The amount which melts is mostly affected by local weather and ice export caused by sea current and wind.

It is true that certain synoptic patterns are more favourable for ice melt than others, but the effect on the trend is minimal. Ice extent was lower than expected in summer 2007 and December 2010 due to synoptics that favoured low ice. Conversely the rate of ice melt in April 2011 was much lower than I was expecting and I have suggested this might have been due to the record breaking positive AO that month.

The amount which melts is mostly affected by local weather and ice export caused by sea current and wind - inconveniently not a symptom of global warming which is the subtext in the wailing of the previous dozenz of posts.

In which case what is your learned explanation for the very clear downward trend in ice area, ice extent and ice volume over the last 30 years?  Is there some recurring pattern of local weather never before experienced which might explain this very stark trend?

Waits....

---

The amount which melts is mostly affected by local weather and ice export caused by sea current and wind - inconveniently not a symptom of global warming which is the subtext in the wailing of the previous dozenz of posts.

In which case what is your learned explanation for the very clear downward trend in ice area, ice extent and ice volume over the last 30 years?  Is there some recurring pattern of local weather never before experienced which might explain this very stark trend?

Waits....

All down to warmer waters enetring the Arctic basin I would say. The reason for this I would say is, a Positive PDO. That  correlates pretty well Gandalf with warming observed within the Arctic. All assumptions of course, but  that's all we have really!

The amount which melts is mostly affected by local weather and ice export caused by sea current and wind - inconveniently not a symptom of global warming which is the subtext in the wailing of the previous dozenz of posts.

In which case what is your learned explanation for the very clear downward trend in ice area, ice extent and ice volume over the last 30 years?  Is there some recurring pattern of local weather never before experienced which might explain this very stark trend?

Waits....

All down to warmer waters enetring the Arctic basin I would say. The reason for this I would say is, a Positive PDO. That  correlates pretty well Gandalf with warming observed within the Arctic. All assumptions of course, but  that's all we have really!

Like a iced drink warms because of what goes on in the glass...

---

The amount which melts is mostly affected by local weather and ice export caused by sea current and wind - inconveniently not a symptom of global warming which is the subtext in the wailing of the previous dozenz of posts.

In which case what is your learned explanation for the very clear downward trend in ice area, ice extent and ice volume over the last 30 years?  Is there some recurring pattern of local weather never before experienced which might explain this very stark trend?

Waits....

All down to warmer waters enetring the Arctic basin I would say. The reason for this I would say is, a Positive PDO. That  correlates pretty well Gandalf with warming observed within the Arctic. All assumptions of course, but  that's all we have really!

Have you been visiting a particular site again SC?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/22/arctic-cycles-amopdo-corresponds-to-arctic-station-group/

---

There's no evidence for all these strange connections you fantasise about.
You predicted the ice bridge was about to collapse weeks ago and it still hasn't.
I don't understand why you are so anxious to present the current un-interesting ice situation as one of imminent global catastrophy.
Or rather I do - but you will breezily pretend you don't know what I mean as usual.

And this thread was proceeding so pleasantly.

That's a delightfully toxic mixture of ignorance, prejudice and rudeness.  Perhaps it would be best if you didn't bother us with your unhelpful "contributions"

If you think the current position is "un-interesting" (sic) then you have little idea and precious little to contribute.

Since you're here - as a specialist in being rude and prejudiced if not ignorant   - what exactly is rude about my post?
I do find it rather amusing how anyone posting against the consensus [another ] is declared clearly some sort of ignorant idiot.
Most of the subjects discussed here are as yet not well enough understood to be so forcefully discounting alternative scenarios.

It happens with the likes of Stephen Wilde too who clearly spends more time studying the subject than most here.

---

There's no evidence for all these strange connections you fantasise about.
You predicted the ice bridge was about to collapse weeks ago and it still hasn't.
I don't understand why you are so anxious to present the current un-interesting ice situation as one of imminent global catastrophy.
Or rather I do - but you will breezily pretend you don't know what I mean as usual.

