jethro

You can turn that the other way around and ask on the basis of our own individual training and qualifications, how do any of us read a paper and actually check and verify the information? None of us do, none of us can. What's pathetic is that this is a discussion forum, a paper or study gets posted for discussion, a few people join in and anyone who disagrees or questions the science is dismissed out of hand. An appeal made to some random level of authority, citing the experts know more than us so they must be right and we cannot criticise. Where's the discussion in that?

You've disagreed with the decisions of scientists with a greater level of education than yourself, other people have that right too. With the greatest of respect, those experts with all that education cannot agree with one another nor make a decisions and stick with it. We've had endless studies from numerous sources, all experts in their field and none of us are any the wiser. As I said in my earlier post, according to those experts we were going to have baking hot, dry summers and mild, snowless winters. I know science moves on, I know theories are refined as more information becomes available but this is beginning to look like a farce. IMO the scientists involved are as much to blame as anyone else, they speak with an authority they couldn't possibly have, given the level of knowledge available. If they would admit and accept there is much we don't yet know, make their conclusions either more vague or with a caveat of 'as far as we can tell with the data available but we don't yet know how all the pieces fit together' then they'd be left looking a little less silly if the weather doesn't do what they predicted. As it is, this latest study seems more like an exercise in grabbing every weather event which is above the level of mediocre and using it as signs of climate change. It's a get out clause of the highest magnitude when weather can no longer be described as weather and all variations are climate. After all, if you say it may be wet, it may be dry, it may be hot, it may be cold etc etc, you've covered all bases and can't be wrong.

I think it's easy to see what you want to see but that doesn't necessarily make it correct. In modern times it is nigh on impossible to experience or study weather without adding in the extra possibility of climate change, but the trouble is (IMO) the story changes on a regular basis and we all know that statistics can be used to prove anything. I first got involved with all this quite a number of years ago due to a work related issue - I wanted to inter-plant an avenue of mature Beech trees with young trees which would grow and super-cede the historical avenue. The site was a Grade 11* listed parkland so I had to apply to English Heritage for consent - it was declined on the basis of climate change. The advice gleaned from the IPCC was that we would no longer have the summer climate to sustain Beech trees (they're shallow rooted and prone to suffer in drought conditions). The RHS was issuing advice along similar lines, plant drought tolerant plants, switch to Mediterranean style planting; we were going to regularly fry in the summer. Indeed the summer of 2006 was held up as a prime example, blamed on climate change, heralded as the shape off things to come. Have we had a decent summer since? Now the wet summer weather is also held up as evidence of climate change. A couple of years ago we were all told that cold, snowy winters would become a rarity, someone at the METO announced that children would no longer have the joy of building snowmen, it would become a thing of the past. Lo and behold, we get a couple of winters with more snow than we've seen for years and bitterly cold temps which rival those from years ago. I wish someone would make up their minds; are hot summers due to climate change or cold wet ones? Are we going to have cold winters or mild ones? A get out clause of any extreme or unusual weather is climate change but mediocre weather is just that, weather doesn't really cut it for me and makes a mockery of all those weather records which show we've always had extremes. A higher proportion or a series of events doesn't hold much sway either, we've always had clusters of particular weather patterns. Take as an example the flooding in Calderdale, we're supposed to accept that it's a new or more drastic problem than in the past; climate change must be playing a hand in it. But when you look a little deeper it soon becomes clear that Calderdale has always had a flooding problem, including devastating summer floods, there's documented evidence going back to at least 1615 - long, long before AGW. http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~calderdalecompanion/mmf39.html IMO the science suffers from a bad case of seek and ye shall find. If you're only looking for one thing though, you're kind of blind to everything else.

Calderdale has a documented history of regular, and at times catastrophic flooding, dating back to at least 1615 - long before any possible changes wrought by man. http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~calderdalecompanion/mmf39.html

A question from a complete thicko when it comes to reading models and predicting weather..... Will the apparent lack of any noticeably summer weather this year have an impact upon SST's around our shores? If so, what (if any) impact will this have on winter?

The Beetle spread has much to do with the density of planting and the reliance and over-use of just one species of tree. Before such industrial scale timber farming, all requiring one particular kind of wood, there used to be more variety and natural breaks between stands of Pine - these breaks and different varieties of trees prevented the spread of the Beetles. Positives of warming? Historically, populations have flourished during warmer times and with the rate that the world's population is growing, we'll need every extra inch of productive land to feed people. If warmer climes leads to longer growing seasons, that has to be a good thing. Drought may become an issue but plant breeders are working extra hard to breed varieties of feed crops which will better withstand dryer conditions. Of course it's hard to imagine that a warmer climate may lead to drought here, especially with the recent summer's high rainfall but that is what the IPCC predicted. Drought, with drought tolerant plants, will certainly be preferable to the cool wet summer we're currently in - fungal disease is flourishing in the current conditions, it will certainly lead to reduced yield and in some cases, crop failure.

Is it possible to distinguish between any impact the extra open water is having on synoptic's and the impact the quiet Solar cycle is having? If so, how?

That's all well and good GW but you are one of the first to post baiting comments. I admire the attitude above but if you would apply the same principles to yourself and your posts, there may not be a kickback. The sanctimony wears a little thin when you talk as though you're an innocent bystander.

Agreed. But I wasn't replying to something he'd posted.

That's your opinion and I respect that. My opinion is that the above is bunkum. It's also my opinion that to hold a personal view and to have the freedom to express it, is no reflection upon other differing opinions nor to be taken in any way, shape or form as belittle-ling opinions which differ from our own. Back to the subject in hand, what, if anything, do people expect to learn from such close scrutiny of the seasonal melt? And before any body jumps on me again - that's a genuine question, there is no under-current of sniping, belittle-ling or any other bizarre connotation.

