Iceberg

So the sum up the thread. There is not a single process natural cycle which has been mentioned which the climate models have left out. Because we don't know 100% everything any thoery is useless and doomed to be wrong. Sceptics will continue to say that its all natural but cannot explain why it's natural nor what the natural cycle is. um come on sceptics you can do better than this if you intend on using it as a get out of jail free card, when the going gets tough......

It'll be the conspiracy theory next Dev, this cosmic thoery has been around for 10 years but nobody has taken it up or invested in it (even the oil companies) because the entire scientific world is being hoodwinked.

The graphs on his own site are rather pathetic match wise. One quick note, what makes these cosmic rays vary ? This is complete none science and you could easy match rising house prices with temp over the last 15 years and get a better trend. But unless you have the mechanism it's meaningless.

Your certainly not as dsylectic as me then

I don't think it really matters Mondy, but I am sure alot of people here have the appropriate letters after there name. Me I am BSc Environmental Science with a Thesis in combatting AGW 10 years ago.

I don't have much time, but it's more complicated that x+y = 10 becuase you also have x/y= 3.5 and y-x = 3.5 as well. It's makes the end answer a lot easier. Matt

But the thing is scientists do know what caused the MWP and the little ice age, our understanding of forcings can account for these. Our understanding of forcings though cannot account for the current warming without the antropogenic effect. No body is saying that man made warming now only controls climate. This is why the models as I indicated early show a cooling period. I agree with some of what your saying Eddie, we don't know everything and never will do in my life time. However the consistance of the models is rather telling. Even when you add in the various drivers such as aerosols or even when they start to add in the effects of ice sheet behaviour the end result is almost always the same. um..... but we can assume that without any evidence what we don't know will suddenly save the planet and lead to a natural world again. ? So until we are completely 100% confident that we have hte entire climate system nailed down, AGW can't possibly be happening ?.

VP I know your not trying to cloud the issue, but what are you saying ?. That AGW theory does take natural variation into account ? That models take natural variation into account ? That we can't possible take natural variation into account ?. That it's a valid argument to say because we don't know everything, we can therefore no nothing ?. That it's a fluke that models when ran from the year 1900 model climate and it's natural forcings quite well.? I can grasp the basics of Fourier Analysis, but not the implemention of it.

A favourite aunt of the sceptics, that gets dragged out in every argument. So, What evidence do you have that the AGW thoery does not take natural cycles into account. ?. To start it off I know for a fact the Climate models such as the Hadley one, show a cooling period in 10-15 years time completely due to natural cycles. I know that the IPCC report and models include natural cyclical variability in solar input. I know that the models include natural ocean overturning and other decadal practices. So please explain to me why AGW thoery is rubbish because it's all just a natural cycle.

M,L, J, You all raise some interesting comments, most of which have probably been raised elsewhere. I think there are some serious misconceptions wrt to the models, the history behind the science and theory of AGW, the politics of AGW, (most of the worlds most corrupt Gov's don't actually or didn't until very very recently subscribe to the AGW theory!). Any evidence behind solar impacts The cooling effects made by/on the AR4 predictions etc.... The counting/discounting of natural cycles by AGW predictions and theory. It would be interesting to debate all these things, maybe inturn or in a seperate thread so they don't all get lost... Cheers Matt

I replied to Mr Calder online. Can't remember everything I said. But it was something like. "Try using the Peer Review process....Try including even a smigeon of evidence rather than alot of claptrap rheteric. Try understanding the subject. Try not associating it with a book and trying and to make a quick buck. Most of all try to understand that if a theory has not been picked up by anybody for 10 years, maybe, just maybe it's because it's crap." My final statement (I would to buy the book when it's down to 99p in the fiction section of a bargain book shop....)

Since CO2 acts as a very good Greenhouse gas for 300 years 500 is the minimum which I've gone for as I am vaguely optimistic. Mondy I do hope your joking....... You'd be more believable blaming it on Elvis sitting in a throne on the Mars.

