jonboy

I am a little sceptical not that we have another record but the extent of the increase just doesn't look or feel right. If it is and continues I will be interested to see the explanations

I posted this in the Antarctic ice thread http://iceagenow.info/2014/09/researchers-find-major-west-antarctic-glacier-melting-geothermal-sources/

Research suggests melt in west antartic glacier due to increased thermal activity from below http://iceagenow.info/2014/09/researchers-find-major-west-antarctic-glacier-melting-geothermal-sources/

Lets be clear the articles talk about a process that will take at best 200years and probably at least 1000years so how predictions over such timescales can be called accurate beats me. I would love to know the make and model of the crystal ball!!!!

I would like to think we have now reached minimum if not it can only be a few days away. Its interesting how some now say free of ice by 2030 for ever moving goal posts when all the solar indicators would suggest 2030 is unlikely to be the bottom of the cooling so I would predict that by 2030 we are likely to see a full basin all year round not one thats empty

Can I ask reef where have the posts been removed too or have they just been deleted?

Thanks Rusty truely interesting times ahead whichever way it goes. If she does blow big I wonder what effect it will have on the fault lines around the world and if it might trigger some really big earthquakes elsewhere time will tell

As an aside to the wondeful updates on this thread which is truely fascinating. As there is more and more talk of Booom could someone outline what the consequenses might be for bad, very bad and very very bad outcomes noted in some of the posts. Many thanks and again great thread.

help now lower than 1985 global warming must be bad antacrtic ice is dooooomed!!!!!

14.4 for me please

Well you should know being the master!!

So your point is what?

But also evidence of natural cycles this is nothing new so why does everything have to be about CO2. The oceans have always warmed they have always cooled as part of these cycles they take up and give out CO2. I don't deny the planet over a give period has warmed but equally it has been warmer and it has been cooler. There are many things wrong with the arguments involved not least in how they are presented from both sides of the divide it just that at this time I think my thoughts that solar influences are the cause rather than CO2 carry better explanations for this hiatus and for potentially showing the links to past fluctuations. Both sides use links to websites that use rhetoric and language that adds nothing to the debate and as a consequence turns off the general reader who might come on here to learn which is a great shame. My day job is trying to get people and designers in particular to consider and articulate health and safety risk in construction. I am for ever trying to get only significant risks to be highlighted but more often than not these important facts are hidden in a wad of basic generic rubbish which only turns off those that need to be informed. If we forever quote and repeat generic rubbish it is inevitable the true gems will get missed or someone will think their bit of information is to left field and likely to recieve nothing but ridicule that it won't get passed on and this is how some of these climate threads behave which is detremental to discussion and debate

True knocker the hiatus maybe one of the reason's I'm a skeptic As temperatures have not risen further and if anything shown a very small decline over the last 10/15 years whilst CO2 output has continued to rise i have looked for alternative reasons as to why we saw the rise from the late 70's and fluxtuations over the last century. At present what best fits to my mind is solar cycle fluxtuations and especially those involving EUV and F10.7 fluxes. How these impact the various layers of our atmosphere be it helping to generate ozone or even deplete it encouraging cloud formation etc etc will affect our climate on a global scale. So I make no apology for being a skeptic and will continue to try and show why I believe this is nearer the truth that CO2

Here is the nature link with some off the data available http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

I posted the paper because it highlighted the nature of the natural cycle of ocean heat transport. The paper contends that global tempratures will remain the same ie a hiatus. I personally believe that golbal temperatures will cool significantly over the next 10/20 years at least. I still believe that it is the F10.7 and EUV fluxes that have a very important role in these natural cycles so comments about making my mind up are irrelevant

The missing heat is now in the deep altantic and southern oceans and as a result could lead to at least another 10 years of global warming hiatus!! http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897 A natural cycle controling earth's temprature who would have thought it!!!

I don't pretend to be fully read up on the subject but to use that to try and assert that my opinion is incorrect is plain wrong. I could ask if you have read up and fully understand my side of the arguement because if not i could equally assert your arguements are wrong for the same reason you assert i'm wrong!!!

There are many components of our atmosphere that have radiative properties and each in some way enables the earth over millenium to sustain life in its many and varied forms. History tells us that sometimes the planet has been significantly warmer and sometimes significantly cooler. To say that one component and only one component that makes up between 0.0003% to present day 0.0004% of our atmosphere changes our climate just doesn't make sense especially if the models you use do not demonstrate the reality. We don't live in a greenhouse the physics and dynamics of our atmosphere are not fully understood and it is only really since the space age have we started to understand the external forces that impact our small planet. So please stop trying to lecture me I am open minded but still believe that CO2 is not the enemy of the human race

This link might help some understand the complexities of how solar affects our climate http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

But why name call them at all you don't see me doing that to those who have opposite views to mine!! In regard to the ongoing research into the effect of F10.7 and EUV this is begining to show that these are the main drivers and at this moment of time I believe this is the area that will prove critical in our understanding of what drives our climate to change

Because i have a different viewpoint I am now a dragon who needs to get reality and must try harder and learn that my views are incorrect. Don't you just love these discussions!!!!

This assumes earth is a greenhouse which it is not. Most experiments demonstrating CO2's so called green house effect are carried out within glass jar's with air or concentrated CO2 show me an experiment that has air with a concentration of say 300ppm and then one with a concentration with say 400ppm and show me that we have the predicted temperature increase. Gore and the like use a jar full of CO2 and a Jar full of air hardly a true comparrision because if our atmosphere was CO2 we wouldn't be here. Equally it has more to do with the density of CO2 compared to air ( you could use argon and get the same if not slightly higher results than CO2) a Greenhouse/glass jar prevents natural mixing which our atmosphere allows so I'm sorry but I do not get CO2 being a green house gas. We don't live in a greenhouse we live on planet earth.

Perhaps because the greenhouse effect theory is wrong. Perhaps the impact is so negligble that a massive increase has no effect. Perhaps we should go back to basics and reassess the theory. Perhaps a large element of the increase is driven by temperature and not the other way round. Just my humble opinion

negligble and certainly not worth the billions being spent on carbon capture and the like. Now if you talk about money spent on reducing pollution, soot, throwing waste into our oceans etc then I'm all for it. In my opinion 95% of climate change drivers are not in the control of man and we should not waste time and effort trying to change something we can't influence but we do need to fundamentally understand what creates these cycles so that we react in appropriate ways to these cyclical changes