jethro

Part of me thinks that would be amazing, the other part of me thinks, lawd I hope not, I'd be bankrupt. The prospect of 3 months intense cold and deep snow doesn't provide a lot of joy when you're a self-employed gardener. I guess wishing never changed anything though, what will be will be, we'll just have to deal with it, mild or cold.

The Swallows have all left here now, haven't seen one since the middle of last week; it's been warm and sunny with lots of insects flying around but not a bird to be seen. Winter's coming.

I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole! I used to work with a load of Polish blokes, one of them had been home and brought some almost pure alcohol Vodka back, we all had a bit of a session and a good time was had by all....That was until about half 5 the following morning when one of the chaps woke to find his arms were swollen to the point of being larger than his thighs and he was struggling to breath. A rapid trip in an Ambulance, followed by an immediate route into intensive care and a very worrying 24 hours passed before it was discovered he was suffering from Meths poisoning. Apparently an awful lot of very potent/high alcohol content Polish Vodka is cut with Meths. Approach with extreme caution would be my advice.

And this is what it produced..... "1952 (March): 1. March 29th (Saturday) Many roads in the south-east blocked by SNOW as a belt of precipitation moved north from France against STRONG/GALE force easterly winds. DRIFTING occurred in the strong winds and drifts were reported as..."some feet deep". This was 'Boat Race' day, and the event was rowed in a 'BLIZZARD'. There was widespread DISRUPTION to sporting events on that day across southern Britain, especially to football matches. This may be one of the worst late-March SNOWFALLS of the 20th century." http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1950_1974.htm

It's the same around here, not a Sloe in sight; it was the harsh, late frosts which did the damage. I usually use Vodka instead of Gin, this year with the lack of Sloes I'm going to give Black Currants a go, perhaps Raspberries and Blackberries too. It's all fruit so it'll all work, tasting sessions may see me hiccuping my way through Christmas....

Oh give it a rest. I posted basic science earlier and you and Pete dismissed it. You got it wrong, big deal, get over it. Taking the original posts out of context in order to justify yourself won't change the fact that you were wrong. As for Laser and me being a Mod, if he oversteps the mark or contravenes the code of conduct, I'll step in; until then, he's as entitled to his opinion as you are. As for nonsense, why on earth is there a need for me to criticise what Laser say's, he makes it perfectly clear that regardless of science, he thinks AGW is baloney. If he said it's nonsense because of blah, blah, blah, I'd be critical if he'd got his science wrong; personal opinion, regardless of science, is entirely up to him and his right. It is still a free country. Obviously you don't actually know me or have a clue what I'm like as a person, but me be a victim? Hell would freeze over first. I am however at liberty to point out that regardless of the content of my posts, you have fallen into the habit of simply dismissing them and then arguing the toss. Today's example was just one of many recently. The most sensible route (IMO) would to have been to simply ignore or say, oops, got it wrong, silly me, we all have off days.

You'll fall off that bike if you back pedal that fast....

I know it's a popular sport to disagree with anything that I, or anyone else who even remotely questions/disagrees with AGW say, but the contrariness has sunk to a new and very silly low when it involves disputing the basic facts of climate change science. The relationship between CO2 and climate warming is logarithmic, the more you add, the less impact it has. CO2 is limited by it's known (undisputed, Physics Laws) properties. In order to achieve any more warming than this, it has to be aided by the most plentiful and potent greenhouse gas - Water Vapour. It is this positive feedback loop which produces the projected future temperature rises. It is also this feedback loop and the unknown properties of clouds, which produce the different range of projected temperature rises. http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/Climate-System/ipcc-faq-greenhouse-effect.html As for comparison between different GHG's, here's a handy reference: http://en.wikipedia....rming_potential As I said, CO2 is pretty pathetic when compared to other GHG's and the scary predicted future depends upon amplification from water vapour. I'm talking the facts of basic science. Either you and BFTV are woefully lacking in the basics (a fact I know to not be true) or you're merely disagreeing because it's something I've said. Either way, it's disappointing and really rather sad.

But you've got to admit CO2, as far as GHG's go, is pretty pathetic. The scary possibilities for the future involve water vapour amplification, without it CO2 alone does not, and cannot cause much warming.

