jethro

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.

Is it really that important? Your view is just one of a myriad of views on here, if we chopped and changed things trying to keep everyone happy, we'd all go round in ever decreasing circles. If you don't want to read something, then don't. If you're not interested in something, then so be it. It's hardly an onerous task to skip over one post, not open one link, in an entire thread.

But that's a future which will include your children, grand children, great grand children. We've already saddled future generations with mountains of debt, wouldn't it make sense to try to avoid adding to their problems? Regardless of views on AGW, the bottom line is we're running out of fossil fuels, we need to develop new, alternative fuel supplies. If we don't, the future won't be as rosy as we've had it. Does it really matter if Green Energy is developed and paid for via the initiative to fight climate change? IMO, without that initiative we'd probably be sending even more troops around the globe in order to secure future energy supplies, both now and for a long time to come. Again, IMO, I'd far rather we develop our own energy sources; if it takes a climate change industry ten times as large as it is now, I'd rather that than the world leaders squabbling over what's left of fossil fuels.

Yup. I can't see any harm in it myself, whether it's from now or ten years ago - if it's relevant and interesting, what's the harm in bringing it to people's attention? How old's the last IPCC report? It's still referred to, as are the previous IPCC reports. The thread title may be 'New Research' but like all the other threads where a certain amount of leeway is given/taken by folks, there's no rigid criteria nor cut off/before/since date for relevant research.

It was new to me.

I didn't say which way your interest may be piqued....

New study shows the Earth is currently keeping pace with emissions and hasn't reached a tipping point; although with current knowledge and projected increases in emissions, there is a possibility we may reach this point by 2030-2050 if emissions are not reduced. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-study-shows-planet-keeping-pace-with-co2-emissions/

Thought some may find these interesting.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304388004577531270272951132.html?mod=WSJ_article_RecentColumns_Mind%26Matter http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304039104577534830901741156.html?mod=WSJ_article_RecentColumns_Mind%26Matter http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444405804577558973445002552.html?mod=WSJ_article_RecentColumns_Mind%26Matter

Any ideas on the calcs to measure how much warmer the saltier water needs to be in order to float on top of the cold water? I think the temperature differential has to be quite a bit in order for this to happen, any idea what the differential needs to be?

Vague memories of there being a seesaw action with Arctic/Antarctic ice - historically as one declined, the other expanded. Anyone know if this is still holding true today?

The saddest thing of all is that everyone who reads your post will think you're talking about someone else. Everyone thinks they're the one's in the right, everyone thinks other people are the problem. And the oddest thing of all is that everyone knows the rules and the code of conduct. Everyone knows, because everyone contributed to it - it's a people's charter drawn up after lengthy conversation with everyone who contributes here. We took time to listen to how all of you wanted this area ran and we implemented a code of conduct to reflect your wishes. I think a moment of reflection before hitting the post button would save so much grief for everyone. Step back, consider why you think you need to prove you're right and someone else is wrong. What does it matter if someone is wrong? Has a different opinion than you? There are no prizes here for being right or wrong. Above all, if all ego's and pride could be left at the door before entering, I'm sure we'd all have a pleasanter, more informative time.

I've no idea what you're talking about. The year known as 'The year without a summer' was 1816 following on from the Tambora eruption in 1815.

Solar cycle 12 ended in March 1890, it had been a low cycle with a maximum smoothed number of only 74.6. Weather in this part of the world during that era included Spring of 1887, relative to modern day era it was -2 lower than the CET average. In October of that year there were also reports of snow laying in London on the 17th. Summer of 1888 was no better, with a mean of 13.7 (In the top 10 of coldest summers in CET series). The Summer of 1890 was again no better and a notably cold one. Winter 1890/91 was very cold, the December CET registering as the lowest in the series - the figure for D/J/F was 1.5c. There was no let up from the cold with March 1891 bringing severe gales and heavy snow with trains in the SW buried for days. The synoptic pattern responsible for this winter was described as being dominated by a large anticyclone covering Northern Europe with a marked ridge extending over Southern England, giving almost continuous East or Northeast winds. Given the studies done on a quiet Sun and the resulting changes in weather patterns, I'd hazard a guess it was this which was responsible for the Greenland melt in 1889. The cold which would normally be bottled-up, up there was shifted further South.

