snowsure

Piers Corbyn is known as a met-gambler. He enjoyed a high media profile about 5 years ago and his web site will surely benefit from this story. However, his forecasts were uncannily accurate when I subscribed to his company many months ago. Would he be sensationalist to receive hits on his web site? What if he is wrong? His standing in the public/private eye would be damaged and I assume that the large companies that pay to take his forecasts would look for a new forecaster. This story has contradicted the bbc monthly outlook. Only got 1 month to wait and see!!!

Thanks so far for the book titles. Great link to Abe books too. Should save me a few quid. SS

Another cheerful posting from me. If I can start this one off. How about "The sixth winter" by John Gribbin and Douglas Orgill. If any book inspired "The day after tomorrow" I reckon it was this one. Quite rare to find (i.e. none on e-bay!) but my local library obliged. Excellent description of the "ice-dancers" in this one which, imo, resemble the huge tropospheric-fed weather systems in the afore-mentioned film. Anyone else read it? Published in 1979 (the ice man cometh decade!) Any recommendations? (about books to read :lol: not what I should do!)

I hope that they (scientists/meteorologists not jounalists) exercise their right to comment - rather than just sue - and bring another type of learned opinion to some of the debates on here. Failing that, it is possible that worthwhile debate has been halted by such dire warnings. Well done ( or well done )

Am I right in guessing that you are an OU student?

The US has the following: http://www.metoffice.com/cgi-bin/newsid?ar...poch=1158278400 http://www.metoffice.com/cgi-bin/newsid?ar...poch=1158278400 Some parts of Australia: http://www.metoffice.com/cgi-bin/newsid?ar...poch=1158278400 South Africa are having a tough time at the moment. http://www.metoffice.com/cgi-bin/newsid?ar...poch=1158278400 Not going to balance this with warming events because they are happening under our very noses.

I have just skimmed over the last 5 pages regarding this very exciting topic. I cannot see any devil's advocates amongst the contributors so here I go! Why all the excitement? The record has stood for 277 years. It was much "just as hot" then as now. Does that not mean that the CET, ergo our bit of the jigsaw, was warmer then than now? Discounting the freak that was July, the average temp for June, Aug and Sep was 15.8 oC in 1729. The average for 2006 (assuming a 16.6oC Sep CET) will be 16.2 oC. Not much change in nearly 3 centuries is there? The above is mainly in jest but it may re-focus the mind a little. This late season warmth is unseasonable, unnatural and, in my case, highly unwanted. I hope it is bringing enjoyment to some people. I have had to cut the grass again (thus using petrol in the mower, compounding the problem. I know!) A late frost may help me achieve my CET estimate of 13.9 oC. :lol:

I am still quietly confident!!!

Thanks BFTP Time to do some web-digging for more info. Any chance of a link for that one? SS

Thanks P3. 30m per year! Wow! http://www.glaciercountry.co.nz/glaciers.asp?id=12 for those not sure what this is about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glacier...Balance_Map.png for an interesting look at the number of retreating glaciers (also notice the advancing ones!)

I was looking through a good book today called "Fragile Earth". Worth a look if you get the chance. About 99% of the content shows that the world is changing as most people are expecting (de-forestation, increased desertification, decreased ice cover.) It is quite surprising, though, to see that the Franz Josef glacier in NZ is currently advancing. It appears to be a cyclical type of advancing/retreating glacier so not one of these that is advancing due to increased lubrication from melt water. What's going on with that one then?

Quite a substantial post! I have a similar viewpoint to you BF. Perhaps I am a bit more extreme by thinking that the earth will be able to respond to the obvious GW that is occuring, rather than being inert. Whether this causes a reversal or not I do not know (but I expect a BAU outcome due to the slow onset, in human timescales, of any climate variation.) Once again, good post. Get ready for the onslaught!!!

A constraint now would stop hindsight rationalising. I do not think I am alone when I say that rebutals that use "if only..." arguments seem a little impotent. I note your own stab at the CET, so anything +/- 0.5oC of that would generally surprise you. Noting the way that the climate is warming, anything that is less than the 1961-90 mean would surprise many people. The only risk-minimising I am doing is possibly preventing the circular arguments that appeared on the August CET thread. That stopped being "interesting" for me and I think, again, many others.

Not sure if I am displaying correct etiquette here but I have a question. What would be deemed as a "suitable" CET for September? What range of temperatures is classed as normal? If this could be decided now it could stop the later discussions of "this month was/wasn't a freak." Just a different angle I suppose. Can I offer 13.9oC to the list of guesses scientifically calculated CETs?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/02092006/325/clim...g-forecast.html I don't think I've seen this on any other thread. What factors could cause "The panel's Draft Fourth Assessment report narrows the band of predicted temperature rises by 2100 to 2-4.5 degrees Celsius, from 1.4-5.8 degrees in the previous assessment in 2001." Is it significant? It still shows GW happening though.

