Is the summer of 2007 a turning point?

[osmposm]

Thanks for that link, Ribster.

Assuming the Guardian report to be reasonably accurate, I see that the Met Office do indeed offer an explanation for their forecast temporary plateau.

Please read and note, LaserG.....even if you don't agree with what they think is happening, I hope you will at least accept that there is no logical inconsistency within it, contrary to the suggestion in your last post? I don't, incidentally, disagree in any way with your last sentence - several people from the pro-AGW camp have already expressed their irritation at the press tendency to attribute any extreme weather phenomenon to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Stratos, I'm ashamed to say that - not for the first time - I don't really understand all of your post. I'm flummoxed by the arithmetical logic (or perhaps just the language) of much of the last paragraph, especially "we'll probably enter a passage where we'll be returning the lowest range across 30 years in our CET history....". Any chance of a slightly clearer analysis for idiots?

Ossie

[Stratos Ferric]

Thanks for that link, Ribster.

...

Stratos, I'm ashamed to say that - not for the first time - I don't really understand all of your post. I'm flummoxed by the arithmetical logic (or perhaps just the language) of much of the last paragraph, especially "we'll probably enter a passage where we'll be returning the lowest range across 30 years in our CET history....". Any chance of a slightly clearer analysis for idiots?

Ossie

Don't apologise, more than happy to clarify what was a rapidly composed and rather tight point. In simpler terms the range I'm indicating is arrived at by subtracting the highest annual CET in a 30 year period from the lowest. My point is that with the recent rapid rise in CET, nearly all the recent outturn has been topside of the current range. If we now dip for a year or two we will only be falling INTO the current range, not moving towards the lower end, meanwhile, lower figures in the range, dating from the early years in the thirty year series, drop out. Therefore, the net effect will be for the variation in the thirty year series to narrow somewhat. This is, as I noted earlier, partly just a statistical feature in an upward trend, however it does also rather point to the lack of any real cold (absolute or relative) in the past twenty or so years.

[Mr Sleet]

quote name='ribster' date='11 Aug 2007, 02:19 PM' post='1041749']

I see the MET are now predicting that temperatures will plateau for the next two years (I'm sure someone was suggesting this in this thread, so good call!), but then are set to rise after that. So maybe it is a turning point. Whos to say that it will warm again after the plateau, they could be wrong. And before someone jumps on me about accepting the science that I like and rejecting that that I don't, yes they could be wrong about plateauing too. Either way, I find the idea that the warming is possibly going to stop for a while rather encouraging!

[noggin]

May I beg everyone's indulgence here and quote myself:

...may I wind back to shortly after I joined this esteemed place? I said quite a few times (ad nauseum, possibly) that I felt that GW had plateau'd and that I was expecting "things" to cool down in the not too distant future. Of course I do not expect our temperatures to plummet overnight, or even over the course of, say, a year. I would expect there to be ups and downs along the way, but for the overall trend to be downwards. A natural cycle. I still maintain these conclusions.

I absolutely believe and stand by what I have been saying for the past 18/24 months.

I was going to bow out of the subject:

1) in case I was seen as being boring and monotonous

2) I'm too wimpy to take the flack that comes my way!

But, this "pronouncement" from the MetO gives me heart.

[ribster]

quote name='ribster' date='11 Aug 2007, 02:19 PM' post='1041749']

I see the MET are now predicting that temperatures will plateau for the next two years (I'm sure someone was suggesting this in this thread, so good call!), but then are set to rise after that. So maybe it is a turning point. Whos to say that it will warm again after the plateau, they could be wrong. And before someone jumps on me about accepting the science that I like and rejecting that that I don't, yes they could be wrong about plateauing too. Either way, I find the idea that the warming is possibly going to stop for a while rather encouraging!

Globally, we have been in a plateau for a number of years already

Indeed, I heard 1998 mentioned.

[Bobby]

It's not going to warm year after year consistently forever! "Plateaus" have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. But they are only for a few years, the average trend is still up up up. Even if things have leveled off for a decade that is nothing in the geological time scale. There are small natural cycles that can cause these plateaus of cooling and others that cause rapid increases in temperature. The increases though will always send the average trend up.