Anything can change if there's the will to make it happen. I remember sitting watching the news as the real Berlin wall came down, for years people had said that would never happen, ditto Apartheid, ditto old school Communism. As for my middle ground - I accept the theory, I question the magnitude of the impact thus far. How much more middle ground do you want?

Good God! The day has come when we agree upon something! Less ice is just a small part of a really big puzzle. History seems to indicate that ice levels haven't played a major role of in the kind of weather we experience here, currently, we have no way of knowing if the same will hold true for the future. A quieter Sun has played a role in NH weather, with all the predictions for a prolonged period of low Solar activity, it's likely those same weather patterns will influence what is experienced here. Will the quiet Sun and less ice cancel each other out or reinforce each other? Who can tell? At the moment, no one can.

It matters to me because IMO the time to move on from this two sided, divided down the middle nonsense should by now be long gone. I've been on here for about 6 years now, it's a war that has raged since long before I joined. At what point are folk going to realise it's such a futile stance to take? There is absolutely no need for the division.

I get criticism from both sides of the divide about my efforts to stamp out the division and antagonism, I'm guessing it's because I apply the same rules to both sides. There's no need for the endless taking of sides. I know I've said it countless times before, so at the risk of boring everyone...There's only one planet, we've all got to work together to create the best possible environment for us all; the future needs unity if the science and the debate are to have any positive outcome. There's little point in any of the science or the debate, if it's not going to influence the future and the way forward. To get as many people as possible, all working towards a more sustainable lifestyle, requires encouragement and inclusion, not criticism and antagonism. Why put people off getting involved? Surely the end result is one less person willing to consider their impact - seems a pointless exercise to me.

That depends on whether or not you want an inclusive or exclusive atmosphere in here. You're the main poster who appeals to the lurkers, do you seriously think they'll be tempted to stop lurking and join in if their every effort is ridiculed? Like I said, not everyone has the time or indeed the inclination to spend as much time as you do writing and researching this topic. A little more tolerance from everyone and a little less animosity could transform this area into a bigger club, personally speaking, I'm more than a little bored with folk playing 'I'm a big fish in a little pond'. Consider how much more interesting this could be for everyone if we all had the benefit of more voices joining in, who knows what we could all learn, none of us know everything. For or against AGW? You were the one who suggested it was posted to help a cause. Laziness or not as much time as some?

Or it could be a genuine mistake from someone who hasn't had the benefit of a Uni education specialising in Arctic studies, or someone who hasn't the time to spend as much time as some on here, reading and researching every nuance available on the Net. Is it any wonder so few people join in when they are met with endless animosity? How about everyone makes the effort to read posts from folk without viewing them through the divisive glasses of for or against AGW.

Ask this chap about the 4 poles - I'm pretty certain he's dismissed these claims as nonsense but worth checking all the same. http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1587

Oh I give up. Life's too short to spend it going round in circles with folk who will only consider views from one side of this debate as valid. There's more chance of me flying to the Moon than having a reasonable conversation in here, you're all too busy defending the climate equivalent of the Berlin Wall to notice that some of us are perched on top of it, in the middle of this debate.

I've seen all that. All I'm asking for is evidence that nothing else is responsible or could be responsible. Unless you can show that then all you're saying and showing is that less ice COULD be influencing the weather. I've never said any different. As for the CET, my point was and is that we've always experienced spells of prolonged types of weather. The evidence is there for you to read for yourself, do you seriously want me to list groups of years in order to save you the effort? You link to papers all the time and expect people to read them - the difference is? Is being critical of me asking you to put some effort in really the best that you can do to refute what I've been saying?

And at what point have I made any comment about AGW or disputed that ice is disappearing? As for sceptics predicting things, I'll question any prediction which isn't based on evidence, I don't give a monkies which side makes it. I don't make the rules GW, I follow accepted science. Coincidence isn't science, it's clutching at straws. If you can show me that nothing else is responsible or could be responsible, I'll happily accept it. You're kidding right? Or have you missed the recent conversations, including the post immediately above your own? What about the study that BFTV linked to which sparked this conversation?

