Ice age on the way (merged threads)

[Dawlish]

Foinavon was 66/1 wasn't he?

its always nice to take things back to source and look at that for validity rather than the extrapolation.

You'll never go far wrong taking that approach!

Paul

PS Foinavon was ridden by John Buckingham, who gave the horse "no chance whatsoever" before the race.....at on-course and official finishing odds of 100/1. I'm sure some off-course bookies may have had him at 66/1 though. I remember watching the race, though I wasn't very old! Eventually I did see the Grand National, when Red Rum won for the 3rd time in 1977. Still one of the finest sporting moments I've ever seen!

Paul

[Snowly does it]

You'll never go far wrong taking that approach!

Paul

PS Foinavon was ridden by John Buckingham, who gave the horse "no chance whatsoever" before the race.....at on-course and official finishing odds of 100/1. I'm sure some off-course bookies may have had him at 66/1 though. I remember watching the race, though I wasn't very old! Eventually I did see the Grand National, when Red Rum won for the 3rd time in 1977. Still one of the finest sporting moments I've ever seen!

Paul

1984ish with a small bet on runner up The Tsarovich (csarovich?) was my first one I watched all through.

So, in terms of this particular premise, if one could provide evidence of the direct correlation between solar activity and temperature/climate and then an accurate interpretation of future solar activity (assuming there is a pattern to it), then a theory could be formed....

The first presumably is out there in the realms of scientific knowledge, the second is the key issue?

[Dawlish]

1984ish with a small bet on runner up The Tsarovich (csarovich?) was my first one I watched all through.

So, in terms of this particular premise, if one could provide evidence of the direct correlation between solar activity and temperature/climate and then an accurate interpretation of future solar activity (assuming there is a pattern to it), then a theory could be formed....

The first presumably is out there in the realms of scientific knowledge, the second is the key issue?

You are far too young to form premises as good as that. Of course! I could never dismiss the possibility that solar output could be completely responsible for GW, but I would always go with the most probable scenario and that, unfortunately, is us - more probbaly than any other cause.......but only probably!

4/7 on we are responsible for GW. 7 Internet pints to win 4. Again, unfortunately, I can't guarantee I'll be around for you to collect, when proof outs.

Paul

PS Your spelling of The Tsarovich was perfect. I never saw the race!

[johnholmes]

Very true, snowmaiden. Well said. That's why, in offering long odds, it contains an element of possibility that the reverse of what I think could be true. Even 100/1 against holds a promise for the crackpots and Foinavon won the Grand National at exactly that price - unfortunately hardly anybody in the UK backed it. The horse just got lucky as every other horse in front of it fell at one fence! If the crackpots get lucky, good luck to them, but far out in left field is where they are at the moment. It is a long way from real science and, in my view, they deserve to be ignored.

Paul

Hi john,

The only time I've ever skied was on the Jungfrau glacier on August 25th. We skied on fresh powder snow. What a place. I got so snowblind I had to negotiate the ice caves, on the way back to the train, by touch - being led by a sensibly sunglasses-shod friend!

Paul

never skied there in the summer, just hiked, winter, January is my Mecca, been there the past 20 years, same hotel, The Alpenrose, Margaret and Paul von Allmen,okay I know its an advert) but typical smaallish Swiss hotel, the food is fabulous and the views from a south facing room have to be seen to be believed. Only 6 months to go!

John

[Snowly does it]

You are far too young to form premises as good as that. Of course! I could never dismiss the possibility that solar output could be completely responsible for GW, but I would always go with the most probable scenario and that, unfortunately, is us - more probbaly than any other cause.......but only probably!

4/7 on we are responsible for GW. 7 Internet pints to win 4. Again, unfortunately, I can't guarantee I'll be around for you to collect, when proof outs.

Paul

PS Your spelling of The Tsarovich was perfect. I never saw the race!

Oh I don't personally doubt that industrialisation and urbanisation has had some impact and is to a (fill in the blank)% responsible for the current rising trend (I'm not convinced by any means its 100% though). Deforestation is up there too as it cuts the co2 sucking power of our friends the trees. What interests me are other factors, like solar output that might reverse this in the short or longer term.

