Gray-Wolf

I've been mulling this over for a while. When we look at past periods of deglaciation we see sudden warming spurts among the general background warming trend. We know that the solar forcing is a near constant as we 'wobble' about our axis/orbit bringing only small changes in the amount of energy we receive. Over time even this small increase/decrease does drive our glaciations/interglacial but what of these periods of sudden warming? Where do we suddenly find the energy to achieve them? It certainly is not sudden ,unexplained, bursts of solar that only occur during de-glaciation so how do we magic up this 'new energy'? We don't. All that happens is we use the available energy more efficiently. As the ice melts we get to a point where the earth/ocean is once again available to recieve the suns energy and not be reflected back into space. The energy that was utilised melting the ice is no longer needed for that task either and so can be used elsewhere. Does this remind anyone of anything that we have seen recently? Are we not just entering a period of sudden warming due to the impacts of the ice/snow loss across the Arctic? Even without the GHG burden we can see that summer ice/snow loss can lead to a more energetic climate system (and so lead to more melting in other areas) so what should we expect to see over the coming decade?

Much the same as myself though in that what once appeared a very 'extreme' viewpoint, on what we ought to be preparing for, is now almost conservative in nature?

Maybe this is what the East Siberian sea looks like? http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/01/30/170661670/pale-blue-blobs-invade-freeze-then-vanish

The above shows the methane levels above the pole since 2009. I think it illustrates well what the open water in Barrentsz and Kara is allowing to occur.

I'd mentioned an uptick in Methane above Kara and Barrentsz over on the ice thread in mid jan. I came across this blog report that helps highlight both the extent and the yearly increases from the region; http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/dramatic-increase-in-methane-in-the-arctic-in-january-2013.html#more As is noted this is where the ice no longer forms but I have to wonder about the areas still ice covered?

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00524.1 More linkage to sea ice conditions and our (Eurasian) summer weather.

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to this but I've now had time to digest the paper in question and this has left me with further questions? Why did they only use data from 2000 to 2010 to build their model? Where is the evidence that the 90's warming can impact, to the scale suggested, the general climate models? If anything it looks increasingly like a re-hash of the old " let's look at temps since 98' to present and see how fast we are warming" Isolating a period ,where we know 'natural' cooling mechanisms are at the fore, to attempt to project future behaviour is flawed from the get go surely? As it is the focus on GHG forced temp rises are only a portion of the picture and I firmly believe we have now crossed the threshold into a period of rapid climate shift brought about by the conditions the 'slow forcing' of extra GHG loading has brought us. As it stands we know we are now seeing more energy flooding into the climate system both from the planets new ability to accept incoming solar energy (where it would once have reflected it back into space) and also from the freeing up of energy once employed in ice melt. I feel that we should be focusing at least some of our time on figuring what ,and where, we should expect this 'new energy' to manifest within the climate system? We also need to better figure out when to expect 'Nature's' GHG's to feather into the climate system? We stand to inherit at least as much GHG forcing from the re-animation of the portion of the carbon cycle held in deep freeze since the last interglacial with temps matching those predicted as man has introduced into the atmosphere (since 1750) no matter where our own contributions settle out at. Not only do we stand to inherit this forcing but also the energy that is being spend thawing out this portion of the carbon cycle. In the space of ten years we appear to have moved from a slowly warming world (forced by our GHG emissions) to one where a large jolt of new energy is entering the climate system. This is only the beginning of this process but surely some of this energy will go into freeing up even more energy (positive feedback) and place the impacts from GHG forcings firmly on the back burner for a while. One thing is certain, this energy must bring about changes to the way the global circulation worked before the energy became available and ,as such, will move the changes from a 'climate' scale process to an individual 'Weather' scale process as the planet struggles to find a new 'balance' over the year.

Just having an inward giggle jtay...no preachy ,preachy honest! As it is though I chose 'James' as it can be read in a very 'non-Christian way' (seeing as he wasn't talking to the 'gentiles' as they were not part of the new order then) Part way through his greetings there is a passage referring to the words he was writing and mentions the "Wisdom engrafted within"......if ever you wondered about 'secret societies' and hidden messages then James might one for you? As for 'Christianity' Christ the man does not have a lot to say about his message being an all inclusive one does he? He is a Jew 'updating' the Jewish theology, Creation, via the old testament, was merely for the tribes and not for 'general release'? The debate about letting in the 'uncircumcised' occurs well after Christ's death? Were it not for that debate we'd be talking about Frost Giants here instead of a seven day wonder and I'm sure far more folk would less likely to be too literal in the interpretation of that creation?

