General Climate Change

[Admiral_Bobski]

Article on rock depletion here

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Well stone me!!!

We all know of such issues with special rock formations (limestone pavements being one that springs to mind) but all rocks?

Are we really in danger of accelerating natures goal of achieving an isostatic plain across the surface of our planet in our near future? I think not.

We are ,of course , in danger of ruining some of our natural wonders by our thirst for certain types of rock and that would be a great loss for our children, and our children's children, but I don't feel we face the peril that is outlined in the Article.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Although not AGW related, here's another article from the same source as the last.

CB

[SP1986]

Although not AGW related, here's another article from the same source as the last.

CB

[jethro]

Well stone me!!!

Two big flat ones, five little sharp ones and a bag of gravel?

[Gray-Wolf]

Are there any women here????

Anyhows......

Bad Bill's at it again;

http://www.theecolog...experiment.html

S'funny that we are looking at the mechanism we used to chill the Antarctic (by accident) to cool the planet.

Maybe Newton's observations can be extented and "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" is true of our meddling.

Like Dock leaves and nettles where-ever you find the problem you also find the remedy

EDIT: Trust the Telegraph......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7710229/Climate-change-could-make-half-the-world-uninhabitable.html

Edited May 12, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[noggin]

Are there any women here????

Oh yes, Wolfie! I admit to having been sneakily and anonymously following these threads on a daily basis, but not contributing anything. It seems quite pointless for me as it always goes around and around in circles (the non-Arctic kind) and anyway, what will be will be. That is not to say that I think we should not make an effort.....as I have been saying for years and ad nauseum (even to myself!)we have to stop being so polluting and we have to develop some clean and renewable power sources/fuels. I always do my best re the former, but the latter is beyond my meagre talents and abilities. But, for goodness sake, some clever and imaginative bods somewhere must surely be able to come up with something? :lol:

I am noting, with great interest, the cold and snow prevailing in the US of A, although I believe that some parts of Southern Europe are having a heatwave (I may be wrong, mind!) I am also noting the sunspot levels and the activity of the polar front jet (I think that's it's name). I note all these things in my brain and my brain shuffles all the info around, merges it with what it already considers that it knows, acknowledges that there is plenty that it doesn't know and then arrives at a probability. It is, of course, updated whenever more "notings" are added, but all the "notings" seem to reinforce my probability conclusion.

Of course, something might happen to blow my probability out of the water. It hasn't happened so far, but I am open to the possibility that it might. B)

[Gray-Wolf]

We seem to have had 2 or 3 years with some folk noting low solar, -ve PDO, AO etc as a reason to look for the 'cool down' and 'death of AGW' .

Well we are now in the process of 'seeing' if this is true or not.

We all accept that 'natural cycles' impact climate over short or long term (be it 'Nino's 18months or PDO's 30 odd years) and both regionally and globally.

If we ,stuck in our 'cool phase', pop a top 10 temp (globally) I feel it will need explaining by those who feel AGW is a non starter.

If Arctic ice ,after such a high 'extent' dwindles to the lowest/second lowest 'extent' come Sept this will also need explaining by the bod's crying 'recovery'.

As ever the folk who accept that AGW is 'real' and 'apparent' will grab onto these 'inconvenient truths' (should they come to pass) as another way to help folk see that AGW is there and rumbling away behind 'natural variation'.

For my part I see the start of AGW over-riding some natural cycles (or at least mitigating their impacts) as the Arctic ice cover again retreats to exceptionally low levels allowing a lot of 'extra' warmth to be absorbed by the planet.

Some folk seem to feel that only CO2 can warm the planet and that they do not witness it occurring in the way it ought. I feel these folk need to look at the mass of energy required to take out all of the perennial ice that we have lost and figure what this energy will do now that this job is done.

The next 15yrs are touted as a 'cooldown' or 'slowdown in warming'. If this 'natural cycle' overlaps with 'phase 2 warming' will the warming just continue unhindered with all that 'extra energy' offsetting the natural cool down we are in?

Edited May 12, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Solar Cycles]

We seem to have had 2 or 3 years with some folk noting low solar, -ve PDO, AO etc as a reason to look for the 'cool down' and 'death of AGW' .

Well we are now in the process of 'seeing' if this is true or not.

We all accept that 'natural cycles' impact climate over short or long term (be it 'Nino's 18months or PDO's 30 odd years) and both regionally and globally.

If we ,stuck in our 'cool phase', pop a top 10 temp (globally) I feel it will need explaining by those who feel AGW is a non starter.

If Arctic ice ,after such a high 'extent' dwindles to the lowest/second lowest 'extent' come Sept this will also need explaining by the bod's crying 'recovery'.

