AtlanticFlamethrower

frozen_north is referring to 100 years ago when warming trend began - we weren't using nearly as much oil then as now for reasons I'm sure you can imagine. Population, power, transport... The question is not that fossil fuel combustion doesn't have an effect on the atmosphere. Getting everyone to agree burning so much does impacts on the atmosphere is not hard - how stupid do you think some scientists are? The question is 29,000,000,000 (billion) per year a really tiny amount in the Earth's system or a lot? The debate is over what effect we have, not whether there is an effect. Miniscule, Some or Everything? The difficult fact to the Everything hypothesis is that the warming pattern is noticable before we burned the majority of this stuff (from 1960s+) and similar warming has happened before. It's not clear man is the key to where the climate is going.

potsy - fantastic picture!

Interesting fact (maybe) - we can't hold other technological developments still while teleport science progresses. What does teleportation mean in a world in which teleportation is possible? Were we at the level of technological development whereby we could teleport humans it is likely other things would inevitably be the case. 1. data needed to make humans could be "compressed" and humans reconstructed more simply than 10 ^28 atoms 2. there are no humans to teleport as life has merged back into matter with humans long evolved into droid-clones (see above) with as much consciousness as your bathroom door 3. it would be as simple to bring the world to us as to teleport everywhere 3.a we'd know teleportation actually involves keeping the particle in one place and moving the universe 4. our physical reality would be ordered such we could not say anything is actually going anywhere because nothing in the universe has a fixed place 5. the concept of "teleport" which is the basis of this discussion would not mean anything in physical world of the sufficiantly technologically advanced ...

I hear scientists say politicians should butt out of science. If they really believed in the exclusivity of disciplines they should butt out of the politics of global warming. Decisions about global warming, as decisions about most things, are too important to be left to an elite group with beards. Whether GW is a bad thing is not up to the scientists. A scientist who does not know if GW is out of control needs to shut up, do more research and find out. We don't need scientists in their high chairs screaming at politicians they are idiots and must act now "because we don't know for sure". The problem with the GW debate is not that it is politicised it is that many - but not all - scientists want to make political claims they are not qualified to make. The climate is not obviously best managed with human intervention - government taxes on fuel, alternative energy etc. There is the question of how can humans best arrange their affairs to adapt to great natural swings in climate that have happened throughout history (something that requires healthy industry & science). A proper global warming debate involves more than the scientists and ultimately voters. Less of the political cynicism.

No it's not. Who denies AGW happens? List of names please. Some question how significant AGW is to climate change. That's not denying AGW happens, that's putting AGW in perspective. When you hold it up close enough a five penny piece will eclipse the moon.

Stratos Ferric Even more strange you would consider March cold enough to call it an "outlier." It was exceptional for recent times - as was the whole winter, which showed a "classic" winter is still possible synoptically as it was 40 years ago. March happened. It was not an outlier on that fact alone. Nothing that happens can be an outlier. It happened. You - You have claimed the UK had an exception summer and that "winter is the anomaly in the christmas pudding." Are you saying you only meant this phrase in the context of UK? That this phrase "winter is an anomaly in the christmas pudding" had no bearing on the other 510 million km² of Earth? Have you devolved some of the more important decision making powers your finger tips? Because what I think you mean to say and what you type are two different things. You think so? Unless your best friend is Watson or your surname is Marple, to understand the cause of something you need to look what happen before the event because that explains what came after. So no, I don't think it's stupid to say the heat of July or September in any way impacts our assessment of March's CET 4 and 6 months earlier. Compared to the hot months March was much colder. March also was at a different time of year. I want to know what you're trying to prove calling March an "outlier." It makes no sense to me. Why should I trouble you with more facts when we can't even agree on the significance of "cause and effect"? I'm not saying any month is an outlier. It's a meaningless phrase. How can something that happened be an outlier? There's variation. There's extremes. There's average. But an outlier implies March was an anomaly which even you admit wasn't. Warming is happening. It's measured. That's all we know. You additionally want to claim this means March will become "increasingly infrequent." Might summer not be a warm cycle within a warm cycle within a warm cycle? Might not winter 2006 be a cold cycle within a warm cycle - in which case if the cold cycle within a warm cycle continues cold Marches will get more frequent, as long as the cycle persists? You are making quick, easy assumptions. Why? Why must March be hidden in a box of "outliers"? Can't March's CET have its own cause? Must there be one monolithic cause? You're making assumptions about the causes of temperatures in UK that lie outside the nautical boundaries of the UK. "Current warming" is an incredibly leading phrase - you can be more precise. Off topic! This is about your interpretation of facts. A Chef might put all the right ingredients on the table but if the gravy is over the strawberry mousse and the sticky toffee cake is blended with prawns... Winter avatar means - big snow / cold is possible in UK. Only an idiot would deny this when major cold shots of recent years heve missed UK by a whisker. I accept warming is happening and there is less Arctic ice but exceptional temperatures we've had is not GW, rather of the sorts of a warm cycle within a cycle. I'm mean this is obvious unless you want to claim GW is more than 0.5C. Winters can still deliver big time with the right set up - even at +0.5C most of the historic great evens would still deliver snow.

