snowsure

Yes it was snow. Who would have thought that real life could happen even when the models say different!

A very slight but definite snow shower has just occured (3pm) in the west of Doncaster.

14.7*C

Nothing quite like a stab in the dark so April I will guess that it might be 7,8 or 9 I'm certain, more or less. 8.9*C

I might have missed the asteroid that you refer to Waveform. It couldn't be the same as this could it: ASTEROID FLYBY: Asteroid 2009 DD45 zipped past Earth today, March 2nd at 1340 UT, about 72,000 km (0.00048 AU) away. That's only twice the height of a geostationary communications satellite. The 35-meter-wide space rock is similar in size to the Tunguska impactor of 1908, but today there was no danger of a collision--just a close shave. Experienced amateur astronomers can track the asteroid receding from Earth using this ephemeris. (http://www.spaceweather.com/) A slight difference in the value of closest approach.

The devil is, as always, in the detail. 50 years from now, this "average" Feb may be summed up as "4.1*C." I hope that people will be able to put it into context. Otherwise the next but one generation will think that it was just, well, average. Makes me wonder if the earth is getting quicker at dealing with the fluctuations. PS What does a 55% snow risk actually mean? That is the Wednesday forecast for Doncaster. See post #23

Regarding the use of statistics in forecasting; It would appear there is a 62% snow risk, on Wednesday, in Doncaster. Does that mean that, given the synoptics it would snow 62 times out of 100? Or does it mean something else? Perhaps this is for another thread? Anyone suggest some reading for me?

Thanks for comments so far. Any statistical consideration always seems, to me, a bit wooly. It talks about what you might expect. I prefer more empirical evidence. viz. Consider 2006 (the hottest CET year.) The Autumn was the 2nd warmest in 350 years. The Summer was the 6th warmest. The Spring was the 111th warmest The Winter was the 147th warmest. Seems a little uneven, doesn't it? The 10 warmest years, and their respective seasons position (1 warm, 350 cold) line up like this: Year.............Winter...Spring....Summer...Autumn 2006..............147.......111............6...........2...... 1990................9..........14...........56..........43..... 1999................37..........6...........78...........13.... 1949................27.........91..........31.............8.... 2002...............42..........20...........93...........23... 1997...............193.......13.............26...........27.. 1995................14.........89.............4...........11.. 2003................87..........9..............5...........63.. 1989.................5..........58............35..........31.. 2004................53.........32............47..........21.. It does not appear conclusive that all year round warming is taking place. If it were, then surely the top 10 warmest years would have many seasons that were in the top 10 warmest. Of the 40 seasons, 9 were in the top 10. 9/80=11% I'm sure that someone could show how this looks on a distribution curve but it feels wrong that warming is happening all year round. The 10 warmest years have had a range of winters that goes from 5th warmest to 193 warmest. Range of warmest seasons : ..Winter.....Spring.....Summer.....Autumn ..5-193......9-111.........4-93.........2-63... Can it be concluded that the warming is certainly autumnal (range=61years) then summer (range=89) then Spring (range=102) then Winter (range=189). Ultimately, if this is the real fingerprint of our warming (ASuSpW), which of the 10 warmest years had this fingerprint? 1 - 2006 That is the only one. Just trying to look at this in a different way. I have framed a hypothesis, that is all.

I agree with para 2 but disagree with para 1. Of the 20 hottest years, 12 have occured since 1989. This is 60% Of the 20 hottest winters, 5 have occured since 1989. This is 25% Of the 20 hottest springs, 8 have occured since 1989. This is 40% Of the 20 hottest summers, 3 have occured since 1989. This is 15% Of the 20 hottest autumns, 6 have occured since 1989. This is 30% How can this have occured? Where is the warming occuring? Is it in the spring? Only 40% of the time since 1989. But 60% of the hottest years have occured since 1989? It must be freak months that do not appear in the seasonal record. I suggest that these results are counter-intuitive. edit - inserted underlined text.

I do not wish to be accused of cherry picking the following. It does seem bizarre to me that the 10 warmest CET years have been since 1989 (except for 1, 1949) link But when you look at the warmest seasons, only 3 of the 10 warmest winters have been since 1989. only 4 of the 10 warmest springs have been since 1989. only 3 of the 10 warmest summers have been since 1989. only 3 of the 10 warmest autumns have been since 1989. rank DJF MAM JJA SON -rank 341 6.13 1935 9.73 1779 16.97 1911 11.43 1995 11 342 6.20 1796 9.73 1961 17.00 1933 11.50 2005 10 343 6.23 1990 9.73 2003 17.03 1947 11.53 1959 9 344 6.33 1686 9.83 1959 17.07 1983 11.53 1949 8 345 6.43 1975 9.87 1952 17.10 1846 11.53 1978 7 346 6.43 2007 9.90 1999 17.23 2006 11.60 1729 6 347 6.50 1989 9.93 1992 17.33 2003 11.60 1818 5 348 6.53 1834 10.07 1945 17.37 1995 11.80 1730 4 349 6.77 1869 10.10 2007 17.60 1826 11.80 1731 3 350 10.20 1893 17.77 1976 12.63 2006 2 link Does that not suggest that we are having short term "extreme" warming events within a season rather than prolonged warming over a season? Bit of a head scratcher for me, this one. Comments please...

7.5*C

How much of a problem will it be for these people then?

Many thanks to Roger and TWS for commenting on my opening post. I was under the impression that if a question was asked, it would be answered (assuming that it is a valid question.) However there have been 4 pages of discussion regarding who is right and who is wrong regarding climate change. My mistake for placing this in the, er, climate change forum! Perhaps I have to accept change. It is wrong to assume that a question will be answered if that question is asked of a group of people who have axes to grind. When I facilitate in philosophical discussions at my place of work it is nice to see the evolution of a cognitive process. It is absent in this thread. Pity.

I know that this has been talked about many months ago but I cannot immediately recall the full process. 1 - A sceptic denies all acceptance of an event (eg GW). 2 - In the face of increasing evidence they accept parts of it but still claim that the main event is not happening. 3 - Some time later they agree with all aspects of the event that they were sceptical of. 4 - Finally they claim (with reference to point 3 and complete denial of point 1 and 2) that they have always supported this event. This process normally takes more than a month per part. Passing quickly through the process, whilst commendable and honest, is seized upon and you become discredited. The above is my own recall of a more lucid process that other members have referred to. Please could you help me locate the original text.

Will this prompt anyone to change their bids? If you assume that it will have an impact on temperatures in Feb then changing your bid is logical (unless your methods of calculation took it into account.) If you assume it will make no difference (like NASA) then you will make no adjustments. Personally I'll revise my bid down to 4.2*C.