What Is Causing The Warming ?

[Devonian]

I see I have support from scientific circles!

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/aug/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-ice-ages-%E2%80%93-may-also-help-predict-future

It's a interesting article, worth reading in full, not just as spun by certain blogs....Indeed, I'm not sure there is much new in it.

[The Penguin]

Well done to everybody on this last page you have just proven without doubt what a joke NetWeather is as a place to discuss climate sensibly.

It's a real shame and goes to show how ignorant and infantile the skeptic brigade on here really is.

Put simply, there was GW before there was A; therefore the sceptic brigade have a valid locus in any debate on the subject.

Seems to me, after contributing to, getting fed up with, and now observing the climate change debate in all its guises here for four and a half years that the discussion has always and will continue to go round in circles. We don’t have all the answers and so it’s bound to. However, I find it encouraging that these are ever-increasing rather than ever-decreasing circles, due to the steady flow of ideas and evidence that comes in from all persuasions. Or they could be if people weren't constantly being chopped off at the ankles. There haven’t been many who have publicly reversed their position, but whether that’s due to the quality of evidence or the quality of presentation is open to question. More likely, perhaps, it’s the tone of the debate that entrenches people in their beliefs and closes their minds to possible alternatives. Unfortunately, while the topics for discussion grow by the week, the opportunities to debate these rationally diminish. Back in my early days in this forum there were people who went to a great deal of trouble to investigate, evaluate and present evidence, and others (with specific qualification or experience,) who invested a similar amount of effort to explain the merits and demerits of the technicalities involved to the less well equipped in that regard, like me. Of course there were a few less gifted contributors who could only shout and scream about their own beliefs and accuse others of stupidity when their ‘unquestionable’ logic was queried, but the general gist of the thing was to be helpful. It is sad that the terrorists have overtaken the teachers on both sides.

Doubt is not a crime, and persuasion is not a martial art.

[MR EXTREMES]

first of all id like to say to iceberg im sorry if you felt some of my post may have irritated you but i can promise you i only go against the grain because evidence is supported on both sides.

so iceberg ofcoarse you have valid points,

and mods im sorry if you may think i might of disrupted this thread it was not intended and was trying to get my view across and with this subject it seems to become hard to really get the real truth because of the growing evidence of both warming and cooling climate.

ofcoarse warmth has happened even this year around the world places have reached record highs and it also around the areas where theres been record cold,

but not for a minute do i think its man made in anyway,

most likely reasons are natural cycles i.e el nino,

id also say record temps where recorded because stubbon areas of high pressure like anywhere on the planet can bottle up heat causing it to get hotter and hotter as each day passes,

as with cold record from the right area and right source cold will linger around so therefore records being broken on both sides although the records in the first place only go back so far.

but the question is and by far im not a scientist,

but read much from many people on here and around the net,

that solar cycles have effect in some way or form,

as you said ice berg we have seen record high solar cycles decline over recent decades maybe there is a lag from solar output or maybe its simple fact that oceans are much slower to cool add in strong el ninos this to shifts warmer waters around the planet greatly adding to the warming but still thease are all cycles.

most warm records have been broken during high solar and or el nino events and like wise la nina and minimums.

ok all i can really say is there is so much more to our climate on earth than co2 even if we had continued warm run of winters and hot dry summers i would still feel that something will change in the end.

i think things are starting to show differences in our climate so many of them to,

which makes the whole topic so confusing sometimes and we cant also forget the mighty jet stream and the mighty gulf stream all thease have changed over time although some have only been since the solar minimum.

but the answer to why we warmed could simply be because we are in a interglacial period where also the suns activty started out very high after its big sleep.

what will happen next is anyones guess but we all have different idears from different sources wether it be satellite data or plain old area data, but i know one thing its certain that recent years overall have gone against the grain maybe thats why people are started to listen to the skeptical side of gw. :lol:

[Methuselah]

I must admit, I am not interested in rhetorical garbage, okay? If you want to put-forward scienific arguments then, by all means, do so??