You can't pick a long term trend out of just a few years of data.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Magpie

[ribster]

It's not going to warm year after year consistently forever! "Plateaus" have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. But they are only for a few years, the average trend is still up up up. Even if things have leveled off for a decade that is nothing in the geological time scale. There are small natural cycles that can cause these plateaus of cooling and others that cause rapid increases in temperature. The increases though will always send the average trend up.

You can't pick a long term trend out of just a few years of data.

I don't think there was any suggestion from anyone about picking a long term trend from a few years of data, everyone knows that. The initial post was just highlighting some meto research, and they may be right or wrong about that. Either way, it won't go on forever, I firmly believe it will cool, now whether that's in 50years, 200, 1000 or 5000, it will cool. Man has been on the planet such a short time, he can't possibly understand all there is to understand. It's only in relatively recent history that powerful enough computers have been available to do the necessary number crunching, and after all, they are programmed by humans, who as history has shown, are rather prone to making mistakes....

[jethro]

It's not going to warm year after year consistently forever! "Plateaus" have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. But they are only for a few years, the average trend is still up up up. Even if things have leveled off for a decade that is nothing in the geological time scale. There are small natural cycles that can cause these plateaus of cooling and others that cause rapid increases in temperature. The increases though will always send the average trend up.

You can't pick a long term trend out of just a few years of data.

Forgive me if this sounds a tad cynical, it's not intended to, however; talk of plateaus being reached have constantly been dismissed on here. Equally talk of a constant, incessant rise in temps as being if not impossible then at least unlikely, have also been at the very least questioned vociforously. Natural cycles having anything to do with warming? I get shouted down wholesale when I mention them. Short trends, only for a few years, nothing in the geological time scale; us sceptics have been saying the very same thing over recent warming and we're wrong. How on earth does anyone know how long a plateau will last except with hindsight. You can't pick a trend out of just a few years of data; oh I agree, totally, but that cuts both ways.

Noggin:

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

It has to be accepted that man has had a little influence globally and as metioned urban effect is but one example. What is clear to me is that CO2 is overridden and is far from being the major force or continued uninterrupted warming would be the norm [and deep dow I think many feel that]. We haven't warmed since 1998 globally, the northern hemisphere has past it once but that falls in line with solar and lunar cycles. The southern hemisphere is in a relative cool stage and indeed record cold outbreaks are widely reported. It isn't 'our' turn until 2012. This summer isn't a turning point but it is putting the cat amongst the pigeons

BFTP

[Bobby]

Forgive me if this sounds a tad cynical, it's not intended to, however; talk of plateaus being reached have constantly been dismissed on here. Equally talk of a constant, incessant rise in temps as being if not impossible then at least unlikely, have also been at the very least questioned vociforously. Natural cycles having anything to do with warming? I get shouted down wholesale when I mention them. Short trends, only for a few years, nothing in the geological time scale; us sceptics have been saying the very same thing over recent warming and we're wrong. How on earth does anyone know how long a plateau will last except with hindsight. You can't pick a trend out of just a few years of data; oh I agree, totally, but that cuts both ways.

Noggin:

There is a long term trend of warming though, I'd call 200 years or so sufficient enough. It's obvious that between now and than, there has been significant warming and there isn't any sign that it's slowing. Meanwhile, some people on this forum have used evidence of this summer (well, July, June was above average) as proof that were are now heading into an age of cooling! So 200 years of clear warming, then one cool 4 weeks and we're heading back to the good ole days. Rather premature to say the least.

Even if there hasnt been warming for 10 years, 10 years isn't an awful lot in that 200 year timeline is it? Just 5% of it in fact. Ok, if we've had 50 years where the trend is downwards, then that may be suggesting something, but even 50 years isn't really enough.

At the other end, if we had 10 years of rapid warming, that isn't enough to say that we have suddenly entered a period of rapid heating. Things may well just return back to normal, but the average is up. It's not going to be a perfect line upwards, with every year slightly warmer than the last.

We've had something like that in the UK lately in fact- several exceptionally warm years, so I don't see why we can't have a swing the other way. It wouldn't surprise me that we get another winter of 1982 severity in fact sometime in the future.

What evidence is there exactly that we are going to cool? Sounds wishful thinking to me. I also would love to return to the good ole days with plenty of severe winters but I don't see it happening.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Magpie

[osmposm]

.......talk of plateaus being reached have constantly been dismissed on here.

I think the word 'dismissed' is unfair as it implies that nobody bothered to present evidence to the contrary, which we certainly did. What was...um...vigorously contested was talk of a plateau having been reached in - specifically - our (i.e. UK) temperatures three or four years ago.

[Stratos Ferric]

Forgive me if this sounds a tad cynical, it's not intended to, however; talk of plateaus being reached have constantly been dismissed on here. Equally talk of a constant, incessant rise in temps as being if not impossible then at least unlikely, have also been at the very least questioned vociforously. Natural cycles having anything to do with warming? I get shouted down wholesale when I mention them. Short trends, only for a few years, nothing in the geological time scale; us sceptics have been saying the very same thing over recent warming and we're wrong. How on earth does anyone know how long a plateau will last except with hindsight. You can't pick a trend out of just a few years of data; oh I agree, totally, but that cuts both ways.

Noggin:

Jethro, I'm not sure you've actually read carefully what many of us have said. I have seen nobody argue for incessant warming (i.e. each day, each week, each month, each year, warmer, relative to its precedent). THere has been much challenge to a point made that temperatures "plateaued" three or four years ago. Even a five year olf could analyse the temperature graph since then and see that the temperatures had NOT plateaued. It's like saying compound inflation since WW2 plateaued four years ago when, every year since, inflation has still been 2-3%.

Yes, there will be natural cycles, but you argue as if that's all there is. The climate as whole can be warming for one reason, with shorter-term fluctuations for other reasons combining to produce oscilllation around a trending mean. What is clear, and therefore suggests that this [current warming] isn't just natural or cyclical is that the long term mean (say 100 years, and certainly 30 years) is running at unprecedented levels here in CET-land. What's more, the pattern is generally replicated globally, though there are spatial variations just as there are temporal ones.

[Stratos Ferric]

quote name='ribster' date='11 Aug 2007, 02:19 PM' post='1041749']

I see the MET are now predicting that temperatures will plateau for the next two years (I'm sure someone was suggesting this in this thread, so good call!), but then are set to rise after that. So maybe it is a turning point. Whos to say that it will warm again after the plateau, they could be wrong. And before someone jumps on me about accepting the science that I like and rejecting that that I don't, yes they could be wrong about plateauing too. Either way, I find the idea that the warming is possibly going to stop for a while rather encouraging!

Globally, we have been in a plateau for a number of years already

Aah, but how long is the running mean interval on those plots? We've plateaued if, say, you take a five year mean, or even a ten year. Interestingly, in the case of the latter, a high value for 1998 (is it) was followed by two years far below what we have currently. Even if we had two years (this and next) no warmer than last year, the net effect of losing these cool years from the front end of the 10 year average would be to send the ten year trend further up. Looking at thirty year trends (staistically more robust) the trend is most definitely up, and will continue to be for some years to come even if temperatures do level off where they are now.

[jethro]

Jethro, I'm not sure you've actually read carefully what many of us have said. I have seen nobody argue for incessant warming (i.e. each day, each week, each month, each year, warmer, relative to its precedent). THere has been much challenge to a point made that temperatures "plateaued" three or four years ago. Even a five year olf could analyse the temperature graph since then and see that the temperatures had NOT plateaued. It's like saying compound inflation since WW2 plateaued four years ago when, every year since, inflation has still been 2-3%.

Yes, there will be natural cycles, but you argue as if that's all there is. The climate as whole can be warming for one reason, with shorter-term fluctuations for other reasons combining to produce oscilllation around a trending mean. What is clear, and therefore suggests that this [current warming] isn't just natural or cyclical is that the long term mean (say 100 years, and certainly 30 years) is running at unprecedented levels here in CET-land. What's more, the pattern is generally replicated globally, though there are spatial variations just as there are temporal ones.