And this thread was proceeding so pleasantly.

That's a delightfully toxic mixture of ignorance, prejudice and rudeness.  Perhaps it would be best if you didn't bother us with your unhelpful "contributions"

If you think the current position is "un-interesting" (sic) then you have little idea and precious little to contribute.

Since you're here - as a specialist in being rude and prejudiced if not ignorant   - what exactly is rude about my post?
I do find it rather amusing how anyone posting against the consensus [another ] is declared clearly some sort of ignorant idiot.
Most of the subjects discussed here are as yet not well enough understood to be so forcefully discounting alternative scenarios.

It happens with the likes of Stephen Wilde too who clearly spends more time studying the subject than most here.

Nothing if your happy to be accused of 'Sensation-seeking nonsense' or being accuised of 'fantasising' or it being implied your a scaremongering alarmist.

Would that be OK?

 

---

The amount which melts is mostly affected by local weather and ice export caused by sea current and wind - inconveniently not a symptom of global warming which is the subtext in the wailing of the previous dozenz of posts.

In which case what is your learned explanation for the very clear downward trend in ice area, ice extent and ice volume over the last 30 years?  Is there some recurring pattern of local weather never before experienced which might explain this very stark trend?

Waits....

All down to warmer waters enetring the Arctic basin I would say. The reason for this I would say is, a Positive PDO. That  correlates pretty well Gandalf with warming observed within the Arctic. All assumptions of course, but  that's all we have really!

Have you been visiting a particular site again SC?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/22/arctic-cycles-amopdo-corresponds-to-arctic-station-group/

Not at all Gandalf I rarely visit WUWT, that way I maintain an unprejudiced view on things. It's my own opinion, we are allowed those now aren't we. 

The amount which melts is mostly affected by local weather and ice export caused by sea current and wind - inconveniently not a symptom of global warming which is the subtext in the wailing of the previous dozenz of posts.

In which case what is your learned explanation for the very clear downward trend in ice area, ice extent and ice volume over the last 30 years?  Is there some recurring pattern of local weather never before experienced which might explain this very stark trend?

Waits....

All down to warmer waters enetring the Arctic basin I would say. The reason for this I would say is, a Positive PDO. That  correlates pretty well Gandalf with warming observed within the Arctic. All assumptions of course, but  that's all we have really!

Have you been visiting a particular site again SC?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/22/arctic-cycles-amopdo-corresponds-to-arctic-station-group/

Not at all Gandalf I rarely visit WUWT, that way I maintain an unprejudiced view on things. It's my own opinion, we are allowed those now aren't we. 

I recall a sign on the changing room wall of my cricket club...

"The captain is the captain and is entitled to his wrong opinion."

---

There's no evidence for all these strange connections you fantasise about.
You predicted the ice bridge was about to collapse weeks ago and it still hasn't.
I don't understand why you are so anxious to present the current un-interesting ice situation as one of imminent global catastrophy.
Or rather I do - but you will breezily pretend you don't know what I mean as usual.

And this thread was proceeding so pleasantly.

That's a delightfully toxic mixture of ignorance, prejudice and rudeness.  Perhaps it would be best if you didn't bother us with your unhelpful "contributions"

If you think the current position is "un-interesting" (sic) then you have little idea and precious little to contribute.

Since you're here - as a specialist in being rude and prejudiced if not ignorant   - what exactly is rude about my post?
I do find it rather amusing how anyone posting against the consensus [another ] is declared clearly some sort of ignorant idiot.
Most of the subjects discussed here are as yet not well enough understood to be so forcefully discounting alternative scenarios.

It happens with the likes of Stephen Wilde too who clearly spends more time studying the subject than most here.

I have no problem with balanced and considered posts.

Yours was neither.

As Devonian has said, you used the word 'fantasise' to describe Gray-Wolf's comments, which I assume you used deliberately for it's emotionally-charged effect. 

