Rambo

Not for long though

Oh and just for the record, it was BFTV who said AGW, so perhaps you should bring it up with him???

I'll try one more time...just once more.....you never know.......................I'M NOT ASKING THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What would it have done?

You people, fed up with this now. I didn't even ask the question, but you insist on bringing agw into everything! How agw is responsible for a solar maximum not having much warming effect is beyond me?

Along with nearly everything relating to solar cycle climate impacts haha. As for the rest of your comment, we'll have to agree to disagree as you seem intent on bringing agw into the answer, when in fact it has nothing to do with the question. "Does a maximum cause warming?".... which is completely different to "does a minimum cause cooling?" .....which is different again to "will a minimum cause cooling?"

In fairness, you didnt answer his question at all. He basically asked "does a solar maximum have a warming effect?" You then brought AGW into it to illustrate your point about solar minimum not having much effect on temps. Again, he was asking about solar MAXIMUM. So the broad idea/theory/fact (whichever way you lean) is that cosmic rays seed more clouds, and more cosmic rays hit the earth during a solar minimum. So could it be that at solar maximum, cloud cover is normal, therefore global temp stays average (rather than heat up), and during minimum, cloud cover increases beyond the norm, which trends the temp downwards?

But he hasnt even done his winter forecast yet?? Or are you referring to the seasonal models as "experts"?

Its the latest available one, from 25th October. I'm assuming this months one will be available soon?

Actually it wasn't a specific reference to any particular post, its just a theme I've observed across the forum. As for your sentence I've highlighted, thats my exact point though. There isn't any "weight of evidence" for either side of the camp when it comes to how the solar minimum will affect the climate. So without the weight of evidence, you have to rely on individual theories for now! I'll ignore the idea that all scientists who disagree with AGW are funded by fossil fuel companies, despite it proving my point about how biased some people are about alternative evidence......I'm sure there's plenty of pro AGW scientists who are paid by renewable energy companies too, but lets not go into that here! What I find bizarre is that there is no room at all here for anything that doesnt fit the narrative, and that people/this forum cannot accept something, even as a remote theory, if it goes against the trend. By the way, I'm not deliberately trying to stir things or owt, just trying to explain what I think Steve was alluding to, as its definitely something I've noticed across this forum

My point wasn't specific to AGW vs sceptics etc, I just used that as an example. What I was trying to get at is that any non-mainstream scientists/academics etc are just arrogantly dismissed (even by mods) because they either dont fit in with the status quo, or because they have an outlandish theory. Now I'm not saying that any of these outlandish types are all correct in their theories, BUT, they are a source of scientific evidence non the less. So when the mods say you can discuss topics as long as you provide evidence to back it up, but then straight away insist that the evidence is incorrect because of the scientist/academic who created the evidence (nearly always in their opin, it kinda makes a mockery of the whole "discuss" theory! Now clearly I dont mean you can use your pet parakeet's theory as scientific evidence, or some random bloke down the street, but we "could" be in uncharted waters if the next solar cycle is a real low one, so it's nice to see all the different theories come together (or not come together), and discuss the affects if and when they progress!

Completely missed the point there............

As we've been told, you need proven scientific evidence(and only from scientists that the mods on this forum approve... it seems) to discuss this topic, but there is still not enough data relating to solar cycles to prove it either way. So does that mean the topic doesnt even exist lol? From what I've seen, the general trend is..... *Person 1 = "Low solar output is likely to make the planet colder, and therefore the sun could be more of a factor in "global warming" than people think *Person 2 = "You need to supply evidence!!!!!!!" *Person 1 = "So and so scientist said this, here's their paper/talk/forum/book etc etc etc" *Person 2 = "My opinion of that scientist is poor, so your evidence is null and void" *Person 1 = "Well, this other scientist also says this etc etc etc" *Person 2 = "Nope, my opinion of that scientist is also poor, so your whole argument is pointless because your evidence isnt real" If you're still with me lol, then maybe you get the idea of how "discussing" anything that isnt in line with the AGW theme, is very difficult on this forum, when the only evidence that certain people and mods seem to accept isnt available! Now dont get me wrong, if thats how this place is, then thats perfectly fine. Just so long as the message is clear!

The only trouble is, if I remember rightly, the original thread was in a general discussion area, but derailed because it became an AGW vs "alternative" argument, so the mods closed it down, and said it would need to be opened in the climate science area. Well thats fine if thats the way you want to go, but it then makes it pretty difficult to have a discussion about it as BFTV has suggested!! So to me it seems, its a case of discuss it with proven scientific evidence (very sparse), or dont have the discussion!! As has been said, if thats the way things are on this forum......thats your choice, just as long as everyone knows thats the direction this forum leans!

As long as that applies equally across the board, then thats fair enough.... Although as you said, "the effects on the weather is very much an area of uncertainty and debate", so without solid evidence either way, it does mean there's going to be far more debate rather than proven evidence.

You dun arf makes things out of nothing! Once again, your post falls into my sings and roundabouts point. Major flooding, droughts, and most extreme weather events seem to get blamed on AGW these days, BUT, there's plenty of evidence to suggest they "can" be caused by extremely low solar cycles. There's not enough evidence either way, so the only true proof is time!

Lol, no....solar affects can cause warmer than average weather to occur as well, you should know that. The media (and certain "academics") blamed the hot weather in Europe this year on AGW, so its swings and roundabouts regarding your quote above!

Its definitely you......... Discussing an "environmental activists" protest in a science forum, in an IPCC thread is apparently ok....despite having no relation whatsoever to the topic. So I thought piercings would be ok as well....obviously not?

Nothing on this page 11, including the BBC article, is to do with science lol!

Are piercings a prerequisite to be a part of this protest, or is it just a coincidence?

Just to pick up on this silly comment, the charts aren't blurry at all, they're perfectly clear, so maybe you're looking at the wrong charts?

Bit of a bleak outlook based on not really much at all lol

In fairness, isn't that text snippet based purely on analogues?

24.6c back on 19th October 1899.........and the records "appear" to be reasonably well scattered across the timeline, so a hot October, to me anyway, doesnt seem to be a new thing!! (assuming the table is correct of course)

I did zoom in, and I completely agree with you regarding the refreeze rate. I just feel it could be a higher res to get a more precise refreeze rate, but only for the reason that anything "roughly" or "reasonably average" will get blasted by the usual suspects, and not taken as a true outcome!