Takening on the AR4 and ice sheet loss both greenland and antarctic. The main reason for this is the consensus agreement required by the IPCC govt members, there is just too much uncertaincy as to what might happen, I'd say 80% of them think something will happen but that's not enough to start putting figures into the report. It would be too easy a shot for the anti's. A shame really and one of the few negatives of the IPCC conservative method. Going forward Our understanding of Icesheet's are really taking a quantum leap this decade though projects such as www.ifremer.fr/ifrtp/pages/API%25202007-2008/API/130.pdf and the loss of Larsen B.

To be fair to Matty it's a model thread and that's what the model is showing. Whether you want to believe it or not is an entirely different matter.

Fair play to anyone who issued an LRF, IMO we shouldn't judge them until March, if at all.... This winter has been cr*p in both trends and synoptics for the UK, TBH we've been lucky to have the current event as it certainly has not occured though any kind of classic set up. Back to the models. The Scandy taking hold at 144-168 is probably only a 20-30% chance atm, fantastic possibilities if it were to happen. ECM way to progressive and I seem to remember it had the same problem this time last year when they upgraded the resolution. I've heard talk that under the new res ECM struggles in spring, I also think this happened in 2005 when they ran it parellel before going live. GFS is mixed but favours slightly more progression that the ops run. Meto is sticking to it's guns. My thoughts are that we will miss out on this attempt due to a slight awakening and engaging of the Jet, PV doesn't come into it now. But the high will only retreat so far and will come back a bigger brute on steriods for the half term week. No real Greenland blocking this winter me thinks.

I completly agree with the comments re the pacific jet, it will essentially shape the movements off the west coast of the US and also the strength and position of the PV. Completely ignoring the outcome of this weekends weather as tbh I don't think it has a real effect longer term. Feb, particularly late Feb is the time of year when a strong Greenland PV, traditionally fails to ignite the northern Jet, Because of this as long as it doesn't move south and there is no sign of this, it won't be the continualled boggy man it has been for a large portion of the winter. So general trends to me look like a weakening Jet that's probably diving in the atlantic, height increases to the NE, and a good chance of a proper shot of dry cold during the half term weekend.

Further South, slower and with colder air into the south.

FSU is down buts it's accessible from the one of the plymouth sites.

Are we talking about the french arpage model or the European GFS based models ?, if it's the GFS ones then they will likely prog the same progressiveness of the GFS ops run, which has very little support from GEFS, or the METO 00Z or 06Z runs.

Indeed a spot on assessment by Steve. Winds are forecasted to be around 15mph, not much you think but enough to quickly make 30-50cm drifts. The sausage elongation will encourage areas such as Oxford, Andover and even London to really get a pasting with 10-20cm quite possible. Grit won't have much effect either with the modelled precip rates.

06Z raw meto output has shifted everything further south by around 30miles from the 00z Run. Bringing more snow and no return to rain into central southern england and even south of the M4.

A quicky to explain the possible meto's thinking. 1000-850 thicknesses are forecast to be 1300 from the M4 northwards even at noon on Thursday on the lastest raw meto output. Automatically generated snow charts will be extremely unreliable in this set up,as steve indicated. Due to the 3 hr initialisation periods, modes like GFS will NOT take the cooling effect of a good snow cover into account, particularly with 1000-850 thicknesses and DP's hence the Meto's forecast for the band to be snow for most of the country away from the coasts. I still think that away from the south coast the likes of the cotswolds could see 8 inches.

I was going to post up some precip charts from the raw Meto output, but these represent it perfectly. Sorry about the SW one, but it's very rare to get that many snow symbols down here !. The small feature on Wed is still progged to give a bit of snow to the south cost, i.e Devon, Cornwall, south Dorset and south Hampshire. Meto keeps the precip on wed further south than before from the wash to chester downwards. but keeps most of it as snow.

Latest USAF fax models also support snow south of the M4 on Wednessday, tbh the local meto would win my support for an accurate forecast 48hrs out. Certainly above GFS.

As has already been said meto is a very good mid distance chart, ECM better in the long run (although I would take this with a lot of caution). Concentrating on the raw Meto data. Wed is the best day in the south with some light snow around below the M4, Thursday thicknesses are are a touch high along with Dp's a snow cover on Wed will help though. Still looks fantastic for the midlands northwards, word of caution again though the precip might not get far enough north (the LP take an even more southerly track in which case the south downs and cotswalds will be limit of the snow.