Forum menu
anotherdeadhero
so ice melts below zero when it is cloudy? What about when it is sunny?
What about when it is sunny?
Why the penguins fire up the barbie and set about getting tangled up in their deckchairs all afternoon.
The ice melting discussion seems to revolve around the assumption that the area within the north and south polar circles is always below freezing. Presumably the case for the higher ground in the Antarctic but the north polar ice, coastal Greenland and western Antarctic Peninsula probably aren't.
I'm fairly sure that's the case ... but can't be @rsed to look it up!
Correct. The far North consists of pack-ice, the area of which gets larger and smaller depending up on the season. I have heard that it may soon be viable to take shipping around the NW passage due to reduction in pack ice.
Greenland has become more [i]green[/i] in recent years by all accounts. The temperature in Antarctica can become fairly 'mild' at the coast.
There was on of those non-news stories on the BBC about how even Antarctica was warmer than the UK at some point last winter -ie. A coastal research station in the middle of the Antartic summer....
Last winter there was a BRIEF period of heavy snow when a cold front met a warm front. This, of course, brought [b]THE COUNTRY[/b] (ie. London) to a stand-still as it is not worth the investment to prepare for such infrequent events in a mild, wet country like ours.
It stands to sense that if the temperature rises then the areas covered constantly with ice will become smaller.
The interior of Antarctica is a high mountain plateau which contributes to the lower temperature.
If you travel to the Alps it can clearly be seen how far glaciers have retreated in recent decades. Glaciers in other ranges may have advanced, but I've not seen any.
We were on the beach last weekend, got talking about global warming and rising sea levels.
The children were throwing pebbles in.
Oh, I thought, that can't help.
As for water evaporating below 100 degrees celcius, wtf has that got to do with ice melting below freezing point?
It was an attempt to point out that factors other than ambient air temperature can affect a change of phase of a material.
[u][b][url= http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html ]This should interest you folks[/url]
[/b][/u]
Living in the North of Scotland, I am looking forward to our warmer weather. Just doesn't seem to be happening up here though. 🙂
Ah, the well known journal news.com.au.
I can't really see what the article is trying to say but, if it doesn't singlehandedly disprove global warming, I'm sure Cumbrians are also equally looking forward to warmer wetter winters too.
There was 4 inches of snow across parts of weardale a few weeks back ...was that on the news...?? nah course not....
Wish i had the pics of my Scottish snowboarding online to show you....people think there is no snow in Scotland anymore....oh how they miss out 😆
Nas nog - there is a heck of a lot less snow than when I was a kid.
Nas nog - there is a heck of a lot less snow than when I was a kid.
Yeah, when I was a kid we were taught we were entering a new ice age and were all doomed.
There was 4 inches of snow across parts of weardale a few weeks back ...was that on the news...?? nah course not....
That's weather, not climate.
New scientist reported that the ozone hole is responsible for this growth. This was a brief period of 10 years before it started shrinking again.
In terms of this country the quicker this global warming kicks in the better ..
http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/fightthefreeze_facts.asp
Deaths last winter up 50%
I'm truly stunned by the number and stupidity of people saying 'oh well it snowed a bit last winter so global warming is bullshit'.
Amazing.
So, why is it called [Greenland].
Could it be that in Viking times, it was Green.
Climate change is cyclical, it's just that this time it's faster
Thanks for that THG. I'll take Turkey off my list of places to visit then 😉
I'm truly stunned by the number and stupidity of people saying 'oh well it snowed a bit last winter so global warming is bullshit'.
and yet its ok to say look how much snow we used to get before global warming.....as TJ pointed out
Hi,
as a final year uni student, studing in a related field, I can inform people that climate science is a VERY complicated thing and responsable for a great may essay-related headaches on my part. I have been doing this stuff for 3 years now and although I have learned much, unfortunalty it appears that the more I learn, the more questions there are.
I think it was a joke, but water evaporates below 100 degrees C, go watch a puddle on a summers day after a shower.
To try and simplify things a bit...
Global warming will appear to be SLOW, thats because we only live for a pissing 70years or so, in geological timescales WE are accelerating global climate change to previously unseen rates.
SO
The climate IS becoming more unpredictable and that is what is going to present the problem to humankind. Having a stable, slightly warmer global climate like the dinosaurs had, is not going to kill us, it is the time spent in rapid change. Change occurs naturally, but not at the current rate!
NOT warming BUT change!
Low lying places such as New Orleans and Bangladesh ARE getting hit.
More frequent, violent storms.
EXTREME RAINFALL EVENTS becoming more common (Cumbria).
Its so ovbious really, but unless heads come out of sand, how can it be seen.
I dont know how to re-iterate my points any more ways here, i'm no teacher. If you dont understand it, then read up on it. Not from sensationalist journalists who have no idea what science really is, let alone how to write about it. Perhaps from recently published books on the subject.