As ever the folk who accept that AGW is 'real' and 'apparent' will grab onto these 'inconvenient truths' (should they come to pass) as another way to help folk see that AGW is there and rumbling away behind 'natural variation'.

For my part I see the start of AGW over-riding some natural cycles (or at least mitigating their impacts) as the Arctic ice cover again retreats to exceptionally low levels allowing a lot of 'extra' warmth to be absorbed by the planet.

Some folk seem to feel that only CO2 can warm the planet and that they do not witness it occurring in the way it ought. I feel these folk need to look at the mass of energy required to take out all of the perennial ice that we have lost and figure what this energy will do now that this job is done.

The next 15yrs are touted as a 'cooldown' or 'slowdown in warming'. If this 'natural cycle' overlaps with 'phase 2 warming' will the warming just continue unhindered with all that 'extra energy' offsetting the natural cool down we are in?

Time will tell GW, lets sit back and enjoy the ride ( maybe )!!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://newstrust.net/stories/1588730/toolbar?ref=rss

How's about that then? Were the changing environment a 'cyclical thing' then would we not have met the "Grolar" before now??? Seeing as they pegged the polar Bears lineage we know when they became a distinct species and this new 'hybrid' has not been noted (in document or local 'lore') we have to take things at face value.

So all you '1930's saw a melt comparable to todays' why were there no "Grolars" back then?

[Hiya]

http://newstrust.net/stories/1588730/toolbar?ref=rss

How's about that then? Were the changing environment a 'cyclical thing' then would we not have met the "Grolar" before now??? Seeing as they pegged the polar Bears lineage we know when they became a distinct species and this new 'hybrid' has not been noted (in document or local 'lore') we have to take things at face value.

So all you '1930's saw a melt comparable to todays' why were there no "Grolars" back then?

Perhaps there were and no one told you? Ridiculous agrument.

We live in the media age remember.

[Yorkshiresnows]

http://newstrust.net...toolbar?ref=rss

How's about that then? Were the changing environment a 'cyclical thing' then would we not have met the "Grolar" before now??? Seeing as they pegged the polar Bears lineage we know when they became a distinct species and this new 'hybrid' has not been noted (in document or local 'lore') we have to take things at face value.

So all you '1930's saw a melt comparable to todays' why were there no "Grolars" back then?

You might like to explain why the Northwest passage was navigable without ice-breakers between 1940 and 1942. Pretty low ice late 30's early 40's.

The sudden cliamtic shift of 1979 coincinding with the switch in PDO to positive is presumably no more than coincidence in regards to the warming observed during the 80's and 90's.

We have not warmed since 1998 (will give you 2000 since the El-Nino spike is clearly there) and signs are that the PDO has shifted to negative. Coupled with low solar activity, it will be interesting to see what gives over the next few years

Have we been as warm as now in relatively recent history. You bet - medieval warm period, non tree-ring proxy data confirm this. Greenland colonisation also clearly shows this.

But, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and will have some effect. In my opinion, this is small in comparison to the forcing by natural cycles.

Another read for you GW is the book: The Great Global Warming Blunder by Roy Space (just realeased). Provides some very interesting data.

Y.S

Edited May 12, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[Gray-Wolf]

Perhaps there were and no one told you? Ridiculous argument.

We live in the media age remember.

Obviously I don't Hiya. With less Inuit following traditional lifestyles we have ever less people hunting the ice yet they bag a Grolar. Past 'melts' (1930's) plenty more folk on the ice but no Grolar.

Did you think that folk just kept 'mum' about such events back then so they just didn't tell or do you think such a remarkable beastie would have been all across the local rags?

Did N.G. not run such stories back then?

Zoologists?

Biologists?

[jethro]

Are there any women here????

No,no, no, no.

Damn this lack of intonation!

[Gray-Wolf]

No,no, no, no.

Damn this lack of intonation!

LOL!, youngest has just had a Pash' for both Life of and Holy Grail........I thought it was just old Beggars like me......seems not!

EDIT: Arf a dinnari fer me bloomin' life story?

Edited May 12, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.cbc.ca/ca...ane-arctic.html

Looks like even the naked eye can be deceived by the 'new arctic' ice. We've had plenty of anecdotal evidence of this years pack acting strange from the teams currently out on it but this is the first time I've heard of such an incident in the 'High Arctic'.

And maybe some end in sight for the debate on Himalayan Glaciers?

http://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/cameras-to-prove-melting-of-himalayan-glaciers

If you care you can look at some of the other work Extreme Ice Survey have done on their own web site;

http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/

Some of the Greenland Glacier work is stunning!

Edited May 13, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Paul T]

Hi All,

Not a regular in this area, but i've read some great debates here... shall spend some time when im free looking at all of your points.

