Rapid Climate Change

[Guest]

Scientists and various experts are now telling us that the planet is warming up 'faster than ever'. Even rainforests are contributing to Greenhouse Gases. The effect of all this?

Well according to one such expert on BBC Breakfast, the Uk will undoubtedly get hotter and summers will be drier, with any rainfall likely to be more short-lived and intense, similar to the weather on the continent. Winters are likely to be milder and wetter with a decreased chance of snow, but an increased chance of flooding due to atlantic storms.

Any views?

Cheers

[Gray-Wolf]

Rapid climate change is certainly on the cards (IMO) and is the only thing that will silence the " it's all a natural cycle/we dont have enough historical data to be sure" brigade.

My pet worry is the rapid collapse and ablation of the ice sheets of the planet (both north and south) which I feel are in the opening phases of their demise. Seeing as most of the worlds financial centres will be inundated over a very short time span (even to the point of catastrophic flooding) then total collapse of the developed worlds infrastructure would quickly follow this event leading to our own rapid demise.

[Guest]

Rapid climate change is certainly on the cards (IMO) and is the only thing that will silence the " it's all a natural cycle/we dont have enough historical data to be sure" brigade.

My pet worry is the rapid collapse and ablation of the ice sheets of the planet (both north and south) which I feel are in the opening phases of their demise. Seeing as most of the worlds financial centres will be inundated over a very short time span (even to the point of catastrophic flooding) then total collapse of the developed worlds infrastructure would quickly follow this event leading to our own rapid demise.

I agree, the threat of serious flooding on a global scale scares me.

[Dawlish]

I still think there's a large element of people looking for what they want here.

Wonderful TWS. exactly what happens. Science and mathematics go out of the window as people try to fit the facts to their expectations.

[The Eagle]

Scientists and various experts are now telling us that the planet is warming up 'faster than ever'. Even rainforests are contributing to Greenhouse Gases. The effect of all this?

Well according to one such expert on BBC Breakfast, the Uk will undoubtedly get hotter and summers will be drier, with any rainfall likely to be more short-lived and intense, similar to the weather on the continent. Winters are likely to be milder and wetter with a decreased chance of snow, but an increased chance of flooding due to atlantic storms.

Any views?

Cheers

Just out of interest have they made this scientific data available? I think there are vested interests involved in scare mongering here. Realistically the world warms and cools in phases. I think were just in a warming phase. In the 70s the same ppl were talking about an impending ice age on the basis that temperatures were depressed in the previous decade.

[Methuselah]

Just out of interest have they made this scientific data available? I think there are vested interests involved in scare mongering here. Realistically the world warms and cools in phases. I think were just in a warming phase. In the 70s the same ppl were talking about an impending ice age on the basis that temperatures were depressed in the previous decade.

That was then; this is now...Data tends to be cumulative in nature...

But, to answer your question: aye, there's plenty of data available; NASA, NOAA, IPCC all come to mind.

And, whilst we're on the subject of 'vested interests', try IceAgeNow???

[The Eagle]

That was then; this is now...Data tends to be cumulative in nature...

But, to answer your question: aye, there's plenty of data available; NASA, NOAA, IPCC all come to mind.

And, whilst we're on the subject of 'vested interests', try IceAgeNow???

I mean this sort of scaremongering (and that what it is, it gets sharper every year) is geared to suit vested interests. Its playing right into the hands of the enviromentalists lobby. Ive heard statements, like in 50 years time the Ice caps will be gone. Really? Well make sure thats held up to scrutiny in 50 years time when I know we will be debating the exact same thing were debating now - climate change. The term has been used so much, its actually meaningless now. I mean give us a break. We cant forcast the weather for the week ahead properly!

[kold weather]

Of course the world warms and cools Icicles and global warming is not going to mean a linear rise in global temps. I always remember what SF said: we are raising the BASE temp.

You'll always have months that are cooler then the base and months that are warmer but the overall planet's average temp is rising more so then it has ever done before, with 2005 being one of the warmest ever without even El Nino being present!

Imagine if we had another massive El nino like 1983 and 1998, that year would thrash 1998 as the warmest ever year in global terms.

[The Eagle]

Of course the world warms and cools Icicles and global warming is not going to mean a linear rise in global temps. I always remember what SF said: we are raising the BASE temp.

You'll always have months that are cooler then the base and months that are warmer but the overall planet's average temp is rising more so then it has ever done before, with 2005 being one of the warmest ever without even El Nino being present!

Imagine if we had another massive El nino like 1983 and 1998, that year would thrash 1998 as the warmest ever year in global terms.

