On Sep 1, 10:05 am, Alastair wrote:
On 1 Sep, 00:43, Yannis wrote:



Alastair wrote:
Someone, who cannot spell 'lunacy', would not be able to understand
that the Greek forest fires are caused by millions of rich westerners
driving 4x4s, rather than the few hypothetical Greek arsonists who the
ruling Greek governing party find it convenient to blame.l

Is Yannis still around?

Erm, yes he is. But he fails to see the connection between (any) "rich
westerners" (?!) driving 4x4s and the Greek fires. Human presence in a
highly flammable environment surely puts a mature and ready-to-burn
ecosystem in danger, especially after an extremely hot and dry summer
(where a plain average temperature severely fails to summarise the
weather conditions in the last three months).
What was your question? :-)

Yannis, De Bilt/NL

Hi Yannis,

My argument is that it is rich city executives driving large and
unnecessary Land Rovers and other 4X4 around the streets of London
(Seehttp://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2157247,00.html ) that
are the main cause of global warming which has resulted in the hot dry
summer in south east Europe. It is the poor Greek peasants fleeing
from the flames in their horse and carts, with the mother in law in
the back, who are suffering. Of course I am sure that there are a few
4x4 owners in Athens as well.

I seem to be the only person who is blaming global warming for the
Greek fires and I was curious to know if you agreed with we. From your
reply it seems that I am still unique. I had another question for you,
but others may care to answer it. I heard that the fires started in
many places simultaneously when the sky was overcast. I was wondered
if the fires could have been started by an outbreak of dry lightning.
I was going to suggest that you contacted the electricity supply
authority to check this out, as they monitor for the lightning since
it can knock out their overhead lines. However your sig. line says you
are now in Holland, so I doubt you could do that now even if you
wished to.

Have you considered how much water abstraction in Greece itself might
be a more probable cause for the malaise than a few (and I do mean a
few) heavy hitters of the accelerator pedal persuasion?

You have ruled out all the alternatives in view of the fact that there
is no viable control to test your strange misapprehension?

Arrogant land husbandry is almost certainly a factor in the UK's
problems this summer. Or was there similar flooding in the days of
yore where the rainfall totals were of a type?

On Sep 1, 10:47 am, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in other
realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimatehttp://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming, and have been presented
with a question I cannot answer. I was wondering if anyone here could
help? The question is at

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rctic-sea-ice-...



and reads:

310 wayne davidson Says:
30 August 2007 at 11:14 PM

#288 Alastair, I take it you are from the UK? Well I am a little
puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice extent yearly
projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and Polar
atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have really
appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious about how
we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely wrong
timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error is,
especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would help
narrrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think its bad
yo be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not. However, I would be very interested in hearing
their take on this. Feel free to answer directly to RealClimate or
here.

Cheers, Alastair.

The predictions are still available on the Met Office site athttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html.
On the same page is a briefing document on climate change which is worth a
read.

I agree that the forecast looks to be going wrong. The reduction in ice
coverage has been accelerating so much in the past few years that I
wouldn't be surprised to see it vanish by 2020 instead of the Hadley
model's 2080.

As I don't know the parameters of the model, I couldn't say what, if
anything, is wrong. However, one feature of recent years has been the
increased forcing of multi-year ice through the Fram Strait. The resultant
loss of old ice in the Arctic increases the amount of ice that is lost in
the summer melt. As most of the ice is lost on the Russian side of the
Arctic, I wonder whether this has been responsible for intensified cyclonic
activity in that region and hence increased the ice-flow out of the Arctic.
If this is the case, the loss of old ice from the Arctic each year could
now be creating the right conditions for future losses.

How much likelihood is there that the late compacting and early
fracturing of the icecap would increase the speed of the ice's
throughput?

And what would the thermodynamics of the new system be?