My problem is how you swept March under a conceptual carpet - you want to call March's CET an "outlier" simply because it was very cold in what was later a hot year. ... this hypothesis is so dense it warps space and time. March was exceptional and it did actually happen and when it happened the summer and autumn had yet to register CETs. You try to make March's CET look like a strange data anomaly - inexplicable because it is far from the rest of the pack. March's is not inexplicable; it happened at the end of a more NAO -ve winter. The effect was that there was snow in April in South of England and spring was delayed in comparison to recent years. Very exceptional, yes, an outlier, no. - again, from your first post. Is this a claim about UK or the globe? I hope you don't write A-Level questions! There was in the NOAA charts I linked/pictured. It's remarkable given the hot summer and Autumn in the UK, and suggests if it is similar to last winter then last winter was not "an anomaly" - but of course I don't even get a half-mark, let alone a gold star, for saying this...

Calling March an "outlier" - a March that really happened - is a strange way to build a hypothesis and then confine that hypothesis to UK.***************************** OFF TOPIC - Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland. It is unlikely therefore that there is any confusion of names. - A Few Things Ill Considered Did you make that figure up? The actual figure is 81%. Uncapped Greenland covers a land area larger than Germany. They didn't have planes to see the vast swathes of ice. The name "Greenland" may be both clever PR, honest mistake, and result of extra vegetation once there. /OFF TOPIC *****************************

Sorry, for getting this thread off track. My intention was to put UK in a global context so that we have a better idea what "exceptional" means. I think that's done now.

NOAA Chart from 14 October (previously linked) A - Kara Sea, warm. This area is now covered in ice following cold conditions in October. B - Norway/Finland/Russia Cold C - Norway Cold Sorry - I forgot. Hot water gets as far north as Norway because it sails there in hermetically sealed ice cream tubs. How did I also forget about the massive white door that separates the Arctic from the rest of the world's oceans... just like the laboratory! Added fresh water might help explain why Autumn is traditionally the fastest period for ice growth but does not explain the amount of ice and where that extra ice is. In Autumn 2006 the multi-year NH average was again reached after what many have called an exceptional summer for UK. Maybe this is an "outlier" like this March? My puny intellect is not getting your theory, anyway. If fresh water was as claimed the ice line would not have retreated. Let's say Arctic ice now forms at -1C (17ppt) instead of -2C (35ppt) due to the bigger summer melt. Ice now forms in temperatures +1C warmer. Atmospheric GW is 0.5C. Therefore... I'm not getting it. High SSTs may be the cause of Arctic ice drawback.

Will there be the first snow photos later in the month!?!

OFF TOPIC - Needlesstosay, the explanation for the Mpemba Effect doesn't carry over outside laboratory. For one, in laboratory faster cooling is achieved by the water container's effect on the surrounding air and frost. Second, warm sea water is more dense, with salt, not less dense. In hot water the molecules are more active and further apart. So long as the temperature of the freezer remains constant the cold will find it easier to penetrate into the liquid - and once it's there, so long as the temperature remains constant (fed by electricity) - there will be faster cooling. That's my theory, anyway. Actually, I don't know what my answer suggests re: real world conditins. Who knows.

I know where Greenland is. I know where Norway is. Yet higher temperatures in UK are related to the world's weather - so much that cold March is an "outlier" in what was otherwise for you a year of "exceptional" warming in UK? And you're wrong, again. The cold anomaly that you attributed to fresh meltwater was produced by cold atmospheric temperatures. 16 September high SSTs in Kara Sea with cold anomaly near Norway/Finland/Russia (- note Ice has yet to form in this area of cold SSTs). 14 October - Kara Sea cooled to +2C. By 24 October we have a cold anomaly. Was this cold anomaly produced by run-off freshwater as theorised? Let's take a look at the 850hpa charts that cover that time. HERE, HERE and HERE. Do strange physics you're teaching me that means warming results in more ice cover stretch to water melting in sub-zero temperatures as shown? The cold anomaly that turned +2-4C anomaly into a cold anomaly and froze the Kara Sea seemed to be produced by COLD atmospheric temperatures not freshwater melt. PS: Here is the latest SSTA chart from NOAA.

