VillagePlank

I might have meant the point was silent rather than irrelevant?Ok maybe not . . . .. :huh:

I (sort of) position myself between the camps with no real peference for either outcome; although it can be said that I occasionally cold-ramp, I suppose . . . What SF is saying, ignoring direct references (of course), is that most of the posts here - although I can think of at least 1 person - actually post something which is more of a question than a statement of fact. I've been around the block more than a few times (if you saw me you'd know) and it's easy to tell whose the rampers and who isn't. Some people cling to absitence of subjectivity which, in my opinion, is entirely a wrong approach. Some people cling to one outcome or another, which, in my opinion, is totally wrong. Some people claim and cling to this 'scientific study' or that one, which, again, in my opinion is wrong - Daniel is certainly one that vomits the same old stuff time and time again; there are warm-rampers that do the same. It is not enough to claim a study purports an outcome when even the simplest analysis shows that to claim an outcome is likely is, mathematically, logically, philsophically, one of the most idiotic things one can do. Sorry for the extemeties. I believe that we haven't even, in the meteorlogical community, agreed on the mode of investigation; so how can we claim an argument is right? The arguments, here and elsewhere, will always fall short of any sort of formal analysis; that is the nature of the philosophy of 'modern meteorology' I'm afraid. Yes, this is my opinion. No I do not have a study to back me up; I have only reproducible observation. Time and again. Time and time again. Time and time time again. Time and time and time and again. Time and time and time and time and time again . . . (for the more interested that's analagous to proof by induction) What would be interesting is to hire a pub for the evening (without internet sources) and see what happens :huh: and I know just the place. . . .

Very true in the context of this debate, John.However, there are long term patterns for all to see - the most obvious being that winter months invariably have a colder CET than summer months. It may seem obvious, but it's a perfectly, and demonstrable example of a pattern prediction that holds true virtually all of the time. I could claim that in 10 years time, the Dec CET for 2016 will still post lower than it's subsequent June value. Whether we like it or not we can postulate predictions that are true for most of the time. The devil, as they say, is in the details, and this, I presume, is where teleconnections attempts to join the party. I agree with this in its entirety. The methodology, the approach, for long-term forecasting by definition is wrong. If this were not the case then we would not have the case of diminishing returns . . .I argued this point here

I think that Dawlish has a very good point. The NAO, for sure, is simply a description of where the H, and L. That after all is the weather. I'll come back in a few days for my more accurate thoughts on teleconnections based on complexity, emergence, and non-linearity; they do not make pretty reading for anyone who likes LRF, and support almost exactly what Dawlish was saying.My previous post was not a prediction, it was simply a pointer of what to look for given synoptic trends. That was it nothing more, and nothing less. I apologise for not making that more clear.

oh <expletive> Apologies - I'll remember next time.<Cheeky> If anyone wants to see the better quality picture you can view it in the photography section under 'the first signs of autumn' </cheeky>

What happened to the colours, and sharpness in my photo? Did I post it in the wrong format and it's been lost in conversion somehow? My votes to come tomorrow - difficult to choose, I have to admit . . .

I'm aware of the C isotope evidence. Many thanks for the other links, though Just asking simple questions for my simple mind It looks to me that the 25ppm difference in high CO2, and low CO2 is the quantity that high CO2 has risen in the last 10 years. I'm not sure how significant that is . . .

Oh for sure, but you need a concentration of 1800ppm for toxicity to human beings; I think we're a little short of that right now EDIT: I apolgise the correct toxicity effect is 20,000 ppm

Damien,I've looked at the teleconnections this year and even at this range the forecast looks promising. I think rather than prolonged cold, and it's associative dryness (NAO), it is perhaps better to bet on very cold spells turning (slowly) into weather that comes from long sea-tracks such as anywhere from our W clockwise to our N; this, I believe, would be deliver the 'goodies' for those with a love of snow. The best, synoptically, I guess under this idea is weeks of days of northerlies (Am) followed by shortbursts of Westerlies to deliver the moisture which translates into blocking (omega bridging over Greenland would be good ) followed by autumnish lows breaking through from the GIN. Hopecasting, for sure, but if this winter coincides with an intermittent shift back to a more W'ly feed, then we could have periods of snow. This (specious, speculative, and ill-informed) hypothesis of mine concurs nicely with warmer air from all sources, and correlates with current predicted teleconnections, and is the sort of pattern we should be looking for this year - maybe?

As an idea (and I know it'll be a lot of work someone) why don't we do a running scoreline; you could post: Username/CET's predicted/1/10thC total error. We can see who guesses best, then!

I read that article, today. I might be being a bit simplistic but doesn't recreating the paleo-climate record from the same place assume an equal distribution of the gases on's looking at?For instance, in this case, does drilling out ice-cores from the poles assume that the distribution of CO2 caught there is the same as it is Britain? Or do we measure the modern CO2 change in the same place anyway, so the point is mute. But then again if gas distribution varies on the basis of synoptic patterns - I presume the flow of gases is somewhat governed by the movement of air - then can we retrospectively build the synoptic pattern at the presumed time that the air-bubbles were made?

I agree, SF.Due to the nature of the data being 'real-world' in nature, I would expect downward trends, pauses and upward trends. I'm not looking forward to a strong but shortlived downward trend that, if you look at the historic CET record, is virtually certain; imagine the soothsayers of imminent UK glaciation dealing with that That said, the same can be attributed to those who strongly believe the 'UK will turn to hell' camp when we get a very strong, but shortlived, upward spike. These spikes, whether down, or up, is noise. The climate is comparing todays (smoothed) mean to that of a previous instance. We are, after all, looking for signals over a century that are less than a degree in significance (I apologise profusely for the pun) It is of course the case, that overall, the CET is going (very slowly) upwards. It will take around 10 years of 'pause' or temperature 'retraction' to even sense a small signal in such large noise - I'll concede that we're around 50% through this period, though. If this data conformed to the wonderful bell curve diurnally, seasonally, and annually, I doubt there would be very much interest in the weather at all!