But, if it's wholly rhetorical then I'll delete it. Is that okay?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I see I have support from scientific circles!

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/aug/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-ice-ages-%E2%80%93-may-also-help-predict-future

Regarding solar activity this is true, but the article doesn't support the view that it undermines the case for AGW:

Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age – unless some other forces stop or slow it. But these are processes that literally move with glacial slowness, and due to greenhouse gas emissions the Earth has already warmed as much in about the past 200 years as it ordinarily might in several thousand years, Clark said.

“One of the biggest concerns right now is how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will respond to global warming and contribute to sea level rise,” Clark said. “This study will help us better understand that process, and improve the validity of our models.”

That last paragraph makes a particularly important point. What effect will melting of the Greenland ice sheet have? At the moment we don't really know. I doubt that the Antarctic ice sheet will melt significantly in the near future, though, unless we get a colossal amount of global warming (say upwards of 5C).

I'll be very surprised if that study does turn out to be conclusive- these things are often challenged subsequently in later studies that further enhance our understanding. At the same time, though, it makes a lot of sense that the sun should be the main driver (or at least one of the main drivers) of climate change over geological timescales.

[chionomaniac]

Thinking last night I thought what about the Feb stratospheric warming event. It was almost record breaking and caused a very large spike in temperatures.

Maybe a component of this took 6 months to feed down through the atmospheric layers ?. If so there should be some record of it as we move down through the layers.

If so it would be a shortish peak that has just coincided and augemented the start of the more modest natural El Nino global warming....

I don't think that will be a likely reason, Iceberg. Firstly,during the SSW there is a corresponding displacement of the polar cold temperatures into the equatorial regions which then slowly recover as the polar vortex reforms as can be seen from the following chart.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2009.gif

Secondly, even with this record breaking SSW the stratospheric propagation temperatures have practically recovered at the tropopause level by the end of March with no sign that any further propagation has occurred. I would reckon this effect would be nullified by July.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_NH_2009.gif

c

[weather eater]

Regarding solar activity this is true, but the article doesn't support the view that it undermines the case for AGW:

That last paragraph makes a particularly important point. What effect will melting of the Greenland ice sheet have? At the moment we don't really know. I doubt that the Antarctic ice sheet will melt significantly in the near future, though, unless we get a colossal amount of global warming (say upwards of 5C).

I'll be very surprised if that study does turn out to be conclusive- these things are often challenged subsequently in later studies that further enhance our understanding. At the same time, though, it makes a lot of sense that the sun should be the main driver (or at least one of the main drivers) of climate change over geological timescales.

Yes another article that explores natural cycles of cooling and warming and one that supports the idea that those natural cycles have a major impact on climate change, however as you have made clear in your post the article still ends up endorsing the view that AGW is a scientific fact.

As for the circular nature of the climate change threads I cant see that changing short of a really rapid and dramatic shift up or down in world temperatures.

[Iceberg]

I don't think that will be a likely reason, Iceberg. Firstly,during the SSW there is a corresponding displacement of the polar cold temperatures into the equatorial regions which then slowly recover as the polar vortex reforms as can be seen from the following chart.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2009.gif

Secondly, even with this record breaking SSW the stratospheric propagation temperatures have practically recovered at the tropopause level by the end of March with no sign that any further propagation has occurred. I would reckon this effect would be nullified by July.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_NH_2009.gif

c

Thanks Chionomanic, you were indeed the right person to say whether it was a sensible or not.!

A very recent paper discussing removing the known natural climate drivers from the temperature record include the short term variance caused by ENSO.

http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/TWJK_JClimate2009_revised.pdf

It is thankfully the full paper and I am thankful they have not hidden it behind paying journals.

[Iceberg]

Put simply, there was GW before there was A; therefore the sceptic brigade have a valid locus in any debate on the subject.

