jethro

Seek and ye shall find GW. As for the theory, presumably you're talking about the AGW theory? I don't dispute or question the theory, I think it's a valid one, I think we have evidence to show that it's a valid theory. What I question is the magnitude of impact we are currently able to observe and attribute to the theory. I personally think it is wrong and scientifically invalid to attribute every change or difference we observe in climate to AGW.

I'm not disputing the changes in the ice. There is however a world of difference between looking out for meteorological impacts and assuming they've already happened.

Not being a fan of crystal balls or Tarot cards, I'd rather stick with what we know rather than speculate or jump to conclusions. What we know is that weather is variable the world over and that many things influence it. The countless long term forecasts from experts around the globe which prove to be wrong are testament to our inability to decipher what influences what, what causes what; the current desire to pin weather patterns to just one cause is like playing a game of Pin The Tail on The Donkey. Less ice has the potential to contribute to changes in the jet stream, but then so do many things; currently we don't have the empirical evidence to support the idea that it already has.

I've looked in detail at the last 400 years or so; what stands out is that we have become stuck in different patterns of weather for groups of years at a time. It's been happening all the way through the period that we have proper records for, there's nothing new in what we are currently witnessing with the weather.

That's exactly what many hours spent looking at ice levels and weather records told me. We've ALWAYS had spells where a particular weather type/pattern reigns supreme for a few years at a time. There's nothing unusual or unprecedented about the current patterns.

It's a while since I read the paper so memories are vague but I'm pretty sure it was down to changes in UV and the impact was dominant in the NH. Again vague memories, something to do with ocean configuration in the SH making the difference.

There's an alternative theory for why this is happening; Mike Lockwood published a paper last year which linked low Solar activity to the changes seen in the jet stream. Currently we're approaching Solar max but the cycle has been so quiet, it's hardly worth calling a maximum, it's much, much lower than we've seen in recent cycles. As both low Solar activity and lower ice levels have the potential to alter the jet stream, it's impossible at this moment in time to assess which is having the most impact - likelihood is that both are contributing.

What you don't seem to get BFTV is that although we disagree about the current level of impact AGW may be having, we share a common interest in concern for the future. I'm knocking on for 50, I've got children and no doubt in the not too distant future, I'll have grand children too. I've got a lifetime connection to the African continent and a long term interest/involvement in the field of famine relief over there. I may be too old to see all that climate change may bring in the future but my family here and overseas are not; they will live and grow old in a world with far greater uncertainty, possibly poverty and hardship, than I've faced. I've been hard on you over the last couple of days, I suppose I should apologise, but I'm not going to. We live in a world where apathy reigns supreme, where the majority view is that everything is someone else's problem, someone else's responsibility. What concerns me is that if people like yourself and GW, both passionate advocates in this debate, both profoundly involved in raising concerns and issues can blithely separate the science from reality, divorce it from practical application and personal responsibility, what hope is there? If even people like you don't or won't make the effort to really live as sustainably as you possibly can, what's the likelihood of average joe public doing it? I hope I've annoyed you, I hope I've goaded you into thinking about your consumption, I hope you've uttered at least one "how bloody dare she" when reading my posts to you because at the end of the day, with your education, with the future career you're planning, you may have a greater chance of influencing people on this topic than any of us will ever have.

You've missed your part in the beginning of this conversation, this taken from your first post on the subject from page 40 I didn't see his post as anything about individual lifestyles. I know I don't live a very eco-friendly life. The extent to which we live green lives shouldn't alter whether or not we accept the science of AGW imo. I have made it absolutely clear (repeatedly) that my comments on this have absolutely no bearing on the science of the topic. I have also made it absolutely clear that my comments have been directed at you and anyone else who accepts the science of AGW, who berates others for not accepting AGW, spends much of their spare time discussing climate change on a public forum and profess to have a profound concern about climate change and the impact it may have, have a responsibility to live a sustainable lifestyle. By your own admission (quoted above) you do not live a very eco-friendly life. I have made no assumptions about you or your choices, I have simply responded to your own admission. You have gone on to say that individual choices will make no difference/do not make a difference - a direct contradiction to all wisdom and advice from all official quarters. Perhaps I'm a simple soul but by my reckoning if you have an Honours Degree in Earth Science, are doing a Masters in Remote Sensing and GIS, planning a Phd in Arctic Climate with the ultimate goal of becoming an Arctic Climate Research Scientist, spend much of your spare time in places like this forum then you, personally, should make more of an effort to live an eco friendly life. That's a comment about you, not the science. If you're unwilling to do that, are unable to accept that personal effort is important and the foundation for the goals of lower emissions and less damage caused to the planet (which is after all, the foundation stone of all climate science) then all your words are hollow. As for the Pope, as no stories have emerged about visits to Bordellos nor secret love children discovered I can only presume he at least practises what he preaches; you've got to admire a man who's as good as his word.

