PersianPaladin

Erm..this is misleading. Consensus means that ALL people in a group agree on something. At least thats how I've come to understand the definition. We don't have that situation in all areas of scientific inquiry. Having said that; if enough credible and knowledgable people put forward a solid scientific argument then it should be taken seriously and things like risk mitigation, etc should be implemented.

http://www.timeandda...ch-equinox.html

Read the article. It doesn't say we should be complacent, but it does caution about panicking over "catastrophic" climate-change from methane. As for our needs in cutting carbon-emissions, well not to worry. Peak Oil will soon take care of emissions from tractors, trucks, ships, cars, airplanes and processing plants. It's going to be ugly and violent for a lot of people though (if education doesn't get out about permaculture). Natural gas is strongly correllated to oil-production and that will be greatly reduced very soon too (hence the recent talks by BP over shale-gas, which is highly controversial). Future economic contraction is inevitable. Its going to happen naturally - and will be quite brutal sadly.

Well said.

http://news.yahoo.co...climate_methane This is a good piece by the folks at RealClimate. It should help put people at ease regarding the methane situation: - http://www.realclima...ne-on-the-move/

http://www.guardian....mafrost-methane http://www.independe...oms-417807.html I think we really need to do something about man-made sources of methane as well as burning fossil fuels (the coming reality of Peak Oil will deal with the fossil-fuel problem regardless). Its the least we can do to mitigate the impact that this Siberian permamelt will make.

If people want to learn about the politics of fear; they should watch the BBC documentary "The Power Of Nightmares". Its rather interesting. In terms of the internet; well yes...it can be dangerous for your health if you just read anything and assume it to have credibility. What I posted, does indeed have credibility (i.e. from experts in their field, published research, etc) so it should be taken seriously. However, what I don't think people should do is panic. There are solutions that can be employed to MINIMIZE the impact of the coming calamities.

This article is interesting: - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227141.100-ice-on-fire-the-next-fossil-fuel.html?page=3 Mind you, I really think the reserve estimates are questionable given how many times people forget to take into account exponential growth.

Well far better to burn it than to simply do nothing. I don't buy the idea that we'll all be suffocating as a result. Underground nukes could be an option (albeit that region would have to be evacuated).

NSF issues world a wake-up call: "Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming." http://climateprogre...Google%20Reader National Science Foundation press release: - http://www.nsf.gov/n...g=NSF&from=news What do we do about this? I suggest a big operation to burn it off somehow.

48 people are dead in France: - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100301/twl-french-storm-death-toll-expected-to-41f21e0.html

I think humankind needs some humility. Just a shame earthquakes kill the innocent, rather than those who foment chaos.

While there is good level of moisture and low-thickness air feeding in around the high; there is the perpetual problem of insufficiently low 500hpa temps to maintain decent levels of showery activity except perhaps the far south-east. Dew points are also a problem and remain marginal for much of the week, except for East Anglia and parts of the south-east and perhaps occasionally the East Midlands. The marginal situation could mean a mixture of sleet, wet snow and rain for most places (except for high ground). Long-term the models show an uncertain orientation for the northerly. Secondary cyclogenesis south of Greenland could push mobility sufficiently to mix-out the circulation and keep the cold sub 30 uppers to the north of the UK.

T96 on the 00z and although things look messy south of Greenland; the ridging is coming into place nicely.

Yup. Also be VERY AWARE of the "green economy" bubble. There are only a few good solutions out there, and they are all (rightly) focused on de-centralised local permaculture and biogas generation for sustainable usage.

Interesting. My own humble (non-qualified) opinion is that AGW has sufficient credibility behind it to warrant risk mitigation NOW. It doesn't mean that our method of risk mitigation has to correllate with the way governments often like to exploit crises.

If you watch the talk; its anything but simple. He talks about the interactions in more detail. The passage I quoted was a basic summary.

Rest of the article and the video presentation is here: - http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2771

Dewpoints and thicknesses should remain conducive for snow away from immediate coastal fringes - even if temps reach 2-3C inland.

I agree with that assessment TWS.

I was in Durham City today and I saw a very large snow-igloo. I mean this was the proper thing and I'm still not sure how they managed it given how powdery a lot of the snow is. The last time I saw a snow igloo in these parts was when I was a kid.

This is the most snow I've seen here since the beginning of the decade. Oh, and one of the MASSIVE icicles hanging outside my bedroom window fell along with a big chunk of ice and almost killed my nextdoor neighbor in her garden.

Good idea.

GREAT pic.