jethro

It was advice taken after the last IPCC report and endorsed by the RHS. It's also the reason why I got involved in all this in the first place. If a landscape is listed you have to apply to EH for consent to both fell and plant trees; I applied to plant Beech to restore a 350 year old avenue and was turned down on the grounds of climate change and our future climate of widespread and drastic drought. Beech are shallow rooted, the theory being they wouldn't survive in drought conditions. I trawled the net looking for info, found this site amongst others, read a lot, learned a great deal, appealed their decision and won. The restored avenue is flourishing and I hope it continues to do so but changes to our future climate do concern me; I don't want to destroy landscapes planted in the times of the Tudors, I don't want to drastically change them either.

Thank you!

Ian, again, I'm not comparing today to historical ice loss. I'm making no comment on AGW, the cause of today's loss or any kind of connection to the current situation. If you read my posts without seeing them as an anti view, out to discredit AGW and poo poo the state of the Arctic, I think you would see it is quite clear I'm trying to unravel the link between less ice, the jet stream and the weather here. Quite apart from the debate in here, my day to day life involves weather and dealing with it. I spend a lot of my time gardening with an eye on 200 years hence. I'm entrusted with listed, historical landscapes and have to plan how best to conserve what we currently have whilst ensuring in 5 or 6 generations time there are still landscapes in these parklands which if not replicate, at least give as close as possible a view as was originally intended. Long term weather changes are important and I need to consider them. There's not a lot of point in me planting hundreds of trees if they're going to peg it in a few years time, equally, I don't want to drastically change a landscape based on information which has jumped to conclusions and therefore may give an inaccurate view of the future. Beech trees were deemed unacceptable by English Heritage as they wouldn't survive the drought conditions we were predicted to be experiencing by now - that information has shown to be inaccurate so far, will it hold true for the future? I don't know, that's why I'm trying to figure out if there's a direct link between the Arctic and our weather.

Finer detail if possible, it needs to go back 500 years or so, weather records are a bit unreliable and sparse prior to then.

Changes to the jet stream influence weather beyond our shores. Do you know of any graphs/data which has finer detail than the one above - it's difficult to pinpoint a short span of years on the scale of that one.

I know, but I also think this thread has the scope to include all areas of glacial ice in the NH.

Check the context of my questions GW, I'm not talking about today nor am I comparing the two - merely asking questions and trying to understand rather than accept at face value the idea that low ice levels create different weather patterns here.

Thanks for that. I'm not trying to compare today's melt with the early part of the 20th century, merely trying to unravel something which makes no sense with the logic used today of a warming world means ice melts. The world was colder than average but the ice was melting. There's been much made of the changes in the jet stream and the resulting weather patterns - both a quiet Sun and low ice levels have been mooted. Clearly, the connection is not as simple as either of those two. There are periods of weather and ice decline, often in blocks of years, which have no clear connection to world temps or Solar activity.

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognisable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stone. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. Taken from an article from the NOAA archive, dated 1922: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Questions....... Looking a little more at the link between low ice levels and the impact upon the weather here, I've come across a few things which puzzle me. According to NOAA archives and an article published in 1922, the Arctic was warming and ice levels/glaciers had dramatically reduced: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf The weather here during that period was a mixed bag but generally speaking we had cold, wet summers and cold, snowy winters. http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1900_1949.htm There's nothing remarkable about the Solar cycle of the time, it was pretty average in both strength and length: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl15.html The Global land-ocean temperature index shows we were actually below average at that time: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ So if the land-ocean temperature was below average and the Solar cycle was nothing out of the ordinary, why was the Arctic ice melting? It can't be due to a time lag on the Solar impact as the previous cycle leading up to this melt period was a below average cycle http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html Any clues anyone?

True. But historically the same patterns have happened with our weather, so it's equally valid to say why are people so quick to blame AGW for the changes in the jet stream when we clearly experience the same phenomena a long time prior to AGW.

But it's clear from the records that similar weather patterns have happened in the past at a time when ice levels were much higher. If we can have high levels of ice and get the same weather patterns, how can it be possible to say that low ice levels are changing the thermal and thickness gradient and this in turn is generating the stuck weather patterns? It's as likely that the changes seen in the jet stream are totally unconnected to ice levels, that some other phenomena is responsible now, and was responsible historically too. Because we can monitor the ice levels with a greater degree of accuracy and because we know we've added lots of CO2 to the atmosphere, it's easy to make the assumption that the changes seen in the jet stream are directly linked. It could genuinely be just coincidental. Something prior to AGW caused a similar reaction in the jet stream, it could just as easily be caused by the same driver today. Not knowing the cause doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Knowing of a possible cause, doesn't mean it is responsible.

