Iceberg

As stated before a graph of mars temps over 30 years, would be fantastic if we had one, but one simply doesn't exist as we haven't been taking temps there for more than 5 years by sat, the temps that are being taking are hightly dubious. I've seen sceptics refuse to believe our own temperture records over the past 30 years, why on earth are they believing temp records for Mars. IMO it's a total none starter. Ozone depleation is much more interesting IMO and could account for alot of warming in the N Hemi, the only problem is I've never seen a correlation between ozone levels and heat transportation mechanisms such as the AO and NAO.

A very good report from Hansen Not read it all yet !. But he goes into climate forcings, the GHG temp lag etc, also brings together the latest findings about ice buttresses and unsea ledges.

The whole point of the ARGO experiment is to look at the natural drives behind current changes etc. The hole point of the polar year is to better understand how polar regions respond to climate change, both natural and anthropogenic. A lot of research has been spent better understanding Enso, NAO, PDO etc, research has been done on Natural Methane releases and Also Solar forcing, (which is why we can discount various solar works.) Yes we should be studying our other planets because they can help, but nothing has come from that in reality to really help us with our climate study, also who is going to fund something that might or might not be worth while, we are going to need some starting evidence that futher study would be worthwhile. "was ironic.....it was an example of how even one so young, can pick holes in the the current climate debate. " If you really think she picked holes then fair play, but IMO she did nothing more than raise known political issues in a rather one sided way, Just very good for a 15 yo but hardly worthy of much else. I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, sceptics assume that research is carried out to support AGW. IMO this is very wrong 90% of the time, research is carried out to better understand how the earth's climate works, (look at GW's thread for evidence). Yes mentioned is often made in press releases about AGW or an AGW connection, but look at the science. Mention was made about me going though each thread Unfortunately I simply don't have the time, a challenge for the sceptics, show me a link discussing the science and not a bias press release and we can discuss (I think this thread is to discuss that anyway !), if you want to discuss press tit tattle then by all means but many people that agree with the AGW theory don't really have time to come back on you. The CO2 increase today is due to us, entirely we know this due to the isotopic signature that different C02 molecules have.

The CET will surely start to drop from Friday onwards, but atm GFS even under the heart of the northely when 850's get down to -1 or -2 only progs temps in the three locations to be around 7 to 9. The problem is that by Friday there will only be 8 days left of the month a 15.5 or 15.6 seems very reasonable to me. Still way off my attempt though.

CB No the IPCC is the work of 2500 scientists with around 200 or so involved in drawing up the conclusions, not all of the 2500 will agree with all the conlusions that's only natural, your guessing and assumptions though don't do you much credit and is yet another example of the use of unknowns. I am sure some body with a couple of thousand pounds could arrange a blind phone poll of the scientists involved to say yes or no about whether they support the majority of the IPCC conclusions. I've not heard anything to back this up. So far around 4 or 5 scientists have expressed there unhappiness I can think of very few scientific disiplines where there is this level of agreement over a relatively new set of theories. So which of the sceptic links provide real science then. ?

Again another major problem with the sceptics,a single report claims that Mars is warming by 0.5C and it's taken as another big find. It's not. People struggle is agree on the amount the earth is warming per a decade atm some say it's 0.33C some say it's 0.16C and that's with hundreds of grounds measurements and countless satallites etc. How many Sat's do we have around Mars measuring temp for the last 20 even 10 years...... A big fat 0. The 15 years old hasn't found anything out at all, if you want to discredit Hanson, who unlike most sceptic scientists has produced peer reviewed research then do so using science. The 50/50 funding split is an estimate of how I remember things back in the good old days when funding was given to the likes of spencer, Landsceit(sorry it's early in the morning I can't be bothered to look up how to spell his name) etc. Even the IPCC back then only classified AGW as a possibility, the reason why being that some science at the time didn't support it and what did was rather patchy. Yes new feedbacks and drivers come to light and they should be and are looked at, unfortunately most of the research finds back up AGW or even make it's effects worse.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13282 The above link proves my point perfectly. Science whats that ?.

