Iceberg

But it doesn't, It's good for the environment but don't think it means your CO2 footprint it neutralised because it ain't. Let agree to disagree.

The old saying comes to mind "it's good to say sorry if you've done something wrong, but it's better not to do something wrong in the first place". It's good that people do something as long as they don't think that that something will solve the problem.

There are a lot of carbon offseting companies that do just that in China, however it costs approx 20 times more to offset your carbon that way, the real way.

Nothing against NW, but this is the type of feel good environmentalism that gets my goat. It's not about planting new tree's, it's about reducing the amount of CO2 emitted.... If you want to offset carbon by helping to pay for a methane cap on a mine in China, fine but a tree will take many years to offset the carbon, it won't be immediate. Sorry difficult to satisfy everybody all of the time and I know I will appear like a Victor but...... Might as well recycle bloody chirstmas cards !. Anyway good that the AGW message is getting through !

Personally I think it's more arrogant that Man has no effect on our climate, we effect everything else, why should climate be different. TBH Option 2 is kind of a catch all, so I would expect it to win outright. As to these natural cycles, I started a thread on this (yawn I hear you say ) but basically I'll believe it's natural when somebody can at least give a credible theory (I am not even asking them to prove it ! ). Matt

Polykov's main emphesis is that the warming up of the artic is not in doubt (not that you could doubt it given the recent measurements). Rather he repeatedly argues that warming is due to natural cycles in ocean flow, predominently from the Atlantic and the post GS streams and THC drivers. This is an arguement I have total respect for and it shows that non AGW theories can be peer reviewed as long as they are based on sound science. The other side is below. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/1...0.x?cookieSet=1 My personal opinion is that Polykov has successfully identified the key cycles over the past 100 years in determining natural climate variability in the artic. However for the last 2 years the warming in the artic has moved up another gear, almost as if the natural variability is being enhanced (by IMO AGW). I also think it's quite possible that a tipping point has been hit in the artic whereby the ice will not recover even in times of natural increases. However I don't dismiss his views, it will be interesting to hear his views for 2007-2009 as to why the natural warming has continued to speed up and is now unprecidented in the last 100 years. Matt

I have a lot of respect for Polykov and he is certainly respected internationally, his work is properly published and peer reviewed. Will read now.

Is this his 2006 paper.? I'll answer later, atm I am getting the kids ready for school.

Partly discussed here. http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...8&start=238 Interesting indeed.

A good bit of research (the greenland one! ), and good news that Greenland is perhaps less prone to melting than we first thought.

I agree that alot of the effects are undecided but, but think on balance things will be worse than the mid range IPCC predictions.

The coming two weeks look to see more warmer weather coming into the artic circle. My guess would be 3.7 as the minimum, down from last years. After a bit of rebound the large negative anom has started to go more negative again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6263690.stm "The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested. The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change. There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found. The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate. " My feelings arn't really a surprise in that being sceptical is all well and good, but the amount of disinformation doing the rounds in staggering, if you want to get into the head of a pro AGW theorist then this will help you to understand why patience is often short with those that we see are delibrately skewing the issues. MP's don't help either. Nobody has really been able to explain the make money bit to me. :o

The problem is that there is not a direct correlation between SST's and NAO, It's only one factor in the METO's and UCL's NAO forecast. It's not so much the SST's themselves but the driver behind the SST set up.

Re 2007 summer and beyond. CFS has a pretty isn't going for a particularly fantastic Summer. (unfortunately !).

Interesting I have lot of respect for Polyakov. Latest thoughts http://web.mac.com/barber1818/iWeb/IPY-CFL...L_summary-3.pdf Most GCM's don't model this amount of melting for a good 40-50 years, so I'd largely agree that just surface warming alone isn't the culprit. The figures between the 30's, 40's and 90's are all pretty much of a muchness, I'd guess that 200-2007 is probably a touch higher.

I can't believe that if you believe in niche adaptation you don't believe in natural evolution. the tracing back of DNA shows the inherant evidence of natural evolution, take the dog for example, see how many different types etc of dog have developed in the last 500 years purly through breeding. There is also the jump type of natural evolution i.e a bunch of rabbits living in Europe, suddenly it gets really cold re an ICE AGE one lucky bunny is born with thick hair, normally he would be at a disadvantage but now he's likely to live longer so are his offspring. Rabbits that don't have the thick hair are likely to move south to warmer areas, the ones with thick hair can now enjoy the grass in the colder areas. However the colder weather brings a new preditor so out of the thicker hair rabbits those with the longer legs that can run faster live longer have more offspring etc. The above makes really simple sense which we can see in every day life. This has been going on for Billions of years. Quite along time really for all the different species to develop. The evolution of mammals shows the theory perfectly. The switch from single cell organisms to multi cell organisms probably took hundred's of millions of years and could well have been accidental i.e through DNA complications. No they don't say that certain parts of the body serve no apparent function, but do say that they serve no function anymore i.e they use to in the past when we where swimming in the sea or borrowing in the soil.

I don't want this to turn into a climate thread but what evidence is there to say the whole artic was warmer in the 30's.? For the record the anom is not due to dirty data, confirmed by the site. The oceans are certainly warmer I wonder whether weakening NADW production is keeping the sub surface heat up and more poleward.?

Just been talking to the people behind the cryo site. Yes they can confirm that the largest ever negative anom has been recorded. Their thoughts are that the ice was although widespread was exceptional thin this year, this combined with an above everage radiation effect (i.e there have not been many clouds or LP's) has led to the rapid melt, despite no widespread very high temps really evident. Matt

Bit of thread overlap. http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...p;#entry1010919 Largest ever recorded negative ice anomaly

Massive change for the worst in the last week. We now have the largest negative artic ice anomaly ever recorded. Current it's off the chart. Ice decline also appears to be in free fall, although it has to stop at some point. Last years record minimum now seems very likely to fall. Very sad time

I think it's even greater than currently being reported you only need to look at the latest (todays) high res charts (AMSR+)to see this. Matt

Postive AO = colder artic,but warmer globe negative AO = warmer artic, but colder globe However between 2000 and 2007 it's only been fractionally negative, certainly not enough to account for all the melting that's taken place. Matt

But the problem is you could plot truncy rates at schoool and it would show the same trend match.....

Another lowly 0.1 drop to 15.7, after today the CET should pretty much stay stable.