The US is warmer than it was in 1984. I don't think it is a surprise that the glaciers might recede. However, was the temperature increase due to CO2 or was it a natural cycle of warming? It's cooler now than it was a year ago, 3 years ago, 5 years ago and 10 years ago. How can this be if CO2 is the driver?

Reply: It's just a nice picture of the mountain. The date is meaningless.

The implication of the title "The Lone Exception" that Mt Shasta's glaciers are the only ones in the whole world that are growing is categorically false and is beneath you.

Reply: According to this story, Shasta's glaciers are the only ones (not counting the shaded crater of St. Helens) that are know to be growing in the U.S.

From the article........
He said Shasta's seven glaciers are the only ones scientists have identified as getting larger, with the exception of a small glacier in the shaded crater of Washington state's Mount St. Helens.

The Mt. Shasta story is quite interesting in that it reminds us that glacial retreat and expansion is a function of both local temperature and precipitation. Another interesting fact that is not mentioned is Dr. Thompson has a very poor track record archiving his data and making it available for public consumption. Climate Audit has an entire reference link on their left navigation bar dedicated to Dr. Thompson. I emplore everyone to check it out at http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=26 . Make you wonder what qualifies someone to be called a "glacier expert".

There is little doubt that glaciers in Glacier National Park and other places in the Northern Rockies will expand this summer, as in several other parts of the world.

Hopefully glaciers will not expand back to where they were 10,000 years ago before that annoying little rat in Ice Age started driving a Hummer. I doubt that the people in Wisconsin would be happy if their houses were plowed south to Iowa.

Always remember, the climate was perfect and stable before America messed it up.

I'm still trying to figure out who drew that arbitrary "normal" line. Who figured out what is normal, so they can claim it's either above or below normal?

According to Lonnie Thompson, a glacier expert from Ohio State, climate change is causing roughly 90% of the worlds mountain glaciers to shrink.

REPLY: Looks like "climate change" is causing the world'd mountain glaiciers to grow too!

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/07/09/shasta-glaciers.html

These people will stop at nothing to get their leftist agenda shoved down our throats, will they?

As for Mt. Shasta, looks pretty cold and snowy to me!

What a CROCK!

According to every glaciologist who has made it through their first week of class, 90% of the world's glaciers have been shrinking for the last 15,000 years.

To say that the Mount Shasta glaciers are the only ones growing in the continental U.S. is incorrect. The following glaciers are also growing:
Nisqually Glacier on Mount Ranier
Glaciers on Mount Shuksan in Washington State
Crater Glacier on Mount St. Helen's, which is now bigger than it was in 1980 when the glacier was almost completely destroyed by the eruption.

Reply: You may be right, I am just relating what the scientists said in the article. BTW, St. Helen's crater was mentioned, but that is a slightly different situation.

Very interesting Brett. Why wouldn't "global warming" increase precip on other moutains and make their glaciers grow larger? Something doesn't add up here...

Reply: Local weather patterns. The increase in precip. at Shasta was able to overcome the long-term warming, while farther north the % increase in precip was not as great, and not enought to overcome the long-term warming.

Anyway, a little off topic. I found this picture of how the capture cow gas. EVERYONE! You have to see this picture, it's completely pointless and I can only laugh at it. Poor cow...

Reply: Darren, that was my next light humored post! Tensions on this blog have been high lately and i think we all could use a laugh.

New evidence has emerged that a large plate of floating ice shelf attached to Antarctica is breaking up, in a troubling sign of global warming, the European Space Agency (ESA) said on Thursday.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080710175751.a4ni0j9h&show_article=1

Must be all that -101F weather at Vostok melting the ice. Winters are brutally hot in Antarctica, and that long-term cooling trend is really killing them.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg

So, what this is showing us is that weather patterns have shifted precepitation further North.

There are more drought like conditions in central and southern California, but more rain and snow towards Oregon and Washington State.

This shift of precepitation is expected not just in the US, but in many areas.

It's not "just" global warming, but also climate change.

More precepitation (especially towars the poles) and more extreme precepitation and more drought conditions towards the equator. All part of a pattern and unfortunately, one that will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise with no end in sight.

"I doubt that the people in Wisconsin would be happy if their houses were plowed south to Iowa."

Yes, I do enjoy owning 75 acres without ice on it. Whatever natural forces allowed the ice to retreat so very long ago, I want to say this human has enjoyed every square inch and taken excellent care of that precious land. This example of what once was and was is today should give people that are afraid of global change a moment to pause and think that what is happening now has been happening since the very beginning and for the most part humans will not be able to turn back the clock nor will they be able to predict what will happen. This all boils down to some believing we have control over the climate which I find pretty hard to confirm. If that was so don't you think that climatologists this afternoon would have been able to control the twisters and straight line winds that tore through MN and my state this afternoon causing all sorts of damage.

It is a heavy burden to think that human beings are powerful enough to now have control over the climate.

For high level glaciers, those well above the freezing line, precipitation and winds are the biggest factor. Secondly, many of the glaciers in both NAmerica and Europe were quite young -that is they built up thier mass during the last LIA and have since receeded or disappeared altogether. Yet, there are others, like the Franz Josef Glacier in New Zealand, that have actually grown during the last decade.

I remember reading in a journal a few years ago about archeological teams found items in the Alpine morraines in Europe that dated back to the Roman Empire. THey found coins, pieces of metal and leather, etc... which indicated many of the pass through the Alps were free of ice at one time. During Roman Climate Minimum and through the LIA, these passes became closed due to glaciation and of course bad weather. Now, 2000 years later they are open again. But for how long?

The Lone Exception or the first of many glaciers that will start expanding?

What is the lag in time between temperature change and the size of a glacier anyway?

The retreat and expansion of the Mt. Shasta glacier has been driven more by the local precipitation patterns driven by the PDO. Here is a summary of various drought periods and the related snow pack effects on the Mt. Shasta:
http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/env/drought/index.htm

Reply: Thanks for the link Dennis.

While there has been a general 17% increase in precipitation over the last 110 years, back in the Fall of 1977, the glacier was essentially gone due to the lack of precipitation during the drought:
http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/env/drought/kg1977.jpg

The precipitation patterns are so inconsistent over northern California that any short-term pattern of glacial retreat or expansion cannot be used to develop any consistent long-term correlation with temperature. The current glacial expansion is due to the increase in precipitation/snowfall since the last big 1987-1992 drought.

The guy from OSU is a glacier expert, I have read articles outlining hie experience here in the local paper. And frankly put, he is right, climate change is making the glaciers shrink. He has said that multiple times.

