[Raoul_Duke]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7417123.stm (with video)

Dramatic evidence of the break-up of the Arctic ice-cap has emerged from research during an expedition by the Canadian military.

Scientists travelling with the troops found major new fractures during an assessment of the state of giant ice shelves in Canada's far north.

The team found a network of cracks that stretched for more than 10 miles (16km) on Ward Hunt, the area's largest shelf.

The fate of the vast ice blocks is seen as a key indicator of climate change.

OK, what say you, climate-change-deniers?

[Stephen Wilde]

10 miles isn't much. There could be similar phenomena regularly but no one has noticed or bothered with them before.

The Arctic ice melted a lot in the 1930's but not enough people went there to be able to say whether something similar happened then.

As the article says the important thing is what happens to this summer's ice melt and the regrowth next winter.

It is possible for the Arctic to keep warming for a while after the rest of the globe has started to cool because the Arctic is the last location to still feel the effect of an earlier global warming trend and the last to start feeling the effect of any global temperature trend.

It takes some time for ocean currents to transmit either a warming or cooling trend to the Arctic.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

...
after the rest of the globe has started to cool ...

??
Surely you mean to say
....'after the atmosphere may cool temporarily due to deep ocean currents rising to the surface'?

The chances of 'the rest of the globe' cooling significantly are small. This is a redistribution of heat energy, rather than 'global cooling'. Taken as a whole, the heat energy contained by Earth will not fall.
Yes, some of you may think this is the ultimately pedantic comment, but the fact that the atmosphere may possibly cool temporarily is a red herring in the GW saga and should be treated as such.
The atmosphere may cool, parts of the surface may cool, but the planet won't.

[Stephen Wilde]

Agreed that it was the global atmosphere, oceans and surface I was referring to rather than the main body of the planet itself.

See my articles elsewhere as to how I think that solar energy input ties in with oceanic cycles and global temperatures.

We have all said our piece and can only await the real world observations for more evidence either way.

[evilgenius]

I find this development worrying tbh. The xtra cold water will affect the gulf stream eventually and then weather systems.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by evilgenius

I find this development worrying tbh. The xtra cold water will affect the gulf stream eventually and then weather systems.

Carl Wunsch, an Oceanographer with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has said that, whilst he fully believes in Climate Change, it is very unlikely to affect the Gulf Stream, aka The Conveyer:

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papers...annel4response

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by andykn

Carl Wunsch, an Oceanographer with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has said that, whilst he fully believes in Climate Change, it is very unlikely to affect the Gulf Stream, aka The Conveyer:

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papers...annel4response

Lets hope he's right!
Otherwise we really are in trouble.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by evilgenius

I find this development worrying tbh. The xtra cold water will affect the gulf stream eventually and then weather systems.

Its not somuch the cold water that is worrying its the freshwater that which effect the currents.... its the accumulation of all the melt that will impact it not any "one event".

which makes me think if we do decide to desalinate the ocean water for drinking we need to put the salt back into the ocean to keep its ratio of salinity..

info regarding effects of freshwater in our oceans....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdow...ne_circulation
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Raoul_Duke

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7417123.stm (with video)



OK, what say you, climate-change-deniers?

There have been at least four major ice ages in the Earth's past. Outside these periods, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes. how many 4x4's were being driven around during those times?

[splatz]

In simplistic terms 70% of Earth is water compared to 30% land. 97% of that water is salt water. Do you believe mankind's desalination efforts is going to produce enough salt to make a difference to the ratio of salinity in our oceans . . .

Wikipedia is not the best source of fact (that link had the words "speculation" and "The chances of this occurring are unclear" in just the first paragraph - not a very encouraging start to an article!)

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Its not somuch the cold water that is worrying its the freshwater that which effect the currents.... its the accumulation of all the melt that will impact it not any "one event".

which makes me think if we do decide to desalinate the ocean water for drinking we need to put the salt back into the ocean to keep its ratio of salinity..

info regarding effects of freshwater in our oceans....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdow...ne_circulation
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282

[danmc_82]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Lets hope he's right!
Otherwise we really are in trouble.

I wouldnt say trouble, just means we'll be getting colder winters like we should be getting.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by danmc_82

I wouldnt say trouble, just means we'll be getting colder winters like we should be getting.

And how well does the UK deal with the mild winters it currently has?
Throw in 20 million homes that have pointlessly small amounts of insulation and horrendous fossil fuel & thus electricity prices, coupled with colder winters, that would be fairly bad. But if the conveyor were to stop, all bets everywhere would be off. On the basis we can't predict next weeks weather, something like that would have totally unpredictable results.