P.S. 'young', lolol but thanks anyway

[trevw]

Imagine that it is the 1970's and the internet is alive and well. The consesus is that the ice-man cometh. You see, tucked away in the deepest recesses of the world wide web, a site called globalwarmingnow.com

out of interest from what I've read, the media perception that an ice age was on the way in the 70s was generated by a misquote of a scientific paper that said something along the lines of 'an ice age is iminent in the next 20 to 30 thousand years' predictably the geological timescales were dropped when reporting the paper and other people just quoted the original article.

If the internet had existed the paper might have been available online and the public (or at least the interested browsing public) might have been better informed.

Doesn't change the point tho this weeks crackpots are next years visionaries - trouble is picking the right crackpots

trevw

[VillagePlank]

We can, and we have, formed a general consensus that this website is, at its very best, pseudo-science. The basis of this opinion is that, firstly, the name of the site precludes any other conclusion to its research other than an imminent ice age, and secondly, primarily directly as a result of the first, it omits research that might provide any evidence contrary to its claim.

It is, on the firm basis of this opinion, quite reasonable to assume that any such paper that has scientific merit of whatever magnitude, to be part of the phenomena of noise that plagues real world data. Few would argue that the weight of evidence collected, at present, points to a world that is, in the mean, warming. This leaves only an opinion that evidence that points to the contrary must be (i) not evidence, (ii) irrational, (iii) an aberration existing for causes, as yet, either unknown or not understood.

The overall approach – that where it is reasonable to subscribe to an opinion where the weight of evidence is greatest, is, in and of itself, a rational one. However, this is not conclusive, nor verifiable.

During experimentation of any natural phenomena there is always ‘noise’ in the data collected. The CET series has it (especially in the early years) and the data is modified accordingly. Current surface temperature measurements have it, and we call it the urban heat island effect – which is also corrected to account for such aberrations.

In my opinion, then, I can only say that, although I do not subscribe to a theory that proposes an imminent ice age, if one considers this theory as noise, it is, then, the duty of those who sustain the opposing view to collect the noise and filter it out; which, of course, includes me.

It is not enough to gain a consensus that this is a ‘crack-pot’ theory pedalled by lunatics.

[summer blizzard]

There are very few people that believe waht Ice Age Now is suggesting however due to the fact that many websites are biased towards Global Warming related articles, i believe that websites such as Ice Age Now are fundimentally important because the website presents articles relating to the other side of the arguament, by looking at two oppositely biased websites, you may drw your own conclusions.

[Mr Sleet]

Iceage now is going from strenth to strenth and another artical in it called water nice but not as ice is sugesting that under water volcanos is pumping vast amounts of moisture in the skies and that will cause brutal cold and massive snow. I got an open mind on that and so far we not seen any effects on the U.K from this under water volcanos. Howvere there no reason why we cant have bitter cold again in winter. Just think of what would happen to modern England if deep snow was to lye on the ground for weeks on end and rivers and coasts freeze over. Such events were quite common from the 16 to the 19th centuries and even occured in the 20th as well. but not in modern times. In the past most of us lived and worked in the same Area and the last true great freeze happened before most of us had cars or traveled long distances to work and was still in the age of the steam railway. that was 1963. If such a winter was to happen again or even a less cold winter but with long periods of deep lying snow. Indeed there has been many less cold winters than 1963 that gave weeks of deep snow. If this was to happen again life in modern England would be very difficult. Today even a few inches is enough to close roads schools Ext. just think of what would happen if we have a massive blizzard or snow storm over all of England that left well over a foot of snow for weeks and day time temps remained at or below freezing. such events will happen again and we would be brought to our knees.

Well it is a fact Daniel that practically all of the water in the atmosphere and on or in the crust came from, and continues to come from ,volcanic outgassing.However, water vapour being the major greenhouse gas this would warm things up.

[VillagePlank]

Well it is a fact Daniel that practically all of the water in the atmosphere and on or in the crust came from, and continues to come from ,volcanic outgassing.However, water vapour being the major greenhouse gas this would warm things up.

This is, unfortunately for you, completely untrue. Firstly, there is no agreement where water came from, and also, the processes of volcanism do not account for the huge amount of water both in liquid, and gaseous form. It is better, in my opinion, to work out the origins of oxygen in our biosphere before claims can be made for the origins of water.

There are very few people that believe waht Ice Age Now is suggesting however due to the fact that many websites are biased towards Global Warming related articles, i believe that websites such as Ice Age Now are fundimentally important because the website presents articles relating to the other side of the arguament, by looking at two oppositely biased websites, you may drw your own conclusions.

Indeed we shall draw our conclusions.