The interesting part of the statement though is that he says "climate change" as an interchangeable word for "AGW". I should think though that anyone attempting to impress with their understanding of climate studies would use a different phraseology(sp). The hot button term "climate change" is meant to scare those who are more impressionable.

For those of us who have a grasp of the topic, we know the difference.

Because I'm like DUH! Of course it's climate change! How else is a glacier change if every thing in the local climate stays the same. Since we ALL, Brett mostly, know that our "climate" (read weather) changes all the time, what's the point of his comment other than to incite unjustified concern?

Those really are fantastic pictures. Look at the first, BIG imposing mountain, second, HUGE mountain covering the entire frame, and third, it's really just a little dot on the state of California.

Puts things in perspective if you ask me. Reply: Yea, you are right about that.

PH: "There is little doubt that glaciers in Glacier National Park and other places in the Northern Rockies will expand this summer, as in several other parts of the world."

One would only doubt that if one understood something about glacier gtowth. Keep makin' it all up, Patrick. That'll work for you right up until it doesn't.

WHAT! A growing glacier in this day in age, get out of here. How can this be? I mean it can't happen...Impossible, What is the cause,is the climate changing or is it just the weather, or is the weather causing the climate to change, wait climate and weather are not one in the same, maybe the weather is causing a pattern change and while some spots on earth warm others get colder..Thats it, the climate is changing, one spot warms as other spot cools as the earth has been doing for billions of years. Right now agwers there are spots on earth other than Mt. Shasta that are getting cooler and yes there are spots getting warmer, why do you only focus on the warmer parts?

dont worry Patrick.why could anybody blame America or any other country in the world.the facts are comming trough at last that this whole climate change thing has nothing to do with humans from anywhere in the world.it seems more to be comming from computer models that undergo constant tweaking from a fanatical influential core of loonies

This is a fable of the pot and the kettle for those who call me "black". Brett and others, I apologize for being off topic, though those of you who suggest I stay on topic should all do the same.

I finally had time to scroll through some of the previous entries and responses, and thought I should respond (you do not have more right than I do to an opinion).

Like many others who have been following science for years, and are concerned about political repression and its effect on science and solutions, etc., I looked at AccuWeather's "Global Warming" blog and thought this would be a good place to join. Before long, I found that there was a bias in the responses here, about 90% overall, sometimes more, sometimes less, in favor of those who would prefer to consign the science on global warming to the round file. The names came up every day, sometimes with multiple entries. At first, I tried looking up sources and finding references to support what I had to say, and listened to what others said. But over the years (I've changed my moniker twice, but have had this one for quite a while) I've taken a long hard look. I found that the internet and MSM have created a platform that allows an appearance of more doubt than really exists. I also found that well-funded organizations, using techniques initially explored by big tobacco, had worked to obscure and create doubt. I found a few legitimate scientists (Drs. Singer and Gray are my favorites), and lots of others promoting alternative points of view, and I found that scientists were working hard to respond to their questions and update their work. This very work was used to "prove" that they were wrong.

I chose to use my regular observation of world weather to show that one need not know the field to notice that things are getting more dangerous.

I also found that name-calling was being used to label the IPCC, Dr. Hansen, and Mr. Gore, and that the assertions about these people were mostly not true, though in some cases they were only exaggerated (example: a couple of Mr. Gore's many points needed correction; the hockey-stick has been confirmed (yell if you like, but it's true); the Brit school thing is well reported by the BBC and happened differently from the way it was represented by the skeptic community, for example).

Most non-posse people over the years have left in frustration as nothing appears to make headway. Dare anyone disagree consistently, they will be attacked. I try to provide an alternative voice not to those who have proven their bias, but for others who might feel isolated.

It is my understanding that we are now allowed only one link per post (Reply: You are allowed as many as you want, but sometimes the spam filter says otherwise. If your post did not get on then let me know and I will recover it from the junk file), and in any case I'm no longer going to go back and back, for example, to Senator Inhofe's well financed minority post to discover that "proves" me wrong. Here's my post of the day, take a look if your beliefs are strong enough to dare to look the scientific community in the face:

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/

The BBC editors did an excellent job of collecting all the canards (global cooling, solar stuff) a while back. If you look around, you can find answers to all the hackneyed ideas used to fight the truth.

And as I have a life, I will continue in general (unlike now) to make the simplest and shortest possible statements of what I believe is true. Thanks for the compliment on how I pack in a lot. I'm not in it to waste my time on the choir!

The last data I saw reported for glacier retreat for Greenland was for 2006. I suspect that the cooling that's been recorded there during the last 2 years might result in stabilization or advance of Greenland's glaciers. For the year-to-date, the Summit weather station has averaged over 2 deg F lower that the same period in 2007.

Hi Patrick,

Maybe the Euro Space Agency are thinking that the ice must be less due to the extreme cold temperatures causing shrinkage, yeah shrinkage.

mrsund: how can it be warmer...

have a look at this post to see an interesting perspective on the analysis of this issue.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is it... Occurring

Patrick Henry:
There is little doubt that glaciers in Glacier National Park and other places in the Northern Rockies will expand this summer, as in several other parts of the world.

I doubt that! Want to bet?

Saly:
I'm still trying to figure out who drew that arbitrary "normal" line. Who figured out what is normal, so they can claim it's either above or below normal?

It's a worth while exercise to try and draw your own line by investigating the issues and the facts.

It's warming currents melting the shelves from underneath, PH. Had I mentioned that the front of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is substantially below sea level and thus vulnerable to the same effect? Vostok is safe, though.

As you may know already, it's the first time the Perito Moreno Glaciar (in Santa Cruz, Southern Argentina) breaks in Winter time. But scientists say the Glaciar is actually expanding. Do you have any info related to this? Thanks!

PS: Hey Oiz, you always reply to my comments... Would you give Brett your e-mail address so as to talk??? Cuz we should stick to the topic and some times there are other things I'd like to talk to you about, such as politics and stuff...

Reply: I already have his email, but I need permission from Oiz to give it to you.

re. my first comment. Oops. Sorry Brett. Goes to show that most people don't read articles thoroughly enough and skim the headlines and first paragraph.

Reply: Not a problem Fred.

MK from MN,

Glaciers on Mount Shuksan in Washington State

Which ones? To my knowledge, all the glaciers in the North Cascades National Park (that includes Mount Shuksan) have been retreating since the 1980s. Can you provide a reference to back your claim?

Also note: Mount Rainier has twenty-six glaciers. The Nisqually glacier is the only one that is currently known to be advancing. Most of the other glaciers on the mountain are receding. The advance of the Nisqually Glacier is the result of local micro-climates, an exception to the norm.