It'll be fun when we find that 'the mark of the beast' is a mobile phone and it's EMF isolates you from the spiritual and consigns you to 'death' at the end..... What did James say? "If any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, And shall hide a multitude of sins." Don't fancy chancing my immortal soul........

I do think that there are 'natural crop circles' and also hoax ones. The natural ones will have something to do with 'earth energies' that we do not yet understand. some form of electro-magnetic anomally? Seeing as we live in a huge bar magnet surrounded by a pretty highly charged atmosphere lightning can't be the only expression of these energies surely?

I just do not understand what this type of thing brings to our understanding of what is occuring though Pete? If it brought new information that possited that there might be a 'natural mechanism' to rebuild the Arctic then it would be worth studying but old 'cherry picked' soundbites from papers written about an arctic basin that no longer exists??? We ,none of us, chose what occurs in the Arctic but surely it is better to keep a level head about the ongoing changes there than to scrape around trying to deny them? only by keeping up to date with changes can we see any 'positives' that might occur up there? EDIT: I've just seen BFTV's comments over on the 'news' thread regarding the 'spamming' like posts that some members put up without comment or explaination? I know we all have our own understandings but cluttering the threads up with old, discredited, materials does impact the thread and also creates a wrong atmosphere for the topics (one of constant put downs to those who post up the nonsense might seem impolite to folk just passing through?). If we have relevant news/data for the threads could we give a brief over-view and why we feel it to be important in with the 'link'?

So a clade of coral symbiont's off Abu Dhabi is more heat tolerant than some of there neighbours? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X1200570X How does this impact the bleaching events we see in Australasia and Indian oceans/Caribbean? How is this a cancelled catastrophe??? Any help folks?

I would think that the link was attempting to 'normalise' the fears generated by what was found across the pole in 2000? It does appear a little silly in the light of what we then saw over the intervening period? I would suggest that anyone trying to draw solice from the paper would not mind how outdated it is? There is no altering the facts of the matter and so why burden yourself with them? Why not just pretend they do not exist and return to a time when such accepting the possibility of our modern realities was viewed as 'doom mongering' by the likes of the author?

For simpletons like me , does a cooler strat lead to a warmer Trop?

I'd agree with population size as an essential part of a 'threshold' that would give the sheer numbers needed to begin another period of 'understanding/knowledge'.? The thing is i do not think anyone has looked at the Genome results to see if there was some kind of evidence for a 'swelling' of population (in the way they document bottlenecks in population size) but whose to say it was not a 'regional' thing? Whose to say that the Mediterranean Basin did not provide a 'Garden of Eden' environment for those emerging from Egypt 35,000yrs ago? With plenty of what is now the Arabian sea coastal plains with delta's and fertile land. We know humans 'hung around' Central Europe for some considerable time before spreading back into Western Europe as the ice retreated so could this population have included folk through Turkey and Mesopotamia and the lands there now submerged? Could a catastrophic collapse of that civilisation, when the sea levels rose as the ice melted, be what really caused the human population suposedly 'camped in central Europe to spread west again?? Not exploring newly ice free lands but finding new lands after their fertile regions and major population centres , to the south, became inundated?

Agreed BW! But the 'way' the atmosphere warmed over that period, and the climate impacts that followed, appear to be the 'fingerprint' of the warming type? I've heard folk proclaim some kind of 'climate feedback' mechanism, offsetting warming, including extra clouds from the enhanced convection and increased moisture load of the air? but what if there was a 'damping mechanism perculier to GHG atmospheric warming that kept the same relative gradients as the 'old ' atmosphere? We would see no uptick in convective activity and the enhanced moisture capacity would enable skies to stay clear as long, if not longer,han under the old temp/humidity amounts? (throughout the whole atmosphere)?

http://www.gobeklitepe.info/index.html So what do folk think about the implications of this structure? I have always wondered, with the vast age of the human race, why it took so cripplingly long for us to arrive at the point of 'civilisation'? We have been out of Africa for over 45,000yrs and yet only began our trek into our current level of sophistication 5,000yrs ago (or so we used to believe). Could it be that the end of the last ice age both crippled our first civilisations and buried the evidence of their existence under the waters the final meltdown unleashed on humanity? What do you think?

