Alan Robinson

Dismissing folklore would be a bit dubious I'd say, but on the other hand, I doubt folklore is an acceptable guide to the past. I gather that Nordic people have influenced the Greenlanders for at least 1000 years, and one of the major imports to Greenland has been ethyl alcohol in its many enjoyable forms. Even today, alcohol is a considerable problem in Greenland. I have it that in the almost perpetual darkness some places, they kept themselves merry with all manner of entertainment, which is probably where many of the traditional tales must have originated. They made up jokes too..........."what's and ig?.............a Greenland house without a loo!" What seems pretty certain however is, that Greenland's climate has changed considerably several times since the beginning of the Holocene epoch, and we know from going through ancient rubbish tips in the Orkney Islands that when Skara Brae was inhabited a few thousand years ago, the surrounding waters were home to species of fish that today are not found north of Cornwall due to the present cooler sea temperature.

Last time I had my eyes tested, the optician advised me about something she called "floaters". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floater Seeing how these are specific to individuals it seems improbable that several people could share the same experience if floaters are to blame, but then isn't there some shared belief involved in seances?

Thank you noiv, that is most informative. I notice that when the atmospheric CO2 content falls below approximately 300 ppm (by volume I take it) that the dependent variable becomes negative, and by this I suppose we are to understand that instead of warming us, atmospheric CO2 in fact cools us. (Jethro, adding CO2 when the ppm is less than 300 in fact reduces the amount of cooling). I then went, as you kindly suggested to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere, and at the top right hand side of that article is a curve showing just what the atmospheric CO2 content has been since 1960 in Hawaii. Roughly speaking, in 1960 it was 316ppm, and in 2008 about 385ppm. That is a considerable rise over a short time, what is confirmed further down in the wikipedia article. Now I know that extrapolation is naughty, but taking the dependent variable from that upper right hand wikipedia curve and using it as the independent variable in the curve you kindly posted, the conclusion can only be that prior to 1950 and when seen in isolation, atmospheric CO2 had a cooling effect, which back in 1900 must have been significant. Next I looked for records concerning the extent of arctic sea ice, and not surprisingly, most of them only go back, say 30 years or so, as prior to that, there was no satellite observation. I did however find this, http://irregulartime...inking-ice-cap/, and it seems that around 1950, mariners reported little annual change in the extent of arctic sea ice. The annual decrease in sea ice only became disturbing in the late 1960s. Presumably there is some sort of thermal inertia causing a lag in melting as the CO2 effect becomes positive in 1950. To summarise this reading, atmospheric CO2 has been rising beyond its historic peaks since the start of the industrial revolution, but until around 1950, its effect on the atmosphere was to cool it, not heat it. This is what is called in thermodynamics a sink, rather than a source. Global warming is however supposed to have been going on for longer however, and so some other warming process must be at work than CO2, and prior to 1950, CO2 has in fact had a moderating effect on whatever was warming Earth up. However, since 1950, atmospheric CO2 has contributed to warming, becoming a source rather than a sink. There are no reliable records of the annual extent of Arctic sea ice prior to about 1950, but in the late 1960s the sea ice went into dramatic decline. Because of background warming we might reasonably expect sea ice to have been diminishing in 1950 too as the cooling effect of CO2 diminished, at yet mariners at that time were reporting little change. Okay, that's how it could be summarised, but personally, I am not satisfied because we have no reliable records of the extent of sea ice before the Space Age. So much for the science. I happen to have lived in Denmark for donkey's years, and have aquaintences whose ancestors were stationed for years in Greenland. A few keen Danes have studied Inuit folklore in depth, and I am sure that in conversation I heard of Inuit fables and traditional songs that recall extraordinary variations in the extent of sea ice. Now I don't for one minute propose we use fables and ancient songs as a starting point for our considerations of Arctic sea ice in past times. Having been kind enough to help me this far, can you therefore point me in the direction of methods purporting to signify the extent of Arctic sea ice prior to 1950?

