Mr Sleet

No.If it's dissolved in the ocean ( there will be an reversible equilibrium at the interface of sea and air ie molecules will swap places ) it cannot contribute to atmospheric warming.

There is lots of evidence that CO2 is sensitive to global temperatures ie as global temps rise or fall so CO2 levels rise or fall, generally lagging behind the temperature effect.Its due to the solubility of CO2 in the oceans being higher at lower temps.As global temps ( and ocean temps) fall, then CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by the oceans to a greater extent. So I agree that there is no evidence to support the claim that falling C02 levels caused the cooling; quite the reverse in fact. This paper should be recycled.

Gray Wolf knows

OK GW- respect for sticking to your guns- you may be right but I don't think so. Anyone else like to make a prediction ?

OK I'll play I would say that the minimum extent will be up by between 1 and 2 million sq km on the 2007 minimum. I think you have said GW that you expect the whole lot to go -yes ?

385 ppm. Excellent for my begonias

CBOB 1 Dev 0

That's quite a serious rebuttal. It confirms my observations that some scientists ( and I speak as one who has made a good living out of it for 23 years) believe in something too strongly ( ie have already made up their minds, subconsciously) when they design their experiment and analytical means, so that their objectivity is lost.

According to Beeb weather forecaster last night ( 10:30 pm), monday night/tuesday mornings' minimum was the coldest on record for (April) in the South West. No more detail added !

Essan, have you been a pedant all your life or do we have the NW forum to thank for that ?

I will agree that's certainly possible, but I doubt it, we'll see.

I understand what you are saying Essan back to you. With your chart it is the old chestnut , the CO2 rises after the temperature not the other way round. I still say at the mo " no CO2 link" to climate change Very interesting BV, thanks. More here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Trias...xtinction_event

Temperature responses to quasi-100-yr solar variability during the past 6000 years based on δ18O of peat cellulose in Hongyuan, eastern Qinghai–Tibet plateau, China http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN It's the Sun wot did it.

If you have something similar or different please put it up with an explanation.

I wouldn't take solace in that likelihood LG, a 20 year cool down would still be a "downward blip in an ever upward trend" for some My advice- take a leaf out of Government's book and don't take AGW or this board too seriously.

From Cryosphere Today website. Onwards and upwards for the ever colder Antarctic.

From Cryoshere Today website. If anything, things are flattening out. Would need to be a pretty dramatic drop to beat last years minimum.

Thank God wysi, someone who can think clearly- top post. :lol:

The BBC article isn't saying either of those, it is just saying that global temperatures haven't risen since 1998 (fact) and 2008 is expected to be cooler globally than 2007. ( forecast) Simple really !

Well if the global temperature in 2008 is lower or forecast to be lower than 2007, it is a fair headline. Much fairer than yesterdays " no Sun link to climate change" shocker.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm BBC official acknowledgment.

That link was bit of fun , chill out man ( or in your case, warm up ..) I didn't say "nothing to do with the Sun". It should be obvious that the study actually looked at the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation/climate change, the Sun can have an effect on the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth. So this study may rule out one indirect mechanism.It doesn't rule out the Sun per se. So to say "No Sun link" to climate change is wrong and misleading, but would probably be taken at face value by Joe Public. No, I wouldn't expect an instant temperature response to CO2 .

OK Dev, I have read the article and I have no axe to grind either way, I have an open mind : but 2 points 1) The headline " No Sun link" to Climate Change is wrong. To be scientifically accurate, it should say " No cosmic ray" link to climate change. The Lancaster team have only looked at one mechanism by which the Sun could play a part- namely it's influence on cosmic rays from outside the solar system reaching the Earth. 2) It is quite simplistic to say (Rutherford Appleton lab)that solar activity has decreased slightly over the last 20 years so global temps should have gone down too. There is plenty of thermal inertia in the sytem and I wouldn't expect an immediate response- remember we have not warmed up appreciably for the last 8 years and very recently there has been a cooling. So I think that there is a bit of media spin going on here.

Seems more feasible to me

Bering sea doing very nicely thanks, still increasing- remarkable B) from Cryosphere Today website. Could be important for the melt ahead, if the ice stays for a longer time in the Bering sea, it could seriously reduce the melt in the East Siberian sea compared to last year.