Seems to me, after contributing to, getting fed up with, and now observing the climate change debate in all its guises here for four and a half years that the discussion has always and will continue to go round in circles. We dont have all the answers and so its bound to. However, I find it encouraging that these are ever-increasing rather than ever-decreasing circles, due to the steady flow of ideas and evidence that comes in from all persuasions. Or they could be if people weren't constantly being chopped off at the ankles. There havent been many who have publicly reversed their position, but whether thats due to the quality of evidence or the quality of presentation is open to question. More likely, perhaps, its the tone of the debate that entrenches people in their beliefs and closes their minds to possible alternatives. Unfortunately, while the topics for discussion grow by the week, the opportunities to debate these rationally diminish. Back in my early days in this forum there were people who went to a great deal of trouble to investigate, evaluate and present evidence, and others (with specific qualification or experience,) who invested a similar amount of effort to explain the merits and demerits of the technicalities involved to the less well equipped in that regard, like me. Of course there were a few less gifted contributors who could only shout and scream about their own beliefs and accuse others of stupidity when their unquestionable logic was queried, but the general gist of the thing was to be helpful. It is sad that the terrorists have overtaken the teachers on both sides.

Doubt is not a crime, and persuasion is not a martial art.

Some valid points in this, but people quite simply are not going to spend time explaining, if the people they are explaining to in the first instance refuse point blank to believe in the figures being produced, global temps are a case in point.

There does seem to be more polarisation on both sides. With the scientists who support the theory essentially getting fed up with the debate and moving on, whilst the anti's are disbeliving more and more, it's an ever widening chasm, which I don't think will ever close tbh.

One of the branches will simply die away slowly over the next 20 years, both sides think it will be the other group.

On forums such as this we are simply sat at the edge of the chasm throwing stones at each other, sometimes a stone hits and scores a point, the problem is that the wider the chasm gets the bigger the stones have to be which are thrown.

This is a pretty bleak assessement, but in the chasm between the branches is a strong flowing river, are few very strong determined inderviduals can swim down this river between the camps, particularly for short periods but most drown or end up going to one side or t'other.

Occasionally concentration can be found to temporarily bridge this gap and talk sensibly to the other side about the science, but it does require a level of trust from both parties.

This level of trust was easier 4 or 5 years ago, and even easier 10 years when I started on climate forums, in 5 years time it will be even worse.

However at times we do need to try, even though we can slip up.

This is an open try from me, I am trying hard to find something that makes sense in GWO's or Rogers work. I would also really like to see some evidence/theory which support the view that solar has a big effect on global temperatures more than a couple of years after the maximum.

I fully accept and support the view that solar controls Ice age entry etc. I have always held this view. However the magnitude of solar varience in this geological time frames is many many times greater than the magnetude caused by our little 11 year solar cycles.

This is what makes the 2-4C of warming predicted so concerning, in the past it has always required a very big change in solar variance to cause this.

However most of this post is OT and should belong in the climate thread.

Going back to this thread. I discounted Solar as I know of NO supportable theory which says that Solar has it's biggest effect during a prolonger solar minimum. I am happy to be shown other wise.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Iceberg

[Methuselah]

Very interesting paper, Ice. It does show that real work is being done on the subject of natural climate-forcings...

[Iceberg]

There are some problems though in terms of how to address this thread, based on what you have said to me yesterday, and what you have again said here..

In your opening post you basically rule out to varying degrees most of the natural and cyclical factors in terms of the warming that you want to discuss in the thread. Now that is your opinion and it is fine for you to have that opinion - and your reasons are well enough known . But that leaves AGW as your reasoning for the warming does it not? Yet you say the thread is not designed to be about AGW . Sorry, not trying to be awkward, it is just that in terms of you pointing at AGW forcings as your own reasoning it basically seems this is another thread that is being set up for others to challenge the AGW viewpoint and give reasons why they disagree with your own reasoning (which backs up AGW). Or, alternatively, for other AGW proponents to back up your own post in agreement as to why they share your own viewpoint. It is rather loaded in the way that you have set the thread out - hence why I mentioned about the risk of it leading to circular debating. This is not meant to sound like 'I told you so' and I don't (genuinely) get any satisfaction from it - but unfortunately that is what has happened as we can see.