[Sonic67]

Years ago it used to get so cold you could ice skate on the Thames. When the Thames used to freeze over, chroniclers recorded Elizabeth I watching archery-on-ice competitions in 1564, while Charles II is supposed to have gone hunting on an icebound Thames in 1683. Cold winters are nothing new.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Years ago it used to get so cold you could ice skate on the Thames. When the Thames used to freeze over, chroniclers recorded Elizabeth I watching archery-on-ice competitions in 1564, while Charles II is supposed to have gone hunting on an icebound Thames in 1683. Cold winters are nothing new.

They are to us. And its not the 'absolute' temperature that causes concern, its the rate of change of the temperature. If the temperature changes only slowly, we can keep up and adapt. If the change is too rapid, then society is at risk of losing the plot as it chops and changes. And they are saying it is possible that the change will be too fast. See posts by NJP for more details, he's left a powerful legacy of information, should anyone really be interested in facts and the IPCC stance and the science.

[Sonic67]

Yes but anyone wants to blame anything to do with weather on GW. What caused all the extremes in temperature in the past?

We often hear about something being the coldest/hottest weather since 1920 etc. What were we doing back then then?

Instead of trying to spend money preventing something that might be happening anyway maybe we should spend the money on coping with the changes.

Aside from anything else I think we are better able to cope with anything than ever before. When bad weather is coming we get notification of it before hand thanks to new weather forecasting technology and we have better communication systems than we ever had as well.

I can find out the latest weather from the Internet, mobile, Sky teletext anything. The real problems start thanks to a Government happy to build ordinary houses on flood plains. Something we never used to do. Then when the people are flooded out GW is the convenient scapegoat.

[Decadence]

the ice could have cracked because it was too heavy to support itself in one piece? No wait...it must be cracking because people in the UK are driving cars that are too big, we must be having a huge impact on the world environment! Oh, we're not? Wow...it must just be a ploy to squeeze more tax out of us then!

[buzlightyear]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Yes but anyone wants to blame anything to do with weather on GW. What caused all the extremes in temperature in the past?

We often hear about something being the coldest/hottest weather since 1920 etc. What were we doing back then then?

Instead of trying to spend money preventing something that might be happening anyway maybe we should spend the money on coping with the changes.

Aside from anything else I think we are better able to cope with anything than ever before. When bad weather is coming we get notification of it before hand thanks to new weather forecasting technology and we have better communication systems than we ever had as well.

I can find out the latest weather from the Internet, mobile, Sky teletext anything. The real problems start thanks to a Government happy to build ordinary houses on flood plains. Something we never used to do. Then when the people are flooded out GW is the convenient scapegoat.

Couldnt agree more.

[Sonic67]

The whole global warming thing seems very dubious.

An interesting YouTube presentation

You can prove what you like if someone is paying you enough.

From my Open University studies:

Let us suppose it has been found from statistics that instances of cancer have been found to be more prevalent around airports. Someone protesting about airports will happily use such ‘proof’ to prove that an airport in their area is a bad idea.

The Government will also commission a million pound survey to investigate further. Maybe it’s to do with stress from overnight flights in the area? Maybe it’s all about jet fuel exhaust? Maybe you should examine the tarmac used on long runways? Scientists can take government grants and find tenuous links and prove anything. If they don't find anything they can come back and say they haven't found anything conclusive but increase the amount and we will commission an even bigger investigation.

As for the problem you might assume that maybe there is a link. Perhaps aircraft fumes have something within them that causes cancer. Maybe there are higher levels of stress involved from living near one. Noise levels perhaps? But... generally housing is cheap near airports because people don't like living near one. People who live in cheap housing are more likely to be working class or on welfare. These people are more likely to smoke and live on a poor diet. Biggest reasons for cancer? Smoking and poor diet. So what seemed like 'airports cause cancer' actually came down to proving what is known already. It’s all very general and many people who are working class or on benefits may eat healthily and not smoke but when you are talking about statistics these things happen.

So when scientists and others are making claims I tend to be sceptical. Especially when other scientists can also 'prove' the opposite. It's in the government’s interest to claim that GW exists and is happening as it makes a handy scapegoat for raising taxes. In the same way automobile manufactures will also pay scientists to prove that all this is natural and has gone on since the planet was born. As long as people have an ulterior motive then you can’t really trust either side.

I have recycled for years for no other reason that I don't like waste and I try not to pollute as I think it's a bad idea anyway but I've yet to see any evidence that we are causing climate change and if we are whether we can prevent it. So I think a better option is to spend money coping with what's happening. Then if it’s all done by us or not we still ‘win’.