You are right, however. To say that Shasta's glaciers are the only ones advancing is incorrect. I think it was said as such because it is the only case in which the advance is part of a larger-scale (geographically speaking) change in climate, which is not the case in the other few glacial advances.

~Travis (from Washington State)

Patrick,

Vostok is located inland, hundreds of miles away and in a much different climate than the coastal ice shelves. You know that.

The ice shelf in question is more than 2000 miles from Vostok. Should I expect Seattle weather to be the same as the weather in Atlanta? Or perhaps the same as the weather in Mexico City?

In any case, the article you linked did not mention air temperatures as a cause of the melting, making your Vostok reference (while spectacular, to be sure) somewhat irrelevant.

I was bummed on first visit to Yosemite that I had missed the glaciers are Glacier Point by a few thousand years. Maybe the buffalo and their gas release caused the Yosemite glaciers to melt as their were no Hummers driving around the valley back then.

Weatherwatcher,

You invite me to yell at you, so I will.

If you think the "hockey stick" has been "confirmed," you are wrong. It has been meticulously debunked.

Brett,

Here is a good link on the monthly and yearly snowfall record on Mt Shasta (3,590 ft level - not at or near the 14,161 ft peak) since 1948:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtsnf.pl?ca5983

I plotted out the yearly snowfall data using EXCEL and the graph shows a general decline in snowfall from about 1950 (generally in the 100-250 inch range) to the period of the big droughts of 1976-77 (where the glacier disappeared) and 1987-92 where it levels out (generally in the 50-90 inch range). Since the early 1990's there is a slight but general increase in snowfall to the present (generally in the 90-130 inch range) - where the latest noted glacial expansion is occurring.

By the way, the next link shows a picture of Mt. Shasta taken on August 4, 2007:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/75/Mount_Shasta_8-4-2007.jpg/250px-Mount_Shasta_8-4-2007.jpg

That picture shows Mt. Shasta had only patchy snow cover at the time, this after the snow fall during the previous winter was only 60.3 inches at the monitoring site. Again another good example of how the short-term snowfall amounts affect the pattern of glacial retreat and expansion.

It is hard to really come up with any long-term glacial correlation on Mt. Shasta with such rapidly changing snow cover, which is all related to the wide variance of the short-term precipitation patterns.

Reply: Thanks Dennis. Good stuff!

Hi Steve Bloom,

The WAIS is grounded to rock. Ocean currents don't flow beneath it.

Here is some current snow information for Glacier National Park.
http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/ftm_snow.htm

Twice normal snow water content. This is for a plateau between mountains where the glaciers are. Snow is undoubtedly much deeper at 10,000 ft.

The simple equation for glacial growth is -
If accumulation exceeds melt for the year, the glacier grows!

Caleb, now all you need is a bunch of climate scientists to agree with you re the hockey stick. Right now you seem to be limited to that Canadian mining speculator (hmm, how does he support himself these days?), his economist pal and a few of their friends.

Here's a dose of reality: The HS paper is *10 years old*. The discussion about it is over in the scientific community, and your side didn't win. Get over it.

Those who believe a cooling cycle began in 1998 might have a different interpretation....that Shasta is the early signs of cooling and other glaciers will begin to build as the earth continues to cool.

I've posted this before on an earlier topic, but thought it worth mentioning again as it fits with this subject.

In 1690 the inhabitants of Chamonix in the Alps were so frightened by the advance of a local glacier towards their homes that they called in a bishop to 'exorcise' it. After the ceremony the glacier retreated one-eighth of a mile. The account I read of this incident didn't give any timescales but I imagine both the advance and the retreat must have been fairly rapid to account for the people's reaction.

Weatherwatcher, is it hot up there on your soap box????

The problem is people like our debunkers will at least research and link their findings. People like you, Kipp, Mark, and BT just prefer to say the science is "settled" and retort with personal insults on those here who don't agree with you.

Honestly I didn't belied in the 70's that we were going into an ice age and I don't believe right now that cow farts or driving an SUV will cause the earth to melt. Nature happens, scientists try to predict it, but it can't always be predicted. Just because someting moved in cycles before doesn't mean it always has or always will. I am more worried about the drunk, drug-crazed idiot on the corner than "going green" and I personally won't use or promote anything that is using the "green" hype.

I do not plan on starving my kid or living like a caveman to protect a polar bear. Man is nature too and we belong here as well.

Ah, it appears mr. Bloom has not done his homework. Take this statement of his from above, It's warming currents melting the shelves from underneath, PH. where he tries to belittle PH (unsuccessfully, at that).

Try this experiment in your kitchen sink, bloom.

1) Take three identical ice cubes from the freezer compartment of the fridge
2) Place one cube in a large settled bucket of cold tap (faucet) water
3) Place a second cube in a kitchen sieve and let a slow trickle of cold water flow over it.
4) Place the third cube in a sieve and let a fast trickle of cold water flow over it.

Your job, if you choose to accept it, is to determine which of the three ice cubes will melt first. A second, bonus question is, why? (Hint, the temperature of the water is nearly identical in all three cases.)

And finally, how does this relate to your warming current scenario?

Thank you for participating.

paulm:
Patrick Henry:
There is little doubt that glaciers in Glacier National Park and other places in the Northern Rockies will expand this summer, as in several other parts of the world.

I doubt that! Want to bet?

Posted by paulm | July 10, 2008 6:58 PM

Not that Accuweather endorses gambling.

With snow forecasted in the high country and the peaks looking nice and white for this time of year, I'd call that easy money!

What is the wager and how much$

Bloom,

The HS paper is *10 years old*. The discussion about it is over in the scientific community, and your side didn't win. Get over it.

Well, that was easy. I guess Gavin over at realclimate or maybe Dr. Mann himself decided that he/they didn't have to debate the HS and therefore the "science is settled".

I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, bloom; but, there is plenty of evidence out there that the dear Dr's HS is a true piece of cow dung. Now, that part of the story is settled.

Have a nice weekend.

Thanks for the general moderation. It does hurt to be the butt of name calling, but I persist because I care and am worried. I still think the best tonic is to observe worldwide weather regularly over time. The conclusions are inescapable, and will most likely arrive at the doorstep of almost all of you eventually, if they haven't already. I do not normally include earthquakes and volcanoes except inasmuch as weather affects their victims.

Re hockey stick controversy:
Don't have much time today, but will look up sources and post another time. I did keep it in mind for quite a while before I found sources that explicated the whole process to my satisfaction before I was willing to debunk this regular bit of disinformation. It is typical of the kind of distortion that gets promoted as fact in the internet skeptic community.

re Dr. Hansen, I started to worry about using "gagged" and found that although his conclusions were modified/suppressed/whatever you call it, he was never "gagged" in the court sense.

