ghrud
-
Posts
101 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by ghrud
-
-
I'm not an expert but the answer is the former.
At the end of the 6 o'clock news last night, Alex Deakin said February had been the coldest since 1996. In fact, 2003 and 2006 were colder. What are they checking against and why can't they get a simple fact such as this correct?
I think I watched that and I'm not sure but I think he was refering to winter as a whole not just February.
-
Anyone read this http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
-
So, if the Met Office said AGW isn't happening then, erm, it is? You see the problem?
You need proof to blame mankind for warming the planet. The climate is and will always change but are we to blame, the goverment and the METO want us to think so. However, they provide no proof only theory.
-
Do you mean this article?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...pr20090211.html
“When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we “believe in climate change”. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity’s activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.”
I'd hardly say that her last paragraph suggests AGW is dead in the water.....
If you're a goverment funded body perhaps you have to say what you're told to say. I think the term is "spin"
-
That is a poor attempt to put a positive spin on the facts!
It ignores the actual article, but with regards to the link to the northwest passage, it's clear Amundsen didn't simply 'sail' through but rather managed to pick himself through it.
I was attempting to sit on the fence actually and imply that this needs far more studying.
-
This appraisal is quite sobering -
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMaste...l?entrynum=1177
Any claims that this has been the first time the passage has opened up in recent history, say last 6000 years, is very doubtful. This area of the arctic has only been intensively studied since 1979....
...it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906....and this was long before anybody new anything about man induced climate change.
-
If you breathe in Hydrogen Cyanide gas at 4.7 ppm concentration, you are within safe/permissible exposure limits - some authorities stretch that as high as 10 ppm over an eight-hour period. By your logic, if we up that by an 'insignificant' 80 ppm (to 85 or 90 ppm) there should be no problem. In fact exposure to just 50 ppm of HCN for 30 minutes is classified as “Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH)”. Add on another 'insignificant' 80 ppm (to 165 or 190 ppm) and you are at around the 20 minute LC50 level - i.e. 50% of those breathing it at that level would be expected to be dead within 20 mins.
Now, OF COURSE I am not suggesting that CO2 is a poisonous gas in the same way as HCN. I am merely pointing out the flaw in your logic: small increases in gaseous concentrations can and do have dramatic effects.
Ossie
I think your analogy is a bit misplaced, as I understand it these are the main green house gas offenders - water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFCs. Of which I hasten to add, water vapour accounts for up to 70%.
-
PPM
Ad it's not one ppm it's 380 ppm or .038%. And, indeed it still doesn't sound like much. Which just goes to show a little CO2 goes a long way climate wise.
Yes, sorry I did notice my mistake :o putting PPB instead PPM but couldn't be bothered to change it as I had some Christmas shopping to do. However, my point was how insignificant an extra 80 PPM is by giving an example of how small 1 PPM is. Still, I must say you're on the ball can't of be on the christmas pop yet then!
-
Actually, if you look at the ice cores over the last, what, 400,000 yrs, CO2 hasn't been much below 200ppm or above 300ppm. Now, in a century, a blink of the eye geologically, it's 380ppm+....
Just to put a bit of perspective on this -
How small is PPB?You stock up with 10,000 boxes of tissues, each with 200 sheets. You use two sheets.
or
A 30 second TV commercial, relative to the time in one year, is about one part per million.
-
Dead right, Dev!
I do get impatient with those whose only recourse is to pick nits with established theory, as though that amounts to an alternative theory in itself...You cannot prove that CO2 is opaque to shortwave radiation at all wavelengths, ergo I can justifiably claim that it isn't opaque to shortwave radiation at all!
Water flows down hill - Fact. Global warming induced by mans activity - Theory. Spot the difference?
-
We have been noting the same level of warming over the Tropics (now we use the instrumentation correctly) Though the 'ironing out' of the data issues was newsworthy in 2003/4 the contrarians don't seem to have caught up yet!
We now use the 'thermal drift' of the weather balloons to check temp/trends and ,hey presto, the tropics are warming nicely with the rest of us.....
Is that a royal "WE" GW or are you directly involved some how?
-
I don't see anything in that quote (as you show it) that suggests "global warming". As I see it the inference is all yours, all the quote does is state facts.
As Jane Austen might have put it, one or two of us doth protest too much!
Perhaps the message is too sublimimal, here's a better example -
BBC News - Tuesday, 6 February 2007, 12:34 GMT“Climate change ‘affecting’ China - Unseasonably warm weather in north China has been linked to climate change“
At least 300,000 people in north-west China are short of drinking water because of unseasonably warm weather, which officials link to climate change. Parts of Shaanxi province face drought after January saw as little as 10% of average rainfall, state media say. Frozen lakes are melting and trees are blossoming in the capital Beijing as it experiences its warmest winter for 30 years, the China Daily reported.
[...] The country’s top meteorologist, Qin Dahe, said the recent dry and warm weather in northern China was related to global warming. [...]
BBC News - Thursday, 31 January 2008, 13:53 GMT
“Food warnings amid China freeze - Millions of people have been affected by the severe snow“
China is struggling to cope with its worst snowfall in decades, with officials warning of future food shortages as winter crops are wrecked.[...]
Dozens are thought to have died as much of the country endures one of its harshest winters for half a century.
EDIT
Sorry, forgot the links: -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6334749.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7219092.stm
Count the number of times climate change gets a mention in each artical. In reality is this reporting about climate or is it just weather.
