Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Are our Winters changing?


Barry12

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire

Si. Certainly the last few years have not produced any memorable hot summer weather, though that’s not true worldwide and there were some very hot summers in the 90s and into the early 2000s, what we have seen is plenty of very wet summers. Noggin I too am a great believer in weather cycles and in AGW, what I don’t believe in is either or. In other words if it isn’t that then it must be this, that’s seems to be a rather naive view point although plenty on NW seems to buy into it on both sides of the debate. However let’s not get sidetracked by discussions that can be had in plenty on other areas of the site. So are winters getting worse or just reverting to a similar position pre the long spell of mild ones.

Hang on.........smile.png I never mentioned the dreaded AGW and would like to make it clear that I do not believe in it.nonono.gif

I just wanted to say how Februarys have changed in my lifetime!good.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: East Anglia
  • Location: East Anglia

Hang on.........smile.png I never mentioned the dreaded AGW and would like to make it clear that I do not believe in it.nonono.gif

I just wanted to say how Februarys have changed in my lifetime!good.gif

Which just goes to show that so polarised is the debate on GW that it is impossible to have a conversation about, “have our winters changed†without getting into a climate change debate. Indeed it would be peculiar if the debate didn’t go down that route. Certainly Februarys have changed in my life time, they have become less likely to be cold and snowy, over recent years spring seems to bring the best weather and comes early and the summers have become washouts. In reference to cycles, it is said that the little ice age was preceded by three very wet summers, so maybe just maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire

Which just goes to show that so polarised is the debate on GW that it is impossible to have a conversation about, “have our winters changed†without getting into a climate change debate. Indeed it would be peculiar if the debate didn’t go down that route.

smile.png Your earlier response to my observations referred to AGW, but now you refer to GW without the A.

Whilst I believe that the global temperature fluctuates, I do not ascribe the changes to anthropogenic causes.

The A itself is only a small thing, just a letter in fact, but using that small thing makes a whole heap of difference when used in front of the other two letters: GW.

I am just wanting to make my position clear.good.gif

.........what happened to the climate change forum? Did it turn into a bearpit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: East Anglia
  • Location: East Anglia

smile.png Your earlier response to my observations referred to AGW, but now you refer to GW without the A.

Whilst I believe that the global temperature fluctuates, I do not ascribe the changes to anthropogenic causes.

The A itself is only a small thing, just a letter in fact, but using that small thing makes a whole heap of difference when used in front of the other two letters: GW.

I am just wanting to make my position clear.good.gif

.........what happened to the climate change forum? Did it turn into a bearpit?

Its always a bearpit,

I used GW, because it seems to upset people less, and not turn this thread into a bearpit as well. For me climate is being changed by both humans and by natural processes, prehaps I shall use GW and AGW next time, just to keep people happy.

Curiously what we know about climate cycles has been reveled to us by people who also in the main also believe in AGW, it would seem remarkable to me that those people are being honest about natural cycles but dishonest about mans impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

Bears? Nah! Nothing so dangerous. More like a pit of ankle biting terrierslaugh.png

Just a warning, if ye do continue to discuss AGW/GW/Climage Change or whatever, your posts will probably get deleted. Has been happening all over the forum since the climate area closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Headington,Oxfordshire
  • Weather Preferences: Snow
  • Location: Headington,Oxfordshire

When you look back at the the years following on from the millenium, there were very few winters where we saw snowfall from what my mind can remember, but since 2007, we have seen a decent snowfall event at least, including this winter every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I think they feel this is a 'Weather Site' and not a climate one and so 'ne'er the Twain shall meet'......which is odd?

Nope, we're just trying to find a way to stop any climate area becoming a battle of entrenched opinions that degenerate into frustrated arguments and end up with aggressive posts that create more work for the team than is reasonable. The whole area became unwelcoming to new posters and was becoming a stale back and forth with no progression or chance for new ideas or threads to take root owing to the beast it had become. We want it to be more conductive to being a discussion forum and it will be back. So let's enjoy the break and not turn other areas into a pseudo climate thread where possible, please? Thanks

I am of the belief that whatever caused the changes to snow melt and ice loss across the north that this effect is now self sustaining and self reinforcing. It may be that folk note the change,s since the mammoth 07' melt, to summer weather patterns rather than winter but the impacts of this 'new' , natural, forcing must be huge and must have impact in the climate system.

Should those changes prove to be in their infancy then we can expect impacts to be more discernible as time moves on and the change both increase and consolidate.

