General Climate Change

[VillagePlank]

Of course, if the LI turns out to be correct and man's input is small (perhaps even insignificant) then it begs the question, "is there any point in reducing CO2?"

I'm not advocating a Business As Usual approach, I hasten to add - I'm simply saying that if all of our mitigation will have next to no effect on temperatures then would our funding not be better spent on adaptation rather than mitigation?

I have said before, one of the main reasons the human race is still here today is because we are masters of adaptation - more so than any other creature on the planet, because we are capable of altering our (local) environment. Is it not best to play to our strengths?

CB

Yes, that's a possibility; that is to say, that the attribution is so little CO₂ that there is no point is playing with it.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Of course, if the LI turns out to be correct and man's input is small (perhaps even insignificant) then it begs the question, "is there any point in reducing CO2?"

I'm not advocating a Business As Usual approach, I hasten to add - I'm simply saying that if all of our mitigation will have next to no effect on temperatures then would our funding not be better spent on adaptation rather than mitigation?

I have said before, one of the main reasons the human race is still here today is because we are masters of adaptation - more so than any other creature on the planet, because we are capable of altering our (local) environment. Is it not best to play to our strengths?

CB

Trouble is, we also have the issues of dwindling fossil fuel supplies and pollution- AGW or no, our current use of resources isn't sustainable. So mitigation would help to address those issues as well as any AGW, while focusing exclusively on adaptation will leave us in a spot of bother once fossil fuels become scarce- World War III would be a real possibility.

I think in general it's a bad idea to "put all of our eggs in either basket", i.e. a combination of mitigation and adaptation is the best way forward.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Trouble is, we also have the issues of dwindling fossil fuel supplies and pollution- AGW or no, our current use of resources isn't sustainable. So mitigation would help to address those issues as well as any AGW, while focusing exclusively on adaptation will leave us in a spot of bother once fossil fuels become scarce- World War III would be a real possibility.

I think in general it's a bad idea to "put all of our eggs in either basket", i.e. a combination of mitigation and adaptation is the best way forward.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you absolutely (and I've said much the same thing on here before ).

But reduction of consumption of fossil fuels could be done under the banner of "future sustainability" rather than supposed mitigation of environmental impacts. The future sustainability issue is an important one, but it is something we could transition to at a more comfortable, and safer, rate than this mad rush to cut CO2 to "mitigate global warming".

It's not the process I object to: it is the headlong rush that I think unwise.

CB

[Moomin]

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you absolutely (and I've said much the same thing on here before ).

But reduction of consumption of fossil fuels could be done under the banner of "future sustainability" rather than supposed mitigation of environmental impacts. The future sustainability issue is an important one, but it is something we could transition to at a more comfortable, and safer, rate than this mad rush to cut CO2 to "mitigate global warming".

It's not the process I object to: it is the headlong rush that I think unwise.

CB

I've been watching these discussions for some time now and very very rarely commented, just an observer you might say. However, I feel compelled to write as I couldn't agree more. As a geologist I remain (possibly incorrectly) unconvinced of man's ability to affect the climate so sitgnificantly, but the to my mind the CO2 issue is actually irrelevant. The issue is one of resource sustainability and preservation. The current drive to cut CO2 emmissions is not sustainable and will not preserve resources, quite the opposite in fact and may well result in an increase in CO2 emmissions. Cars for example, the drive is currently for all of us to replace our ageing vehicles with new fuel efficient machines. Surely it is a far better use fo resources to keep vehicles rather than replacing them every three years as most do, I notice that no one has ever produced CO2 emmissions for construction of new vehicles, particularly the hybrids?

My point really is that if we persue a sustainable/ resource preservation approach then I would anticipate that CO2 emmissions would in fact be reduced if indeed they are proved to be important.

P.S. GW I was reassured by your emotional post to Village Plank yesterday, I think it shows taht no matter what 'side of the fence' each of us may be on, ultimately we are all looking for the same outcome, namely the best way of preserving our planet for our children and other future generations - even if we do fall out from time to time.