Yes kw but there is an opposite to that effect, which in fairness the El nino effect is not a new phenomena. I think of it as a balance.

[Methuselah]

I mean give us a break. We cant forcast the weather for the week ahead properly! :lol:

That's why it's climate change...The day-to-day fluctuations in weather are largely irrelevant...

[The Eagle]

That's why it's climate change...The day-to-day fluctuations in weather are largely irrelevant...

What is 'climate change'?. This word is being used like its detremental to the eco systems in a very negative way. The truth is climate change has always occurred. Its one of natures balancing acts. The whole impending doom thing is getting tiresome.

Edited May 24, 2006 by Icicles

[Methuselah]

What is 'climate change'?. This word is being used like its detremental to the eco systems in a very negative way. The truth is climate change has always occurred. Its one of natures balancing acts. The whole impending doom thing is getting tiresome.

What I meant was is; whether or not we can forecast the weather next week, has nothing whatever to do with climate change...Since when have billions of tons of manmade CO2 been 'one of nature's balancing acts'?

Try reading the scientific papers themselves (which often caution against drawing rash conclusions), rather than take notice of the Press...

I agree, much of the doom-mongering is indeed 'tiresome'. But that fact alone won't make the CO2 problem disappear!

[kold weather]

Climate change cn be a good thing but no one on this planet likes change. For us in the temperate zones, I'd think GW may actually be a good thing, longer growing seasons and etc.

But for those closer to the poles and also in the tropics, even a 1C chanfge in global temps can make such a huge differnece, for those people GW is definatly a bad thing.

Worth remembering that climate change has always happened, but not at the present speed its going at.

[The Eagle]

Climate change cn be a good thing but no one on this planet likes change. For us in the temperate zones, I'd think GW may actually be a good thing, longer growing seasons and etc.

But for those closer to the poles and also in the tropics, even a 1C chanfge in global temps can make such a huge differnece, for those people GW is definatly a bad thing.

Worth remembering that climate change has always happened, but not at the present speed its going at.

KW, do you know any specific site that can give detailed, graphed presentation of the changes in the average temperature across the globe for the last century? I think it would make an interesting read

Also alot is being made of a 'catastophic' flooding risk in some places.................build your house on a flood plain and what do you expect :lol:

Edited May 24, 2006 by Icicles

[Dawlish]

Scientists and various experts are now telling us that the planet is warming up 'faster than ever'. Even rainforests are contributing to Greenhouse Gases. The effect of all this?

Well according to one such expert on BBC Breakfast, the Uk will undoubtedly get hotter and summers will be drier, with any rainfall likely to be more short-lived and intense, similar to the weather on the continent. Winters are likely to be milder and wetter with a decreased chance of snow, but an increased chance of flooding due to atlantic storms.

Any views?

Cheers :lol:

"Scientists and various experts". It is so demeaning to some highly dedicated people, who spend years collecting and analysing data, then produce conclusions which always stress the limitations of their research. It is the way their research is portrayed and misunderstood which causes the difficulties and allows confusion. I mean, how many people reading this actually think that the Gulf Sream has been proven to be weakening? How many people believe that increasing SST's has a direct link to the number of hurricanes per year? How many people believe that things that happens with the UK weather, or climate, reflects the global situation accurately?

When making remarks like "Scientists and various experts", prejudice oozes to the surface. Did the "one such expert", on the BBC, say what you report that he said, without any qualification at all?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Sadly in these issues you don't seem to get much of an open-minded discussion among the media. They have agendas, and try to twist evidence to back up their agendas.

But, to answer your question: aye, there's plenty of data available; NASA, NOAA, IPCC all come to mind.

Those are probably the best sources available if you want reasonably unbiased information. I actually go on the NOAA website most days to check up the current global temperature anomalies and see where the most recent month ranked in the 126-year record. Facts are presented with little in the way of bias.

[The Eagle]

"Scientists and various experts". It is so demeaning to some highly dedicated people, who spend years collecting and analysing data, then produce conclusions which always stress the limitations of their research. It is the way their research is portrayed and misunderstood which causes the difficulties and allows confusion. I mean, how many people reading this actually think that the Gulf Sream has been proven to be weakening? How many people believe that increasing SST's has a direct link to the number of hurricanes per year? How many people believe that things that happens with the UK weather, or climate, reflects the global situation accurately?

When making remarks like "Scientists and various experts", prejudice oozes to the surface. Did the "one such expert", on the BBC, say what you report that he said, without any qualification at all?

