Filski

Looks to be a little bit of skin on the water. Not significant though, temps will ensure its demise.

I'm doing some work with the AAO for an aussie LRF this winter. The is an indicator of the strength of the polar low and position of the highs/lows. Lately the AAO has indicated a strong polar low and winds but you can see occasions that roughly coorelate - end of April, etc - with a drop in the AAO. It might be something...

Again I see what I say has been ignored. I suggest reading some of the links you will discover here http://www.whoi.edu/search.do?q=arctic+geo...ature&g=ext This in particular http://www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre/pdfs/timm...ics_jpo2007.pdf You will also find that temperature increases with depth but it also increases with density/increased salinity. But we are talking about really really tiny changes in temperature. Why so tiny? Because the heat sources is so small compared to the size of the arctic ocean. This is what I and a few others have said all along, it's backed up by observations too. There's no sudden increase in volcanic activity - that would have been picked up on the observations. There's nothing that would back up the theory put forward by sceptics world wide as soon as they discovered another possible scape goat. I must admit that I am a little tired of the sceptics ignoring the elephant in the living room while playing 'look over there' games. That's enough posting from me for a while.

Or even slightly. I was happy to entertain the thought and did a fair bit of reading in the last couple of days. Geothermal energy inputs are insignificant compared to the sun, action of the tides, ice breakup, atmospheric conditions, etc. Perhaps all that is required for the thread to move on is aknowledgement of that fact from those still questioning it as being significant.

No! Time to put an end to this. (In my own particular way) I've tried to demonstrate that very small pockets of heat will do little compared to the effects of the sun during summer. We are talking about geothermal energy inputs to give temperature rises of <0.0005°C per year to the bottom of the arctic sea. That is not even taking into account that these energy sources have remained more or less constant below the arctic for eons.

I think the mistake is beleiving the example given by Laserguy has anything to do with advanced physics... Was watching the gadget show tonight. They feature one of dem thingies called a solar shower. In 3hrs it'll heat tap juice to over 40'C just from sitting it in the sun. No volcanoes. Just the air around it. And the sun. Of course you could choose to heat the water using the equivelant of a single match once every 5mins... It's funny how the sceptics will seize upon something like volcanoes to explain the heating of a vast amount of water in the arctic when eruptions are fairly infrequent and geothermal vents are really few and far between in the grand scheme of things. Yet they won't entertain the thought of rising GHG, modified landforms and various pollutants having an effect when they've been pumped out globally on a vast scale for 200+yrs or even cetnuries when it comes to land clearing. Just a wee bit of selective application of critical review of the science? Now... any chance we can get back to the topic?

To continue the analogy just a tad further. The boiler is now sitting out in the sun, during a heatwave and it's surface is painted black. Air temps alone are not sufficient, significant though the rises are. Also of importance are the increased exposure which enhances it's ability to directly absorb warmth from the sun, the exposure to external currents which move the ice around and the thickness of the ice along with the size of the pieces. All this contribute to the melt we see.

I think people need to take a step back and think about this logically. Comparisons to the water heater in your home is plain ludicrous. The arctic ocean is 14,056,000 km² in surface area, it is in excess of 5000m deep in places. The area discussed in this latest finding is only 10km² in area - and that's the debris zone not the actual volcano itself. There are less than a dozen such sites in the arctic from my understanding of what I've read so far. To say that these sporadic volcanic episodes are responsible for heating the arctic waters is like trying to heat your boiler to a comfortable temperature by stirring it with your finger.

I'd have to go back and check but I'm pretty sure it said the explosion was in 1999. Maybe if it was 1995 or 2007 it'd be significant? As it is I'm not sure that it rises above the background noise.

It seems that article has struck a nerve. The replies have tickled my funny bone at least. It seems a couple of people at least have zero faith in our ability to monitor and project likely conditions at least a short term ahead. Would they dare suggest that if I were to place a cubic metre of ice in Trafalgar Square tomorrow then I could not reasonably assume it would melt. We could have a potent northerly tomorrow of course, but most likely not... Tell me, do you lot go out dressed for all possible occurences? No? Then you have some faith at least 24hrs ahead. How about 36hrs? 48? 72? At what point exactly do the scientists get it all wrong. The point I'm making is that they do actually get get it right and you believe it. To the point that you understand where the uncertainty starts. I suggest that you either don't or don't want to the uncertainties behind this forecast. If they turn out to be right you are going to look very very silly. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

I don't know if this has been posted yet... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...27/eaice127.xml Looks like a new record is a foregone conclusion... just by how much now.

Below-par Men - Sorry mate but your argument holds less water than a colander. It smacks of struthianism and an unwillingness to examine the science critically. You'll argue your case till blue in the face and no amount of discussion shall sway you, even when obvious errors and factual inaccuracies are pointed out. As I said, this thread is a bit of a fishing trip that I'll not take part in any further. If you are serious however you show a closed mind on the subject and never intended to enter into debate in which case my time is wasted also.