I am sure you are just using the same popular terminology as the general public, and that you are quite aware that it has absolutely nothing to do with the way I use my greenhouse to grow tomato seedlings in March. Is there a more scientific designation than "greenhouse gas" noiv? In my own simple way I am interested in mathematical modelling, and as I gather you are an erudite sort noiv, while jethro is considering what to put to you, perhaps you could expand on what she wrote the other day, namely that the warming effect of discharging carbon dixide into the atmosphere is logarithmic. She simplified it saying that the more you discharge the less effect it has - or something like that. I then posted that it is more complex, and if f(x) = ln(x), then adding just a little to a tiny amount might well have a far greater effect than adding a lot to a lot, such is the function. My question to you is, where do we stand on the logarithmic curve, and does the function used in the mathematical models have coefficients and constants. perhaps yuou can point me to it in published literature?

Back to Arctic ice it is then. I gather that if the big melt continues, then before long shipping will increase considerably above the Arctic Circle. I presume this primarily involves the transportation of hydrocarbons in liquid form, which means tankers. The economics of liquid bulk transport are already well established; the bigger the better for crude oil. I have however a problem with this concerning materials technology. Steel - the only readily available material we have with sufficient tensile strength and stiffness for such large structures - is ductile above 0 degrees C. However, at sub zero temperatures there is quite a sudden transition from ductile to brittle, meaning not only does the material crack without prior plastic deformation, but impacts can cause sudden failure of the material. Brittleness can be overcome and impact strength improved by heat treating the steel after rolling. However, there are other issues to consider, such as material thickness, and as far as I know, although there are tankers certified for Arctic duty, none of them are anything like ULCC size (the largest crude carriers we see plying the Strait of Hormuz for example), and therefore are not built of such thick plate in the midship region. The Arctic is a sensitive environment, and I hope that moves are afoot to protect it against the application of unsuitable technology. Reading what I have just put, does anyone recall the cause of the awful pipeline leaks there were a few years back - where was it now - Alaska? Siberia? I don't suppose they made the pipelines of steel that becomes brittle at -10C, and some irritated worker gave the pipe a knock with his hammer while doing maintenance work?

My information is that, certainly here in Denmark, getting as far as the peer review stage is quite an achievement. The allocation of research funding is an industry in itself, and considerable sums are used to coach potential researchers with the aim of achieving publication in international journals. Publication brings with it public financing without which many large universities cannot continue their various activities. I am told that the research community here is very conservative for this very reason, and much consideration is given to which topics to even propose for research in the first place. Of course there is private funding, and I cannot say what proportion of the total funding it amounts to. Public funding does however appear to be very significant. A certain philosophically minded man I know is of the opinion that this entire culture is in fact counter-productive with respect to the dwindling level of innovation these recent decades. As he puts it, "go-faster stripes on a new mobile phone model is NOT innovation".

I am unsure who your comment is made toward, but just for clarity, I never once mentioned or implied there is a conspiracy or plot. My point is that politicians are by their very nature cunning, and it must be highly embarrassing for them to on the one hand take upon themselves the running of our country on our behalf, yet have little if any practical vision for how our society might be in say, 15, 30, or 50 years from now. You will be very hard pressed to find a mainstream politician tell you that we must make radical changes because our energy supplies are gradually running out, simultaneously with us all living way beyond our means and having to borrow all the time, together with what seem pressing environmental issues, not to mention gross over-population. The Arctic ice business cannot be meaningfully debated in isolation from all these most pressing and interconnected issues.