I can’t decide if you’re deliberately missing the point in order to avoid addressing it or if you are genuinely misunderstanding. Once more for the record and so that it can only be crystal clear....I have at no point made any suggestion about the validity of the theory of climate change. Your insistence that you do not have a personal choice in believing in climate change is irrelevant to this conversation; we’re not discussing the science. The contradiction from the accepting climate change but not actually doing anything about it? Isn’t it obvious? The science tells us that CO2 has the potential to warm the planet and cause harm. The science also tells us that the extra CO2 is because we’ve been emitting tons of the stuff for years. Again, the science informs that we need to reduce emissions. Emissions won’t magically fall unless we all use less, or live a lifestyle which reduces our own personal emission levels. I don’t believe in passing the buck for anything in life, we all have personal responsibility; those industries which produce massive levels of emissions are making stuff for us, we buy it, we use it. Why do folk find it vital to have a new phone the second a new model comes out? The old one works just fine, use it until it’s broken, then re-cycle it. Ditto, new cars, new TV’s, Computers, Ipod’s..... The list goes on and on – all personal, individual lifestyle choices which have an impact upon emission levels. If you are concerned about climate change, you (and that’s a generic you) should address your own personal level of consumption. Hyperbole.....a term used to dismiss exaggeration and rhetoric. As I get older I find I appreciate irony more and more. I’ve never been one for exaggerating climate change nor the impact it may have. All I’ve been saying in this conversation is that CO2 has the potential to cause problems, that we should reduce emissions in order to minimise the risk both now and in the future and that we should all take responsibility to do our bit wherever possible. If that’s hyperbole and rhetoric then every scientist connected with climate change studies is guilty of it too, as are World Leaders, Politicians, numerous celebrities and many posters on here – you included. As far as I’m concerned and I accept I may be alone in my thinking, if you’re going to repeatedly express concern about climate change, enter into debates about the issue in a public forum, berate people for not taking the science seriously or for questioning the science then you’ve got to put your own house in order first. If you’re not prepared to adjust your lifestyle or make every effort to live sustainably or even it seems, make the connection between individuals living sustainably and reducing emissions, then there’s little point in being concerned about climate change, let alone trying to persuade others to agree with your point of view on the issue. For me, it’s like listening to the Pope advocating abstinence then finding out he’s got a season ticket to the local house of ill repute or listening to those Politicians berating Benefit Scroungers only to find out they’ve been fiddling their expenses. There’s a bit of a hollow ring to it all.

It could be as simple as folk getting fed up with your antagonism. Flies and honey Gw, it's far more effective than vinegar.

I don't see anyone as a target, I'm not that rude. I've been having a conversation with BFTV; neither one of us has taken offence, I don't think either of us need someone else to do that on our behalf, we're both able to disagree without taking it personally. I see no post from you that either addresses myself or quotes one of my posts - from that I assumed you too were having a conversation with other people. If you have points to make in this conversation or questions that you would like me personally to answer, please can you make it more obvious that you are addressing me as time is short and I scan read in order to catch up with posts and only those directed at myself penetrate the radar. What do you want me to answer/respond to, your post above is in answer to other people's points, it's not clear to me what you want me to answer.

I'm sorry but that sounds like a cop out to me. There is no logical fallacy, either you are concerned about the environment, or you are not. No one is saying anything about the science behind the theory of AGW, no one is saying whether the theory is right or wrong, in fact no comment has been made on the validity of the science at all. Either you commit to living as sustainably as possible, or you don't; the choice is entirely yours'. Where it undermines an argument and the campaigning for people to take climate change seriously is the hypocrisy element. How is it feasible to live a consumerist lifestyle whilst berating others for not caring about the planet or worrying about climate change? It's a put your money where your mouth is moment. For myself (and I think I can speak for Laser too) caring about the planet, showing concern for the impact we may have, isn't an academic argument or an abstract ideal - it's a reality, it's the way we live. As far as "How strong a scientific argument is, is far from being related to an individuals lifestyle", I cannot think of a more contradictory comment to make, and with respect and no insult intended, an utterly vacuous statement to make too. Climate Change isn't an abstract idea to be pondered over by academics for all eternity, it isn't something so completely divorced from reality that it can be pored over and argued over for ever more. All the scientific argument in the world, all the data, research and scientific papers are absolutely worthless unless they can be translated into real life. Individuals lifestyles are critical if you're serious about climate change and caring about the planet. CO2 emissions continuing to rise, regardless of how we choose to live is a bonkers statement to make. If that were even remotely true then there would be no green energy industry, no efforts being made by nations like China to develop alternative energy to fuel their expansion. There would be no drive in this country to insulate homes, re-cycle, build wind farms, hydro-electric etc etc etc. In effect, your statement is saying there's nothing we can do so let's carry on regardless - morally, scientifically, academically, that is utterly incorrect. Geo-engineering.....The IPCC reports only achieve the projected level of future warming by including the expected rise in water vapour into the models. CO2 alone is a fairly innocuous substance, not capable of producing much warming, it is the rise in water vapour due to the warming which is supposed to be primarily responsible for the additional warming - a positive feedback. This is an assumed feedback loop but we don't actually know if it will happen or by how much; our knowledge of clouds is poor, we haven't unravelled the puzzle of do they warm or do they cool. Pumping water vapour into the upper atmosphere without knowing what will happen or the impact it will have is daft. When we've unravelled the puzzle of clouds, when we know how water vapour cools/warms, then it may be sensible but until then, it's a bonkers idea.

