jethro

I know this isn't strictly speaking in the right thread but as solar cycles are being talked about here, I thought it the best place to add the link. A couple of points; I don't know enough about Arctic Ice changes to be able to judge but others here may know, has there been a correlation in the past between solar cycles and ice extent? Also, if the predicted decline in solar output and temperature decline is, as this paper suggests, it will far outweigh the impact of AGW. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/272/EB...on%20minimum%22

Thank you Carinthian, with so much information flying around these days I sometimes wonder how anyone can reach any conclusion, for every theory which pronounces one thing, there's another to contradict it. I suppose time will tell. I still think we're a long way from understanding how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together; the vast knowledge we've accumulated so far is only the tip of the ice berg, so to speak.

I posted this elsewhere but as it is most relevant to this thread, I thought I'd post it here too. I'd be very interested to hear people's opinions on this. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...-ice-expansion/

That surprises me Roger. I will pm you with some questions I have. BFTP

I have to drive literally everywhere around here, apart from a Post Office there's nothing else in the village. Work wise; self employed gardener, so going public transport is not an option, there are three buses a day in and out of Bath - that's it. I drive an Audi A6 Tdi, use it for work too, with the back seats down it's more than big enough most of the time. I didn't see the point of having a van for work and a car for weekends or be lumbered with a 4x4 doing minimum miles per gallon, the A6 does about 45mpg and they go on for years with next to no maintainance. It replaced an old Audi Avant which eventually died with close on 200,000 on the clock, I'll keep this one until it dies too.

Not too sure if this is the right place to post this question so, apologies if I'm wrong...I remember reading something earlier in the spring something about a polar circulation of some sort changing phase this year, vague memories of it being a thirty odd year cyclical thing (sorry for being so vague, lousy memory); could this have anything to do with the cooler May this year? If so, could our weather cycles be reverting back to how they used to be in the 70's/80's?

Found this, apparently disappearing Bees is not a new phenomena but has been reported periodically for at least a couple of hundred years. Could this be yet another example of a natural cycle we don't fully understand? http://www.synchronizm.com/blog/index.php/...-flew-too-high/

Thanks GW, it is a lovely part of the country down here, miles of unspoilt countryside. I've moved up and down the country with work and although I enjoy the mild springs and hot summers of Somerset, I still hanker after the harsh winters of North Yorks and the mornings of thick Hoare frosts in the Vale of York. Guess you can't have it all eh.

Thank you Russ, the Acacia's are lovely, they've done really well around here this year too, no doubt enjoying the mild spring. Sadly, after tomorrow I doubt they'll be quite so wonderful but maybe if they weren't so transient they wouldn't be appreciated quite so much, I love them anyway. I treated myself to a new camera recently, no doubt I'll bore people with more flower pics before the summer's over.

Here's a few pics I took earlier today in the garden, it's lovely to see so many plants in full bloom already but if the forecast weather becomes a reality, I think a few of these may regret being so eager to please.

Because I'm a bit of an old fogie I listen to Radio 2 quite often; today there was a listener phone-in program all about the proposed refuse collection changes. One guy who rang in claimed to have not put his rubbish bin out for years, he said he composts vegetables, takes his glass for recycling and burns everything else in his garden, including plastics. When challenged about Co2 pollution his answer was there is far less carbon released when he burns it than if it were incinerated by the council...can anyone explain this to me? Worryingly, he said he was a Surveyor, not sure I'd want to buy a house he'd surveyed if this is an example of his logic.

Went for a walk down by the local river earlier today, round through the fields, hay meadows of old, never seen a pesticide or fertiliser and look what I found. Wild Orchids; not too sure which ones they are but probably early purple spotted and a White variant of the same, how lucky am I. Though you might like to see them too.