There was a 50/50 split around 10-15 years ago, since then however the debate has moved on, who on earth is going to fund something if it's already largely been discounted by existing reputable institutions. Several of the scientists whose work was cited have asked to have their names removed from the final report. Okay, it may not be many who have actually done this but that's not the point - the fact is that 2,500 scientists are alleged to have been involved in the compilation of the report and yet some of them don't want anything to do with it. Maybe a lot more of them want nothing to do with it. There may even be some people who aren't even aware that their names are on the report (this is speculation, again, but it shows the kind of chain of reasoning which arises when considering the reality of the situation as opposed to the IPCC version of events). "Maybe a lot more of them want nothing to do with it", there is no evidence for this statement what so ever, yes a small hand full of scientists of objected to the IPCC reports over the years, but this is mainly due to the fact that they didn't get what they wanted when drawing up the conclusions, toys out of prams. "Okay, it may not be many who have actually done this but that's not the point ", I disagree it's exactly the point you can't please 100% of the people all of the time, the fact that by and large they've pleased 95% is pretty impressive. There may even be some people who aren't even aware that their names are on the report (this is speculation, again, but it shows the kind of chain of reasoning which arises when considering the reality of the situation as opposed to the IPCC version of events). You may have that chain of reasoning but be honest it's completely baseless. All the scientists involved might be receiving payments of 1 million a year from Greenpeace but's it's very unlikely. I've not really seen much from the sceptic POV or links really based on facts and hard researched science and there in lies the problem. It's always an unknown x that gets quoted instead of any of the real climate science.

A rise looks very possible with all the moist air. The dramatic fall in the CET looks to be further away than it was a week ago.

No drop again in CET, looks to be a very very steady fall.

It is indeed, sorry should have though about it a bit more the link said meso but it's obviously from there raw GM.

This might help you Matt. Meto Meso postage stamps output at 6 hourly intervals for rainfall. http://meteocentre.com/models/ukmet_eur_12...PR_12_panel.gif Might give a different view to over relying on GFS. Cheers

Anybody got a link to the AMSR realtime artic images? The Bremen site isn't working atm, but the AMSR on Aqua is 2 or 3 times the resolution of the SSM ?.

I really don't understand even the hard done by easterners. No area of the UK had a below average temp for the first half of the month (in my books you have to give temp at least a 5/10). Yes there has been an east west split with sunshine but up until the 10th the UK as a whole had more than average sunshine. For me personally it's been a very good June with parties and BBQ's outside, lots of gardening etc. It's the not the same for everyone though, so overall I'd say it's been pretty average. Those complaining need to look at the bigger picture IMO and stop imposing there own indervidual experiences constantly on everyone else.

Still 16.2, I think people are overestimating the coming decline of the CET, With temps around 19/20C at day and nights around 10-11 It will only very gradually come down to a mid 15's figure (assuming GFS is right)

Still 16.2 (+2.6C) at the halfway mark. And before people complain of an east/west split. SE England +2.2 E Anglia +1.8 Even NE England +1.3 Basically it's been warm everywhere.

She's in a very favourable low shear environment. For info she isn't the big blob of convection but the little circulation in the box.

GFDL takes this upto a CAT 1 (eventually), Although it very quickly takes her to a TS to hit florida.

A wave in the Carb has just been progressed to Invest 94L. Few details as yet but circulation is evident with sporadic convection.

My guess is that they are deep melt water pools, due to the recent warm plume, still not really good news considering this is generally annual ice.

Different weather patterns indeed. Sorry not so much splitting hairs but failing to understand what was encouraging, all clear now. The difference between this year and last is quite stark with some areas notably the Hudson much better off, whilst the Alaskan side is quite a bit worse off. The two pics show this nicely.

Thanks Carinthian, but overall things are only marginally better than last year(the lowest on record) and still probably in the bottom 2 or 3 years, also we have more old ice melt this time this year than last year. Marginally better, but far from much more encouraging. Let's see how things come out, but discounting the hudson (which as I said earlier always completely melts) I don't really see anything to be optimistic about. Matt

Thanks P3 I did give that a read. http://www.geotimes.org/current/article.ht..._antarctic.html The above is article that's recently come on to geotimes. It seems to be a bit of a re-hash from a few years ago. But IMO the results are a little worrying.

How can it be more encouraging ? the difference between this year and last year is minimal. The one or two cold pools which are left have hung around in the areas mentioned but they haven't really helped the overall ice to be much better than last year only spread slightly diffferently. The Hudson will always melt it's annual ice (and probably quickly in the next 2 weeks as some very high temps get to work). I am looking for signs that the ice will re-establish as well but I can't see it atm.

Another big jump by 0.2 to 16.2C or +2.8C. for the first third of June.