Methuselah

A tad more positive methinks? The first mention of the S-word with the S not being exclusively confined to northern hills.

I agree with you, Jethro... The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the report itself doesn't really say anything, anyway - it has all the hallmarks of a gratuitous 'look what I've done' exercise? One can choose any two decades and compare them. But, so what? We can do that already...

A chemical equilibrium which is, of itself, dependent on temperature - the warmer the water becomes, the more the equilibrium moves away from soluble carbonate ions and towards insoluble calcium carbonate (white cliffs of Dover?)...Ergo, as a body of water warms (any water, not just seawater) its ability to act as a buffer against acidification becomes ever less efficient? See...there's no reason to put the planet into a pressure cooker! Neither do plankton and corals refer to a pH meter before setting-up home...?

And here's the chart from November 4 1978...Make of it what you will, but I don't see much indication of what followed. Don't write winter off just yet?

Childish personal insults will get you precisely nowhere, tablet...

But that's all purely hypothetical, jonboy: not only have muons themselves only recently been detected, their putative effects at the time of solar minima, have never, ever been either detected or measured. I'll keep a very open mind, however.

Too right Fred. That's why I've perfected the 'No Runs Method'. It's easier on the old ticker than repeatedly watching Day 10's blizzards disappear before they get to Day 5!

Of course...So why bother pointing-out that 2018 has so far been so exceptional? Anyway, the report says what it says; with or without the need to invoke conspiracies and hidden agendas?

How convenient that not one of those graphs shows 2018? And what if they are recording the urban heat-island effect? There's no reason why major conurbations like London should be warming whilst everywhere else (allegedly) isn't... Your penchant for seeing imaginary (usually political) conspiracies, in anything you don't want to hear, is becoming rather tedious, though.

Probably that, after so many years' vainly hunting for cold, I've come to the not very exciting conclusion that I may just as well wait for it...I'll enjoy it when it comes, though!

I agree, feb...But winter disnae even start for another four weeks! Patience is a virtue? Good things come to he who waits?

Now that, feb, is one correlation whose veracity I do doubt!

As one of my childhood heroes, Malcolm X, said: The future belongs to those who prepare for it today...

I just re-read Ian's post MIA and, alas, all I can see is a set of predictions that can all be disproved by future observation...So how, pray, can he be being political? If someone (who was coincidentally convinced by AGW theory) were to suggest that the moon will still be there tomorrow, you'd claim they were being political!

But this the thread for cold-hunting, Snipper...What does it matter if peeps need go back 72-years to find any!

Which means that anything bearing even the slightest hint of meteorological realism goes straight out the window? No wonder the tabloid press is always picking-up on silly predictions of imminent Snowmageddon...

Dave's suggestion of using methane as a fuel raises yet another question, I think: The oxidation of a single molecule of CH4 produces two molecules of H2O, I think - so my question is: are two molecules of water more or less dangerous (as GHGs) than one molecule of methane?

Based on experience, and the charts you peeps have kindly posted, I think November 2 is way to early for getting despondent...I'll be interested in seeing how Europe's snowcover stands, one month from now.

Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned...My hunt for cold has gotten so desperate that I've been lamppost-watching on TV!?

Many folks simply love being told what they want to hear, it seems...Irrespective of whether it's backed up by science or is a heap of vacuous twaddle; and the fossil-fuel industry loves telling them that all in the world is rosy. And it makes them $billions!

It has more to do with plankton tablet, and temperature-dependent calcium-carbonate deposition - the former of which I doubt Henry knew much about...And have you ever noticed how boiling a kettle causes water to precipitate carbonate out? Basic chemical equilibrium, old bean...it's temperature dependent!

P2 must be what Nathan Rao looks at?

Thanks for that, Fred...So it's a plume and not a rift; but plumes will also have been releasing heat for millions of years, so are hardly a recent thing, at least in human terms. IMO, a massive uptick in volcanism is very unlikely to be a viable alternative to CO2, in terms of global warming. If it were, I think we might have noticed.

The prediction that the first effect of GW would be increased snowfall over Antarctica...

This current 'disagreement' reminds of the old trick question: What was the world's largest Island before Australia was discovered? But major continental rifting operates over timescales measured in millions of years, not decades, so I'd be very surprised if anything sudden has happened recently. I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely.