Polar Ice sets new minimum

[laserguy]

Well here we go

Antarctic Sea Ice Increases over Past Two Decades

By SPACE.com Staff

posted: 03:20 pm ET

22 August 2002

In a surprising departure from other findings that point to a warming planet, a NASA researcher has found that the amount of ice in the Antarctic increased from 1979 to 1999, as measured by satellites.

Many recent findings have detailed the decline of the ice cap in the Arctic, at the top of the world. These new results from the Southern Hemisphere imply that global climate change involves regional variations.

Changes in ice cover are important not only because they indicate temperature changes that have occurred; the changes can effect future temperatures. With more ice, more solar radiation is reflected away from Earth. The ice also insulates oceans from the atmosphere. Less ice has the opposite effects.

In the new study, published in the Annals of Glaciology, Claire Parkinson of NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center analyzed the length of the sea ice season throughout the Southern Ocean to obtain trends in sea ice coverage. On average, the area where sea ice seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly twice as large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at least one day per year.

"You can see with this dataset that what is happening in the Antarctic is not what would be expected from a straightforward global warming scenario, but a much more complicated set of events," Parkinson said.

And this year reports to be a further 7% up on the average. Note this is sea ice, the continental ice is thickening too. My concern is the wandering magnetic pole, the approach of a solar minima with reduced magnetic field protection from the sun and the 'heavy' bottom of the planet. Want to talk disaster? Magnetic Pole reversal.

I don't advocate that personally but just like I do not advocate iminent collapse or meltdown.

BFTP

Hello BFPT. You may recall I pointed out the increase of Antarctic ice in another thread very recently. As we all know the mainstream media focuses relentlessly on what's going on 'oop North' but totally ignores events 'down under'. Wonder if that would be the case if the situation there was the same as at the Arctic? No,is the simple answer. I leave you all to ponder the reasons why. Now I am not for one moment suggesting that cosmic rays and their interaction with solar radiation are playing a role in the discrepancy between what's going on at the poles,just one of many factors to consider the possibility of.

As I understand it (and here I'm expecting the usual suspects to tell me to keep my nose out of the subject if I don't fully understand it), a magnetic pole reversal is something that happens regularly. Whether it happens slowly or suddenly switches I don't know,but apart from the effects on modern technology,the humble compass and the navigational abilities of wildlife,would we otherwise notice such a reversal? Now a PHYSICAL pole reversal as is being bandied around by the 2012 'end of the world' fantasists would really be something!

I believe that these threads sometimes get a little fragmented as to what we're actually talking about. That is,no one is,or indeed can deny the changes that are happening,but what is actually causing them. IMO, CO2 is a smokescreen for natural causes and the real reason for curbing CO2 output lies elsewhere in the realms of politics and world economics.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Just shows you how 'open wording' can conjure up many images B.F.T.P.!

Lots of the 'Sea ice' down there is in fact 'Shelf' ice and we need to be careful that the two are not being confused here. Shelf ice is built up predominantly from Glacier 'snouts' emptying into a 'basin' as they flow off both the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (W.A.I.S.)and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (E.A.I.S.) so any 'growth' of these features would suggest an acceleration of the contributing Glaciers pushing more ice out into the 'shelf region'.

The increase in speed of the 'circumpolar wind' has led to less 'storms' entering into the polar Region and so less fragmentation of the pack occurs as it is developing over the southern winter.

Both these phenomena show that there has been a 'change' to the 'normal order' of things but does not necessarily show overall cooling.

The NASA (2205) images of snow melt up the mountains fringing the Ross Embayment (the first time this has been noted) and the increased hydrological activity below the continental ice sheets (streams and lakes) would also point to 'changes' occurring on the southern continent that did not involve 'cooling'.

I get the impression from some of the scientists down there that they expect this southern summer to be as 'informative' as to recent changes as the past 7 have been and again it would seem as though they are a little wrong footed by some of the changes occurring there. One of the major Ice lakes is thought to be at maximum capacity and they half expect it to 'burst it's banks' and flow out seaward (into the Ross sea) this season. They are concerned both by the erosive potential of the 'flow' on the glaciers it undercuts but also the impact on the integrity of the ice sheet that overlays it.

Another one to watch this year to see who's ideas fit the evidence most accurately!

Hi GW

What you post to me says natural forcing and on a grand scale. To melt and warm from below miles of ice leads to one explanation...heating from the Earth's magma. For me the Arctic Ocean is warmer because of this phenomena. Air temps don't stand up, 30s were warmer but sea ice was much more.