If we are seeing 'difference' in our jet stream patterns then this to is not finished in it's 'changes' with more snow to melt and ice to melt out over summer (so more energy put into the North).

I still think we will see the Polar Jet become so slow moving and amplified that it will cease to be recognisable as a 'Jet' under current ways of measuring it and so 'disappear' leaving only the sub-tropical Jet. Should this remaining Jet move north then we can expect even more extreme weather as much warmer ,moister airmasses confront cold northern air masses.

When i look at the Mid west , USA, in late spring and see polar air meeting warmed G.O.M. air I have to wonder if this is what we have in store over the coming decades?

As for winters? It does appear that lower energy /sinuous Jets will allow inner continental H.P.s to grow and maintain (allowing for very cold 'home grown' temps to arise). Should this prove so then we will only ever 'tap into' such air on occasion and will mainly find the busy Atlantic brushing over us as it is forced north ,around the inner continental block, into the Arctic via Sweden/Svalbard.

Edited by IanM
I like red fonts :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France
  • Weather Preferences: Continental type climate with lots of sunshine with occasional storm
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France

Bears? Nah! Nothing so dangerous. More like a pit of ankle biting terrierslaugh.png

Just a warning, if ye do continue to discuss AGW/GW/Climage Change or whatever, your posts will probably get deleted. Has been happening all over the forum since the climate area closed.

I don't really see why - in my view discussion of climate, whether or not it is changing and whether or not the changes are man made is a valid and legitimate subject for discussion and if attempts are being made to suppress it I won't be best pleased.

After all climate stems from weather.

Admittedly views can get heated at times but it is not as drawing cyber pistols in a duel at dawn will kill or injure anybody - we should all be grown up enough to take the varying different points of view in our stride and people should be free to express them provided they remain within the bounds of common courtesy,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: West Sussex
  • Weather Preferences: Outdoors
  • Location: West Sussex

I think they feel this is a 'Weather Site' and not a climate one and so 'ne'er the Twain shall meet'......which is odd?

To reiterate my reply in the post above :

Nope, we're just trying to find a way to stop any climate area becoming a battle of entrenched opinions that degenerate into frustrated arguments and end up with aggressive posts that create more work for the team than is reasonable. The whole area became unwelcoming to new posters and was becoming a stale back and forth with no progression or chance for new ideas or threads to take root owing to the beast it had become. We want it to be more conductive to being a discussion forum and it will be back. So let's enjoy the break and not turn other areas into a pseudo climate thread where possible, please? Thanks

Please bear this in mind, and normal service will be resumed very soon, we don't want to stifle the conversation, but definitely want to muffle the yelling :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: East Anglia
  • Location: East Anglia

I don't really see why - in my view discussion of climate, whether or not it is changing and whether or not the changes are man made is a valid and legitimate subject for discussion and if attempts are being made to suppress it I won't be best pleased.

After all climate stems from weather.

Admittedly views can get heated at times but it is not as drawing cyber pistols in a duel at dawn will kill or injure anybody - we should all be grown up enough to take the varying different points of view in our stride and people should be free to express them provided they remain within the bounds of common courtesy,

The problem is that any discussion on climate change just goes round and round, this is because views on this subject have now become so entrenched that neither side is interested in the other side’s arguments, facts, figures, information or evidence, and they will mask their indifference by saying it’s not compelling enough or any one of a dozen other excuses, it has in short become like religion. Not only that but it has become as I stated earlier, an either or debate, polarised with no attempt to even consider that valid arguments might make by either side or that a common ground can be found. It’s no wonder the moderating team would rather it wasn't discussed, of course that in turn makes it very difficult to have discussions on many weather related areas, as climate change, natural man made or a combination of the two, obviously has an impact on our weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

I agree with much of what you say Mike. The climate area should be back up and running soon enough though. How long that lasts is anyone's guess!

The problem is that any discussion on climate change just goes round and round, this is because views on this subject have now become so entrenched that neither side is interested in the other side’s arguments, facts, figures, information or evidence, and they will mask their indifference by saying it’s not compelling enough or any one of a dozen other excuses, it has in short become like religion. Not only that but it has become as I stated earlier, an either or debate, polarised with no attempt to even consider that valid arguments might make by either side or that a common ground can be found. It’s no wonder the moderating team would rather it wasn't discussed, of course that in turn makes it very difficult to have discussions on many weather related areas, as climate change, natural man made or a combination of the two, obviously has an impact on our weather.