Regards

Moomin

[jethro]

On the subject of replacing vehicles....absolutely agree it's far better to keep a vehicle rather than replace it. There were some studies done in the USA a while ago, I think they were labelled dust to dust studies, surprisingly the Jeep came out above the Prius.

[Solar Cycles]

Whatever the outcome C-Bob!

There is no way we will ever reduce our CO2 outputs until we have an energy source ,in place, that doesn't produce it in quantities.

The worlds 'energy demands' will not reduce as more and more of the developing world catches up with /demands the energy spent on folk in the developed world.

With population exploding this 'demand' will not reduce.

So whether we caused the warming or not warming is occuring and maybe we'd better just skip the 'blame game' and look to our future in terms of mitigating the impacts of any warming on our growing poulation.

I'm with you on that one GW, population explosion is in danger of taking us all back to the stone age. And yes we do need to find a viable energy alternative to fossil fuels ASAP. Would be interesting to know just how close we are to finding that solution!

[laserguy]

Cop a load of this

http://physicsworld....icle/news/42298

....particularly the closing paragraph. Even 'Mr Hockey Stick' himself can see the (dimming) light and must surely recognise that the hour is late in the wacky world of AGW. Twas fun while it lasted and provided a nice living for some of it's inventors.

[Devonian]

Cop a load of this

http://physicsworld....icle/news/42298

....particularly the closing paragraph. Even 'Mr Hockey Stick' himself can see the (dimming) light and must surely recognise that the hour is late in the wacky world of AGW. Twas fun while it lasted and provided a nice living for some of it's inventors.

It shows he's honest and he tells it how he sees it. Of course what he knows as well is what this reseach is really about is NW Europe not the globe - local not global. Not, of course, that anyone would seek to confuse that...

I've been watching these discussions for some time now and very very rarely commented, just an observer you might say. However, I feel compelled to write as I couldn't agree more. As a geologist I remain (possibly incorrectly) unconvinced of man's ability to affect the climate so sitgnificantly, but the to my mind the CO2 issue is actually irrelevant. The issue is one of resource sustainability and preservation. The current drive to cut CO2 emmissions is not sustainable and will not preserve resources, quite the opposite in fact and may well result in an increase in CO2 emmissions.

...

You seem to be saying that trying to reduce consumption will increase consumption and that increasing consumption will increase consumption. I doubt that both are right.

[Gray-Wolf]

As I have already said I'd mentioned a 'link' between solar min and H.P. systems back in my Beeb days and was pooh ,poohed for it yet I'm sure it came from my A level Geog. master back in the 80's???

Anyhow the record warmth across areas of the Far North this winter (due to the AO and our blocking) is not something I welcome. If the Poles are the air con. unit for the world then I'd like it in good working order and not adding to summer warming by the lack of sea ice or adding to our rising GHG levels by releasing Methane from the melting perma-frost.

We seem to talk from 2 different places on here. Some accept the changes and some seem to feel that there are no changes just natural cycles. If we have had 'changes' then looking to the past for guidance won't work as that was the way the planet 'used' to work.

Ho Hum, off we go again.....

[jethro]

Couldn't it be argued that less sea ice is actually better from an 'air con' point of view? We all know that heat transfer from the Tropics to the Poles is a distribution process, it stands to reason then that if warmer Tropics means theres more heat to distribute, there's more ice melt and more open water; wouldn't ice capped water prevent the additional heat being able to escape and radiate to space? Seems to me what we are actually witnessing is an 'air con' system working perfectly, doing what it's supposed to do.

[Gray-Wolf]

It's that 24hr sun wot done it J.

I think the amount of energy absorbed at the tropics is less than the incoming up at the pole over it's 'summer sun glut' so the old ice was a tad useful in reflecting that straight back into space. Now that excess energy is absorbed (dark water) and then re-emited in the infra-red spectrum for our friendly GHG's to absorb.

It would be good if things worked your way and I'd vote for it!!!

[jethro]

But we don't actually know that do we? Have those sums been done with any degree of accuracy?