The other problem is in terms of the highlighted bit I have indicated. Using short term data to present warming,discussing reasons for it as the format of the thread, and then going on to use that as to possible reasons to extrapolate long termclimate trends is, effectively, mixing up short term weather with long term climate. I was well and truly shot and unfairly discredited (with unsubstantiated accused motives from one individual) in my recent ruined Met Office thread for suggesting that the METO blur seasonal forecasting with climate change (which I still very much believe they do), so the principle here IMO is not much different. It is fine if we all want to do that on a level playing field, but if we are going to do so can we please be consistent in allowing everyone to do it and not just make it ok for one side of the debate to do so and shoot down and lynch the other?

Tamara, thanks for the post, I will try to explain/cover some of your points.

In my opening post I put what my thoughts were on the subject, basically to try and show people where I stood to begin with, Sorry if this seemed as if I was trying to discount anything. It really wasn't written like that in mind.

It does leave AGW as my reason for the warming, I won't deny that, it would be dishonest of me. However I do want to see if there is any evidence to suggest otherwise, I am particularly interested to see if there is any other reason for the warming (I also believe there is some natural reason on top of AGW to give the recent global temperatures. I think it's important to understand what this natural reason is to futher correct understanding of climate science.

I don't think that long-term climate trends should be concluded from the global temperatures over the last few months.

Your right that weather and climate does not mix well, (rather like oil and water). However there is the caveat that global temperatures by there very nature are a well mixed average and so are much more representative of averages than the CET or the US states as they can and are effected by a single dominent weather pattern, even on a seasonal basis.

You also have the fact that the global temperature of the earth's surface is always going to be what's in - what's out + what's their to start with.

If it's going up when what's coming in is going down, then either what's in there to start with has to be higher than we thought or less is getting out.

I think your Met thread was slightly different in that it shot down the METO forecast and blamed the fact it was wrong on their GW stance/inclusion, I don't want to revisit old ground, but think it was different.

I've given my views, but do have an open mind as I know there is stuff I don't know (if that makes sense). I do NOT believe that AGW is causing all or even most of the warming in the last month or so. However the less evidence I see to support something else other than AGW, the higher percentage I will probably attrribute towards the general AGW warming trend.

Previously the turn of PDO from positive to negative effected temperature 18 months before the turn and greatly after. There were no big peaks after a PDO had turned.

I've put alot of effort into understand and monitoring natural climate cycles, I probably believe in them and their importance as much as any skeptic.

[Roger J Smith]

I would say that we are looking at a rather unusual pattern (June-July) with subtropical highs generally shifted away from normal positions, for example over North America and the western Atlantic, the usual Bermuda high has been very weak, and instead there has been persistent upper-level high pressure over the southern plains states. This has been phased with a persistent cold low over the Great Lakes region. The Mediterranean has been under another unusually strong upper level high especially for June.

This may all be a response to a winter season that saw more blocking than has been normal in recent years, and we should remember also that the hemispheric circulation is still processing the apparent feedback cycle from the open water anomaly in 2007 to the cloud and moisture anomalies of 2008 (over large parts of the n.h.). This may be some final stage of that process, with the circulation taking up a very passive configuration that is not doing much redistribution of heat from low to high latitudes.

The unusually cool weather from about eastern Montana and Alberta to the northeast U.S. makes it appear that this pattern is not the expected "global warming" type of signal, because earlier periods thought to be indicating this climate change were generally warmer than normal across that part of North America. It has indeed been one of the coolest June-July periods of recent decades in these regions (NYC for example has averaged 3 C below normal through the two months).

So I would point to this being a possible symptom of a lower-energy global circulation pattern that has perhaps been developing since around late 2006. I would say that the next phase may be a gradual restoration of more normal service once the El Nino event kicks in and perhaps some of this contained warmth in the subtropics will mix into the sluggish westerlies through the autumn of 2009.