I don't have enough time to keep up with the full-timers, some of whom I believe to be paid, but will continue to post and try to keep my temper and be civil, and try to stay relevant to the posts, *including* the reactions and bias of all your responses.

Brett, thanks for the heads up on internet links. I heard this elsewhere, but have limited time and one link per post is fine with me. I am not enough of a scientist and don't have time to refute point by point in detail but will continue to bring up work I've done in the past to discover sources and disinformation.

A quote from an article on the Wilkins Ice Shelf:

Antarctic ice extent is 13,000,000 square kilometers making Wilkins merely 0.1% of the total) and the ice is at a record extent for this time of year and appears headed to challenge or exceed last year�s record. It is mid-winter there now with 2 months more of ice growth.

http://icecap.us/index.php

And as for the Fraudulent Hockey Stick.
No other piece of AGW fluff has been more completely discreadited.
Only true Cultist believe that lie now.

So you didn't do too well in high school physics, eh, Paul?

Try this: Take two ice cubes, place one under a trickle of cold water and another under a trickle of hot water.

Let us know what happens.

Patrick, currents can undermine the WAIS from the front. This effect has been observed, as has a rapid acceleration of some of the ice streams.

On the HS topic:

http://www.pages.unibe.ch/science/prchallenge/index.html

paleoclimate reconstruction challenge

Excerpt:
The last-millennium Paleoclimate Reconstruction Challenge will allow the community to directly address concerns regarding the validity of climate reconstructions and to establish an objective benchmark for climate reconstructions today.

One wonders why in the world such a project would be necessary if the HS contorversy was settled.

hmmmmm.

Climate audit has a very interesting post about the validity of tree ring proxies today.

Steve should have a read.

Steve B said:
Here's a dose of reality: The HS paper is *10 years old*. The discussion about it is over in the scientific community,

If I were in that community, I certainly would not bring up the most embarrassing fraud in the history of the cult either.

They are not that stupid!!

Weatherwatcher:
Want to review some good evidence that the HS was pure nonsense?
Look here:
http://www.co2science.org/
They have been collection evidence for years now that shows just how silly it is to believe MM and his attempt to make the MWP dissappear.

Just silly. No other description fits.

HI Brett,

Just an observation. The barrage of glacial expansion expected across the world seems to have diminished greatly on this thread once the actual data on the causes of the glacial changes on Mt. Shasta was presented.

Interesting on how the facts just get in the way of all the hype.

bloom,

How long did it take you to figure that one out? I'm truly impressed. Now, go back to the kitchen and do what I asked you to do in the first place instead of trying to change the subject.

While you're at it, take a look at the figures on Brett's previous thread and see if you can figure out how much warmer the water is adjacent to the Wilkins Ice Shelf. Looks to me like we're talking cold tap water and not hot.

Mark - Denver, CO:
....With snow forecasted in the high country and the peaks looking nice and white for this time of year, I'd call that easy money!...

Yes, I did get carried away! I haven't done research on that particular range. But have just had a quick google and came across this impressive animation from the official body.

U.S. Geological Survey

Its funny how easy it is to find reputable information - its a google away.

If we were to make a wager on all the glaciers in North America or across the world, then I think we could be on for a bet!

WeatherWatcher

"I still think the best tonic is to observe worldwide weather regularly over time. The conclusions are inescapable, and will most likely arrive at the doorstep of almost all of you eventually, if they haven't already."

To observe worldwide weather over time, you would change your beliefs from a global warming advocate to a global cooling fanatic about every few hundred years and be some sort of skeptic about one or the other, in between.

Supposed reliable sources and disinformation are both prominent and promiscuous, on both sides of the argument. You note the "well funded" oil and tobacco industries, but fail to follow the money, motives and political trails of the financial backers of those you so revere, for fear of discovering all the time you've spent worrying over AGW, was for not.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just side-tracked from the underlying truths that run the show.

Try spending less time weather watching, forget the scientists, and go to the source of who really is controling the AGW purse strings, media, political spinning and why.

Start your search through the freedom of information, with Rothschild, Rockefeller, Murdoch and their connection with world seed banks, the U.N., presidential power, the oil elite, Halliburton, the peak oil theory, the internet, world media, the U.S. military, environmentalism and which Europeans control and shape the U.S. economy.

Get back to me when you've completed an in-depth and unbiased search for the real truth regarding the age-old method of using fear, doom and gloom to shape the masses into following you to correct it, at any cost. We'll discuss it.

Posted by Anonymous | July 10, 2008 3:22 PM

More precepitation (especially towars the poles) and more extreme precepitation and more drought conditions towards the equator. All part of a pattern and unfortunately, one that will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise with no end in sight.

Funny, sounds like what happens when an ice age starts.

"One would only doubt that if one understood something about glacier gtowth. Keep makin' it all up,"

Words to live by, 'eh Bloom?

currents can undermine the WAIS from the front.

Hi Steve Bloom,

The word "undermine" implies the action being from underneath. The surface area exposed to warm water along the western edge of the WAIS is of course much smaller than the area of the top or bottom.

Paul,

Here is a link to a January 14, 2008 report authored by Joe D'Aleo of the ICECAP.US domain:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/latest_antarctic_sea_ice_extent2/

"Most of the warming and melt in recent years has been in the vicinity of the Antarctic Peninsula, a small portion of the Antarctic which reaches above the Antarctic Circle and is a choke-point for the circumpolar ocean currents, and is more susceptible to variations. There's also an active subsea volcano in the area, perhaps leading to the warm water upwelling in the study."

You say Steve Bloom is wrong in his assumptions of warm water from below melting the ice sheet, but that is exactly what ICECAP said is causing the reported melting in that area.

ICECAP conveniently use the subsea volcano story to explain their sides viewpoints as to the cause of the melting that has occurred. Then you go and use the cold water idea in the same area to indicate that any melting is not due to the water from below and therefore relatively insignificant.

So which is it, cold water or warm water? I think the skeptics need to keep their stories straight.

Steve Bloom,

You state, "Here's a dose of reality: The HS paper is *10 years old*. The discussion about it is over in the scientific community, and your side didn't win. Get over it."

I hate to disturb your dream, Steve, but that is not a dose of reality. That is a dose of delusion.

The reality is that many dendrochronologists do not believe tree-rings can be used in the manner Mann attempted to use them. And it is the dendro-data, and the dendro-data alone, which creates the hockey-stick effect in Mann's model. Remove that dendro-data, and the hockey-stick vanishes.

