome, and that's an ice free Arctic in August/September.

---

Would there be any opportunity for a more radical solution. For example could you drop a huge blanket over the sea ice. It couldn't cost more than the olympics 

I mean not necessarily all of it, but could you have russia and canada put blankets over their costal regions for example where the melt starts. This may at least delay the melt. I'm sure there are other radical such solutions which may work (I have no idea). 

---

It's odd that I see most of the 'real' sceptics being those who , after examination, can accept the papers/data showing us that something odd and worrying is going on with climate? The only folk not seeming to bother with the'questioning' are those who instantly say 'No', 'Wrong' and then go on to reel out the same old same old.......

As for the 'canes? Science appear to agree that whilst we may see more invests the shear environment will only allow the strongest to survive.

Are we not seeing a glut of invests/named storms and then a dangerous few that turn big and nasty?

Back to the Arctic.

So what is going on up north? anyone like to comment?

---

 

Are we not seeing a glut of invests/named storms and then a dangerous few that turn big and nasty?

No 

Back to the Arctic.

So what is going on up north? anyone like to comment?

Nothing much, it's well above recent years, about 1 million km2 more than last year at this time. 

---

 

Are we not seeing a glut of invests/named storms and then a dangerous few that turn big and nasty?

No 

Back to the Arctic.

So what is going on up north? anyone like to comment?

Nothing much, it's well above recent years, about 1 million km2 more than last year at this time. 

Cmon four, even you cannot deny that is trolling. 

 

 

Re GW: Have you seen the latest hi res AMSR sats, there is a new area of low conc near the NP which is pretty visible on the MODIS. 

This may be a complete coincidence grey but it seems like the arctic has started to deteroate more since the AO went from neutral to positive. Is it a coincidence or causal?

---

It's odd that I see most of the 'real' sceptics being those who , after examination, can accept the papers/data showing us that something odd and worrying is going on with climate? The only folk not seeming to bother with the'questioning' are those who instantly say 'No', 'Wrong' and then go on to reel out the same old same old.......

As for the 'canes? Science appear to agree that whilst we may see more invests the shear environment will only allow the strongest to survive.

Are we not seeing a glut of invests/named storms and then a dangerous few that turn big and nasty?

Back to the Arctic.

So what is going on up north? anyone like to comment?

There is no doubt something has changed in recent years compared to the climate of previous decades. We could say this is down to instant global communications but a closer examinatiom of the news stories usually reveal that the reported event is the worst for decades or hundreds of years. Not necessarily unprecedented, just a long return period, too long for living human observation.

What is going on up north may be the cause or it might be a symptom - I'm undecided about that; IMO there is still the likelihood that much of what we are seeing is a cyclical event with some added human activity forcings.

You are right about the invests in the Atlantic, many have fizzled out due to shear, dry air and unfavourable TUTTs. I avidly follow storm 2k during the season - many professional mets on that site - "something has changed" is a frequent comment.

Folk on the 'nay sayer' side here appear to have a preoccupation with 'temps' over the basin whilst the ice sits in 'water'? Start to stir that up and "Hey! guess what?"......

The crackopalypse event laid the foundations for the way the ice has behaved since the arrival of PAC13 and the 'thinning/spread", from pole into Kara and the coast looks likely to open a swathe from pole to coast by July? The continued presence of the low also threatens to accelerate the C.A. melt with the deep channel now flawed and breaking with either end now in full retreat?

The glimpses of the ice in Beaufort suggest it will follow Arctic/Kara sea areas over the next 2 weeks?

It is really beginning to look like we could see a very low min this season?

---

 

Cmon four, even you cannot deny that is trolling. 

 

In what way?

http://s6.postimg.org/u06ocqz9d/ssmi1_ice_area_1.png

 

---

 

Cmon four, even you cannot deny that is trolling. 

 

In what way?

http://s6.postimg.org/u06ocqz9d/ssmi1_ice_area_1.png

 

Because I cannot think of a reasonable incentive to point it out other than to promote a negative reaction. You were saying it from the point of view that area is ok this year -> everyone is exagerating how bad it is e.c.t. But the fact is this means almost nothing in terms of the health of the arctic and I think you know that too. 

 

But honestly guys I am really starting to tire of this. I did make the effort to steer the discussion away from the debate and so did others but it isn't happening; when the sea ice starts to melt more perhaps there will be enough interest to keep us all on topic. 

---

Oh do leave him Q'! He enjoys what he does and who are we to deny him that pleasure?

It is the case that , once again, the folk pushing the positive outlook will appear poor in understanding once the shattered pack reacts to the july/Aug warmth.

I have never known concentration maps look so dire so early in the season? I noted last year that the high concentration ice , come Aug 1st, appears a good match for the only ice left in the basin come sept. How the hell will the plots look come Aug 1st????

As I say , things look very dire this year and , as Prof Francis said in her reply to C. Reynolds over on Nevens," looks like another interesting summer....." . I take it that this is gaureded speak for " OMG! what a mess and it's only early June!!!

---

Oh do leave him Q'! He enjoys what he does and who are we to deny him that pleasure?

It is the case that , once again, the folk pushing the positive outlook will appear poor in understanding once the shattered pack reacts to the july/Aug warmth.

I have never known concentration maps look so dire so early in the season? I noted last year that the high concentration ice , come Aug 1st, appears a good match for the only ice left in the basin come sept. How the hell will the plots look come Aug 1st????

As I say , things look very dire this year and , as Prof Francis said in her reply to C. Reynolds over on Nevens," looks like another interesting summer....." . I take it that this is gaureded speak for " OMG! what a mess and it's only early June!!!

Indeed, but it does seem the best way to predict the eventual summer min is to use statistics so I would actually predict that 2013 will not be a record, but end up 2nd. Looking at past predictions, the sea ice just seems so unpredictable from year to year e.g the unprecidented rise from 2008-2009 and the unprecidented falls in 2010 and especially 2012. I might do a formal prediction and the end of the month based more on the meterology and the sea ice health but I am dubious how suceseful this will be.

Volume predictions on the other hand seem to be much easier with every year being a drop on the last, since 2007 at least. We are a little above this year but thats mostly due to FY peripheral ice so I fully expect 2013 to be the lowest volume on record but not necessarily the lowest area/extent. 

---

I still maintain that the 08/09 ice levels were 'plumped up' late season by the collapse and spread of the old paleocryistic ice ( as Prof Barber noted the years after?). The younger ice did indeed melt away but the ice rubble from the slumping and collapsing of the paleocryistic in it's death throes spread over that open water and artificially gave the impression of 'rebound'.

Only once we lost the last of the paleocryistic ice , in 2010, do we see the ice return to worrying levels?

---

With two threads on Arctic sea ice is this the one for reports and the other is the one for the normal ad naseum repetitive AGW centred bickering. Or is it the other way round? Or are both just bickering threads? I'm somewhat confused.

It's good to see the current sea ice extent is, at present, higher than this time last year but the question is will it nose dive as it has done in this section of the year in the past?

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png 

If we are having two Arctic ice threads how about keeping this one to a factual one and the other to a "toys out of the pram" squabbling one?

---

Sounds good Doc.

EDIT: Has anybody else noticed the SST anamoly in the Bering Strait.

 http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

 

No?

---