-
My point exactly because within a few paragraphs you get -
...back to global warming again.Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the UK Met Office of which the Hadley Centre is a part, suggested that in previous decades 2008 would have stood out as unusually warm. "Human influence, particularly emission of greenhouse gases, has greatly increased the chance of having such warm years," he said.Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), which produces its own record of atmospheric temperature, agreed that 2008 was the coolest year since the turn of the century.
But Giss still ranks it as the ninth warmest since 1880.
-
Could it be that the Beeb is just reflecting the majority scientific view in a way the majority of the public wish to see it displayed???? nooooo surely not, why the past two months have only been witihn the top 10 'warm months' globally and not atop of the list....the wheels are comin' off I tell you........anyone sayin' different is a liar and a buffoon and in the pay of a global consortium of warmists........
EDIT: now how does Pottyproff word it??? t'was but a jest.......or some such.....
Just because the majority of the scientific community hold this view doesn't make it correct. A good scientist will keep an open mind until something can be proved without doubt. Scientific reporting should follow the same principle. I think you'll find this majority you talk of is now becoming very narrow.
-
The BBC is bias and its rhetoric on global warming is relentless with no balance in there argument what so ever. I defy anyone to find a recent report from the BBC giving news space to the opposite side of the argument that the recent warming is natural climate change and the trend is now towards cooling.
-
Record overall low or not doesn't really matter, the trend continues and at local level the warming has been alarming. We have seen unprecedented events this Summer up in the Arctic and I expect we'll see similar things happening down south once again during the Antarctic Summer.
Whilst it's encouraging to see some degree of slow down up north this season, I fear in the grand scheme of things it matters little, if at all.
AGAIN! What do you mean? Example please.
-
LOL Laserguy!!!
Didn't we have some ''taint happeneing' from the same source in March??? now it's "we always knew it was happeneing 'cos we're in an interglacial''
I did wonder (out loud) only a page or two ago about how the 'naysayers' would cope with accepting the rapid changes to the cryosphere and it would seem we have our answer!
OOOh, all that icy stuff's gone.......wadarwe gonna do????
Lets exploit our new northern territories!!!!
A true scientist always has an open mind.
-
Reading the london metro today it says a 18sq km (7sq mile) slab has split from the Canadian ice platform and is slowly drifting into the Arctic Ocean. Its been in stiu for 3,000 years
The story is all doom and gloom , different story to some posts on here ? Is the story over inflated hype ?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/climatewatch/a...amp;in_a_source=
Can we assume then that 3000 years ago no ice platform existed in this area? If that is the case then perhaps we could look at is this way... ice has been building for the last 3000 years and this is just a minor set back on its relentless journey towards the next iceage. :lol:
-
I wasn't going to rise to it Laser but what the hey!!!
If that 'ice cube' was jamming some ice blocks in place and they ,in their turn, were holding in place some house sized ice blocks which, in their turn, were holding back N.I. sized sheets of ice which , in their turn, were holding back a continent of ice 3 miles thick from slipping into the sea then I'd be worried to see the 'ice cube' fail.
One heck of a card house but the cards are starting to fail.
One heck of a domino chain but the first dom' is toppling.
Can you point me in the direction of some science that can substantiate your theory of this domino effect?
-
Well its been stable for the last century, it's lost 1350 km² with a rough estimate of 500 to 700 km² in addition being lost if the bridge to Charcot Island collapses.
It looks as if something different is happening to this shelf over Larsen B.
How can you state that this ice shelf has been stable for the last century; where are you getting your statistics from? We've only had satellite data since the late 70's.
Also, to a point GW raised earlier in this thread about the reporting of the Argentine Perito Moreno glacier Ice Dam. I've done a little reseach on this and according most of the Argentine tourist WEB sites the ice dam, breaks-up and rebuilds on a regular basis, didn't exist at the end of the 19th century as the glacier that forms it was some 700m futher back up the mountain. Which would suggest that this glacier is advancing not receeding. Note the word suggests, as I don't know if it is fact!
-
I'm going to go for 15.9
-
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Scientis...urrent_999.html
The above may prove to be a player in the arctic ocean circulations especially the waters entering through Bering and into the Arctic Basin (helping run the clockwise circulation behind Bering) that has been seen to 'flush out' the single year ice over the past few years.
If the research 'forcasts' are correct then the warming world will strengthen the pattern and ,in turn, put more energy into the arctic circulation.
As you know I have concerns over the remaining 'multiyear ice' nestled in it's 'sanctuary' to the north of Greenland. Last year, at the end of the melt season the mass lurched north and this would now place it directly on the lower limb of the circulation and draw it into the less protected central Arctic sea.
I agree but as the article says, this is a newly discovered current and therefore little will be known about it yet. I think some hard facts are required about this phenomenon before deciding what influence it may have. Interesting read though!
-
As you know the degradation of the ice sheets in Antarctica is not dependant on sea ice levels, in fact more sea ice exerts greater leverage on shelf edges when sea swells are icreased (due to a faster circumpolar wind) leading to an increase in shelf failure. We all know from the Peninsula what happens to the glaciers behind when you take away the fringing coastal shelf ice and just how busy things are below both East and West Antarctic ice sheets.
Too much ice, too little ice; you can't have your cake and eat it!
-
Southern sea ice building rapidly again now and still well above average.
Arctic Ice 2009
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
There seems to be a late surge at the moment, could still end up being the greatest extent in last five years. Although trend still downwards at the moment.