Climate Catastrophe Cancelled

[Mr Sleet]

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

The biggest flaw in AGW theory- CO2 follows temperature , not the other way round.

Is there going to be one hell of a climbdown in the next 20 years- hope I'm around to see it :blink:

[Dawlish]

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

The biggest flaw in AGW theory- CO2 follows temperature , not the other way round.

Is there going to be one hell of a climbdown in the next 20 years- hope I'm around to see it :blink:

Quite possible Mr. Sleet; I agree with you, but if "Freinds of Science" are wrong and you are wrong in following their line, I'll still throw you a line to climb back up! *>))

My advice would be: don't back yourself into a corner over something that is proven neither one way, nor the other. Open minds are needed on the causes of GW, not certain, closed ones. That we are in a GW trend is a proven fact. The cause of AGW is not proven and remains debateable. You are just on one side of the argument. That does not make you correct. if you don't think that humans are responsible: what do you think is causing the warming? - though there is another thread on that....and a thread on GW......and other GW threads and probably no need for this one, with respect!

Regards, Paul

Edited June 7, 2006 by Dawlish

[Methuselah]

And...in every previous episode of warming, cooling or whatever, humans have not been adding tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere???

[John Cox]

Thanks Mr Sleet,

A very interestig website.

Here is one page I found very interesting and perhaps it is no harm to copy and paste it into this thread:

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased from a rate of about 0.2% per year to the present 0.4% per year. But there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:

1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”

2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

More FACTS and MYTHS? See what Professor deFreitas has to say. Click here.

[West is Best]

John - I'd like to come back to you on this. Apologies for my deep sigh - but we've had so many threads on this: every week or so another pops up so it becomes necessary to post the same counter arguments to the sceptic fringe to whom 'Friends of Science' belong. There are so many counter arguments, and counter points to the ones you posted ...

Did you by any chance watch programme 1 by David Attenborough? It was very fair: presenting all sides, but showing fairly that the majority consensus of the scientific community has moved in favour of the GW argument, especially in the last 5 years. The final model from the Hadley centre here in Exeter was strong - the Met O's Hadley modellers have produced a model demonstrating the impact of human influence on the current warm up.

There will always be counter-points, especially in these internet days, but I think the vast majority now accept GW, and the human influence thereof, and are urgently and actively trying to do something about it. In some ways the time for arguing about it has passed - the time for action is here.

[John Cox]

Hi Richard,

I suppose its the fact that i read so much more hard facts about Global Warming not being caused mainly by humans that I tend to believe that everything is cyclical and natural.

I think man/women puts too much importance on him/herself and thus have an elevated view therefore that they have a dramatic influence on the world climate.

I just don’t believe it!

I am open, I hope, to be persuaded otherwise but at this moment in time I am not.

It takes all sorts

When I see governments talking about GW and what we should do this even makes me more skeptical.

I did not see the TV program which is a pity because I do love to follow what the like of David Attenborough has to say.

[drgl]

The BBC program said nothing new-same old pictures of ice melting and chimney stacks belching out fumes!!

[kold weather]

I really think that its best to keep a open mind but when you stack it all up it does somewhat point to GW and as West has said, the Attenborough climate change programmes have been quite fair.

As I always seem to say nowdays and its probably SF fav lines as well.yes there will be peaks and troughs in global temps but the BASE is rising so that even during cooelr periods we are still having temps above the global average. It's a fair point to say that ground temps may be effected by urbanisation but there are many thousands of weather stations and probably at least 1000 of those are away from any real town.

Professor deFreitas has got some points and I'm not sure it'll be the total doomsday that some people make it out to be but some of thinfs that the person states about is utter tosh.

Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland

I presume the person in question hasn't been looking at those satilite images and anomalies, yes the data may have been different back then but nonetheless people on the ground in Greenland are reporting lessing ice.

Also just a little note on our part of the world, I'd be willing to bet that the next time we have an El Nino like that from 1998 we'll have a CET in the UK above 11C.

As with everything in life, i suspect that in fact both cycles and man-made warmign are to blame for now, the real tests will be over the next 20 years to see if the earth cools, in fact Dr.Gray, the legandary hurricane experts even states himslef that the world will cool over the next 5 years, indeed the earth has cooled a little relative to what it was in the 90's, BUT temps are still above average suggesting a higher base.

