Alan Robinson

You are quite right about dispersants Treiagonaut, and the natural oil plumes don't surprise me at all. Regarding the animal life, you are quite right too, though I would point out that the inshore area there wasn't anything to crow about beforehand. I spent 18 months in Mobile, Alabama, some years ago, and while the beaches near Gulf Shores and Pensacola etc look very fine, there was a big question mark over people eating crabs caught in Mobile Bay - not that I personally eat meat, poultry or fish. The inshore waters already had their fair share of pollution. I can't resist building upon your idea of cutting off the the energy source, because I am convinced this whole troposhere / stratosphere / solar irradiation business is not fully understood, yet lies essentially at the bottom of all our speculations. From this forum I have learned about the Quasi Biennial Oscillation, which appears to be factual, though not yet fully appreciated. The QBO could very well be part of the mechanism that causes the trade winds to fluctuate, which in turn would alter the Equatorial Current flow into the Caribbean Sea and through the Yucatan Channel. The second law of thermodynamics suggests that the QBO is also deeply involved in the whole Polar Vortex business, which in turn suggests Hadley cells and the position of jet streams are similarly involved. In other words, the global system that determines our weather and climate is enormously complex. It struck me looking at the the way threads are arranged on this forum, that perhaps there is in general an inductive approach to understanding weather and climate. Perhaps someone can point me towards a deductive theory instead?

Perhaps technology has changed, but I remember having a nasty spill of heavy fuel oil at the quayside of the shipyard where I worked some 25 years ago. We managed to contain much of it, but some was swept away by current. The local authorities went bananas, and a dispersant was used to deal with what we couldn't mop up. I was told that dispersants coagulate the oil so it sinks to the bottom, where it is thought to do less harm. Out of sight, out of mind i suppose. Over time, the heavy oil balls are thought to degrade and simply disappear somehow. Now of course, this is just a case of sweeping dirt under the carpet, and some oil will inevitably be released, and gently rise to the surface, though I can't say how much. In the BP Mexican Gulf case, I'd say there is every reason to believe that some oil residue is already in the Atlantic. On the other hand, though I haven't done Earl Stirling's "first year university physics" experiment, I very much doubt the presence of oil will have any significant effect on the boundary between warm and cold ocean currents. There is a huge scale difference between a glass tank in a schoolroom and the North Atlantic Ocean, and this scale difference is of tremendous importance. Small models behave quite differently to their full-sized counterparts. For example, a 1 metre long model of the largest tank ships is virtually useless for predicting the propulsive power required, and a six metre long model is of far greater use. Even then, it takes a long debated formula to make the six metre model data useful for a 350m long tank ship. Incidentally, I am a great believer in evidence, and I have had interesting discussions with a keen student of philosophy about metaphysics versus logical positivism. Philosophy used to be the father of all science, but fortunately for us, the child has left home and become of age. Consequently, I am all for evidence and verification, and I have little patience with speculative baloney. This attempt to predict the future by subjective study of water and currents is the divination technique called bletonism. In this connection, let me quote from The Mariner's Handbook, sixth edition, which is the Admiralty's core volume of a collection of publications that describe both the world's oceans and coastal waters for the use of mariners. The information contained has been gathered over centuries by eye witnesses. Concerning ocean surface currents: "4.20, it is emphasised that ocean currents undergo a continuous process of change throughout the year. .........Over by far the greater part of all oceans, the individual currents experienced in a given region are variable, in many cases so variable that on different occasions currents may be observed to set in most, or all directions................The constancy of the principal currents varies to some extent in different seasons and in different parts of the current. It is usually about 50 to 75 per cent, and rarely exceeds 85 per cent, and then only in limited areas. Current variability is mainly due to the variation of wind strength and direction." I have misplaced my copy of Ocean Passages for the World, but that excellent companion to The Mariner's Handbook contains a very fine description of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic currents, dating way back to the days of sailing ships trading with the Far East and Chile. The Gulf Stream is very variable, and people have known these things for donkey's years. This media stir about the gulf Stream dying is nothing more than irresponsible scaremongering, unless accompanied by indisputable evidence that oil has broken down the boundary layer between warm and cool currents, thus significantly altering for a long period the natural flow of the ocean. I can put up with metaphysical speculation, but the cynic in me thinks this whole business is about $$$$$$$$$$$$.