Seems, may, etc. Weasel words that allow you to suppose an assumption that has no real scientific backing. Pick any point you like and I'll pick another to demonstrate to complete opposite. Neither approach would acheive anything except chasing one another's tail. We are all familiar with the idea of a 'perfect storm' - a set of factors that combine in such a way to produce a result where overall effect should exceed the sum of each individual factor. We have something of a perfect storm now - Solar, La Nina and PDO (plus a few I've forgotten off the top of my head) and yet we still record temperatures that are in the top 10% of records. We 'should' be having a year without a summer, a winter catastrophe to follow. If global cooling were really taking place then the arctic should be seeing little melt. Instead we see a likely new record melt for the arctic and temperatures over land continue to be significantly above any measuring stick you are prepared to offer. All this time you look for a natural cause? The truth is that without AGHG the obersvations cannot be modelled.

JH's reply above covered what I was about to say. I did some similar graphs a while ago for another forum: These sorts of sudden drops are common and are no indicator of the climate trend to come. Even the degree of drop is not uncommon. If you look at solar cycles, again there is no clear relationship in the last 10 years El Nino, La Nina? Finally a difference of just a week or 2 halves the change. If you select an appropriate time scale you can prove anything. I'd suggest that 1yr is just noise - in terms of global climate.

You are kidding me/us aren't you. Spencer, Wattsupwidat, a US political website.... This whole thread is a giant wind up.

Even if Melbourne was meant, nothing extraordinary happened there either. It snows at or close to sea level infrequently. I think 2000 was the last time I know that flakes were seen settling on the tops of office buildings. Not that long ago. It snows at sea level across the ditch in Hobart almost every other year I think. Sceptics do not help themselves by trying to use these as examples. Freak weather systems in Australia are equally to blame on climate change as they are here. The 1yr cooling that was trumpetted early this year has reveresed with a number of record or near record land temperatures recorded.

No it didn't. You're telling pork pies. Note I'm an aussie, from Sydney.

Snow in Sydney? When? Also please explain the current run of top ten months we are having for warming lately. March was the warmest land temp on record. If this is cool pass me my hat.

I used to do the same. Until recently I was one of the most vocal pro-AGW arguementors on another website. I had the same logic - I must at all cost correct any misinformation that is posted. I did so thinking that a) if somebody truly didn't know then I'd be helping and if it was a deliberate attempt by a sceptic then I was duty bound to foil it. Slowly I realised that there was nobody lurking, nobody new was visiting the pages. It was the same crowd going around and around in circles. Never was one side going to influence the other. A new study would come out that seemed to solve one small part of the argument and the other side would just ignore it. 6 months later a new study emrges to refute it and suddenly it's all happening in reverse (clouds, water vapour feedback or forcing for example). Nobody wins. You take part for your own self gratification. It keeps 'us' - the sceptics and and pro warmers - away from the rest of the website. I no longer take part inless I identify a real question. So, take part only if you want to, maybe to practice and refine your arguments. But don't expect to make any ground against one another.

If the ice is broken up it will be prone to the heating effects of friction as it moves around, the weather will affect it more, effects of water, etc. Think of a glass of water with a 5cm thick ice sheet across the top and another glass with 5cm of ice cubes. If you pick both up and shake at the same rate which will melt first?

The northern parts of the amazon share a relationship with the Sahel in that changes in rainfall affect vegetive cover. If drought was prolonged this would eventually spread further south over a lengthy period of time naturally. Changes in landuse within the Amazon have the potential to accelerate this effect well beyond the direct impacts of clearing by man alone. It is a certainty that a tropical forest could change into a desert, it has happened before and will certainly happen again. The only question is how much will our efforts have speeded up the process and how.

Have you never heard of the Sahel?

Hi folks, nice to see a 'grow yer own' thread. Reducing your own costs but also reduces vege-miles and your own carbon footprint too (let's leave that discussion for the appropriate forum). I'm in Greenwich, up in the sky on the 7th floor of a new apartment complex. No yard, not even a nature strip. Nothing but a 3m x 1.2m balcony that faces west, is a place for our bikes, a chair or 2 during summer. And lots of pots. Well... 2 rectangular ones about 20cm x 30cm x 80cm and a couple of others. I'm only posting to show that everbody can grow your own, no matter how small or how difficult you think it may be. It's really very easy! We've had strawberries for the last 4 years (bought at Chelsea Flower Show) and only repotted once. We almost never water them, never bring them inside and we look to have another bumper crop this year. After they finish we'll divide them into 2 pots now that they're getting too big. Variety doesn't suffer either. Last summer we had more lettuce growing than we could eat, same goes for cherry tomatoes and carrots. We tried chillies but failed on those. This year we'll grow much the same crop and maybe try potatoes and a few others. There's nothing like making a salad for friends and asking them to pick their own lettuce.

It is only via new technology and rising prices that oil seems to be 'running in'. When the claims of oil running out were first made it was because this 'new oil' wasn't extractable with the current technology and it wasn't profitiable to do so. So based on the premise of continuing tecnhnological advances and rising prices to make it profitiable we will NEVER run out of oil. The only question is will you be able to afford to run your car on it? At the same time as oil becomes for expensive other technology becomes competitive. So while there might be oil around, it may be cheaper to run your car on alternative energy... or you could continue to burn £££ on principle.

Entertaining piece on Roy Spencers latest cooking attempts here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ssons/#more-567