Oh I give up. If you want to be annoyed at what I said, then be annoyed. If you want to endlessly and needlessly pick up on every post I make here, then do so. I won't however be responding any more, you'll have to find somebody else to moan at.

So are you saying that if I express an opinion and make it absolutely clear that it is my personal opinion, then I am belittling people? Again, I find that a bizarre interpretation. You express your opinion regularly in this and many other threads, no one accuses you of belittling others, people, including myself accept that it is your opinion and that you are entitled to it. I think that kind of respect should be afforded to all, in fact it is a stipulation of the code of conduct. Had I have said I think you and others who contribute here are fools or idiots to follow the ice melt, then I would expect a rebuke - in fact I'd have had to delete my own post. If I were ever to make such a post feel free to rebuke me or report it, but please stop this nonsense of interpreting my posts as having sinister under currents. You're seeing things which aren't there; if I was going to be rude to somebody, I would just be rude, I wouldn't waste my time with insinuations.

Why would you interpret a comment directed at GW in answer to his interpretation of no comments, as having greater meaning than just no comment, as spite? We've been here before BFTV, very recently. There is no conflict between GW and I, why you continue to try to either provoke some or interpret my posts as having some bizarre unspoken meaning is beyond me. Perhaps as I asked before, you could explain via PM why you continue to persist in this attitude. Or should I just assume that no opposing views are welcome in here and any means necessary will be used in order to deter dissenting voices from joining in?

Only those which have participants who interpret no comment as having greater meaning than just, no comment.

Or perhaps folk are content to just wait for the end of season figures. Can't speak for anyone else but for me personally, I find this watching every square inch of ice rather tedious.

Oh goody. We've hardly had a drop around here for ooo, nearly 24 hours now.

Thank you. That's the one I was thinking of - you're a little star!

Here's some info on the Lockwood one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8615789.stm Can't remember the specifics on the other but it's been posted here before, will dig around tomorrow - perhaps in the Solar thread???

There's a growing movement to paint surfaces white, roofs, road surfaces and indeed mountains; there's got to be a way to include Greenland ice sheets in that list.

We may be approaching Solar max but the decline to this current cycle was a prolonged quiet one, the incline to this max has been a slow and stuttering one, with the expected climax being much, much lower than the last few cycles; perhaps as slow and low as the Dalton minima. The move towards a Grand Minimum is not expected in 40-200 years time, the general mood and thoughts have shifted to this cycle and the next being likely to be deep minima. The Livingston & Penn theory is gaining ground and showing consistent results on a monthly basis, supported by official observation by themselves and other Solar Physicists - Dr. L Svalgaard, among other highly regarded experts fully support their work and expect their findings to re-write what we thought we knew about the Sun. Their work is currently being prepared for peer review. As for the Solar influence upon weather and climate - Lockwood published a paper last year (supported by other later studies) which show how and why a quiet Sun influences weather. The changes in TSI together with changes in UV levels alter the pressure patterns. The Lockwood paper focussed upon the influence in winter with a prediction for colder, snowier winters in our part of the globe; although the paper made no mention of summer weather, it seems highly improbable that the impact would be restricted to the winter season. The long term impact upon climate was covered either last year or earlier this year by a Danish study (can't remember the names but a quick Google should find it) - it showed quite conclusively that a quiet Sun does have an impact upon climate but the lag or connection to cycle is longer than previously thought. Any influence from the Sun upon climate lags from one cycle to the next; any current impact will be from the previous cycle (23) the influence from this current much quieter cycle won't be felt for at least another 6 years, possibly 10.

I think we've crossed wires here, either that or it's too late for me to understand..... It may be driven by heat already in the system but the argument was that open water was non reflective whilst ice was reflective - thus open water will allow more energy to be absorbed. Fine in theory so long as the open water doesn't generate more water vapour, which in turn generates more cloud which is as reflective or more reflective than the lost ice. The albedo effect may be lost at Earth level from less ice, but it may actually be replaced above the Earth in the form of clouds.

And you're still talking with a level of certainty which currently doesn't exist. By all means talk about the current ice situation, but personally I find it a bit tedious just monitoring ice levels and would rather discuss the wider issues of how, why and what we can expect in the future.

That depends upon the primary reason for the melt - and I'm not talking natural versus manmade. We know that ocean cycles take eons to complete a cycle, we also know that oceans act like a giant storage heater; it is possible that extra heat from both higher than normal Solar activity (past cycle) and the addition of CO2 may be stored and exerting their influence. It may not be an accurate representation of what is currently happening, but more a reflection of what has already happened. Does that make any sense??? It may be that as the ice melts, more open water generates more water vapour and thus clouds and that the knock on impact will be a negative feedback. Where that point of possible balance/equilibrium may be, or even if it exists, is yet to be established. This isn't gibberish from my addled brain but a real part of the unknowns in this equation - it genuinely is a mistake to take the open water/loss of albedo at face value - it's far more complicated than that. In the words of NSIDC: " Feedbacks between temperature, cloud cover and radiation are potentially important agents of climate change. However, they are not well understood and research in this area is active". http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/feedback_loops.html

But you're assuming that it's as simple as remove a reflective surface, replace it with a non reflective one, and the old maths stays the same. What if the open water leads to the formation of reflective clouds? They may bounce back more energy than the dirty ice.

Stop being so patronising. I've asked you before and I'll ask you again, if you can produce peer reviewed papers for the questions I ask then I'll eat my words.