Mr Sleet

For 90% of Earth's history, it has been ice free. Ice ages depend upon the state of our orbit round the Sun ( changes in eccentricity) but also, crucially, plate tectonics ( continental drift, position of continents). If it gets warm enough, the ice will melt, if it gets cold again, the ice will reform. If positive feedbacks were dominant, we would either be gripped in ice or in a runaway warming. Neither is the case, indicating that negative feedbacks dominate.Good news. It amuses me when people talk about "the next ice age" not realising that we are actually in one ! The true definition of an ice age is the existence of ice anywhere on the planet , because Earth has for so much of it's life , been ice-free.

I'd say that the US temperature is about the same as it was 100 years ago. And I wouldn't trust NASA 100% either, same as I wouldn't trust any scientist 100% ( and I earn a living as one ! ).

Very little chance of that I'm afraid looking at the GFS London/Manchester ensembles.

quote name='ribster' date='11 Aug 2007, 02:19 PM' post='1041749'] I see the MET are now predicting that temperatures will plateau for the next two years (I'm sure someone was suggesting this in this thread, so good call!), but then are set to rise after that. So maybe it is a turning point. Whos to say that it will warm again after the plateau, they could be wrong. And before someone jumps on me about accepting the science that I like and rejecting that that I don't, yes they could be wrong about plateauing too. Either way, I find the idea that the warming is possibly going to stop for a while rather encouraging!

HI Tamara, The many months of consecutively above average CET's from July to February just gone closely followed the El Nino event. Since El Nino dissipated in February 2007, monthly CET's apart from April have returned closer to average. I think this is what one would normally expect from an El Nino- higher temps.

Thanks Trev, I think you are right- I should read it more carefully I agree that area is the more interesting measure.

Yes it significant locally , but 90% of all the worlds ice is in Antarctica which according to the CT site is continuing it's well established 20 year increasing trend ( sea ice , which cannot be blamed on increased precipitation.) There is only so much cold and ice to go around, so while one loses some the other gains some.I doubt if either ice cap has done anything other than fluctuate considerably (even over short periods) in Earth history. If Antarctica was losing it as well I would be worried. And I say this not as an intransigent AGW sceptic.

Earlier this week you were quoting 5.4 million sq km of sea ice area - are you saying now it's 3.5 !!?? I see that you are quoting values from two different websites- which is correct ?

Thanks P3. Comforting to know that the rapid sea ice loss in June/July is due to excpetionally sunny conditions, (they pinched our sunshine, literally) rather than unusual warmth. Temperature anomalies were higher in 2004 than current.

Presumably we should take SF's further " hunches" with a pinch of salt. ROTFLMAO :lol:

quote name='PersianPaladin' date='9 Aug 2007, 11:42 PM' post='1040603'] Depressing indeed; and thus, as you say, the likely culprit of our cold anamolies in the northern and central Atlantic...steepening SST gradients towards our latitudes and helping to stir a more vigorous jet-stream. I suspect that this could result in a temporary cool-zone for north-west Europe as well as highly unsettled weather as maritime areas take the brunt of these steepening oceanic anamolies; with eastern continental areas developing feedback high pressure cells and much higher temps to compensate. It'll be interesting though on how this all affects our winter in terms of how these cooler anamolies influence the subtropical high pressure-zone and how far south it migrates. I suspect our winter may end up being quite a mess...synoptic wise.

.......although this report http://www.russia-ic.com/news/show/4512/ shows that total ice volume is the same. I've learnt not to take media reports at face value, epsecially when scenitists use emotive words such as "annihilate" to describe ice loss.

Another case of hopecasting I fear. I'd like to see evidence/stats for your claims, not hunches. I don't see any evidence that the North Atlantic is anomalously warming - I think you want to see a higher CET than 2006 so this is getting in the way of your better judgment.

We know with CFC's and the ozone hole that we can affect the environment, no question. I would call myself a bit of a "flipper" on the subject, on the fence but prone to fall off one one side or t'other. The biggest problem I have, is that there is no evidence of CO2 being a driver of our climate in Earth history. If someone can show me peer reviewed, convincing evidence then please do. Having said that, with the cost of fossil fuels I have to keep use to a reasonable minimum, I don't like lining the leccy and gas companies pockets, so we do make the effort to cut down. Re: Governments/swindles , you would think that they would actually do something if they thought there was a big problem - but they do diddly squat really.

Despite there being no historical evidence whatever that CO2 has ever had a causal effect on Earths climate ?

It's not scary, it's reassuring.

We had our best snowfalls for 13 years this last winter, 4 inches in Jan and a whacking 9 inches in february- I'll have some more of that I think !

Last year we were under the influence ofa raging El Nino. Interesting to note this morning that the Met Office are going for a poor summer throughout due to an increasing La Nina signal. My point is that there is no way the annual CET will reach 11C or higher.

And you could still fit them all on an area the size of the Isle of Wight

Yep, definitely looks like Whitebeam. I'm suprised someone hasn't managed to bring AGW into this thread

I agree with your post Tamara. If you go to the IPCC 2007 "summary for policymakers" you will see that they say that changes in northern hemisphere circulation in the 20th Century cannot be explained by natural or man made forcings. I agree with you that there has been a sudden change in our part of the world, leading to much greater southwesterliness with accompanying ice loss in the arctic. I am intrigued by one thing though, where is the peer reviewed evidence that the Polar Front has migrated northward? I hope you can come out of your self imposed silence to answer this .

I think you are spot on John. The most recent IPCC summary for policymakers makes it clear if you look carefully that changes to N Hemisphere circulation over the last 30 years cannot be explained by known ( natural or man made) forcings. i.e synoptics is probably driving the N Hemisphere changes, not GW.

Although I think we should wean ourselves off fossil fuels for political reasons, rather than climate change ones, you will not find anywhere in the climate record evidence that C02 levels are a prime mover in shaping global temperatures.The CO2 level changes because of temperature, not the other way round. I challenge anyone to show me otherwise. On a more amusing note, it was funny to see the BBC News last night going up to Inuit territory in the high arctic to report on the effects of climate change. When they found that there weren't any, they quickly shifted the focus of the piece to look at the threat to the Inuit way of life due to the economic migration to towns and cities.

Judging by this BBC letters site, the public out there ain't convinced, and they can usually smell a rat. http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jsp...=20070319170039

Fear not, the recent IPCC report (for policy makers) states the following "However, the observed changes in the Northern Hemisphere circulation are larger than simulated in response to 20th century forcing change." Basically meaning that the positive average NAO for the last 20 years ( coinciding with winter going awol in our part of the world) is not explained by global warming forcings. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf