stay on-topic
If only we had a forum called Best Forum Posts (which under no foreseeable circumstances would include more than 4-5 per 1000, two weeks at current rates). Here #1330 and #1336 might very well make the cut.
Off-Topic continued since Copenhagen catastrophe got a mention (no, I was not there):
<clip>
Essentially the politicians said "When the roof falls in tell us what to do". Of course the answer is "Put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye".
Many of those scientists involved in Copenhagen refused, ever, to have anything to do with a climate summit again.
While science has tools for measuring and modelling faster-than-linear changes (take for example the quants in physics) the allowed application range for these dictated by statistics is quite strict and hard to reach. Here in the forum we've seen the gompertz- and exp-fits used for sea ice. Thus no one in 2006 would have used these in a serious scientific article on sea ice. This, however, doesn't prevent people from making hypotheses AT the earliest possible time, WHEN the observations allow these.
Early ref to a well known case of this :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stmThese hypotheses may, often enough, pop up in the coffee table discussions between scientists and/or students, f.e. I remember talking about WA/CC in 1997(?) , and in particular how the models in those days didn't resolve this, and discussing the 'tropical hotspot' with someone who liked to ignore the cooling of the stratosphere about the same time.
I've done some such myself such as
http://erimaassa.blogspot.fi/2011/12/unscientific-extrapolation.html (excited to see if this plays out, well, not really, but anyway)
and
http://erimaassa.blogspot.fi/2014/01/brutality.html (concerning glacial inceptions, and doing "the best" with the data that is, as lost data is lost.) Both are very much unscientific.
This is a transitional period of climatology -> hydrodynamical earth science, I'd say, and it's no surprise long period averages are getting poorer predictors over the question 'where it's nicest to live in 2050?'
A bit more on topic:
-1- Emissions cause greenhouse effect, raising air and water temperatures.
-2- Arctic is most affected in autumn via amplification mechanism.
-3- The heat gradient between equator and Arctic is diminished.
-4- Jet stream slows and wobbles according to franciscan theory.
-5- Polar air streams down to mid-latitudes in eastern US on down-wobble.
-6- Mid-Pacific and Siberian air stream north on up-wobble to replace missing Arctic air.
-7- Warm air and water flow north through Bering Strait to the Chukchi, stalling lateral refreeze.
-8- Return to -4- and repeat as appropriate.
-9- Expect two strong winter storms like the 27 Dec 15 to bring moisture and insulating clouds.
-10- Less winter freeze onto bottom ice results in thinner ice at beginning of melt season.
-11- The open water season better matches peak insolation season.
-12- More water vapor in air means more energetic summer cyclones early and late.
-13- Reduced albedo in summer and thin ice/dry snow cover in winter add to planetary heat.
-14- Return to -1- and repeat until permafrost and methane kick in.
At least
- 13½ - factor in the possible pulses in melt rates that arise from the earths large scale 'pulsator' of hydrodynamical heat (ENSO).
but this would have to be scientifically proven first I guess. And it's possible this is already in in the third, fourth and 7th step.
Thanks for the ref to the article describing the early voyage to Chukchi with enormous freeboard of ice... , could it be the human influence on climate has started very early, but as it would have been concentrated to the Arctic, the slow thinning of old arctic sea ice was unnoticed until the 1950s?