If you think about it, the idea that loss of albedo will outstrip the benefits of open water radiating more energy, wouldn't that mean we'd have boiled away out of existence a long time ago (I'm not talking about times when Earth was configured differently). Countless studies show we were as warm, if not warmer back in the 1930's and the MWP, if the terminal flip you envisage was likely to happen, why didn't it happen back then?

There will be ebbs and flo's in ice volume, that's a system working properly, not one in terminal decline.

[Gray-Wolf]

But we don't actually know that do we? Have those sums been done with any degree of accuracy?

If you think about it, the idea that loss of albedo will outstrip the benefits of open water radiating more energy, wouldn't that mean we'd have boiled away out of existence a long time ago (I'm not talking about times when Earth was configured differently). Countless studies show we were as warm, if not warmer back in the 1930's and the MWP, if the terminal flip you envisage was likely to happen, why didn't it happen back then?

There will be ebbs and flo's in ice volume, that's a system working properly, not one in terminal decline.

I think the main difference between the past short term 'cyclical' warmings are that we were able to maintain our ice pack throughout them so mitigating the impacts. This time we have lost our perennial ice and our permafrosts are waning.

The energy equations have been done (which is why I know that the pole gets more energy per m squared than the equator over the 24hr day period) and the albedo reflection of ice (90%+) to the absorption of energy by dark water (80%+) is a very big turnaround.

As for us 'radiating' the energy away I do believe that GHG's absorb more heat than an atmosphere without them. If you look at the sat images of where most GHG's tend to accumulate it is over the land masses of the Northern Hemisphere which couldn't be worse if that is where 'extra heat' is being radiated.

The increases in the production of 'super GHG's' over the polar areas (methane from perma-frost melt) is also a worry.

I do agree that ice 'extent' varies with the weather.

Perennial ice is a product of climate and it is the perennial where the losses are being felt.

As I touch up on over on the polar thread the loss of the unique zoning within the Arctic Ocean is also not a 'cyclical' thing and is a direct result of past glaciations and the unique geography of the Basin. Once these zones are gone (mixed) then so is the chance of 'thick ice' (as the southern oceans show us) as the limit will be the depth the ice can be pushed down into the waters before encountering the warmer ,saltier waters below. The ice thickness studies through the noughties show us that ice thickness is already limited to just over 2m+ (unlike the thickness that brings us Bergs that tower over the ice pack as big as office blocks ......with most of the berg being pushed down below water yet still in the fresh,cold zone).

Edited April 27, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Yorkshiresnows]

It's that 24hr sun wot done it J.

I think the amount of energy absorbed at the tropics is less than the incoming up at the pole over it's 'summer sun glut' so the old ice was a tad useful in reflecting that straight back into space. Now that excess energy is absorbed (dark water) and then re-emited in the infra-red spectrum for our friendly GHG's to absorb.

It would be good if things worked your way and I'd vote for it!!!

I disagree with the above.

Heat is absorbed predominantly at the tropics / equatorial regions (top 15 metres mostly) and is circulated by the ocean currents to areas of permament loss (most particularly in the Northern hemisphere due to it being water rather than land based).

That's my understanding anyway.

Y.S

[Gray-Wolf]

Y.S., I found this;

http://www.applet-magic.com/insolation.htm

if you scroll down you'll see the energy recieved at the pole at solstice.

12.64KW per m sq at the pole

9.2 KW per m sq at the equator

so over that period quite a lot more at the pole.

When you absorb most of that then it mounts up esp. when you have to loose it before you can re-freeze the waters come autumn (Arctic Amplification)

[jethro]

Y.S., I found this;

http://www.applet-ma.../insolation.htm

if you scroll down you'll see the energy recieved at the pole at solstice.

12.64KW per m sq at the pole

9.2 KW per m sq at the equator

so over that period quite a lot more at the pole.

When you absorb most of that then it mounts up esp. when you have to loose it before you can re-freeze the waters come autumn (Arctic Amplification)

But where does that take into account differing levels of ice? In order to balance that equation you'd need more than just static firgures. Plus of course it has to take into account that for 12 months of the year it's dark up North.

