Filski

Apologies for my frustration. I am tired of attempts by sceptics to defy logic by pinning unrelated signals on natural sources, especially when it is relatively easy to crosscheck information rather than relying on the sayso of a blog like Wattupwiththat. The ocean currents in the region of Tonga are easy to check over a period going back several weeks, no possible relationship either from ocean currents nor the physical impossibility of the volcano heating enough water to have a SSTa signal of that magnitude. Instead it was boring old ENSO. I'd be wary of hoping for a climate signal from SO2 emissions from Redoubt either. Again it is simple to check if it's feasible (it's not remotely like these eruptions are large enough, 1989-90 was only 1/100 of SO2 of Pinatubo for example). Let's keep the climate change biases/ argument out of the thread?

Oh please, this is ludicrous and exposes Watt's lack of map reading ability. The hot spot is east and on the same latitude as the tip of new zealand. The volcano is very much further north. Stop with the silly rumours already! The maths is really quite simple about how much energy is required to heat water. It's high school stuff. Don't wonder, do a wee bit of research and it'll tell you that we are talking the sea warming due to volcanic activity would be less than is measurable.

Yes, was surprised earlier today. Was thinking of the lovely fields on the other side of the tunnel and was ready to snap a few shots and there was nothing! Some nice hills out here, no sign of being worn away by sledding, etc.

One thing I noticed is the phenomonal amount of snow around east croydon. It looks like Greenwich did Tuesday mining still. Did the really cop it Monday? Sleet here by the way.

Much heavier north of oxted, decent covering where none was earlier. Maybe a cm now. Just headed into the tunnel, won't be able to see difference around croydon with so little melt.

on the train back into London from buxted. Snow started at about cowden and still going at edenbridge, leaving a frosty looking dusting over grassy surfaces. Will update as I get closer

Big heavy wet flakes in Greenwich. Not really settling. Building up of slush though.

Snow in Greenwich. Dunno how LNG it's been falling, only just looked out the window

I can still get to work unfortunately. Heading in early to get some rare photos first.

Has just started snowing in Bath

Looking at that list and your interest in aussie politics, I wonder if we've debated this topic before...

If we are going to take single days or weeks as significant then global warming has hit London right now with temps very warm. Of course we know why we shouldn't take short time frames on which to judge the climate.

A wee bit of sleet in Greenwich for a few moments, now rain. Lampost watch is on.

Would have been nice to have received one last year since my photo was in it. Sent my address several times by PM and email but never had a response. Not so keen to post phots anymore if NW is going to profit without making good on their promises.

It should be noted that the 'cooling' has a long way to go before matching what happened in the 60's. We aren't even close. And we all know that it was a minor blip in a larger warming trend. By 2015 I expect that we'll look back fondly at 1998 and remember how cool the world was... :lol:

It makes perfect sense when you realise that the ice is constantly moving. What you are seeing is a reduction in the amount of multi year ice as it is pushed up against Greenland and is replaced by single year ice behind. It's pretty alarming to see the amount of multiyear ice that has melted because of this action.

Quite clearly above I stated that CO2 has a life span of 80-100 years in the atmosphere. What good does it do to compare the output of a single massive eruption, that may or may not come along every couple of decades or even centuries, in a few days/weeks to the increase from humans over the same day/week period? None, none at all. Officially and as accepted by the scientific community and published widely, the annual volume of CO2 from volcanoes is around 150-230 million tonnes. This is several magnitudes below the contribution from humans at 27-30 BILLION tonnes. This is just another 'look over there' tactic from the sceptic community. Imagine blaming the the co2 output from volcanoes, even Pinatubo didn't release enough CO2 to affect temperatures. You're confusing the issue (see comment about SO2 and dust).

Since we are talking about CO2 which has a long life span in the atmosphere the long term average applies. The truth is that volcanoes are responsible for only 1/150th of the CO2 in the atmosphere when compared to human contributions. The short term effects from volcanoes you speak of have nothing to do with CO2 and is a short lived affair on the scale of 2-3 years before the dust/ SO2 gets washed out. So while on the issue of accuracy... here's your humble pie.

Clearing up a bit of misinformation. Volcanoes release 1/150th of the CO2 that we release each year. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 80-100yrs. That means that some of the CO2 up there now was put up there during WW1. And the stuff we put up there now will still be around in 2100. (offtopic - water vapour stayrs up there for only 1-2months in comparison).

Thanks guys, just saw the replies after I'd done my own photoshop comparison. You're quite right.

Have just done some photoshop comparisons. It is indeed the camera that has moved on the station. The location of the yellow bouy, the pole in the middle and the building on the right still align in both images. However there are definitely new features on the horizon, most likely caused by a clash between ice sheets.

It has updated if you see post #461. I'm trying to work out what the new features on the horizon mean.

The camera is in the same position on the station it's mounted on. It is also in roughly the same position relative to the ice edge in front. More than one of the objects in the image are now moving independantly of each other.

Yup, and even though temps are down and a skin has formed on smaller ponds its not freezing over. I'm trying to work out if the camera position has moved or if the shifting is widespread. I suspect it's widespread. Compare the 2. The bouy on the left has moved because the position of the station the camera is mounted on has rotated. Check some key points on the ice edge in the foreground. However on the right the building has shifted out of picture. This may have been because the camer moved closer but in reality it hasn't. The building has moved in relation to the objects around it. I think this indicates that the ice is breaking up over a large area.

I was wondering, but now I am 100% certain that things have begun to shift around, The bouys have started to shift in these images.