I'm afraid I agree with Laser, those who are concerned about climate change should lead by example when it comes to living a sustainable lifestyle. If you are concerned about the climate but are unwilling to change the way you live, or want the option to continue to live a consumerist lifestyle in the hope that the government or science will come up with a way to minimise your own personal impact, then it (IMO) undermines your stance and argument. Not only that, but it begs the question that if you don't live sustainably and are concerned about the environment, are you off-loading the guilt this may induce and berating people who don't share your concerns/conviction in the AGW debate as a result? As for war, it's packaged to achieve the aims of those governments who wish to indulge in it. The same can be said of all aspects of life. If wind farms/fracking/nuclear power/Severn barrier were packaged in way to infer that future warfare may be necessary in order to secure future energy sources, those greener energy supplies may be welcomed with less of a nimby attitude. Of course, the government will still keep all their options open, why else have we clung onto the Faulkland Islands if not to have mineral rights in the South Atlantic? Carbon capture and sequestration.....yes, if it can be achieved, affordably and safely. Geo-engineering.....I certainly hope not. We have no idea of the possible consequences. We have no way of measuring the impact. What happens if we tip the balance too far and we end up with drastic cooling? Cold climate kills far more people than a warm one. IMO, we've done enough damage already with the stuff we've done to the planet, let's not deliberately do more. As for the developing nations like China and India, yes they're rapidly expanding and I don't think we have the right to say they can't but they're also leading the way in developing green energy; China in particular is making massive headway. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/07/27/china-leads-the-world-in-renewable-energy-investment/

I think you're in danger of thinking that because a lot of your life is focussed upon climate change, and the science and discussion which surrounds it, then other people must be as aware as you. I think you're wrong. The average Joe Public will never even have heard of Watts, Christy etc and those that may have picked up on the odd news article will quickly have forgotten it. In general, the public don't pay much heed to all this climate discussion. As for government taking decisions which make them unpopular - they took us into war at the behest of Bush, hardly a popular decision. All those poor repatriated dead soldiers, all the popularity of Help for Hero's makes me think if the government was more honest and said in order to prevent fighting over future energy resources we need to develop our own, they'd get a far more sympathetic response from the public than 'Let's Save the Planet'. End result, cleaner, greener energy and reduced emissions. That's a win win situation IMO.

But by the same token, whether or not you believe in AGW shouldn't be used as a measure of whether people do live an eco-friendly life, as it so often is. The likes of Christy, Watts and Goddard have zero influence in government policy. They have a voice which is contrary to official policy and contrary to much of the accepted science. I personally wouldn't want them silenced. It comes down to the old saying of 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. IMO it will be a very sad day indeed if people are denied the right to question and criticise, especially in the world of science where questioning, criticising and trying to disprove theory is a fundamental part of the process. The bottom line is that there are now more of us than at any time before. There are dwindling resources and within a few years there won't be enough to go round. Regardless of AGW, governments need to address that issue. We absolutely need to develop alternative energy sources and a by product of that will be a reduction in carbon emissions. Instead of governments trying to get people to cut their consumption, they should focus upon developing alternatives. Currently we have wind farms promoted on the basis that it's greener energy, they will save the planet. The instinctive reaction of most people is one of fine, but not in my backyard. If they re-packaged wind farms, Severn barriers and Nuclear power (and all other alternative energy) as necessary because we're running out of fossil fuels, they may get a better response from the population. If they also added that we haven't got a lot of fossil fuels of our own, the largest stocks are held by nations we don't particularly get on with and that we may need to send our troops around the world in order to fight to get our share, they may get an even better response from folk. GW- As for history judging us, I can hold my hand up and say I couldn't live a greener lifestyle, I'm doing my bit, I've always done my bit. I personally don't feel any guilt for the impact I may have on the planet.

