Indeed and not surprising....

What is surprising is that the extrapolation shows that, despite extremely low solar activity and a very strong La Nina, temperatures at the end will still be at a historically high level.

Strange thing that, isn't it? I wonder what might be the cause?

"Previous researchers have suggested massive volcanic eruptions through coal beds in Siberia would generate significant greenhouse gases causing run away global warming."

From the S.D. article

"Unlike end of dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, where there is widespread belief that the impact of a meteorite was at least the partial cause, it is unclear what caused the late Permian extinction. Previous researchers have suggested massive volcanic eruptions through coal beds in Siberia would generate significant greenhouse gases causing run away global warming."

From the S.C. site

?

Wow. Try reading what is actually in the links next time, Four.

I do have a minor quibble, which is how do they define run away global warming? Clearly it stops at some point.

I'm definitely no fan of 'runaway warming' as ,as you have said, it stopped! I have a 'simplistic view' of the planet where certain temps/CO2 levels lead to certain climate regimes and maybe this event went up 2 or 3 'stops' where as the current warming may only rise 1 'stop'? (if we're clever enough to 'mitigate our impacts?)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110124074009.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29

http://actu.epfl.ch/news/man-has-been-provoking-climate-change-for-thousand/

http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/12/24/0959683610386983

The S.D. article and the 'abstract' showing how much humans 'messed' with the carbon cycle prior to the inductrial revolution.

Did anybody catch the Horizon 'Science under attack' last night? Its topic was whether the general public can trust the scientists on climate change in the wake of 'climategate'.

It was a very well made, as many of the Horizon series are, Sir Paul Nurse tried to understand why some 50% of the general public believe that climate change is not influenced by man. He interviewed James Delingpole who got rather flustered when he questioned him on his 'denial' of manmade climate change.

He highlighted the fact that the peer review process was under threat from the 'point of view process' and this had heavily polarised the debate. This has been helped by certain areas of the media.

He concluded that scientists should be more work more with the general public in order to give them a better balanced view of the facts and figures. Hopefully if more programs like this are made then the public will begin to understand the true picture of climate change and mans influence on it.

I am sure the program will be on I player for those who haven't seen it, I recommend you do.

Did anybody catch the Horizon 'Science under attack' last night? Its topic was whether the general public can trust the scientists on climate change in the wake of 'climategate'.

It was a very well made, as many of the Horizon series are, Sir Paul Nurse tried to understand why some 50% of the general public believe that climate change is not influenced by man. He interviewed James Delingpole who got rather flustered when he questioned him on his 'denial' of manmade climate change.

He highlighted the fact that the peer review process was under threat from the 'point of view process' and this had heavily polarised the debate. This has been helped by certain areas of the media.

He concluded that scientists should be more work more with the general public in order to give them a better balanced view of the facts and figures. Hopefully if more programs like this are made then the public will begin to understand the true picture of climate change and mans influence on it.

I am sure the program will be on I player for those who haven't seen it, I recommend you do.

I do agree, the programme wasn't just about climate change but also GM crops and HIV-AIDS areas which cause similar frustrations to scientists working in the respective fields. The big challenge to science is to communicate effectively to the public

Did anybody catch the Horizon 'Science under attack' last night? Its topic was whether the general public can trust the scientists on climate change in the wake of 'climategate'.

It was a very well made, as many of the Horizon series are, Sir Paul Nurse tried to understand why some 50% of the general public believe that climate change is not influenced by man. He interviewed James Delingpole who got rather flustered when he questioned him on his 'denial' of manmade climate change.

He highlighted the fact that the peer review process was under threat from the 'point of view process' and this had heavily polarised the debate. This has been helped by certain areas of the media.

He concluded that scientists should be more work more with the general public in order to give them a better balanced view of the facts and figures. Hopefully if more programs like this are made then the public will begin to understand the true picture of climate change and mans influence on it.

I am sure the program will be on I player for those who haven't seen it, I recommend you do.

I do agree, the programme wasn't just about climate change but also GM crops and HIV-AIDS areas which cause similar frustrations to scientists working in the respective fields. The big challenge to science is to communicate effectively to the public

Yes effective communication is key. I fear with the internet age the waters have been muddied by somewhat. The peer review process needs to be explained to the general public so that they understand what data/ information they are being presented.

I am in the process of deciding on a research topic for my MA thesis at the moment and would like to focus on this area. I will have to undertake a literature review where hopefully I can untangle some of the arguments.

