Mr Sleet

I certainly agree with a lot of that. As you say, it could be just relative distribution of the flux which is changing, rather than an overall warming or cooling, which brings me to my original point that our record month could simply be down to synoptics (frequent and sustained tropical continental incursions).

Although not a record breaking month there is still enough residual heat around to push the CET above average. 17.3 C for me.

You're correct if the CET is to be trusted .According to Philip Eden the MO use three sites ( Rothamsted,Pershore and Stonyhurst) since 2004 , these are largely unurbanised. The distinction between synoptics and GW is important, as climate change is very different to GW. Climate change being on local or regional scales whilst global warming is, well, global. Synoptics can change a climate in the absence of global warming. Or are you saying that the world must cool or warm for synoptics to change ?

Sunniest month and warmest month. Looks like synoptics rather than GW to me then. Take a look at the air temp data for Armagh Observatory in N Ireland, a predominantly rural site that whose environment has changed little over the period. We know that the Hadley and Manley series are adjusted for urban heat island effects and use only two sites. I'm no raving GW sceptic but it does make you think. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Armagh_an.htm

Brilliant. Have you told the Government ? Any ideas about the (alleged) anomalous warming ?

What do you think is causing the warming Wilson ?

Pretty good call there three weeks in advance

Well it is a fact Daniel that practically all of the water in the atmosphere and on or in the crust came from, and continues to come from ,volcanic outgassing.However, water vapour being the major greenhouse gas this would warm things up.

1998 was the warmest, was it not ?

It is a fact that there is no positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature. A "slight" flaw in the AGW argument I would say. In fact, the C02 concentration usually goes up after the temperature rise and vice versa. I'm willing to concede if someone can show me factually otherwise. I've got no axe to grind.I assumed that the evidence was there but I was shocked when I actually did the research myself.

Slightly lower than 2005. I'll go for 10.25 Assuming the data is corrected properly

Yes I agree it was a rather clumsy choice of words but wasn't my intention to diss the series.I do think Mr Holmes response was a tad OTT shall we say. Thanks for the info BTW.

Well after a mixed response in some quarters to my question as to whether the CET was adjusted, I decided to ask a professional , and here is his reply "Hi Mark ... yes it is ... Manley began with very small adjustments starting around 1950 in his original work. The MO used corrections of 0.1 to 0.2 degC in the 1970s increasing to 0.2 to 0.3 degC in more recent years to accommodate the moderately urbanised sites at Ringway (Manchester airport) and Squires Gate (Blackpool airport). The three sites they use now (since 2004) are largely unurbanised (Rothamsted, Pershore and Stonyhurst), but I don't know what the present urbanisation correction is" That's from Philip Eden I'm surprised at the amount of chopping and changing, only three sites too :o

Thanks Paul. So there is no reliable correction ?

Do you know if the CET measurements are corrected to take account of the heat island effect in urban stations? Is not, and one wonders how accurate such correction can be, the CET trends are pretty much useless.

I don't think you can give any credence to the one sided Attenborough programmes or the Climate Chaos series in general-they are after ratings and the more sensational it is the better. I do appreciate this constructive debate. I am also aware of all the counter arguments to the points on the website, no point in recycling them again.I am a scientist and I haven't always been a sceptic on this point. However the thing that completely undermines the AGW theory is that atmospheric CO2 follows temperature, not the other way round, for good reasons - as water temp increases co2 solubility decreases. If someone can show me otherwise I may modify my view. Couple of other points : The alarmists would also have it that we could enter into a vicious circle and have a runaway greenhouse situation-yet negative feedbacks must predominate otherwise we would have run away before now ! I agree Arctic ice is on the wane but antactic ice has been on the increase for the last three years. The next 20 years should resolve it ( possibly) :blink:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3 The biggest flaw in AGW theory- CO2 follows temperature , not the other way round. Is there going to be one hell of a climbdown in the next 20 years- hope I'm around to see it :blink:

Mostly icefree during the MWP.If I can find the info on the internet, anyone can. I bet if I told you that hurricane frequency had decreased in the last 100 years and continues on a downward trend you wouldn't believe that either

I'd say that if you could grow food on Greenland it's a pretty safe bet that it was warmer then than it is now. In fact ever wondered why it's called GREENland ? It's because there was no ice on it.

Thanks for that somewhat immature assessment.

I sense that you are gnashing your teeth in frustration because somebody doesn't share your view. I have a very good degree in Chemistry and have worked for twenty two years as an industrial chemist ( in the Carbon sequestration Industry funnily enough).A 10 year old can look at the CO2 vs temp graphs through time and conclude that rising CO2 levels have lagged temperature increases. Facts, not feelings based on TV images of ice falling into the sea.

Lose the argument, start slinging insults. The last bastion of the pro -AGW's

The chaotic nature of the climate ( long term and short term) makes it impossible to pin down the cause which is of great help to AGW proponents. However there is no causal link between global C02 levels and global temperatures in the past or now.Do the research-it's all out there.Lots of bandwagon jumping here methinks. The Attenborough programme last night was shameful piece of sensationalism but then the debate on GW left the realms of science several years ago. Sorry if you disagree.I have been a fence sitter for some time but I have come down firmly on the sceptic side after a trawl through the evidence.

It does make me smile when these dependent researchers say we got that wrong before, now we understand it perfectly and this is what will happen...until the next time they say they got it wrong...more research needed is the favourite saying of dependent researchers...what they mean is more paycheques needed

Yes.Such a sudden change suggests that it is nothing to do with CO2 levels, which are rising gradually.There is probably some other area in the N Hemisphere which has cooled down to compensate. Don't let the current media hype get to you.