The more one examines Mann's dendro-data, the more suspect it becomes. Only certain cores were used, other cores were thrown out, and records were not kept of the discarded cores. The bristlecone cores are from a tree that is dormant over 90% of each year. No attempts were made to replicate the gathered data. Cores taken from different heights of the same tree give dramatically different dendro-data. And so on and so forth.

Mann's famous graph came out ten years ago, at a time circumstantial evidence made the graph look more valid than it has turned out to be. The 1998 El Nino sent world temperatures to the highest point recorded since satellite data began. (The heat of 1934 may have been higher, but there is no satellite data from that year, and the existing surface observations are disputed and "adjusted" by nearly everyone, on both sides.)

Now it is ten years later, and there has been plenty of time to scrutinize Mann's data, and expose its shortcomings. The shortcomings are glaring.

The fact many, (including you, Mr. Bloom,) cling to the hockey-stick graph, stuns me. I have only been studying this stuff since last August. Judging from the archives, you have been studying much longer. I can't see how you've managed to remain blind to the weakness of Mann's data and theory, and how you can't see the obvious failure of Mann's theory to verify.

I don't understand why a cooler head didn't take Mann aside back in 1998 and point out the weaknesses of his hypothesis. The fact no one did, though the shortcomings must have been obvious even back then, makes me suspect Mann, (and Hansen as well,) was used. Perhaps he was seduced by the flattering blandishments of fame and fortune, but that can't explain why the IPCC was so swift to embrace his limply propped-up idea.

I may not ever know what went on behind the scenes, but it sure does look like certain politicians attempted to create a panic, in order to rush their ideas into legislative reality, without proper scrutiny.

The sad thing is that Mann can only be used as long as he is useful. Once he is no longer useful he will be thrown under the bus by the very people who were so flattering, and so free with the funding, back in 1998.

I think this process has already started with Hansen. There is a subtle shift in his status at NASA; he is sent off to give speeches more, and allowed to "adjust" data less. Did you notice how, though satellite data showed June slightly warmer than May, GISS data shows a drop? Could it be someone is "unadjusting" Hansen's "adjustments," so that GISS data is less blatantly out-of-touch with reality? To me it appears Hansen is well on his way to being relegated to a "NASA's-crazy-uncle" status.

I have never much liked the back-stabbing world of power politics. I pity people who are seduced by its allure, and saddened when such people inevitably awake to the fact they have been played for a sucker, and have become chumps.

I far prefer strict honesty. (Science, without politics.)

I once knew a poet who could have made good money writing rhyme for an ad for children's sugar cereal, but refused to do so. The poet refused the easy money because he felt such cereal rotted kid's teeth, and to write a poem praising the cereal would be a lie. Consequently the poet remained forlornly broke, but he retained his integrity and dignity, which are things Hansen and Mann have appeared to happily sacrifice. I'm sure they've had a lot of fun doing so, and have enjoyed their time splashing about in a bath of fame and fortune, but now they have to face the music: "You've had your way; now you must pay."

Steve, when you state, "Your side didn't win," you are stating, (from my point of view,) that the side of strict honesty has lost.

If that is true, what has won? The side were BS means something besides Bachelor of Science? And PHD means, "Pile it Higher and Deeper?" Where the unobtainable Ends justify the lying Means? Where the public is fed panic and pabulum? Where men like Mann and Hansen are used only when useful, and then thrown under the bus?

If that is the case, I'd rather be on the losing side. Give me Truth, or give me Death. Live Free Or Die.

Dennis, what's amusing about the warm currents is that the data was obtained by (more or less) trained seals. There'a lesson in there somewhere for Paul.

Caleb, you don't even understand what the HS means scientifically. That's fair enough since you've been looking at this stuff for less than a year, but I don't recall your being any more humble back when you began commenting here.

Here's the key point: The HS showed that there was relatively low climate sensitivity (that being the amount of warming that will result from a given forcing). If instead the variability was considerable (e.g. with a Medieval Warm Period warmer than at present), that means greater clinate sensitivity and in turn means that the warming expected over the next century or two from the CO2 we're adding will be much greater than presently thought.

The other main point to bear in mind is that the IPCC did indeed play politics (or at least public relations) with the HS, but not in the way that they're accused of outside the scientific community. In effect it was a pretty picture that was used as a proxy for how much we know about climate. Paleoclimate prior to recorded history is vastly more important to scientific understanding, but just plain isn't very sexy.

Also, when I say the 1998 HS paper is history, what I mean is that it's no different from most climate papers from that time. Nearly all are considered to be out of date and would not be publishable today.

Dennis,

You say Steve Bloom is wrong in his assumptions of warm water from below melting the ice sheet, but that is exactly what ICECAP said is causing the reported melting in that area.

I just asked him to do an experiment which he evidently was too busy to undertake, so he thought he'd be silly and throw in an obvious little experiment. He has stilled failed to put forth the results of the ice cube experiment I asked him to do. Could he be afraid of what he might find out?

Then you go and use the cold water idea in the same area to indicate that any melting is not due to the water from below and therefore relatively insignificant.

What do the graphs indicate? Besides, bloom has already deemed that the volcanism is insignificant. Are you telling me now that it is significant? Or can warming only come from the atmosphere and the dreaded CO2 monster?

So which is it, cold water or warm water?

You seem to be flip-flopping more than your favorite candidate. Ok, I give, it's warm water from volcanic activity. Bloom is right. Never thought I'd say that, but if he wants to advance the skeptic's side of the argument, that's fine with me. Thanks, bloom.

Man, if you can set the premise by saying that Mt Shasta is a lone exception to receding glaciers, then you might be able to win a debate that because all other glaciers are shrinking there is global warming. The problem: your premise is wrong, I believe on purpose. It is a fact that some glaciers on all seven continents are growing. I will list some so others can look into them. I will make no other claims here as I am only rejecting the premise to your blog, statement-hidden agenda((OK, so I said that))- or whatever it is you have written. One cannot argue or debate until the premise is flushed out into the open. Here is a small list of growing glaciers: Mt Shasta, Nisquilly, Mt St Helens, Malaspina, Taas, Mt Blanc, Franz Joseph, Briksdal, Engabreem, Helm, Place, Antizana, Silvaretta, Abramov, Mt Mckinley, and Hubbard. To name a few that have grown partially or continually for the last couple of years. There are many more. There are plenty of recent articles about Antarctic ice growth, I don't know if I can reprint them here but they are easy to find, you do the work. You will not be able to go to sleep tonight the list will be so big.

It is one thing to believe in Global warming, man made or otherwise. It is entirely something different and in my mind sinister to espouse it and base it on a false premise and visual anecdote. You should be ashamed to do this behind your degree(s), and this weather web site.