I'm with jethro on this one, and while certain basics are probably beyond dispute right now, the world climate is a very complex and chaotic affair. A little humility wouldn't go amiss among all the climate soothsayers, because the issue is emotive. On the question of "the best scientists in the world", I should have thought the whole business so complex that experimental atmospheric studies is one thing, experimental thermodynamics another, and a true expert in one field might probably be a comparitive novice in the other. Anyway, for what its worth, my suspicion is that politicians and their control of research funding are distorting climate science. Scientists research that which there is funding for, and who - for the most - controls the purse strings may I ask? Our elected representative leaders - though bashful and reticent on the actual situation - know only too well that our current lifestyles cannot be sustained, and are embarrassed that they cannot offer us the appealing materialistic future so many desire. When did we hear politicians speaking openly about peak oil? Why isn't it headlines that in eight years from now, at present production rates, Norway will have emptied its lucrative oil fields? Why haven't we been advised that Saudi Arabia is pumping up masses of saltwater, and in twenty or so years from now will need the lion's share of its dwindling oil reserves for domestic consumption and making fresh water to drink. All we get is a load of tripe about electric cars, wind turbines and tidal barriers. I am pretty sure politicians have encouraged this whole heated climate debate in order to prepare the western world for the gradual changes we are likely to see the coming decades. The message is that climate change makes it necessary for us to burn less fossil fuel. The fact is that if we had it - which we don't anymore - we could continue burning the stuff as we have this last half century and hang the consequences. Good grief, it was known back in the 1960s that the discovery of new oil desposits had peaked and was thereafter diminishing. Why is it that peak oil, over-population, and Mickey Mouse money haven't been linked with the climate debate? The state of Arctic ice is intriguing enough, but I consider its study is not put into context because the bigger picture is unpleasant for most of us. Alternative energy sources? Answers on a postcard please to.......

Though I don't fully approve of your way of expressing yourself, I agree largely with what you put. have you considered though that this is a forum where people are supposed to put their genuine views up for discussion? The reason I bring this up is that to obtain research funding, scientists usually must put forward their intentions beforehand so that the people controlling the cash can evaluate the proposition. My son actually spends much time guiding potential researchers at the University of Copenhagen through their expansive applications for funding, which have to be offered in English. It seems that the publication of papers in internationally recognized scientific journals is an important goal, because the more papers published, the greater the funding an institution receives in this country. Consequently, research methodology is somewhat restrained and conformant with certain prevailing views in the wider scientific community. If we agree to define religion as a belief system about our existence to which persons can become affiliated, then there is little room for religion in scientific research methodology, at least where the natural sciences are concerned. For this reason, potential researchers will clearly avoid giving the impression they let religion interfere with their investigations. Nonetheless, researchers do not embark upon their projects by calling a meeting at some congress centre and asking for ideas. Researchers get their ideas from within, though they obviously are generated using information received from without. I gather that many researchers, while avoiding a religious reputation, are happy to thought spiritual, in the sense that they can have a feeling of awe when they see a beautiful sunset, or perhaps listen to Massenet's "meditation". These people recognize that we are all human, and part of being human - I'd say a large part - concerns having feelings about the world around us. The scientific method must not become distorted by subjective views, but on the other hand, people that persistently ignore that quiet voice inside their head risk before long finding themselves on a psychologist's couch. This is something of a tightrope to walk, and it occurred to me that seeing how so many forum users remain anonymous, hiding behind all manner of strange names, that perhaps they are just venting thoughts that are tabu elsewhere. Of course views about the condition of Arctic ice are to a large extent subjective. The disciplined scientist who inists on being a scientist would probably not state his or her feelings on an internet forum. Enjoy the music....

Now you mention it, I cannot name a single civilian settlement in Greenland that is not on the coast. The link explained that in Nuuk it was overcast while in Sisimiut it was fine. This is what caused the temperature diffence, and the extremely low humidity was because the wind came off the inland ice. Have you given thought to my sea smoke query GW?

