On Apr 20, 10:48*pm, wrote:
Yes I know its a weather NG but be fair, others post about these
topics all the time,

Anyhow it would seem the Arctic ice extent is at its greatest on this
date for eight years!

Have a look for yourself

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm.

Okay there will be the 'its first year ice ' comments and such but
lets be honest about the ice, rumours of its death seem to have been
greatly exaggerated.

Take the polar bears of suicide watch.

Where should we take the polar bears of suicide watch to? Also; why is
this "good news" exactly?

Paul

On 23 Apr, 09:53, James Brown
wrote:
The idea that the radiation from the sun is a constant (solar
constant) is based on an 18th Century concept that God created the
world and then let it like run a clockwork machine, al la Newton.

Cheers, Alastair.

I'm not sure that your reference to Newton is correct Alastair. AFAIK he
believed specifically in intervention rather than a purely docetist view
(e.g.comets). I get rather concerned with the factuality of sweeping
generalisations as to the origins of scientific understanding, much as
some of the origins of language can at times be ambiguous.

Cheers

--
James Brown

I looked up Deism on Wikipedia and found this:

Freedom and necessity

Enlightenment thinkers, under the influence of Newtonian science,
tended to view the universe as a vast machine, created and set in
motion by a creator being, that continues to operate according to
natural law, without any divine intervention. This view naturally led
to what was then usually called necessitarianism: the view that
everything in the universe - including human behavior - is completely
causally determined by antecedent circumstances and natural law. (See,
e.g., La Mettrie's L'Homme machine.) As a consequence, debates about
freedom versus determinism were a regular feature of Enlightenment
religious and philosophical discussions.

Because of their high regard for natural law and for the idea of a
universe without miracles, deists were especially susceptible to the
temptations of necessitarianism. Reflecting the intellectual climate
of the time, there were differences among deists about freedom and
necessity. Some, such as Anthony Collins, actually were
necessitarians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#F..._and_necessity

.... which is more or less what I was referring to.

Cheers, Alastair.

I looked up Deism on Wikipedia and found this:

Freedom and necessity

Enlightenment thinkers, under the influence of Newtonian science,
tended to view the universe as a vast machine, created and set in
motion by a creator being, that continues to operate according to
natural law, without any divine intervention.

I guess this is really OT now, but just a couple of comments. I think we
run into two sets of issues

1. The danger of regarding wikipedia or for that matter, any other web
page as the ultimate in truth :-(( E.g. elsewhere you can read of his
relationship with Anglicanism:

'Although he appreciated its universalist humanitarianism, he was by no
means a deist inasmuch as he believed in a personal God, omniscient and
omnipotent, but, above all, immanent not only had He created the
universe, but He keeps it under constant surveillance and intervenes in
a providential way from time to time (e.g., paths of comets).'

http://www.adherents.com/people/pn/Isaac_Newton.html

2. The difference between an original thinker and his/her disciples.
Newton certainly had a breadth of vision which may not have been shared
by those who came after him.

Many thanks Alastair for your responses

Cheers


--
James Brown

James Brown wrote:

snip

2. The difference between an original thinker and his/her disciples.
Newton certainly had a breadth of vision which may not have been
shared by those who came after him.


The great scientist was also a mystic, philospher and alchemist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_N...occult_studies

Will
--

On Apr 21, 9:18*pm, Alastair wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:38*pm, Pete L wrote:
Keith (Southend)http://www.southendweather.net


Did anybody see the article in the Daily Telegraph today (Tues)? Lord
Stern, according to the DT states that temperatures may rise by
6C (DT slips in 43F!!!!) and alligators could live at the North Pole!

I guess average temps at the NP in Winter are around -40 degs and
about zero in mid Summer. So those lucky old 'gators are going to have
fun at -34 degs in Winter and will be getting heat stroke in balmy
temperatures of 6 degs in Summer! No wonder there are sceptics like me
around when such total rubbish is being fed to the press.....

Presumably you are referring to this:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/richard...blog_post/nich...

What you are missing is that a global temperature rise of 6C means a
12 C in the UK and 24C at the poles, but quite warm enough for
alligators.

Not sure who said what is this free for all but I am on Alistair's
side in this. Not that I can bring any light to the argument save that
the temperatures in the Arctic are dependent on the thermocline there
which is still much the same as ever.

Once the column of water in the sea reaches above the average -which
ranges from minus to plus 2 degrees Centigrade, nobody knows for sure
what the heck will happen next.

I believe that sea is unique in that the temperatures vary so little
in it. It is above the ice which sees critically low temperatures.
Once the ice has gone, the air temperature will have to be roughly the
same at the sea surface as sea temperatures.

Whatever they turn out to be.
Does that sound reasonable? Just a logical argument. No model runs or
other cobblers to mess up the thinking capacity.

I rather think the ability of sea crocks to go where they please
depends on the fact they weigh one or two tons and have rather nasty
looking dentistry.

And if they want to sit where you are sitting, they damn well will. If
I were one I'd go where I pleased too. And the Arctic, even for a spot
of tourism, wouldn't be one of my first choices.

Though who knows, with a couple of centuries of fishing restrictions
it might become attractive to the wife and hatchlings. (What do you
call baby crocks? Besides long distance, that is.)

On Apr 23, 12:38*pm, smallbabe wrote:
On Apr 20, 10:48*pm, wrote:

Yes I know its a weather NG but be fair, others post about these
topics all the time,

Anyhow it would seem the Arctic ice extent is at its greatest on this
date for eight years!

Have a look for yourself

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm.