It's off Norway where there is no ice. (East Greenland waters have a + anomaly and had a Greenland high in October pumping warm air that side which might explain why it hasn't frozen as last year and has held back the overall NH charts). This IS relevant to this thread as I find Arctic ice rebound and new growth "exceptional" considering in the UK we had such a hot summer and mild Autumn. UK is such a tiny part of the world I don't see the point of this thread if you're not going to look at UK climate in global context. Presumably by calling March an "outlier" that is what you are already doing.

Umm, no. You have not accounted for the amount of frozen water. You have accounted for the rate that water has refrozen, no? Since that extra freshwater you claim exists presupposed the extra warming that melted it that warming must further result in reduced cold air and higher SSTs that balance out the ice-gain from diluted sea water and prevent increase in ice. To get more ice you need more cold. More importantly there is now ice where there were high SSTAs in SEPT/OCT - between +5C - +2C above normal. (See charts.). These higher than normal SSTs more than offset the marginally higher temperature at which diluted sea water would freeze. (Sea water of 35 parts per thousand freezes at -2C. Freshwater freezes 0C. Sea water at 17 ppt freezes at -1C. ) Considering the rate at which sea freezes in Autumn will depend more on the sea temperature than the air temperature (when sea modifies air temperature more than air-sea) it is truly remarkable how much ice has formed where it has formed if we are on a warming trend. And that the Arctic is at a normal level of coverage. Anyway, where specifically are you claiming the cold freshwater is pooled? You claim these freshwater pools exist so they must show up clearly on SSTA charts as a cold anomaly against the background of high SSTAs. The big ice-plus anomalies went from warm anomaly - ice with no cold pool in between.

Arrange six billion people in just the right formation you've got the world's biggest radiator at a pleasant 37C. Yes, I do believe humans warm the planet - by their very breathing in and out it is they clearly do. Greenhouse gasses of human origin also contribute. They warm on a scale that is many magnitude larger than the world's largest circus act. How much heating greenhouse gasses are responsible for depends on larger climate drivers. Does anyone know? I'm prepared to accept Greenhouse gasses have warmed the Earth by far more than 0.5C. I'm equally prepared to accept contribution of GHG to the warming is 0.05C. The point is humans are not in control of the climate and that history has shown time and again in an uncertain environment adaptation is preferable to management. GW taxes is stupidity. Yes. I did. I recognise no climate scientist of any stripe would necessarily deny this, either. As I said, I'm prepared to accept the GHG warming is far greater (or less) than that which has been observed (and questions remain about the observations). No. Runaway Global Warming has the hallmarks of an Armagedden thought contagion. It's powerful because it's got all the ingredients to be talked about a lot - at least in some parts of the world. RGW theory is a self-perpetuating discourse fueled by fear (enviro-catastrophe), envy (US), greed (taxes) and the idea man is the absolute master of his universe (power over nature). When I see science I respect it and keep my trap shut. RGW is ideology, not science. PS: Isn't the ice rebound this year amazing? Judging by the "exceptional" UK CET (the one that makes March an "outlier") you might expect the Arctic to be far behind in ice area compared to previous years given all the heat in Europe and the very high SSTs in the North Atlantic. In fact, Arctic Ice development is ahead in some regions and overall seems to have shrugged off the "record breaking summer" and over-powered high SSTs to record average levels already.

Boon 1. (- amazing sun) FWW 1. ILS.1 OON 1 potsy 1. (super-scary lightning)

I agree - what appears to us as "exceptional" is natural warm cycle. 0.5C is not in itself exceptional. Given the exceptional SSTs (+2-3C) I consider the rate of ice rebound in the Arctic region as exceptional as the UK summer and autumn. That is the key question. Maybe there are a bunch of climate scientists who deny the physics of the "greenhouse effect" but I think they are in the minority of those who question whether human global warming is a) bad thing or big contributor. Though I like snow it is probably neither.