Speaking of fireballs, I saw a lovely sight in January 2010 just after sunset. A very bright object fell slowly down to the southwest of here just after sunset, taking maybe thirty seconds from its first apperance to finally extinguishing. At first i thought it was a parachute flare, but I very quickly realized it was something far larger and very high up. By the way, I've found that the best spot to observe the heavens in our part of the world is at sea. On most dark, clear nights there are meteors, and I suppose that is why celebrated meteor showers interest me little.

Not a very active thread is it? Maybe others, like me, find watching meteor showers rather like picking wild mushrooms; the prospect is intriguing, but the end result a disappointment.I think I'll stay in bed.

Well, I've slept on that one twice now, and upon reflection, I'd say we are now bordering on the realm of fantasy.

Here's an interesting observation for those of you interested in the weather up there in the far north. http://www.dmi.dk/dm..._dag_i_sisimiut It seems that on 25th instant, in Nuuk the maximum daytime temperature was 7 degrees C, while a little further north, in Sisimiut, it was no less than 23 degrees C, with relative humidity just an extraordinary 17%. That's quite different conditions over such a short distance. Does anyone know how significant the sea smoke effect is regarding the diminishing ice? I am referring to very cold air passing over a warmer surface, which, if it is liquid, heats the air boundary layer, allowing considerable evaporation to saturation point. Mariners call it sea smoke, and I thought that perhaps the same could happen if the surface was ice close to melting. It would be a rather bizarre thought that low as well as high temperatures contribute to the disappearance of sea ice.

Now it seems that certain noisy grasshoppers make use of prime numbers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14305667 I wonder if this mathematician realizes there are over one million scientifically described insect species in thew world, and some estimate this is about one third of the total number of different insect species around. It would have helped his postulation that grasshopper evolution has somehow made use of prime numbers - as though it is almost a deliberate act - if he had let us know how many other species also display such breeding cycles. It seems to me that just a single species doing this - out of a million species - is pure coincidence. This strikes me as yet another instance of numerology, which we know played a significant role in Pythagorean mumbo-jumbo. It also struck me as being akin to so many others attributing otherwise unexplained natural phenomena to mystical causes, for example Landsheit's ideas that sunspots are affected by the relative positions of Jupiter and other planets in our solar system. Still, I musn't just be a grumpy old man. I liked the last line of another article today...."And this process will carry on until the climate science community starts behaving like proper scientists" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14315747

I notice it has been declared certain that time travel is impossible. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14289114 I just wondered why the A Level physics syllabus coaxes students into thinking that the speed of light is always constant, when we know for a fact that is certainly not the case. I mean, Isaac Newton knew it wan't the case. If ever there was misleading in education, it is telling people that the speed of light is always constant. While I'm at it, can anyone tell me where there happens to be a perfect vacuum hanging around? I'd love to see one.

It occurred to me that it could be difficult to prove or disprove the usefulness of Popper's nul hypothesis opinions, and therefore as a dedicated logical positivist, I cannot see any reason for making postulations on the subject. I simply feel demonstrating something's impossibility is equally useful as proving possibility, and leave it at that. Here's to home brewing, and let me extend the toast thus.........here's to ale, women and song; may none of them be flat.

I never implied that science is incapable of anything, as that would be nonsense. I do however think that bickering should have no place in science, and when I read of or hear of scientists bickering I am somewhat repulsed. People with inquiring minds will debate openly and genuinely consider all propositions put to them. If unacceptable, they will reject them and state their reasons. Where there is unresolved division of opinion, more work is needed. That is where we stand with so many issues. Regarding the climate, and Arctic ice in particular, we can obviously see what is happening at the moment. At the same time, we do not fully comprehend what these changes are due to. At times, it can even be difficult to distinguish between true scientists, the lackeys of finance, practitioners of divination, and metaphysicists. Truth, however, has a nasty habit of never going away, and sooner or later, there it is, for all to see, that is, if they want to see it.

My plums have begun to drop off the tree. This is a few weeks earlier than 2010 and 2009. My neighbour's cherries all disappeared a few weeks ago, but that was due to a huge flock of starlings ........................nice to see them, they have been scarce for a good many years around these parts.

