Mr Sleet

It's all about synoptics, and the positioning of the HP. July and September have been characterised by the stubborn block over central/eastern Europe feeding warm air over us. Both months have been unusually warm because of unusual synoptics.

Interesting article from then BEEB website - cost of implementing the Kyoto protocol would be 80 billion dollars year on year and would only postpone the warming by 6 years by AD 2100; or a single 14 billion dollar investment could stop HIV/Aids in it's tracks and save 28 million lives by 2010. It's called the Copenhagem Consensus and puts combating GW at the bottom of the list of priorities. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5346734.stm

I have to say I am totally with you on this one Steve. If you look at the charts for August there aren't that many true northerly days at all and as you say, importantly, the sources are not very far north at all. IT IS NOT JUST A QUESTION OF THE DIRECTION OF THE WIND BUT THE PATH IT HAS TAKEN AND THE LENGTH OF THE TRACK. This type of ridiculous bandwagon jumping by those desperate to prove their GW point is one of the reasons I rarely bother to visit this forum nowadays.

Rather than release it into the atmosphere, I think you will find that they will tap off the methane and sell it. If this is the exploration off the NW coast of Cuba, it's India in the driving seat, not the US.

Couple of things, one , sudden climate changes over decades is not uncommon http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html two , this crap about temperature and co2 levels http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0999/et0999s6.html clearly co2 follows temp not the other way round. If anyone believes otherwise, then what they are saying is that the main driver of ice ages and interglacials is co2 level, which is patently isn't.

I feel obliged to point out to readers that according to the much vaunted " Real Climate" website this group is a left leaning think tank-in other words hand wringing lobbying environmentalists and probably biased.Should be taken with a large pinch of salt. In the same way that I think some on here have dismissed sceptical groups as " right wing conservative groups" being on side with the oil companies. Have a nice weekend.

I do read them when I need cheering up

Of course it weakens it and of course it matters.

Well I respect your views but the reference states that this new work extends the information further back in time to 80000 years and corroberates the Vostok ice core date, which shows that CO2 rise follows temp.If you read the discusion after the article, most contributors say the same. This doesn't destroy the case for the AGW-ers but greatly weakens it.To show a link would really nail it. I realise it is a huge bugbear for the AGW -ers that they can't find a causal link between CO2 level and temp in the historical record. Some may say " this is because there are other factors at work " - I say "precisely."

CO2 increase follows warming , does not precede it. CO2 can remain in the air in high quantities even during glaciations.It's totally feasible that the increase in CO2 we are seeing is a result of warming by other factors, and is merely a consequence of it's reduce water solubility at higher temps. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html The only other thing I would say, is that whilst the Petroleum industry does fund some of the counter arguments, it's difficult to see who else would. I'm afraid that the message "everything is ok " doesn't attract funding.Any business who is under attack from a lobby will defend itself - it doesn't automatically mean that the studies it cites are wrong. As a practising scientist myself, I know that many of these researchers depend on their next meal not by doing work that says "everything is ok" but by saying "things are bad and are much worse than we thought- more research needed." If one of my project team came up to me and said " you know that result we got ? it's worse than we thought." I'd say " so you were wrong before, convince me why you will be right next time".

2006 was the " 6 week summer". Nowhere near as good as 1995 , 2003 or of course 1976 which were much longer lasting. I agree with Tamara, there was something for everyone. Lets hope winter is the same !

One warm spell for Sept , 25-30 C for three days only. Slightly below average for me, 13.5C.

Good way to get your theory to fit, move the ice age. :lol: PS we are getting alone fine, I want to keep it that way :lol:

Maybe it isn't in the historic record because it is too minor a forcing mechanism - I can't find any evidence of forcing after the 800 years either. Note to add that this post is intended to be friendly and constructive , people can fall out over this subject you know I'll get me coat.

The big problem I have with AGW is that although I accept CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there doesn't seem to be any positive correlation between it's concn in the atmosphere, and global temp in Earth history.In fact, the Vostok ice cores show that the CO2 rise follows the warming as it's solubility in the ocean decreases.

The best indicator of Global warming is " global temperature" - and that of course is where the fun starts !

Pray tell then.

Fair point. I'd like to see how things pan out over at least the next 5 winters.

An interesting analysis SF. Regarding the minima , I would tend to discount the two or three outliers early on in the negative zone, and say with more confidence that since 85 the minima have been climbing, indisputably.This ties in rather well if I remember correctly with the positive average NAO's which we started experiencing at that time. As you may gather I'm not convinced this is GW at work, more synoptics which on the evidence of the last two winters seems to be reverting to a more blocked pattern despite the global warming trend continuing (allegedly) I always rememember thinking throughout the 90's - will I ever see a scandinavian winter high again ? Along with a colleague who likes winter ice skating in Scandinavia who hung up his skates in exasperation a few years ago. It was just a succession of westerlies and Bartlett type conditions- until the last two years.

My point is that if positive feedbacks had predominated in Earth history ( rather than the measured record ) we would either have a runaway greenhouse or be locked in ice.I do believe that the whole planet was once covered in ice ( BBC geology programme about 2 years ago I think), and it is postulated that it was volcanic activity that broke the deadlock ( through pumping out greenhouse gases). I do agree that a precautionary approach is preferable, but with minimal harm to the global economy preferably.More investment in cleaner energy sources and research into new technologies are ,I believe, very worthwhile and in themselves stimulate the economy.

There is a lot of talk about tipping points, positive feedbacks and runaway this and that.The plain fact is that negative feedbacks must predominate or we wouldn't be where we are today.That's not to say though that a sudden change would not have dramatic consequences on the way of life of some fragile civilisations.

Good job polar bears can't read They will have to migrate to Antarctica, where the ice is increasing.

There is no doubt that things are getting slightly warmer but global temps may well have peaked ( watch this space). It wasn't a record on the Manley CET and it looks like 36.5 C is going to be the max for the summer. Don't forget, it was only last winter that Russia and much of Europe had record cold which came periliously close to us- don't confine winter to the dustbin just yet !

Indeed this is an important distinction which should be borne in mind by those who worry that we are setting ever higher record temps with greater frequency.

Now you definitely do not want to rely on memory . Nostalgia is not what it used to be, you know. My memory is that 1995 was better , more consecutive days of high temps and very sunny. I'm not surprised July 2006 was only the warmest July since 1983, given the coooler spell in the middle.