[johntheexpat]

The main strength of the science behind CC and GW is its longevity. Yes, in the short term you can show a link between most things. But after time, that link will weaken or be disproved and the world will move on. Take the threat of Global cooling from a couple of decades ago. As a result of the erroneous interpretation of some some research results, global Cooling was on the agenda, panic all round, headlines of doom etc etc. Not unlike today.
Except that the work which came up with that result didn't stand the test of time.
GW on the other hand, has stood the test of time. If an interested amateur, such as Stephen Wilde, can come up with a theory that debunks the whole sorry edifice of GW science, then, with all due respect to Stephen, don't you think a professional team of researchers would have come up with it too? And have it published via the traditional peer review route? And if it was found to be right then they would have established for themselves a pan-Global reputation that would undoubtedly take the Nobel Prize? If it was the case, someone would have done it.
Science isn't a nice cosy little club where everyone pats each other on the back each time a paper is published. Science is one of the most exacting areas to work in. You make a mistake, even a trivial one and a dozen people will immediately attempt to shred your reputation, in the interests of improving their standing.
To me its inconceivable that GW is a pan-global scientific conspiracy. If the Americans can't even bury a few drums of phosgene in the Iraqi desert, how is anyone going to maintain a conspiracy across continents, across thousands of research groups, across decades?
If the flaw was obvious enough for an amateur to find, the professionals would have found it too. IMHO

[Sonic67]

Are you saying no professional scientists dispute GW? I can list you lots if you like.

Edit: oops someone already has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ming_consensus

Seems to be one or two there.

Oh and yes science is exact, the weather etc isn't. There's enough trouble trying to predict the weather that there will be next week let alone what we are doing to it all as well.

[splatz]

There are many scientists who disagree with the current popular message we are bombarded with.

Some actively campaign (in public forums like this or in politics), some subtlety campaign while others keep quiet while conducting their investigations/experiments preferring to wait and see what the results will show.

A large part of the argument for human induced climate change is based on statistical analysis of data - and we all (hopefully) know is that statistics can be manipulated to tell whatever story you want. So if you are pro climate change you want the data to support your point of view and vice versa if you are anti climate change. Neither approaches are good science - the data should shape your opinion not the other way around.

Climate change rarely happens over night so it is unlikely to impact anybody. As things change, things react. If change is extremely slow then the reaction will be extremely slow. What do I mean by this? Take sea level rises for example. The sea isn't going to rise by metres overnight, so no one is going to wake up floating down the street. The sea level will rise extremely slowly over decades. At some point in that time line people may realize their homes might be at risk and thus will make plans. For some this will mean moving, for others it may mean better flood defences.

For those climate changing events that cause a rapid change, I doubt global warming will be our biggest problem - those sorts of events tend to be catastrophic things like being hit by an asteroid etc.

[splatz]

Climate change has gone on ever since this planet was formed. It has been a lot hotter and a lot colder many times before mankind even moved out of caves.

So when you talk about longevity, what period of time where you talking about?

I assume you were trying to claim that the science supporting anthropogenic induced global warming has been going on for a while.

It remains to be seen if the current human induced gw theory stands the test of time - it hasn't been around that long (the current theories evolved in the late 20th century) so it would be hard pushed to claim its theory has longevity yet.

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

The main strength of the science behind CC and GW is its longevity. Yes, in the short term you can show a link between most things. But after time, that link will weaken or be disproved and the world will move on. Take the threat of Global cooling from a couple of decades ago. As a result of the erroneous interpretation of some some research results, global Cooling was on the agenda, panic all round, headlines of doom etc etc. Not unlike today.
Except that the work which came up with that result didn't stand the test of time.
GW on the other hand, has stood the test of time. If an interested amateur, such as Stephen Wilde, can come up with a theory that debunks the whole sorry edifice of GW science, then, with all due respect to Stephen, don't you think a professional team of researchers would have come up with it too? And have it published via the traditional peer review route? And if it was found to be right then they would have established for themselves a pan-Global reputation that would undoubtedly take the Nobel Prize? If it was the case, someone would have done it.
Science isn't a nice cosy little club where everyone pats each other on the back each time a paper is published. Science is one of the most exacting areas to work in. You make a mistake, even a trivial one and a dozen people will immediately attempt to shred your reputation, in the interests of improving their standing.
To me its inconceivable that GW is a pan-global scientific conspiracy. If the Americans can't even bury a few drums of phosgene in the Iraqi desert, how is anyone going to maintain a conspiracy across continents, across thousands of research groups, across decades?
If the flaw was obvious enough for an amateur to find, the professionals would have found it too. IMHO

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Are you saying no professional scientists dispute GW?