P3: I'm not disappointed, I'd anticipated no clear cut answer. I think the whole premise of my pondering probably rests upon the cloud formulating theory, as you rightly pointed out, the test data to date has been proven to be flawed, time will tell if there is any mileage in the theory. I have e-mailed the scientists concerned but in all honesty doubt whether they will deign to reply to little old me, with no scientific credentials. I do however still wonder. If Co2 had quite literally doubled in such a short space of time, the concern raised would have been astronomical and yet C14 can be doubled without raising eyebrows. They're both atmospheric gases, both small in relation to proportion of the atmosphere. C14 must have a role to play in the functioning of the Earth and it's atmosphere otherwise why would it be there in naturally occuring form? For me, the fact that so little of it exists in ratio to other gases must mean only a small amount is needed for it to have it's intended effect so a doubling of those quantities must have some kind of impact. Most of the literature I can find relates to Carbon dating, I'm struggling to find anything which relates directly to C14 and it's effect/role in the atmosphere. When it comes to the nuclear aspect, a lot of literature was removed from public consumption after 9/11. Given it's sensitive nature and the fact it was developed for the military I'm not altogether convinced all the data would have been released anyway, I'm sure any information that would have been available would have been fairly heavily censored. Eddie& Gw: Wow! Is it really possible we could have moved the Earth's orbit? That's a truely frightening concept. If that is the case, given the amount of astronomers in the world, surely at least one would have noticed and measured this? Do either of you know where I could find the research? I'd be fascinated to read it; the idea had never crossed my mind before.

People are trying to save the rainforests but they need help from all quarters; everyone here can do their bit to help. Here are just a few ways or ideas to get everyone started. http://www.primates.on.net/mgsa.htm http://www.primates.on.net/mgsa.htm http://www.elc.org.uk/pages/links.htm http://www.greenlongmarch.org/en/rainforestexploration http://www.worldlandtrust.org/supporting/donation.htm http://www.therainforestsite.com/clickToGi....faces?siteId=4 http://www.rainforestrescue.org.au/daintreebuyback.html http://www.rainforestforever.org/faq.asp http://www.carbonbalanced.org/personal/pcbfaq.htm And finally, governments are aware and some are trying to preserve it http://www.innovations-report.com/html/rep...port-81936.html

I think there maybe a little confusion here. Yes, the theory of "nuclear winter" is a well known and documented idea but it is based upon debris being blasted into the atmosphere, blocking out sunlight and causing cooling-pretty much the same way as a large volcanic explosion can cause cooling. My questions and pondering focus upon purely the Carbon 14 element of a nuclear blast. C14 is naturally created in the atmosphere by the interraction of Cosmic Rays upon Nitrogen atoms, which then creates C14. There is no other known process by which C14 is created other than the natural Cosmic Ray formulation and Nuclear bombs. During the Cold War era the C14 content of the atmosphere was nearly doubled in a very short space of time. From the Vostok and other Ice Core samples it is known that larger than usual levels of C14 were apparent at the time of past Ice Ages. I am wondering if the unusually high levels created by man during the Cold War era led in anyway to the global cooling pattern recorded in the CET. Prior to this era, temperatures were on the increase but fell quite sharply during that time. The perceived sharp increase of temperatures during recent years would therefore be less steeply curved if the temperatures had been artificially lowered during 1945-1970's. Could what we are experiencing now actually be a more gradual, steady rising of temperatures that is a continuation of a warming period which began much earlier. Would this gradual increase make the driver more likely to natural in origin? If so, then where does it leave the general consensus on AGW and the accreditation of more Co2=higher temps=we're to blame. If the IPCC figures and predictions start from a false base figure, how accurate can they be?

Am I being really thick here....I've looked at the link and I can't see any discernable difference in the four images. Am I reading it wrong?

The nuclear weapons age began on 16 July 1945 when the U.S. exploded the first nuclear bomb, codenamed 'Trinity' at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The Soviet Union was the next country to explode a bomb, with a test on 29 August 1949. Other countries followed: Britain's first test was on 3 October 1952; France's on 3 December 1960; China's on 16 October 1964 and; India's on 18 May 1974.

I agree, Sulphur must have played a part too; global catch-up makes perfect sense to me. I suppose my curiosity comes from the fact that the nuclear age was fairly unique in as far as our capability to have such a vast impact, in such an instantaneous way. Coal burning and other pollutants are a gradual player, I'm wondering if it's possible to denote a line in climate/weather which indicates the nuclear age or whether it was lost in the overall picture. Everyone keeps saying how we never get winters of old anymore, in modern day terms that relates to living memory, the most obvious starting point being the winter of 1947, then '63. Both of these fell slap bang in the midst of the nuclear testing period, is there a connection? Also, from an environmental AGW viewpoint, Co2 emissions account for some of the steep rise in temps, Solar output may account for some of it too, but as far as I'm aware, no one to date has come up with a reason for all the increase. Could it be that the increase is neither as large or as steep as we believe? Could the starting point of the steep increase in recent years actually be from an artificially lowered temperature period?