Re your post prior to this one....

Where is your evidence that we retained perennial ice pack during the MWP?

Are you saying that the atmosphere in the NH is static and that radiated heat stays in situ? If so, how can that be when heat from the Tropic is transported to the poles? Which one is it, a well mixed atmosphere or a static one?

[Gray-Wolf]

But where does that take into account differing levels of ice? In order to balance that equation you'd need more than just static figures. Plus of course it has to take into account that for 12 months of the year it's dark up North.

Re your post prior to this one....

Where is your evidence that we retained perennial ice pack during the MWP?

Are you saying that the atmosphere in the NH is static and that radiated heat stays in situ? If so, how can that be when heat from the Tropic is transported to the poles? Which one is it, a well mixed atmosphere or a static one?

The calculations are the energy ,on average, that comes in. If we accept that we used to have ice at the pole then we accept that most of that 'energy' was sent straight back into space via the ice's albedo. Dark water now soaks up 80%+ of that energy. Can you say that this is insignificant?

None of the 'evidence' is 'mine' Jethro and it is all available 'online' if you look. If you are interested then you will look and find the current 'understanding' of how much of the Arctic has been open water and when via the mud logs (both iceberg 'droppings' and foram's). You can choose to accept the way we measure such things or you can try and question it. Being brought up with a 'boys interests' in prehistory (Dino's and volcanoes) and being Educated in Geology I have no doubts as to how useful our core sample are in creating a picture of our geological past. From your questions I take it you have your doubt's but surely you do not dismiss the way science accounts for such?

I'm saying no such thing about our atmosphere but the kit we now have in space (including one of our own Sat's) that bring us info on GHG's and their distribution shows us , quite clearly, that there are animus in GHG's over the northern hemisphere. As such those 'extra concentrations' of GHG's (however fleeting it is for individual molecules there are always more on the way to replace them) could not be in a worse place to intercept the re-emitted infra-red from those warming ,summer Arctic oceans or the shedding of that heat (Arctic Amplification) in Autumn (as the heat plots through the atmosphere now show).

The atmosphere does , in time, become better mixed. Is not 'weather' just the mixing of the atmosphere? Your thinking that this is an instantaneous event seems a little skewed esp. for one who sees, first hand, polar maritime air masses battling with tropical continental air masses throughout the year

I would not seek to convert you to my world view J, but I ask that you take more notice of our science (esp. that which we can freely access) so you might understand the things we are told are occurring and when this last occurred in our planets history. This is no 'extreme view just basic understanding of our planets history.

I hope I don't get shouted at now

[jethro]

The calculations are the energy ,on average, that comes in. If we accept that we used to have ice at the pole then we accept that most of that 'energy' was sent straight back into space via the ice's albedo. Dark water now soaks up 80%+ of that energy. Can you say that this is insignificant?

None of the 'evidence' is 'mine' Jethro and it is all available 'online' if you look. If you are interested then you will look and find the current 'understanding' of how much of the Arctic has been open water and when via the mud logs (both iceberg 'droppings' and foram's). You can choose to accept the way we measure such things or you can try and question it. Being brought up with a 'boys interests' in prehistory (Dino's and volcanoes) and being Educated in Geology I have no doubts as to how useful our core sample are in creating a picture of our geological past. From your questions I take it you have your doubt's but surely you do not dismiss the way science accounts for such?

I'm saying no such thing about our atmosphere but the kit we now have in space (including one of our own Sat's) that bring us info on GHG's and their distribution shows us , quite clearly, that there are animus in GHG's over the northern hemisphere. As such those 'extra concentrations' of GHG's (however fleeting it is for individual molecules there are always more on the way to replace them) could not be in a worse place to intercept the re-emitted infra-red from those warming ,summer Arctic oceans or the shedding of that heat (Arctic Amplification) in Autumn (as the heat plots through the atmosphere now show).