[West is Best]

The BBC program said nothing new-same old pictures of ice melting and chimney stacks belching out fumes!!

If we're talking about Programme 1 (Are We Changing Planet Earth?) I don't think that's either fair or true. A number of scientists were interviewed, and their theories presented, some of which have probably not been put on mainstream TV like that before. The interviews were original to the production. The glacier work in Patagonia was impressive. As KW says, it was a pretty fair portrayal of the arguments. The Hadley climate change projection at the end was, as far as I'm aware, released for the first time on that programme.

Bear in mind that David Attenborough was a GW sceptic. I'm no scientist and of no importance but I was also a sceptic. Many from the tops like Attenborough through to the humble amateur like me are changing their viewpoint on this - precisely because the evidence is becoming so overwhelming.

Edited June 7, 2006 by West is Best

[Mr Sleet]

If we're talking about Programme 1 (Are We Changing Planet Earth?) I don't think that's either fair or true. A number of scientists were interviewed, and their theories presented, some of which have probably not been put on mainstream TV like that before. The interviews were original to the production. The glacier work in Patagonia was impressive. As KW says, it was a pretty fair portrayal of the arguments. The Hadley climate change projection at the end was, as far as I'm aware, released for the first time on that programme.

Bear in mind that David Attenborough was a GW sceptic. I'm no scientist and of no importance but I was also a sceptic. Many from the tops like Attenborough through to the humble amateur like me are changing their viewpoint on this - precisely because the evidence is becoming so overwhelming.

I don't think you can give any credence to the one sided Attenborough programmes or the Climate Chaos series in general-they are after ratings and the more sensational it is the better.

I do appreciate this constructive debate.

I am also aware of all the counter arguments to the points on the website, no point in recycling them again.I am a scientist and I haven't always been a sceptic on this point.

However the thing that completely undermines the AGW theory is that atmospheric CO2 follows temperature, not the other way round, for good reasons - as water temp increases co2 solubility decreases. If someone can show me otherwise I may modify my view.

Couple of other points :

The alarmists would also have it that we could enter into a vicious circle and have a runaway greenhouse situation-yet negative feedbacks must predominate otherwise we would have run away before now !

I agree Arctic ice is on the wane but antactic ice has been on the increase for the last three years.

The next 20 years should resolve it ( possibly) :blink:

[drgl]

If we're talking about Programme 1 (Are We Changing Planet Earth?) I don't think that's either fair or true. A number of scientists were interviewed, and their theories presented, some of which have probably not been put on mainstream TV like that before. The interviews were original to the production. The glacier work in Patagonia was impressive. As KW says, it was a pretty fair portrayal of the arguments. The Hadley climate change projection at the end was, as far as I'm aware, released for the first time on that programme.

Bear in mind that David Attenborough was a GW sceptic. I'm no scientist and of no importance but I was also a sceptic. Many from the tops like Attenborough through to the humble amateur like me are changing their viewpoint on this - precisely because the evidence is becoming so overwhelming.

Glacier work is nothing new-it was on the first run of BBC climate change programs when they launched (the flawed!) climate change computer model experiment. What's the overwhelminmg evidence that we are going into meltdown? Original interviews? Sounded like the same old stuff to me with the same rotating globe going bright red over time!! The Earth has been hotter in the past-why are you so sure it's caused by us? There has been natural climate shifts since the day the earth was born.Fact is NO BODY knows-only time will tell. That's not to say we shouldn't kerb our emissions-one planet-better safe thna sorry IMO. We were going into an ice age in the 70's now we are doomed to turn into Mars. I wonder what the next scientific report will find??

[crimsone]

When it comes to GW, it never ceases to amaze me how the arguments put forward in favour of it seem often to be "observable" or "obvious", whereupon the counter arguments against the idea of GW become quite clinical and almost aggressive in their deep scientific reasoning. Whereupon the pro GW people offer that same style of argument in debunking said counter-arguments, and the anti-GW people either get all "observable" and "obvious" themselves, else they agree to disagree.