This signal is already fading, the June-July heat wave in Texas has recently moderated, the heat has abated entirely in KS and OK, as part of the heat spread west and escaped into a blocking pattern over western Canada, from where it seems to have been dispersed through weak systems heading east. In other words, the chilly room furthest from the furnace (the northeast US) has begun to warm up to normal values and the south-central heat is now dispersing. I haven't been following the Mediterranean heat very closely, perhaps it too will be dispersing into nearby regions to the north.

As a result, the second half of July and early August became much more normal in temperature in the northeast US, and this episode may already be over now. There was something similar happening in May-June 1980, and this was followed by quite a cold winter in North America.

Given that this thread is concerned about very high temperatures, it is interesting to note that the western Canadian arctic has showed little sign of summer melting this year, and a persistent cold signal remains in place over central Canada, so as far as the geomagnetic theory goes, I would be looking at an explanation in the realm of field sectors that are south of the equatorial plane of the solar system magnetic field. The mass balance in the solar system at present is somewhat "south" (in this context, south means in the direction of the conventional south polar direction of the earth, as well as the Sun and most other planets, but more precisely defined as the south pole of the solar-dominated magnetic field).

I would note that in the discussions over at the GWO thread, I did mention about a year ago that I thought the predicted El Nino was going to start up this year and peak in 09-10, so this is consistent. In terms of theory indicators of a constrained subtropical warmth, most of the variables in play are currently south of their mean position; one or two will soon reverse but others are in a longer-term southward drift. The signals continue very mixed for winter 09-10 and I suspect that we will see a warm autumn but a cold winter as the general theme.

Bottom line is, this pattern is likely to be a natural variation that may have part of its cause in feedback from recent anomalies showing up in the previous winter season such as more blocking and less intense zonal flow. As with all recent events, I lean towards the 3:1 ratio of natural to anthropogenic which is not inconsiderable as far as human modification goes, and this may explain the intensity of the heat waves that accompanied this pattern (where they occurred), for example, where I live in Vancouver BC we have just had some of the hottest weather ever seen around here, although it's only a degree warmer than records established half a century ago. This would also imply that June and early July were, in natural terms, about as cool as it can get nowadays in the northeast U.S., if you assume that a slight warming of that pattern has taken place due to greenhouse gas forcing.

We have to keep in mind also that our understanding of low-solar climatic cooling is limited somewhat by earlier examples and the data from those times being mostly in the mid-latitudes, we don't necessarily know all that much about the patterns in the subtropics during those episodes.

[valiant]

It is sad that the terrorists have overtaken the teachers on both sides.

How can I sit in a classroom with two teachers, teaching me two ways to solve a mathematical problem - and screaming at each other because both think they're right, teach me ANYTHING?

Bemused or a terrorist?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Tamara, thanks for the post, I will try to explain/cover some of your points.

In my opening post I put what my thoughts were on the subject, basically to try and show people where I stood to begin with, Sorry if this seemed as if I was trying to discount anything. It really wasn't written like that in mind.

It does leave AGW as my reason for the warming, I won't deny that, it would be dishonest of me. However I do want to see if there is any evidence to suggest otherwise, I am particularly interested to see if there is any other reason for the warming (I also believe there is some natural reason on top of AGW to give the recent global temperatures. I think it's important to understand what this natural reason is to futher correct understanding of climate science.

I don't think that long-term climate trends should be concluded from the global temperatures over the last few months.

Your right that weather and climate does not mix well, (rather like oil and water). However there is the caveat that global temperatures by there very nature are a well mixed average and so are much more representative of averages than the CET or the US states as they can and are effected by a single dominent weather pattern, even on a seasonal basis.

You also have the fact that the global temperature of the earth's surface is always going to be what's in - what's out + what's their to start with.

If it's going up when what's coming in is going down, then either what's in there to start with has to be higher than we thought or less is getting out.