I’m still not convinced on GW theory as we know it.

The earth's weather is one of the final phenomenons’s that Humanity will ever conquer; The irrational and often misunderstood elements of our queen’s climate is something that scientists cannot and, i believe, will not be able to predict rationally.

Just because we are living the newest day of our world, does not lead to us understanding its dawn

<_<

[noggin]

As we don't have a nice little political thread anymore ( :ph34r: :lol: ) I thought I'd pop this in here.....

......dissension (spelling checked in my dictionary!) in the Climate Camp camp.......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1278770/After-12-000-mile-flight-green-meeting-theres-MUTINY-Climate-Camp.html

More wobbly wheels,by the looks of it.

[Yorkshiresnows]

As we don't have a nice little political thread anymore ( ) I thought I'd pop this in here.....

......dissension (spelling checked in my dictionary!) in the Climate Camp camp.......

http://www.dailymail...imate-Camp.html

More wobbly wheels,by the looks of it.

Nice one.

Mind you, probably would have been the same reaction if they had read the 'Global Warming Blunder' by Roy Spencer (this is a guy who collects the data from the NASA Aqua satellite for global temperature measurements) - he has also published various papers and claims to have concrete evidence (based on the satellite data), that climate forcing via C02 feedbacks are grossly exaggerated and that the late 20th century warming can be attributed to natural factors.

Half way through myself and its very interesting - another scientist who believes that Cloud cover is the key element and that the global climate modals which assume that the climate system is very sensitive to Co2 are incorrect. These modals assume massive positive feedback effects when there is growing evidence of a far more robust climate system with strong negative feedback effects (through low level cloud cover) coupled to the Oceanic cycles. He presents evidence from his own peer reviewed data to back this up.

I'll pop a few of his diagrams in here on later posts to illustrate his reasoning - but there are more and more scientists now seriously questioning the IPCC forecast modal.

Quite a few wobbly wheels ...... but time will tell !!

Y.S

Edited May 17, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[Gray-Wolf]

Some more 'wobbly wheels'.......

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=4&submitted=Get+Report

with the hottest April ever recorded across the globe.....

[Solar Cycles]

Some more 'wobbly wheels'.......

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa...tted=Get+Report

with the hottest April ever recorded across the globe.....

Fudged data or honest science, you decide!

[BornFromTheVoid]

Some more 'wobbly wheels'.......

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=4&submitted=Get+Report

with the hottest April ever recorded across the globe.....

Is that data got by satellite measurement? It doesn't seem to tie up with actual ground readings as far as I can tell...

[Thundery wintry showers]

My guess is that it'll be judged as fudged if it agrees with AGW, and genuine if it doesn't, but then again I'm a cynic!

The best measure of accuracy will be when the CRU and NASA datasets come out, and we can see if they agree with NCDC. But NCDC's outputs are usually quite reliable and rarely subject to significant revision once they publish figures on the website.

According to NCDC, in fact, the first four months of the year have been fractionally warmer than those of 1998, though the difference is unlikely to be statistically significant as I suspect those values will be subject to error bars amounting to at least a few hundreths of a degree.

[jethro]

but then again I'm a cynic!

You're way too young to be a cynic, stop it right now

[Gray-Wolf]

My guess is that it'll be judged as fudged if it agrees with AGW, and genuine if it doesn't, but then again I'm a cynic!

The best measure of accuracy will be when the CRU and NASA datasets come out, and we can see if they agree with NCDC. But NCDC's outputs are usually quite reliable and rarely subject to significant revision once they publish figures on the website.

According to NCDC, in fact, the first four months of the year have been fractionally warmer than those of 1998, though the difference is unlikely to be statistically significant as I suspect those values will be subject to error bars amounting to at least a few hundredths of a degree.

I've been seeing similar with IJIS site. Not 2 weeks ago folk were holding it up as proof positive of an ice recovery. Now ,on another site, we're hearing how the data is 'corrupt' ,mis representative, politically driven...............I'm sure there will be a few more pram toys on the pavement before summers out!

The folk who grabbed onto 'climate-gate' as some kind of 'proof' that AGW was nothing more than fakery have been mislead by there sponsors into thinking that AGW was now dealt with when , in reality it has not truly begun yet.

http://www.independe...ow-1975613.html

Commentaries (like above) are set to become ever more plentiful as the year progresses, be it a busy Hurricane season ,a blocked Atlantic 'drought' for parts of Europe and Eastern European flooding as they cop for it, Ice melt (with the IceBridge/Cryosat data) and Global temps setting records....

The Atlantic is also looking very warm for the time of year;

http://www.osdpd.noa...t.5.17.2010.gif

Edited May 18, 2010 by Gray-Wolf