[Wales Cymru Autumn Weather Discussion]

Hello, just wondering if any of you know anything about this http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/need_to_read/2012/06/14/waterspout-spotted-over-pwllheli-55578-31179651/ ?

[Latest Antarctic Ice Reports]

Any updates on the Antarctic ice? Also, Gray-Wolf, how do you find your way around the image website. I can't seem to work out which image relates to which location :blush:

[Latest Antarctic Ice Reports]

I've scanned around and not found any clear shots of the Berg yet.

Thanks GW. I'm sure there will be plenty of images at some time unless it "crashes" into the sea ice and "re-joins".

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'their "cycle"' (from quote below) though. Could you explain further for me

I'm not taken with their 'cycle' though

[Latest Antarctic Ice Reports]

Grey Wolf,

I'm wondering if you have any pictures of this -

British Antarctic Survey (BAS) scientists have spotted a huge iceberg, which has broken off from Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica. The iceberg, which is 34 km long by 20 km wide, covers an area nearly half the size of Greater London.

. I hope no one minds me asking this, and I know that it is a small thing relative to the size of the antarctic and therefore not relevant to charts from NASA et al.

[Carinthians latest Arctic reports]

hI PK,

We have 3 ice groupings in Arctic Waters:

a) The Permanent ice that covers much of the Arctic Ocean for most of the year with sizeable pockets of ice that last all year long in the Greenland Sea, Siberian Sea and Beaufort Basin.

b)Old ice ( at least one summers duration) this is mostly found in the Mid - Arctic zone.

c)Young ice which is less than 30 cm in thickness, this usually forms in the more open waters of the Arctic circle ( such as now forming in the Barent Sea. This thin ice soon melts away by the end of spring.

It is the long term retention of " Old Ice " that is becoming the variable factor for Summer Ice amounts.

C

Hi C,

Thanks for the info. I think then I was trying to ask if we are seeing ice building that might be thick enough to make it through the summer and become "old ice".

I'm also intrigued by the possibility of an "ice bridge" to Iceland.

PK

[Carinthians latest Arctic reports]

Hi telfordmc and welcome to the debate, good question, in all honestly I cannot answer what the implications are for Britain. Certainly, ice levels have been on the decrease for quite a lengthy period now. We have been here before in the Mid 70s when ice amounts were less than now. A re-balance seems certain this winter/ spring time. Evolution of current ice trends are still in motion. Perhaps in 8 weeks time we will be in a better situation to evaluate what has happened this season.

C

Hello,

Another question from a long term reader of this thread. I'm not sure if this has been asked before but are we seeing increase in the area covered by "thin" sea ice that will melt quickly in the summer or is this new ice "proper" arctic ice that will "last" - at least for a while?

Regards PK

[Testimony on Climate Change to the US Supreme Court]

Hi PK2, welcome to the boards! Don't worry, you're not intruding in the slightest - on the contrary, it is always nice when others put in their views as it helps to stop a discussion from stagnating!

Thanks. I have been a "lurker" for a long time but haven't felt the "need" to post. It seems to me that most discussion on this subject could be compared to some form of "trench warfare" where there is never any real change in position but a lot of venom (hmmm mixed metaphors) flung around.

In response to your question:

Thanks for the link - interesting article (it doesn't help me much that I don't read newspapers...too depressing...). I wonder whether Mr Brown was actually that hard to convince, or whether he was just putting on a show for the sake of "spin".

Good question. The thought had occurred to me. I've not noticed this government having too much of a problem increasing revenue even before the "green" issue became popular. I see a great synergy in the policies; reduce travel by car to - reduce congestion, reduce pollution of all types (no judgment made on C02 in this regard), reduce obesity (assuming more people walk/cycle), reduce dependence on imported energy, individuals save money... All good things...

To me the "no regrets" policy could be read as an attempt to gain what freedoms "big business" have always wanted from the government by using climate change as an excuse. And you thought you were cynical...

I thought I could "embrace and extend" your analogy to my own ends... Apologies for that, however I think as extended its quite good, though I do say so myself.

Perhaps they could reduce the cost of treaties if they started using video conferencing rather than jetting round the world (which surely can't help emissions). :unsure:

To Neville, I see your point that there is something of a difference between burning of fossil fuels and burning living vegetation. A good point well made. I think there is some blurring of the line between artificial and non-artificial, though - after all, coal is basically fossilised wood which means that, give or take a few million years, burning coal is much like burning logs. Not that much difference. Similarly, gas and oil are decayed living organisms (plants and animals) which can contribute to forest fires as much as anything (as mentioned in my previous post). Maybe I'm being pedantic. but I was arguing with P3 that "Things Burning Now" is much the same as "Things Burning Then", if you see what I mean.

I'm not great on all these things but if we "capture" all of the carbon stored underground and release it into the atmosphere, and assuming that CO2 is a GHG then would the global temperature not end up be similar to that when Britain was a tropical rainforest? My point is that one of the proposed methods of reducing CO2 emission is to sequester it in mines, however that is where it has already been sequestered.

[Testimony on Climate Change to the US Supreme Court]

Not wishing to intrude too much into your discussions but I'll don't see too many chances to ask a question I would like answering. Capt'n Bobski, I'm asking you since you seem to be one of the less "excitable" proponents of the theory below:

Hi there :unsure:

I beg to differ - there are two very good reasons for governments being interested in "promoting" global warming. Firstly, it gives them the ability to increase taxes exhorbitantly for no reason other than to rake in more cash, but it gives them the excuse that they are being "eco-friendly" (one of the most irritating phrases ever to be coined) and trying to deter people from using "bad" fuels. It is this kind of false concern that allows the government to slap colossal taxes on cigarettes which, if you look at it one way, is a terrible oppression of a specific minority group. However, they get away with it because of the "health related issues". Of course, if everyone were to stop using fossil fuels and stop smoking cigarettes then you could kiss your economy goodbye, but the government relies on the fact that this is extremely unlikely to happen (certainly with fossil fuels, at any rate).

What I would like to know is what is your opinion on this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17...2493206,00.html ? Specifically "One well-placed government source told The Times that Mr Brown had to be persuaded within the Treasury even to take the steps he did, such was his lack of enthusiasm for green taxes."

Of course I do agree with the point that if we all stopped smoking and drinking (and using so much petrol) then there would be major economic problems.

To use another analogy, if someone cuts their leg off do you try to put a bandage on it or do you try to reattach the leg? The latter surely has the greater long-term benefits, even though the former does address the immediate issue. Taking it one step further, if you can only afford to do one or the other, which do you do?

IMO, your analogy doesn't show demonstrate what you claim. Starting from the premise that one can either can put a bandage on it now or try to reattach the leg later. If one does nothing until the leg reattachment is attempted then it will be likely that the patient will have bleed to death or the leg/foot cannot be attached due to decay of the leg or healing of the stump. Thus if you wish to make an attempt at leg reattachment some intermediate steps are required (reduce blood flow, refrigerate leg etc). I would suggest that we could take a similar approach to reducing our CO2 levels - ie take as many "cheap" steps as we can whilst looking for a long term solution.