On the matter of the HADLEY center, if its true (which I doubt it is, I mean we are trusting a CRMINAL HACKER here) then I would be disappointed, but remind people that what the oil industry was doing in the early 80's was leagues worse!
and yet its ok to say look how much snow we used to get before global warming.....as TJ pointed out
That's a trend over many years that can be clearly shown by evidence though - one winter is statistically meaningless.
as a final year uni student
When you graduate you'll find everything you 'know' is just some shit an academic wrote down. It'll get you your first job but it's guesswork, assumption and [primarily] bullshit.
The quicker you realise this the better you'll be at your job (which may well involve selling people your own brand of bullshit).
Votchy - you asked:
I know jack sh1t about cause and effect of global warming, however, one thing that troubles me is how can the ice caps be melting when the temperature at said ice caps never gets above 0 celcius?
The ice caps and ice sheets are losing mass - this is not the same as melting. Ice flows from the center of Antarctica towards the coast. The speed at which this happens is related to temperature, sea level and numerous other factors. The rate at which mass is being lost is accelerating i.e. the glaciers are speeding up, transporting ice faster from the center to the coast. This means that unless it snows more to compensate, the ice sheet will become smaller (and sea level will rise, and ocean circulation will change which may then cause further acceleration in mass loss). So, the idea of 'melting' ice sheets like Antarctica isn't quite right.
However, the north pole, where there is sea ice (not an ice sheet) is simply being subject to warmer temperatures. At the edges, the air and water temperatures are increasingly above zero for a larger proportion of the year. So unless the winters get colder or longer, the ice cap in the north will shrink.
Does that help explain? Sorry - I'm a glaciologist so I get excited about these things...
Also - the telegraph blog is utter balls. It's getting warmer cos we made too much CO2 - its pretty clear for all intelligent people to see. Hadley center is just one dateset - thousands more lines of evidence to confirm it is real.
Cars are unnatural, planes are unnatural, tractors are unnatural....so I think the onus is on people who use them to prove 100% they AREN'T causing problems 😀
http://www.markdaviesmedia.com/cold
Oh ok, fair enough - global warming is a myth then. Of course those pesky scientists might argue that freak weather events might increase due to global warming, but they are all being paid by the huge corporate lobby of, er........
Teggs Horatio Stegosaur - MemberSo, why is it called [Greenland].
Could it be that in Viking times, it was Green.
Climate change is cyclical, it's just that this time it's faster
It wasn't particularly green - the name is attributed to Erik the Red IIRC, who was thrown out of Iceland (note - called Ice despite being further south than Green), and decided to give the place a good PR boost to attract some other folk to come and join him knowing that by the time they got there they would be pretty much committed to staying.
Probably the earliest example of political spin 😉
grumm.........im just playing mate, chill "sorry" 😀 amazing tho that ice storm...
I posted this because I like to have an open mind im not on one side or the other.
I love the way that people like to say that they have an "open mind" rather than saying "even though I know nothing about the subject, I'm still prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to a journalist from the DAILY TELEGRAPH!!!! rather than ANY publication by ANY national body responsible for science, or ANY government"
[i]We were on the beach last weekend, got talking about global warming and rising sea levels.
The children were throwing pebbles in.
Oh, I thought, that can't help.[/i]
🙂
Tell em that whales are killed and removed from the sea for the sole purpose of counteracting pebble throwers.
"Teggs Horatio Stegosaur - Member
So, why is it called [Greenland].
Could it be that in Viking times, it was Green.
Climate change is cyclical, it's just that this time it's faster "
OMG, I can't believe you denialists are still using this one. Read here: http://www.grist.org/article/greenland-used-to-be-green/
5thElefant, your bleak outlook makes me think that you have been there.
I realise the way the world works, I was working for years before coming to uni (where I still work, part time). I'm never going back to sales, so you have no need to fear.
The use of the word "denier" or "denialist" suggests we are being accused of a heresy, of not accepting something that is faith. Heretics are flagellated with threats of our modern equivalent of fire and brimstone.
I am not a denier, I am a questioner of the current climate change theories. There have been a number of climate consensuses in my lifetime. Ice Age being one, the sun's weather, etc.
One thing was that we did expect the climate to get warmer with the reduction of particulate suspension after the Clean Air Acts. For those who are too young to remember it, visibility in many urban areas was severely restricted by the amount of crap in the air.
Any temperature measurements over the period of heavy industrialisation are likely to be lower than we have now now with our much cleaner air.
I would really like to see an explanation of the warmer weather in the medieval period. There was less Arctic ice than now if the routes of the voyages of St Brendan of Ireland, or Erik the Red, are to be believed (North of the current ice line). If we can have warmer weather as recently as that, as part of a climate cycle, then why not now?
