How did the MSM manage to miss this story? �Stone Age Settlement Found Under English Channel.� I sure hope you will make it available to your readers.

But what would happen if we had evidence of glaciers melting and massive flooding that occurred 10,000 years ago - long before man burned fossil fuels to any significant degree ? Such evidence would certainly be considered evidence that global warming is a natural phenomenon - as opposed to man-made.

Well - this evidence actually exists and was reported in a Yahoo News article (via LiveScience.com) titled �Stone Age Settlement Found Under English Channel.� http://news.yahoo.com/s/livesc.....lI21Ws0NUE #
Thanks, Jim

I wonder if the folks at GFDL have any comments on why most climate models underestimate the amount of sea ice that is melting.

What might the ramifications be for the climate in 20 years?

http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

The climate is entering a mode that has never existed before. Computer models are the best they can be built, but still carry uncertainty.

Optimist and pessimist may disagree on the outcome, but we and our children will all have to live with the outcome.

I have been unable to open these videos on my dialup, though I gave it a serious try this time.

I have a serious suggestion for all of you. Please open:
http://www.accuweather.com/world-index-news.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0
daily for the next 3 years as I have. Then tell me you don't think the earth is experiencing a change in climate that will eliminate all but the wealthy.

By the way, I am glad I posted the entire relevant paragraphs from Newsweek below as the other part of the AW GW blog chose to distort it. So much for keeping my entries short. If I had, I would have participated in an untruth.

What does not go into the "model"?

I wonder what happens to their funding if their models show that CO2 doesn't really have too much impact on warming?

I’ve worked in an industry that has used models to predict the behavior of drugs in the body. Seems simple enough…design a new compound using a known drug as a template. Then you manipulate this drugs shape so it will work on a cell to elicit a wanted response. Then you run a bunch of scenarios and you got designer drug that works perfectly. I mean how hard can it be? Plenty hard! About 99% of the drugs that the model says will be winners turn out to have a serious flaw in them because we failed to understand the actual impact on the body. We did not have enough information on how the body functions. But we did discover a new feedback mechanism or something that changed our expected results. We add that information to the model and try again. Basically our models do not have enough information to give us a real idea of how every drug actually works with the body. I can give you a myriad of errors that have been made using this technique. It helps us in drug screening but I would never give or take a designed drug without first testing it. It is just too dangerous to believe these models, no matter how complex there are. The models do not know enough to make that leap and blindly follow what they say. We still need to learn and observe.
The same with the Weather Models……. NOT enough information or understanding of what is actually happening to accurately make definitive conclusions. Can any of these weather models actually predict the weather from 1880 to 2001? No! Then why the heck do you think they can predict the next 200 years????? This is the ultimate hubris of AGW. We are screaming…not exactly sure why but we are screaming loud and well….. the number of decibels alone must make it true!
Weather models are still primitive compared to the complexity of weather and its mechanisms. We just don’t know enough about weather. Yet some are bombastically vociferous in how great they are. How can you listen to these self serving politicians and the poor science they are offering as proof? How blindly na�ve can you be? I would not bet my paycheck or the economic life of this country or the world on these models. They are flawed and if you don’t think so. Great! I got this bridge in Brooklyn you should see…..

Andrew:
The climate is entering a mode that has never existed before.>

Oh, really. Never heard of the MWP? Or the other warmer times that occured before man walked the earth?
Honestly Andrew, you really set yourself up for criticism with claims such as this. Stop being such a blind believer and look into these claims with an open mind if possible. The IPCC hides their data from public eyes (very unscientific) because they are simply promoting one side of the story and will brook no dissent within or without their organization. Their conclusions about CO2 and climate in general wouldn't withstand scrutiny from the scientific community.That is NOT how peer review works! Therefore, all they have to say about it can and should be dismissed with the wave of a hand. To do anything else is to promote false and misleading information that will surely bring the modern world's standard of living down if acted upon by governments worldwide.
Real science puts the theory and the data out in the community for scrutiny and welcomes corrections to both. The IPCC isn't doing this and there's only one reason why...it wouldn't stand up.
I know this post isn't about the link you provided above Andrew, but you have quoted and left links to the IPCC report before, and I welcome correction if I'm wrong, but be sure to state WHY I'm wrong about the full data sets and methods being kept hidden.

why most climate models underestimate the amount of sea ice that is melting

Andrew,

In the northern hemisphere, more sea ice is melting than the models predict. In the southern hemisphere, the sea ice trends are opposite of what the models predict.

Obvious conclusion - the models are wrong. Don't base policy decisions on them.

On the flip side there is another, simpler model - which exactly explains the recent arctic/antarctic behavior. Does the map look familiar?
http://www.physorg.com/news100354399.html

This is a great case of the "emperor's new clothes." Ignore the obvious in favor of political expediency.

Annual mean temperature change due to dirty snow in degrees Celsius. Credit: University of California - Irvine
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/dirtysnowmay.jpg

Re stone age settlement, there was lots of great stuff about it on the BBC a while ago; cute.

I thought over what I said earlier and suggest that checking AccuWeather world weather report (or any other summary or world weather) a couple of times a week (not daily) should be sufficient to give an overall picture. Glad to see someone else put NSIDC info out; thought I had put it here but perhaps it was elsewhere; if Brett edited, OK.

Today there was an interesting AP item re current weather breaking records.
"Temps Hit Century Mark in South"
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Aug14/0,4670,HeatWave,00.html
Below is an excerpt in case you don't want to go to the link:
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Cities simmered with triple-digit temperatures Monday, toppling records in a heat wave blamed for deaths in at least five states.
Thermometers hit over 100 degrees in parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Nebraska, Kansas and the western tip of Tennessee, where Memphis hit a record 105 degrees, the National Weather Service said.
.... In Alabama, Montgomery, broke a record Monday with an eighth straight day of 100-plus heat, hitting 103 degrees. A day earlier, the city's streets steamed at 106. The city had seven-day hot streaks in 1990, 1954 and 1881. ...

WW,

Georgia and much of the south have shown steep temperature declines since the 1930s - nearly 0.2 degrees per decade. The NOAA site is down right now, but here is the link-
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/ga.html

I think you are barking up the wrong tree....

Found my NSIDC comments below; my error.

re North Sea world it's been niggling away at me and I finally found my copy. I was completely fascinated by the maps and picture and didn't remember the climate comments at all, oh well. I would tend to ignore that part of the story and enjoy the rest. There are so many variables; if one thinks about ice covering almost all of Europe and then melting, that is almost unimaginable. So I am offering it in the hope that you all will also be intrigued.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6584011.stm

This is not meant to be related but one possible scenario has freshwater melt deconstructing the "engine" that generates the gulf stream. Since England lines up with central Canada and currently has milder winters than we do (roses in December, yet) it would be quite a change.