The atmosphere does , in time, become better mixed. Is not 'weather' just the mixing of the atmosphere? Your thinking that this is an instantaneous event seems a little skewed esp. for one who sees, first hand, polar maritime air masses battling with tropical continental air masses throughout the year

I would not seek to convert you to my world view J, but I ask that you take more notice of our science (esp. that which we can freely access) so you might understand the things we are told are occurring and when this last occurred in our planets history. This is no 'extreme view just basic understanding of our planets history.

I hope I don't get shouted at now

Hey, I don't do shouting, I only get cross when folk are needlessly rude and intolerant to each other.

I know there's loads of stuff out there to read, I've done my best to digest lots over the years but time constraints and a busy work schedule limit how much I get the opportunity to take on board. Without wishing to sound rude, do you read and take on board anything which is contra to the view that Arctic ice is doomed?

My biggest doubts stem not from the science we know, more the science we don't know and the ever changing picture. Science progresses (as it should) so I find it really difficult to get too excited about the latest doomsday scenario's. Take the latest on pressure belts for example, the studies show that a quiet Solar period changes their course - was it last year or perhaps the year before when those self same pressure belts and associated weather systems were deemed to have moved irreparably Northwards due to AGW? If a quiet Sun causes a shift in pattern, might not an active one too? A little bit of information is a dangerous thing when it leads to assumption, which in the case of climate studies is all too often IMO.

The basic understanding of our planets' history is precisely that, basic. Really broad brush strokes of the past which are then compared to detailed modern studies - how can we possibly know the detail needed to make such assertions which are regularly made?

I really would like to understand how we can have periods in our history (with current Continent alignment) which have been as warm, if not warmer than today and yet we did not boil away out of existence. The Polar ice obviously must have melted and it also obviously recovered, why is today any different? Adding CO2 into the mix and saying "oh today's different" doesn't cut it (again IMO) as the warming in recent years goes counter to the know physics laws of its' logarithmic effect.

It just doesn't add up and believe me, I've tried - I even started all this from a "it must be true perspective" my only questions were about the magnitude of impact we could expect; how much warmer/dryer/wetter would we become? My sole aim was to discover if Beech trees were really to be wiped from our landscape due to annual drought conditions.

[Yorkshiresnows]

Hey, I don't do shouting, I only get cross when folk are needlessly rude and intolerant to each other.

I know there's loads of stuff out there to read, I've done my best to digest lots over the years but time constraints and a busy work schedule limit how much I get the opportunity to take on board. Without wishing to sound rude, do you read and take on board anything which is contra to the view that Arctic ice is doomed?

My biggest doubts stem not from the science we know, more the science we don't know and the ever changing picture. Science progresses (as it should) so I find it really difficult to get too excited about the latest doomsday scenario's. Take the latest on pressure belts for example, the studies show that a quiet Solar period changes their course - was it last year or perhaps the year before when those self same pressure belts and associated weather systems were deemed to have moved irreparably Northwards due to AGW? If a quiet Sun causes a shift in pattern, might not an active one too? A little bit of information is a dangerous thing when it leads to assumption, which in the case of climate studies is all too often IMO.

The basic understanding of our planets' history is precisely that, basic. Really broad brush strokes of the past which are then compared to detailed modern studies - how can we possibly know the detail needed to make such assertions which are regularly made?

I really would like to understand how we can have periods in our history (with current Continent alignment) which have been as warm, if not warmer than today and yet we did not boil away out of existence. The Polar ice obviously must have melted and it also obviously recovered, why is today any different? Adding CO2 into the mix and saying "oh today's different" doesn't cut it (again IMO) as the warming in recent years goes counter to the know physics laws of its' logarithmic effect.

It just doesn't add up and believe me, I've tried - I even started all this from a "it must be true perspective" my only questions were about the magnitude of impact we could expect; how much warmer/dryer/wetter would we become? My sole aim was to discover if Beech trees were really to be wiped from our landscape due to annual drought conditions.

This is an excellent post.

I agree entirely. I really would love for somebody to explain why the warm periods prior to late last century (Roman and medievil)and the obvious consequence of less ice (if Viking longships could sale round the southern tip of Greenland and park settlements mid way up Greenland on the western side and farm the land - there was less ice than now) did not lead to the cataclysmic collapse of the earths air-conditioning system. (I presume that more ocean without ice cover must have been absorbing more heat as GW states !!).

