knocker

Like this you mean although I'm rather stretching the definition of ridge. http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forecasts/d/charts/medium/deterministic/msl_uv850_z500!Wind%20850%20and%20mslp!192!Europe!pop!od!oper!public_plots!2010100500!!/

I don’t for one moment claim any great knowledge on this subject and it is probably very presumptuous of me to enter to enter the fray but if you don’t ask you don’t learn. If I’m reading this correctly you are saying the energy set-up of external drivers are predictable astronomical events or geomagnetic variations. In another post (apologies for taking pieces out of context) you say “When I see similar peaks in various index values from data sets in two different parts of the world (but similar climates) then I suspect that we are on the road to a predictive framework.â€â€¦..and go on to say “By ‘index value’ I mean the profiles of certain postulated ‘drivers’ above and beyond the most obvious one that everyone recognizes, the Sun in its annual variation in apparent latitude. So my question (hopefully not too stupid) is does your research bear any similarities with that of Dr Theodor Landscheidt that concentrated on long-range forecast of U.S. drought based on solar activity? In this, as far as I can ascertain, he linked various events such as ENSO, NAO, etc, with to cycles in the sun’s orbital motion around the center of mass of the solar system. He is in fact saying that as the relationship is based on astronomical data that can be computed, the forecast could be extended farther into the future. For more detail: http://www.john-daly.../US-drought.htm

A new report supporting the mechanical scenario of ice shelf collapse. Depicting a cause-and-effect scenario that spans thousands of miles, a scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego and his collaborators discovered that ocean waves originating along the Pacific coasts of North and South America impact Antarctic ice shelves and could play a role in their catastrophic collapse. http://www.scienceda...00211175219.htm Abstract from the paper. http://www.agu.org/j...9GL041488.shtml

What happens next? That's a very good question. There is no definitive answer of course but it can't be ignored. As long as we don't get a sediment slide in Antarctica like the one that occured in the Mesozoic period which covered an area of at least 20km x 6km. We can do without further complications.

I must admit I find these figures very odd and frankly don't really understand them. My understanding has always been along these lines unless they are talking about something else such as measuring the energy prior to it being reflected. A tad deceptive if they are. On a second reading I realise the refinements have been ignored. Effect of latitude Different parts of the earth's surface receive different amounts of solar radiation. The time of the year is one factor controlling this, more radiation being received in summer than in winter because of the higher altitude of the sun and the longer days. Latitude is a very important control because this will determine both the duration of daylight and the distance travelled through the atmosphere by the oblique rays from the sun. However, actual calculations show the effect of the latter to be negligible in the Arctic, apparently due to the low vapour content of the air limiting tropospheric absorption. Figure 2.7 shows that in the upper atmosphere over the North Pole there is a marked maximum of solar radiation at the June solstice, yet only about 30 per cent is absorbed at the surface. This may be compared with the global average of 48 per cent of solar radiation being absorbed at the surface. The explanation lies in the high average cloudiness over the Arctic in summer and also in the high reflectivity of the snow and ice surfaces. Source: Atmosphere, Weather & Climate (seventh edition) Roger G. Barry, Richard J. Chorley.

