Methuselah

I've seen a few wasps chewing wood, over the past few weeks, so I'm hoping they've been tricked into autumn nest-building. A nice '63-type winter would go some way towards wiping-out next year's brood?

Red Admirals, Tortoiseshells and a Comma so far today...

What 'rapid rebound' is he talking about?

But it's all proxy data, J: ancient CETs have been adjusted (quite rightly) to take account of less-accurate sensing devices and for the UHI effect, among other things. If today's data are 'unreliable' then those of yesteryear most certainly are...We've only had Arctic Ice-thickness/-extent data for a handful of years, anyway! So does pointing-out each-and-every uncertainty known to man (all of which are freely acknowledged within the Scientific Method, anyway) really count as 'presenting evidence'? No offence meant, but (to me) such tactics appear very similar to YECs' penchant for drawing attention to gaps in the fossil-record, as 'evidence' for a six-thousand-year-old Earth? All theories and hypotheses carry the same caveat: I might be wrong??

Tbh, I would be far more surprised if the current Arctic ice situation didn't affect our weather...Indeed, I cannot see that the coming refreeze (forming ice transfers latent heat into both atmosphere and ocean, where it becomes sensible) can possibly have no effect...

Thanks for that, John...

That's true, J... Indeed, the changes that have occurred since 2007, and have put down to the Solar Constant (IMO, too eagerly by many) could have happened on their own. But I really do wonder...

Dry and sunny, 20C...

But what we must all be aware of is that, earthquakes occur (in earthquake zones) on an almost daily basis anyway? Does anyone know what the annual rate is for the Pacific Rim?

That's the way to go...

But you can use that kind of argument with respect to anything, J...But it doesn't alter the fact that the Arctic has been undergoing what may be irreversible and/or unprecedented changes, of late... IMO, we must be on the lookout for meteorological impacts? Indeed, the very same would be true if the sun's output suddenly increased/decreased by 25%?

Haven't a clue. I'm away in the land of Nod by then!

The curry that burns twice eh, barrie?

Indeed CM...In many ways, we're all flailing around in the dark...

I do believe you're right, J. Definitely UV! But then, again I think, the %age reduction in UV ought to be the same everywhere? A quantum physicist might, however, beg to differ?

With the proviso, I think, that the current ice-melt is more of an immediate concern: the reduction in solar flux is the same all over the planet; the increase in sensible heat produced by melting ice occurs entirely within the areas adjacent to the Polar Jet Stream...

A fair bit better than Piers Corbyn?

Clearly a guy who loves the sound of his own voice, is that one!

Are you going to post your scientific reasoning for that statement?

Sooner or later, barrie, there will be no fossil-fuels left. And after that date, whether we like it or not, humanity will have a neutral carbon footprint...Nothing lasts forever!

If the entire world human population had a collectively neutral carbon footprint then, by definition, anthropogenic CO2 ​would cease to build up....

Ian, my mate...Could you please try to sound a tad more magnanimous? It really isn't like winning a bet. It could be a real disaster? But my money is on that it won't be?

Crappy here, too!

Difficult to assess whether that's profound or whether it's codswallop...It does have the tiniest whiff of obfuscation too it, though?

I thought that salt-water could go down to -2C (28f) before it freezes? Wouldn't that imply that fresh (0C, 32f) water is actually warmer then salt water?