The Next Ice Age

[Methuselah]

Sorry to be repetive but don't you think the speed of the warm up could be artificial Global Dimming thyatw e caused has now ended possibly 88 or 97 both are years that could be regarded as intial end and absolute end of the Dimming that we casued. Thsi dimming slowed the rate of increase, after the dimming the rate of increase in CO2 speede up, this does show up in the data available of official sites etc. I won't say it's be all and end all but, even if it is, because I'm definately not an expert.

Yes Mike. I certainly do...But isn't it just a case of one pollutant masking the effect of another??

[Guest Mike W]

Except CO2 isn't really a pollutant and nature obviously doesn't think it is or it would get the same treatment as SO2 and only stay up their for a week or two aswell instead of 30-50 years! Their are two things they could have done, most favoured option would have been to introduce bio-fuels, nuclear power, renewables etc within a year or two after the clean air act or less favourable limit the clean air act to only moving the emmisions out of built up areas and only reducing the stuff from cars, while only reducing both emmisions from alternative energy and fuel.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Mike W

[The Penguin]

. . . . What we are seeing now is scotland rising (now that the huge weight of ice sheets have gone) and therefore southern england is going back down, . . .

Hoorah!

On the subject of temperature records, it's worth keeping in mind that although what we take to be accurate records are multi-sourced, the published figures are manipulated to iron out anomalies. Without prejudice, this introduces personal views of what constitutes an anomaly. And as we're only talking about a fraction of One Degree Cee this could be a material concern.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

WIB

Firstly good to see you back and welcome. I did say air temps have not risen for 20 years and all the checking I have done I found no dispute to this, surface temps may have but the recording is possibly not as accurate as could be and air temp measurements have been cited even by the warmist lobby as the indisputable argument for warming/rapid warming, it is not responding! I believe honestly that some warming has occurred but I go down the line that it is ocean warming because the seas have warmed, maybe the surface temps too but air temps not. The temp in the arctic (air temp) 2004/5 is measured as the same as in 1938 but the sea ice is less and this despite the cooling in the mid 20th century. Ablation/sublimation have been cited as reasons but I don't buy it simply because the ice melt seems to be sea ice...and that tells me that the seas are warmer. Kilimanjaro's glacier IMO is retreating because of lack of precipitation [East Africa has ben in a drought for some years] and the accelerated retreat of recent years is cited as GW. IMO sublimation is valid here. Antarctica CONTINENTAL ice is thickening, so is Greenland and any advance IMO is due to this...more snow, more thickness and then advancement... not because the main glacier is melting below and lubricating movement, this would suggest thinning but it isn't. NASA have recorded Greenland temps falling for 20 years...so how is the main glacier melting? Many Alpine glaciers have shown retreat but we remember the many snowless pictures of the 90s (sublimation?), if the snow continues like it has for the last 3-4 years what will the measurements be say in another 5 years? Time will tell but I don't buy it yet. During an ice age [controversial this] vegetation and particularly forestation was an 8th in size compared to now even with all the chopping down we're doing as its either glacation or desert as in 18000 years ago...forests and vegetation don't prevent warming they grow as CO2 increases. However i don't like what's happening down there.

I don't see any proven unprecedented warming for the reasons I have cited, I still at present see cycles, yes I agree we are warming but not unprecedntly. Remember and this is an important quote the chief scientist advising on GW to the government stated 'GW may well now be inevitable'....excuse me but I thought the view was we are in GW and it was manmade?

BFTP

[West is Best]

WIB

Firstly good to see you back and welcome. I did say air temps have not risen for 20 years and all the checking I have done I found no dispute to this, surface temps may have but the recording is possibly not as accurate as could be and air temp measurements have been cited even by the warmist lobby as the indisputable argument for warming/rapid warming, it is not responding!

I cry foul. You know as well as I do that series such as the CET did not have airborne temperature measurements in the mid C17th!!!! Come on - play fair! You can't appeal to a temperature measurement means that is 1. relatively new 2. very localised.

[Roger J Smith]

As I mentioned in another thread, reduction of ice cover in the Canadian arctic (the Beaufort Sea in particular) has been linked to albedo changes that result when increasing amounts of sooty particulates are transported into the arctic from eastern Asia and dropped onto the ice pack. Even if ambient temperatures remained steady, this would lead to greater melting due to the reflectivity change. Air temperatures at most Canadian arctic weather stations have shown a general rise of 1 to 3 Celsius degrees when one compares 1971-2000 to earlier periods. There has been a general check in this rising curve since 1999 and a slight decrease is evident most recently.