I'm not sure the E.A.I.S. is the major concern. I suspect the major problem is the W.A.I.S. and people started worrying about this six years ago. A press release from BAS at the time explains it better than my woffle. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=47 21 September 2004 No. 13/2004 Scientists have found a remarkable new structure deep within the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which suggests that the whole ice sheet is more susceptible to future change than previously thought. The discovery, by scientists from Bristol University and the British Antarctic Survey in collaboration with US colleagues, is reported this week (September 24) in the international journal Science. The stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been hotly debated since the 1960s because of its potential to raise global sea level by around 5 m over several centuries. The potential impacts of a major change in the West Antarctic ice sheet are severe ? sea level rise will be fantastically expensive for developed nations with coastal cities and dire for poor populations in low-lying coastal areas. Lead author Prof Martin Siegert of Bristol University said, ?There is a great deal of speculation that global warming may cause sea levels to rise due to the melting of ice sheets. Until now, scientific observations suggested that change to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would be restricted to the edges implying that large-scale instability of the ice sheet is unlikely. This new discovery deep within the ice means that we need to re-think our current assessment of the risk of collapse of this ice sheet.? The structure - a distinctive fold in the ice, 800m deep by 50 km long - was detected using ice-penetrating radar. Ice sheets normally consist of flat layers of ice, so finding this huge fold was a complete surprise. Its presence suggests that a few thousand years ago surface ice at the centre of the ice sheet was moving rapidly and being ?drawn down? towards the bottom of the ice sheet. More recently the rate of the ice flow has changed from fast to slow. The direction of flow has also changed. The most likely explanation for these changes is the ?switching-off? of a large ice stream at the margin of the ice sheet several centuries ago. These changes imply that the centre of the ice sheet is more mobile than scientists previously realised, requiring them to rethink existing models. ENDS Issued by the University of Bristol & British Antarctic Survey Press Offices The University of Bristol Press Office: Cherry Lewis: (w) 0117 928 8086, (m) 07729 421 885, (e) cherry.lewis@bristol.ac.uk British Antarctic Survey Press Office: Linda Capper (w) 01223 221448, (mobile) 07714 233744 (h) 01480 880302; (e) L.capper@bas.ac.uk Athena Dinar (w) 01223 221414; (mobile) 07740 822229 (h) +44 (0)1223 513298 (e) a.dinar@bas.ac.uk Notes for editors: The paper, Ice Flow Direction Change in Interior West Antarctica by Martin J. Siegert, et al. is published in Science. Vol 305, 24 September 2004 Picture editors: Video footage and stills of Antarctic ice sheets, ice streams and general views are available from the BAS Press Office Contacts : Professor Martin Siegert, Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, Bristol Glaciology Centre, School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Tel: +44 (0)117 928 8902. Email: m.j.siegert@bristol.ac.uk (m) 07780 703008 Dr Edward King, British Antarctic Survey, Tel: +44 (0)1223 221580; Email ecki@bas.ac.uk Risk Estimation of Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet by David Vaughan and John Spouge, was published in Climatic Change January 2002, Volume 52, page 65-91. The authors used engineering risk-analysis techniques to conclude that there is a 5% chance of major sea level rise (1 metre per century) due to disintegration of the ice covering West Antarctica. This was the first study to gives a realistic assessment of differing scientific opinions in a useful way for policy makers. West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), which contains 13% of all the ice on the Antarctic continent. Currently this ice sheet is anchored to the rock beneath, much of which is below sea level. However, in past warm periods, the ice sheet thinned and disintegrated into floating icebergs. If the WAIS completely disintegrated, it would raise global sea levels by about 5 metres over several centuries. Ice sheet The Antarctic ice sheet is the layer of ice up to 5000 m thick covering the Antarctic continent. It is formed from snow falling in the interior of the Antarctic which compacts into ice. The ice sheet slowly moves towards the coast, eventually breaking away as icebergs which gradually melt into the sea. The ice sheet covering East Antarctica is very stable, because it lies on rock that is above sea level and is thought unlikely to collapse. The West Antarctic is less stable, because it sits on rock below sea level. If the ice sheet does collapse, it is more likely to be part of a natural collapse cycle, or as a response to climatic change that occurred many thousands of years ago, rather than a response to current climatic change. British Antarctic Survey is responsible for most of the UK?s research in Antarctica. It is a component of the Natural Environment Research Council. More information about the work of the Survey can be found on our website. Not surprisingly the Dutch take this quite seriously as about half the Netherlands is at risk.

I wouldn’t disagree with that. Also the Vostok ice core record is of some significance. The core gave direct evidence of past changes in carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere with variation over 100,000 years between glacial and interglacial periods and lesser cyclic changes with a period of some 21,000 years. These results show a close correlation with the temperature record (determined by the deuterium content and which themselves are in good agreement with the marine records as far back as 110,000 years). Thus, carbon dioxide concentration emerges as the major factor forcing, or following, temperature changes. I’ll opt for the former although it has been suggested that that these are triggered by and amplify insolation changes brought about in both the northern and southern hemispheres by orbital forces.I'll have a think about your question re. sea levels (rather depends on the size) but just off to watch the rugby leave.

Well we won't beat this one to death. Rather depends on whether picog meant present day Antarctica when the Circumpolar Current became established 25 million years ago, or the millions of years prior to that.

