ribster

Hi, not sure whether this is the right place, but I'm just curious as to whether the arctic/antarctic (during the planets entire history) have ever been completely devoid of snow and ice, if not what the minimum might have been? Also during any ice age, how far south has any cold/ice extended? Thanks.

I don't think there was any suggestion from anyone about picking a long term trend from a few years of data, everyone knows that. The initial post was just highlighting some meto research, and they may be right or wrong about that. Either way, it won't go on forever, I firmly believe it will cool, now whether that's in 50years, 200, 1000 or 5000, it will cool. Man has been on the planet such a short time, he can't possibly understand all there is to understand. It's only in relatively recent history that powerful enough computers have been available to do the necessary number crunching, and after all, they are programmed by humans, who as history has shown, are rather prone to making mistakes....

Indeed, I heard 1998 mentioned.

Nearly took the bait on that one..... but I won't bother

LOL, didn't upset me Damien, I was just stating the facts as I saw them, yes it wasn't so good further north, but I did say there were a few events, but not for everyone. Not to rub salt in the wound, but we did have a few ice days and a fair bit of lying snow - was wonderful! Maybe we were lucky - 29th December sticks out in my mind, was stood in the supermarket car park and the heavens absolutely opened up.....

Hi Damien, I'm as much a cold lover as you, but the met office forecast a colder than average winter, and it was, no ifs or buts, it simply was. With the odd decent event thrown in here and there, although not for everyone of course - I can post the pics if you like. Would be nice if Mr. Giles and the ECPC are right, but a long long way to go yet.....

I heard it initially on the BBC news, then subsequently on the front of the guardian, I believe it made reference to the hadley site, but I will find out. Found this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007.../weather.uknews, although can't find anything on the met office site.

I see the MET are now predicting that temperatures will plateau for the next two years (I'm sure someone was suggesting this in this thread, so good call!), but then are set to rise after that. So maybe it is a turning point. Whos to say that it will warm again after the plateau, they could be wrong. And before someone jumps on me about accepting the science that I like and rejecting that that I don't, yes they could be wrong about plateauing too. Either way, I find the idea that the warming is possibly going to stop for a while rather encouraging!

Far be it for me to defend Russias actions, in fact what they have done is bang out of order. However, canada is just as bad as it has been doing much the same in grabbing land here and there, in fact very recently. I can't remember the exact location, but they only recently claimed some lump of rock off of the coast of Denmark, by some very tenuous link to say the least. They are all as bad as each other. They really do need to leave the arctic well alone! In fact doing a quick search online, America, Canada, Russia, Denmark and Norway are all fighting over the arctic region, claiming pieces of it here and there, all in the name of oil, gas and shipping lanes!!

Norwich was showing 26C at 3pm on BBC feed. Have to agree with West though, has felt 'hot', not quite the dizzy heights of 'scorching' yet though.

Blimey! Sounds entirely logical/possible to me, but I'll let some of the more learned members respond I think.

Does it count as exceptional now? Met office seem to think so, in fact I think I read that it was the most 'exceptional' since 1766? I assume that there are no scientists that believe co2 does not cause warming then?

You talk as though the planet will continue to warm, and that this is set in stone. I don't agree that the recent conditions can just be dismissed. If it can't be taken in isolation (i.e. a further range of years would be needed for analysis, before a judgement could even begin to be made), then it can't just be dismissed as a blip. I know what the scientists say, I also know what some others say. Obviously there is a huge debate that can be had around this, but I don't think that anything can simply be dismissed out of hand - time will tell....

Um, it was rather cold, colder than average I seem to remember as forecast by the met office, quite a few ice days too. It was pretty chilly right up to april/may. Sure it was nothing groundbreaking, but it was colder than we had experienced for some time.

Good god! Doesn't surprise me at all actually! Far be it for us mere mortals to question anything though, the scientists (well some of them) are always right of course. Some ought to be careful when quoting scientific 'facts'. Nothing is ever as it seems. No doubt this will be explained away with some statistical nonsense. Very good spot!

Tiny bill, while I appreciate that there is a real threat of flooding, there are an awful lot of media 'coulds' in that excerpt.

Ditto that, used to read his/her posts with interest as clearly has a wealth of meterological knowledge, much more than someone like myself. However, posters should observe good netiquette. Speaking to someone in a headmaster/pupil type patronising tone, especially when you don't even know them, is not acceptable. You wouldn't do it face to face, so I don't see why it should be tolerated here.

Firstly, it is in implicit in some of the posts on here - that's a matter of opinion, so don't ask me to provide evidence for such. I believe that man cannot and will not change the weather, to think that he can is pure arrogance. On which point I might add, I thought your response to noggin was rather strong, if not patronising. I don't remember reading any terms and conditions when signing up to this forum that opinion was forbidden, nor that it had to be backed up with evidence of any kind. If someone wants to make a statement about their belief, an opinion or a mere assertion, then they should be free to do so. I believe GW was brought into the conversation because it has a bearing on where we are now. I don't think anyone denies that GW has/is occurring, just the causes. However, the 'experts' would have us believe that the warming is set to continue - but the thread is about whether we have reached a turning point and are about to enter a cooling period, hence it's no suprise that GW has been referred to. We are due to enter a cooling period, but instead of going over the crest and down the other side of the hill, many scientists believe that we will keep on up the hill. I therefore think it's an entirely relevant and worthy thread.

Hi John, well I can assure you that you are not alone! As for unexceptional rainfall - must be from another planet! Absolutely! Again, back to my earlier point, I'm amazed that people can become so brainwashed, are we to question nothing? Has science never been wrong? The whole scientific community doesn't agree anyway. Theres plenty of evidence to suggest that the planet has been both alot cooler and a lot warmer than it is now, I see no reason why that cycle should change. There are bound to be fluctuations. Yet again, man seems to think he is the be all and end all on this planet!

Yes, no doubting that currently, but what remains in question is whether that trend will continue and what exactly the causes are (I accept that opinions differ on this). I fully believe that we will cool again, hopefully in my lifetime, even if not, it will come. What never ceases to amaze me is how important human beings seem to think they are and that they can control nature - still don't seem to have learnt that lesson.

Didn't I hear recently, surrounding that silly concert, that the planet is about to enter a cooling period, but the belief is that instead of going over the crest, we would continue up. Perhaps we are now going over that crest and will actually cool, even though many believe otherwise - I think it's well known what camp I'm in before anyone asks. What an excellent point, some people ought to take note. What a sensible post! Blimey, Paul only floated some ideas, I don't think he claims anything as fact in his post, more throwing it out there for discussion. Some have responded in a very serious manner indeed!

Sounds promising, I will watch with interest. I personally think we are in for a good one.

Ah yes, I remember 'him' well, certainly a more pleasant forum without. Yes, but some more than others.

Well no, not really, was just hedging my bets - nor do I think August will, every day that ticks by, the odds against are increasing.

LOL, you want a wager on that? July, maybe a few, August rarely and September probably none.