But if you look at the historical weather link I posted above, it's clear that regardless of ice levels, we do go through periods of wet summers, dry summers, cold winters and mild winters. We've always had periods of time when year after year, we seem stuck in the same weather patterns. Historically, when these groups of wet summers happened here, there was lots more ice in the Arctic. If those wet periods clearly were not caused by a lack of ice, why and how are you so confident that the current period of wet summers is as a direct response to the changes in the Arctic? If we can go through groups of years with wet summers here, when we have both high and low levels of ice, how is it possible to ascribe that weather pattern to low ice levels?

I don't think the link between low ice extent in the Arctic and wet summers here, is that easy - correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. If you look back at historical weather patterns and reports it's clear that we have always been susceptible to periods of time of both wet and dry summers; this isn't unique to our AGW altered climate. A brief look at this site reveals periods such as 1751-1760, 1763-1762 and the early decades of the 19th century also had very wet summers, a time when Arctic ice was a great deal more plentiful than today. http://booty.org.uk/...e/1750_1799.htm

But there doesn't need to be a two sidedness about this debate - it's the perpetual taking sides which keeps everyone going around in circles in these threads. A prime example being myself, I don't stand on either side, I'm firmly in the middle ground of accepting the theory of AGW but question the amount of change it may have already wrought. I cannot post a question without those who wholeheartedly support AGW jumping on it and interpreting it and replying to it, as though I was disputing the entire theory. That's bonkers. Equally, if I say anything about agreeing with the theory, I'll get jumped upon by those firmly against AGW. That's also bonkers. What we should all be able to do is discuss and ask without that biased response/answer being received.

How about a thread where everyone who is concerned about climate change posts a manifesto? A kind of imagine you're a politician trying to win voters over - what would your manifesto be? Why do we need change, what changes need to be made and how they would implement them. The drive should be to win voters over, not turn them off. If you like, we could have a poll as part of it and folk can vote on who has the best/most attractive ideas - who would win the election?

Thing is Sam everyone recognises the insults directed at themselves but don't see the insults directed at someone else, or insults that they agree with. We don't need a thread to discuss it, what we all need is for EVERYONE to stop with the name calling. It's not difficult to be civil and polite, it's the least we should all be. Like I said earlier, there's one Earth, we've all got to live on it and if we can all work together then it will be a better place - alienating people by insulting them is futile if you want to get them on board.

The aggression comes equally from the most prominent posters in this thread. When they perpetually dish out general insults in the form of denier/faux sceptics, it is only right and fair that those on the receiving end have a right to reply. When you add in this morning's hypocrisy, I'd say 'as ye sow, so will ye reap'.

I disagree. The data tells of melting ice; it does not and cannot say how much is natural and how much is AGW. It is this which sparks the debate and disagreement, not the level of ice, but the cause of the excessive melt. As for those for or against the theory of AGW - why do we need the division, let alone a thread purely to argue about it? Isn't it about time this persistent two sided nonsense stopped? There is only one Earth, we've all got to do our bit to look after it, regardless of AGW belief/disbelief.

If you can't see the irony and hypocrisy in not only the above, but your earlier post then I really haven't the time nor inclination to go through it yet again. You've been told often enough that you catch more wasps with honey than vinegar, I for one have winced far too often lately when reading this thread. Potty's right, at some point in the not too distant future all these academic studies are going to have to cross the road and start generating policy which has practical application. Unless we want a world where we're all led and driven by the stick, then we'd all better start thinking of a carrot driven policy instead. All you folk who show concern to a level expressed here about the dire state of the Arctic are the ones who should be leading the way. As far as I can see you have two choices - you either berate, chastise and alienate folk or you cajole, appeal and attract folk. The choice is yours, but the sensible option to take in order to make inroads into practical measures to protect the Arctic would be to get the most people on board with the idea. In the general population, those who think climate change is an over exaggerated problem or no problem at all or are just totally apathetic about the entire thing, make up a greater proportion than those who have deep concern. You won't bully those people into sharing your concern, but you may win them over with charm. Speaking to them like you've just sucked on a lemon isn't the way to go if you have genuine concern about anything in life.

You are the prime culprit and perpetrator of this behaviour - denier, denialists and now faux sceptics. I'd be over the moon if you stopped persisting with this habit, I'd be even happier if you didn't add hypocrisy to the deal too.

Or they be being driven by a desire to eek out the last of the fossil fuels. Either way, the climate change debate is involved.

Not a lot down here, the odd Cabbage White and a couple of Peacocks - Nothing at all on the Buddleia.

But they are interwoven. Countries across the world are being made to face the reality of cutting CO2 emissions. These cuts are driven by the desire to curb climate change or at least limit the impacts. In order to comply, new greener energy must be sought and put in place. One is driving the other and it makes no difference whether or not you agree with AGW.

There have been lots of papers/studies posted here, not all of them are shiny and new so I think it's fairly clear that it isn't an issue. Why was it given the title of New? After running the questionnaire thread on how members would like to see this area progress, this section of the forum was closed. It re-opened with the new code of conduct and brand new threads. The idea being that this was a fresh start for the climate area. Calling the thread 'New Research' was an effort to draw a line under the old squabbles and start anew.