jonboy

7.3 for me cold start but warm last week

The really sad part is the langauge it is written in because the article has a very valid point. If you looked beyond the manner in which itis written then you would see the point they are making.

Reading the hansard transcript Bill English was making valid points about how farmers need to adapt to changing climate which has always bben the case. Those who are slow to change will enevitably suffer. Goverments can only give so much support. Equally the New Zealand record appears to at the better end of response when considering carbon reduction.

So 20 to 30 percent of years have been warmer than we are today conforting to know we are not close yet to being the warmist!!!!

No its the 21st two weeks away

The sun has lots of specks today which don't meet the Latman's threshold so today is spotless

In my lifetime which if I live to be a hubdred has 43 years left I expect to see an increase in both volcanic and earthquake activity with some exceptional events not seen for hundreds if not thousand years. I expect artic ice to recover over the next ten years and then continue its growth until around 2050. I expect science will finally cotton on to the fact that what our sun does and our relationship to it in regard to the planetery positions/cycle fundamentally affects our climatic cycles. Man will realsise resources are finite and won't rely on scare stories of man made global warming to do something about it. So finally I expect there will be a decrease in global temperatures over the next 10/20 years before stabilising for a further 20 years before increasing again. I fully expect in my daughters life time which hopefully will last until around 2100 temperatures will have risen to 1 degree above today's level as part of a natural cycle.

This is what really upsets me about how you put your arguments across GW. The putting down of anyone who questions your clearly firm believe that it is man and man alone who is the instigator of so called global warming and please don't come back and call it climate change. There is plenty of evidence of those who challenge the percieved thinking being deride and imprisoned or even put to death in history and then are proven correct with the passage of time. Are we to do the same with those who question, rightly in my opinion, that actually the warming we have seen is actually predominately a result of external influences outside the control of man. Yes we do play a part but it is a small part. I fear that unless we accept that the science is not settled then we risk not understanding what our climate might do over the next 30/50 years which is in my opinion to be a cooling which will create greater problems than any warming being projected. There is plenty of reseach ongoing that indicates this it just doesn't fit in with thw warming agenda

Well for so called solar Max we have a spotless day called by the Laymans site http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

snowing on and off all morning here on the downs but clearly not heavy enough to cover. Now off to play hockey a three layer day I think!!

Well one extreme to the other what a load of scare mongering b*******

5.75 for me

http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/WBR9_Walker.pdf The above is a link to a paper by an actuary Brett Walker written in Feb 2012. The intent of the paper was to highlight to actuaries the many influnces on earth that may influence major events that insurers should be taking account off. It covers many area's of discussion on hear from CO2 to Ozone to planetory influences the sun's desent into a grand minimum likely increase in volcanic and earthquake activity and how they are interlinked. I personally find it a fascinating read Enjoy

No need for that at all CM has every right to his point especially as he lives there!!!

The problem as I see it is that the PR over the years has been very dramati. In the first instance gobal warming was going to cause dramatic changes to the way we all lived how lives and when this didn't happenpeople lost interest. Equally they were told it was down to greenhouse gases ie CO2. We are now told its cl;imate change and that its down to increased levels of CO2 note we have lost global warming and greenhouse gases from the descriptors used today. It's as if this switch in langauge is going to make a difference to how people percieve a given threat it's not. People have woken up to the fact that the earth is not a greenhouse and doesn't remotely work like one and if there is warming is so small it doesn't impact on their daily lives. Now if the intent of using global warming/climate change arguments was to change our habits and reliance on oil then they have done the world no favours. If the consumtion of oil is the problem then we should be told so and be given the facts and solutions be it green energy etc. If the PR machine on the side of global warming/climate change continues to advercate doom and that doesn't appear to be happening then you lose the argument. The science in my opinion fails when we are continually told its down to one factor CO2. Its not. In my opinion the sun is the major factor and its outputs in regard to things like the F10 flux that affect our global weather patterns. Yes our climate is changing butif a PR win is going to happen then both sides need to stop treating the populace as idiots

1.8c here and light sleet

Hi BW this was on Space Weather this morning. Clearly others agree with you. SOLAR VARIABILITY AND TERRESTRIAL CLIMATE: A new report issued by the National Research Council, "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet. Get the full story from Science@NASA.

I think mine at 1.2 might be a tad high too

wonder what the outcome would be if tonights ECM verified?

big fissure northof greenland nothing to do with nuclear icebreakers!!!!!

1.2 please

2.2 cold then slightly mild then very cold

Hi Cheeky I think if you look at either the strat thread or technical model thread then they do very much take account of the snow cover in north america and how important it is in the pattern change we are starting to see. So you comments are correct re the down stream changes

Sorry guys not getting the 'sceptics revising their claim downwards' revising what downwards? Nasa have forecast this cycle to be more active than it has been for a while. If you look at the laymans site they have predicted this cycle very well which to me demonstrates a better understanding. Thats why the link was posted as I got it from there. I don't pretend to remotely understand the mechanics but am happy to believe the solar cycles are in decline and will have a significant inpact on our climate