Nick B

What a great way to sum up how little we've had off the Atlantic recently!

Rather a bold assertion to make, surely? The physics of this are complicated in the extreme, surely, otherwise we would all already know the outcome of this warming event. I don't pretend to understand this stuff anywhere near as well as GP, for instance, and senior forecasters such as JH and those who have obviously done a good deal of background research such as NSSC and the instigator of this thread, C, defer many times to the depth of GP's research in this field and that of Global Angular Momentum etc. You must have studied this in great detail over a number of years, then?

Thanks! All makes good sense. Especially the phrase I put into bold. This would seem to me to be the way in which your freight train analogy would work - I would have thought its effects would be shown in the models as a relatively immediate about-turn, particularly if they have been showing synoptics other than blocking. On a slightly mischievous note, if it does indeed occur favourably for snow- and cold-lovers in the UK, it could be fun watching the models blindsiding a few of the posters who perhaps watch each and every run a bit too closely! Ah well, they should have had enough warnings about it by now!

Absolutely, wrt the purpose of this thread. It's been exemplary in general in terms of the quality of input from most members and I am doing my best to keep up, join dots and learn as much as possible. Certainly your posts, C's and GP's (though his take a bit of fathoming!) have been very enlightening. To try to add a question that may be of interest, are there any main potential factors that could scupper this type of MMW from leading to a blocking scenario? If so, what type of event do you anticipate might be strong enough to overcome the warming and the negative zonal wind anomalies? This is regardless of exactly where the blocking might occur, since I assume that can vary in placement and affect local areas in dramatically different ways? I sort of anticipate you saying that's jumping the gun, really, and best to wait until after winter when we can study the findings properly. However, I'm just curious to know if there are any niggly doubts about propagation being overcome by any overlooked factors. Maybe you don't have any!

Maybe this belongs more in the political thread, but if this is the route we're heading, just think how our present governments and the UN departments (IPCC) will be viewed in terms of using AGW and "carbon taxes" to fill their coffers for their short term ideological gains... when the funding would have been better spent on working out how to cope with food production in a global cooldown! I feel many of these phenomena (e.g. HALE winters, solar minima and SSW's) are related in a cyclical way - that is the way nature tends to work. Purely my opinion and of course there are many examples to the contrary, but it's a gut instinct for me.

Governments in the Western world are driven by economics, led by massive corporations in particular. Economies are driven by (over-) consumption and this necessarily includes the use of resources, particularly including fuel. Poorer economies have generally only just begun to tap into their available resources and there is precious little sign of any slowing, barring recessions etc. in particular, there are many countries continuing to de-forest huge areas, which will of course affect the overall carbon sink (if you see CO2 as being a big driver) as well as local climates in terms of annual precipitation. Maybe this is a generalization but it seems their consumption will rise at an ever faster rate as the developed world's cheaper resources begin to decline. If this is affecting global climate, other than asking why accelerate it, what can be done? As long as competitive economic behaviour between nations exists, I am concerned that one individual questioning what can be done about the root cause you suggest, which when it boils down to it is plain human greed, is like a fly buzzing in the path of an oncoming windscreen asking what can be done to change the path of the car. It may or may not have a huge impact on the climate with flips etc. - we can't tell clearly because I don't see there being enough clear objective data - but it surely will have a negative impact on the world and subsequently quality of human and other life forms. So, what do you suggest?!

Agree with much of that. I suspect the reason for the London buses farce is down to one or possibly two main factors. The first is due to the infrequency of lying snow, slush and ice in the capital, modern drivers as a rule won't know how to drive in it in the same way as those of 30 or 40 years ago could. Not just buses but also cars of course. The insurance companies may have had a hand in the decision? Also, they've got new buses. I'll bet the old ones with the open door at the back managed snow better. I'm just talking rubbish though, because I don't know for sure! Definitely agree that people have come to rely on cars for longer and longer commutes and this means they can't face the prospect of a long journey in the snow. The idea of breaking down is scary and unpalatable because it means you have to go prepared with extra clothing and blankets which, though they could, most people just don't do. Also, it means having to get out of bed much earlier and setting off much sooner because you just have to drive slower. Younger and less experienced drivers are fairly clueless about anticipating the unexpected in terms of just how slippery ice can be. Many will happily drive in freezing conditions at similar speeds as in the wet, thinking they'll get away with it. No wonder so many crashes happen with the knock-on effect that other people can't get to work. Of course if you live on a hill it may well be a case of don't even think about it unless you have snow chains or a proper off-roader anyway...