I am saying that after 30 years of extensive research, no one has blown the theory out of the water. If it was a load of old tosh, it would have happened.
You may certainly dispute bits of it, by taking a single facet of the theory at a time and showing what you want to show, but after all this time no-one has been able to come up with the killer line: "MMGW is rubbish because...." without their own view being comprehensively shown to be flawed.
If MMGW is wrong, it will come out, through main stream science and it will be shown to be wrong by main stream scientists.

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

I am saying that after 30 years of extensive research, no one has blown the theory out of the water. If it was a load of old tosh, it would have happened.
You may certainly dispute bits of it, by taking a single facet of the theory at a time and showing what you want to show, but after all this time no-one has been able to come up with the killer line: "MMGW is rubbish because...." without their own view being comprehensively shown to be flawed.

Well I'm waiting.

If MMGW is wrong, it will come out, through main stream science and it will be shown to be wrong by main stream scientists.

Quite true but I'm afraid you are wrong on timescales. The current concern is very recent and the science is pitifully sparse.

Climatology is a young and immature science where an experienced amateur can have a useful insight.

It's also an advantage to have a generalist overview and no income or career progression at stake. Most scientists today are far too specialised and do not know enough about a wide range of factors and issues to weigh any evidence adequately and pull it into a theory that makes sense across several discrete disciplines.

I'm hoping for a Nobel Prize by about 2015 if I can stay alive that long.

And don't underestimate the diagnostic value of 50 years of keen interest and observation. In some respects I'm way ahead of most professionals in the field having started taking an interest when it was deeply unfashionable to do so.

Anyway we now have ideal conditions to work out the truth because the solar and oceanic influences are at last operating in the opposite direction to CO2 which was not the case during the past warming spell.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

I am saying that after 30 years of extensive research, no one has blown the theory out of the water. If it was a load of old tosh, it would have happened.

Not really. No one knows if there is life on other planets, if the Loch Ness monster exists, some are still disputing whether passive smoking causes cancer, how much can the human life span be extended, why do we sleep or dream for that matter, what is the universe made of, is there life after death, etc etc. There's a huge amount of things we don't know. There's three different theories on how the universe started. One that it was a single big bang, another that the universe goes through a cycle of big bangs and big crunches and another that the universe has always been and always will be.

Also you can't come up with a theory and then say now disprove it. It's like me saying, sheep can fly they do it when you aren't looking. Now disprove it. You have to come up with a theory and then the onus is on you prove it to be so.

[splatz]

The great thing about our current level of technology is scientists have access to a much greater range of instrumentation than we have ever had in our history collecting data with an ever increasing level of detail.

We also have the solar cycle moving into its next active phase which will be carefully monitored as this is something some people think might have some bearing - will tell us something one way or the other.

So an interesting period coming along that will be worth waiting for.

[splatz]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Also you can't come up with a theory and then say now disprove it. It's like me saying, sheep can fly they do it when you aren't looking. Now disprove it. You have to come up with a theory and then the onus is on you prove it to be so.

And once you have proved it you have to let everybody pick it apart - peer review is so important!

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

I can find out the latest weather from the Internet, mobile, Sky teletext anything. The real problems start thanks to a Government happy to build ordinary houses on flood plains. Something we never used to do. Then when the people are flooded out GW is the convenient scapegoat.

Show me where GW has been scapegoated by experts for recent UK flooding.

Show me where in Tewkesbury New Labour built on the flood plain - New Model Army would be more like it.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Decadence

the ice could have cracked because it was too heavy to support itself in one piece? No wait...it must be cracking because people in the UK are driving cars that are too big, we must be having a huge impact on the world environment! Oh, we're not? Wow...it must just be a ploy to squeeze more tax out of us then!

We are.

Our Govt doesn't need a ploy to squeeze more tax out of us, enertainingly naive to suggest it does.

The Tory Govt didn't need GW to introduce Air Passenger Duty, Graduated Vehicle Excise Duty or the Fuel Duty Escalator.

What "more [GW] tax" are you referring to?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

I have recycled for years for no other reason that I don't like waste and I try not to pollute as I think it's a bad idea anyway but I've yet to see any evidence that we are causing climate change and if we are whether we can prevent it. So I think a better option is to spend money coping with what's happening. Then if it’s all done by us or not we still ‘win’.

"There are none so blind as those that will not see".

You could look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...d_Flux_Rev.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

We can prevent it by producing a lot less CO2.