Today's Times (small column filler item):

"The bitter cold that gripped northern Europe this winter could become tyhe norm, says Dr Simon Boxall of the National Oceanography centre in Southampton. melting ice in the past four years meant that sea-ice cover in the Arctic was the smallest since records began. This had created a high pressure system that diverted the freezing weather south"

Today's Times (small column filler item):

"The bitter cold that gripped northern Europe this winter could become tyhe norm, says Dr Simon Boxall of the National Oceanography centre in Southampton. melting ice in the past four years meant that sea-ice cover in the Arctic was the smallest since records began. This had created a high pressure system that diverted the freezing weather south"

I have explained previously why the low sea ice could not possibly have been the primary driver of the meridional jet stream pattern that started in mid-November. The cause/effect relationship from mid-November is almost certainly the other way round - ie the meridional pattern was pumping warm air into the arctic causing the sea ice to be lower than recent trend in December.

The reason why the low sea ice could not have been the primary driver is quite simple. In mid-November 2006 the sea ice extent was just as low as in mid-November 2010. The jet stream pattern during Winter 2006/07 across the Northern Hemisphere was quite exceptional, but the point is that it was completely the opposite of the pattern we saw from mid-November 2010 to the end of 2010.

Today's Times (small column filler item):

"The bitter cold that gripped northern Europe this winter could become tyhe norm, says Dr Simon Boxall of the National Oceanography centre in Southampton. melting ice in the past four years meant that sea-ice cover in the Arctic was the smallest since records began. This had created a high pressure system that diverted the freezing weather south"

I have explained previously why the low sea ice could not possibly have been the primary driver of the meridional jet stream pattern that started in mid-November. The cause/effect relationship from mid-November is almost certainly the other way round - ie the meridional pattern was pumping warm air into the arctic causing the sea ice to be lower than recent trend in December.

The reason why the low sea ice could not have been the primary driver is quite simple. In mid-November 2006 the sea ice extent was just as low as in mid-November 2010. The jet stream pattern during Winter 2006/07 across the Northern Hemisphere was quite exceptional, but the point is that it was completely the opposite of the pattern we saw from mid-November 2010 to the end of 2010.

 

John, I'm sure you're correct that the ice wasn't the primary driver.  However, it is worth noting that the ice has been reducing for some years and whilst the synoptics did push milder air up into the Arctic the figures show that this didn't reduce the ice extent, merely slowed the rate of recovery.

I think we have to be looking at a combination of weak solar output, strong La Nina and potentially a less cold Arctic. 

I think john is 'incorrect' about his 06' sea ice quote. By 08' there was even less (volume?) ice than in 07' (record min?). This is about ice cover over certain ocean areas (Kara/Barents) so i suggest we go back and look at those 2 sea ice areas and see if we have parity?

I think john is 'incorrect' about his 06' sea ice quote. By 08' there was even less (volume?) ice than in 07' (record min?). This is about ice cover over certain ocean areas (Kara/Barents) so i suggest we go back and look at those 2 sea ice areas and see if we have parity?

I despair at some of the nonsense posted in here sometimes, we now have first hand experience  of observing the correlation between solar activity and it's effects on weather patterns. Anyone want to discuss this without blinkers on, please feel free to reply. Otherwise lets carry on going round in circles! 

I think john is 'incorrect' about his 06' sea ice quote. By 08' there was even less (volume?) ice than in 07' (record min?). This is about ice cover over certain ocean areas (Kara/Barents) so i suggest we go back and look at those 2 sea ice areas and see if we have parity?

What is the evidence that low sea-ice in a given area will drive a particular synoptic pattern ? I can accept that low arctic sea ice will influence synoptics it must do, its the suggestion that it is the primary driver for a particular pattern which can be diagnosed I struggle with.

I think john is 'incorrect' about his 06' sea ice quote. By 08' there was even less (volume?) ice than in 07' (record min?). This is about ice cover over certain ocean areas (Kara/Barents) so i suggest we go back and look at those 2 sea ice areas and see if we have parity?

What is the evidence that low sea-ice in a given area will drive a particular synoptic pattern ? I can accept that low arctic sea ice will influence synoptics it must do, its the suggestion that it is the primary driver for a particular pattern which can be diagnosed I struggle with.

In my last natter with Mark Serezze I was warned that this 'understanding' was "too simplistic" to accommodate the reality but i still feel it is a good starting point.

1960, an area of Arctic ocean, 6 times the size of the UK, in late Oct. Sea -Frozen, Temp (2m) between -20 and -30c.

2010, an area of arctic ocean, 6 times the size of the UK, in late Oct. Sea-Open Water, Temp (0c).