Thanks for the knowledge re: 2001 TAR. Something for me to find out about! Quite amazing how things can change in just 5 years!

No relevance to any earlier posts except for the OP. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/planetearthunde...04/welcome.html Gabrielle Walker is the author of a report that I saw in Nature or New Scientist regarding the possibility of a cooling event taking place. I referred to it recently but couldn't post a copy of it due to copyright reasons. As I have said before, any "new" research that points toward a cooling trend will, if it exists, be in the peer-review process. From this link ( http://www.nature.com/news/infocus/climatechange.html ) you get an idea of the balanced nature of climate debate. However, to get access to these you have to subscribe to Nature. Any reproduction of their property is not tolerated so I wil have to wait until these research papers are in the public arena before I can reproduce them! Research from (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 7.4.5) suggests that GW may cause arctic sea ice to increase as a result of increased rainfall which "would increase the stability of the upper mixed layer of the ocean, leading to more sea ice production." ( http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/047.htm ) For balance I also offer http://www.newscientist.com/global/global.jsp?id=ns9999625 which shows some more research documents available, of course, upon payment of subscription.

Thanks to P3 and SF for such reasonable responses. I am not at liberty to declare the name of the scientist. However, they are a senior member of the Royal Meteorlogical society. A speculative e-mail is the extent of my relationship there. BTW SF, good precis regarding my emotive hope of cooling.

Which was the freak month then?

I have received an e-mail from a rather eminent scientist. "Almost without exception, reputable climate scientists believe there is no chance of the planet as a whole cooling in the next twenty years. However, there is a chance of the climate of the British Isles changing significantly, to one of warmer drier summers (especially in the southern half of the British Isles) and colder winters, but no-one is sure if or when this may happen as it depends on the circulation of the Atlantic Ocean responding in a particular way to the melting of Arctic sea-ice (i.e. ice formed by the freezing of sea water)." As such I know this persons credentials so I feel happy to accept all that I have read. Like many people, I cannot be "won-over" by well worded arguments from literate people if I do not know from what position they are starting from. This forum is not peer-reviewed or peer-overseen (to my knowledge) so who has good credentials to be able to speak expertly on climate change?

Thanks for your comments TWS. Please rest assured that I do read all posts. What I cannot do is comprehend all of what I read, especially when advanced concepts are introduced or if too much info is posted in one post. I read research documents frequently but, to be honest, they are more accessible than some of the long-winded posts on here. My specialism is Astrophysics (Active Galactic Nuclei) but I do possess a Diploma in Natural Science which I hope allows me access to such debates as this. I hope my point of a 3.6 oC temp change from July-August is not lost in some tangential debate regarding forum decorum. That feels better!

Do I believe my eyes? That is surely like me saying that I am suprised that July wasn't any warmer, what with GW and all (sic) This rates, in my eyes, as a most bizarre defence of GW in the face of one of the greatest July-August temperature collapses. (3.6 oC from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle.../HadCET_act.txt ) Even more bizarre is the fact that it has come from one of the most erudite contributors on this site.

I withdraw from this topic due to SF making such banal comments. It does not do you justice at all SF. My ability to read is, in my opinion, at an acceptable level. Yours is questionable. In my post I said "However I disagree with your measuring the tallest person bit. First of all you would end up with a Gaussian bell curve, a sure sign of randomness." You read this as "And I didn't say "measure the tallest person first". Your ability to read is little better than your ability to arrange stats into cogent argument SS." Quick comparison: "However I disagree with your measuring the tallest person bit. First..." and "measure the tallest person first" I think that you are overdoing it a bit. Your defence of all GW scientific research is clearly taking its toll. Have a rest old boy. At this rate you will appear capable of arguing with yourself in an enclosed room.

I will tell the NOAA that their statistics are poor. All I did was lift their details (hence showing the thread, thus following the reference tradition of many real people.) However I disagree with your measuring the tallest person bit. First of all you would end up with a Gaussian bell curve, a sure sign of randomness. Secondly, the continental hot record has not fallen, in Europe, since 1881. There may be some interesting "local" events but the hottest day in Europe was 1881. Either it is true or it isn't. Welcome to reductio ad absurdum proof!

Good point! As you know, Carinthian is pointing to a slightly anomolous winter ahead. Am I right in thinking that?