You talk about the current situation as being "uninteresting" - a most curious description when the current ice extent is running well below the 1979-2000 average (by 1.6 million sq km or around 15% or six times the size of the UK)

You imply Gray-Wolf is predicting some imminent global catastrophe when he is merely predicting the likelihood of a dramatic loss of ice in the Arctic this summer.  You might regard that as a global catastrophe and so might many others but I doubt that is what you intended.

Anyway, do keep up the good work.

---

Thanks GTW, I'm sure that 4 just voices his own fears and then displaces them onto others?

I'm also sure that 4 accepts that this is the first ever summer of our recording that we see the ice being lass than 5 years old and thin across all the basin meaning that we can expect a lot more 'in-situ' melt and are less protected by synoptics when it comes to holding onto some ice?

June/July will be the month where we see if we have cause to worry about the melt as we will see this 'in-situ' melt revealing open swathes of dark water and isolate other areas of ice in a sea of warming waters.

Insofar as SC's 'warm water' I have to concur that the warming oceans do play a great role in the basal melt of the ice (plenty of which will be occuring right now!) but cannot follow his inference that this is all courtesy of the PDO+ve phase which ended over 10years ago as we have noted greater volumes of 'warmer waters' flooding through Bering and into the Basin/Canadian Archipelago. How would a PDO phase manage this increased flow rate???.

The melt out of the fast ice at Bering  and through the archipelago may well increase the channel sizes allowing more water in but what would drive the increase in speed of flow??? In my mind only a loss in volume at some point in the basin would facilitate such (or could the thermal gradient work such a wonder?) Anyhow this is all 'new' observation and so we do not yet have enough years of data to bring forward a meaningful conclusion to the why's,how's and wherefore's.

Global catastrophe? Yeah , I'm sure that ,over time, this is possible from the melt out of the Arctic Ocean and the far reaching impacts such 'warming' brings to the land surfaces beyond (up to 1,500km inland studies show us). We need look no further than the permafrost and it's cargo to see how this could rapidly alter climate across our food producing regions leading to said 'global Catastrophe' but I'm sure it'll be more like watching a train wreck in slow mo than an instant continuous disaster of global proportions. I'm also sure that we'll have to endure plenty of 'can't ascribe single events to....' or the planet always is in such a mode of change' ,or how could us puny humans cause that!' type arguments as we see our changes ramp up. May the gods help us if N. USA/N.Europe keep suffering early winter cold snaps as the Arctic ocean's heat pushes cold air-masses our way (and WAA to the Arctic in response).

---

Thanks GTW, I'm sure that 4 just voices his own fears and then displaces them onto others?

I'm also sure that 4 accepts that this is the first ever summer of our recording that we see the ice being lass than 5 years old and thin across all the basin meaning that we can expect a lot more 'in-situ' melt and are less protected by synoptics when it comes to holding onto some ice?

June/July will be the month where we see if we have cause to worry about the melt as we will see this 'in-situ' melt revealing open swathes of dark water and isolate other areas of ice in a sea of warming waters.

Insofar as SC's 'warm water' I have to concur that the warming oceans do play a great role in the basal melt of the ice (plenty of which will be occuring right now!) but cannot follow his inference that this is all courtesy of the PDO+ve phase which ended over 10years ago as we have noted greater volumes of 'warmer waters' flooding through Bering and into the Basin/Canadian Archipelago. How would a PDO phase manage this increased flow rate???.

The melt out of the fast ice at Bering  and through the archipelago may well increase the channel sizes allowing more water in but what would drive the increase in speed of flow??? In my mind only a loss in volume at some point in the basin would facilitate such (or could the thermal gradient work such a wonder?) Anyhow this is all 'new' observation and so we do not yet have enough years of data to bring forward a meaningful conclusion to the why's,how's and wherefore's.

