BLAST FROM THE PAST

And there is no precedent stating that CO2 will keep rising and the planet will keep warming? The answer is no one really knows what the outcome is going to be...but I don't think we will have to wait too much longer either. I still have not seen anywhere which proves that CO2 has warmed the planet and / or whether warming causes CO2 to increase...causation or consequence? BFTP

Ah Peter, absolutely ...given enough time. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution. et al we have been here before...pre any industrialisation BFTP

So we're all agreed then a decent below average month. More rain to come and already we're now above average after a dry 3 weeks...amazing what a few days weather can do BFTP

GP is not suggesting an easterly though SB. The signals and forecast GP is projecting is very feasible, however, you put forward a good argument and indeed we might see HP settle over the UK. HP over us would produce warm days and cold nights with no 'hot' periods but a slightly above CET. In fact that would probably generally agree with my Spring forecast...but no 'Atlantic' dominance either way I do see the GHP being ever present again this year and I suppose all will depend whether the HP to our west or over us retrogrades to GHP or not. BFTP

Wake up Devonian It does not add up! We have been here before,,,re warming beyond! Our 3% Cannot add to 33 %....simple BFTP

TM Looks like it's goona have a go! BFTP

This April will be above average but it won't be a scorcher. My CET is 8.7C and if the blocking resets itself after the first week with an initial pretty cool blast I think we will get HP very close to us to bring pleasant warm days and cool nights. BFTP 8.7C

Thats the fascinating bit not that the CET will rise to prevent one of the coldest Marches of the last century as the month will be below average but the rainfall figure! And there is a lot more to come BFTP

Sorry Scribbler, that doesn't explain it for me. A natural increase is not absorbed that is the point...it still rises. BFTP

Well the way this winter panned out a 1C below average is probably close to the mark. The fact that it will be below average is the important factor...it follows the trend. Like I posted elsewhere the story of this winter is predominantly on the cold side but with no extreme wintry weather...but a possible marker for the next decade or so BFTP

Yes CO2 has risen by a third. We haven't pumped in a third. You have touched what I think is a very important point. CO2 has risen and dropped in the past, the planet has dealt with it. I accept GW but all down to AGW...no way. At some point and why, CO2 increases in the planet and the natural sinks cannot stop it from increasing, indeed the overall trend for CO2 over 18000 years is increase. The only time it drops is when an ice age locks it all up. We are emitting/adding approx 3% of the worlds CO2 yet the increase apparently is 33% and over how long? since we have been omitting it industrially?...now to me the sums do not add up. Why is it that OUR 3% seems to be doing all the damage. Yes it may be adding bit by bit but the increase is happening naturally IMO as it always has. Yes one may argue we are omitting 3% over what the planet can handle but that does not hold up because CO2 was on the rise anyway. CO2 we pump out is the SAME as CO2 naturally. Are we saying that if we omitted 0% CO2 that the planets CO2 levels would have remained constant and that there would have been no GW? I know what I think Food for thought at least BFTP

Pete Absolutely. However, what I'm really saying is that I can't see that our extra CO2 will have a eventual different outcome to the past. Yes the planet has warmed or GW as it is but I think it would still be warming anyway irrespective of our CO2 output/imput...as CO2 is CO2 is CO2 so why should there be a different outcome? Maybe we are speeding up the outcome that has occurred in the past? Maybe it all will be different this time? I just haven't found or heard an answer (yet) that tells me otherwise to satisfy my curiosity or dissuade me from my current thoughts. Oh and on pollution, no I am against pollutants and I do conserve and recycle...that's just good practice IMO. kind regards BFTP :lol:

Devonian, please read it again whether we increase or not is not what I raised, where is the established fact that CO2 warms the planet. All that can be stated as fact is that as the planet warms so does CO2, that is the link....causation or consequence? BFTP Peter It is NOT a good analogy. Baths do not leak so water keeps filling until overflows. The planet absorbs and recycles CO2. Now if you have a colonder and you place it under a fast enough flow then it will fill if the imput is higher than the leakage...that I'd accept. However, it is unlikely that the Earth would overfill as the imput would never be high enough. It has been here before and it has reversed before...I'll stick with that thankyou But I will accept your opinions, its not mine. My concern is that we are on a tipping point and we must be ready for that. The planet will not keep warming, it never has it went into reversal every single time it got to this point...WITHOUT FAIL BFTP

I would like to add...re my last paragraph of my previous post...where's the modern problem? Lobbyists always avoid the fact that the planet has been here before prior to humans, prior to industrialisation etc etc etc etc etc. BFTP

Careful TWS you'll make Ian blush. It did pick up trends and had good points but in fairness came across problems a few of us had. I would point out that Roger J SMITH was very very good and for me had more 'hits' than most. I also think that forecasts using 'other'methods stood up...but the main feature was the pattern change and 'some' predicted this from some time out, not through guesswork either. So well done to trend spotters BFTP

And winter 05/06 was.....exactly average since 1900. B) BFTP

Yes indeed TWS some excellent points there. 71-2000 average is very appropriate...what did they use in the 40s certainly not 61-90! But the 1911-1940 average? And yes it was a warmer average than 61-90. I suppose its just as well we haven't stuck with the 1941 to 1970 average then we would be in trouble???? BFTP

This mild spell might not be as 'mild' as some would think. I think recent runs have overcooked it and 12z, we will have to see if that is reading the downgrade correctly. I think 4c to 4.5 c may still be achievable. BFTP

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants. At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished. CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide. CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide. If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution. 2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks. Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases. As illustrated in the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect. Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward. regards BFTP :blink:

So Roger what affects the effectiveness of Mercury during it 's running cycle as certainly the retrograde was very noticeable this last season as you explained it compared to the last 18yrs overall. I remember you mentioning the 'switch' experienced in Canada around 1990ish one that I am championing has now occurred over this way. regards BFTP

Tamara No not Bartlett scenario we can have negative NAO and still be not cold as blocks may not be conducive to cold UK, and that was an early overall winter assessment (note Dec is of interest). I was looking at the MetO experimental LRF for the globe for next 6 months and they project Russia/Eurasia average to colder than average and the USA warmer bar Alaska. If that proves correct and continues then I think it is signalling/supporting the cyclical change I have mentioned as it has been the other way round overall now for over a decade or so. So clearly no I don't think differently

The winter was notable for it's lack of double figure maxima days. This was largely a result of the continuous blocking at mid and occasionally high latitudes. The classic mild set-up of a strong northerly jet and Bartlett High was almost completely absent. I think that is quite possible that this winter could be a marker for winters over the next four or five years, with blocking patterns often prevailing.

Of course all these arguments are just conjecture. Where does it say that CO2 increases are the cause of warming and not a consequence? This hasn't been proved/disproved by anyone yet. Why does Mars have frozen polar caps with a CO2 atmosphere? Distance from the sun maybe? Too many unanswered questions and contradicting scientific opinions and I remain very firmly on the fence. Pete, you are probably right re underwater volcanoes with there being no proof of it being more active now than in the past...but in the same breath how can you say it is probable there is less activity now? BFTP

Mr Data hasn't added it on for some reason...but that is mine BFTP