4wd

Well if you extrapolate from a short period it looks 'plausible' but you should always look at longer periods to establish trends - see news thread. Also it's a good idea not to make predictions about subjects which are not fully understood, because when the prediction is completely wrong later, people will assume that everything else you say is probably inaccurate and/or exaggerated..

15 years has been mentioned as statistically significant period: “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.†Source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

There will certainly be a measurable difference, but not always as you might think. Temperature generally goes down as you gain altitude, by a fairly steady amount - about 1C per 100metres. However in practice the change as you climbed would rarely be that, as the lower ground might be less breezy in which case at ground level it could be warmer still, or at other times you can get an inversion if it's calm (especially in Winter) and it could be frosty lower down with a definite line above which the frost has not formed. In some conditions along an undulating route you can note wild swings as low spots are frosty and misty while higher ground is relatively mild and sunny.

Stelvio is getting rather deep but there are vehicles and people still up there. http://www.solda2000.com/webstelvioen.htm

One of my favourite cams at Silvretta. Looks possibly closed for some time. http://www.illwerke-tourismus.at/webcams/silvretta.jpg

This is rather pretty http://www.viewbito.com/panoramakameras/oesterreich/tirol/zoeblen/

Temperature around 4C overnight but we had 1.3mm of rain in showers - seems likely some of this was rather sleety but no evidence of it so far!

They're been hoisted on their own petard because they stated 15 years was a significant period - then 17 years when 15 didn't show the right result.

A weak response IMO, which does not undemine the specific points The Mail reported. Deciding to talk instead about 0.8C over 140 years is irrelevant and does not contradict the no warming for 16 years data. We could go back further and find a start point from which we have cooled rather a lot.

This does of course mean that the 'warmists' are now in denial and we can call them deniers. That should be quite fun.

If you look at the DMi graph for example the lines tend to converge at Spring and Autumn. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php The Autumn convergence is quite marked and co-incides with a noticeable 'shoulder' in the graph. This is when the Arctic Basin is more or less full of ice up to the coast of Siberia and Alaska; increase in area then gets more difficult as the area available at high latitude suddenly drops away. http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/images/arctic_map.gif

They are really quite heavy and I wouldn't be surprised if a hint of sleet could be spotted on your windscreen over the high ground.

The Mail is almost egging on Phil Jones and Judith Curry for a punch up, I wonder who'd win? She does look quite fierce in that pic.

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz29E78OR9H The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

How far away is it? The wireless can be affected by radio 'noise' from other electrical devices (even lights) so in some situations the distance you can receive from is less than spec and can change through the day. It does sound like a faulty unit to be honest.

It was the Motorbike Show at the NEC that year (it used to alternate between London and Birmingham). The snow only became serious later in the day so an unusual number of bikes were caught out trying to get home and had little choice but to abandon machines.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2476-2008.02.pdf NOAA: Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – February 21, 2008*** NEWS FROM NOAA *** NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC Contact: Dennis Feltgen, NOAA 305-229-4404Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes. “We found that although some decades were quieter and less damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,†said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.â€

Is that 2007 piece cobbled together to make capital of 2004 and 2005 being above average? Because claims of increased hurricanes are very shaky indeed. This would appear to show something of a peak in the 1990s but a clear decline since then which is hardly a blip.

The principal reason for ice melting is not due to temperatures being half degree warmer than 50 years ago but due to cyclical changes in currents which have introduced warmer than normal water into some parts of the Arctic. The enhanced warming we see in the Arctic is a consequence of less ice not the cause of it. As for your obsession with conspiracies I think you spend too much time on hate and hysteria blogs. China and the rest of the developing world need to use every avenue to help their populations out of grinding poverty, and those who wish to block development on the basis of environmentalist holier-than-thou hysteria should hang their heads in shame.

It's probably a bit premature to be worrying about next spring in early October.

There will be a camouflaged caterpillar involved somewhere. If the damage isn't too bad (to the plant) why not let it mature?