Warming Arctic

[drgl]

Hi John,

I'm not trying to undo work already done-as you say it's the best data we have at the moment. i was trying to point out why the data isn't the be all and end all some think it is. (A point i think is VERY valid in discussions such as these).

Out of interest,surely remote sites away from towns & cities would give better results as to what the climate is up to? Sites where there is no urban heating to influence results? If the government is serious about climate change maybe they should look into this?

[johnholmes]

fair enough, I can't really disagree with that point of view. But what would you have in its place? How would you assess if that 300+year record and one with NOAA are not used as bench marks to what MAY be happening?

regards

John

[drgl]

Hi john

I've added to the post above so don't know if you saw it? We can't go back in time so past records are VERY useful. However if the world is to take climate change seriously we need to invest in collecting data AWAY from towns and cities. The problem is the data only becomes usefull as time goes by-something we may not have! Satellite data is also flawed-when satellite data didn't show the expected warming results they looked further-seems the satellite orbit had changed slightly so they needed to correct the figures! How accurate was the correction?(But why didn't they constantly correct the satellite orbit as they have to with communication satellites?) I don't think anyone in their right minds can deny we have warmed since the late 70's but i am observing a slow return to cold. I think the next 5-10 years will be very interesting.

[johnholmes]

hi

re this

'Out of interest,surely remote sites away from towns & cities would give better results as to what the climate is up to? Sites where there is no urban heating to influence results? If the government is serious about climate change maybe they should look into this?'

It sounds not a bad idea but would need many years data, perhaps time we have not got, for it to be useful for comparisons. Maybe set up 3 or 4 in totally rural areas, and do comparisons all the time with the current CET sites.

I really do not know.

Equally your valid point about satellite data, I'm no expert in orbits etc so have no idea why slight changes occur without being corrected.

I tend to disagree that there is any sign of cooling yet. In the 70's, there was a BBC 2 programme, using data from the East Anglia Climat Institute that showed we were on the edge of the next Ice Age. Within 5-10 years that idea had been dropped and we were into the most rapid warming period in the history of the earth for over 600,000 years!

As a professional at the time I was privileged to be able to see/watch and also read many of the outputs from both sides of that differing scenario. Each one made a convincing case for their theory.

That is why, along with my own limited understanding of climatology that I 'sit on the fence' so to speak. Yes the earth is warming but I'm not 100% certain, yet, that its all the fault of humans. I do think we need to take most of the blame and more importantly to be taking steps to try to reduce its impact as much as we can. Perhaps of more importance is for the countries of the world to be making a concerted attempt to make sure that those populations which will be first affected by the earth warming and sea levels rising are properly cared for and moved to other countries in a fully prepared system trying to prevent further strife between areas that have and those that have not.

End of sermon!!

John

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

How aabout this for the Arctic situation

KarlÈn explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Well that last sentence is an eye opener!!!

BFTP

[Guest Viking141]

John

I understand the point about personal insults etc but I certainly wouldnt take the remark "the CET trends are pretty much useless" as a personal insult. Surely drgl is entitled to his view AND is entitled to express that view publicly?

Is the science supporting CET trends so weak, that it cannot withstand such public criticism?

:lol:

Edited June 23, 2006 by Viking141

[johnholmes]

I never took the remark as a personal insult to me. If it was an insult it was to a person not now able to defend his lifetimes work. I simply think that, what I consider OTT remarks, are not a substitute for positive and constructive criticism. Just making a comment along the lines of ''the CET trends are pretty much useless.' is not making any constructive input to the very interesting discussion taking place on here.

As all my posts show, I HOPE, I like to give a constructive, balanced assessment, and as a post of mine above shows, I am very much in the 'not sure' camp. That in spite of having access to much more than most people had for many years.

I have said before and will again, that for every expert giving one viewpoint, there is an equally expert opinion giving the opposite view.

The one thing which no one, lay person or expert can deny, and that is the earth is warming for whatever reason.

The follow on from that is that unless we, the world start making plans to help alleviate it, then many many thousands of people will be under water by the end of this century.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure that we can reverse what is happening, but what we can and should be doing is taking steps to help those countries and its people who are going to be most affected.

John

Edited June 23, 2006 by johnholmes

[Methuselah]

If we assume for the moment, that the CET is 'useless' - what criteria should we use in its stead? :lol:

Any ideas? :lol:

[johnholmes]

If we assume for the moment, that the CET is 'useless' - what criteria should we use in its stead? :lol:

Any ideas? :lol:

I doubt there will be many constructive suggestions Peter.

[Methuselah]

I doubt there will be many constructive suggestions Peter.

That's what I thought, John...We can but try?? :lol:

[drgl]

As above-investment in remote sites away from towns & cities so no data needs to be "adjusted". People say the UK is such a small place and isn't significant but even here the whole country isn't covered for temp readings! I find is rather amusing that "Dawlish" has dismissed CET's in another thread with regard to the recent warm spell!!! So CET's didn't give a fair representation of just how warm June was but they are 100% on representing cold over the winter eh??!

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...mp;#entry725782

"I do feel that the CET doesn't really give the best impression of just how warm this June was"

:blink:

[Dawlish]

As above-investment in remote sites away from towns & cities so no data needs to be "adjusted". People say the UK is such a small place and isn't significant but even here the whole country isn't covered for temp readings! I find is rather amusing that "Dawlish" has dismissed CET's in another thread with regard to the recent warm spell!!! So CET's didn't give a fair representation of just how warm June was but they are 100% on representing cold over the winter eh??!

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...mp;#entry725782

"I do feel that the CET doesn't really give the best impression of just how warm this June was"

:lol:

By the tone of your writing, you obviously have an issue with what I say. Fair enough, but don't take my writing out of context. The CET for this June does not give the best impression of how warm this June was. The CET for this past winter gives a better representation of how cold the winter was. In my opinion, of course. There are many occasions when the CET is pretty unrepresentative, as it only covers one section of the country. This June was one of them. However, the CET series, especially the Manley one, is the best benchmark we have.

The UK is a tiny place and is totally insignificant on a global scale, when discussing Global Warming. It is almost entirely unrepresentative of anything globally climatic, unless it is compared to a much wider context, where it may provide an interesting anomaly, or it may be reflective of a wider picture.

My netweather name really does not need to be in inverted commas. I don't see you addressing anyone else like that. It looks like you don't feel I actually exist. Why not address me as Paul. I'd appreciate that. Stay calm in your reply, please.

Paul

Edited July 6, 2006 by Dawlish

[Thundery wintry showers]

The Philip Eden CET value of 16.2 (+2.1) seemed pretty representative to me. The exceptions are northern Scotland, where it was only about 1C warmer than the long-term average, and in south-east England where the average maximum was nearly 4C above in some places.

This is quite a common trait of warm summer months, with the South East having much greater positive anomalies than the CET shows, but the CET represents Central England, not South East England.

The hot summer of 1955, and to a lesser extent 1995 and 2003, saw the north and west have similar positive anomalies to the SE, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule. 1959, 1975, 1976, 1989, 1990 and 1994 all had a concentration of particularly high positive anomalies over south-east England.

[Methuselah]

You're certainly right about 1995, Ian...It was an absolute corker of a summer! :lol: That said: 1989 was pretty good too!

Edited July 6, 2006 by Pete Tattum

[Thundery wintry showers]

Actually, what I posted above about Manley for June 2006 isn't entirely true- it would appear that the greatest anomalies were actually reserved for the Midlands, with the SE not far behind.

Thus the Manley CET value might, if anything, be representative of the warmest region.