One good thing about climate activism, is that there is much more pressure to stop big corporates sh1tting in our nests, and that has got to be good.
"The last ten years have been in the top 15 warmest on record. And this summer the UK enjoyed temperatures higher than the long-term average"
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm ]clincky[/url]
epicyclo: - if you want to learn more about the so-called medieval warm period, then google it. but try and pay attention to those boring looking sites that include graphs, references, and frequent use of the word 'proxy'...
(the short story is, there was a warm period, but not as warm as today, and all our evidence suggests that the current period of warming is a long way from over)
"The last ten years have been in the top 15 warmest on record. And this summer the UK enjoyed temperatures higher than the long-term average"
So, the [b]data[/b] says its the warmest on record - one, simple, easy question for you - what if the [b]data[/b] is corrupt/bollocks/unreliable?
Google: HARRY_READ_ME.TXT
Every scientist knows the simple rule on data - garbage in, garbage out
Oops, should have said:
include graphs, references, and frequent use of the word 'proxy'
But remember that Proxies are exactly what they say on the tin - not calibrated accurate records, but substitutes, and as with the data, not 100% reliable even prior to "massaging" the figures!
ahwiles - Member
epicyclo: - if you want to learn more about the so-called medieval warm period, then google it. but try and pay attention to those boring looking sites that include graphs, references, and frequent use of the word 'proxy'...(the short story is, there was a warm period, but not as warm as today, and all our evidence suggests that the current period of warming is a long way from over)
Yes, I can read graphs etc. I can draw you some beauties if you don't mind me being selective with data.
But what caused the warm medieval period? And did it actually end, or was it simply interrupted by the high levels of particulates in the air following the industrial revolution and major volcanic action?
I was under the impression that it was warmer. If it wasn't as warm as today, how come the Arctic ice line appeared to be further north?
I really would like to see that explained in the context of anthropogenic climate change, because unless it can be explained, then it looks to me that we are experiencing a natural climate change.
You really should just go out into the scientific world and convince them that there data and everything they say is wrong. The great thing about scientist [ unlike zealots] is you can sway them with data and evidence. Go forth and collect it. Let me know when your first peer review article is published wont you?
Good luck ...remember many of the great minds of their time , Copernicus for example were mocked in their times.
Climatology as a science has fallen into dogma and group think. After all, if global warming isn't as big a problem as they say it is, we don't need to fund all these climatologists and their expensive research projects. Pat of the problem is that sceptical scientists have problems getting funding, and end up going to the oil companies, which taints them by association. That's not to say that global warming doesn't exist, or that it won't be a problem, or that it's not man made, but just that in the current research climate, it is very hard to know exactly what the scope of the problem may be, and the cost implications.
The second problem is that the solutions being floated tend to be somewhat luddite - technology, a paradigm change in energy generation and civil engineering are what (IMO) are going to get us out of this, rather than technological regression in the first world, and denial of progress to the population of the third world.
you can sway them with data and evidence. Go forth and collect it.
Isn't this half the problem though Junkyard - the "climate change consensus" scientists are working off a nice big old set of data, collected by various sets of national (taxpayer funded) research groups, and are hanging on to it to prevent anyone questioning their results!
If anyone else "outside the loop" asks to see the data, to try and draw any conclusions, they refuse to release it - they obfuscate FOI requests, refuse to release, and use every trick in the book to control access to the very data that you're suggesting people need, even to the extent of "losing" the raw data and deleting other elements so people cannot access it - its no good saying "collect it yourself" - this is historical data, that should be part of the available record for everyone to see in the name of science.
What have they got to hide?
I don't need to see the data, just to hear a reasonable explanation of what caused the warmer weather in the medieval period.
a paradigm change in energy generation and civil engineering are what (IMO) are going to get us out of this, rather than technological regression in the first world, and denial of progress to the population of the third world.
Even if we do come up with some amazing big technological solutions for climate change etc - is there any reason why we shouldn't try to radically reduce waste and consumption? Is the 'progress' you envisage for the third world that they will become as wasteful as the western world?
I cant be arsed to go back and find the quote but someone up there said they wont believe in global warming because they were previously told they were heading for an ice age.
Kinda true actualy, solar activity has been on a downward trend for a while, which kinda throws a spanner at your theory.
cyclo, you're doing it again! - stop asking questions on here, we know nothing.
you have access to a computer, type your questions into the google bar.
i just tried [url= http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html ]"what caused the medieval warm period"[/url], and i found this lovely site, it's got graphs, references, and it mentions lot of proxies, it even has an updated version of the 'hockey stick graph'.
listen to evidence, and let it change you. follow links, try to find out about paper authors; who do they work for, what papers have they previously published, were the papers peer-reviewed? (if not, they're worthless).
if they were peer-reviewed, who reviewed it? - are they reliable?
go on! - it'll be fun!