snowsure

As I may have mentioned on one of my other posts, there is current peer-reviewed research regarding global cooling however it is not yet public-domain stuff so the laymen of this world do not know what they do not know (Courtesy of D.Rumsfeld). I still think that many people lack a degree of relativity regarding climate change. It is such a highly subjective concept that it will never be agreed upon. Pretty much like when the weather presenters say "It is going to be horrible tomorrow" and then preceed to show frost and fog (a very nice weather type for some people.) Show me a model from 5 years ago that predicted the last 5 years weather patterns with 100% accuracy and then I will assume that it will be accurate for the next few years. I await the proof. On a slightly different note, can we not precipitate the CO2 out of the atmosphere with some sort of chemical bomb? Any advances on that are appreciated. SS

Well, not empty handed. I have received 2 pdf documents (current research) which may question your own standpoint on future events. However the documents are not for me to transmit. They are from "Nature" and "Science" magazine which you have to subscribe to, to view the articles! (All sounds very fishy I suppose but I am not at liberty to make them available.) The abstract of the first is at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5782/1929 The second is by Gabrielle Walker and published in Nature at http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060612/full/441802a.html Sorry that I cannot offer any more than this. Peer reviewed articles are expensive! Perhaps if the research was made available freely then there would be no prejudice against new ideas! SS

Hi Paul Sorry for the unclear mention of "discrediting". It was not aimed at you but at the wider forum audience. I am currently trying to locate some research that shows the opposite angle. As I mentioned several days ago, I have read about 90 peer-reviewed articles and a substantial amount point toward accelerated GW. However, I offer http://cepsar.open.ac.uk/pers/r.a.spicer/pics/d39109.pdf as a document questioning the validity of current thinking. This was produced as a result of the OU climateprediction.net exercise. (The report date is 01/05 so perhaps current thinking is not questioned! ) I am in contact with one of the authors of http://www.aosb.org/PDF/XIX.pdf (The Southampton study) to try and locate current research suggesting a reduction of the thermohaline circulation and the wider global impact of such an event. I may come back empty handed though! Point taken about the scientific audience though. Perhaps more people (not you) should investigate the credentials of people rather than relying on the brief resumee on a web page. Regards SS

Your comments are appreciated. However, I would like to share with you two sites that may question your last sentence. http://www.essc.psu.edu/~bjhaupt/posters/i...ll/icp6msz.html (Perhaps you could review the authors credentials before discrediting him.) and http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/deepwater.htm snowsure Thanks to Prof R Spicer and Dr Sumner of the Open University for help with the above.

Dawlish As a vulcanologist whose research area is environmental impact of volcanic activity, isn't D Sumner well placed to comment on such matters as climate change?

SF It is always nice to have you comment on one of my posts. I learn from our exchanges. So tell me this: Is GG and GW more to do with Geography than Physics? In the scheme of works for secondary education in England, it (climate) appears in Geography rather than Physics. As far as the mutually incompatible side of the argument goes, if GHG were known of since the 1900's then a numpty would have noticed a link with GW. It is surely unthinkable to see that the GHG problem was acknowledged in the 70's without an interest in the climate, ergo an indication of GW occuring. Your comments on the following are invited: http://www.open2.net/landscapemysteries/big_freeze_p.html especially the last paragraph. The author? Dr Janet Sumner, a research fellow at the Open University.

It did fill the media (newspapers and TV), so the attempt to create interest existed. Whether it was embraced by a majority of the population or not surely mirrors the reception of GW today! Time will tell. However seems contradictory; Either climate change was of interest (ghg theory) or it wasn't. It can't be both.

John There is no malice in my post. On re-reading, I can see how it could mis-represent my intent. Sorry for any confusion. I linked your obvious knowledge and intellect regarding the climate with your statement that it could always snow above 6000ft and assumed that this was fact, not just a mere observation. If it were fact then your 2 comments would be incompatible. I have kept a weather diary since 1994 and note rare events such as the snow in Mannlichen (rare in that it has not happened before whilst I have been monitoring it). It may be that it has snowed in mid July at, say, Murren whilst Mannlichen stayed snow free thus keeping your observational theory intact. I am a micro-global recorder of weather events. As such, I know that July 11th 2004 was the coldest July day on record for several UK locations. It helps me keep a bit of perspective! For anyone wanting to look at part of the Alps above 6000ft, click on http://www.swisspanorama.com/

Is the above expected to change with the advent of GW? Will this anytime-snowfall level rise, thus making the snow line recede? If so, then the above statement goes against GW, doesn't it?

Why thank you John! I assume your image is of the Jungfrau. Beautiful area. They had some major snow at Mannlichen 2 years ago on the 11th July. Quite unusual and thought provoking! Snowsure

Just playing devils advocate here. Imagine that it is the 1970's and the internet is alive and well. The consesus is that the ice-man cometh. You see, tucked away in the deepest recesses of the world wide web, a site called globalwarmingnow.com On it, people speak of an impending run away warming cycle due to greenhouse gases, perhaps as a throw-back to the industrial revolution. Someone then dares to call them crackpots and suggests that it is a site for people who just want to see warming events because they enjoy summer. Does it sound ridiculous? Boot, other foot, etc, etc. PS this type of historical consideration is called "Counterfactual history" so do not discredit the technique please.

It is always good to read your posts Dawlish as they appear to be laced with incisive comments. However you have left just a little gap there by saying everyone in the world would be worried. GW is a real phenomena and I know plenty of people who are not bothered by it. You have not factored in apathy, the true cause of global problems. Also you have failed to factor in politically influenced scientific research (or politically influenced ignorance.) Other than that, it is nice to see this old-chestnut explored again!

Having studied many of the peer-reviewed articles on climate change and the causes of it, my opinion has now changed. My standpoint was one of "GW will cause GC thus ending this inter-glacial." I have always assumed that it is AGW coinciding with, and forcing, natural cycles. However, now that I have arrived at an opinion that GW will not cause GC, I do not feel as though anything is resolved. Instead of freezing to death I assume that we will all die due to flood, fire or plague. Glad I spent all my time researching this!

Do any of OPs arguments regarding cooling events on the Asian continent have any merit in your opinion? I think that they challenge the fact that GW may have caused a warmer winter event in North America. ie It is purely a shifting of climate "bands" that we are witnessing. Can anyone answer why? If you can and it is not refuted by the scientific community then you have solved it. If not, it remains conjecture.

I didn't attempt to adequately deal with his points, I just wished to add a caveat to them. Thank you for keeping your comments non-personal as that contributes to a useful debate. Point 7 is not your finest hour though. How possible is it to walk to the moon? How likely is a NAD slowdown? Do the 2 equate? Also point 2 appears to ignore the albedo effect. Or have I miss-read your comments? Valid points otherwise.

1 - A blip may be that. However it may be the start of a change of trend, a point of inflexion. 2 - Increased snowfall will increase the planetary albedo thus affecting the amount of warming experienced. 3 - If my car bursts into flames there is no sense in looking at my neighbours - or all the streets - cars and seeing if it is a general or specialised event. My car is still on fire! 4 - Freaky things happen (GW?) 5 - See point 1 6 - Good point for all sides to consider. 7 - This contradicts with some other comments on this excellent forum. i.e. "The NAD is a bit-player in the global climate machine." (Not my sentiment.) Will a major NAD decrease cause major or minor economic problems?

Snowing in Doncaster. There is no lying snow for it to add to but the Met Office have upgraded their Severe weather warning this morning to include areas of South Yorkshire that lie East of the A1. 100% Cloud cover here so the first significant snow event of the winter looks as though it is starting.