The sky is not falling. The earth is not flat. The atom is not the smallest piece of matter. We do not live in a geo-centric universe... Do you get my drift?

Reply: What was written in the blog about Shasta's glaciers being the only ones that are expanding in the U.S. (not world!) was taken from the article that was linked to. I am certainly no expert on glaciers. Make sure you read the full blog and associated links before you go on the attack.

Bloom,

"Here's the key point: The HS showed that there was relatively low climate sensitivity (that being the amount of warming that will result from a given forcing). If instead the variability was considerable (e.g. with a Medieval Warm Period warmer than at present), that means greater clinate sensitivity and in turn means that the warming expected over the next century or two from the CO2 we're adding will be much greater than presently thought."

Unbelievable!! - more of the "if we're right we're right and if we're wrong we're even more right" revisionist doublespeak and sophistry we have come to expect from you and your ilk.

But, unfortunately, once again you are wrong. The HS, and the primary meaning ascribed to it (and its BCP derivations still circling the drain) by the IPCC, was never posited as any sort of key input to or primary indicator of derived paleoclimate sensitivity -low or otherwise.

Instead, the key point trumpeted endlessly was that the "robust" climate reconstruction and relatively "flat" handle (as compared to the curved blade) of Mann demonstrated that the recent warming was unprecedented/anomolous and far greater (and more rapid) than could be explained away as due to natural variability givem that the HS had "established" that the anomolous warming was outside the scope of "observed" natural variability.

Moreover, even your revisionist argument misses the target. If the historical "variability (i.e. MWP) was considerable" this would point to greater climate sensitivity to non-anthropogenic forcings such as solar, vulcanism, etc. and would NOT in any way lead to conclusions vis a vis anthropogenic forcings (i.e. CO2). To try and draw such a conclusion betrays a fundamental lack of knowledge or a substantial capacity for self-delusion.

I find it instructive that you have given up any pretence of defending BCP based reconstructions and instead, are again trying to misrepresent your way out of a loosing argument.

Your attempted argument from authority - "you don't even understand what the HS means scientifically. That's fair enough since you've been looking at this stuff for less than a year" - would be a little more convincing if you had either the authority, the integrity, or the argument right.

You may disagree but, if so, perhaps you can indicate to us whether your unbelievable and flat out wrong response to Caleb stems from your poor understanding of the HS and associated science or if it stems instead from wilfull misrepresentation. Or perhaps you could show mathematically how an increased estimate of climate sensitivity to "natural" forcings such as solar and vulcanism leads logically to an increased estimate for CO2 (i.e. anthropogenic) climate sensitivity and its host of unproven "feedbacks".

Dennis,

Again, you are straying away from your usually informative posts.

You accuse the skeptic side of not having their story straight.

What about the Hurricanes, AGW will make hurricanes stronger and more frequent, then they won't, then they will, or wil it be stronger but less frequent?

Warm water currents or cold water currents can both melt ice.

I appears to me that the picture 1984 has more snow and ice than the one from 2005.

I agree with Saly. Who drew the line where we calculate warming from cooling. Does this mean that line was drawn at Earth's most perfect climate? And to presume that line is Earth's perfect climate is a very arrogant position to take. Humans have absolutely no control over the climate. Weather it gets warmer or cooler is NOT up to us. Anyone that beleives otherwise is relying on scientific study from the last 50 to 100 years. Which is a fraction of a second in geological time. Every day scientist make a discovery that re-writes "Histoy." Do we know how the Egyptians built the pyramids? Do we know what actaully did kill the dinosours? We have theories, but they are theories. The Debate is NOT over. There is absolutely NO evidence to prove the currnet warming trend will conitue if we don't do something about it. Science cannot predict hurricanes, tornadoes or floods so what makes everyone so sure science can predict future global warming. Don't forget the Earth has been here for millions of years and it has been conituiosly going through periods of warming an cooling.

HI Veets,

Yes I do occasionally get into the accusatory mode, but it's hard not to some times especially when that seems to be the norm here.

The issue between Steve Bloom and Paul was that Paul was saying that Steve's assumption of warm water currents was wrong and was setting up a scenario that was emphasizing cold water. I was simply indicating that Paul's assumptions were contrary to the position that Mr. D'Aleo stated for the cause of the reported melting in that area. You can't argue it's cold water for one idea and then have another from the same group say it warm water.

I think Paul even later admitted he was wrong in a later posting.

By the way Paul, I was not saying I agreed with Mr. D'Aleo, I was simply stating that your points were contradictory to his. That is what I meant when I said the skeptics need to get their stories straight.

At least if we know what the current theory of disinformation is, we can then work on countering a single point of view.

Sorry Veets, I just had to get that off my chest.

You are right about the hurricanes, I will give you that. But if you really go into the number of variables that go into the formation of hurricanes, there are just so many that all it takes is just one of those variables to prevent the storm from forming.

If you are interested, here is a good research paper on the subject of hurricanes and AGW:
http://www.waveworkshop.org/10thWaves/Papers/Knutson_abstract_public.pdf

here are some quotes from that paper:

"Holland and Webster (2007) examined relationships between numbers of all Atlantic
named storms and hurricanes, minor hurricanes, and major hurricanes, and concluded that
tropical cyclone and hurricane counts have increased dramatically during the past
century, in close association with the rise in tropical Atlantic SSTs."

"We have previously used an operational hurricane prediction model to estimate the
sensitivity of hurricane intensity to SST increases caused by increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations (Knutson and Tuleya 2004). Our results indicate that greenhouse gas induced
warming will cause hurricanes to become more intense (Fig. 3), with a wind
speed sensitivity of about 3.7% per oC of tropical SST warming, in general agreement
with a range of estimates obtained using hurricane potential intensity theories (e.g.,
Knutson and Tuleya 2004; Vecchi and Soden 2007; Emanuel 1987; Emanuel 2005)."

"The warmer climate state features enhanced Atlantic SSTs, and also enhanced vertical wind shear, reduced mid-tropospheric relative humidity, and even some localized reductions in Emanuel potential Intensity across parts of the Atlantic basin. Enhanced vertical wind shear and reduced mid-tropospheric relative humidity are factors known to inhibit the development of tropical storms."

Veets:
...What about the Hurricanes, AGW will make hurricanes stronger and more frequent, then they won't, then they will, or wil it be stronger but less frequent?...

pretty clear analysis showing that stronger hurricanes are getting more frequent and are linked to rising global temperature...