Never mind Reef, go and have another read of GP's post in the GWO thread on the 31st. I wouldn't wan't to bet against his summary and if he's right you will get shedloads in the near future...

Would PM a thank you to you and pottyprof but don't know how, so, anyway, thank you... I hate writing stuff like this because I always want to edit. Then reading it back also... Also, it wasn't qualified in any way with any evidence, so not much substance. Just how I see the issues as I thought about it as I read other people's posts.

Would seem to reinforce the Svensmark theory? Shrinking Heliosphere due to lowered solar output allows more cosmic particles to reach the upper atmosphere, causes more Stratospheric Warming, leads to more blocking patterns over a period of time leads to climatic changes?

Agree with much of this, especially the final paragraph. This is actually opening a massive philosophical can of beans... Political ideologies tend to be, in my opinion, either: 1/ an attempt to create a set of living conditions which will benefit a group of people, eg. of a country, an ethnic origin, but rarely unfortunately does it genuinely reach beyond these limitations (ie benefit all mankind, or better our entire planet) except in lip service. 2/ an attempt to justify a similar group's set of living conditions, action and behaviours, or 3/ a reaction against another ideology which in some way denies a group of people's set of living conditions from realising the potential wished for. The means by which these ideologies, whether for net good or bad, are able to spread, is dictated by the level and types of 'control' that is in influence in an area, state, country etc., eg. in this country we can speak out against the State because we have a democratic procedure that tries to ensure that the law is interpreted by judges and not for instance those wielding the power. We have other problems, such as disinterest and voter apathy meaning we can have a government voted in on a proportionately small percentage of the voting community. Essentially there is a problem we have to contend with: We are an animal species and although we differ in many ways in terms of our development from other animal species, we certainly share one trait. That is, given an available habitat, with enough resource, we as a race will expand to the limit of our potential in that habitat. Just like in a stable ecology, you will find a fixed ratio in the food chain, which is dictated according to the environment from the smallest single cell life form up to the 'top-feeders'. The trouble is, we are changing our environment. Note I am not following the AGW argument here. I am talking simply about our quest to use more and more resources in order to expand that potential so that every habitat is exploited to a degree which is harmful. Why is Antarctica the least spoilt continent? Because we don't live there... Some of the ways these resources are used may well be beneficial in some ways to the environment, but the overwhelming majority are not. Some affect locally, some affect globally. Effects are impacting and will further impact habitats detrimentally on the whole. So, AGW... As long as people can grasp cause and effect, there will always be political influences involved on both sides of the argument that's being created. But my understanding is it should not an argument but a whole spectrum of issues involving environment, climate and resources. The last of these is why the power, money and politics comes into play in the first place. When you consider it, can you not think of various political and economic bodies whose short-term vested interests lie in the denial of proper scientific analysis of the real issues? Those with power, i.e. money and the will to use force, will always wield them to ensure their perceived influence is maintained or improved upon. Using a very broad brush, one could say the idea of an AGW 'consensus' is being used by some governments to secure their economic and power-based position by taxation and law-passing for their own ideological gains. The point is many of the points being made under the AGW banner are on the face of it, reasonable. They persuasively speak to fears we have about our (and our grandchildren's) security and are designed to tap into our conscience to make us feel collectively guilty. Sometimes done with everyone's and the environments best interests at heart, but not always. Where is the funding coming from and why? What ideology is driving the message that is sent out, and is the perceived gain for the few or all, and I don't just mean the human race? It is scientifically correct to look thoroughly at the way we over-use resources, burn our fuels, clear rainforest and other areas which should be protected, to form theories and collect evidence. This can then lead towards further theories which suggest more positive (less harmful) ways for us to interact with our world, because it is all we have and we continue to do it harm, rather than nurturing it. If it's really getting warmer over time, the human race is certainly in better shape in terms of habitat than if it's getting cooler. If you had to choose between the two, which would you take? One thing is certain - it has never and will never stay at the same temperature, which is what those in power surely want? The only real fear governments of 'developed' countries have, as well as many of their citizens, is what they stand to lose in the event of warming or cooling. As a whole, the human race would stand to gain if it's warming (up to a point!) because of increased food production. True, there might be a percentage reduction in usable land mass. Again, political problems, not survival ones. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is measurably increasing. Good, one could say. Plants like that stuff and grow better. Again, you could say simplistically, people win in the short term, without taking into account different and diverse ecologies and species of plants, fungi, animals, bacteria etc. But you have to assume all things are related in nature, whether directly or indirectly, because that is the essence of how life functions. Some species get to enjoy relatively long periods of time in which to thrive, develop and evolve. Others don't and the factors which affect both scenarios can be based on the flimsiest of pretexts. Mankind cannot dissociate itself from the equation in the arrogant way that has been demonstrated from the industrial revolution onwards. Our ability as a species to thrive develop and, I suppose, evolve in the near term may rest on our intellectual and collective abilities. The longer term isn't really for us to say! My personal slant re the GW/AGW issues: Are we affecting our environment? Obviously. Can we know how that will have impacted and will impact the climate as it was, is and will be? No, because we don't or can't see all the evidence and patterns that could give us clear answers. So what can we do? It is a moral and individual responsibility of every human being on the planet to respect, nurture and protect our environment around us, including people, animals and ecosystems. Our own personal choices affect all these things in small and sometimes not so small ways. Do I personally think AGW is a big player compared to natural forcing and cycles? I suspect not, given what I have read so far. But I keep an open mind (hopefully). It is there and real, but I think it's likely that over time the natural forces will turn out to be bigger than we suspected. Can politics serve the debate in any useful way? Only when people who understand the science and whose ideology is connected meaningfully with the good of the environment and the diverse ecosystems as well as the human race as a whole are leading and influencing the debate. Maybe that's idealistic but what else do we have?

Ok... didn't realise the tab button sends your response!! 1/ A brief glance at the chart used to show the PDO shifts and 'flips' would not convince me that the overall direction is not moving into a big PDO -ve regardless of the two 4-year 'flips'. They don't appear to have much amplitude anyway. Of course, I haven't seen the individual monthly values for those 4 years, but I would actually back the next few in 2009 to re-invigorate the -ve direction, even if it takes a few months to strengthen. 2/ It seems to me that all these various forces impact eachother to some extent, but that we are only on the edge of beginning to understand how. I am not convinced by the CO2 theory being as big an influence as is being touted by many. Light energy from the sun comes as photons of different levels of energy and CO2 only absorbs specific frequencies, releasing the energy as heat in the atmosphere, as I understand it. As far as I can see, the amount of difference that increasing CO2 from its current level to even 4 or 5 times as much would simply not have as huge effect as some people would have you believe. 3/ Deforestation is, I suspect a bigger player than is given emphasis. 4/ Many posts I have seen only want to look at maybe the last 200 years (in 30 year blocks, due to th tradition of handling the data we have in those chunks) or over, say, the last 300 million years, when the continental shape of the planet would have meant a markedly different climate anyway. Is the reason no-one looks at the last 500k to 2M years, for instance, due to the difficulty of obtaining useful and reliable data? Can geological data help in that area? It appears there is an awful lot of clutching at straws going on, picking data from whichever useful source can bolster one side of the argument. Having looked at these points, I am sure this will be moved to a slightly different discussion, but it was the reference to the PDO 'flips' that triggered it.

Have lurked for some time now in a few of the areas of the forum. Good to see plenty of lively discussion here. Would like to respond to the dierction this is going with a few questions and musings... 1/