And to think I was pleased that they stopped using Latin in the
sciences:
"Abstract:
Temperature/salinity interleaving is a signature of thermohaline
transition in the Arctic Ocean. These interleaving features, or
"intrusions," are observed to decrease in amplitude as they spread
laterally from warmer toward cooler water. Here this phenomenon is
investigated by considering the effect of a nonlinear equation of
state on intrusion structure and behavior. The analysis shows that
large-scale gradients of the thermal expansion coefficient (alpha) can
induce a spatial decay of intrusion temperature, salinity, and
velocity amplitudes toward cooler water. Spatial decay implies a
recirculating flow between adjacent layers, which induces a slow
vertical propagation of the intrusions. The temperature-dependence of
alpha provides a mechanism which may act to trap intrusions in the
vicinity of warm Arctic boundary currents, inhibiting ventilation of
cooler waters."

What sort of feckwits are we turning out that can't command the
English language?

On 1 Sep, 11:47, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in other
realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimatehttp://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming, and have been presented
with a question I cannot answer. I was wondering if anyone here could
help? The question is at

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rctic-sea-ice-...



and reads:

310 wayne davidson Says:
30 August 2007 at 11:14 PM

#288 Alastair, I take it you are from the UK? Well I am a little
puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice extent yearly
projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and Polar
atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have really
appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious about how
we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely wrong
timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error is,
especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would help
narrrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think its bad
yo be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not. However, I would be very interested in hearing
their take on this. Feel free to answer directly to RealClimate or
here.

Cheers, Alastair.

The predictions are still available on the Met Office site athttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html.
On the same page is a briefing document on climate change which is worth a
read.

I agree that the forecast looks to be going wrong. The reduction in ice
coverage has been accelerating so much in the past few years that I
wouldn't be surprised to see it vanish by 2020 instead of the Hadley
model's 2080.

As I don't know the parameters of the model, I couldn't say what, if
anything, is wrong. However, one feature of recent years has been the
increased forcing of multi-year ice through the Fram Strait. The resultant
loss of old ice in the Arctic increases the amount of ice that is lost in
the summer melt. As most of the ice is lost on the Russian side of the
Arctic, I wonder whether this has been responsible for intensified cyclonic
activity in that region and hence increased the ice-flow out of the Arctic.
If this is the case, the loss of old ice from the Arctic each year could
now be creating the right conditions for future losses.

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

Thanks for that reply Graham.

I don't give the summer sea ice more than three years, and I believe
it will take the winter ice with it. The Hadley model seems to have
the winter sea ice unaltered, even in 2100. They seem to be missing
a major feedback.

I believe that the loss of ice through the Fram Strait is due to the
ice being thinner and no longer blocking that narrow passage.
Presumably, thin ice means more leads and wetter air from evaporation
through the "steaming" openings. This would account for the cyclonic
activity in that region and spreading down to northern Scotland and
further?

I am astounded that this newsgroup, who are interested in British
weather, still seem to be completely apathetic about an effect which
will change the weather, not just globally, but here in the UK too.
Perhaps they are confused by the term climate, thinking that it means
average weather. It is also used as a shorthand for Climate System
which is just weather on a larger scale of area (global) and time.
That means that the climate system is just like the weather and can
not only remain fine or drab for days on end, it can also behave
explosively with little warning. Katrina and Boscasle are examples of
that!

What more can I say? All I can do is quote Private Frazer from Dad's
Army "Waur doomed:-("

Alastair wrote:

On 1 Sep, 11:47, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in other
realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimatehttp://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming, and have been presented
with a question I cannot answer. I was wondering if anyone here could
help? The question is at

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rctic-sea-ice-...



and reads:

310 wayne davidson Says:
30 August 2007 at 11:14 PM

#288 Alastair, I take it you are from the UK? Well I am a little
puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice extent yearly
projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and Polar
atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have really
appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious about how
we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely wrong
timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error is,
especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would help
narrrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think its bad
yo be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not. However, I would be very interested in hearing
their take on this. Feel free to answer directly to RealClimate or
here.

Cheers, Alastair.

The predictions are still available on the Met Office site

athttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html.
On the same page is a briefing document on climate change which is worth
a read.

I agree that the forecast looks to be going wrong. The reduction in ice
coverage has been accelerating so much in the past few years that I
wouldn't be surprised to see it vanish by 2020 instead of the Hadley
model's 2080.

