Alan Robinson

The very idea is preposterous, and furthermore, repugnant. I wonder how Aldous Huxley and Eric Arthur Blair (alias Geroge Orwell) would have described it?

Most of us are in a degree of awe GW. It seems to me you are a scientist at heart, except you need to learn and respect other people's experiences, provided they have a rational explanation. You might also try investigating and explaining what you yourself have found, and I don't mean other peoples' opinions. I am sure Greenlanders would take you in for a time so you might look around. I can however warn you, if you haven't already been there, you are in for a shock, not only regarding society, but the amount of information we already have on hand about Arctic conditions. It goes way back, not least to Amundsen, who was also an influential member of the Norwegian Polar Institute, just like Jaworowski. Awe is one thing, humility another.

Maybe we should try to understand nature. Homo sapiens are as far as I know a product of nature. Euler to Diderot "repondez!"

I have an excellent Vigo press. http://www.vigopresses.co.uk/store/index.php?cPath=63&osCsid=651839fd6fd9d5b99491e1ded432bcac You might try art-of-brewing.co.uk, they have a slightly cheaper press than mine. Whatever you choose, you'll need a pulpmaster too and a decent mains-powered electric drill. You can use any apples for cider, but as with wine, some experts place great value on particular varieties. Not me, I just go for it with any apples. Be careful with hygiene though, otherwise you'll end up with lovely apple vinegar..........the kind I make for pickling.

I'd like to see them try inventing oil booms that work in drift ice. At least we should make them try.

Perhaps I'm a culinary philistine, or maybe I've ruined my taste buds with my home made apple vinegar for pickling gherkins and beetroot, but mushrooms do little for my palate any more

Calm yourself Azores, I've given up mushroom picking. The taste is over-hyped, and maggots usually get to the better tasting species before we do. Tell you what, you can have my patch!

The Danish Meteorological Institute announce they have established a 24 hour oil spil response service for Greenland. http://www.dmi.dk/dm...andske_farvande Their task is to man a computer that anticipates the spread of any reported oil spillage. Great, so now we know where the oil will go. Anyone interested in joining me in a new research project? We can perhaps become millionaires by inventing oil booms that work in drifting ice.

I didn't write that you put that. I simply put that claiming science can know everything is absurd. I put down my beer jug after I've had 2 litres of my own pale ale - pubs here don't sell anything I'd imbibe Identifying important moments is something I have a little experience in. I've had quite a few of what Abraham Maslow called "peak experiences". Not recently mind, the last one was in 2006 I think, when I realised in a kind of rapture it was time for me to stop working and close down my little business. These things come to us in a state of elevated awareness, a bit like North American indians in their sweat tents

Which is why I suspect politicians have encouraged the AGW debate in an attempt to have us think burning the stuff is bad. I beleive psychologists call it rationalizing. "I didn't want that anyway". I for one don't mind northern Europe being 2 degrees warmer.

Fine. My Pocket Oxford Dictionary states as follow: Gnostic, adjective, having esoteric spiritual knowledge. Agnostic, noun, one who holds that nothing is or is likely to be known of a God or anything other than material phenomena (from Greek, not gnostic) We can thank the ancient Greeks for a lot, but not for inventing sophism. I think I'll stick with my trusty Pocket Oxford and give Wikipedia a miss this time round. As far as science being capable of knowing all there is to know, I'd say that is a very presumtious position to take. In any case, philosophy has debated knowledge for 2,500 years, and still there is no consensus over what constitutes knowledge. With all respect, I'd say claiming science can know everything is absurd.

The Technical University of Denmark are certainly no mugs, and you are quite right about Mason, who ought to be ashamed of himself for such outrageous conduct in public. This whole business strengthens my suspicion that politicians have eagerly encouraged the AGW debate to prepare us all for unavoidable and unpleasant changes to our lifestyle due to peak oil, our Mickey Mouse money system, and gross over-population. Svensmark's work hardly supports the idea that burning fossil fuels is the sole cause of climate change, which is what politicians want(ed) us to believe. I don't say that our CO2 emmisions are immaterial, but it is incredible that Svensmark's research should be so vehemently opposed.

It took me a little while to work that one out Mike, but I'd say you are right, only therms is an old unit. Today we use SI units, and the correct unit of measurement is the Joule. This is however where the whole climate debate starts, because according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a cool body cannot give heat energy to a warmer one without the aid of an external heat pump; so we become embroiled in all manner of speculation and disagreement about what exactly is going on. I am still waiting for the climate debate to include explanations why the earth's core remains molten after all these millions of years, when one could reasonably expect its energy to have dissipated into space by now. Something extraordinary is going on beneath our feet I'd say. Who knows just what the earth's internal energy is?

That says it all. Cargo vessels are not icebreakers, and need icebreaker assistance at the start and finish of the navigation season. 5 million tonnes of cargo eh? That is like 22 Suezmax voyages I really do hope this benchmark standard will be enforced, even though it is for the Baltic: http://www.sjofartsverket.se/pages/3265/b100_1.pdf Summer conditions north of Russia must be similar to the Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Finland in spring. You might also be interested in this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_class

I know quite a few atheists who state categorically there is no God, but then, I have always mixed with people from widely differing backgrounds. Regarding AGW, we are having the very idea stuffed down our throats by state institutions such as Dansk Meteorologisk Institut, whose bills are paid by politicians who want us to get used to the idea the future is electric cars If you are looking for consensus on AGW, perhaps the public should be provided with convincing argument. For the moment it is lacking, from both sides.

