Methuselah

Dry and sunny, 8C...

Would that be the one that (with a black-body radiating into a perfect vacuum) depends on T4; and when adapted to heat flow (from one body to another) on T14-T24? Of that, I remain unconvinced...Just because the planet's never exceeded a certain temperature, doesn't make that certain temperature an unbreachable barrier?

I take your point about 'total' ice - true of course...Good idea about another thread but, tbh, my maths is certainly not quite up to it.

Hi VP, do you mean the 'faster' the ice-caps are (in the process of) melting? I'm not trying to funny or anything... The doomsday scenarios suggesting an ice-free Arctic give me the 'willies' for one main reason: the latent heat of the ice->water phase change is far greater than that required for merely warming-up water. IMO, melting ice (ignoring albedo!) is a self-limiting -ive feedback in a warming world...So, from where I'm sitting, there must be a degree of ice-cover (a threshold) below which, warming will accelerate. (As an ever-increasing component of heat will stay sensible?) All this ASSUMES, other things being equal, that heat-in will exceed heat-out...Not a very tenable assumption, I know! Bear with me, VP. I'm on an heuristic!

Possibly as a constant with an inbuilt measure of uncertainty, allowing for most 'freak' occurrences, VP? But surely, over millennia (and us being in no real position to predict them?) ephemeral/capricious events like natural forest fires must be assumed to have a nonaccumulative effect on climate? edit: nonsene deleted...

Dry and brilliantly sunny, 6C...

I have seen 'orbs' many times: at night, on my glasses, in a fine drizzle; and through unfocussed microscopes...

Dry, sunny and frosty with superb visibility, OC...

Dry and clear, 0C...

A very well presented forecast...It really is good to see explanations along with predictions... Well done, Stewart. :winky:

Clear and cool, 6C...

Soz mate...I was in 'banter' mode. :lol:

Mostly cloudy, breezy and dry, 8C...

Any more runs like the 06Z, and there'll be a 'Rampede'??

Cloudy, breezy and the rain has arrived...

What global cooling?

And Joe B will get it right!

I agree, noggin...IMO, the whole idea of carbon trading is a political subterfuge.

'Twas a braw bricht moonlicht nicht...Cloud only now spilling-in.

And, on occasion, that even extends to: I know it's snowing but I just can't see it!

Cold at 0C, but cloud coming from west, light south wind...

Dry, clear and a tad taters, 2C...

Cold, showery and horrible, 7C...

Thanks for the link, J. I agree that palaeoclimates are a fascinating subject, and that understanding them is key to accounting for natural events. However, it doesn't address the potential problems relating to our unremitting emission of CO2? Yes, in the past, CO2 increases (except perhaps when the result of extraordinary levels of outgassing...Another subject for research?) had to have been the result of a feedback process; that much I take on board. But IMO, and however self-limiting a process it is, our additional CO2 must cause some degree of warming...But, having said that (and hats-off to Mr Landscheidt!) a lot of peeps (including most sceptics? and moi ) have been very surprised by the current Solar minimum, which throws yet another driver into the mix ?? PS: I'd always assumed cloud-feedback to be negative; as that's what I was taught???

I know that we've all wandered off-topic, but the 'feedback' problem intrigues me... 1) Without +ive feedback, it's hard to see how Ice-Ages begin and end so fast: can Milankovitch cycles account for such a rapid response to such a gradual forcing? 2) Without -ive feedback, how does the globe maintain any king of (however dynamic) equilibrium at all? And, the LI hypothesis alo has me intrigued. Not because I think it's necessarily right (GHGs are still GHGs and IMO need including; they are there in the real world, whether we like it or not?) but because it demonstrates the simple fact that GW episodes can be accounted for without recourse to GHGs being a main driver...