Perhaps I was too brief in my post to explain myself fully; I'll try again. There has been a general concensus that any mention of cooling or plateaus being reached, is incorrect. It's often held up as sceptics clutching at straws or snow lovers clinging to hope that days of yore will come again. There have been numerous posts on the forum which conclude, regardless of short term weather, the overall trend is relentlessly upwards. Now, I'm not for one moment discounting AGW, discrediting the science or saying hah! told you so, it's all natural. But, what I and others on here have pointed out many, many times; natural drivers do come into play and I think their impact has been under-estimated. There hasn't been a sudden decline in Co2 emissions, AGW hasn't been drawn to a halt and yet the METO are predicting a ceasation of rising temps; why is this? If manmade isn't involved then it has to be natural. It sometimes seems that facts have a tendancy to be invoked as and when the mood suits; it's all well and good holding up the CET as the valid measure to show temps are rising relentlessly but should the CET begin to measure cooler temps then it somehow isn't a reflection of the world at large; it's temporal, spatial. Which one is it? The measuring stick against which we measure the influence of AGW and the impact upon our climate; or not? You can't have it both ways. In 1976 there was a climate shift, entirely natural in origin; this shifted temps upwards not only in our part of the world. It is entirely plausible the same could happen again in the opposite direction. It's also entirely possible that the influence of AGW has been over-estimated given that our working knowledge and digital measurements are within the positive global cycle following the climate shift. Ditto taking ice loss in the Arctic in the last thirty years and more so in the last fews years, as being an indication and measurement of AGW. I admit, part of me would like to see cooling temps, snowier winters but not because I have any desire to live in the past or disprove AGW; just to increase awareness, particularly in our part of the world that AGW has been intensely hyped. Our recent hotter than average summers and milder winters is NOT a direct measurement of AGW despite it being widely portrayed as such. If we enter a cooler cycle then a more accurate picture of AGW may become apparent.

[laserguy]

Brilliant,Jethro. Been trying to say all along that there's far more to climate change than just CO2 and that it has probably a lesser role than natural influences. Got shot down for even suggesting such a thing and probably will again just for agreeing with you, but you really nailed it there. Nice one!

[Optimus Prime]

At the end of the day all this wet weather must be good for the climate? It's helping to abstract the Co2 from the atmosphere (for us to only add more with more cars on the road)

[ribster]

Perhaps I was too brief in my post to explain myself fully.....

Very nice post mate, nicely put.

Edited August 18, 2007 by ribster

[Nick F]

Certainly wouldn't disregard atm underlying natural cycles perhaps tempering the effects of AGW in the next decade or so before AGW's effects become so acute as to over-ride any natural climate variation (though maybe we are starting to see AGW over-riding already, someone may be able to give evidence of this). However, we need to get a few years or more under our belt to show any halt in the spiraling rise in the average UK temperature baseline to say, yes there has been a halt in rising temps and perhaps a phase of cooling, and i would be sceptical until then. Although the CET is a good historical marker for temps in this part of the world, this cooler UK summer is against a global background of above average temperatures covering much of the world's land surfaces during the first half of this year. Even though some land areas in the Southern Hemisphere began the June-August winter season with below average temperatures, it was also the warmest June on record at the South Pole. Not to forget the punishing heat that gripped SE Europe for the last few months.

[osmposm]

Perhaps I was too brief in my post to explain myself fully; I'll try again. There has been a general concensus that any mention of cooling or plateaus being reached, is incorrect............There hasn't been a sudden decline in Co2 emissions, AGW hasn't been drawn to a halt and yet the METO are predicting a ceasation of rising temps; why is this?

1. Jethro, as I've already explained in a post yesterday, what a number of us argued vigorously against was the suggestion that temperatures in the UK had begun to plateau three or four years ago - something that seemed to us to be patently not true. I, for one, have never expressed an opinion on plateaus in world temps, or plateaus that may be commencing now - for the simple reason that I did not and do not know. I do, however, know what temps have been doing here in the last 3 or 4 years.

2. Again as previously mentioned, if you want the MetOffice's view as to why - even within their view of continued Anthropogenic Global Warming - they think world temps may plateau for a couple of years, go to the link that Ribster kindly provided a few days ago for the article in the Guardian that reports it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007.../weather.uknews

Of course there will continue to be natural variations in local and global climate, some of them strong - I'm confused that you think anyone has ever suggested otherwise. What many of us are unhappily convinced of, though, is that the centre line, the average above and below which these fluctuations always occur, continues inexorably upwards.