Global catastrophe? Yeah , I'm sure that ,over time, this is possible from the melt out of the Arctic Ocean and the far reaching impacts such 'warming' brings to the land surfaces beyond (up to 1,500km inland studies show us). We need look no further than the permafrost and it's cargo to see how this could rapidly alter climate across our food producing regions leading to said 'global Catastrophe' but I'm sure it'll be more like watching a train wreck in slow mo than an instant continuous disaster of global proportions. I'm also sure that we'll have to endure plenty of 'can't ascribe single events to....' or the planet always is in such a mode of change' ,or how could us puny humans cause that!' type arguments as we see our changes ramp up. May the gods help us if N. USA/N.Europe keep suffering early winter cold snaps as the Arctic ocean's heat pushes cold air-masses our way (and WAA to the Arctic in response).

Actully GW the PDO only went negative  in September 2007, add to that the AMO which went into it's positive phase from 1994 until July 2010, and is only now in decline. This is expected to go negative in 2015, so with all that warm water gushing about is it any surprise that Arctic ice extent has been below normal!

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/pdo-f-pg.gif

PDO went negative when? As we all know it is only after the cycle that the 'real' start/end dates are accepted and I've always maintained that this will be when the 97' super Nino waned into a Nina.

As we know with PDO it slips from positives to negs throughout each cycle and it is only the 'average' over the period that brings us the 'state' and , as I've said , this is after the event?

I do sense a certain amount of pleading desperation from some of the 'cycles' folk as the old, not AGW influenced cycles become ever more messed with. Look to the past La Nina in terms of global temps and 'time lags'. How can GISS put global temps for April as 4th warmest recorded ( http://weatherdem.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/nasa-globe-in-april-was-4th-warmest-on-record/ ) when we are still in the 'time lag' phase of the past Nina and tail end of a low solar min?

As a soul in agreement with the ability of man to mess up the world I see nothing but agreement with the general tomes of the AGW remit. As a skeptik what do you see?

As for the Arctic none of us know how things will work from now on as we have never witnessed an Arctic without a spine of Paleocrystic ice to bolster summer min figures. I kinda hope your take is spot on as a continuation of the same trend sends a dire signal for our planets future crop production as global circulation becomes ever more variable due to the Arctic's new found ability to manifest atmospheric circulation alterations (see the papers on the emergent Arctic Amplification). 

---

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/pdo-f-pg.gif

PDO went negative when? As we all know it is only after the cycle that the 'real' start/end dates are accepted and I've always maintained that this will be when the 97' super Nino waned into a Nina.

As we know with PDO it slips from positives to negs throughout each cycle and it is only the 'average' over the period that brings us the 'state' and , as I've said , this is after the event?

I do sense a certain amount of pleading desperation from some of the 'cycles' folk as the old, not AGW influenced cycles become ever more messed with. Look to the past La Nina in terms of global temps and 'time lags'. How can GISS put global temps for April as 4th warmest recorded ( http://weatherdem.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/nasa-globe-in-april-was-4th-warmest-on-record/ ) when we are still in the 'time lag' phase of the past Nina and tail end of a low solar min?

As a soul in agreement with the ability of man to mess up the world I see nothing but agreement with the general tomes of the AGW remit. As a skeptik what do you see?

As for the Arctic none of us know how things will work from now on as we have never witnessed an Arctic without a spine of Paleocrystic ice to bolster summer min figures. I kinda hope your take is spot on as a continuation of the same trend sends a dire signal for our planets future crop production as global circulation becomes ever more variable due to the Arctic's new found ability to manifest atmospheric circulation alterations (see the papers on the emergent Arctic Amplification). 

I think you need to recheck GW, PDO did go negative  in 2007. All the speculation and assumptions in the world won't alter the facts. I have shown you a possible correlation  between Arctic ice and warmer oceans, looks a good bet too me! 

You imply Gray-Wolf is predicting some imminent global catastrophe when he is merely predicting the likelihood of a dramatic loss of ice in the Arctic this summer.  You might regard that as a global catastrophe and so might many others but I doubt that is what you intended.

Anyway, do keep up the good work.