I think your Met thread was slightly different in that it shot down the METO forecast and blamed the fact it was wrong on their GW stance/inclusion, I don't want to revisit old ground, but think it was different.

I've given my views, but do have an open mind as I know there is stuff I don't know (if that makes sense). I do NOT believe that AGW is causing all or even most of the warming in the last month or so. However the less evidence I see to support something else other than AGW, the higher percentage I will probably attrribute towards the general AGW warming trend.

Previously the turn of PDO from positive to negative effected temperature 18 months before the turn and greatly after. There were no big peaks after a PDO had turned.

I've put alot of effort into understand and monitoring natural climate cycles, I probably believe in them and their importance as much as any skeptic.

Whilst I don't agree with your stance on AGW, I think your answer here is a very reasonable one to my questions .

There are still two thorny issues for me. One is that your summary given to Penguin is a very good one in terms of expressing the regret that most of us share about the chasm in the divide of the debate on this subject - and I agree it can regretfully only get worse and very probably will. To that end though, in expressing such regret about both sides of the discussion I am not sure that calling the sceptics of this forum ignorant and infantile is going to back up the well meant sentiments you express here. Noggin got a raw end of the deal here imo. I understand that you said that in the frustration of seeing your thread getting derailed (and I can really relate to that) but at the end of the day we do, afterall, see all sides 'go off one one' each week on these threads. None of us are immune to this sort of thing.

The other 'thorn' is indeed regarding my METO thread. I genuinely don't intend to hijack your thread here in the way that mine was - but the message I was putting across got very twisted and I ended up spending more time protesting and defending myself against accusations that I had opened the thread somehow purely in pique and frustration that I had, allegedly 'lost an argument' about the link between climate change and AGW to the Met Office. I still feel very resentful about this and how untrue such accusations are/were. This is also relevant to point 1 I have just made in that we are never going to reach compromise on both sides in these discussions, in the way that you rightly point out we should, if this sort of unsubstantiated claptrap is going to abound. And I am well aware of course that you did not personally make that allegation - just to add here .

I WAS suggesting that seasonal forecasting might start to suffer if an agenda of climate change and AGW is given too much emphasis within seasonal forecasting, and I do, imo, feel that is starting to happen and hence mixing up medium longer term forecasting with climate change - now people can either agree or disagree with that, fine, but lets leave out smears regarding people's motives for starting threads. That is hardly respectful is it not - whether one agrees with the theme of the thread or not!? Enough said on that, sorry to go on about it - but I do have the right to put the record straight in order to stop a continual spat of misrepresentations at my own expense.

I do believe that against your back ground belief in AGW you are trying to understand the natural and cyclical causation part - that is very evident in GWO thread and I think now that you have explained about this thread, such attempted understanding is evident as well. So credit is certainly due there. It relates very much in my own experience to the info that P3 gave me some time ago about the IPCC remit and AGW hypothesis. It is a very long report to digest, and there is still some that I don't completely understand.The parts of the report that I have been able to understand have underlined my own scepticism in the way that you find your own AGW pov underlined in terms of examing the natural/cyclical factors - but I very much agree that you have to understand and listen to what the 'other side says' in order to either justify your own position and/or to be able to help meet the sort of helpful compromise that you speak about in your post

Edited August 8, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Agreed Tamara this is a good thread and Iceberg conducts himself with great decorum...though I wish he would answer my question!!!!!

BFTP

[Methuselah]

Here's an interesting link concerning the variation in the solar constant...

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/resources/gcc/2-5-3.html

[Iceberg]

Thanks BFTP I've not been around much due to the nice weather and work, what was you question again ?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Thanks BFTP I've not been around much due to the nice weather and work, what was you question again ?

This is not a temp figure dispute, but there was large swathes of record cool and very cold weather around the globe. Normally one would also hear of record warmth around the globe but we haven't so there must be very large or larger warm anomalies. Where was the warmth to make July such a jump up?

