The sun is dead!! Mini iceage???

You can't simply assume that a decrease in output from the sun will amount to a certain offset value of climate change...A small decrease in output could result in tenfold decrease...how would you know?! What we have to realise is that we as a human race do not have the slightest clue what is going on, even with all our advancements in technology. we can come up with all the hypothesis's we can want but at the end of the day it could all change by a simple discovery...Don't just assume that you are a part of a time that we know everything ,because in the future we will probably look back in disbelief that we did not even consider some factors...eg not so long ago you would be killed for believing the earth is round!

whitebriar wrote: »

I thought I posted that in another thread not this one? Anyway,reading my post more slowly,it's easer to interpret,I should have used more full stops.
The cold air entering the Atlantic is the perfect recipe for these storms.
It has also sent the js buckled directly up towards us,being it's only preferred route in the circumstances and of course strengthened it.
This years Nh snow cover is as strong as it's ever been.

oh and to elaborate,even with global temps rising very slightly,it's wheeled out as a tax increasing excuse,government revenue generating.
That's the premise for promoting it in my opinion.

For the cold air to enter the Atlantic (I guess you mean the US) there must be a jet stream trough, just as the record heat in Alaska all winter, there must be a strong jet stream ridge. What's causing these large scale troughs and ridges, and why are they becoming stuck? Why does it disprove climate change?

I'm asking you why the northern hemisphere winter snow cover is doing well. I want to see what reason you come up with, and how it disproves climate change.

This isn't about taxes, though unfortunately, many people take their dislike of certain taxes as a foundation for an understanding of a scientific topic. Like me basing my understanding of geology on the Bible... it isn't going to work well, as it introduces and almost insurmountable bias from the beginning.

whitebriar wrote: »

But lad,that's like an atheist asking a catholic to prove God exists.
Weather varies,it is chaos.Sometimes it goes off on one altogether.We don't know why,we just know the immediate causes.It is opinion to say anything else and mine is,the climate change thing is pure opportunism
There are not enough accurate scientific records of what's going on in the atmosphere in the last few hundred years to make a case for either.
Even oneric is saying we had a period like this in the late 80's.
Ok,when there's an established pattern of several years like this ,ie when something has actually changed,i will observe the climate change band wagon more closely.

And yes,taxes are invented to raise revenue on the climate change scare in some countries which is enough to make me sceptical on its own.

The climate/weather is a matter of reality and physical processes, God, well, is a matter of faith.

I'd just suggest leaving taxes out of it all together, it certainly won't help with a scientific understanding.

Anywho, the main point is, you cannot use events to dismiss climate change if you don't know how those event occur, and vice versa when it comes to using them as proof of climate change.

There are several theories as to why the jet stream has been slowing down, and it's troughs and ridges elongating. As one of the primary drivers of the jet stream is the temperature difference between the Arctic and more southern latitudes (why the jet stream is stronger in winter, as the temperature difference is greater), we'd expect a weakening of that temperature difference to influence the jet stream. As the Arctic is warming several times faster than than the global average, this temperature differences is becoming reduced, which may be resulting in a slower and more wavy jet stream pattern (like meanders in a slow moving river). This temperature differences can also be seen in the solar cycles, as the UV output drops, the stratosphere in the tropics cools, which is balanced by a weaker jet stream and more easterly air flows. Natural variability will always play a role, but the last few years strange jet stream pattern may well be linked to Arctic warming, which is strongly tied to global warming/climate change in general.



As for the snow cover, overall, it's in decline. Winters and Autumn have been doing a bit better though. Why? As the Arctic warms, it's sea ice coverage is being reduced drastically in summer. This results in a large accumulation of ocean heat, which gets released in Autumn and Winter during the polar night. This displaces the cold air into the continents, it also means that more of the Arctic ocean is exposed to the air, so there's more moisture, further aiding the snow fall.
Come Spring and Summer though, the snow cover melts rapidly and a very strong trend for anomalous snow loss is clearly established. Summer is when we need the snow to reflect back the suns energy. So increased Autumn and Winter snow cover, but decreased Spring and Summer snow, is entirely consistent with climate change.