That certainly is one way of looking at things and is applicable to many of the debates you might see on the internet. I myself have some different views on the issues that cause much of the polarity, but this really ain't the place to be discussing it.

But denying any links between changes observed (be they man-made or not) and their influence on the weather requires a special level of entrenchment and essentially denial of reality. To help push forecasting forward and improve LRFs for areas like the UK, the huge changes in the Arctic simply cannot be dismissed as unimportant. Even the effects on the stratosphere through CFCs and a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation has resulted in 2012 having the coldest global stratosphere on record (RSS) or 3rd coldest with UAH. These things simply must be having some influence on the weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: East Anglia
  • Location: East Anglia

I agree with much of what you say Mike. The climate area should be back up and running soon enough though. How long that lasts is anyone's guess!

That certainly is one way of looking at things and is applicable to many of the debates you might see on the internet. I myself have some different views on the issues that cause much of the polarity, but this really ain't the place to be discussing it.

But denying any links between changes observed (be they man-made or not) and their influence on the weather requires a special level of entrenchment and essentially denial of reality. To help push forecasting forward and improve LRFs for areas like the UK, the huge changes in the Arctic simply cannot be dismissed as unimportant. Even the effects on the stratosphere through CFCs and a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation has resulted in 2012 having the coldest global stratosphere on record (RSS) or 3rd coldest with UAH. These things simply must be having some influence on the weather.

It’s the only way to look at these things, IMO of course, that’s not to say that everyone who takes part in the climate change debates is guilty of holding sacred entrenched views, but certainly some of the more vocal contributors do and they tend to dominate the threads. Of course I'm trying to not name names or say which side of the debate is the most guilty, although I certainly have a view on that, nevertheless it is true to say in the years since I've been a member of NW I can't think of anybody who has altered their position on climate change, a shame because lots of the input is erudite, educated, and thoughtful. As you say it’s not just NW, you can find the same problem all over the internet, radio and TV. These conversations whatever the subject matter always seem to be defined as an either or argument, the vast grey area in the middle of most subjects gets ignored, it seems easier to form a polarised view of any subject, rather than to accept that the truth might be closer to the center, or to except that somebody else may understand things better.

Edited by weather eater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France
  • Weather Preferences: Continental type climate with lots of sunshine with occasional storm
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France

The problem is that any discussion on climate change just goes round and round, this is because views on this subject have now become so entrenched that neither side is interested in the other side’s arguments, facts, figures, information or evidence, and they will mask their indifference by saying it’s not compelling enough or any one of a dozen other excuses, it has in short become like religion. Not only that but it has become as I stated earlier, an either or debate, polarised with no attempt to even consider that valid arguments might make by either side or that a common ground can be found. It’s no wonder the moderating team would rather it wasn't discussed, of course that in turn makes it very difficult to have discussions on many weather related areas, as climate change, natural man made or a combination of the two, obviously has an impact on our weather.

I get your point but wouldn't it be better, say for the undecided to be acquainted of both sides of the argument, that way if they are able to see the two sides it may help them to get to a more balanced view. Global warming or possible climate change makes such an impact on our lives today and the way climate changes affects our weather and I would suggest that it is an important part of the forum and that to proscribe this section is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I can understand that the mods, who I suspect do this work entirely on a volunteer basis, get a little bit pee'ed off with the intransigent ones on both sides amongst us; perhaps the problem could be overcome by enlarging the moderating team to cater for the extra workload which this causes. whilst at the same time insisting that the normal rules of courtesy continue to be applied.

To put it another way - I get so annoyed with the anti European rhetoric in the current mass media which does little promote any pro European views and as a result I would have little faith in a referendum, which in my view could end up with the UK shooting itself in the foot, so I can also understand others who feel they do not get a fair crack of the whip.

Edited by mike Meehan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: East Anglia
  • Location: East Anglia

I get your point but wouldn't it be better, say for the undecided to be acquainted of both sides of the argument, that way if they are able to see the two sides it may help them to get to a more balanced view. Global warming or possible climate change makes such an impact on our lives today and the way climate changes affects our weather and I would suggest that it is an important part of the forum.

I can understand that the mods, who I suspect do this work entirely on a volunteer basis, get a little bit pee'ed off with the intransigent ones on both sides amongst us; perhaps the problem could be overcome by enlarging the moderating team to cater for the extra workload which this causes. whilst at the same time insisting that the normal rules of courtesy continue to be applied.