As I don't know the parameters of the model, I couldn't say what, if
anything, is wrong. However, one feature of recent years has been the
increased forcing of multi-year ice through the Fram Strait. The
resultant loss of old ice in the Arctic increases the amount of ice that
is lost in the summer melt. As most of the ice is lost on the Russian
side of the Arctic, I wonder whether this has been responsible for
intensified cyclonic activity in that region and hence increased the
ice-flow out of the Arctic. If this is the case, the loss of old ice from
the Arctic each year could now be creating the right conditions for
future losses.

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

Thanks for that reply Graham.

I don't give the summer sea ice more than three years, and I believe
it will take the winter ice with it. The Hadley model seems to have
the winter sea ice unaltered, even in 2100. They seem to be missing
a major feedback.

More than forty years ago, it was thought possible that if the the ice
disappeared in the summer it might not return the next winter. It was also
thought that this total loss of ice might trigger a rapid onset of a new
ice age.

I think the ice will last longer than three years as there will be an area
of multi-year ice locked in the Arctic Gyre and this will prove more
stubborn to shift than the ice on the Russian side of the Arctic.


I believe that the loss of ice through the Fram Strait is due to the
ice being thinner and no longer blocking that narrow passage.

I don't follow this bit, I'm afraid. The Fram Strait isn't narrow and I
doubt it's been blocked since the last ice age. During the severe cold in
that region in the late sixties, ice continued to flow through the strait.
A manned ice island sailed southwards through the strait at the end of that
period.

Presumably, thin ice means more leads and wetter air from evaporation
through the "steaming" openings. This would account for the cyclonic
activity in that region and spreading down to northern Scotland and
further?

I am astounded that this newsgroup, who are interested in British
weather, still seem to be completely apathetic about an effect which
will change the weather, not just globally, but here in the UK too.
Perhaps they are confused by the term climate, thinking that it means
average weather. It is also used as a shorthand for Climate System
which is just weather on a larger scale of area (global) and time.
That means that the climate system is just like the weather and can
not only remain fine or drab for days on end, it can also behave
explosively with little warning. Katrina and Boscasle are examples of
that!

The idea of extremely rapid climate changes is not new, in spite of what
modern scientists would have us believe, and dates back to Victorian times.
The discovery of evidence for sudden shut-downs of the North Atlantic Drift
is over forty years old. The state of the Gulf Stream circulation was
described as bistable and that it has flipped from one stable situation to
the other in the past.

I don't believe Katrina nor Boscastle prove anything. It's when you get a
statistically significant increase in Katrinas and Boscastles that you have
proof. Unfortunately, that's probably only going arrive in time to be of
interest to historians and we can't afford to wait for such proof.


What more can I say? All I can do is quote Private Frazer from Dad's
Army "Waur doomed:-("

"Don't panic! Don't panic!"

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

On 3 Sep, 11:26, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
On 1 Sep, 11:47, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in other
realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimatehttp://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming, and have been presented
with a question I cannot answer. I was wondering if anyone here could
help? The question is at

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rctic-sea-ice-...

and reads:

310 wayne davidson Says:
30 August 2007 at 11:14 PM

#288 Alastair, I take it you are from the UK? Well I am a little
puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice extent yearly
projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and Polar
atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have really
appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious about how
we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely wrong
timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error is,
especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would help
narrrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think its bad
yo be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not. However, I would be very interested in hearing
their take on this. Feel free to answer directly to RealClimate or
here.

Cheers, Alastair.

The predictions are still available on the Met Office site

athttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html.



On the same page is a briefing document on climate change which is worth
a read.

I agree that the forecast looks to be going wrong. The reduction in ice
coverage has been accelerating so much in the past few years that I
wouldn't be surprised to see it vanish by 2020 instead of the Hadley
model's 2080.