I’ve given this a bit more thought and there are some loose ends somewhere. The following is an extract from “A History of Antarctic Science†by G.E. Fogg. This was written in 1992, so do I take it that recent paleo evidence has somewhat altered the thinking on this? "The palaeontological evidence makes it clear that Antarctica was not always glaciated to the extent that it is now and that it had experienced climatic amelioration, for example, in Triassic times. Before that, in the severe Permo-Carboniferous glaciation, Antarctica was evidently the centre from which ice flowed outwards to leave tillites and other evidences of glacial action in other parts of Gondwana. The time of the onset of the most recent glaciation was speculative when Adie (1964) wrote his review but the finding of fossil penguins in the late Oligocene to lower Miocene of northern Graham Land suggested that the climate was getting cooler then. It seemed that the present ice-sheet had begun to form in the mid-Pliocene contemporaneously with that in the northern hemisphere. By the early 1960s there was considerable evidence from work on raised beaches, wavecut platforms, submerged sea caves revealed by SCUBA diving and morainic deposits interbedded with lava flows, of late Tertiary fluctuations in sea-level in the Peninsula and Scotia Arc area but accurate dating had not been carried out (Odell, 1952; Adie, 1964). These fluctuations seemed to have been greater in West Antarctica, where they were related to worldwide sea-level changes which caused the major outlet glaciers to rise in level as their outlets dammed up. The ice-sheet in East Antarctica seemed to have been more stable (Hendy et al., 1979). Drilling during the McMurdo Sound sedimentary and tectonic study showed that glaciomarine conditions in that area go back to late Palaeocene, 60 million years ago (Webb, 1983). A global temperature drop was inferred from isotope records to have occurred at the end of the Eocene, 40 million years ago, but there was no evidence from the Antarctic to support this. Ice-sheet formation presumably began about 25 million years ago when the continents comprising Gondwanaland had separated sufficiently to allow the Circumpolar Current to become established and isolate Antarctica. The major build-up of the East Antarctic ice-sheet appeared from oxygen isotope determinations on benthic foraminifera recovered from Deep Sea Drilling Project cores obtained by the Glomar Challenger to have started in middle Miocene, 12 million years ago (Savin, 1977; Frakes, 1983)".

Okeydoke. I stand corrected GW. Antarctic Peninsula: rapid warming. The Antarctic Peninsula is a rugged mountain chain generally more than 2000 m high, differing from most of Antarctica by having a summer melting season. Summer melt produces many isolated snow-free areas, which are habitats for biological communities of primitive plants, microbes and invertebrates, and breeding grounds for marine mammals and birds. During the last half-century, the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced dramatic warming at rates several times the global mean. This warming has been the focus of considerable recent research, and substantial progress is now being made in understanding the causes and profound impacts of this warming. http://www.antarctic...c_peninsula.php A brief note regarding the meteorology of the Antarctic. The poleward air circulation in the tropospheric vortex leads to subsiding air over the Antarctic Plateau and outward flow over the ice sheet surfaces. The winds represent a balance between gravitational acceleration, Coriolis force, friction and inversion strength. On the slopes of the ice sheet, there are stronger downslope katabatic flows, and extreme winds are observed in some coastal locations. Cape Denison, Adelie Land, recorded average daily wind speeds of 35kts on over 60 per cent of days in 1912-13. This was the famous Douglas Mawson expedition. The Antarctic is the windiest place on Earth.

Depends what you mean by evidence. Some resarch has suggested that antarctica could have been ice-free at some point in the past but to the best of my knowledge that's as close as it gets. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/5442820/Mountain-range-as-big-as-Alps-discovered-under-Antarctic-ice.html

The Pine Island Glacier is creating much scientific interest in that it could contribute significantly to sea level rise. Specifically, what's causing it to speed up? A few facts about the PIG. Pine Island Glacier drains an area of 162, 300 km², two thirds the size of the United Kingdom.The glacier was named after the bay into which it flows, which was named after the U.S.S. Pine Island, a ship that carried sea-planes and discovered the bay in 1947. This ship was named after Pine Island off the coast of Lee County, Florida.The nearest base is the U.K.'s Rothera Research Station 804 miles away from the centre of Pine Island Glacier.The glacier contributes ~ 83 km³ of ice to the sea each year, the largest contribution of any individual ice stream in the world.Satellite measurements indicate the glacier thinned by ~ 1.5 m per yr and accelerated by ~ 10% during the 1990s. The speed has continued to increase by approximately 30% in the last decade.

It's a tad complicated so I will upload it as a brief PDF doc. The reference "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Sun", Kennethh R. Lang. Enjoy.

In this week's Economist there is a special report on forests. Can be downloaded without a subscription. http://www.economist.com/specialreports/

From the photos, the cloud appears to be Cirrus which would put it probably between 20, 000-30,000'. Assume 25, 000' and calculate whether that fits from your map and diagram.