To put it another way - I get so annoyed with the anti European rhetoric in the current mass media which does little promote any pro European views and as a result I would have little faith in a referendum, which in my view could end up with the UK shooting itself in the foot, so I can also understand others who feel they do not get a fair crack of the whip.

Problem is Mike that I’m not sure anyone on NW has an undecided view on climate change and any moderator either has to hold no view on the subject, or be able to suppress that view so as to be fair to both sides, although I can think of one who does a good job, no surprise it’s a she not a he.

A different subject and another dangerous one to mention, but I agree about Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: West Sussex
  • Weather Preferences: Outdoors
  • Location: West Sussex

Um, are our winters changing is the topic...

Could we stick to the script a little more tightly please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I think it a little unfair to give equal weighting to the 'both sides' portion of the climate/weather change debates. You could be a person who just wishes to believe it is mans doing in the same way some folk wish to say it is not of mans doing. these are two sides of entrenchment. but what of the folk who follow the science and adjust their opinions with the discoveries science brings us? They would end up on the 'side' of the entrenched 'all our fault' folk. Should the folk who accept the stance that the majority of science brings us be labeled as entrenched? That would be like saying the same of folk learning how SSW's impact weather down the line?

None of us can argue that Science is not focused on the changes and is constantly showing us mans impacts on the changes. as such the larger side of the debate favours the current science in it's understanding. Whilst healthy sceptisism is good and right denial dressed as sceptisism is disingenuous at best and maliciously misleading at worst.

This is not a 50/50 debate. Maybe if we saw this reflected in the posting folk would have a clearer idea of what we currently think is occurring and why the evidence points us this way. as it is we seem to have a minority view pushing equal posting into a thread as if they were on an equal footing with the mainstream scientific view. Even if they have no counter evidence to supply us with the post will appear as a 'drive by' post adding nothing but upset to the thread.

Anthoo's. the changes across the Arctic must be causing a big imbalance in the energy budget up there? even I am becoming bored of pointing out just where , how and why this must be true but I am also sure that there will be some one who has done the math and can equate it to the energy imbalance an 'normal' El Nino puts into the climate system over it's life? I , for one, would be surprised if we found this 'new energy imbalance' to be less than a Nino' and , seeing as it is now a yearly event, that climate patterns should be shifting to reflect this 'change' in balance of the climate's energy budget?

Unlike the slow scale and minimal forcings we have seen AGW impart to date this 'new' forcing is both huge and instant (with more in the pipeline) and so we should now see the changes occurring due to it's impacts right now . I believe that this is what we do see in the 'record' amount of 'record' weather events now occurring across the global on a yearly basis. If I am correct then this should only intensify with the changes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France
  • Weather Preferences: Continental type climate with lots of sunshine with occasional storm
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France

Problem is Mike that I’m not sure anyone on NW has an undecided view on climate change and any moderator either has to hold no view on the subject, or be able to suppress that view so as to be fair to both sides, although I can think of one who does a good job, no surprise it’s a she not a he.

A different subject and another dangerous one to mention, but I agree about Europe.

WE,

I'm not sure what you mean by ' anyone on NW has an undecided view on climate change' - if you mean the forecasting staff you are probably right but if you mean the members of the forum I would expect them to be divided between 'for', 'against' and undecided. Each of these groups could probably learn further from being exposed to varying points of view.

In order to advance and learn we should not necessarily accept something somebody says just because they said it but we should think about it and if we disagree or don't understand we should say so, possibly further explanations wioll help us to understand further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France
  • Weather Preferences: Continental type climate with lots of sunshine with occasional storm
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France

Um, are our winters changing is the topic...

Could we stick to the script a little more tightly please?

But Ian, Climate Change may be the reason for our winters changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: East Anglia
  • Location: East Anglia

WE,

I'm not sure what you mean by ' anyone on NW has an undecided view on climate change' - if you mean the forecasting staff you are probably right but if you mean the members of the forum I would expect them to be divided between 'for', 'against' and undecided. Each of these groups could probably learn further from being exposed to varying points of view.

In order to advance and learn we should not necessarily accept something somebody says just because they said it but we should think about it and if we disagree or don't understand we should say so, possibly further explanations wioll help us to understand further.

