UV-RAY

I'm not so sure it would be cool and cloudy maybe for those in the East/SE but those further West would more than likely see plenty of warm sunshine.

It wasn't that old bore Michael Mann or James Hansen was it?

I also asked this question, any takers?

Indeed Tamara, this is supposed to be a forum where one can exchange views without being belittled. I'm with you time to exit the climate forum and leave it to those with closed minds and argumentative attitudes.

I also said the AMO but that too was ignored. With all that heat being pumped from A-B you would think it would have some impact wouldn't you. Wink wink!

Also why does the lower troposphere temperature anomalies of the mid latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere show upward shifts during El Niño events, without proportional cooling during the trailing La Ninas?

Simple really, a way of looking at it is that nina acts as a recharge whereas niño acts as a discharge.

Easy really, how long do you think it takes for warm/ cold waters to be flushed out of the system?We also have to remember the amount of heat content entering the arctic basin from the strongly positive AMO still.

I was referring to the AMO which hasn't.

There lies the problem, is 0.003c not in the realms of natural variability and much of that can be accounted by the last thirty years of a positive PDO I would say. Also least we forget just how important a role the NAO plays in all this, this remains positive and has been for the last 30 years plus, so unti we see this trend negative warm waters will continue to enter the arctic basin and Greenland.Edit; I meant the AMO, all these bleeding abbreviations get the better of me sometimes.

Indeed Tamara, I enjoy and take great pride in cooking curries utilising only the freshest ingredients, sounds like a bleeding advert.

For me BFTV, the biggest uncertainty is feedbacks and that of natural forcings, ie solar and oceanic heat content, they are big unknowns and a stumbling block to any projections, that's not too say the projections maybe right, as otherwise I would be being contradictory in what I've said previously about no one really knowing the outcomes.

But that's my point, no one can provide factual evidence to back up either side, even peer reviewed literature is based on conjecture. We all know CO2is a greenhouse gas and we know its capabilities for warming, what we don't know is how much and how positive and negative feedbacks counteract this warming. Just by presenting peer reviewed literature doesn't make it a case of "I told you so", on the contrary most just pose more questions as we have to believe that some number crunching computer model can predict future temp rises whilst completely ignoring that what we don't fully understand. This is where bad PR starts from, not from misguided journalism but scientists beliefs that climate models can map an accurate forecasts in the future. More uncertainties need to be voiced and less arrogance in outcomes need to be addressed. Apologies, I was just about to post a reply stating the above as a quick google search brought up the relevant information.

There is no evidence to back up claims that it was orbital forcings, evidence please.

The flip side of this could be that too much causes heart disease as this is one of the biggest killers in the Asian community, food for thought.

We all know the state of arctic ice conditions, have you got direct evidence that this is down to CO2 levels and can show a direct link between the two. Remember lurkers ( sorry GW) the last time arctic ice conditions was this bad where 7000 years ago, now what caused that and what makes this different to today. Was this down to high levels of CO2, if so then why if not then what was the causation?

And yet no one seems to want to address my question on water vapour and feedbacks, those mountains of evidence don't really cut it when it comes to to tricky questions and factual evidence.

I think you know which false claims I'm referring too.

No confusion on my behalf, I'm just stating the facts which are the constant exaggeration and false claims made by the climate fraternity. Some much needed realism seems to go amiss in here at times, our climate has warmed and CO2 is a trace gas, this much we know but what about feedbacks and water vapour?

I would say its more a case of we have one egg now we need to find the other five.

Lol and what of those false and exaggerated media reports regarding AGW ?

Indeed Tamara and it certainly beats the usual Punch and Judy antics we often see in climate forums, good to see both sides presenting a good case.

Indeed the next 5 days or so are looking excellent, thereafter things turn unsettled with a W/NW influence temps will be suppressed for many. I still think the first half of Summer will be dry warm and sunny for many, the latter half much more unsettled but still above average temps.

Well the majority of this month is looking awful IMO if the MetO 16-30 dayer update is to be believed, lets hope we see an end to the cool/unsettled weather from the 1st June onwards.

i found the article it was by a German metrologist but the story is a bit of a non event for me as it was in the German Herald, not exactly a reputable media outlet, Lol.