I'm surprised to see no comments on the news that we can see differences between past 'solar' driven warmings (like the MWP) and our current round of warming? Surely it helps us all see that GHG warming is occurring today (as opposed to natural variations or solar?) and that it's impacts will not take a similar path to past 'natural' warming events? If ever confirmation of our role in the current global warming was needed does this not satisfy that need? With the whole of the atmosphere warming (and not just the lower sections) does this not have implications on the amount of energy consumed enabling this warming to occur when compared to a 'natural' model with only the 'contact zones' above the surface warming? it also seems to have implications for 'cloud' feedbacks with less convection due to the general warmth throughout the air column?

http://www.guardian....te-change-davos A 'Stern' warning??? He appears to focus on our failing CO2 sinks but we all know that we have a suite of forcings now believed to be stronger/more immediate than past thought. Plus; http://phys.org/news/2013-01-greenhouse-gases-solar-complexity-global.html It appears we can tell that this is 'GHG' heating and not 'solar' heating, clever eh?

Hi B.W.! Though we continue to see an average shift north for the Jet the recent amplification of the peaks and troughs make it harder to see. From a presentation on the Jet I saw from the AGU last year it appeared that the 'peaks' were, on average, advancing north faster than the troughs but that the troughs still showed a marked northerly movement? With the noted expansion of the tropics from the equator I guess we would expect other bounderies to shift in compensation but are we seeing warming in the mid latitudes also expanding this belt as well and so accelerating the move north? As for the polar jet 'boundary' might the temps we now see becoming common place in the high north over summer 'fudge' this interface with the 'home grown warmth', in some northern regions, rivalling the 'imported' airs from further south? In fact with the 24hr solar over these months could we even see a time when the north exports heat to areas further south over these summer months allowing a rapid warming of the mid latitudes? EDIT: thanks BFTV! , I believe this is what I was refering too?

It appears many of us do indeed sing from the same hymn sheet with only our individual gusto for the song separating us? Hows about just looking at our current errant Jet pattern? Do folk feel that is merely a natural 'fluke' or do they feel it is tied in with the changes we see esp. the ones across the Arctic? For my part I believe it is tied in with early snow melt/large areas of open water over summer in the polar region and so would expect to see the pattern react further to increases in the energy source that drives it. Were the jet a sound wave then more energy would mean higfher amplification and shorter wavelength. I hope that this is what we see from the jet with the trough that is blighting us retreating into the Atlantic a few hundred miles as the amplitude grows. This would maybe enable us a far sunnier summer with rains kept out to the west and the influence of the continental H.P. never far away?

Well my understanding of the recent changes is that we can expect an intensification of the effects we were told to expect many years from now over the coming 30yrs. The Arctic will , in all probability, recover but not in the next two precessional cycles. I do believe that paleo GHG records can give us a glimpse at the impacts on global ice levels but cannot guarantee any 'time-line ' for those changes. As things stand today the 'end point' of 'normalising current GHG's with global ice levels would be 1/3 of Greenland's ice gone and the West Antarctic bereft of ice with a deep channel joining Ross Sea to Weddell sea. Whilst on it's way to this point the part of the Carbon Cycle placed into a deep slumber, as the ice occupied those regions, will be re-animated into the current global Carbon cycle. You can see that this would raise an issue. What of this portion of the old Carbon Cycle now it has joined the current ,human fossil fuel pollution plumped, carbon cycle? Well would it not demand even more ice loss and even more 'resting' carbon cycle being brought back into life in our current one? Even if we scrap 60% of that 'old carbon' we still end up with major implications for sea levels around the globe. And what of Temps? With the Arctic melting we have unleashed a lot of potential warming from the absorption of more sunlight by dark land and dark oceans. The melting on Greenland has darkened the surface to the point that we see predictions of 2013 showing a logarithmic drop in albedo over summer which must , in it's turn, lead to enhanced melting? We have lost a large section of bright ,reflective surfaces meaning that energy that used to play no part in our climate system must engage into a relationship with it. With still a portion of the Arctic to melt there is an even larger potential 'energy boost' awaiting release into our climate system. Behind all of this we see the 'old carbon cycle', asleep since the last period warm enough to utilise it, waking up. Any additional energy in the climate system will only serve to accelerate this 'awakening' adding more 'natural' GHG's into the climate system. So ? How do I see things going over my lifetime? Very quickly I'm sorry to say. We have only just started to see the impacts of the masses of 'New Energy' entering the climate system and it appears to have added into the frequency of the extreme weather we have seen over the past ten years. With 2012 being another jolt to ice min levels I can only see this becoming even more of a concern over the coming decade. We also have the 'alleged' loss of 50% of our warming (NASA 2012) due to 'global dimming'? If this proves half true then any 'cleanup' that Asia engages in will only serve to exacerbate the impacts of those 'natural' feedbacks. I certainly do not see a 'dormant' period through the rest of my life, far from it. With PDO-ve nearly done with (IMHO) we can look forward to a resumption of the rapid warming we saw in the 80's (even without those nasty naturals coming out to play) but with the added lump of GHG's we have added since then. However we look at it how can we expect any 'improvements'.