Now, you would be perfectly entitled to say that you need more evidence, or more time, before you'll believe that climate change is occurring (and influenced by humanity) but the snow cover and jet stream cannot be taken as proof against climate change (nor by themselves, proof of its existence).

whitebriar wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with the analysis,Just picking a camp,have you picked a camp? I am as entitled to say not enough information and arguably more entitled as I have no vested interest in promoting one camp or the other.
There are those that do.
I admire science (obviously) but it gets up my goat a tad at the god like complexes some over zealous scientists appear to have in declaring the answer when we are on a planet so much more intelligent (for want of a better way of putting it) than the people,here only a spec of the time the planet is.
intelligent that is in hiding the answers as to how mysterious and random it is.

Bah,I am all philosophical today,don't mind me when I go like that

I was once firmly in the sceptic/denier camp, but alas, a scientific education and learning how to employ critical analysis has swayed me!

You'll find that scientists rarely say anything will definitely happen or is 100% caused by anything in particular, that's generally the role of the media. We have much to learn about the planet, which is why the research and data continues to pile up. At the same time, our tiny flicker of existence here can be mitigated by the use palaeoclimatology to help us understand how past changes occur, and put our current climate and our own influence into context.

Nothing wrong with a bit of philosophy every now and then!

Godge wrote: »

I think the difficulty in relation to climate change is that the primary hypothesis that human activity has increased global temperature has been accepted but that the extent of its influence is disputed. This gets you into more grey areas.

As a result, you get an argument that yes, of course, humans releasing carbon dioxide influences an increase in global temperature and changes the climate but that these effects are less than the influences of solar output or natural climate variability etc. etc. The difficulty for those in the human influenced climate change camp is that we still don't have a comprehensive understanding of all the factors that affect climate change.

For example, in your previous post on snow cover, you mention that "there are several theories as to why the jet stream has been slowing down". The result is that there is a gap between what is believed in the mainstream camp and what is known and provable. Into this gap come climate-change-deniers (I hate the term), some of whom may be charlatans but some of whom (like a modern-day Galileo) may have theories and explanations that explain the whole picture better than the mainstream camp. Identifying potential realistic explanations is problematic though amid all of the crap.

Science advances with evidence. Galileo and the like had evidence on their side, but were battling against established authority, power and faith, who believed that these new discoveries would weaken their power. This is happening now, with the evidence of anthropogenic climate change being resisted by the powerful industries that stand to lose profits if we act on the current evidence.

At the moment, there is very little evidence to support the idea that climate sensitivity is low, <1.5C, but ever increasing amounts to suggest that it's greater than 3C. As with all things in science, if there is a sudden influx of research suggesting that our influence in small compared to say the 11 year solar cycle variability, or for an alternative explanation for recent climate trends, then the consensus will change accordingly, but that's not the case.

We have a good understanding of the drivers of climate, enough to be able to create quite good simulations, but it's the technical details that still need more work, like near surface atmospheric mixing, the type and elevation of cloud cover changes, etc, but we are getting a good handle of these things. That doesn't mean that predictions cannot be made.
Likewise, there's much we don't know about the working of the human body, our immune system, cancer development, etc, but we can conclusively say that smoking does cause cancer.

Going a bit off topic. Either way I can still see us having to reduce our carbon emissions due to ocean acidification. Doubling the CO2 content of the seas cant be good for mollusc shells.

rickdangerouss wrote: »

Classic shows below.

Just for fun, not to be looked at and thinking at the same time.

Neither of the videos are working for me?

rickdangerouss wrote: »

Pasted in the direct links, now.

Cheers.

Well the media does like to exaggerate!

The stance of peer reviewed climate papers around that times shows a different story. Most predicted warming, despite it having cooled very slightly from the 40s to the 70s.

What a whopper!!!!

average_runner wrote: »

Don't Pakistan always get a heat wave this time of year, the guys in work from there says its nothing new

2015 is on track to smash the global average temperature record (that record was set in 2014)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-06-18/this-year-is-headed-for-the-hottest-on-record-by-a-long-shot

Anyone who thinks that global warming isn't happening, sorry, but you're completely and utterly wrong.