The end result always seems to be that both parties thing that they've won the debate or that a stalemate occurs.

"People watching" can be quite interesting sometimes

In all honesty though, I'd have to say that I would go with the general concesus of scientific opinion, which is not only that GW IS happening, but that on top of any natural cycles as causes, human beings are adding to the effect, which could potentially, at this rate, be enough to tip the scales.

Just one point though...

The alarmists would also have it that we could enter into a vicious circle and have a runaway greenhouse situation-yet negative feedbacks must predominate otherwise we would have run away before now

Not at all. The "alarmists" would have it that GW could run away to a point, whereupon the planets negative feedback mechanisms could try so hard to snap it back as to plunge us into a new ice age, even if a "mini iceage" - that's not half as alarming now is it? Actually, as crudely as it's just been said, it could actually be considered quite a reasonable hypothesis, or maybe even a fully fledged theory.

Edited June 7, 2006 by crimsone

[West is Best]

meltdown?

Don't think anyone is talking of 'meltdown' are they? Just sufficiently sharp warming to cause trouble.

Yes, the planet's been warmer, but C02 levels are now at their highest for 600,000 years, and this is the warmest for thousands of years. But it's the speed of warm up that's the cause for such alarm. It's the fastest warm up in history. The only comparably fast warm-up was possibly in the Ipswichian period, but that seems to have taken place over centuries not decades like this one. I sympathise with John Cox's theory about human unimportance, but the fact is we're the most dominant species in the history of the planet, and we're more than capable now of causing nature to alter. Humans are contributing massively to the warm-up.

Edited June 7, 2006 by West is Best

[drgl]

When it comes to GW, it never ceases to amze me ho the arguments put forward in favouvour of it seem often to be "observable" or "obvious", whereupon the counter arguments against the idea of GW become quite clinical and almost aggressive in their deep scientific reasoning. Whereupon the pro GW people offer the same style of argument in debunking said counter-arguments, and the anti-GW people either get all "observable" and "obvious" themselves, else they agree to disagree.

The end result always seems to be that both parties thing that they've won the debate or that a stalemate occurs.

"People watching" can be quite interesting sometimes

In all honesty though, I'd have to say that I would go with the general concesus of scientific opinion, which is not only that GW IS happening, but that on top of any natural cycles as causes, human beings are adding to the effect, which could potentially, at this rate, be enough to tip the scales.

So how do you explain the observed INCREASE in ice day's,snow fall and frosts in this area since 2000? People who work outside day in day out notice these things. Sure winters used to be MUCH harsher but there is no doubt the cold seems to be returning,albeit VERY slowly. Is this just a natural cycle? Or can i not possibly be experiencing this as the Earth is getting hotter? What reason have i got to lie? I work outside-warmer winters are easier to work in than cold!! As above-only time will tell but we can do no harm in CUTTING emissions (some even argue we can-the cut backs in soot emissions have decreased global dimming!!!)

Edited June 7, 2006 by drgl

[kold weather]

drgl, on a global scale even the UK means little, i'm not sure how much surface area that thne UK covers as a percentage of the earth but it won't be very high. Even if there has been a slight cooldown in NW Europe since the 90's (Which I think is quite possible) globally temps are still averaging well above values and sometimes clsoe to record breaking for the last few years, with every year now having temps quite abit above average globally.

when talking about Gw, gotta think about the global picture rather then the regional aspect.

[West is Best]

People who work outside day in day out notice these things. .. there is no doubt the cold seems to be returning,albeit VERY slowly.

As KW says ... you've got to keep this global. You also need scientific data not whether your gardener thinks it's a bit nippy. I just don't accept any notion that there's no doubt the cold is returning - CET does not back that up, and beyond these shores for every tale of cold you'll find five tales of increasing warmth: from Sydney's all-time record summer through to the US' warmest January on record.

[drgl]

drgl, on a global scale even the UK means little, i'm not sure how much surface area that thne UK covers as a percentage of the earth but it won't be very high. Even if there has been a slight cooldown in NW Europe since the 90's (Which I think is quite possible) globally temps are still averaging well above values and sometimes clsoe to record breaking for the last few years, with every year now having temps quite abit above average globally.

when talking about Gw, gotta think about the global picture rather then the regional aspect.