Something does not add up here.

As ever, time will tell.

Y.S

[jethro]

Why thank you kind Sir.

It's a relief to know my gibberish makes sense to someone else too.

[Gray-Wolf]

I know Y.S. , it's that 'extra mile' that we have today taking us above and beyond what we see from past 'cyclical warming' that troubles me too!

I'm with 'mainstream science' as to what it is that has 'made the difference' to tip the balence and bring us to the point we find ourselves today.

In the past 'normal service' has been resumed within a generation or so but ,here we are, 3 generations on and STILL warming????

[Yorkshiresnows]

I know Y.S. , it's that 'extra mile' that we have today taking us above and beyond what we see from past 'cyclical warming' that troubles me too!

I'm with 'mainstream science' as to what it is that has 'made the difference' to tip the balence and bring us to the point we find ourselves today.

In the past 'normal service' has been resumed within a generation or so but ,here we are, 3 generations on and STILL warming????

But we are not warming at the moment are we. Not since 1998. Global temps have stabilised with a slight dip over the past few years.

Projections of temperature based on the CO2 computer modals should have us hotter than we are (MET office charts). This is not borne out by actual observation or recorded temps.

What is the extra mile? There is data to suggest that the Roman and indeed medievil periods were warmer than now (I admit that this is controversial) ..... what happened after. A sudden switch to a much more vriable and cooler climate. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Sun could it !!

Y.S

P.S Even better ... check out the below link regarding IPCC forecasts versus reality !!

http://www.accuweather.com/video.asp?channel=vblog_laminate floori

Edited April 28, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[Gray-Wolf]

But we are not warming at the moment are we. Not since 1998. Global temps have stabilised with a slight dip over the past few years.

Now you don't seriously mean that do you? which temp series are we using??

Here we are midst one of the warmest 6 month period in recorded history and you tell me it's 'stable'

If you drew a line from 98' to now you'd have an increase from then to now (try it!)

If you drew a line from 97' to 'now' you'd have a steeper increase.

If you drew a line between 2000 and now you'd have a whopping great increase.

The time of hiding behind the 98', Nino influenced, temp spike is over my friend, the current global heatwave is set to put 2010 as the warmest year on record now background global temps have reached the height of the extraordinary spike in temps we saw back in 98'. It was always going to happen and the moderate Nino' has helped but midst the latest 30 yr PDO-ve phase coupled with a negative AO this isn't a bad showing is it?

Don't worry, in 8 years time the climates 'natural variability' will have supplied a couple of cooler years again so you'll find the same nonsense being spouted. Sadly , by then, the background temp rises will mean that we won't need a Nino' to challenge the new temp record we're setting.

As for the Romans weren't the garrison on H's Wall writing home for socks and undies??? and weren't they Rumanian's??

I can see by the 400's Saxon and Jute lands were being inundated (hence their migrations) via some warming and ice melt but I see no such 'inundations' when our Viking outlaws were fleeing to this 'Green Land' you speak of. I just wonder how much light you get at Equinox when you're facing Baffin island, 1/2 way up the west coast of Greenland? I know there were stunted trees there until the outlaws chopped them all down whilst they were exhausting the glacial moraine using 'western farming methods'.

So we have a 'limited' growing season and are constantly blasted by the Ice sheets inland of you. Your land is exhausted and unproductive and folk stopped visiting you from Iceland a while back. Their remains cry out disease and famine ,their 'lands' cry out 'existed' and their fuel is all gone. Yup ,must've been the climate......

[Solar Cycles]

Now you don't seriously mean that do you? which temp series are we using??

Here we are midst one of the warmest 6 month period in recorded history and you tell me it's 'stable'

If you drew a line from 98' to now you'd have an increase from then to now (try it!)

If you drew a line from 97' to 'now' you'd have a steeper increase.

If you drew a line between 2000 and now you'd have a whopping great increase.