BFTP

Hello BFPT. You may recall I pointed out the increase of Antarctic ice in another thread very recently.

CO2 is a smokescreen for natural causes and the real reason for curbing CO2 output lies elsewhere in the realms of politics and world economics.

Laserguy

Yes and for me CO2 is definitely in the mix somehow but not the driver that is pushed around

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi GW

What you post to me says natural forcing and on a grand scale. To melt and warm from below miles of ice leads to one explanation...heating from the Earth's magma. For me the Arctic Ocean is warmer because of this phenomena. Air temps don't stand up, 30s were warmer but sea ice was much more.

BFTP

Hi B.F.T.P.!

What little I know about 'Ice Dams' and their failure's both in modern times and some of the more 'catastrophic one's from the end of the last ice age show us that fluid water is generally present at both the bases of glaciers but also underlying areas of ice sheets. The water is able to remain 'fluid' below 0c because of the pressure it is at but readily re-freezes if able to leading to rock cracks being filled with supercooled water which then re-freezes and expands (as ice is want to) splitting the rock apart. It will do the same within a glacier and the fractures within it ( if you think of the large crevasses formed as Ice passes over obstacles/down steep inclines you can see how 'infirm' most Glaciers are). This being the case you are faced with ice sheets which are being eroded from below (much the same as the Northern ice cap was 'thinned from below' and not all top ablated) and structurally compromised. The fear of the major ice lake 'draining' behind the Ross Embayment is as much to do with what will be left behind as the damage it will cause to 'the Ross' as it drains.

[The PIT]

Mine are the symptoms, a good doctor treats not the symptoms but the cause of the symptoms :lol:

As to The Pit I simply fail to see where he addressed what's being debated in an otherwise excellent thread. I can't think of a scientist who has said were doomed let alone a 'lot' of them.

It called having a joke so loosen up and chill out.

[Gray-Wolf]

It called having a joke so loosen up and chill out.

[blushes]....I didn't get told off when I posted that! come to think of it Pengers is always replying to my posts in the exact same way...

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi B.F.T.P.!

What little I know about 'Ice Dams' and their failure's both in modern times and some of the more 'catastrophic one's from the end of the last ice age show us that fluid water is generally present at both the bases of glaciers but also underlying areas of ice sheets. The water is able to remain 'fluid' below 0c because of the pressure it is at but readily re-freezes if able to leading to rock cracks being filled with supercooled water which then re-freezes and expands (as ice is want to) splitting the rock apart. It will do the same within a glacier and the fractures within it ( if you think of the large crevasses formed as Ice passes over obstacles/down steep inclines you can see how 'infirm' most Glaciers are). This being the case you are faced with ice sheets which are being eroded from below (much the same as the Northern ice cap was 'thinned from below' and not all top ablated) and structurally compromised. The fear of the major ice lake 'draining' behind the Ross Embayment is as much to do with what will be left behind as the damage it will cause to 'the Ross' as it drains.

GW

Ah yes pressure of course! Snowball forming demonstrates that physical effect [remember now]. I think the more pressure and the more movement hence advancement. We have big concerns but from different angles/outcomes I think.

regards

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd agree B.F.T.P.!

Because Greenland is a plateau with a convex 'bowl' for its top the ice sits nicely in place and will take a lot of shifting, not so with the Antarctic Continent which is a Mountainous place (albeit swamped with ice at present) with plenty of topography to mess up any ice flows.

Behind the Ross embayment ground penetrating Radar has shown the existence of 'rucked up' layers of ice as if the forward movement was suddenly arrested (when the Ross embayment glued itself to the sea bed???) and the ice rucked up and ran over itself. As such the 'Rucks' represent 'tied up movement' (kinda like tied up movement along the San Andreas Fault). Not only would the mass collapse if freed from the 'girdle' of The Ross Embayment but it may also be pivotal in the breaking up and off the sea bed of 'the Ross' should it start to fail before the removal of 'the Ross' (which is why I think there is such concern over the Sub-ice sheet Lake also to the rear of 'Ross' that the scientists down there reckon may 'empty' into the Ross sea soon).

Any amount of space that allows rapid movement may lead to the 'snowballing' you speak of and the bulldozing of the Ross Embayment into the Ross sea.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Just an add on to the above. If the I.P.C.C. predictions for temp rise over the century pan out then the last time they stood at that level sea levels were 4 to 6m higher (about the amount the melting of W.A.I.S. would produce).

