jonboy

I can't disagree with most of those statements but just to blame changing climate patterns with no reference to population growth is in my mind a deliberate mislead. As for getting back to my own thread please give me strength if some of you can't stand a valid point being made!!!!!

Climate has always produced fresh water in a given location that varies with the climatic cycles be it PDO, Nino, Nina etc. The one thing man has done is grow in population and as a result needs more water for themselves nad for growing the food we need to survive. If that population grows by 20% in a given location and in the past it was just able to cope during the dry cycles when the next dry cycle appears with that 20% increase in place don't expect the area to cope. This isn't down to climate change its down to population growth. The issue of water supply is far far more complex than being presented here and isn't worthy of this thread.

11.5 for me

Off course led by the southwhich is some 1.6m above the norm whatever that really is. Whilst they over on the manamade thread continue to harp on about artic ice they have been deafening in their silence to explain the growth down under which in a world of AGW doesn't fit the agenda. Now the cold drought etc etc that the states suffered and continue to suffer is all AGW fault and man must change his ways but wheres the science!!!!!

Hi John That Russian alert looks interesting. If its proves correct it will be a feather in their cap and perhaps will lead to better predictions

Hi John a general question would you say that we are seeing an increase in volcanic activity say compared with the last 5 years or so or are we generaly at the same level of activity?

It appears that multiyear ice has again shown an increase this year which maywell bode well for the coming melt Link http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/03/sea-ice-news-volume-5-number-1-multiyear-ice-on-the-rise/#more-106888

I see we have a few April 1 posts this morning!!!

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26746039 Here is an article from the BBC which shows everything wrong with the Climate change debate. Doesn't the reporter understand that there is a vast difference between an underwater volcano outlet pumping highly concentrated CO2 up through the sea than an atnosphere that see's CO2 concentration increase from 0.03 percent to say 0.035 percent and isn't forced through water. How can you come to the conclusions beats me but then clearly I'm not a scientist!!!!!!!

I see that the ski resort of Stowe in Vermont has recieved 5ft of snow this march already not bad for early spring!!! No doubt that north easter will give another 6 to 12 inches over the weekend

I don't think so just less cold than normal

True knocker many good and bad consequencies. If we warm will we be less reliant on russian gas but if we cool we will be more reliant. In many respects I hope we warm!!!!

it is also a problem when people realise they have been lied to as they will reject all those good green objectives that have been put forward as the only way to say the planet

Perhaps you could explain this bit? courtesy of a huge chunk of the polar vortex that the jet stream temporarily dislodged from the Arctic

No I'm not quiet. Lets see what happens and no one even you GW expected the vortex to migrate so far south and set up over the eastern side of the states and canada has it did this winter and there lies the reason why we have not seen the level of ice many expected. This doesn't mean that we are going to have an exceptional melt or even an early start. As for a nino influence again forecasts continue to be varied with more going for neutral conditions at this time. So lets just wait and see before we get further we are doomed posts.

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76585-manmade-climate-change-discussion/page-98#entry2938762 Didn't realise this was a contest. Equally shows how reliant some are on scare tactics, etc etc rather than proper science

http://iceagenow.info/2014/02/agw-golden-boy-michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy/ Why does the climate change debate cause such intransigence. All Mann had to do was share his megadata which formed the famed hockey stick.!!!

I see the other side using ridicule already to try and debunk. Don't they ever read before commenting? It would be a change if they could comment on the content that includes the scientific content.

6.0 for me please

Then we have this which highlights what is so wrong with this debate. Especially senior USA politicians http://iceagenow.info/2014/02/mass-destruction-science/

So because I reject the consensus that it is most likely caused by humans then it makes me what? I firmly believe that the majority and largest player in our temperature cycles over time is down to solar activity and I have posted numerous times articles and papers that show that coorelation which is a darn better fit that rising CO2 levels. Yes a warm SE pacific together with a strong artic vortex maywell be the reason why our winter has been so dire. But I've seen nothing that could explain CO2's role in this. However there is research that shows how trade winds are affected by solar cycles and activity levels and another strong coorelation cabn be shown. I firmly believe our climatic patterns are in transition as a direct result of the present lower solar activity and fully expect that our winters to get colder over the next few years

And now they take parts of posts out of context to make points that are intended to give the nuetral viewer the impression that they are the ones who know what they are talking about and the other poster is clearly an idiot. Clearly those over on the other side have little to do all day whereas i suspect most on this side live in the real world!!!!

The problem drgl is that if you try and bring an alternative view over in the thread all they are interested in is how they can debunk your point. usually by such as you got it from wuwt or other site they disapprove off or so and so is not a proper scientist. I've come to the conclusion it is pointless trying to convince or debate with a group that clearly is neither open or willing to do so. I am a firm believer that the main and dominant cause of temperature rise and stalling is down to solar cycle effects which are many and complicated.

Yet again Dev you mislead by using my name is a response. My post is clearly about the article in Forbes yet you want to link it to an article in the telegraph and assume I have missed it. As usual you wish to twist facts to try and discredit those with views opposite to yours but then I have not seen many posts from yourselve expressing an opinion

Just shows Keith to what length's the otherside go to mislead the general public on consenses and ignor valid argument