Come on Pete, I know, that you know, that we've always had variable weather in this country. It's got naff all to do with adjusted data and even less to do with ice thickness. The theory being postulated is that we've had and are likely to continue to have wet, miserable summers and colder winters. Folk want us to believe that this is/will happen due to lower ice levels. As I've said, it might, but there again it might not - we do not know. The facts are that irrelevant to ice levels we have experienced this weather before, we have a long record of experiencing variable weather, often with a string of wet summers and cold winters. It's normal and it's there in the records for everyone to read if they can be bothered. If folk really want to cling to the idea that lower ice is responsible then they should show evidence to support it. It's no good saying lower ice has the potential, we all know that; anything which contributes globally has the potential. What is needed is evidence which shows nothing else is responsible for this weather pattern, that nothing else could be responsible for it. It's a process of elimination of all other possible causes. If you can do that, show that only the different ice levels can possibly be responsible, then I'll buy it. Until then, I'll view it as just a possible piece of the puzzle but the latest 'must have accessory' for some folk who clearly want something to validate their own views/concerns. Apologies if I sound a tad off hand but I'm so bored with the pro side of this debate dismissing anything and everything that comes from anyone who isn't part of the gang. It beggers belief that even things like the CET are dismissed when the mood suits, it's respected around the world and is a corner stone of data for all climate scientists. But apparently, because it show's that what I say about our historical weather patterns is true, then it's irrelevant and unacceptable. And people want to be taken seriously?????

I've done that already. On second thoughts....you post up evidence that nothing else could possibly cause the weather patterns you claim the lower ice levels are responsible for. You're making the claims, the onus is upon you to provide the evidence. My evidence is the CET, are you calling that into question?

I've offered evidence aplenty, including links to the appropriate places for info. It's really quite simple, the CET is available for all to inspect, it's a well respected record, still used and maintained today. If you'd care to look through it you will see that weather here has always had protracted spells of wet/dry summers and cold/hot winters - for some peculiar reason weather tends to become stuck in patterns for a few years at a time. There is nothing new in what we are currently experiencing and there's no clear link in the records which links it to ice levels in the past. There's also a large historical weather section/archive on Netweather, there are quite comprehensive details of past weather events in there if you don't want to trawl through the CET or Kew records. As for GW and BFTV and their statistical proof, their proof is based on a few years observations, computer models and proxies. My evidence is a record which has been kept since 1659 and is actual empirical evidence.

That's why I'm questioning this instant linkage of our weather to less ice, simple facts are, we don't know. Because something can, it doesn't mean it is. What we do know is that it has the potential to alter weather patterns. What we also know is that we can have those same weather patterns with entirely different levels of ice. Anyone who disputes that is calling into question data sets which are respected the world over. Whether it be our wet summers or our cold winters, we've had them both for long periods of time in times gone by when there was a great deal more ice than now. Even if you look at global weather patterns, there's really very little to distinguish any difference between the current drought in the USA and the dust-bowl droughts in the early part of the 20th century. What's really needed is time for more research to be done, more observations taken. Folk who rush to link ice changes with weather because it suits their own perspective really aren't helping either the research or the debate on AGW. There was the same rush made when we had a few hotter summers and mild winters, they too were blamed on AGW and less ice. Personally, I can't see what's wrong with saying we don't know, clearly some others would rather argue from a more certain angle. When it comes to the actual science, what it tells us is we don't know but here's a few ideas of what may be happening.

You're confusing potential with actual. As I've said repeatedly and categorically, the lower ice levels have the potential to contribute to alterations in the weather patterns. But, and here's the crux, we can and have experienced weather patterns similar to today and over the past few years REGARDLESS of the level of ice. If anyone would care to look through the weather records, it is clear that what I say is supported by empirical records. There is nothing unprecedented about the weather today and whether or not the dice is loaded in favour of extreme weather is questionable as proof of an increase in weather extremes; since time immemorial we have had different sorts of weather for extended periods of time. Choose a limited time period to look at and you can come up with all sorts of conclusions, lengthen the time period and the picture can be completely different. As for the bit in bold, I'm not the one jumping to conclusions or predicting the future of weather based on one element that may influence it. Now that is a weak argument, let's not forget the same reason was used to explain away the mild winters and hot summers of a few years ago.

Indeed. Precisely why I question the certainty expressed by some.