Good point about the research. To say its pushing limits is a massive understatement. As such, to whatever degree, their conclusions are going to be flawed.

Sadly in these issues you don't seem to get much of an open-minded discussion among the media. They have agendas, and try to twist evidence to back up their agendas.

Those are probably the best sources available if you want reasonably unbiased information. I actually go on the NOAA website most days to check up the current global temperature anomalies and see where the most recent month ranked in the 126-year record. Facts are presented with little in the way of bias.

Thanks TWS, will check it out. :lol:

TBH Im finding it difficult to find a site that isnt biased. There mostly for or against climate change sites. Just one of the reason why the public in confused.

Edited May 24, 2006 by Icicles

[Guest Daniel]

Scientists and various experts are now telling us that the planet is warming up 'faster than ever'. Even rainforests are contributing to Greenhouse Gases. The effect of all this?

Well according to one such expert on BBC Breakfast, the Uk will undoubtedly get hotter and summers will be drier, with any rainfall likely to be more short-lived and intense, similar to the weather on the continent. Winters are likely to be milder and wetter with a decreased chance of snow, but an increased chance of flooding due to atlantic storms.

Any views?

Cheers :lol:

I still strongly think that the U.K and the word will cool down. Last year there were major reports on the Gulf stream and it even hit the BBC News head lines So in sort a weaker gulf will lead to leas heat in put in the north and that mean more snow for the Arctic which in time will bring back the ice. Another inportant effect is the the pressure patterns will shift south over the Atlantic. this means freezing cold winters with for the U.K and Europe with blocking highs while summers on average would be cool and wet with the lows tracking further south than Today. I also like to point out the dire predictions of Hot summers and mild winters for the U.K were being made as long ago as the 1980s and still we not got to the stage were every summer is baking Hot and these predictions are being pushed foward further and further into the Future.

[kold weather]

An intresting post there Daniel there...its just a shame its been posted to its death!

(I like that last line, if I remmeber rightly 8 out of 10 summers recently have been above average and I'd think the 38C in August was hot enough!!!)

[drgl]

I think the next 5-10 years will be very interesting.My view is another climate shift but only time will tell.............

[RedShift]

"Scientists and various experts". It is so demeaning to some highly dedicated people, who spend years collecting and analysing data, then produce conclusions which always stress the limitations of their research. It is the way their research is portrayed and misunderstood which causes the difficulties and allows confusion. I mean, how many people reading this actually think that the Gulf Sream has been proven to be weakening? How many people believe that increasing SST's has a direct link to the number of hurricanes per year? How many people believe that things that happens with the UK weather, or climate, reflects the global situation accurately?

When making remarks like "Scientists and various experts", prejudice oozes to the surface. Did the "one such expert", on the BBC, say what you report that he said, without any qualification at all?

Absolutely Dawlish. On this site you often see 'scientists' written in inverted commas or even pre-fixed with 'so called'...pretty patronising really.

Re the Gulf Stream, yes I remember the furore here after that Nature paper last december. The paper mentioned that the Gulf Stream was doing just fine, but one deep water returning current had possibly slowed, and there was, perhaps, a reorganisation of deep water circulation, over a single line of latitude, at least, that was my understanding of it (I'm no oceanographer). There were also some fairly large uncertainties. I mentioned this here but few, if any, paid any attention.

A quote from the Bryden et al. paper....

"Whereas the northward transport in the Gulf Stream across 25° N has remained nearly constant..."

The only way to 'close' the Gulf Stream is to shut off the Atlantic wind system, or stop the Earth turning...or both. As TWS mentions, it's the media representation of science that mucks things up.

[Dawlish]

Sadly in these issues you don't seem to get much of an open-minded discussion among the media. They have agendas, and try to twist evidence to back up their agendas.

Those are probably the best sources available if you want reasonably unbiased information. I actually go on the NOAA website most days to check up the current global temperature anomalies and see where the most recent month ranked in the 126-year record. Facts are presented with little in the way of bias.

I agree, TWS. It is a site I return to time and again. Any crticism that: "it is American, so it has to have an angle", as I have run into before, just misses the fact that this is the largest repository of weather data in the world and, in my eyes, is unbiased and excellent. It collects daily data from 7,000 recording stations. It is only bettered in length of unbroken data by Manley's series, tinkered with by the UKMO and the Hadley Centre, but continued in it's purity by Philip Eden!

Absolutely Dawlish. On this site you often see 'scientists' written in inverted commas or even pre-fixed with 'so called'...pretty patronising really.