Okay there will be the 'its first year ice ' comments and such but
lets be honest about the ice, rumours of its death seem to have been
greatly exaggerated.

why is this "good news"?

A lot of marine life depends on the ice for food. Tjhe ice is a
conduit for light and an anchor for vegetation. Algae perhaps. I
forget.

The krill feed on the algae and the whales feed on the krill. I'm not
sure of the chain but it must include the ability of the system to
replenish fish stocks for feeding the seals that are so beloved of
Canadian clubs and Polar bears.

The ice also serves to contain the oxygen and carbon dioxide given off
by the plankton and algae and etc., so the waters are rich in
dissolved gasses. Suphite fallout and especially any iron rich ores,
may dribble through the ice over a longer time span than would be the
case were a volcano to oblige in the absence of ice cover.

But the best news is that the more difficult the NW passage becomes,
the less time and effort will go into ruining it by overfishing.

I believe that sea is unique in that the temperatures vary so little
in it. It is above the ice which sees critically low temperatures.
Once the ice has gone, the air temperature will have to be roughly the
same at the sea surface as sea temperatures.

Whatever they turn out to be.
Does that sound reasonable? Just a logical argument. No model runs or
other cobblers to mess up the thinking capacity.

Yes, once the multi-year ice has all melted then the Arctic will no
longer freeze over each winter, although some ice may grow out from
the snow covered shores. (But the snow won't lie on sea water.)

I rather think the ability of sea crocks to go where they please
depends on the fact they weigh one or two tons *and have rather nasty
looking dentistry.

Yes not as appealing as polar bears, but probably less dangerous since
they tend to stay in the sea.

Cheers, Alastair.

And if they want to sit where you are sitting, they damn well will. If
I were one I'd go where I pleased too. And the Arctic, even for a spot
of tourism, wouldn't be one of my first choices.

Though who knows, with a couple of centuries of fishing restrictions
it might become attractive to the wife and hatchlings. (What do you
call baby crocks? Besides long distance, that is.)

On Apr 23, 1:33*am, Alastair wrote:
* * * * How much of a correlation is there between solar activity,
i.e. sunspots and solar flares etc, and solar output. *No-one ever
seems to explain this and I have a suspicion that there is lot more to
it than merely assuming the sun is hotter when it is active, i.e.
spotty, and cooler when quiescent. *The *coincidence of the Maunder
Minimum and a particularly cold period in Europe may be no more than
that, a coincidence. *It was not possible to measure solar output in
the 17th century but are there any modern measurements that show that
the sun could have been cooler? *Should we assume that fewer spots
equals dimmer?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

It was thought in the 20th Century that since sunspots are dark then
more of them would mean less radiation and a cooler world. *But that
seems to be the converse of the truth. *The Maunder Minimum, a name
chosen for its alliteration, was given as an example of why less
sunspots means a cooler world.

The idea that the radiation from the sun is a constant (solar
constant) is based on an 18th Century concept that God created the
world and then let it like run a clockwork machine, al la Newton.

Cheers, Alastair.

That hardly answers my question. Is there any *independent*
corroboration of a reduced solar output during 1645-1715? In any
case a climatic deterioration had set in well before the Maunder
Minimum. As far as I know there is no verification of the sun's
output being reduced during that period and futhermore it seems that
there is very little variation in solar output during a solar cycle or
from one cycle to the next, regardless of its intensity. It would be
nice if someone could confirm this, or deny it, come to that. This
is like trying to get blood out of a stone and there seems to be
widespread ignorance and confusion on the issue.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Alastair wrote:

Which facts are you querying? Pete's use of -40C in winter and 0C as
the
average temps for the NP seems reasonable to me. The only other figures
he's used are your own.

I am not querying Pete's values. What I want to know is what his
source is, so that I can use a similar one without fear of being told
my source is unacceptable.

But -40C seems to me more typical of Siberia and Antarctica rather
than the Arctic where I would have thought the average was closer to
-20C.

In fact 20 C is the average of 0C and -40C quoted in Wikipedia for
winter temperatures. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Arctic

I was relying on memory from when I was producing sea-ice charts forty
years ago. More recent data is available at
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/index.php?year=2009, particularly the
early years where there is some data from drifting ice stations for the
winter months. However, these were planted on the Atlantic side of the
Pole and would be more affected by incursions of mild Atlantic air than if
they were in the centre of the Arctic Ocean. Also, by the winter, their
drift would have placed them closer still.

The effect of the incursions of warm air at these stations can be seen on
the temperature curves. Even so, temperatures of -30C seem typical for the
area so a value of -40 for the bulk of the Arctic Ocean would seem to me
to be reasonable for a winter mean. Also, these temperatures represent the
situation after considerable warming of the area and with ice thicknesses
half of what they were forty years ago.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 at 17:12:16, wrote in
uk.sci.weather :

Is there any *independent*
corroboration of a reduced solar output during 1645-1715? In any
case a climatic deterioration had set in well before the Maunder
Minimum. As far as I know there is no verification of the sun's
output being reduced during that period and futhermore it seems that
there is very little variation in solar output during a solar cycle or
from one cycle to the next, regardless of its intensity. It would be
nice if someone could confirm this, or deny it, come to that. This
is like trying to get blood out of a stone and there seems to be
widespread ignorance and confusion on the issue.

I presume historic solar output is measured by some indirect means, as
with temperatures & ice-cores.

However, it's possible sunspot levels *were* logged as early as the 17th
century - IIRC observing the sun was a major contribution to Galileo's
blindness.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)