While some cite these rises as "indisputable" evidence of global warming (and remember, even if so, that does not prove a link to the greenhouse gases, it could be natural variations at work), I am not so convinced that it has a vast significance at all. The winter mean temperatures in the Canadian arctic remain in the -30 range © and it is hardly a catastrophic or runaway warming that we are seeing. It would take a whole century of warming similar to that observed in 1971-2000 to produce substantial change in the arctic environment. However, the rate of sea ice melting is not only dependent on local ambient temperature, but also ocean current changes in other regions, this matter of sooty deposition I just mentioned, and changes in precipitation or wind parameters.

I think it is a form of tunnel vision to look at climate variation as either warming or not warming. The future may be complex and there is no reason why the 21st century might not see several different periods with identifiable differences. The past was generally like that, so why not the future as well?

[Methuselah]

....excuse me but I thought the view was we are in GW and it was manmade?

BFTP

Partly man-made, yes. But no-one's denying Nature's cycles...The problem with the man-made bit, IMO, is that it's all one-way???

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I cry foul. You know as well as I do that series such as the CET did not have airborne temperature measurements in the mid C17th!!!! Come on - play fair! You can't appeal to a temperature measurement means that is 1. relatively new 2. very localised.

WIB

Maybe I should have added that this type of measurement is one to monitor over coming decades to see how temperatures change or not.

Roger, very interesting post and a big further addition to try and help understand what is going on. I for one did not know that, cheers.

Pete, there you go again chucking one in :lol:

BFTP

[West is Best]

WIB

Maybe I should have added that this type of measurement is one to monitor over coming decades to see how temperatures change or not.

I agree. But throw out the tried and tested, universally available, surface temps at your peril. Someone uncharitable would just say it seems a convenient way to dodge the fact that the earth is getting alarmingly warmer ...

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I agree. But throw out the tried and tested, universally available, surface temps at your peril. Someone uncharitable would just say it seems a convenient way to dodge the fact that the earth is getting alarmingly warmer ...

West

I won't throw it out but will mention they are under scrutiny due to the effect of urban growth and locations of therms'. Glad you're not uncharitable as I did cover my point in one of the posts :lol: that this air temp method has been cited by AGW lobbyists as the method that will indisputably prove it due to its alleged infallible accuracy. I watch and monitor to see developments over the coming decades? :lol:

BFTP

Edited April 27, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Optimus Prime]

the earth is getting alarmingly warmer ...

You may it sound like it has to be a bad thing. During the sudden cool down from 1979-1987 scientists were worried the earth was going through another major cold shift like that of 1940-1969. Instead from 1988 we started warming up incredibly fast. A cold phase similar to 1940-1969 would be as bad if not an awful lot worse to the economy and nature than a warm up would be.

[High Altitude]

All in moderation i think is the key. Too much warming and we disappear under the ocean and too much cooling we disappear under a layer of ice.

[Guest Mike W]

We started warming up incredibly fast from 1988 because thats when world governments stepped up their commitmetn to massively reducing cooling pollutants, by upgrading their Clean Air Acts, while not dealing with warming emmisions, so you end up getting Co2 levels rising even higher, while SO2 emmisions [and soot] getting alot lower, result big warm up. The Clean Air is a good thing to have, but they should have looked at the stuff it leaves out.

Edited April 27, 2006 by Mike W

[Methuselah]

[T]hat this air temp method has been cited by AGW lobbyists as the method that will indisputably prove it due to its alleged infallible accuracy.

BFTP

There are no 'infallible' methods in science BFTP. :lol:

Just thought I'd throw that in! :lol:

[Thundery wintry showers]

You may it sound like it has to be a bad thing. During the sudden cool down from 1979-1987 scientists were worried the earth was going through another major cold shift like that of 1940-1969. Instead from 1988 we started warming up incredibly fast. A cold phase similar to 1940-1969 would be as bad if not an awful lot worse to the economy and nature than a warm up would be.

You sure about that?

It would certainly depend on the extent of the warm up. A 1-2C rise over the British Isles. could probably be just about coped with (although the rise in death tolls, insurance etc. from August 2003-type heatwaves would start to seriously offset the death rate reductions from lack of cold winters, not to mention growth of pests due to mild winters). However, 3-4C, and I reckon that there could be serious problems.

The other issues are that (a) anthropogenic inputs into climate change are a particularly large concern due to the massive uncertainties associated with them, and ( :blink: if the world warmed up by 2C, it wouldn't necessarily follow that Britain would warm by 2C- changes in synoptics could bring a 5C warming, or the NAD could shut down and result in a 5C cooling, plus many, many other possibilities.