I'd like to know what Simon Shama thinks of the climate debate. His excellent BBC series about the history of Britain begins at a prehistoric settlement in the Orkney Islands, I think the spot is called Skara Brae. The excavation revealed ancient rubbish tips containing among other things fish bones. He didn't mention the species, but I think it is a kind of wrasse, which I gather is nowadays not found further north than Cornwall . His point is that the Orkneys in those days was far warmer than it is now. Otherwise I have read a theory that the North York Moors everywhere became covered with willow and juniper as the last ice age receded, which in turn gave way to a dense hardwood forest. The claim is that ancient peoples and then the monastries cut down all the forest, leaving the land to become the expanse of heather we see today. For my part, I don't believe these forests covered the entire area, because for example the west side of Blue Man i'th Moss - that is White Moor - is very boggy peat, while just to the east leading down into Wheeldale, the ground is everywhere sedimentary rock with no sign of peat at all. And anyway, around the moors there are hundreds of howes (barrows, tumuli) all situated on the brow or summit of elevated land. These were supposed to be prominent in the landscape to remind people of their rulers, and to act as landmarks. So why would anyone build Wheeldale Howe in the middle of a dense forest? It makes no sense, unless as I think, the forest didn't cover the whole area.

THERMAL INSULATION Proper thermal insulation works wonders. I built my house in 2007 in accordance with the latest Danish building regulations, which means I have 38cm thick glass wool above, 28cm glass wool in the exterior walls, and I beefed up the underfloor to 40 cm polystyrene. The outside walls by the way are very resinous softwood from above the Swedish arctic circle, and the forest there is replanted 100%. The wood is a better insulator than masonry, and such structures are very durable, Sweden and Norway have thousands of very old timber houses. It is is vital that a vapour barrier be fitted between the living space and the insulation. It prevents the moisture permeating into the insulation, thus reducing its efficiency considerably. Similarly, there must be a membrane between the roof tiles and the insulation to prevent small amounts of water blowing in in stormy weather. I'm happy to say my gas bills are about 1/3 of my neighbour's. Unfortunately, such effective insulation really is difficult to retrofit, and if your home is modest size can significantly effect what floor space you have. GROWING YOUR OWN VEG. I could go on at length about this, but suffice to say my garden provides all our garlic, onions, leeks, French beans, broad beans, peas, 3 kinds of cabbage, carrots, parsnips, beetroot and spinach. It also provides various lettuces between April and December, courgettes, ridge cucumbers (gherkins), Jerusalem artichokes, celeriac, potatoes, and fresh herbs for nine months of the year. I've just put up a little greenhouse, and in about 3 months I'll be sowing tomatoes and capiscum. I never dig the beds, as I consider it bad for the growing medium. I just spread out a thick layer of compost mixed with very old seaweed meal, as we have tons of seaweed just down the road. Neither do I use pesticides, herbicides or synthetic fertilisers made from natural gas. Any nitrogen shortage is easily compensated by picking a bucketful of stinging nettles and soaking them for 2 weeks. The nettle tea gets very smelly, but is an excellent source of nitrogen. The seaweed provides more than enough phosphates and potassium, not to mention all the trace elements plants need. Growing your own veg is wonderful, and must save a cartload of oil in transport. STOP TRAVELLING Its alright for me to say this, but there is far too much unnecessary travel. Try developing a larder so that most of the items you need are on stock at home. This means you don't have to drive to the shops so frequently. TAKE GOOD BAGS WITH YOU TO THE SUPERMARKET Stop accepting all those free plastic bags. STOP BATHING AND SHOWERING EVERY DAY My missus disagrees with me on this, and says I smell sometimes . She bathes daily. In my view, our skin is damaged by frequent washing with soap, and I shower twice weekly, or three times if she harps on about it. I'd like to think this reduces the amount of gas we burn.

Herons do love their fish, but they eat all other small creatures like mice and ducklings. Ugly fliers though, in the air they remind me of a dragon or something out of the Ragnarok story.

That really is interesting cuckoo. In connection with this year's high global temperature I saw graphics recently showing that great swathes of northern Canada and most of Siberia were in November as much as 10 degrees warmer than average. The ideas in the article you kindly linked fits very well with actual land temperatures near the Arctic Circle. What I'd like to see now is some clever Dick explain the connection to Queensland's most severe floods in 150 years, for I am personally convinced these phenomena all interact globally, but in a way we still do not fully grasp. Not that I am religious you understand, but the more I think of it, the more I respect Einstein's comment that God does not throw dice. Because last winter's freezing conditions (worse here than this year so far) ruined my spring cabbages, I began looking into the North Atlantic Oscillation, which seems to me nothing other than a comparison of barometer readings in Reykjavik and Lisbon or Gibraltar. I was fascinated by the cylic nature of the NAO index, and after analysing it very crudely, was so bold to predict that maritime type weather would return to NW Europe latest August 2010, and would persist until, say, February or March 2011. How wrong can I get! But then, that's what we get for using inductive arguments. Unless we are fully acquainted with the facts, the exception to the rule will always pop up just when we least expect it.

