Filski

Ditto!

Bah humbug. Snow to the west of me (central London), snow to the east of me. Snow all around except on me. I think I need to stop reading this thread, doing my head in.

Lightest of light snow now, just a few flakes drifting in on the wind. The line coming in over Chelmsford keeps promising but ultimately fizzles out. Wouldn't mind 5cm or so to freshen up the cover.

Has been nothing of note since Wed for us in Greenwich. Really quite frustrating to see it go west during latter stages of the week and then east/south now. Still plenty of ice as a base for it to settle on but if nothing starts today I fear that's it for us in this spell. Can't see much chance that the light showers will make it far west enough (even tho' we're SE London!) Oh well, Feb '09 will always be the memory.

Didn't expect that... Snow pellet shower in London bridge

The weather turned out marginally better than I'd hoped with a little more sun present each day. Only 2 total washouts. There were a number of massive storms during the early hours though but the rain and lack of cover meant I stayed in bed rather than try to capture any shots. What I did capture though was my first funnel cloud, almost a water spout. I'd spotted an odd disturbance on the surface of the water like it was raining but without rain above, or a strong localised wind. Looking up I spotted this little fellow poking down. Lasted all of 5mins before fizzing out. No more formed.

Well turns out I was right... unfortunately. Better pack the cards.

No takers? Today the forecasts are coming in line with the GFS. That's not to say it's locked in but does look like my holiday will be a washout.

Will throw this in here in case anybody wants to pull it apart and explain what went so wrong downunder in August http://forums.ski.com.au/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=659778&page=1#Post659778 FWIW I've been looking for methods of forecasting the season since 2000 and it's thanks to Netweather that I've come across teleconnections. BTW - I'm SF and that's my attempted forecast. Probably will try for 1 more using this method before I start looking for a more analytical method of extracting data from the indicies.

Hiya, Dunno if I'm reading the charts right, at least I hope I'm not. On holidays in Cinque Terre from next Sunday and at the moment the GFS is going for a coolish (20-22'C max) with rain coming in by the end of the week. Other forecast sites however have temps of 27-28'C and sun. I really hope I'm wrong. What say you?

Just popping in for a sec. Had a look at the met office radar and spotted a spiral over the midlands. Any risk of tornados popping up in this lot, would have thought conditions are ripe?

Thanks J1. I suspect we may go above 2008 from here on, based on a hunch. But will remain well below all other years.

No, that is not a hypothesis, it's just being difficult. If he's not trying to replicate anything then what does it matter if method or value added data is not provided? All he is doing to trying to pick holes in others work, and damage reputations. No wonder nobody wants to deal with him. Unfortunately scientific method is not perfect, sometimes errors creep in. The better scientists revise their findings over time - as Hansen has done. McKintyre has single handedly damaged the ability of scientists to share information because now scientists have an inherent mistrust of what others plan to do with their data. Hardly condicive to progressing the body of knowledge we have. Sometimes I think that is the goal of AGW scpetics. I would question if he indeed does. He is unable to refrain from the use of emotive language, something I'm challenged him on before.

MKintyre forms none of his own theories to test. He sets out to disprove anything that shows warming. While this can be construed as scientific method (testing of data to replicate results) I have my doubts that he can separate himself from his own bias sufficiently to extract results of any value. He is not a scientist.

I have to laugh at those that say this will put science years back. The aim of science is to be unbiased and as we all know McKintyre is far from it. His aim is to show that the data is flawed and as with any data in the hands of a statistician he will do it. It proves nothing, just that he can manipulate data. He's not a scientist, he's a biased mathematician. As for the availability of the data, I support making it available - through the right channels. McKintyre's reputation is such now that anything he finds honestly will be appreciated and updated. Anything he forces out will be ignored by those with real scientific values. Those who subscribe to failed moon landings, 911 conspiracies and twisted findings through bias can beleive what they want. It's time to roll out the pirate chart again.