Hurricanes and Global Warming - Revisited

I understand that you are not an expert on glaciers. But I see this as an attempt to tie this article to global warming. Under your picture the caption states that you have 18 years experience, I am assuming that you are an expert on weather. My take is that you have implied because you have read in an article that states there is only 1 glacier that is growing in the US and Canada, and that all others are receding, that global warming is a real thing. I would think an expert would check to see if the facts are straight before he introduces any information that supports his hypothesis. Further, there is no way that you can convince me that you do not hypothesize and support global warming, man made global warming, and that man could lower global temperature by changing his habits. Your blog and stories generally support these notions. As for attacking, I am frustrated when I see articles like this-I know you did not write it-and they are taken as Holy writ. There is just so much info out there that there is nothing near a consensus on this issue. I am further frustrated when people accept the premise that global warming and cooling are something other than natural phenomena, and that mankind can do something to change either. We live in a fishbowl, with a 10,000,000,000 year long exploding nuclear bomb that we orbit. We have weather systems that are the sizes of continents, and a little boy or girl in the pacific that can make or break weather for entire continents. We could have 1 volcano that could change world weather for months or even years. In the graph you showed in a previous blog to show a small temp increase over a short period of time, did you notice the precipitous decline in the last few years? Oh I almost forgot On that graph you can go back or forward a little earlier or later and and show a trend that supports any hypothesis that you want. Once again, I am only frustrated, because at the end of this very skewed issue, someone, with the support of the police and the army, is going to reach into my back pocket, take more of my money, and tell me it is because I have been doing wrong for years and that I need to pay for my transgressions.

Dennis,

Read my post again. You know, the one where I tell bloom that he is wrong. Now read it very carefully and tell me exactly where I tell him he is wrong. I merely asked him to conduct a simple experiment and he gave me the run-around (as usual, never a straight answer. Especially when he knows he's screwed.).

Unlike the AGW crowd, the skeptic side of the argument does not have talking points from which they cannot deviate. We can actually differ in our viewpoints as we realize that there may be more than one solution to a problem.

PaulM,

Pretty clear analysis there has been a couple studies that have reached different conclusions on this, which was my point, which Dennis understood so it must have been moderately clear, so I assume you purposely trie to change the meaning of my words to throw in your little 2 cents.

Charlie,

You know what is funny, you accuse Brett of favoring AGW, and other accuse him of not favoring AGW. You know what that usually implies, a pretty darn good balance and neutrality. I think he does an excellent job of keeping his thoughts out of this, which is tough, and I am sure things slip a bit at times, but I have not caught on, but I also have not paid attnetion to that aspect. I think Brett does an excellent job of being fair with this blog of passionate people that can get hot-headed at times.

His commentary is a synopsis of the the article, with a little of his own flavor in there, not his own spin.

You need to be careful with your reading of the article and his synopsis.

Sigh. Here was Paul's suggestion:

---------------------------

Ah, it appears mr. Bloom has not done his homework. Take this statement of his from above, It's warming currents melting the shelves from underneath, PH. where he tries to belittle PH (unsuccessfully, at that).

Try this experiment in your kitchen sink, bloom.

1) Take three identical ice cubes from the freezer compartment of the fridge
2) Place one cube in a large settled bucket of cold tap (faucet) water
3) Place a second cube in a kitchen sieve and let a slow trickle of cold water flow over it.
4) Place the third cube in a sieve and let a fast trickle of cold water flow over it.

Your job, if you choose to accept it, is to determine which of the three ice cubes will melt first. A second, bonus question is, why? (Hint, the temperature of the water is nearly identical in all three cases.)

And finally, how does this relate to your warming current scenario?

---------------------------

The simple answer to that last question is that it doesn't since Paul proposes to use water that is all the same temperature. This is a poor experimental design given that the situation with the Wilkins ice shelf involves the intrusion of warmer water (not *warm* in an absolute sense, just less cold). Paul's method would establish what would happen with a change in rate of flow of water of the same temperature, which is not what's going on at the ice shelf.

Paul's design is poor even within its own terms since a proper experiment to determine the effect of rate of flow would involve changing only that parameter and nothing else. Note that my design for the experiment involved changing only the water temperature parameter, allowing a conclusion to be drawn about the effect of that change.

Paul must have have done very badly indeed in high school science.

Veets:

Before I go any further, Did Brett title the blog or thread, "The Lone Exception", in big red letters? Because that is definitely not the title of the article. That is what set me ablaze. If he did then that is more than a synopsis with a little flare, as you put it. If he didn't, the affect is much the same.

A little of topic here, but did you see the letter to Sec Gen Ban k Moon, from a group of world-class scientists today? It is very informative and educational. I would like to have Brett's take on this. (Reply: I will take a look at it.) I would gladly be wrong and hope for the fact that he is not biased on this subject

Just admit that your science is lacking and you have absolutely no idea why ice would melt faster with increased flow. Obviously, the fear of attempting such a rigorous experiment daunts your fledgling scientific skills, hence the resistance in performing the complex task.

Since you won't/can't perform the experiment, I can only conclude that you can't possibly explain why this phenomenon is possible. So, no bonus points to you, bloom.

Paul, is there somne evidence for increased flow at the Wilkins ice shelf? If not, an experiment designed to show the effects of increased flow with constant water temperature would be... completely irrelevant.

Think a little before typing next time. The bluster doesn't help, BTW.

No more than you have for a warming current causing a breakup in mid winter.

Why don't you educate yourself on glacial mechanics and get back to me?

BTW, the condescension doesn't help.

Almost forgot, do you have any evidence that the current isn't increasing?

How about that experiment? Why would an increased flow rate of the current result in increased melting of the underside of a floating ice sheet?

Steve,

While your working on Paul's question on the "possible, yet unproven, evidence that the current is increasing", why don't you include the possiblity that the cooler temperatures in Pittsburgh are creating stronger ocean currents along the coast of Australia too. There just too many reports on this blog site that the temperatures in Pittsburgh are a key element to everything going on in the world to ignore that possibility.

Paul,

Maybe you should forward that question to the people at ICECAP, I am sure they will find something out there that can give you the answer you are looking for.

Dennis,

Nah, I'd rather have bloom do it. He keeps me entertained.

Although, if you feel so inclined, have at it.

Paul, of course a faster current *could* have that effect, although if we consider the parlous condition of the Wilkins ice shelf, probably it would be the mechanical effect of a faster current rather than increased heat transfer that would do it in. But as I said there's no evidence for increased currents. (Also, I suspect given the geography that the water movement under the shelf is quite slow. Note the reference to a halocline.)

There is evidence for warmer currents, though:

'"The persistently low sea ice cover in the area and data from some interesting sources, electronic seal hats [caps worn by seals that provide temperature, depth and position data] seems to suggest that warm water beneath the halocline may be reaching the underside of the Wilkins Ice Shelf and thinning it rapidly - and perhaps reaching the surface, or at least mixing with surface waters."'