My thoughts for what they are worth. Correct me if I make any wrong assumptions. At just before 1900 we take a straight line from the shadow to the setting sun (it may have just set where you are) which should be almost due west to just south of Caernarfon. The line should pass through Snowdon. If we take a point, say, halway up Snowdon, the sun will be slightly later setting there, than where you are. I.m assuming you aren't walking the dog on the highest point in the area. To cast the shadow the sun could not have set on Snowdon. Also of course there must be visible line of sight from the sun to Snowdon and I'm not familiar with the terrain. I suspect the cloud for this to apply would have to be quite high. The movement of the shadow I don't think is a problem as the sun doesn't set in a straight line but in an arc so if at this point it was moving slowly north the shadow would move south. You didn't mention how long the event lasted; I wouldn't have thought very long. Well is this the cause of the shadow? With Sherlock Holmes in the back of my mind, I can't at the moment think of an alternative. Which of course doesn't mean there isn't one. The only time I have seen shadows on clouds are from an aircraft but that is quite straight forward.

I don't know if a link to this study has already been posted (It's a bit of a job going back through long threads when you are a newbie), or even come to that if this the right place for it but here it is. I must admit I haven't come across this before-along with many others by the sound of it. Two Russian scientists, Victor Gorshkov and Anastassia Makarieva of the St. Petersburg Nuclear Physics, have published a revolutionary theory that turns modern meteorology on its head, positing that forests—and their capacity for condensation—are actually the main driver of winds rather than temperature. While this model has widespread implications for numerous sciences, none of them are larger than the importance of conserving forests, which are shown to be crucial to 'pumping' precipitation from one place to another. The theory explains, among other mysteries, why deforestation around coastal regions tends to lead to drying in the interior. Although the theory has garnered a wide contrast of reactions—from dismissal to accolades—it has so far been mostly ignored by the greater scientific community since first published in a small journal in 2007. A new paper in Bioscience by Douglas Sheil and Daniel Murdiyarso attempts to remedy this by introducing (or re-introducing) the theory to scientists of all fields, many of whom have probably never heard of the theory despite its radical and widespread implications. http://news.mongabay...narytheory.html

Spot on John.

Where were you; possibly between Denbigh and Ruthin?

0800 UTC Overcast with 7/8 sc and a couple of St. Intermittent slight rain. Temp 11 Wind S light Pressure 1015 falling. Surface chart for 0600. (I didn't draw the isobars :lol:)

I agree with your comments but just to add this can sometimes work in reverse. Freak huge waves are a case in point. For many years seamen used to report encountering huge waves, anywhere between 80-120 feet in height. They were never believed because waves of this height were thought impossible because they didn’t fit the wave physics at the time. Oceanographers and meteorologists had long used a mathematical system called the linear model to predict wave height. But eventually so many ships had disappeared for no obvious reason or reports of freak waves were supported by evidence that couldn’t be ignored, there was clearly another effect investigators needed to find. Except someone already had: it existed (on paper at least) in the world of quantum physics. Al Osborne was a wave mathematician with 30 years experience devising equations to describe open ocean wave patterns. Quantum physics has at its heart a concept called the Schrodinger Equation, a way of expressing the probability of something happening that is far more complex than the simple linear model. Osborne’s theory was based on the notion that in certain unstable conditions, waves can steal energy from their neighbours. Adjacent waves shrink while the one at the focus can grow to an enormous size. His modified Schrodinger Equation had been rejected in the past as implausible, but with research attention centered on analyzing these rogue waves - including global satellite radar surveillance by the new European Remote Sensing Satellite - data began to emerge backing his case. When he came across the New Year's Day 1985 wave profiles from the Draupner oil rig, he saw his mathematical model played out in the real world. Al's Osborne’s work - if correct - suggests that there are two kinds of waves out on the high seas; the classical undulating type described by the linear model and an unstable non-linear monster - a wave that at any time can start sucking up energy from waves around it to become a towering freak. The moral I suppose is don’t ignore reality just because it doesn’t fit the science.

Nice to see a touch of whimsy creeping in GW.:o

I find the cosmic ray-cloud scenario a bit of a nightmare. Haven't read the full article mentioned in NS but it seems to be fundementally different to the research of say, Jacob Svensmark . He wrote a paper that I read some years ago concerning cloud cover and I note he is still in the same field. Apologies if this has been posted before. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090801095810.htm

Bulverism and now Possibilianism. When I was out this morning I picked up the New Scientist and on browsing through it came across an article, Why I am a ‘Possibilian’, by David Eagleman. A small extract. Possibilianism emphasises the active exploration of new, unconsidered notions. A possibilian is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind and is not driven by the idea of fighting for a single, particular story. The key emphasis of possibilianism is to shine a flashlight around the possibility space. It is a plea not simply for open-mindedness, but for an active exploration of new ideas. Is possibilianism compatible with a scientific career? Indeed, it represents the heart of science. Real science operates by holding limitless possibilities in mind and working to see which one is most supported by the data. Streuth, that's a tad radical. The article ends with a quote from Voltaire. “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.â€