With the virtues of the internet mis-information highway you'll find evidence of whatever it is that you believe to be the case. Those who will do better are normally those with a certain gift of discernment.

As for 'fundamental importance' I think you'll find that there is universal agreement that this is the truth. Whether, or not, ice age now, is the bastion of primary truth has yet to be demonstrated, scientifically, logically, or philosophically.

[Methuselah]

Doesn't change the point tho this weeks crackpots are next years visionaries - trouble is picking the right crackpots

trevw

It can also work t'other way round, trevw: remember all the hype over the Polywater and Cold Fusion fiascos??

[snowsure]

yep its the Jungfrau.

It can snow above about 6000ft anytime of the year, quite common in June, the early part, less so in July or August but it does happen. Its a beautiful area, fell in love with about 40 years ago.

j

Is the above expected to change with the advent of GW?

Will this anytime-snowfall level rise, thus making the snow line recede?

If so, then the above statement goes against GW, doesn't it?

[johnholmes]

Is the above expected to change with the advent of GW?

I have to say I am not sure, one supposes, assuming that GW is here to stay(!), that this will change for the worse for snow/ski lovers.

Will this anytime-snowfall level rise, thus making the snow line recede?

again one would imagine that the 6000ft line I suggested would rise as GW continues; currently the glaciers in that region end around 6500-7000ft in the summer.

If so, then the above statement goes against GW, doesn't it?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. My comment, an observation culled from 20 years or more going to this area, is just that an observation not, as you seem to suggest, a forecast of what will happen in the future.

John

[snowsure]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. My comment, an observation culled from 20 years or more going to this area, is just that an observation not, as you seem to suggest, a forecast of what will happen in the future.

John

John

There is no malice in my post. On re-reading, I can see how it could mis-represent my intent. Sorry for any confusion.

I linked your obvious knowledge and intellect regarding the climate with your statement that it could always snow above 6000ft and assumed that this was fact, not just a mere observation. If it were fact then your 2 comments would be incompatible.

I have kept a weather diary since 1994 and note rare events such as the snow in Mannlichen (rare in that it has not happened before whilst I have been monitoring it). It may be that it has snowed in mid July at, say, Murren whilst Mannlichen stayed snow free thus keeping your observational theory intact.

I am a micro-global recorder of weather events. As such, I know that July 11th 2004 was the coldest July day on record for several UK locations. It helps me keep a bit of perspective!

For anyone wanting to look at part of the Alps above 6000ft, click on http://www.swisspanorama.com/

[Devonian]

Just playing devils advocate here.

Imagine that it is the 1970's and the internet is alive and well. The consesus is that the ice-man cometh. You see, tucked away in the deepest recesses of the world wide web, a site called globalwarmingnow.com

On it, people speak of an impending run away warming cycle due to greenhouse gases, perhaps as a throw-back to the industrial revolution.

Someone then dares to call them crackpots and suggests that it is a site for people who just want to see warming events because they enjoy summer.

Does it sound ridiculous?

Boot, other foot, etc, etc.

PS this type of historical consideration is called "Counterfactual history" so do not discredit the technique please.

I think the flaw here is this bit "The consesus is that the ice-man cometh". We might not have thought it was going to warm a lot, but I'm sure there wasn't a consensus a ice age was only years away - I don't think climate change was much of interest at all then (I'm just old enough to remember). Also, ghg theory is both long estsablished and accepted - therefore it would not be crackpot in the 1970's.

[snowsure]

...but I'm sure there wasn't a consensus a ice age was only years away...

It did fill the media (newspapers and TV), so the attempt to create interest existed. Whether it was embraced by a majority of the population or not surely mirrors the reception of GW today!

Time will tell.

However

I don't think climate change was much of interest at all then (I'm just old enough to remember). Also, ghg theory is both long estsablished and accepted - therefore it would not be crackpot in the 1970's.

seems contradictory; Either climate change was of interest (ghg theory) or it wasn't.

It can't be both.

[johnholmes]

Also, ghg theory is both long estsablished and accepted - therefore it would not be crackpot in the 1970's.

as a practising meteorologist in the 70's, I can assure you that the main accpeted theory was that we were on the edge(in terms of decades if not centuries) from getting colder. There was no accpeted theory then of the already apparent increase in the earths' surface temperature leading to what many now call Global Warming. It did not exist, honest, at least not as a serious theory.