Edited September 4, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Filski]

What Iceberg says is correct, the polar jet has had an unusually positive phase for the last 20-30yrs which correspond with record amounts of ozone thinning. It must be noted that this winter (SH) there was a negative phase leading to record cold snaps and 1day rainfall totals in some areas, while in itself does not mean that 'normal' conditions are returning. What it could mean though is that we may see some ice sheet breakup since its lost it's protection. I'm betting on a hot summer there this year which should exacerbate the problem.

Let's see what the NH winter brings to the arctic this year.

[Gray-Wolf]

Let's see what the NH winter brings to the arctic this year.

I get the feeling that folk are looking for some kind of 'polar lobe' to drop into our neck of the woods (Weat Europe/Scandinavia etc.)this year and spare E.Europe,Japan, East coast USA (it's 'our turn').

[Filski]

Maybe, I don't beleive in 'Day after Tomorrow' scenarios. We've had several bad years in a row so I expect a little bit of balance - even if there is a general downward trend. Take the drought across the UK last year for example. I'm not saying it will happen, just that it'd be odd not to.

[Gray-Wolf]

Filski,

maybe you don't 'want' to believe in day after tomorrow scenarios?

Surely when you look at the growing body of evidence that points to this being far more than a climatic 'blip', and see the predictions from the 80's not only made flesh but in 'runaway mode' (seemingly constantly surprising the science) you can see that this is much more than 'several years' worth of ongoing change.

Times Atlas announced this week it is re-draughting the world atlas as so much has altered since it was last drawn (giant Lakes empty, coastlines changing, islands disappearing and the odd one appearing ...Warming Island off the coast of Greenland which was thought to be a part of Greenland until it's 'ice bridge melted this year!).

Since we have had satellites capable of giving us many differing datasets logging the changes over the face of the globe we can all watch from our homes as the changes occur before us (the Larsen B collapse or B15 Calving off The Ross,Arctic ice loss) if we don't care to trust the scientists we can just take a look ourselves.

I wouldn't dare to predict how this deck of cards will come down but it will come down.

[Stratos Ferric]

Maybe, I don't beleive in 'Day after Tomorrow' scenarios. We've had several bad years in a row so I expect a little bit of balance - even if there is a general downward trend. Take the drought across the UK last year for example. I'm not saying it will happen, just that it'd be odd not to.

Your use of "bad" is intriguing and revealing. I assume you mean they haven't been cold. Otherwise nature doesn't deal in "bad". The weather we get is perfectly bounded by current driving parameters, what we get is a function of those parameters. We are not talking here about a drink laden punter misplacing bets on doped nags in vague horse races, for all that several on here bemoan our weather as if it were a game of pitch and toss. If we are not getting cold weather, or if, otherwise, we are seeing changes c.f. what we're used to, then it's because the drivers are changing.

[Angel15]

Filski,

maybe you don't 'want' to believe in day after tomorrow scenarios?

Surely when you look at the growing body of evidence that points to this being far more than a climatic 'blip', and see the predictions from the 80's not only made flesh but in 'runaway mode' (seemingly constantly surprising the science) you can see that this is much more than 'several years' worth of ongoing change.

Times Atlas announced this week it is re-draughting the world atlas as so much has altered since it was last drawn (giant Lakes empty, coastlines changing, islands disappearing and the odd one appearing ...Warming Island off the coast of Greenland which was thought to be a part of Greenland until it's 'ice bridge melted this year!).

Since we have had satellites capable of giving us many differing datasets logging the changes over the face of the globe we can all watch from our homes as the changes occur before us (the Larsen B collapse or B15 Calving off The Ross,Arctic ice loss) if we don't care to trust the scientists we can just take a look ourselves.

I wouldn't dare to predict how this deck of cards will come down but it will come down.

The Day After Tomorrow could happen - even if you look at it non scientistically - the first ice age was the dinosaur age wasn't it - well the earth was young at that time and volcanoes were throwing up lots of CO2 and emissions into the atmosphere - would that perhaps be analogous to what we are doing with our pollution of carbon emissions, etc today? Perhaps it will get to a certain point and that will be it, it can take no more. I don't claim to fully understand it at all and I don't study the science of it either, but it would seem logical to admit that it could possibly happen in the future.

