Methuselah

But that doesn't answer my question...At the same time, how does the volcano 'theory' handle the 'pause' or 'missing heat'?

What do volcanoes have to do with man-made CO2? I can see how volcanoes impact on natural carbon dioxide, Snowy, and I have no problem with that at all...Can you demonstrate that - in the time since the Industrial Revolution - volcanism has increased sufficiently to account for the near doubling of atmospheric CO2?

I know, Ian...I was just asking why the number 1511 (or whatever it was) has any relevance...Why not 6 or 42 or 25,002!

4.9 please...

So what does that have to do with man-made CO2?

I've got faeries at the bottom of my garden.

I remember a lot of 'zonal resets' during the 1990s. 1989 had too many to count! I'd have though that there's more likelihood of 'eventually' seeing cold weather from what we currently have, than from full-on zonality; and, fortunately for us, no model is suggestive of it.

Indeed, CH. And that proves that anything can come from anything?

What are the 'decider models', Steve? Will the weather not just do what it does?

Why do I like snow? Because I hardly ever see it!

I think that that might have come across a tad blunt. What I mean is, your kind of scepticism (always attempting to provide answers), is what we need...Blind acceptance is as bad as blind denial and deliberate obfuscation are...

Indeed, Frosty. But individual perturbations are (by their very nature) even less likely to be correct than the Operational...

Don't talk rubbish, Spark...No one has 'forced you out'...Just engage in sensible discussion...?

Therein lies the problem, Spark: deniers want to call themselves 'sceptics', as do Armageddonists. Where do we draw the line? Surely, we must just accommodate one another's disagreements?

But you are neither a 'denier' nor a 'misleader', Spark...You are a sceptic!

Welcome to NW, FC...

I think it's always been that way, Steve. I can still remember whining to my dad about it, back in the 1960s: Why are mild forecasts right and cold ones not? IMHO, it seems as if not much has changed, bar the time-scale.

As one sceptic to another - where in that article is Typhoon Haiyan directly attributed to CO2?

When do you start the new job, Cap?

It doesn't!

Don't fall into their trap, Malcolm...they're not sceptics, they're deniers...Skeptics do not need to fudge.

Well, it shows just how utterly toothless current press-regulation is...

Time for another wee warning: if you have a point to make, just make without resorting to churlish personal slights...You only slight yourself!

In a way I agree, Chio...But, in another, I agree with Shed: I do suspect - though cannot prove (this side of Eternity anyhow) - that, statistically, rather more FI Arctic incursions and 'stellar runs' fail to materialize than do episodes of bog-standard British mush? Then, that's only cos I don't credit FI charts with being all that much more than numerical guesswork, anyway??? Note: the above is not meant as a negative criticism of numerical models per se; just a comment on the present abilities of computers...

Very well done, Sam...I hope it comes off!