Did you read the post after yours?
GW is a 'global catastrophist' of the first order.

---

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/pdo-f-pg.gif

PDO went negative when? As we all know it is only after the cycle that the 'real' start/end dates are accepted and I've always maintained that this will be when the 97' super Nino waned into a Nina.

As we know with PDO it slips from positives to negs throughout each cycle and it is only the 'average' over the period that brings us the 'state' and , as I've said , this is after the event?

I do sense a certain amount of pleading desperation from some of the 'cycles' folk as the old, not AGW influenced cycles become ever more messed with. Look to the past La Nina in terms of global temps and 'time lags'. How can GISS put global temps for April as 4th warmest recorded ( http://weatherdem.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/nasa-globe-in-april-was-4th-warmest-on-record/ ) when we are still in the 'time lag' phase of the past Nina and tail end of a low solar min?

As a soul in agreement with the ability of man to mess up the world I see nothing but agreement with the general tomes of the AGW remit. As a skeptik what do you see?

As for the Arctic none of us know how things will work from now on as we have never witnessed an Arctic without a spine of Paleocrystic ice to bolster summer min figures. I kinda hope your take is spot on as a continuation of the same trend sends a dire signal for our planets future crop production as global circulation becomes ever more variable due to the Arctic's new found ability to manifest atmospheric circulation alterations (see the papers on the emergent Arctic Amplification). 

I think you need to recheck GW, PDO did go negative  in 2007. All the speculation and assumptions in the world won't alter the facts. I have shown you a possible correlation  between Arctic ice and warmer oceans, looks a good bet too me! 

Didn't we have a much more positive PDO in the eighthties? How come that didn't melt the arctic to today's levels? Could there be another influence i wonder?

---

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/pdo-f-pg.gif

PDO went negative when? As we all know it is only after the cycle that the 'real' start/end dates are accepted and I've always maintained that this will be when the 97' super Nino waned into a Nina.

As we know with PDO it slips from positives to negs throughout each cycle and it is only the 'average' over the period that brings us the 'state' and , as I've said , this is after the event?

I do sense a certain amount of pleading desperation from some of the 'cycles' folk as the old, not AGW influenced cycles become ever more messed with. Look to the past La Nina in terms of global temps and 'time lags'. How can GISS put global temps for April as 4th warmest recorded ( http://weatherdem.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/nasa-globe-in-april-was-4th-warmest-on-record/ ) when we are still in the 'time lag' phase of the past Nina and tail end of a low solar min?

As a soul in agreement with the ability of man to mess up the world I see nothing but agreement with the general tomes of the AGW remit. As a skeptik what do you see?

As for the Arctic none of us know how things will work from now on as we have never witnessed an Arctic without a spine of Paleocrystic ice to bolster summer min figures. I kinda hope your take is spot on as a continuation of the same trend sends a dire signal for our planets future crop production as global circulation becomes ever more variable due to the Arctic's new found ability to manifest atmospheric circulation alterations (see the papers on the emergent Arctic Amplification). 

I think you need to recheck GW, PDO did go negative  in 2007. All the speculation and assumptions in the world won't alter the facts. I have shown you a possible correlation  between Arctic ice and warmer oceans, looks a good bet too me! 

Except SC, that you just open up that can of worms about lags in the system.  This is an unwinnable argument on both sides.  On the one hand we have Stephen asserting (and being challenged) that there is still heat in the oceans from 500 years ago and now you asserting that the negative phase of the PDO started 4 years ago and, I assume, asserting from that some sort of lag before we see a miraculous turnaround in the state of the Arctic ice?

---

You imply Gray-Wolf is predicting some imminent global catastrophe when he is merely predicting the likelihood of a dramatic loss of ice in the Arctic this summer.  You might regard that as a global catastrophe and so might many others but I doubt that is what you intended.

Anyway, do keep up the good work.

Did you read the post after yours?
GW is a 'global catastrophist' of the first order.

That's a classic misrepresentation Four, even for you.  