Making such accusations adds nothing to the debate, please try to stick to discussing the topic. There is nobody in this forum who wants such a thing. I'm waiting a few weeks longer before making any comment, though for now it would seem that Iceberg and GW again have been prophetic. That 2009 stands a chance of being anything other in the 3 lowest ice extents seems a snowballs chance in... I guess a few people should start listening to the discussion of the implications of declining perrenial ice and being realistic about chances of recovery unless there is a substantial cold anomoly for the full duration of summer.

Do you guys toss a coin about whether to climb out of bed on the off chance the sun didn't rise? Do you feel the need to take out a down jacket and snow shovel in July just in case the weatherman made a wild guess that morning? No need to be able to 100% accurately model all the minute changeable details that make up the climate over decades and centuries to be able to avoid the need for guesswork. No guessing here, just educated reasoning. Well for some of us anyway.

I dispute your use of the term 'fact'.

Will be fun to watch the coolists change from a 'ice pack is recovering due to global cooling' to a ' it only melted because of freak spell of warm weather like 2007'. Pass the popcorn.

No, under perfect conditions the result will be identical no matter how many times it is repeated. This is as close to a proof as you can ask for. The experiment has been done before, we know with certainty that CO2 absorbs more energy than an otherwise identical gas with less CO2. Getting more people to do home experiments will prove nothing, since it will be impossible to ensure that everybody does the epxeriment under the same conditions. Different external temps will result in different observations, some people will have more liquids, others won't leave the gas exchange long enough, etc. Heck, do the experiment if you like if only to 'do' science which I'd encourage. I don't understand though, why some people have trouble accepting that CO2 absorbs more energy than typical atmosphere. It's like denying that you'll hurt yourself if you fall from a great height.

There sheer stubborness of some sceptics has to be seen to be believed. B) Please, do a little critical thinking. Both bottles would approximately equal amounts of water vapour after several hours. The shaking alone would ensure that without fizzing. If in doubt then allow the pressure to equalise in the co2 bottle by releasing some of the pressure. Any water vapour would be from the action of the bottle heating up the half that still liquid, since gas at equal pressure in both containers would hold the same amount of water vapour. Certainly equal enough for the purpose of discussion. If you have any doubt then you could repeat the experiment with containers containing CO2 from a fizzy drink maker and the other containing air and both without liquids. I cannot believe the lengths that people will go to suspend reality, to the point of blaming bubbles. Unfortunately for some it is a certainty when comparing otherwise identical gases with differing CO2 amounts that the higher CO2 concentration will store more heat. You can offer no argument that will change it.

I guess what I don't understand the logic/ maths used by the sceptics. Some say the sun is responsible for previously seen warming, yet when you apply the maths to variation of TSI it comes out to much less than 0.1'C. We all know the debacle that is Monckton. Then there are observations, feed backs and forcings. In some instances the sun has an immediate effect, in other cases it's a lag depending on how it suits the argument. For example the sun is supposed to bring cooling... compared to what? Maunder minimums? Well sure it's cool compared to 1998 but it's currently no cooler out there than it has been the last decade, certainly in comparison to the previous decade. So is it warming or is it cooling? If a quiet sun then why not similar cool temps to that seen during equal periods? If a lag or some sort of buffer delaying the effect then why couldn't the same continue and hold temps up indefintely and what happens when the sun wakes? Applying first principles shows holes in either argument. What stands up are the long term observations and they show warming despite any other cycle present that we know of currently.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should be obtuse for the hell of it. A little common sense on both sides please Ta muchly

I meant to add to this thread a week ago... Did a bit of a tour of Scotland and can confirm there is quite a lot of surviving snow in a large number of areas. Nevis was most plentiful of course but there was plentiful snow around Loch Tay, Torridon, Awe and so on. Got hailed/sleeted o at Loch Torridon at one point. Loch Tay Don't have any more online yet.

Very nice, I envy your location and proximity to these scenes. I suggest the next addition to your kit is an ND grad though. It really does help. I've just bought a lee system but there are cheaper alternatives. The buildings on the left would have been silhouettes without it.