As I don't know the parameters of the model, I couldn't say what, if
anything, is wrong. However, one feature of recent years has been the
increased forcing of multi-year ice through the Fram Strait. The
resultant loss of old ice in the Arctic increases the amount of ice that
is lost in the summer melt. As most of the ice is lost on the Russian
side of the Arctic, I wonder whether this has been responsible for
intensified cyclonic activity in that region and hence increased the
ice-flow out of the Arctic. If this is the case, the loss of old ice from
the Arctic each year could now be creating the right conditions for
future losses.

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

Thanks for that reply Graham.

I don't give the summer sea ice more than three years, and I believe
it will take the winter ice with it. The Hadley model seems to have
the winter sea ice unaltered, even in 2100. They seem to be missing
a major feedback.

More than forty years ago, it was thought possible that if the the ice
disappeared in the summer it might not return the next winter. It was also
thought that this total loss of ice might trigger a rapid onset of a new
ice age.

I think the ice will last longer than three years as there will be an area
of multi-year ice locked in the Arctic Gyre and this will prove more
stubborn to shift than the ice on the Russian side of the Arctic.



I believe that the loss of ice through the Fram Strait is due to the
ice being thinner and no longer blocking that narrow passage.

I don't follow this bit, I'm afraid. The Fram Strait isn't narrow and I
doubt it's been blocked since the last ice age. During the severe cold in
that region in the late sixties, ice continued to flow through the strait.
A manned ice island sailed southwards through the strait at the end of that
period.

Presumably, thin ice means more leads and wetter air from evaporation
through the "steaming" openings. This would account for the cyclonic
activity in that region and spreading down to northern Scotland and
further?

I am astounded that this newsgroup, who are interested in British
weather, still seem to be completely apathetic about an effect which
will change the weather, not just globally, but here in the UK too.
Perhaps they are confused by the term climate, thinking that it means
average weather. It is also used as a shorthand for Climate System
which is just weather on a larger scale of area (global) and time.
That means that the climate system is just like the weather and can
not only remain fine or drab for days on end, it can also behave
explosively with little warning. Katrina and Boscasle are examples of
that!

The idea of extremely rapid climate changes is not new, in spite of what
modern scientists would have us believe, and dates back to Victorian times.
The discovery of evidence for sudden shut-downs of the North Atlantic Drift
is over forty years old. The state of the Gulf Stream circulation was
described as bistable and that it has flipped from one stable situation to
the other in the past.

I don't believe Katrina nor Boscastle prove anything. It's when you get a
statistically significant increase in Katrinas and Boscastles that you have
proof. Unfortunately, that's probably only going arrive in time to be of
interest to historians and we can't afford to wait for such proof.



What more can I say? All I can do is quote Private Frazer from Dad's
Army "Waur doomed:-("

"Don't panic! Don't panic!"

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

In fact, the pre -Victorian idea of catastrophism was correct, but the
Anglo-Scot Charles Lyell persuaded the Victorians that a loving
Christian god does not behave like that, and that uniformitarianism
was correct way to view geological history. Even the atheist Charles
Darwin was convinced that evolution was a slow even process. But then
Darwin had been brought up in the unchanging "green and pleasant land"
of Shropshire and Lyell in the New Forest, despite the latter's claim
to be the inheritor of the ideas of the Scot James Hutton.

When that great unsung English hero of earth science Professor Coope
first discovered that the climate does change abruptly, he doubted
uniformitarianism, but now only claims that optimism is a bad guide
for earth scientists.

Your optimism that the climate cannot behave in the same way as the
weather behaved in Boscastle or in New Orleans will win you many
friends, but I do not believe it is realistic :-(

Alastair wrote:

On 3 Sep, 11:26, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
On 1 Sep, 11:47, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in
other realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimatehttp://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming, and have been presented
with a question I cannot answer. I was wondering if anyone here
could help? The question is at


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rctic-sea-ice-...

and reads:

310 wayne davidson Says:
30 August 2007 at 11:14 PM

#288 Alastair, I take it you are from the UK? Well I am a little
puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice extent yearly
projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and
Polar atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have
really appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious
about how we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely
wrong timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error
is, especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would
help narrrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think
its bad yo be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not. However, I would be very interested in
hearing
their take on this. Feel free to answer directly to RealClimate or
here.