I've found this list of how many nuclear bombs have been detonated, it makes stark reading. I'll try tomorrow to find correlation for these figures from a source less likely to be skewed to the extreme; their information may well be conclusive but I'd be happier to hear it from a more moderate source. http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/ctbt/read9.html

Here's a few more links: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/cratmos.html http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html http://discovermagazine.com/1999/apr/breakweather These explain natural formation of C14 and it's possibly effects. Finding data to correlate how much C14 we added artificially to the atmosphere via Nuclear testing is proving harder to come by; perhaps still classified?

No, that's not how C14 works. C14 and Beryillium 10 are unique in being created by Cosmic Ray Flux, it is believed they increase cloud formation, thus leading to lower temperatures. Cosmic Ray Flux is governed by the Solar cycle. Beryillium 10 attaches itself to aerosols in the atmosphere and is snowed out onto the Polar Ice Caps, thus leaving a clear signal of the level of Solar Flux. Since 1900, levels have been falling with the exception of a clear spike in the 1940/50's, this cannot be explained by changes in Solar output for the corresponding time scale. I've included a link which explains this in greater detail; interestingly (but possible another side issue to here) concludes that by calculating the level of Solar Flux and it's effects since 1900, factoring in the effects of C14 and Baryllium 10, global temperatures would have increased by 0.6c. I really am curious as to whether, if the period of nuclear testing was factored out of the CET figures, how close would today's temps be when compared to prior to that period and how sharp the incline of increase would be. http://www.env.leeds.ac.uk/envi2150/oldnot...9/lecture9.html

Hi P3, I'm sorry about the links not working, I'll try again. Carbon 14 doesn't work as a warming agent, that was my initial assumption too, carbon is carbon, was my thinking. High levels of Carbon 14 are shown to exist at the same time as Glaciation, borne out by various Ice Core data. The reasons why high levels coincide with cooler temperatures and glaciation as far as I have managed to find so far, is unclear, the research seems to point to increased cloud levels. If the (assumed for arguments sake, man-made) cooler period of 1940's-1970's is removed from the CET and today's temperature is compared to the preceeding period of say 1900-1940; how large is the recent warming in comparison? Hope these work this time. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...osti_id=6679759 http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...osti_id=4188044

Much of the assumptions regarding the impact of Co2 on the climate is based upon the recent rise in global temps. It is widely accepted that temps in the 20's+ 30's were at least as high or higher than today and the observed increase in todays temps is measured against a later, cooler period. I, increasingly believe the later, cooler period was in fact an artificial cooling caused by the huge amounts of Carbon 14 released into the atmosphere at the height of the Nuclear Testing era; C14 is known to be associated with cooling. The unusual winters of 1947+1963 could be as a direct result of C14 cooling the atmosphere, as could the 1970's theory of the impending Ice Age. If the post-nuclear temps cooling is disregarded and today's temps compared with those from the 20+30's, how much of an increase is left? Enough to collaborate the AGW, Co2 theory? http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...osti_id=6679759 http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...osti_id=4188044 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-142.htm http://www.jaysnet.com/666nuke.html http://www.science.uva.nl/fnwiresearch/obj...-AF82BEF123F39D Any thoughts anyone?

That's what I find so disturbing with the stance that "we've got it sussed, 2+3=5, we know what we're doing". I believe we're a very long way from having it sussed, understanding how it all works and interacts. Time will tell I guess.

Could it then be possible that the rise in temps and Co2 we are experiencing are due in a large part to old Co2, now being released from the ocean's depths? There is another article on the same site which says current Co2 sequestered into the oceans from today's atmosphere do not make it to the depths of the ocean's bottom. http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?...28-00182100-bc- Sorry, can't get it to link; here's the body text of the article: Oceans' role in climate change limited WASHINGTON, April 27 (UPI) -- U.S. and international researchers say carbon dioxide is often recycled in the Pacific Ocean's "twilight zone" instead of sinking into the deep ocean. Because the carbon often never reaches the deep ocean, where it can be stored and prevented from re-entering the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, the oceans may have little impact on climate change, the National Science Foundation said Friday in a release. The study, published in the April 27 issue of the journal Science, says carbon dioxide is often consumed by animals and bacteria and recycled in the dimly lit twilight zone located 300 to 3,000 feet below the ocean surface. The researchers found that only 20 percent of the total carbon in the ocean surface made it through the twilight zone off Hawaii, while 50 percent did in the northwest Pacific near Japan. "Unless the carbon goes all the way down into the deep ocean and is stored there, the oceans will have little impact on climate change," said lead author Ken Buesseler, a biogeochemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.