Hi! It struck me that we have all taken part in the debates but we do not really understand what we each feel we should expect from the current global warming over our individual lifetimes. If we asked the same twenty years ago I'm sure that we would all have mentioned the impacts on our Children or Grand Children but much has altered over that period including the sudden decrease in summer ice cover across the Arctic. In a way it will enable us to freeze this moment in time and enable us all to keep track of how close our personal beliefs are to the reality as it unfolds? If we can include the science that leads us to hold our beliefs then this will prove all the better for us to understand you better. Who knows? it may help us better understand one another's posts in the various threads if we know that little bit more about one another and what colours our posts?

It does beg the question as to why such a paper is brought forward as if mainstream ,peer reviewed literature when so much of that material is instantly available on any low level search? We are told that 99% of Climate scientists broadly agree with the main areas of the AGW theory and as such I'd imagine it very difficult to come across any real challenges to the basic theory that could be viewed as 'serious'? I'm sure that there are lots of 'T's' to cross and 'I's' to dot but is it reasonable to think that the findings across all of climate science could be being ascribed to a wholly wrong set of drivers? As such we come down to the wider problem of the public perception of the issue. If folk are lead to believe that there are as many serious papers that question AGW as those that find support in their observations for AGW then folk will naturally believe that the Science is far from being proven and validated. On a public Forum surely we have a moral duty to portray the current scientific understandings as accurately as possible? Folk report of being weary of the issue and this ,I believe, is bourne out of a supposed 'to-ing and fro-ing' of the issues which does not reflect the current state of the science at all? Over the past two years we have had papers across all areas of the discipline showing evidence that change will be far faster and more impacting than we originally believed. We see these documented in the relevant thread but do we see threads allowed to openly discuss these papers? In Politics, were the same 'privileges accorded, then the BNP would have been given equal footing with Conservative and Labour parties to bring home their message but do we see this? No their exposure is equal to their ratings (the number of people who think them 'Right') why is this not so within this debate? How has a minority view been given equal footing with the consensus? I think the answer lies in the success of the P.R. initiative being discussed in the other new thread?

I think that circumstances will render mute all this talk of bringing a more positive 'P.R.' to the Science that is discovering the issues we will face. As I've stated before the Fossil Fuel lobby is well informed and has thus far utilised anything that could be seen as a 'weakness' in the message that science was bringing us. Utilising the natural climate variability has worked well for them but change is now occurring in some areas far faster than the most liberal interpretation of the Science would have had us believe. I have no doubts about the warming that our pollution will cause to our world and the extreme climate swings that we will encounter as the planet adjusts to this higher energy state. I do not think that anyone doubts that higher levels of GHG's lead to warmer global conditions only the timescale for such change appears open to interpretation. The P.R. attacking science has exploited the slow nature of the changes so far and used the fact that natural climate variability can swamp the rising temp trends over the short term as 'proof' that warming had ceased. This all changed with the 07' Arctic event. Climate/Weather events are now responding to a new forcing many years before it's anticipated arrival. 2012 merely ramped up these forcings another notch. There is no way that such changes to the planets energy budget will pass without imparting impacts to the climate system. If I understand correctly Science sees this event as 'ramping up' the climate changes we were seeing bringing events we once feared would impact our grandchildren into our own lifetimes. No amount of P.R. will dissuade folk from accepting that the science had been correct in it's warnings all along as this new phase of change continues and intensifies. If I understand correctly then nature itself will create its own 'P.R.' supporting the warnings climate science gave us as it impacts ever more people over the next few years. As ever only time will tell but what I have seen so far is enough to have me accept that our warming timetable has been radically altered and that this will feedback into further reinforcing changes over the near term (talking of which has anyone seen the CH4 levels over Barrentsz/Kara since the new year?)