[Bobby]

The Day After Tomorrow could happen - even if you look at it non scientistically - the first ice age was the dinosaur age wasn't it - well the earth was young at that time and volcanoes were throwing up lots of CO2 and emissions into the atmosphere - would that perhaps be analogous to what we are doing with our pollution of carbon emissions, etc today? Perhaps it will get to a certain point and that will be it, it can take no more. I don't claim to fully understand it at all and I don't study the science of it either, but it would seem logical to admit that it could possibly happen in the future.

The Day After Tomorrow thing couldn't happen, it was almost entirely hollywood science. The gulf stream could shut down, but that's about the only grain of truth in the film. It certainly couldn't happen as fast as it did in the movie, those huge hurricane things crossing the Earth were ridiculous and the tidal waves smashing into New York is nonsense too.

Ice Ages have probably been going on for much longer than since the dinosaurs. They are caused by wobbles in the Earth's orbit, they aren't governed by what happens on Earth, so have probably been going on for billions of years, long long before the dinosaurs existed, indeed perhaps before life even existed. The Earth wasn't young at that time, the dinosaurs died only 0.065 billion years ago, while the Earth is over 4.000 billion years old. It wasn't long ago in geological time. I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that the Earth was significantly more volcanically active during the time of the dinosaurs, and if it was it would be for reasons other than the age of the Earth.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Magpie

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Ice Ages have probably been going on for much longer than since the dinosaurs. They are caused by wobbles in the Earth's orbit,

Yes

Milankovitch cycles, the pacemaker of the ice ages. With the planet becoming 'bottom heavy' and the low solar minima is a 'wobble' around the corner?

BFTP

[Roger J Smith]

Interesting news, I asked the Canadian geomagnetic agency if they had an updated 2007 NMP position, and they informed me that as of Jan 30 they had a new fix at approx 84 N 122 W.

This confirms that the NMP continues to drift rather steadily WNW and with this very high latitude now, of course the longitude can change very quickly as essentially the NMP is approaching the north pole. Clearly the magnetic axis is gradually moving away from the rotational axis of the earth, which as BFTP has been discussing, is a possible precursor to some future gyrations of our magnetic field if not some sort of reversal. Reversal implies rapid weakening in the near future, a concern both for those of us researching interactions with the atmospheric circulation, and more generally (and within the already known realm of science) health issues with the weaker protection against UV radiation for humans as well as animals.

In the shorter term, I would point out that if the NMP drifts much further away from North America the arctic circulation is likely to become weaker in general, until it returns south in some other part of the hemisphere, presumably from the current drift, north of Siberia. This could be very interesting if it happens in our lifetimes, and at the current rate of drift, it could do so, because within 30-50 years it is quite conceivable that the NMP might be north of any portion of eastern Siberia, and within 50-100 could be much closer to Novaya Zemlya.

Past positions of the NMP before about 1700 are not known with great certainty. I have seen charts indicating that in the Maunder minimum era, the NMP was around Victoria Island in the western Canadian arctic. From there it seemed to loop around in a generally southeastward direction to where it was first reliably located, on the Boothia Peninsula, in 1839-40. And from there, it has drifted rather steadily NNW then NW through the Canadian arctic islands in the late 19th and most of the 20th century, going offshore around 1987 and moving steadily away from land since then.

The connections to northern hemisphere climate variations seem rather obvious although I would accept that like any other correlation, you need to demonstrate cause and effect, which is what I've been trying to do for many years by looking for predictable second-order variations in the same system. But the macro-scale implications would be fairly obvious, the closer to the North Pole the NMP gets, the milder the climate will become especially in subarctic regions. Polar regions might be less affected since there could be a tendency towards less dramatic cyclonic incursions bringing warmth poleward, compensating for the ambient rise in nearby SST and through-ice-pack heat transfer as the ice pack thins.

Clearly then, we have in all of this a sort of parallel theory to AGW, not necessarily disproving AGW either, just another set of reasons why the arctic ice might thin, break up in certain regions, and why the subarctic might warm rapidly.

As I said, the previous positions of the NMP are not known with great reliability, but you have to wonder if they were further south in the Ice Ages of the recent geological past. I would imagine that a NMP position in northern Quebec, Greenland, Scandinavia, or anywhere in that general region would be much more conducive to an Ice Age circulation than positions between the recent historical positions and central Siberia. In other words, a landlocked NMP especially on the Atlantic side of the hemisphere (with the smaller ocean more prone to massive circulation shifts) would seem to correlate well with any plausible Ice Age circulation patterns.