Re the Gulf Stream, yes I remember the furore here after that Nature paper last december. The paper mentioned that the Gulf Stream was doing just fine, but one deep water returning current had possibly slowed, and there was, perhaps, a reorganisation of deep water circulation, over a single line of latitude, at least, that was my understanding of it (I'm no oceanographer). There were also some fairly large uncertainties. I mentioned this here but few, if any, paid any attention.

A quote from the Bryden et al. paper....

"Whereas the northward transport in the Gulf Stream across 25° N has remained nearly constant..."

The only way to 'close' the Gulf Stream is to shut off the Atlantic wind system, or stop the Earth turning...or both. As TWS mentions, it's the media representation of science that mucks things up.

Now there's understanding RedShift! Well said. The Bryden et al., Southampton University, research was also very good in qualifying itself, in that the last comparable data was taken over 5 years ago and even then, it was not gathered in the same way, or in exactly the same areas (my point earlier about scientists always stressing the limitations of their research). In addition, as you rightly say, a large proportion of the Gulf Stream is wind driven. It does not rely, solely, on the driver of the thermohaline circulation, though, of course, it is an ocean part of it

Edited May 24, 2006 by Dawlish

[johnholmes]

not definitive but worth watching the Attenborough programmes, one just finished. The Hadley centre, whatever comments may be said about it, is generally, in the world of professional meteorology/climatology, looked upon as a first class sensible rational look at the what MAY be happening and WHY. The 3 graphs he showed near the end are as near the truth as we are likely to get at the moment. They do give a rather chilling picture(not in the sense of it getting colder-but warmer) with consequences for much of the world. Shame the Americans refuse to wake up to the fact, and we then have the impossible task of trying persuade nations like India, and China to accept the possible developments.

I was going to say I'm glad I'm too old for it to bother me, but that would be very selfish. Just what can be done is very very doubtful given all the arguments about is it happening anyway.

Immensely difficult.

John

[Roger J Smith]

In North America, there has been more resistance in public opinion (and therefore among elected leaders) to the concept of climate change, because here the climate has always been highly variable, and so claims of increasing variability tend to be met with skepticism. The whole problem with Katrina, for example, as being Exhibit A for climate change, was that newsreel footage from Betsy in 1965 and the 1900 hurricane in Galveston naturally came into view, and these are not exactly obvious examples in favour of the new incarnation of global warming, "climate change."

Indeed, in large sections of the population, the view is that okay it is getting warmer, and the statistics prove this, but either most of it is natural variations at work, or, you're asking for impossibly large shifts in technology to curtail CO2 without any assurance that this will have an effect, other than to produce economic depression. People also tend to note that China and India are not asked to cut back by the Kyoto accord, so therefore why should we -- and this view prevails in Australia as well.

I am just reporting this, rather than stating my own views, which are as follows -- it is probably a mixture of natural and man-made warming at work; the higher variability concept is dubious and unproven, perhaps unprovable, but I could cite a number of counterexamples, for example, major tornado data tend to show a decrease in my estimation; for any number of reasons, it would be good to clean up the environment and improve technology as quickly as possible, even if the weather was stable, just for the general health of the population of large cities; for political reasons, it would be good to move beyond dependence on oil, and this is already dawning on even GWB so that shows the inevitability of progress in this area; and, I have sympathy too for the concept that climate is always changing, and that our adaptation to this change is a big factor in our general progress. Who knows how things will change in the very long term, say 50-100 years ahead?

My own pet theory is that if the North Magnetic Pole drifts over the terrestrial pole towards your side of the northern hemisphere, then all bets are off, and the arctic vortex may show a new liking for Sweden and Finland. I wish these things would happen faster, because at the rate the NMP is drifting north (it has gone from 77 N to 83 N in the past 25 years) it will be long after yours truly is decomposing that any proof or disproof of this idea will be possible. But in case you're reading this in 2100, check it out -- where's the NMP and how's the weather?

[pottyprof]

hi roger..

i tend to agree with most of what you say.. the earths magnetic field is one thing that is neglected in the whole equation regarding models.. as is solar activity.. it doesnt have any effect as such as they tell us.. but yet if we throw a magnetic field through a pan on a cooker using induction it tends to boil the water.. over the last couple of decades the sun has been overactive and the magnetic fields it throws out must surely have an effect on our iron core?? the ice fields are melting from below and not from the surface.. if this was down to warmer temps in the oceans wouldnt this effect be observed more at mid levels in the ice field and not the lower??

i have a feeling that we are being fed a lot of crap with some truth instead of the other way around..

will wait n see..