Devonian

Sorry, but what climate science and climate models has foretold is coming true. Complacency and ignorance (which perhaps define humanity) will (unless by some miracle we come to our senses) WILL mean that we're only seeing the start of the warming and the changes. Dunkirk spirit wont cut it. Attacking people who see what we are doing wont cut it either. We (humanity) need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Atm there is NO chance of that - like I say, we're going to see what climate models predict. It's an awful prospect for Earth. I do agree, tho, that Earth will make it - but at what cost and that cost is not in my name...

Then perhaps YOU should have read my post rather than resort to the 'Pseudo-science book of personalised insults' first? The arrogant don't say things like 'I think' they state - rather like you have in actual fact. Also, my post contained four questions.... Finally if Roger's theory is correct then some of the warming is due to some kind of Jupiter effect, thus meaning less of the warming is anthropogenic - so it's not 'alongside' but 'part of'. Maybe Roger is indeed the next trail blazing Galileo, a poor persecuted soul who history will find to be right, but I think (again, 'think') not. If I'm allowed to say that without more personalised insults???

I'll try to remember that next time someone quotes a dog biologist views on polar bears (Dr Susan Crockford) or the 'watts up' views of an ex TV weatherman, or the NIPCC (99.9% non-climate scientists) or the 'no trick zone' anti climate science ramblings of that civil engineer Pierre L. Gosselin etc etc etc

I haven't got a clue what you're on about . Jupiter year? It's 11.88 earth years. 33 day month? J month? Leap J months? Anyway, what I think you've found out is that the atmosphere has and is warming but can't bring yourself to accept the reason for that so have gone looking for another...

Don't be silly, do you expect roses or scepticism?

Absolutely spot on QS

Is there is such a correlation? Why wasn't the winter after the previous record low extent, 2007, cold? Or why wasn't it a warm winter here after the relatively high sea ice minimum of 2009? The answer is because reducing Arctic sea ice means (if any conclusion can be drawn at all) more odd, generally warmer, weather not just that a record low extent means the following winter will be cold here.

These aren't Maunder conditions. But, which of the studies do you suggest I read?

Ignorance truly would be bliss . To think I could have lived a life where I wasn't interested in weather and then climate and I had a open mind - and then it all would have gone away in a puff of wuwt... Anyway, maybe the effects of this year will wake people up - otoh, countering ignorance (especially the willfull version) will take longer. Hang in there Earth, there are people who care and we're doing our damndest to help!

Thanks but I find it increasingly difficult to read such stuff - you'll know why.

The graph in that article stops in 2000. Is there a more up to date graph that you might be able to point me to?

But, surely the message of this thread is we should challenge orthodoxy? So, we should challenge what Nightingale (and others) discovered and the ideas and treatments that led to? We should treat equally the idea that areas of medical pseudo-science may turn out to have more to them than our current understanding allows us access?

I've been belittled by being called closed minded - it's not MY tactic... I've not said, or think, that solar minimum has no effect, I just think (if I'm allowed to think and say that?) the effect is tiny. If I, or my views, aren't attacked I wont feel the need to defend myself or them. Ok, lets see something posted to debate, not more attacks on people please

A debate but one in which only the opinions you want to hear is allowed? Is that a debate? Without the sun this planet would be a very, very cold rock - no one doubts that, I certainly don't. I do, though, (if I'm allowed to?) doubt that the solar cycle has much effect on weather or climate. But, again, it seems you're saying that sort of thinking should go somewhere else and the thread thus become self confirmatory?

Otoh, when I've more time I'll try to find the paper this refers to.

Having read what Ed and QS have said I'm ready to call it: that paper is bunk.

I said "I'm not saying pollution is the full cause of noctilucent clouds just that it might be part of the cause." and I said that because that's what I think. I also linked to an article that says: "We are also in a deep solar minimum, the period of the sun’s 11-year cycle when it is least active. That means the ultraviolet radiation from the sun that usually destroys the water modules which form these clouds is less intense, so more of them can form. Human emissions could also be a factor. Over the past 130 years we have released more and more methane into the atmosphere, which means that more water modules are produced in the mesosphere. These clouds were once a rare sight for humans of the past to observe, first recorded only after the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa spewed an incredible amount of dust into the atmosphere. But since then they have become a more and more common sight." So, I think that the reasons for more noctilucent cloud could, amongst other things, be both the solar minimum and man made pollution. It seems you categorically rule out the latter?

Oh! Just as well I asked! I thought you meant the UK...

I asked "wrt noctilucent clouds could human made pollution be part of the cause of them?" You said "no" (not 'possibly', not 'could be' but 'no'). A 'no' rules out any other possibility - does it not? Or by 'no' do you mean 'I'm open to the possibility pollution might be involved'??? I pointed out your quoted text says pollution might be a part of the cause. I'm not saying pollution is the full cause of noctilucent clouds just that it might be part of the cause. How can I be closed minded for being open to that possibility?

Please don't be both dismissive and closed minded Your quoted text (form the Met Office i think) says human made pollution might be part of the cause of them so your 'no' is contradicted by what you post...

A prediction to cut out and pin on the 'weather predictions to check later' board.. Will occur where though?

wrt noctilucent clouds could human made pollution be part of the cause of them?

I agree. it would be nicer if people were not being described as closed minded. That would be nice.

My mind is open to what the data shows, what observations show and what scientists say. Thus my mind is open to there being a solar effect on climate in that the tiny (considerably less than 1%) changes to solar output can have an effect on climate. My mind is also open there being a much bigger effect on climate due to the (30%+) increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and other anthropogenic changes. Is your mind that open? If it is we're in agreement edit: oopss, reposted this thinking it was an edit - doh!