John

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

as a practising meteorologist in the 70's, I can assure you that the main accpeted theory was that we were on the edge(in terms of decades if not centuries) from getting colder.

John

John

That theory may still hold true. As a cycle 'enthusiast' I believe that the cuurent solar cycle and approaching Gleissberg minima will be the 'proof in the pudding'. Indeed it is anticipated that the next 10-15 years will show clear signs of global cooling IF the theory holds out....so not really long to go to see what happens.

Interesting that doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has the effect (on our climate) as increasing the solar irradiance by 0.1% more or less... This is about what ACRIMM has measured for the solar fluctuations, quite some figure IMO. And of course these are not anti-warming satellites.

Being a skiing enthusiast myself I can imagine what those views hold. Never been to Switzerland yet as I have fallen in love majorly with Austria. St Anton/Kaprun next time round for me

BFTP

[Dawlish]

....IF....

BFTP

.... one of the biggest small words in the English language

[johnholmes]

John

That theory may still hold true. As a cycle 'enthusiast' I believe that the cuurent solar cycle and approaching Gleissberg minima will be the 'proof in the pudding'. Indeed it is anticipated that the next 10-15 years will show clear signs of global cooling IF the theory holds out....so not really long to go to see what happens.

Interesting that doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has the effect (on our climate) as increasing the solar irradiance by 0.1% more or less... This is about what ACRIMM has measured for the solar fluctuations, quite some figure IMO. And of course these are not anti-warming satellites.

Being a skiing enthusiast myself I can imagine what those views hold. Never been to Switzerland yet as I have fallen in love majorly with Austria. St Anton/Kaprun next time round for me

BFTP

each to our own favorite, I have skied at Kitzbuhel, and Kirchberg along with Seefeld. Many many years ago my first ski, no instruction either, was down the side of Mt Troodos in Cyprus. Amazing how daft one can be at a young age!

j

[Snowly does it]

.... one of the biggest small words in the English language

But to be fair, also the word marking the precursor to most scientific research.

The problem as I see it with any theory proposing cooling is that one needs to 'be in it to win it', until its happening its not going to be widely accepted. Its a similar scenario to say 'IF ghg are responsible for the warming of the earth then temperatures may rise by xxx.

Solar minimum will either provide the proposed cooling trend or not, we don't know, it will be fascinating to find out. That doesn't of course mean we shouldn't be looking ever harder at how we treat the planet right now and maybe stop cutting down every tree in sight and then wondering why all the excess co2.

[Methuselah]

But to be fair, also the word marking the precursor to most scientific research.

The problem as I see it with any theory proposing cooling is that one needs to 'be in it to win it', until its happening its not going to be widely accepted. Its a similar scenario to say 'IF ghg are responsible for the warming of the earth then temperatures may rise by xxx.

Solar minimum will either provide the proposed cooling trend or not, we don't know, it will be fascinating to find out. That doesn't of course mean we shouldn't be looking ever harder at how we treat the planet right now and maybe stop cutting down every tree in sight and then wondering why all the excess co2.

True to a point SM. But what good is a theory without any observations to describe? The reason why GC theories are 'on the fringe' so-to-speak is because the globe isn't cooling, it's warming...So, at least GW theories have some data with which to theorize?

[Snowly does it]

True to a point SM. But what good is a theory without any observations to describe? The reason why GC theories are 'on the fringe' so-to-speak is because the globe isn't cooling, it's warming...So, at least GW theories have some data with which to theorize?

Very fair point. The danger of ignoring GC theories which MAY hold some credence is that (to use that accursed word!) IF we then enter a cooling period, its already happening before you study and understand it.

The planet is warming, no argument there but that does not mean it will ever be so.

As I said earlier in the thread, does the solar output affect climate? If so, any research into predicting solar cycles is worthwhile.

[Methuselah]

Very fair point. The danger of ignoring GC theories which MAY hold some credence is that (to use that accursed word!) IF we then enter a cooling period, its already happening before you study and understand it.

The planet is warming, no argument there but that does not mean it will ever be so.

As I said earlier in the thread, does the solar output affect climate? If so, any research into predicting solar cycles is worthwhile.

Agreed, SM...

[summer blizzard]

Blast From The Past, i am also a cycle enthusiast but i would like to know what the solar maximum in 2011 is expected to produce in terms of solar activity??

I would also like to know if there is a sixteen year solar cycle (47, 63, 79), if this is the case, then the two cycles will coincide during 2011.

?