So what are you saying GW? That local knowledge and views which support your view of the Arctic are valid and important but those that don't, aren't? How does that work? Surely to get a perspective on the events unfolding you'd need to listen to a broad range of views and opinions. As for pockets of ice having a bearing on the central pack.....I've clearly missed the entire plot of this debate because the one I've watched and listened to over the years has included much focus upon pockets and certain bits, as well as the whole - admittedly the pockets and bits chosen for the focus have usually been the ones melting the most or quickest. There's also been loads of debate focussed upon certain bits floating off here or there, bits melting out quicker than other bits, floes being packed together due to wind - again usually from the perspective of what's the worse bit this year. I thought we were all supposed to be learning here; in order to understand how one bit impacts the other or how wind drives the ice out of the Arctic we really need to study the bits which aren't melting or have thicker ice than expected as well - however inconvenient that may be. You do want the whole picture, don't you?

A comment on the first link? The opening paragraph states "Two re-supply ships are stuck waiting at the mouth of Frobisher Bay in Iqaluit because of tough ice conditions. Frobisher Bay is an inlet of the Labrador Sea." The only comment I can possibly make is that you must have skimmed it and not taken in the information correctly. Your criticism was that Frobisher Bay is an inlet in the Labrador Sea - exactly what the article says. Can't see your argument with that - it's a fact. As for the Bering Sea, the article says "Brutal sea ice conditions that North West Alaska battled all winter haven't receded in parts of northern Canada". The North West did have a hell of a winter and there's currently lots of ice causing problems elsewhere - again fact. What's the criticism? I'll grant you the headline is shabby journalism but look beyond it and there's nothing wrong with the article, IMO the discussion should focus upon the facts about the ice, not whether or not it was written by a potential Booker winner. The second link is entirely suited to this thread, if you explore the page and click on the embedded links it takes you to the home page with articles from countries all over the Arctic area. http://eyeonthearctic.rcinet.ca/index.php As for your point about how are we to judge these opinions, especially from non experts arguing over climate......we are part of the same forum aren't we? Look around you, none of us are experts yet we've been conversing and judging for years. This is an opportunity to hear the opinions of those directly affected by the topic in hand; I'd say their opinion trumps any of ours.

So you're not interested in the opinion of the people who live in the area that causes the most concern in the climate debate? I personally think it's important to listen to the people directly affected by the loss of the ice, the links provide further links to all sorts of info and opinion on the area, by the people in and from the area. I imagine people living there are more familiar with the local climate and it's variability than someone in New York. Listening to the locals gives context to abstract articles from around the globe. We're forever being told how climate change is going to impact people from around the world, it's important to have first hand accounts of what is happening. Isn't it?

Two interesting articles from the Alaskan side of the Arctic: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/brutal-bering-sea-ice-blocking-arctic-supply-ships http://eyeonthearctic.rcinet.ca/blog/150-tony-hopfinger-alaska-dispatch/2118-is-warming-making-alaska-more-extreme-dont-count-on-it

Knocking on for 50, having had three kids and still being the same size I was when I left school, I'm guessing she breathed in clean air when pregnant.

Wouldn't I have to ask my Mum if she sat in Paddington inhaling fumes?

I love my Landy, I'd be lost without my car and stuck out in the sticks with no way of going anywhere. Having said that, I also know when I go to London, hang around Paddington station waiting for a train, I'm wheezing like an old lady the next day. I'm not asthmatic nor suffer from any other breathing problems; it's merely a response to the pollution I've been breathing in. Were those studies of deaths from emissions cross referenced with other studies which conclude that having a dog dramatically reduces the incidence of childhood asthma; or the ones which conclude living in an environment which is too clean also increases the incidence of allergies and asthma?

Wow! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175857/The-Ice-worms-cometh-Amazing-photos-Arctic-Circle-trees-look-like-alien-world.html

Beware the lightbulbs.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176494/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-fry-skin-study-claims.html

I should also add, it's using sugar made from English grown Beet rather than Cane, which has been flown half way around the world.