The time of hiding behind the 98', Nino influenced, temp spike is over my friend, the current global heatwave is set to put 2010 as the warmest year on record now background global temps have reached the height of the extraordinary spike in temps we saw back in 98'. It was always going to happen and the moderate Nino' has helped but midst the latest 30 yr PDO-ve phase coupled with a negative AO this isn't a bad showing is it?

Don't worry, in 8 years time the climates 'natural variability' will have supplied a couple of cooler years again so you'll find the same nonsense being spouted. Sadly , by then, the background temp rises will mean that we won't need a Nino' to challenge the new temp record we're setting.

As for the Romans weren't the garrison on H's Wall writing home for socks and undies??? and weren't they Rumanian's??

I can see by the 400's Saxon and Jute lands were being inundated (hence their migrations) via some warming and ice melt but I see no such 'inundations' when our Viking outlaws were fleeing to this 'Green Land' you speak of. I just wonder how much light you get at Equinox when you're facing Baffin island, 1/2 way up the west coast of Greenland? I know there were stunted trees there until the outlaws chopped them all down whilst they were exhausting the glacial moraine using 'western farming methods'.

So we have a 'limited' growing season and are constantly blasted by the Ice sheets inland of you. Your land is exhausted and unproductive and folk stopped visiting you from Iceland a while back. Their remains cry out disease and famine ,their 'lands' cry out 'existed' and their fuel is all gone. Yup ,must've been the climate......

But GW YS is right, doesn't matter how much you try dress mutton up as lamb, facts are facts. Jethro's comments earlier summed it up, science moves along with increasing knowledge. Ok climate science is a tad reluctant to take on board anything that may halt the gravy train, but trust me, the coming years will turn climate science on it's head. Until then I expect more unsubstantiated scaremongering to continue! All the aboard the gravy train, last stop???

[Yorkshiresnows]

Now you don't seriously mean that do you? which temp series are we using??

Here we are midst one of the warmest 6 month period in recorded history and you tell me it's 'stable'

If you drew a line from 98' to now you'd have an increase from then to now (try it!)

If you drew a line from 97' to 'now' you'd have a steeper increase.

If you drew a line between 2000 and now you'd have a whopping great increase.

The time of hiding behind the 98', Nino influenced, temp spike is over my friend, the current global heatwave is set to put 2010 as the warmest year on record now background global temps have reached the height of the extraordinary spike in temps we saw back in 98'. It was always going to happen and the moderate Nino' has helped but midst the latest 30 yr PDO-ve phase coupled with a negative AO this isn't a bad showing is it?

Don't worry, in 8 years time the climates 'natural variability' will have supplied a couple of cooler years again so you'll find the same nonsense being spouted. Sadly , by then, the background temp rises will mean that we won't need a Nino' to challenge the new temp record we're setting.

As for the Romans weren't the garrison on H's Wall writing home for socks and undies??? and weren't they Rumanian's??

I can see by the 400's Saxon and Jute lands were being inundated (hence their migrations) via some warming and ice melt but I see no such 'inundations' when our Viking outlaws were fleeing to this 'Green Land' you speak of. I just wonder how much light you get at Equinox when you're facing Baffin island, 1/2 way up the west coast of Greenland? I know there were stunted trees there until the outlaws chopped them all down whilst they were exhausting the glacial moraine using 'western farming methods'.

So we have a 'limited' growing season and are constantly blasted by the Ice sheets inland of you. Your land is exhausted and unproductive and folk stopped visiting you from Iceland a while back. Their remains cry out disease and famine ,their 'lands' cry out 'existed' and their fuel is all gone. Yup ,must've been the climate......

No, no ,no ,no and NO.

You need to check the facts !!!

See the recent video link that I posted. If the model temp predictions are wrong, which they are ..... and this is fact (MET office - see their website) - (show me the evidence it is not !!!), then the whole basis for the models has to be flawed ...... and we need to re-think.

Global warming is real .... no dispute from me ...... my belief is that the warming is natural, can be explained by natural cycles, and we are likely to cool over the next few years.

Y.S