I find many parallels between the trichotomy of warmers, deniers and skeptics on the one hand, and the silly trichotomy of people with faith, atheists, and agnostics. The fact is neither atheism nor theism build upon proof, and both are a matter of belief. Agnostics on the other hand say simply that nothing is known, or is likely to be known about god(s). Apply this to climate and environment; Believer; it is our fault the world is warming. Atheist; no it isn't Agnostic; we can't say anything conclusive given the information on hand. Believer; irreperable damage is being done, and it is all because of us Atheist; no it isn't, and by the way the climate has been both hotter and cooler in the past than it is now Agnostic; indications are it has been warmer and cooler in the past, but we know too little to be dogmatic Believer; CO2 put out by us is causing the atmosphere to heat gradually Atheist; no it isn't Agnostic; it is, but we don't know exactly how significant that warming is, because we do not understand other natural processes. Need I continue? I am firmly in the agnostic camp, and - so I believe - is Jethro. Oddly enough, in the heated debate over religion and atheism, people like Prof Dawkins have the nerve to claim that agnostics are just a wishy-washy kind of atheist. I should hate to think that in the climate debate, those promoting the AGW argument claim that skeptics are in fact deniers.

Good idea, it is a terrible spot for small vessels in a gale. Start with the South West Patch, it is after all just 6 metres deep there, so it wouldn't take much work. I got caught out there in 1979 and got a real spanking for 20 hours as an upper level disturbance came through. That was one of the few times at sea I have ever taken all the rags down and gone below. If there had been an island I could have flung the hook, but instead I had to endure that awful steep and breaking sea.

The BBC put a slightly different slant on it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14637647

Sorry you are having a bad day. I'd like to offer you a bottle of my pale ale, but that is impractical. I am also sorry this thread goes on and on about how much ice there is, while the practical consequences seem to me completely ignored. Accidental spills at sea are infrequent, and are invariably connected with collision, grounding, or negligence, such as in the case of the MSC Napoli in the English Channel a few years back. I can explain why MSC Napoli was negligence if anyone would like to know. However, you will find in due course that to save money, tankers pump waste (slops) into the sea if they think they can get away with it, because otherwise they have to use expensive reception facilities in port. See MARPOL regulations. I would very much welcome anyone questioning my comments about shipping. Apart from a few years in the British Army, shipbuilding and shipping have been my whole career, part of which was running my own engineering consultancy company. Now I have retired, I ought to relax a bit, but funnily enough, what business, management and shipping is concerned, I am fit for fight. Now, back to the Canadian government sending an unsuitably designed ship into Greenland waters, and it having to turn back.........

I do not wish to seem hurtful GW, but I find your hand-wringing over this topic an empty gesture. The damage has hardly started. Can you imagine the effect of a Suez-max tanker spilling, say, 100,000 tonnes of oil into the sea? That is no less than 100 million litres. There is no help to be had in those regions, and furthermore, the charts must be rather sketchy because nobody has yet been able to survey the region because of ice. If you think that the disappearance of ice is the greatest disaster that could befall the Arctic, I respectfully suggest you think again.

Ah! You read like spokesman for Maersk. Getting to or from the NW passage involves passing Greenland, where, as Quistgaard rightly put, it is never truly ice-free. Apart from that, the navigable stretches will not be open for more than a few months. I can just see it, Suez-max tankers making just one more voyage before the passage closes again. Mariners will be pressurised into taking risks, and sooner or later there will be problems. This is one issue I am certain of, and to repeat myself, I think it would become those interested in protecting the Arctic to campaign strongly against standard shipping navigating in those areas.

I think we need to be very careful about what we read in the news, but in fairness to those concerned about the environment, I'd say their fears are well founded. Here for instance, BBC is discussing Suez-max gas carriers passing north about Russia bound for Thailand. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14670433 Here, on the other hand, is a report from a joint Canadian, Danish and US scientific voyage. http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/paa_mission_i_arktis Keld Quistgaard reports that the Canadian vessel m/s St Johns is not ice strengthened, and had to turn back, unable to withstand the conditions encountered. I have mentioned before that only suitably designed and maintained vessels should attempt such passages, and I am incredulous that the Canadian authorities - so expert as they are on ice - should send a non ice-classed vessel into those waters. I read regularly on this thread that the Artic ice is disappearing, but as Quistgaard says, the waters round Greenland are never completely ice-free. There are everything from bergs through bergy bits to growlers at any time in most places. Those of you who are concerned about the Arctic environment might serve your cause better by campaigning for close regulation of shipping in those waters. If you don't, greedy ship owners will sway the various maritime authorities to permit inadequately designed ships entering icy waters, which will certainly result in groundings and sinkings with serious pollution to follow.

Someone must have been taking a peep at this thread...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14662402

I don't mind being in the minority, after all, what is society other than a collection of minorities? I shall certainly remember summer 2011 as extraordinary, in that one side of the North Sea experienced the conditions you list, while on the other side - it is only 300 nautical miles or so across - there was the wettest summer since records began in 1874. In Gedser there has fallen in excess of 0.5m rain between 1st June 2011 and today.

I doubt you'll see one in your lifetime.