It is really not so cold over here, except maybe parts of central Jutland. My thermometer has averaged maybe -3 for the last week. Drifting snow has been the problem, and the lane connecting our village to the main road had so much snow on it that snow ploughs gave up, while excavators were brought in to load the snow onto lorries. Can't say where they dumped it though. The most pitiful sight is the whooping swans. We have quite a population of them here on south TÃ¥singe. The sea ice is now well over 10cm so they can't get at the weed, and the poor birds struggle to find a rape field where the wind has blown away enough snow for them to forage.

Il tempo torna bello, just wait and see lemine. You should see what its like here in Denmark right now, the sea ice round our island is over 10 cm thick. By the way, I love walking in Liguria, around Col di Nava and Mendatica. How's the snow there right now?

Thanks for the welcome VP. I am afraid you have the better of me, for although I can picture for myself a random walk, I cannot see just how a walk can post things. Never mind, I am sure the Hale cycle exists, and the excellent description you provided is indisputable. Nonetheless, I am left thinking that any acceptable all-encompassing theory of long-term weather forecasting must be awfully complex and full of ifs and buts. That would explain the Danish Met Institute's (in my view) poor performance in recent years. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of the Met Office's book and give up publishing seasonal forecasts. EDIT: a silly spelling mistake occurred.

VP, I did warn that I am slow to catch onto some things. I can grasp the bimodal distribution of sunspot numbers every 22 years or so, during which period the magnetic polarity of these goes through a complete cycle. Am I to gather that colder winters are thought to coincide with sunspot minima of a particular magnetic polarity? That certainly corresponds with the varying lowest winter temperatures recorded at Whitby High lighthouse 1962-63, 1984-86, and again 2009-10, and presumably this year too. However, I cannot see the value of such phenomena when colder winters also occurred 1967-69, 1977-79, and indeed, 1981 - 1987 in general had colder than average minima except for 1983-84. Given that it seems to me colder than average winters in recent times do not correlate very well with Hale cycles, would you kindly point out what I might have overlooked?

1981 was very cold in Denmark, with the sea frozen until late March. 1983 was almost as bad as I recall it.

Hello, a new user here, retired naval architect / shipbuilder, sailor and keen gardener living in Denmark. I thought readers might be interested to know I just read on a Danish website that certain Polish meteorologists in October 2010 predicted this winter 2010 / 11 would be the coldest in 1000 years. I couldn't trace the source back to its origin, but it seems the Poles put their prediction down to the Gulf Steam failing, and when it was said that the BP oil catastrophe was partly to blame for the GS stalling, the Danes understandably laughed at the whole theory of another cold winter. In the meantime, the sea around the island where I live has frozen a few weeks earlier than it did last year - which itself was the coldest since 1995 - and is now thick enough to walk on. Furthermore, Denmark has just experienced the second white Christmas in a row, which hasn't happened here the last 150 years. The icebreakers which were last used in 1995 have started their engines, which are normally mothballed to preserve them, Bornholm is buried in unprecedented snow, and one of the roads into our village is is so blocked that snow ploughs have given up, and they'll have to start digging the stuff onto lorries and drive it away somewhere. last November, the Danish Met Institute issued a forecast for December 2010 to February 2011 inclusive, which gave out that Denmark's mean temperature for these three months would be 0.8 degrees ABOVE the average for 1961 - 1990, and that forecast has been updated to cover January to March 2011, now anticipating I think 0.5 degrees higher than average temperature, notwithstanding that December has been about 5 degrees BELOW average. Around 18th December, they were confident that a durable thaw would commence around 23rd / 24th December, yet this morning it is still -6 degrees, and their forcast right now is for continuing sub-zero temperatures for at least another week. Now I'll readily concede I am a bit slow to catch on, but how is it the Danish Met Institute can get things so badly wrong? I doubt this will be the coldest Danish winter for 1000 years, and even if it is we have no reliable data to tell us how cold it was in, say, 1327. Nonetheless, it seems the factors affecting climate are simply not fully understood, and forecasters are dabbling in divination. Does anyone know if the meteorological profession is doing any genuine soul-searching?