What I mean Mike is that there are the for’s and against’s but there appears to be no undecided’s, I’ve certainly seen no evidence of them posting, I guess they could be lurking, perhaps put off posting by the polarisations of opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

weather eater, might be hard to believe, but I was a complete sceptic when I first joined this site! Through education and a genuine interest in climate, the more I learned and understood, the more I moved away from the sceptic side of the debate. Being a stubborn person and having expressed my sceptic opinions to many people I know and on several forums, it was a rather slow and embarrassing move towards the opinions I have now. So while I can understand how some people can find it easier to become more entrenched in their views than to admit being wrong, some people do change!

There were a few people that used to post in the climate area that were somewhat neutral/undecided, Stewfox being one. Karyo was another who seemed to gradually move away from a mainly strong sceptic viewpoint, if I remember correctly.

With regard to the thread topic, with the main influences on our winter weather coming via changes in the NAO, it's probably best to look at that when trying to analyse what, if anything, has changed with our winters.

The winter NAO was on a mainly +ve trend from the early 60s up to the turn of the century. Since then, the trend has been -ve. What's remarkable though is that the most -ve NAO winter and the most +ve have occurred in the last few years (2009/10 and 2011/12 respectively).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France
  • Weather Preferences: Continental type climate with lots of sunshine with occasional storm
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France

What I mean Mike is that there are the for’s and against’s but there appears to be no undecided’s, I’ve certainly seen no evidence of them posting, I guess they could be lurking, perhaps put off posting by the polarisations of opinions.

WE,

I get the impression that it is only those who have an opinion one way or the other will decide to post - for myself I would feel reluctant to post on a subject I cannot express an opinion about - in other words I suspect there is probably a silent majority - I suppose this could be resolved through checking those who have actually posted on the subject against the total number of members, though this is likely to take a lot of trawling through previous posts unless the controllers have devised a method of collecting these stats automatically.

Personally I doubt that the undecideds are being put off by the polorisations of opinions.

For myself I started off as a believer, taking in Al Gores film hook line and sinker but after researching previous fluctuations in climate I am of the belief that a lot of the warming is due to natural cycles but by the same token I realise that the CO2 is likely to have an affect and would eventually lead to an increase in man made warming. But on the other hand certain people in estimating the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas have brought their cause into discredit and I can also see reasons for governments to back this global warming and use it as an excuse to pile on extra taxes.

For my part I try to do what I can personally do within reason to limit the output from our household by using solar power and a heat pump on our house in France, together with insulating as much as possible within reason and now starting a similar project for our UK house.

Of course you could say that by not travelling to and from these houses I would save that much more energy but we need to keep a balance and life is also for living.

I'm just lucky that I managed to get in a position to do these things and at the same time note the change in the winters in the south of France, where the incidents of snowfall appear to be increasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: East Anglia
  • Location: East Anglia

But on the other hand certain people in estimating the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas have brought their cause into discredit and I can also see reasons for governments to back this global warming and use it as an excuse to pile on extra taxes.

I just picked this out, not as a starter to another long conversation about climate change but to demonstrate how you have to look through "you said this and it wasn’t right so that proves you are lying" Two and a half years ago certain rather well known sceptics stated that we would cease seeing record Arctic summer ice melt, not only that, but we were on the road to a long term recovery. When 2008 and 2009 proved to be not quite as bad as 2007, this was also held by many sceptics on NW as evidence that a recovery was under way. Now for the sake of this thread I'm not calling it either way, but my point is this, the only way to judge climate change is long term and by taking in all the information, not on very short term hard to prove possible blips.

In terms of “are our winters changingâ€, the above is why I would be loath at this stage to link them to climate change, now it’s possible that there is a link but without all the evidence its way to early to call, beside which I would argue that there has not been a massive change, as I said in my earlier post, take a way one December and our winter months look decidedly ordinary with standard cold spells that would fit in to any in my lifetime or in the last 100 years, years when arctic sea ice extent was much higher than it has been of late.

To come back to climate change for a moment, it’s funny how both sides of the debate will try to claim the slightly colder winters in the last few years as their own, the Pros as evidence that climate is changing for the worse and the anti's as evidence that things are not as bad as the pro's make out, this is why real evidence not opinions is so important and I'm not sure that either side is providing hard proof at this point of time.

Edited by weather eater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Two bug bears here.

1/ All folk who accept the science also accept the importance of natural drivers and the climate forcings they bring. It is the 'new' constant forcings that either augment the natural or moderate the impacts of the natural that are being studied. Some folk deliberately try to mislead lurkers by speaking as though all such folk believe in is AGW as a forcing and this could not be further from the truth.

2/ "It's all happened before". we never have such offered up with comparisons of the synoptics driving the initial 'record' compared to the 'drivers' today.