Great post GP

I agree with John; that's a great photo - I really like it.

Did you know . . . Admiral Beaufort made his name (in his day), not because his development of a scale we use today, but by inventing and implementing techniques for mapping the British Empire.

Sounds pretty OK to me

I did not intend to imply that you were religious; if you felt that way then please accept my apologies.However, I still stand by my observation that this sort of argument (one where there is no lay scientific explanation; there is a lay scientific explanation for, say, gravity, or the motion of the moon) nearly always tend to rooted in opinion. This of course, manifests itself, in an opinion of which article or study presents the more accurate picture of the future of our climate. For some, of course, there are conspiracies of greed, and manipulation, too; of which one can only argue using common sense. This is not meant as a support for one view or the other; I think I've made my position clear in this thread and elsewhere, and I do not feel the need to regurgitate that. You asked for evidence. I do not see how I can present evidence that a view is religious in nature that would be compelling and rational without resorting to subjective opinions that I hold. I do not, however, see this as a basis that my opinion is therefore in and of itself wrong. My point about scientific prudence remains. This is a view I hold, which, I suspect many people do not. Both sides of the camp 'seem' to jump on the newest articles to validate their opinion. If they were always waiting for such an article, and could not have argued out their case before the article was published is it not prudent not to argue? Whether you believe an ice-age is imminent, or the Earth is just about to boil, is irrelevant to my point.

Hey it's an observation. It may well be my belief and in and of itself I think that that is OK. Why the weird corroralies? Why the defensive stance?As I said - it stinks of religous fervour rather than scientific prudence. If yo do not believe this, then tell me why I am wrong to hold such a belief: do not attempt to present anacdotal evidence. This is a philosophy of argument, not a positioning of stance - in case you missed that,as well. BTW, religous as a term is not a term normally devoted to the worship of deities; it's normally devoted to those with an irreducible, and inconsolable faith. Where do you fit? That'll be the kiss of death for me, then

I understand that 'mooncasting' might be considered laughable, but on quick retrospection, I suspect, that the moon indeed does have some influence on our weather/climate.If you consider that the tides are caused by moving vast tracts of ocean around in concert with the moon (and other bodies) it seems self-evident that knowing there is coupling between atmosphere and ocean (look at the THC, for a start) that the movement of water caused by the motion of the moon might have some influence. Of course, there is the question of the latency of radiation beween ocean and atmosphere to consider - do the tides happen quicker than the latency? There is also the question of how much water the moon actually moves - it's a lot but is it significant enough? All in all, I certainly think the prospect of proper investigation is warranted; I suspect a more formal investigation might indeed find some underlying correlation, but, in my opinion, would be, for most of the time, insignificant.

It's even worse than that. Becuase there is no closed argument, because the topic of climate change (either direction) can only finally be rationalised by opinion the arguments are more akin to religious warfare than scientific study. Sure, each side will argue that they have the weight of this scientific study or that to back them up.Some even quote statistical significance as evidence (which it clearly isn't) Evidence is produced by the testing of a hypothesis by making a prediction and that prediction actually occuring. In the case of climate change we're going to have to wait an awful long time for fruition . . . That said, it may well be the case that some serious statistics are needed to present the results given the complexity of looking for small signals in lots of noise. If one agrees that the polarisation of opinion is akin to religion it becomes easy to understand why those at either sides feel more hotly than than others. If we throw a ball in the air, the vast majority of us will agree that the ball will fall back to the earth; we can conduct, individually, experiments, we can make predictions, and we can measure the accuracy of our predictions. With climate change we can make predictions, such as major cold by 2030s, and we, if we are honest with ourselves, have no idea whether this might be the case or otherwise. To sit, strongly, on one side of the fence or the other is simply foolhardiness. To attach to one scientific study and to purport that this must be the truth is even worse It is the case that those who know most about these things are certainly pointing to a warmer climate, so one presumes, that must be where the bets, at this time must lie. But there is no logical, philosophical, nor reasonable argument to have the stance that this position will never invert; it has certainly done it before so, the chance is, that it will happen again.Just, perhaps, not in the 100 year time we're all talking about.

Educate people in the virtue's of not using 'standby,' turning lights off when they're not needed, and using a jumper would be a helpful start.

PP, I disagree. If you want to generate energy you either have to build something or dig a great big hole. If you like the big hole's then so be it, just don't pretend that our energy needs are not without 'cost' whatever option you choose.

(13) GFS

It's time for me to come of the fence. I am going to make a prediction that will last at least fifty years and will be correct each year. Decemeber, on average, will be colder than July. There you go I've said it; take me apart at will :unsure:

Mr Ferric, sir; you are indeed spot on with regards to what you say.However, . . and I do this reluctantly . . . very VERY reluctantly . . . . The global warming signal is (at best) 0.5C/decade. This with diurnal changes of around 10C, ellipsoidal changes of around 5C, seasonal changes of even more, and other marked indicators means that we're all looking for an indicator of warming (or otherwise) inside shed loads of noise. Of course you can strip out the noise with polynomial trends, even using rolling means, or static means: they, of course, all show the same result. But you still need to account for the noise. It is simply not enough, statistically speaking, to put the noise to one side, and present a summary. It is, of course, the case that global warming is a statistical anomaly. We have NOT had enough years of warming to even perform the simplest of chi-squared tests of significance. This is why the debate exists