But where is the rule that states temps change in uniform accross the globe? It's perfecty feasable for some areas to warm whilst others cool?

[crimsone]

So how do you explain the observed INCREASE in ice day's,snow fall and frosts in this area since 2000? People who work outside day in day out notice these things. Sure winters used to be MUCH harsher but there is no doubt the cold seems to be returning,albeit VERY slowly. Is this just a natural cycle? Or can i not possibly be experiencing this as the Earth is getting hotter? What reason have i got to lie? I work outside-warmer winters are easier to work in than cold!! As above-only time will tell but we can do no harm in CUTTING emissions (some even argue we can-the cut backs in soot emissions have decreased global dimming!!!)

Was that post directed at me??? lol (as per the quoted post (mine))

If so, the quoted post really has no specific relevance to anything I said anyway. lol

/me is confused

Edited June 7, 2006 by crimsone

[drgl]

As KW says ... you've got to keep this global. You also need scientific data not whether your gardener thinks it's a bit nippy. I just don't accept any notion that there's no doubt the cold is returning - CET does not back that up, and beyond these shores for every tale of cold you'll find five tales of increasing warmth: from Sydney's all-time record summer through to the US' warmest January on record.

CET?? It can be colder by 20 degree's for one half of the month then 20 degrees warmer-CET does not tell the whole story. For every argument there is two sides, others on here have agreed and observed the same as me. Only time will tell who is correct. By which time no doubt the scientists will have some new theory to explain what is going on...........

Was that post directed at me??? lol (as per the quoted post (mine))

If so, the quoted post really has no specific relevance to anything I said anyway. lol

/me is confused

no-lol-i pressed quote by mistake

[Red Raven]

When it comes to GW, it never ceases to amaze me how the arguments put forward in favour of it seem often to be "observable" or "obvious", whereupon the counter arguments against the idea of GW become quite clinical and almost aggressive in their deep scientific reasoning. Whereupon the pro GW people offer that same style of argument in debunking said counter-arguments, and the anti-GW people either get all "observable" and "obvious" themselves, else they agree to disagree.

The end result always seems to be that both parties thing that they've won the debate or that a stalemate occurs.

"People watching" can be quite interesting sometimes

In all honesty though, I'd have to say that I would go with the general concesus of scientific opinion, which is not only that GW IS happening, but that on top of any natural cycles as causes, human beings are adding to the effect, which could potentially, at this rate, be enough to tip the scales.

Just one point though...

Not at all. The "alarmists" would have it that GW could run away to a point, whereupon the planets negative feedback mechanisms could try so hard to snap it back as to plunge us into a new ice age, even if a "mini iceage" - that's not half as alarming now is it? Actually, as crudely as it's just been said, it could actually be considered quite a reasonable hypothesis, or maybe even a fully fledged theory.

I couldn't agree more especially with the new ice age theory. I have been thinking along such lines for several years. I have no evidence but i do think realignment with what the earth thinks is best will come with an abrupt and probably devastating effect.

(apologies for large signature image!

[Methuselah]

But, whether or not CO2 increases have preceeded or followed previous warming episodes, is not really the point - either way??? Because IN ALL PREVIOUS superficially similar situations, we were not adding CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) to the atmosphere - as we are now??? Ergo, we are not comparing like with like...

And, for the record, I don't 'believe' in all the runaway greenhouse rhetoric, either. I do, however, believe that humans are quite capable of disrupting the 'natural order of things'; wartime anti-fog technology set-off wintertime thunderstorms in East Anglia, for example - in addition to clearing/thinning the fog???

[Snowly does it]

If we're talking about Programme 1 (Are We Changing Planet Earth?) I don't think that's either fair or true. A number of scientists were interviewed, and their theories presented, some of which have probably not been put on mainstream TV like that before. The interviews were original to the production. The glacier work in Patagonia was impressive. As KW says, it was a pretty fair portrayal of the arguments. The Hadley climate change projection at the end was, as far as I'm aware, released for the first time on that programme.