Cheers, Alastair.

The predictions are still available on the Met Office site


athttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html.



On the same page is a briefing document on climate change which is
worth a read.

I agree that the forecast looks to be going wrong. The reduction in
ice coverage has been accelerating so much in the past few years that
I wouldn't be surprised to see it vanish by 2020 instead of the Hadley
model's 2080.

As I don't know the parameters of the model, I couldn't say what, if
anything, is wrong. However, one feature of recent years has been the
increased forcing of multi-year ice through the Fram Strait. The
resultant loss of old ice in the Arctic increases the amount of ice
that is lost in the summer melt. As most of the ice is lost on the
Russian side of the Arctic, I wonder whether this has been responsible
for intensified cyclonic activity in that region and hence increased
the ice-flow out of the Arctic. If this is the case, the loss of old
ice from the Arctic each year could now be creating the right
conditions for future losses.

Thanks for that reply Graham.

I don't give the summer sea ice more than three years, and I believe
it will take the winter ice with it. The Hadley model seems to have
the winter sea ice unaltered, even in 2100. They seem to be missing
a major feedback.

More than forty years ago, it was thought possible that if the the ice
disappeared in the summer it might not return the next winter. It was
also thought that this total loss of ice might trigger a rapid onset of a
new ice age.

I think the ice will last longer than three years as there will be an
area of multi-year ice locked in the Arctic Gyre and this will prove more
stubborn to shift than the ice on the Russian side of the Arctic.



I believe that the loss of ice through the Fram Strait is due to the
ice being thinner and no longer blocking that narrow passage.

I don't follow this bit, I'm afraid. The Fram Strait isn't narrow and I
doubt it's been blocked since the last ice age. During the severe cold in
that region in the late sixties, ice continued to flow through the
strait. A manned ice island sailed southwards through the strait at the
end of that period.

Presumably, thin ice means more leads and wetter air from evaporation
through the "steaming" openings. This would account for the cyclonic
activity in that region and spreading down to northern Scotland and
further?

I am astounded that this newsgroup, who are interested in British
weather, still seem to be completely apathetic about an effect which
will change the weather, not just globally, but here in the UK too.
Perhaps they are confused by the term climate, thinking that it means
average weather. It is also used as a shorthand for Climate System
which is just weather on a larger scale of area (global) and time.
That means that the climate system is just like the weather and can
not only remain fine or drab for days on end, it can also behave
explosively with little warning. Katrina and Boscasle are examples of
that!

The idea of extremely rapid climate changes is not new, in spite of what
modern scientists would have us believe, and dates back to Victorian
times. The discovery of evidence for sudden shut-downs of the North
Atlantic Drift is over forty years old. The state of the Gulf Stream
circulation was described as bistable and that it has flipped from one
stable situation to the other in the past.

I don't believe Katrina nor Boscastle prove anything. It's when you get a
statistically significant increase in Katrinas and Boscastles that you
have proof. Unfortunately, that's probably only going arrive in time to
be of interest to historians and we can't afford to wait for such proof.



What more can I say? All I can do is quote Private Frazer from Dad's
Army "Waur doomed:-("

"Don't panic! Don't panic!"


In fact, the pre -Victorian idea of catastrophism was correct, but the
Anglo-Scot Charles Lyell persuaded the Victorians that a loving
Christian god does not behave like that, and that uniformitarianism
was correct way to view geological history. Even the atheist Charles
Darwin was convinced that evolution was a slow even process. But then
Darwin had been brought up in the unchanging "green and pleasant land"
of Shropshire and Lyell in the New Forest, despite the latter's claim
to be the inheritor of the ideas of the Scot James Hutton.

When that great unsung English hero of earth science Professor Coope
first discovered that the climate does change abruptly, he doubted
uniformitarianism, but now only claims that optimism is a bad guide
for earth scientists.

So unsung that I've never heard of him, but that's probably my fault.
However, could you please supply more information on him, full name, when
he discovered that climate changes abruptly, references, etc.