The south magnetic pole meanwhile is drifting away from the south pole and is already well offshore from Antarctica well to the south of Tasmania. Draw a line through the earth between these two positions and you'll see that the axis is considerably offset from the rotational axis.

Although a weaker magnetic field might at first be associated with warming in the northern hemisphere due to increased latitude of the NMP, eventually the lack of support for cyclogenesis implied in the theory being developed here, would imply a gradual cooling of the arctic regions and possibly this is a trigger for a massive cooling in the fairly near future due to a southward shift of the jet stream positions and less poleward heat and moisture transport. Only time will tell, if indeed the NMP does continue to drift towards the north pole. It could just as easily wander off in some new direction but its drift for the past 160 years has been quite regular and in recent years seems to be accelerating somewhat.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Interesting news, I asked the Canadian geomagnetic agency if they had an updated 2007 NMP position, and they informed me that as of Jan 30 they had a new fix at approx 84 N 122 W.

This confirms that the NMP continues to drift rather steadily WNW and with this very high latitude now, of course the longitude can change very quickly as essentially the NMP is approaching the north pole. Clearly the magnetic axis is gradually moving away from the rotational axis of the earth, which as BFTP has been discussing, is a possible precursor to some future gyrations of our magnetic field if not some sort of reversal. Reversal implies rapid weakening in the near future, a concern both for those of us researching interactions with the atmospheric circulation, and more generally (and within the already known realm of science) health issues with the weaker protection against UV radiation for humans as well as animals.

Although a weaker magnetic field might at first be associated with warming in the northern hemisphere due to increased latitude of the NMP, eventually the lack of support for cyclogenesis implied in the theory being developed here, would imply a gradual cooling of the arctic regions and possibly this is a trigger for a massive cooling in the fairly near future due to a southward shift of the jet stream positions and less poleward heat and moisture transport. Only time will tell, if indeed the NMP does continue to drift towards the north pole. It could just as easily wander off in some new direction but its drift for the past 160 years has been quite regular and in recent years seems to be accelerating somewhat.

Hi Roger

An excellent piece and something for many to delve into. It would seem very plausible that continuance of movement is the most likely scenario but the last sentence re acceleration is of potential high importance. The way the opposite arctic regions are behaving, the approach of a solar minima and weakening of the solar magnetic field [which in turn could offset large scale tectonic and volcanic activity] leads me to the theory that a 'wobble' is feasible in the fairly near future.

This as you say does not prove/disprove AGW theory or any other theory for that matter but invites/offers a parallel reasoning and some fat to chew over. In fact I've waned slightly in that I believe CO2 increase is in the mix [which is a big move for me] but not THE driver.

BFTP

[Calrissian]

News Story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007...4/climatechange

Summary: currently we're now at 4.4 million (the old low being 5.3).

As I - and a few others have been saying for a long while now, its way too late.

Within 10-15 years.. it'll be 0.0

Humanity en masse never deserved to continue anyway.

--

Calrissian: frak the human menace.

[mezzacyclone]

Humanity en masse never deserved to continue anyway.

Love it Cal ,

I realised it so many years ago, but hey, lets continue, afterall theirs only 6.5 billion of us poor humans,

Whats going to happen when (much very sooner rather than later according to this and similar threads) we are down to sharing a few square miles of Summer arctic ice thats left,

that wont be fair will it?

and we all cant afford Dubai's artificial snow in summer can we?

[Chris Knight]

The albedo of the arctic ice only has any effect during the arctic summer - during the winter, it experiences no solar radiation to reflect. On the other hand, the ice free Arctic Ocean, as it enters the long Arctic Winter darkness will radiate heat more rapidly than if the pack ice was still present. The situation next year may be much more typical than this year.

One of the factors for this atypical Arctic Summer may be the lack of stormy weather.

Hasn't the wind speed over the Arctic been very low over 2006 and 2007 compared to previous years?

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_weatherdata.html

- the Arctic theme pages of the NOAA - seems to show a very different picture in the data from 2002-2005 on the same site.

Low wind chill factor in winter and summer, as well as ice floes not being piled together in stormy waters, and thin ice not being broken by waves to allow freezing of exposed ocean water during the winter, and low wind speeds in summer, allowing surface temperatures over the ice floes to remain at 0, allowing melt pools to build up since April - phenomenally early. Add to this the fascinating property that water is densest at 4 deg C, so the melt pools are warmer at the bottom than at the surface. Mmmm, Emmenthal!