Lessons for next time:

1) Trained seals know more than Patrick Henry.

2) I generally don't make things up. If I make a specific claim, expect that there's an easily-found source for it. Wilkins+ice did the job in this case. Would that have been so hard for you to check before accusing me of having no evidence?

Ok, I give, the trained seals got me.

Now, please tell me, why is the Wilkins Ice Shelf in a "parlous/perilous" condition? Are you telling me that this breakup of an ice shelf is unprecedented, never before experienced in the history of the planet? Maybe I should rephrase that. Is the breakup of an ice shelf (even in mid-winter) unprecedented, never before experienced since the advent of satellite imagery or for that matter since man decided to venture that far south?

Or could it be possible that this is part of a natural cycle? Nah, it just has to be anthropogenic.

Bloom,

"I generally don't make things up" - by not "generally" I guess you mean just some of the time. Although the evidence would seem to point towards a little more than just some of the time.

Your hubris would be a little more becoming if it were based on any sort of actual accomplishment or knowledge beyond skimming abstracts looking for nothing more than a quote to support your positions. I can't count the number of times you've misunderstood or misrepresented the content of arcticles whose abstracts you've "referenced". This would suggest you are either dishonest or know less than a poorly trained seal.

Care to provide an "easily-found source" for how derived CO2 climate sensitivity would increase if climate sensitivity estimates for non-anthro forcings are underestimated - as you suggested when you "made up" your little nugget above re: the MWP and how if the HS is off there will be greater warming from CO2.

I really have to hand it to you - whenever I need a laugh I can just come here and read your posts. Thanks for yet another spot of merriment.

Paul, a winter ice shelf break-up has in fact not been observed before.

Re the "parlous condition," look at a picture. The remaining shelf is hanging by a thread.

Re the attribution issue, as with all single events a specific attribution to warming (or to any one factor) can't be made. A more general attribution can be, though, based on the steady southward march of ice shelf disintegrations stretching back over the last 30 years of satellite observations.

Dear Evil Poorly-Socialized Denialist Twin:

That's funny, the language in your second paragraph looks strangely familiar. I wonder where it came from...

Oh, the "easily-found source"? I think you knew where to look. See here and here. All of the comments are informative, but make sure not to miss 50 and 52 in the second link. If you have any remaining questions, let me know.

Brett (and Bloom),

My apologies - the previous post seemingly from "Bloom" and also addressed to Bloom was from me. In my haste I must have entered Bloom as the name and salutation.

Sorry for any confusion.

Bloom,

Once again you provide links which, rather than support your view, actually discredit it. I'd laugh it were not so typical of you.

You said:

"If instead the variability was considerable (e.g. with a Medieval Warm Period warmer than at present), that means greater clinate sensitivity and in turn means that the warming expected over the next century or two from the CO2 we're adding will be much greater than presently thought."

Your first cited post at Real Climate said:

"Let us assume that medieval temperatures after all had been warmer than the present. Even that would tell us nothing about anthropogenic climate change."

Your second cited post at Real Climate skirts the pertinent issue entirely and posits that increased natural variability (if radiative forcing only is considered) arising from greater sensitivity to RECENT solar activity would impact modelled results and lead to increased estimates of CO2 sensitivity. So not at all relevant to the HS discussion nor estimates of the range of natural forcing agents since it says nothing of Historical warming, nothing of the sum of the wide range of natural forcing agents, and is instead considering what would be the impact of greater sensitivity to DECREASED solar activity in the RECENT period (as it is assumed by the IPCC that solar activity from 1950 roughly onwards decreased). This would be an inverse relationship - more on that below.

Your reference to comments 50 and 52 are also quite laughable. Comment 50 notes that "The weight of natural factors therefore also is near zero whereas the weight of anthropogenic forcing (GHG minus aerosols) is very high. If the forcing due to a certain change of solar and/or volcanic activity should have been higher than previously assumed, this wouldn't change the weight of these factors much".

Note "wouldn't change the weight of these factors much" which is a far cry from "much greater than previously thought" and is only true so far as any change due to solar/volcanic is slight.

The comment goes on to say "Moreover if the natural forcing since 1950 should be slightly negative, an enhanced natural forcing would mean that anthropogenic forcing must be greater than expected to explain the observed warming."

You'll note that this is referencing "enhanced natural forcing" of the negative variety and so is in fact describing an inverse relationship between natural and anthro forcing agents - and this again is referencing the modern period only.

In sum, neither of your citations (and I note that neither comes from a peer reviewed journal) supports your contention that increased natural variability not picked up by the HS would lead to increased estimates of CO2 sensitivity.

Since you are obviously confused as to the relationship between varying forcing agents, let me explain in such simple terms that even you will understand.

As per the IPCC, the total climate forcing can be expressed as the sum of various forcing agents both positive and negative (i.e. solar, volcanic, GHGs, aerosols, albedo, land use changes, black carbon, etc.). Since the total forcing (the sum) can be calculated from observed warming/cooling and is therefore, for a fixed time period, a fixed quantity, any changes to any of the estimated values for forcing agents will necessarily change the estimated values for some or all of the other forcing agents. For example, an increased estimate for the positive forcing effect of black carbon would require a corresponding increase in either the estimates for negative forcing agents or a decreased value from some or all of the positive forcing agents.

This was quite evident in the "aerosols caused the mid-century cooling period" correction given the desire to maintain a fixed value for CO2 sensitivity while still maintaining the integrity of the forcing sum equation in the face of a decreased total forcing sum value.

Note that I am not suggesting that estimates of CO2 sensitivity are correct, incorrect, etc., etc. - simply that your initial statement is not only wrong, but either breathtakingly dishonest or astoundingly ignorant.

Wiggle all you might, but the truth is that your initial statement is without any basis in the science, totally unsubstantiated, and flat-out wrong.

On a final note, I'd would be careful if I were you of name calling i.e. "poorly socialized" as you seem to be the self-righteous and self-aggrandizing (with nothing to back it up), hall-monitor type who spends all of his time every day hunched over a keyboard hurdling ad hominen insults and condescension across multiple blogs. Glass houses and all that...

You should probably get out more - or get a job - and mix face to face with actual breathing people.

So, this is the first time ever that an ice shelf has broken off in winter? You sure about that?

What makes it "parlous"? For whom?

Ah, petroleum-soaked nameless one, you read but did not want to understand. Say no more.

Paul, the scientists say it's the first time, although that refers to just the last thirty years or so (of the satellite record). "Parlous" refers to the state of the remaining very thin connection.