I'm not going to refer to the dictionary to forecast the weather for me. I object to your whole concept of an "outlier" such you can throw away a month's temperature from your analysis, which is what you implied by saying March "saved 2006." You are saying March disguised more fundamental goings on, ie. an even higher yearly CET. If you really want to dump March, I'll dump July and we're even. Britain is a small land area. You are using observed temperature within this land area to make staggering claims - that March was an outlier, that last winter was an anomaly, "that this is the end of the beginning". I say you've decided something is already underway and it is with reference to that thing you define what data to accept and what to chuck. Within the land area of UK there are significant +/- anomalies - maybe as much as -/+ 1C. Multiple sources means the UKCET average is reflective of the overall temperature pattern. However - most places don't have this temperature accuracy. Whereas of the UK we may be 90% certain of temperature accuracy, France it may be 80%, Poland may be 70%, Russia 40% etc. The point I'm making is you look at global trends through UK CET. This is stupid. You cannot bung the significance of UK's climate this year all under "the end of the beginning" - which means you believe just like UK's climate the world's climate has reached a threshold. These hypothetical Russian thermometers could disguise significant cooling in Britain, or indeed far greater than Britain-sized areas. UK CET is fun statistic but how much we can read climate lessons into it depends on how reliable other statistics are. I'm not the person to do that. I objected to your use of "outlier" for something that REALLY HAPPENED and what that implied for the rest of your thinking about winter. It makes no sense to call something that happened an outlier. There is no reason a 1 in 100 years phenomenon cannot happen 2 years in a row. Irrespective of the fact we may be wrong about it being a 1 in 100 years event. Cold winters will come from -ve NAO. I inferred that your "end of the beginning" meant that the beginning of the end of cold winters had past and that the end of cold winters had arrived. Therefore the end of the beginning for -ve NAO. IMO the life and death discourse seems to revolve around runnaway Global Warming theory. As I said above, how good your judgement of weather in UK depends as much on CET data gathered in other places, which is far less accurate than UK. Drawing conclusions from the exceptional temperatures in Summer and Autumn this year, which I agree has been very warm, is risky unless we have equally accurate knowledge of temperatures from elsewhere. Throwing out a month such as March from for being "too cold" (ie. an outlier that "saved" UK CET from being ridiculously high) is breathtakingly arrogant way to draw hard conclusions on (future) state of the climate.

I object to the term "outlier" - it was the weather. It actually happened. Calling it an "outlier" is suggesting it happened but only just and had itself had no impact on patterns. It is more likely that March was part of a larger pattern and did impact itself in a small way on a pattern. Statistical quirks, warm and cold. The reason why Britain's CET is derived from pool of thermometers is the principle that more thermometers = more "real" and accurate representation of UK temperature. Had there been fewer thermometers the temperature representation would have been less accurate or real. I accept the measured warming - what matters is our perception of our warming in relation to climate trends, as the point of your post was to claim last winter was an anomaly. It is probable parts of Russia have only one MET standard thermometer per Britain-sized area. It is therefore difficult to compare trends there to here both places, let alone assume they are of equal value. Wealthy, populated Britain is no more significant temperature area to climate than barren, wilderness of Siberia! That's what you said and it remains to be seen if NAO will "never go -ve again, properly" which is what your argument amounts too.

Stratos Ferric, you are smart enough to know you can't say that. :lol: You make a good case for this year being a measured exception on the warm side - here in UK. However, Britain is such a small island. In parts of Russia they'd use one thermometer per Britain-size area. Last winter was an anomaly. How to explain? Exhibit A: It's the start of a new pattern of more -ve NAO / blocked winters.

The Red Admiral pictured was taken today (November 3rd). Wonderful looking thing, the original is too blurred to enter this contest. (Thought I'd show it here out of general interest as I post my first entry below.)

I just read the article. Unbelievable. Must reprint If this stuff was posted on this forum with no supporting data/theory you'd be called a wind-up merchant. Rightly so.

181206 - Newcastle - 2 251206 - Steeton - 2 100107 - Peterborough - 2 050107 - Sheffield - 3 300107 - Norwich - 3 080207 - Dublin - 2 040207 - Dundee - 2 180207 - Reading - 2 040307 - Ipswich - 2

Thanks. I've a love/hate relationship with it. One minute I'm looking at something that's been run over with a jeep. At another I'm loving the mysterious, concealing darkness and the ducks that are paddling towards it in the gentle orange glowing light. I didn't vote for my own because that wouldn't be proper but thanks to the five people so far who have voted for me. I'm chuffed! More please