Your optimism that the climate cannot behave in the same way as the
weather behaved in Boscastle or in New Orleans will win you many
friends, but I do not believe it is realistic :-(

That's the exact opposite of what I believe. I've known for forty years that
climate can change suddenly.

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

On 6 Sep, 09:38, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
On 3 Sep, 11:26, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
On 1 Sep, 11:47, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in
other realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimatehttp://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming, and have been presented
with a question I cannot answer. I was wondering if anyone here
could help? The question is at

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rctic-sea-ice-...

and reads:

310 wayne davidson Says:
30 August 2007 at 11:14 PM

#288 Alastair, I take it you are from the UK? Well I am a little
puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice extent yearly
projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and
Polar atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have
really appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious
about how we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely
wrong timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error
is, especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would
help narrrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think
its bad yo be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not. However, I would be very interested in
hearing
their take on this. Feel free to answer directly to RealClimate or
here.

Cheers, Alastair.

The predictions are still available on the Met Office site

athttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html.





On the same page is a briefing document on climate change which is
worth a read.

I agree that the forecast looks to be going wrong. The reduction in
ice coverage has been accelerating so much in the past few years that
I wouldn't be surprised to see it vanish by 2020 instead of the Hadley
model's 2080.

As I don't know the parameters of the model, I couldn't say what, if
anything, is wrong. However, one feature of recent years has been the
increased forcing of multi-year ice through the Fram Strait. The
resultant loss of old ice in the Arctic increases the amount of ice
that is lost in the summer melt. As most of the ice is lost on the
Russian side of the Arctic, I wonder whether this has been responsible
for intensified cyclonic activity in that region and hence increased
the ice-flow out of the Arctic. If this is the case, the loss of old
ice from the Arctic each year could now be creating the right
conditions for future losses.

Thanks for that reply Graham.

I don't give the summer sea ice more than three years, and I believe
it will take the winter ice with it. The Hadley model seems to have
the winter sea ice unaltered, even in 2100. They seem to be missing
a major feedback.

More than forty years ago, it was thought possible that if the the ice
disappeared in the summer it might not return the next winter. It was
also thought that this total loss of ice might trigger a rapid onset of a
new ice age.

I think the ice will last longer than three years as there will be an
area of multi-year ice locked in the Arctic Gyre and this will prove more
stubborn to shift than the ice on the Russian side of the Arctic.

I believe that the loss of ice through the Fram Strait is due to the
ice being thinner and no longer blocking that narrow passage.

I don't follow this bit, I'm afraid. The Fram Strait isn't narrow and I
doubt it's been blocked since the last ice age. During the severe cold in
that region in the late sixties, ice continued to flow through the
strait. A manned ice island sailed southwards through the strait at the
end of that period.

Presumably, thin ice means more leads and wetter air from evaporation
through the "steaming" openings. This would account for the cyclonic
activity in that region and spreading down to northern Scotland and
further?

I am astounded that this newsgroup, who are interested in British
weather, still seem to be completely apathetic about an effect which
will change the weather, not just globally, but here in the UK too.
Perhaps they are confused by the term climate, thinking that it means
average weather. It is also used as a shorthand for Climate System
which is just weather on a larger scale of area (global) and time.
That means that the climate system is just like the weather and can
not only remain fine or drab for days on end, it can also behave
explosively with little warning. Katrina and Boscasle are examples of
that!

The idea of extremely rapid climate changes is not new, in spite of what
modern scientists would have us believe, and dates back to Victorian
times. The discovery of evidence for sudden shut-downs of the North
Atlantic Drift is over forty years old. The state of the Gulf Stream
circulation was described as bistable and that it has flipped from one
stable situation to the other in the past.

I don't believe Katrina nor Boscastle prove anything. It's when you get a
statistically significant increase in Katrinas and Boscastles that you
have proof. Unfortunately, that's probably only going arrive in time to
be of interest to historians and we can't afford to wait for such proof.

What more can I say? All I can do is quote Private Frazer from Dad's
Army "Waur doomed:-("

"Don't panic! Don't panic!"

