Methuselah

Are we not directly adding CO2 to the atmosphere, irrespective of any other processes??

I wonder why we don't see any coldest months on record at all, in global terms??

Dry, cloudy and grey, 7C...

The Devil is in the detail...Although I'd hate all that dry, cold, fog-prone dross that the 06Z solution would provide, I doubt (hope not!) things will develop quite that way. That said, we are almost reaching the point where a marked cooldown is certain. Aren't we??? :unsure: What shape and orientation will the HP have on the 12Z??

Righto, we'll close this until AFTER the Investigation releases its findings. At least there should be something real to discuss by then.

Dry and cloudy, 6C...

We really do need Stratos Ferric back, IMO; he was the originator of this thread, not me. What's more, I cannot do his thread real justice...Come-on SF???

I have to say, that the current indications point at a typical '60s-type Xmas...Anywhere between 7 and -1C looks possible for SE England? At any rate, it's not the 'standard fayre' that we've been used to for many years... Three cheers for uncertainty!

Me too... But, don't wait too long - or the odds'll be less than even??? You know how the Press thinks!

Better get your bet in now, BB...Before the Express makes its annual Snowmaggeddon forecast??

IF we get -15C uppers, it'll be a bit nippy, irrespective of cloud-cover, IMO??

No, Matt. It makes the science apolitical...

I agree. But, obfuscation will not help...

Science is one thing, politics another??? On that, I'm with dev.

Do you have their emails, DM???

Dry and partly cloudy, -2C...

Thanks for that, CC...I'm as 'green' as the background!!!

Only two words on the 12Z...YES PLEASE!!!

:lol: :lol: Sorry Ian. I do take the Modern Era quite seriously...But that was funny!

Take Jethro's advice and start a new thread, PP???

Seconded, thirded and fourthded, Jethro! Thanks, VP...

Of course, Matt...Solar output must affect the climate...I agree 100%!!! :blush: But, putting that aside, there's a wealth of data (from Physics, Chemistry, Quantum Theory, Spectroscopy...) that CO2, H20, CH4et al absorb/reflect/divert/scatter/re-emit longwave radiation, but are transparent to incoming shortwaves - they are GHGs... Now, being a natural-born sceptic, should I 'overturn' centuries' worth of science in favour of ONE study??

Wall-to-wall sunshine, no wind, and lovely white snow-capped mountains, 3C... :blush:

I agree, Dev...It's just unforunate that, as always, some of the clods will stick! Why are so many folks jealous of real scientists? The systematic deconstruction of others' work has always been easier than the production of something genuinely different! What evidence have the deniers produced so-far?? When I see some real work (i.e. a comprehensive, not merely the cherry-picked work of others, tranche of data that disproves AGW) I'll take it seriously...But - how can one work with blather!!! IMO, AGW theory is perfectly capable of being tested/disproved...But, insinuation, innuendo, mud-slinging, ad hominem attacks, cries of 'foul' etc. blah blah blah, do not disprove anything... IMO, VP's work on the Leaky Integrator stands-out as one of a few (if not the only) valid piece of work in this direction...And, personally, I welcome it! :blush:

Guys, we (mia culpa! :blush:) are wandering away from whatever the topic is, was, may be again??? Please keep it polite...If we need another thread in-which we can define terrorism???