The "in moderation" principle works the other way too. In moderation colder winters may not necessarily be a bad thing in that they may at least reduce the mass hysteria and whinging that arises whenever a flake of snow falls and improve preparedness, and perhaps remind people that having fun is part of life just as much as work, but a 1963 would really push Britain to the limit of acceptable tolerance levels.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

There are no 'infallible' methods in science BFTP. :blink:

Just thought I'd throw that in! :lol:

Yep, thanks Pete! :blink:

BFTP

[Guest Mike W]

Looks like summer now starts in May and it used to be a Spring month. I think if this warming does carry on, in a few years, summer will start begining of May and end in the second/third week of October with 11/12.** being the main annaul CET with 10.** being the exception.

[West is Best]

Looks like summer now starts in May and it used to be a Spring month. I think if this warming does carry on, in a few years, summer will start begining of May and end in the second/third week of October with 11/12.** being the main annaul CET with 10.** being the exception.

Well it's certainly interesting that those Met Office designations we've been discussing, and their seasons, mean that they've cut spring and autumn down to two months each! In the old days the 4 seasons were 3 months long a piece, either based on the equinoxes or the metereological seasons - hence:

Winter: December to February

Spring: March to May

Summer: June to August

Autumn: September to November

But this Met Office link http://www.metoffice.com/weather/europe/uk/guide.html now makes it:

Winter: mid-November to mid-March (4 months)

Spring: mid-March to mid-May (2 months)

Summer: mid-May to mid-September (4 months)

Autumn: mid-September to mid-November

Found this graph which is interesting ...

[Guest Mike W]

Just wondering what the numbers on the right represent. A bit of background to the graph would be nice.

Edited April 30, 2006 by Mike W

[The PIT]

You may it sound like it has to be a bad thing. During the sudden cool down from 1979-1987 scientists were worried the earth was going through another major cold shift like that of 1940-1969. Instead from 1988 we started warming up incredibly fast. A cold phase similar to 1940-1969 would be as bad if not an awful lot worse to the economy and nature than a warm up would be.

Agreed as we're not geared for a cold winters anymore. Taking into account that power suppliers would struggle to supply the needed energy a cooling period down would be bad. Of course if the Government got of it's backside and encouraged people to use alternative energy the impact wouldn't be so bad. It also a worry that we can't even feed ourselfs and have to depend on imports.

[Guest Mike W]

Can't see cooling down happening, if at all, IMO

Agree about the necessaity for implementing altenative energy and fuel, my favourite is this:CARBON EMISSIONS: 0 tonnes

ELECTRICITY GENERATED: 400bn kilowatt hours

COST PER HOUSEHOLD: £317 average bill

Carbon emissions are within target. You’ve met UK electricity demand. Your electricity costs slightly more than now.

You’ll be building 0 new fossil fuel power-stations, 21 new nuclear reactors and 9,255 new wind turbines plus other renewable installations (see below), insulating 0 houses, and buying 0% of electricity from overseas

I done this on the BBC Energy calculator which can be found here: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/...ble/default.stm

Edited April 30, 2006 by Mike W

[Dawlish]

West

I won't throw it out but will mention they are under scrutiny due to the effect of urban growth and locations of therms'. Glad you're not uncharitable as I did cover my point in one of the posts :blush: that this air temp method has been cited by AGW lobbyists as the method that will indisputably prove it due to its alleged infallible accuracy. I watch and monitor to see developments over the coming decades? :huh:

BFTP

The NOAA uses 7000 different locations. It's not infallible; some have been engulfed by Urban growth, for sure, but statistically, the network is sound.

[ribster]

Hi all, not sure that its the right place for this, but I was reading a report recently that says the atlantic conveyor has slowed down by 30% over the last 10 years, and the trend is set to continue. Over the next 10 years our average temperature being reduced by 1 degrees. The suggestion being that as the trend continues our climate will actually get cooler.

Just wondered what anyone thinks or knows about that?

Cheers, rib.

[kippure]

Hi all, not sure that its the right place for this, but I was reading a report recently that says the atlantic conveyor has slowed down by 30% over the last 10 years, and the trend is set to continue. Over the next 10 years our average temperature being reduced by 1 degrees. The suggestion being that as the trend continues our climate will actually get cooler.

Just wondered what anyone thinks or knows about that?

Cheers, rib.

I think certain places are to warm up and cool down, maybe if more fresh water is released into the conveyer it will dilute it and restrict its power of warming over us.Maybe colder winters are on the cards after this recent synoptic pattern change which is always a topic in discussion here. It seems that eastern high pressure systems are not been pushed away that easily anymore .The atlantic seems to be in a weakened state and diving south more often now.

[Dawlish]

Hi all, not sure that its the right place for this, but I was reading a report recently that says the atlantic conveyor has slowed down by 30% over the last 10 years, and the trend is set to continue. Over the next 10 years our average temperature being reduced by 1 degrees. The suggestion being that as the trend continues our climate will actually get cooler.

Just wondered what anyone thinks or knows about that?

Cheers, rib.

Quite simply: the report you read was untrue.

Paul