We see 'cold outbreaks' today bringing winter weather to the south. In the past this would be an extension of the cold across the polar region, today it is the expulsion of Arctic cold which is replaced by WAA across sections of the Pole impacting ice thickness and formation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France
  • Weather Preferences: Continental type climate with lots of sunshine with occasional storm
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France

I just picked this out, not as a starter to another long conversation about climate change but to demonstrate how you have to look through "you said this and it wasn’t right so that proves you are lying" Two and a half years ago certain rather well known sceptics stated that we would cease seeing record Arctic summer ice melt, not only that, but we were on the road to a long term recovery. When 2008 and 2009 proved to be not quite as bad as 2007, this was also held by many sceptics on NW as evidence that a recovery was under way. Now for the sake of this thread I'm not calling it either way, but my point is this, the only way to judge climate change is long term and by taking in all the information, not on very short term hard to prove possible blips.

In terms of “are our winters changingâ€, the above is why I would be loath at this stage to link them to climate change, now it’s possible that there is a link but without all the evidence its way to early to call, beside which I would argue that there has not been a massive change, as I said in my earlier post, take a way one December and our winter months look decidedly ordinary with standard cold spells that would fit in to any in my lifetime or in the last 100 years, years when arctic sea ice extent was much higher than it has been of late.

To come back to climate change for a moment, it’s funny how both sides of the debate will try to claim the slightly colder winters in the last few years as their own, the Pros as evidence that climate is changing for the worse and the anti's as evidence that things are not as bad as the pro's make out, this is why real evidence not opinions is so important and I'm not sure that either side is providing hard proof at this point of time.

My whole point is that at the moment I don't believe that there is really sufficient evidence to conclusively prove or deny global warming one way or the other is man made to the extent that is being claimed by some quarters per se, apart from the fact that we do know that co2 is a greenhouse and that the continued pumping of this out into the atmosphere is bound to have some warming effect but it appears to me that the case for global warming in some quarters has been overstated.

Greenland was called 'Greenland' circa 1000 + years ago by the Vikings, who called it that name because the coastal areas actually were green, at least in the summer, to encourage settlers there.

Settlers did go with their livestock and seeds and were able to sustain a living through the growing of crops and sufficient fodder to keep themselves and their animals going through the winter months. They were fine until the onset of the 'Little Ice Age' when cooling meant that such cultivation was no longer possible and the settlers starved to death in some cases, or if they were lucky managed to get away but either way the settlements were no longer able to sustain that life style.

This is just one example and from sediments and tree rings etc the experts were able to deduce that at that time the climate was as warm as we have had it this last few years and this was in a time when the burning of fossil fuels on the planet was virtually nil.

Throughout history we have had extreme weather events but the difference between then and now appears to be from the experts that some of the events we have had lately are occuring more frequently but the same records were not being kept in the past as they are now and are more of an anecdotal manner, though archeologists have been able to determine that some communities had abandoned there habitats in the Americas through continued droughts.

In the 1970's some climate scientists were predicting a global cooling and it was suggested that we would be getting colder winters but this never came to fruition in that way.

I am not an expert but have something of an enquiring mind and not always ready to accept what I am being told at face value without checking.

It may be that the 1970's scientists were right but the global cooling is being counteracted by global warming, which may be an explanation for what appears to be disturbed weather patterns of today - I don't know and I do not believe that anyone else does at this stage either - more research is needed before we can know for sure. All I can say is that to take up an entrenched position on one side or the other and to 'cherry pick' differing aspects to support their view is wrong and that in all probablity the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between the two camps.

As more knowlege is gained through continued research the time may come when it might be possible to settle this debate but until then I would suggest it advisable to maintain an open mind amenable but questioning to all the differing views.

I agree that it would be wrong to place too much emphasis on 'blips' which may turn out to be part of the natural cycle - my position in this thread remains that we do not know what is causing our apparent variations of weather - it may be as a result of extra energy in the atmosphere which could be connected with global warming, or they could be as a result of normal variations which have occurred throughout recorded history but in order to learn more this does need to be treated as an open subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL

I've asked this before... Is this planet we live on in anomalous cold period?

According to our "accurate" climate data, YES, that is exactly where we are...

Why would a dynamic system stay in anomalous state? Surely it would try to balance out it's system? Isn't that what we are seeing happen? A return to more "normal" temperatures?

Does this affect our winters? Yes, of course it does. As does a quiet sun, which we will hear more about when the next IPCC report is officially released I've no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...