Bear in mind that David Attenborough was a GW sceptic. I'm no scientist and of no importance but I was also a sceptic. Many from the tops like Attenborough through to the humble amateur like me are changing their viewpoint on this - precisely because the evidence is becoming so overwhelming.

Rare as it is for snowbound misfits like me to flock West as it were, I do agree with you here. Mankind is affecting the environment, it would be foolish to think that we do not. Acid rain is (was) a good example of this. The real key in my opinion is how far we are affecting temperature as opposed to a natural spike (I.E Aggravating a natural cycle) and how far we can ameliortae the effects by different behaviours. What causes the wedge is the doommongery (much of it utterly misplaced) by certain factions and the Ostrich approach on the other side. The missing link I have always thought is to what extent Mother Earth herself will come into play. The earth as a living thing, an entity, has existed for an awfully long time and has constantly corrected itself to allow life to flourish, there may be surprises we cannot foresee if (as the most hardline GW'ers would have us believe) we have REALLY screwed it up.

The other factor that I think often gets missed (from a weather lovers persective) is that even in a general warming trend, there remains the capacity for very much colder conditions on the micro level.

Certainly my opinion is shifting more and more towards a higher % of human impact, but conversely I am more and more convinced that the Earth will cope and adapt and restore the equilibrium.

P.S in re reading the thread I see that others have said similar things, but as I typed it up, I am not deleting it!

[Dawlish]

drgl, on a global scale even the UK means little, i'm not sure how much surface area that thne UK covers as a percentage of the earth but it won't be very high. Even if there has been a slight cooldown in NW Europe since the 90's (Which I think is quite possible) globally temps are still averaging well above values and sometimes clsoe to record breaking for the last few years, with every year now having temps quite abit above average globally.

when talking about Gw, gotta think about the global picture rather then the regional aspect.

Couldn't agree more kold. The UK is the 78th biggest country in the world. Comparison to the Earth's land area looks like this: 224,820km2 vs 148,429,000km2, or just over 1/700th of the total land area. We don't count in Global Warming - really, we don't. We just aren't big enough.

We won't follow the global trend in a linear fashion, but we will follow it in a general way, as will almost all smaller areas, but just look at these yearly CET figures, since 1973 on Philip Eden's site and then someone tell me that we are not following the global trend to a very large extent!

http://www.climate-uk.com/provisional.htm

Paul

Edited June 7, 2006 by Dawlish

[John Cox]

So how do you explain the observed INCREASE in ice day's,snow fall and frosts in this area since 2000? People who work outside day in day out notice these things. Sure winters used to be MUCH harsher but there is no doubt the cold seems to be returning,albeit VERY slowly. Is this just a natural cycle? Or can i not possibly be experiencing this as the Earth is getting hotter? What reason have i got to lie? I work outside-warmer winters are easier to work in than cold!! As above-only time will tell but we can do no harm in CUTTING emissions (some even argue we can-the cut backs in soot emissions have decreased global dimming!!!)

Hi drgl,

Nice post.

I like your view and one that I concur with and that is experiencing the winter changes personally.

I for one was always and still am firstly a weather observer and secondly a follower of synoptic charts.

This last winter felt colder with even less wind chill. So I keep the faith that the winters are now getting colder. Ask anyone on the near continent how last winter was.

I was watching it very closely and it was very very cold and I watched it very closely here:http://www.awekas.at/en/temp.php?nid=10

[Dawlish]

Hi drgl,

Nice post.

I like your view and one that I concur with and that is experiencing the winter changes personally.

I for one was always and still am firstly a weather observer and secondly a follower of synoptic charts.

This last winter felt colder with even less wind chill. So I keep the faith that the winters are now getting colder. Ask anyone on the near continent how last winter was.

I was watching it very closely and it was very very cold and I watched it very closely here:http://www.awekas.at/en/temp.php?nid=10

John, because of one colder winter, in 10 years, which was close to the 30 year average and warmer than the 300+ year average, you surely can't be saying that winters are getting colder! Last winter felt colder than the last 9, because it was; but that hardly means we are in a trend for cooler winters!! I think you may need a little more evidence than 1 (or even two, or several, years). A cooler winter is certain to happen every now and then! Please apply some elementary statistical thinking to a chaotic system.

Paul