Polar night, warm water? What would naturally happen to all that heat? (remember , Nature loves 'Balance')

Mark warned me that warm air rising, shedding polar cold as it rose, was much to simplistic a 'model' to apply to the 'real world' and I guess He's spot on. Problem is the 'simplistic'underlies the vast complexities of what 'open water' ,over summer, is all about and now that we can see the 'scale' of the anomalies (over a long enough time span) You must surely need to ask yourself "What would a 30c anom, for up to 8 weeks, do to the atmospheric circulation up there?"

Until we see ice the water is 0c (ish) , it should be -30 to 40 by December? so won't all that 'saved energy' play heck with the atmosphere when it bleeds back into it?

I think john is 'incorrect' about his 06' sea ice quote. By 08' there was even less (volume?) ice than in 07' (record min?). This is about ice cover over certain ocean areas (Kara/Barents) so i suggest we go back and look at those 2 sea ice areas and see if we have parity?

What is the evidence that low sea-ice in a given area will drive a particular synoptic pattern ? I can accept that low arctic sea ice will influence synoptics it must do, its the suggestion that it is the primary driver for a particular pattern which can be diagnosed I struggle with.

In my last natter with Mark Serezze I was warned that this 'understanding' was "too simplistic" to accommodate the reality but i still feel it is a good starting point.

1960, an area of Arctic ocean, 6 times the size of the UK, in late Oct. Sea -Frozen, Temp (2m) between -20 and -30c.

2010, an area of arctic ocean, 6 times the size of the UK, in late Oct. Sea-Open Water, Temp (0c).

Polar night, warm water? What would naturally happen to all that heat? (remember , Nature loves 'Balance')

Mark warned me that warm air rising, shedding polar cold as it rose, was much to simplistic a 'model' to apply to the 'real world' and I guess He's spot on. Problem is the 'simplistic'underlies the vast complexities of what 'open water' ,over summer, is all about and now that we can see the 'scale' of the anomalies (over a long enough time span) You must surely need to ask yourself "What would a 30c anom, for up to 8 weeks, do to the atmospheric circulation up there?"

Until we see ice the water is 0c (ish) , it should be -30 to 40 by December? so won't all that 'saved energy' play heck with the atmosphere when it bleeds back into it?

Yes  I see that thanks,it will have a significant effect, rather hard to predict how it will alter the pattern though ?

I think john is 'incorrect' about his 06' sea ice quote. By 08' there was even less (volume?) ice than in 07' (record min?). This is about ice cover over certain ocean areas (Kara/Barents) so i suggest we go back and look at those 2 sea ice areas and see if we have parity?

Well no surprises there then GW hey? It must be mans fault, always! 

I despair at some of the nonsense posted in here sometimes, we now have first hand experience  of observing the correlation between solar activity and it's effects on weather patterns. Anyone want to discuss this without blinkers on, please feel free to reply. Otherwise lets carry on going round in circles! 

Sorry SC, explain to me where in Gray-Wolf's post he refers to man at all, never mind attributing fault?  I have re-read his post several times thinking I must have missed something.  It would seem that you are, as Stephen put it to me the other day, 'playing the man' and not responding to the post.

Anyway, would you care to elaborate on how the very recent reduction in solar activity has any bearing on the steady loss of ice for the last few decades?

You do tend to go round in circles if you aren't paying attention, by the way....

Anyway, would you care to elaborate on how the very recent reduction in solar activity has any bearing on the steady loss of ice for the last few decades?

To be fair, I don't think this is what was being claimed. The reduction in the sun's magnetic field is the most plausible explanation for the extremely negative AO of winter 09/10 and December 2010.

Anyway, would you care to elaborate on how the very recent reduction in solar activity has any bearing on the steady loss of ice for the last few decades?

To be fair, I don't think this is what was being claimed. The reduction in the sun's magnetic field is the most plausible explanation for the extremely negative AO of winter 09/10 and December 2010.

So the 20 -30c anom , in place, had nothing to do with either years extreme AO-ve? Even though the sun is now emerging from it's temporary slumber this winter?

When you look at the data ( as many folk concerned with atrmospheric circulation in the northern hremisphere are?) you still think that the 'driver' we know least about (apart from it's limited impacts on the globe) is to blame???

Odd that?

''Some Greenland glaciers run slower in warm summers than cooler ones, meaning the icecap may be more resistant to warming than previously thought.''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12285230

''Some Greenland glaciers run slower in warm summers than cooler ones, meaning the icecap may be more resistant to warming than previously thought.''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12285230

''Some Greenland glaciers run slower in warm summers than cooler ones, meaning the icecap may be more resistant to warming than previously thought.''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12285230

I'm surprised that Gandalf hasn't pointed out that the rest of the report is supportive of the consensus.

Do you need him to point out the obvious?

On a more serious note, I wonder if this explains why Greenland wasn't entirely ice free even in the Eemian?