Glad we agree http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happy.gif

Are you teasing us Jethro? With f(x) = ln(x), adding just a little to a little has considerable impact. Adding a lot to a lot has far less impact. In both cases, adding has a positive effect, and I do not necessarily mean beneficial. I just wonder, do we have a little or a lot of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere? I am not picking on you though, for I entirely agree about cloud. Do people actually think we can know with sufficient certainty how much cloud there was in the past? I mean, it is difficult enough knowing how much there is right now, despite all our techno-wonders. I suspect this is one of the mathematical details that can be easily manipulated to strengthen opinion. I am sure you know, but for convenience, here is the general shape of the curve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm

My understanding is that the laws of gravity cannot be reconciled with what is thought to be happening between tiny particles. General relativity explains - so they say - phenomena on a huge scale, quantum theory explains what goes on on a tiny scale - so they say - and the two theories are compatible except regarding gravity. I also gather that the attempt to unify these two grand theories is what caused quantum theory to be renamed and adjusted so many times, and in light of this, it seems reasonable to expect further adjustments if full unification is ever to be achieved. This was why I raised the question about criteria of proof and acceptance of hypotheses. I'd say that the summer temperatures are about normal because they are recorded at about head height above the ice. It is only to be expected that the existing ice moderates summer air temperature fluctuations. What is more telling however is the higher than normal temperatures earlier in the year. As the rate of ice formation is inversely proportional to temperature - the colder it gets, the faster the ice forms - ice is not being formed as quickly as in previous years during the winter months. The rate of formation is less than the rate of melt, and consequently the ice pack is reducing in size during these years.

Well put, and this is exactly why I posted above about hypotheses rising out of people's sensations, intuition, feelings, hunches etc. I just wonder though, which criteria must be fulfilled for science to be called settled? Take for example the inconsistencies between relativity and quantum-whatever-version-they-advocate-right-now-theory. I just wish psychology - as a science - had progressed beyond infancy.

After the warmest, driest Danish April on record, we have had a very average May followed by warm and very wet June and - to date - July. There have been several deluges, and traffic round that awful spot called København was disrupted for days. Oh, hang on, the forenoon of June 12th was fine as I recall it. Right now though we have a low parked right on top of us, pouring water all over the place.

I agree with most of what you put Jethro, but I suspect some people take your powerful eloquence to be bigoted, and moreover, you occasionally leave small chinks in your armour, as in this case. As I am sure you will agree, the first step in the scientific method - broadly speaking - is being curious. This does not require formal education or qualifications, or even relevant knowledge for that sake. Even Einstein had to start somewhere. Science is not some sort of exclusive club for Mensa members with a Masters degree. The prerequisite for science is a questioning mind, and I know in my own case that my conscious curiosity is aroused by something sub-conscious. This kind of arousal is for me usually instantaneous, and I certainly do not spend much time dwelling on my feelings. On the other hand, I cannot deny that I get feelings, that they are elementary, and furthermore, experience has taught me that many of my feelings hit bull's eye. I doubt my curiosity could be aroused by me excluding part of my modest thought processes, mistrusting them as something weak or beyond my control. I'd say that most vigorous internet forum exchanges are fired by feeling, and this specific topic is a fine example of just that. Maybe we need to open a new thread based on Alexander Pope's Epistle II "Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, the proper study for mankind, is man" . I'd say that what we read on this forum is expressed by our characters, while the tiny voice we have inside our heads - the one that gets shouted down by the outside world, and yet never goes away and can make us feel proud or guilty - that still voice is our personality speaking to us. People's feelings regarding Arctic ice are only too plain. There are many hypotheses about it, and I'd say that genuine scientists will simply avoid debates while getting on with research to test their ideas. The rest of us can of course entertain ourselves with debate while we await the outcome, which is I suppose the whole point of this forum.