In fact, the pre -Victorian idea of catastrophism was correct, but the
Anglo-Scot Charles Lyell persuaded the Victorians that a loving
Christian god does not behave like that, and that uniformitarianism
was correct way to view geological history. Even the atheist Charles
Darwin was convinced that evolution was a slow even process. But then
Darwin had been brought up in the unchanging "green and pleasant land"
of Shropshire and Lyell in the New Forest, despite the latter's claim
to be the inheritor of the ideas of the Scot James Hutton.

When that great unsung English hero of earth science Professor Coope
first discovered that the climate does change abruptly, he doubted
uniformitarianism, but now only claims that optimism is a bad guide
for earth scientists.

So unsung that I've never heard of him, but that's probably my fault.
However, could you please supply more information on him, full name, when
he discovered that climate changes abruptly, references, etc.



Your optimism that the climate cannot behave in the same way as the
weather behaved in Boscastle or in New Orleans will win you many
friends, but I do not believe it is realistic :-(

That's the exact opposite of what I believe. I've known for forty years that
climate can change suddenly.

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

Professor Russell Coope was awarded the Geological Society's Prestwich
Prize in 2005
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Prestwich_Medal

I have read his speech but cannot find it now.

Here is a paper he wrote in which he was saying that rapid climate
change happened, before it was confirmed by the Greenland ice cores.
http://www.shropshiregeology.org.uk/...0-%20Coope.pdf

Alastair wrote:

On 6 Sep, 09:38, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
On 3 Sep, 11:26, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
snip

When that great unsung English hero of earth science Professor Coope
first discovered that the climate does change abruptly, he doubted
uniformitarianism, but now only claims that optimism is a bad guide
for earth scientists.

So unsung that I've never heard of him, but that's probably my fault.
However, could you please supply more information on him, full name, when
he discovered that climate changes abruptly, references, etc.



Your optimism that the climate cannot behave in the same way as the
weather behaved in Boscastle or in New Orleans will win you many
friends, but I do not believe it is realistic :-(

That's the exact opposite of what I believe. I've known for forty years
that climate can change suddenly.


Professor Russell Coope was awarded the Geological Society's Prestwich
Prize in 2005
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Prestwich_Medal

I have read his speech but cannot find it now.

Here is a paper he wrote in which he was saying that rapid climate
change happened, before it was confirmed by the Greenland ice cores.

http://www.shropshiregeology.org.uk/...0-%20Coope.pdf

Thanks, Alastair.

I see that, at the end of the piece, Professor Coope refers to sudden
changes in climate being correlated to changes in the NAD. This predates
the recent hype of the so-called discovery of these changes by a decade or
two.

My memories of the book I read in the sixties on ice, which included a
section on the sudden shut-down of the NAD, are a bit rusty. However, I
think Greenland ice-cores had provided some of the evidence for such events
in the past and their effects on the climate. Seems a pity that such
evidence seems to have got lost and had to be re-discovered. A bit of
googling suggests the ice-cores used in the [re-?]discovery date from 1966,
but I'm fairly sure that that date is still later than the publication date
of the book I'd read. The more I learn, the less I know.


--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

On 6 Sep, 15:06, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
On 6 Sep, 09:38, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
On 3 Sep, 11:26, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
snip

When that great unsung English hero of earth science Professor Coope
first discovered that the climate does change abruptly, he doubted
uniformitarianism, but now only claims that optimism is a bad guide
for earth scientists.

So unsung that I've never heard of him, but that's probably my fault.
However, could you please supply more information on him, full name, when
he discovered that climate changes abruptly, references, etc.

Your optimism that the climate cannot behave in the same way as the
weather behaved in Boscastle or in New Orleans will win you many
friends, but I do not believe it is realistic :-(

That's the exact opposite of what I believe. I've known for forty years
that climate can change suddenly.

Professor Russell Coope was awarded the Geological Society's Prestwich
Prize in 2005
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Prestwich_Medal

I have read his speech but cannot find it now.

Here is a paper he wrote in which he was saying that rapid climate
change happened, before it was confirmed by the Greenland ice cores.

http://www.shropshiregeology.org.uk/...ceedings/1984%...