I know you don't care but if you read GW's post, his reference to a 'global catastrophe' is in direct response to you raising the issue in the first place...... Yawn.  You attribute something to someone that is patently untrue - they respond to it and hey presto, you've "proved" your point.  Well, actually that's just tosh and you know it.

---

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/pdo-f-pg.gif

PDO went negative when? As we all know it is only after the cycle that the 'real' start/end dates are accepted and I've always maintained that this will be when the 97' super Nino waned into a Nina.

As we know with PDO it slips from positives to negs throughout each cycle and it is only the 'average' over the period that brings us the 'state' and , as I've said , this is after the event?

I do sense a certain amount of pleading desperation from some of the 'cycles' folk as the old, not AGW influenced cycles become ever more messed with. Look to the past La Nina in terms of global temps and 'time lags'. How can GISS put global temps for April as 4th warmest recorded ( http://weatherdem.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/nasa-globe-in-april-was-4th-warmest-on-record/ ) when we are still in the 'time lag' phase of the past Nina and tail end of a low solar min?

As a soul in agreement with the ability of man to mess up the world I see nothing but agreement with the general tomes of the AGW remit. As a skeptik what do you see?

As for the Arctic none of us know how things will work from now on as we have never witnessed an Arctic without a spine of Paleocrystic ice to bolster summer min figures. I kinda hope your take is spot on as a continuation of the same trend sends a dire signal for our planets future crop production as global circulation becomes ever more variable due to the Arctic's new found ability to manifest atmospheric circulation alterations (see the papers on the emergent Arctic Amplification). 

I think you need to recheck GW, PDO did go negative  in 2007. All the speculation and assumptions in the world won't alter the facts. I have shown you a possible correlation  between Arctic ice and warmer oceans, looks a good bet too me! 

Except SC, that you just open up that can of worms about lags in the system.  This is an unwinnable argument on both sides.  On the one hand we have Stephen asserting (and being challenged) that there is still heat in the oceans from 500 years ago and now you asserting that the negative phase of the PDO started 4 years ago and, I assume, asserting from that some sort of lag before we see a miraculous turnaround in the state of the Arctic ice?

I agree Gandalf, hence the circular arguments. It's become a cliche, but we really will have to wait and see. Sorry I've got to go now, off camping for 5 nights could do with some localised warming right now! 

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/pdo-f-pg.gif

PDO went negative when? As we all know it is only after the cycle that the 'real' start/end dates are accepted and I've always maintained that this will be when the 97' super Nino waned into a Nina.

As we know with PDO it slips from positives to negs throughout each cycle and it is only the 'average' over the period that brings us the 'state' and , as I've said , this is after the event?

I do sense a certain amount of pleading desperation from some of the 'cycles' folk as the old, not AGW influenced cycles become ever more messed with. Look to the past La Nina in terms of global temps and 'time lags'. How can GISS put global temps for April as 4th warmest recorded ( http://weatherdem.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/nasa-globe-in-april-was-4th-warmest-on-record/ ) when we are still in the 'time lag' phase of the past Nina and tail end of a low solar min?

As a soul in agreement with the ability of man to mess up the world I see nothing but agreement with the general tomes of the AGW remit. As a skeptik what do you see?

As for the Arctic none of us know how things will work from now on as we have never witnessed an Arctic without a spine of Paleocrystic ice to bolster summer min figures. I kinda hope your take is spot on as a continuation of the same trend sends a dire signal for our planets future crop production as global circulation becomes ever more variable due to the Arctic's new found ability to manifest atmospheric circulation alterations (see the papers on the emergent Arctic Amplification). 

I think you need to recheck GW, PDO did go negative  in 2007. All the speculation and assumptions in the world won't alter the facts. I have shown you a possible correlation  between Arctic ice and warmer oceans, looks a good bet too me! 

Didn't we have a much more positive PDO in the eighthties? How come that didn't melt the arctic to today's levels? Could there be another influence i wonder?

Takes time, see posts above with lags and all that.