BFTP

Edited August 11, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Iceberg]

We really need the NCDC breakdown to answer that, however taken from UAH simply as that's now out and it's the one that you use.

The figures below would indicate that most of the warming has been in the Southern Hemisphere Land and Oceans, with some warmth in the Northern half.

Hot a huge increase in the tropics where El Nino would be registering, which would also indicate that El Nino isn't the main cause of this warmth.

I'd probably hold off any firm conclusions though until NCDC is out later this week.

2009 June

0.01 Globe

0.13 Land

-0.06 Ocean

0.04 NH Total

0.08 NH Land

0.01 NH Ocean

-0.02 SH total

0.23 SH Land

-0.10 SH Ocean

0.01 Tropics

2009 July

0.42 Globe

0.49 Land

0.38 Ocean

0.22 NH

0.21 NH Land

0.24 NH Ocean

0.62 SH

1.04 SH Land

0.48 SH Ocean

0.44 Tropics.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Iceberg

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090812092817.htm

The above report would suggest that the Baltic has undergone a series of warmer/colder periods over the past 500yrs (15 in total) and that the transition between warm/cold is short.

For our 'long cycle' fanatics that works out at 33.33yrs per cycle (though I don't know if the cycles are regular.

The past 100yrs has given us less ice than at any other time during this period (yet river runoff totals remained constant) which echoes the previous nordic study showing the least sea ice cover over the past 800yrs .

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090812092817.htm

The above report would suggest that the Baltic has undergone a series of warmer/colder periods over the past 500yrs (15 in total) and that the transition between warm/cold is short.

For our 'long cycle' fanatics that works out at 33.33yrs per cycle (though I don't know if the cycles are regular.

The past 100yrs has given us less ice than at any other time during this period (yet river runoff totals remained constant) which echoes the previous nordic study showing the least sea ice cover over the past 800yrs .

Intersting article GW. It would be nice though to see the rhythm of the cycle, one would expect a rhythm if there is a cycle.

There we are, tis post shows GW in quote and I did nothing extra. It must be my PC thing, so hopefully folk won't 'complain' next time it doesn't happen, I don't do it on purpose [Pete T knows what i mean]

Ta for response Iceberg, interesting re SH.

BFTP

Edited August 15, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Gray-Wolf]

There we are, tis post shows GW in quote and I did nothing extra. It must be my PC thing, so hopefully folk won't 'complain' next time it doesn't happen, I don't do it on purpose [Pete T knows what i mean]

BFTP

Maybe you're hitting 'reply' on the post and not at the bottom of the page?

[❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️]

A build-up in greenhouse gasses

Edited August 15, 2009 by RAIN RAIN RAIN

[Gray-Wolf]

A build-up in greenhouse gasses

Seeing as we all (seem) to accept that GHG's are able to allow temps to rise but do not all agree that these increases (in GHG concentrations) are at the bottom of our current warming we are looking at other 'novel' drivers that ,over time, can overthrow the 'normal' climate drivers.

Some folk favour the initial driver (solar) as having the major impact and others look to the impact sustained warming has on the mechanism's Gaia has to mitigate her cyclical fluctuations (loss of carbon sinks ,releases of long stored Carbon reserves, long cycle deep ocean warming etc.)

I think the thread was a foil to get the folk who won't have humanity sullied with the ability to trash the planet to give up alternative (proven) mechanisms for the warming we have witnessed over the past few generations.

We can all see the 'extra' warming that has occurred by the reaction of our ice sheets/glaciers/sea ice (which has not occurred, should we choose to believe the evidence laid before us, since well before the onset of the last ice age) but why 'Now'???

[noggin]

I think the thread was a foil to get the folk who won't have humanity sullied with the ability to trash the planet to give up alternative (proven) mechanisms for the warming we have witnessed over the past few generations.

Oh,G-W, you really do take the bisuit sometimes....."the folk who won't have humanity sullied with the ability to trash the planet....".......name those people, please.