Thanks, Alastair.

I see that, at the end of the piece, Professor Coope refers to sudden
changes in climate being correlated to changes in the NAD. This predates
the recent hype of the so-called discovery of these changes by a decade or
two.

My memories of the book I read in the sixties on ice, which included a
section on the sudden shut-down of the NAD, are a bit rusty. However, I
think Greenland ice-cores had provided some of the evidence for such events
in the past and their effects on the climate. Seems a pity that such
evidence seems to have got lost and had to be re-discovered. A bit of
googling suggests the ice-cores used in the [re-?]discovery date from 1966,
but I'm fairly sure that that date is still later than the publication date
of the book I'd read. The more I learn, the less I know.

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

I think that in the early part of the 20th century abrupt climate
changes were found in varves, but that work was later discredited.

Russell Coope is a hero of mine, ever since I saw him on an Open
University video called Rapid Climate Change. I am not sure that he is
a hero for anyone else, but I was not the only OU student who found
that video fascinating.

There is a history of "The Discovery of Rapid Climate Change" at
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html Weart starts with CEP
Brooks who wrote "Climate through the Ages" which may be where you
first came across rapid climate change.

Alastair wrote:

On 6 Sep, 15:06, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
On 6 Sep, 09:38, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
On 3 Sep, 11:26, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
snip

When that great unsung English hero of earth science Professor Coope
first discovered that the climate does change abruptly, he doubted
uniformitarianism, but now only claims that optimism is a bad guide
for earth scientists.

So unsung that I've never heard of him, but that's probably my fault.
However, could you please supply more information on him, full name,
when he discovered that climate changes abruptly, references, etc.

Your optimism that the climate cannot behave in the same way as the
weather behaved in Boscastle or in New Orleans will win you many
friends, but I do not believe it is realistic :-(

That's the exact opposite of what I believe. I've known for forty
years that climate can change suddenly.

Professor Russell Coope was awarded the Geological Society's Prestwich
Prize in 2005
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Prestwich_Medal

I have read his speech but cannot find it now.

Here is a paper he wrote in which he was saying that rapid climate
change happened, before it was confirmed by the Greenland ice cores.

http://www.shropshiregeology.org.uk/...ceedings/1984%...

Thanks, Alastair.

I see that, at the end of the piece, Professor Coope refers to sudden
changes in climate being correlated to changes in the NAD. This predates
the recent hype of the so-called discovery of these changes by a decade
or two.

My memories of the book I read in the sixties on ice, which included a
section on the sudden shut-down of the NAD, are a bit rusty. However, I
think Greenland ice-cores had provided some of the evidence for such
events in the past and their effects on the climate. Seems a pity that
such evidence seems to have got lost and had to be re-discovered. A bit
of googling suggests the ice-cores used in the [re-?]discovery date from
1966, but I'm fairly sure that that date is still later than the
publication date of the book I'd read. The more I learn, the less I know.


I think that in the early part of the 20th century abrupt climate
changes were found in varves, but that work was later discredited.

Russell Coope is a hero of mine, ever since I saw him on an Open
University video called Rapid Climate Change. I am not sure that he is
a hero for anyone else, but I was not the only OU student who found
that video fascinating.

There is a history of "The Discovery of Rapid Climate Change" at
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html Weart starts with CEP
Brooks who wrote "Climate through the Ages" which may be where you
first came across rapid climate change.

Thanks for that link, Alastair. The first time I came across rapid climate
change was the book I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, I can't remember
the author though I'm fairly sure he was based at Wood's Hole.

A little over thirty years ago I happened upon an earlier reference to
sudden climate change, though it's a bit less reliable. It's an SF short
story, New Worlds, by Erle Stanley Gardner, first published in 1932. It
ties in the 19th-century mammoth discoveries which were taken as evidence
of sudden onset of ice ages, the ancient stories of the flood, and evidence
of changes in locations of the poles, to create a disaster-movie of a
story.

Getting back to changes in NAD and Wood's Hole, I received notification of
the following a little over an hour ago -
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=20727

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.