I guess it's rather ironic then that one of the most ardent anti AGW folk on here lives an incredibly green lifestyle. I guess as I question the degree of impact AGW may be having, I'd be considered to be one of those baddies you talk about. Again, ironically, I live an incredibly green lifestyle. People like myself and Laserguy don't need the stick of AGW to live sustainably, we just do. How many trees have you planted in the last 12 months? How much of your food do you grow? How's the insulation on your house? Are all your appliances as efficient as possible? Do you walk whenever possible? You and I are pretty much the same age, pushing 50; isn't it time you learnt not to judge a book by it's cover? Or better still, not judge at all.

That has the potential to cause a few waves.

Thanks for that. What puzzles me though is that less ice is thought to generate more easterly winds in winter, perhaps leading to colder weather here. But if you look at the historical records, during the LIA when we experienced harsh, cold winters, a time of expanding and plentiful ice in the Arctic, the winds are also recorded as being more easterly during the winter. How can less ice and more ice generate the same outcome?

I'm not seeking pin-point, year on year accuracy, that's an impossible task when we don't have that degree of accuracy for ice levels. Proxy measurements for the ice levels are deemed acceptable the world over, they give broad brush strokes, I see no reason why the same criteria cannot be applied to weather too. We have amazing records available to us from sources like the CET, couple that with the proxy records for the ice and it's possible to get a rough idea and that's the best anyone can do without a time machine. As for the link, you're clearly more versed in what is a sceptic's site and what isn't than I, all I did was type MWP & Arctic ice into Google, that was the first one which came up which had attached papers to read. I've no idea what's considered to be sceptic/pro sites, apart from researching stuff I'm interested in via the Google option, this is the only climate site I visit. I was under the impression that those papers were peer reviewed, if you're saying they're not and that they're biased, that there are other which draw different conclusions please post me a link - I was under the impression that the MWP was pretty universally accepted as happening. Am I wrong?

I know. If you look at the other papers it is clear that there is no pin point accuracy in proxy records but that said, there is broad agreement in a temperature range. I don't see why we need a direct comparison with today and yester-year, there is enough variability in both NH temps and ice levels to gauge whether or not there is a direct impact felt here. Taking the wide range of both temps and ice levels covered by the MWP and the LIA, there is ample scope to see if those large changes are reflected in the general weather. As for weather records, anecdotal isn't a fair description. The modern obsession with weather isn't modern at all, we've been poring over details and recording it for aeon's; in times gone by, weather had a dramatic impact upon day to day life, often meaning the difference between life and death. It's impossible to read through any historical records/journals without finding references to weather, I'm not talking about farmer John's finger in the air methods either. There are comprehensive records at places like Kew which were recorded in meticulous detail and have been held since it opened in 1759. The records we still refer to today, the CET dates back even earlier to 1659.

See above post....I'm not talking recent history, I've gone back to the MWP and beyond.

I disagree. I've looked at the links you kindly provided, I've also trawled through all these papers http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwparctic.php and this http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html Checked against this weather record which is fairly comprehensive http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/wxevents.htm At no point can I see any discernible link between our weather and Arctic ice. Taking this from the paper you provided last night: The Paleoclimate record of the Arctic reveals large variability over all of the last 400 years. Natural variation in most regions was as large before the 20th century build-up of atmospheric trace gases as afterward. And the additional info from the links above it is clear and widely studied/accepted that The Medieval Warm Period produced dramatic warming in the Arctic, comparable with temperatures in recent years. If we accept that the warm global temperature is currently causing the dramatic melt in the Arctic then we must also conclude that dramatic ice loss happened during the MWP too. That ice loss is not reflected in our weather during that period - it was as variable then as it is now. The same can be said for The Little Ice Age.

For the umpteenth time now Ian I am not making any comparisons with today. I am researching historical ice levels and historical weather. Having looked at length, there are no obvious patterns or signs of a link between our weather and ice levels. Even taking a look at extremes such as The Little Ice Age, we still had some mild winters and a mixed bag of wet/dry summers. Whatever drives our weather, it seems ice levels in the Arctic only play a minor role at best.

I've spent quite a lot of time now looking to see a link between the state of the Arctic and our weather. As I explained earlier, trying to discern likely long term weather trends is important for me - despite my best efforts, there really seems no clear sign of a link. We get runs of wet/dry summers and runs of cold/mild winters, there really seems no connection to the level of ice. It may contribute to the weather in the NH but from what I can see, it certainly isn't a dominating factor.