It is also no wonder that the SST anomalies in the Arctic are unprecedented - there are no previous SST data to compare with, since what is currently water was previously only ice!

One final point - sea ice does not figure in sea level changes*, only ice on land in glaciers, which is basically Greenland and Antarctica combined. If they both melted, the sea level rise would possibly reach 70 metres above current mean sea level. However, most of the ice lies above the snowline, so a rapid melt is unlikely, even if sea level temperature is raised by several degrees. The rate of glacier flow, and iceberg calving may increase as global warming increases, but whether this would increase sea level may be counteracted by increased precipitation and ice accumulation on Greenland and Antarctica. Unless of course, there is a collapse of the WAIS.

*otherwise we would be seeing a sea level change this year, wouldn't we? Ice floats on water, displacing an equal weight of water. As it melts, the water level does not change.

[Stratos Ferric]

Interesting news, I asked the Canadian geomagnetic agency if they had an updated 2007 NMP position, and they informed me that as of Jan 30 they had a new fix at approx 84 N 122 W.

...a concern both for those of us researching interactions with the atmospheric circulation, and more generally (and within the already known realm of science) health issues with the weaker protection against UV radiation for humans as well as animals.

...

Roger, I'm intrigued re the detail of why there should be a link between the location of the MNP, and climate specifics. Perhaps you've explained this previously and I've missed it.

Re UV, I think you'll find that the main filtering mechanism is Ozone: so far as I'm aware quite unrelated to the EMF. What MIGHT become more of a menace would be general cosmic electromagnetic radiation, and solar storms comprising charged particles. We might be more exposed to some (even more harnmful [than UV]) forms of radiation, but I'm not sure UV would be one.

[Roger J Smith]

SF, one of the basic concepts of the theory I am working on, is that the meteorological grid or in other words the general circulation is always distorted by the geomagnetic field, as well as being influenced by conventional factors such as ocean-land-ice distribution. Therefore I would expect that the arctic vortex, which is a semi-permanent feature over northeastern Canada, would weaken and drift north and northwest with the NMP over time in this epoch. The climate statistics bear out that this is probably what has been occurring since about 1800, but we only have reliable upper air data from 1943. The southern circulation is always likely to be more circumpolar in nature due to the height and high latitudes of the ice sheet of Antarctica, but here also the actual shaping may respond to the shift in the SMP.

As to the other question, I believe that there is considerable research on this subject already, a weaker magnetic field would be expected to let in more of the radiation that is routinely absorbed in the very high atmosphere in a strong magnetic field, so it isn't only a case of ozone protecting us, although that was a very important consideration when the CFC bans came into effect in the late 1970s I think it was, and that probably saved a lot of people from being further exposed to skin cancer.

However, some scientists have theorized that a weaker magnetic field in the past has been linked to mass extinctions for the reason I have cited. This research is really not my own interest or specialty, but that's what I recall reading many years ago on this subject. The rate of weakening at present is not that great to alarm anyone, but it's something to consider if the poles continue this asymmetric motion.

[Gray-Wolf]

Am I right in thinking that a weaker magnetosphere would also allow more excitation (from incoming solar radiation) to the layers of the upper atmosphere. With the links between Stratospheric temps and tropospheric behaviour this could well have an impact on the weather!

Will it prove to be just the wrong time for man to be muxing around with the climate or will his muxing moderate otherwise extreme effects?

[Roger J Smith]

Good question there, but if the AGW theory were entirely valid, and we melt down the polar ice caps, in all probability there would not be another ice age when the Milankovitch cycles next favour one in say 10,000 years, and I can't see that as being a bad thing despite the loss of 10-15 metres of highly populated terrain closest to sea level. People can be moved away from rising oceans, but in that distant future, where would they move if glaciation returned to the maximum extent of the past two or three ice ages?

Vancouver is already pretty crowded, I don't think we can accommodate all of the people in Canada here, and this is likely to be about the only ice-free ground left at that point.

No doubt I have uttered a politically incorrect clanger by saying something good about global warming, but then again, I don't totally believe the theory and I would assume that by the time another ice age could start up, either we would have the technology to control the weather, or otherwise, it would be so freaking eco-friendly that the damned ice age would start early and cover the whole earth this time.

Roger J Smith: making plans to study terra-forming Venus to suit future generations