Global Warming Conference as Sucsess!!

I think the Atlantic conveyor has stopped and were in for a little ice age. Icebergs of the Hampshire coast and 9 month winters.

Don,

Your sense of paradox is priceless ...

Thanks George

Cheers

Don

Happy New Year!

And many many returns!

But I suspect this is a blip!

quote:

But I suspect this is a blip!

Or just the tip of the iceberg...

quote:

Or just the tip of the iceberg...

ho, ho, ho!! Neat!

Cheers

Don

I seem to remember back in the seventies we were expecting the new ice age. Then the hole in the ozone layer opened up and let all the cold out.

Now that we've successfully plugged up the hole with carbon, the ice age is evidently back on again!

quote:

Originally posted by Chillkram:
I seem to remember back in the seventies we were expecting the new ice age. Then the hole in the ozone layer opened up and let all the cold out.

Now that we've successfully plugged up the hole with carbon, the ice age is evidently back on again!

Ok

In six months time, when the "scientists" tell us that the "last 10 warm summers" = proof of global warming, I will recall this thread.

Cheers

Don

I was just walking past McDonalds (burger joint, not farm) and noticed an attractive and lythe looking lass sat in the window eating a McSomat and fries. Not unlike a young Elisha Cuthbert I thought.

Obesity and fast foot link? ...what a load of cobblers.

I thought the arguement view was that global warming will produce more extreme weather, with changes to traditional weather patterns.

This winter seems to fit. I live in Asia people here tell me that for the last 10 yearsd the traditional wet / dry seasons are all a kilter compared to 30 years ago.

Colin,

The point of my comments is that the last 10 years oof climate records is no basis for predicting long-term climate change and, more importantly, campaigning for the huge investment of manpower required to prevent it!

Some people, including scientists, have resorted to commenting that the weather patterns of the past 10 years (hot summers and mild winters in England) is proof-positive of global warming, which IMHO is shortsighted.

Cheers

Don

Don,

I dont disagree that 10 years is too short a tie span to judge much. Much more clearly there has clearly been dramatic recession of glaciers in the last 40 to 50 years and many other indicators that seem to suggest something is going on.

One interesting documentary I saw recently showed that along with apparent warming we have a masking facor, namely ""global dimming". There is very strong proof that the amount of sunlight reaching the ground has reduced by nearly 20% over the last 50 years due to the effect of con-trails and other atmospheric pollution etc..

If we have a general warming trend despite this "dimming" then that really is worrying IMO.

Colin

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Some people, including scientists, have resorted to commenting that the weather patterns of the past 10 years (hot summers and mild winters in England) is proof-positive of global warming, which IMHO is shortsighted.

I've never seen the use of a 10 year timeline being used as a basis for suggesting global warming based on CO2 is occurring Don.

I've seen lots of stuff based on much longer timelines.

Have you got a source or reference for this 10 year work? I'd be interested in reading it.

quote:

Have you got a source or reference for this 10 year work? I'd be interested in reading it.

quote:

Some people, including scientists, have resorted to commenting that the weather patterns of the past 10 years (hot summers and mild winters in England) is proof-positive of global warming,

Mat, the comment was made with TV news programmes in mind. It is TV and newpapers that influence people these days, with their sound-bites and the obligatory 15 second-long comment by the "expert". These news reports often resort to comments about recent weather patterns.

Occasionally we get a more substantial programme, but not always a well presented, balanced view. They often appear to be slanted for/against some specific agenda.

Very few individuals take the trouble to delve into the published research - and if they did, its difficult to find raw facts. Much of what is written is focused on telling people what needs to be done to prevent global warming, rather than why scientists are convinced that it is happening, it is primarily caused by mankind and that we can reverse the situation. (Even)* I am not entirely convinced of the case for man-made global warming.

I am guilty of limited reading, as outlined above. I have only read a couple of books about climate, published by the Open University, such as "Climate Change and Life". I have had the advantage of flying over the Greenland Ice Cap numerous times and also flying over glacier filled valleys and snowfields in Alaska and Western Canada, which together with backpacking expeditions gives a hands-on "feel" to the changes that are reported. But as to what is predominantly causing these changes.......??????

Cheers

Don

quote:

Much of what is written is focused on telling people what needs to be done to prevent global warming, rather than why scientists are convinced that it is happening, it is primarily caused by mankind and that we can reverse the situation.

That sentence would read more easliy like:-
Much of what is written is focused on telling people what needs to be done to prevent global warming, rather than:-
1) why scientists are convinced that it is happening
2) why it is primarily caused by mankind, rather than earth oribal iscillation etc and
3) why we can reverse the situation

Hope that makes sense, even if you don't agree with my prognosis.

Cheers

Don

Milankovich identified three glacial pacemakers which many scientists seem to accept. Orbital eccentricity with a c.100,000 year period; obliquity with a c.40,000 year periodicity and precession with a c.20,000 year period. These seem to have operated without mankind’s assistance for c.2.5 million years, producing glacial and warming cycles.

I am aware of Heinrich Events and shorter-term periodicities (sub-Milankovich cycles) of c11,000; 6,000 and 1,500 years, such as Dansgaard-Oeschger and Bond cycles. Also the Polar Front (which periodically lies Nova Scotia/Iceland v Nova Scotia/Portugal) and which seems to affect the North Atlantic Drift and the North Atlantic Deep Water.

Can anybody shed any light on these things and whether they re-inforce the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming or not?

Cheers

Don

We been Googling again, or was there a Horizon recently?

quote:

I have only read a couple of books about climate, published by the Open University, such as "Climate Change and Life".

== not Googling nor watching tele.

Bit old fashioned I know, but....it was a couple of years ago!

Didn't fully grasp it then, and on re-reading last week, the penny still didn't drop easily. Thought the experts on this forum might be able to help out.........

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by allthingsanalogue:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...age-starts-here.html

Excellent. Thanks for that. I still reckon on icebergs (small ones), in the North Sea this decade.

quote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...age-starts-here.html

interesting but............no mention of the Heinrich Events and shorter-term periodicities (sub-Milankovich cycles) of c11,000; 6,000 and 1,500 years, such as Dansgaard-Oeschger and Bond cycles............

.....although there was a hint of the Polar front, NAD and NADW.....

...but interesting, nontheless.

Cheers

Don