[Stratos Ferric]

Perhaps I was too brief in my post to explain myself fully; I'll try again. There has been a general concensus that any mention of cooling or plateaus being reached, is incorrect. It's often held up as sceptics clutching at straws or snow lovers clinging to hope that days of yore will come again. There have been numerous posts on the forum which conclude, regardless of short term weather, the overall trend is relentlessly upwards. Now, I'm not for one moment discounting AGW, discrediting the science or saying hah! told you so, it's all natural. But, what I and others on here have pointed out many, many times; natural drivers do come into play and I think their impact has been under-estimated. There hasn't been a sudden decline in Co2 emissions, AGW hasn't been drawn to a halt and yet the METO are predicting a ceasation of rising temps; why is this? If manmade isn't involved then it has to be natural. It sometimes seems that facts have a tendancy to be invoked as and when the mood suits; it's all well and good holding up the CET as the valid measure to show temps are rising relentlessly but should the CET begin to measure cooler temps then it somehow isn't a reflection of the world at large; it's temporal, spatial. Which one is it? The measuring stick against which we measure the influence of AGW and the impact upon our climate; or not? You can't have it both ways. In 1976 there was a climate shift, entirely natural in origin; this shifted temps upwards not only in our part of the world. It is entirely plausible the same could happen again in the opposite direction. It's also entirely possible that the influence of AGW has been over-estimated given that our working knowledge and digital measurements are within the positive global cycle following the climate shift. Ditto taking ice loss in the Arctic in the last thirty years and more so in the last fews years, as being an indication and measurement of AGW. I admit, part of me would like to see cooling temps, snowier winters but not because I have any desire to live in the past or disprove AGW; just to increase awareness, particularly in our part of the world that AGW has been intensely hyped. Our recent hotter than average summers and milder winters is NOT a direct measurement of AGW despite it being widely portrayed as such. If we enter a cooler cycle then a more accurate picture of AGW may become apparent.

Jethro, first up, for the very simple mathematical reasons I laid out earlier it is certainly far too soon to suggest a peak or plateau has been reached. Using a ten year mean the first year in the series in the UK came in at 10.54: therefore, for the ten year trend not to climb this year we would need to finish <10.54. At the start of August we were 4C cumulatively higher than the same point last year, and last year came in just above 10.8. To get from where we are to where we would need to be to have plateaued would require an average of about 9.3C (46.7C cumulatively) for the remaining five months. That last happened as recently as 1993, and three more times in the years since 1925. So, a 1:20 chance overall, or 1:45 if you take the period covered by the last instance. For all intents and purposes it doesn't look likely.

The value for thirty years is even more scary. For the 30 year running average CET to fall this year we'd need to return lower than 1977's CET, 9.48C. Call that 114C cumulatively for the year. To the end of July we were at 74C. That has happened six times in the CET era, so around a 1:60 chance, however given that it happened most recently in 1829 when August landed at 14.3C I wouldn't be putting my shirt on it happening this year.

If you look at the plots I posted last week, admitttedly for CET, the long trend IS relentlessly upwards. The shorter the period average you use the more variable the data becomes because individual years carry more weight. Let me give you another example. Over a very long period the naional lottery main draw balls (6 of them) should have an average summed value of 6 x 25 = 150 (25 being the mean value of all the balls in the machine). The minimum draw is 21 (1,2,3,4,5,6), the maximum is 279. You can try this yourself; go see recent lotto draws and over a short cycle, say 2-3 draws, the total will fluctuate wildly, over ten this fluctuation will flatten, and over, say, 50, it will become very small indeed. Lotto, however, should trend flat, because the values in the machine are exactly the same every week, it is the equivalent of a stable total climate.

As the example graph I post below shows, the global climate generally has not been stable, it has been warming. Even so, we get annual variations. I don't undersand why you carry on saying things like the overall trend is relentlessly upwards. Indeed, in my earlier post I made the very point that this suggested argument is far more a myth created by those arguing against it (i.e. people like you) than it is the point of view of people yo're arguing against. Show me a post I put up where I've sugegsted the trend is remorselessly up. The long trend may be (say the 100 year movig average) but shorter series will fluctuate. If annual variation averages, say, +/- 0.5C (though the window is smaller thanthis recently) either side of it's thirty year mean, then unless the rate of change in overall average is greater than 1.0C per thirty years then across thirty years it is still perfectly possible for the last year to be colder than the firts but for averages and trends to be rising.

Annual variation is NOTHING to do with suddensurges of CO2, or dramatic declines. I really can't uderstand wh you argue as if CO2 is the only factor, not one person on here, of whatever belief re GW, has ever suggested that even though there are a few who seem to carry on as if it has been said.

And of course CET is temporal and spatial. We are enduring a miserable summer; SE Europe has been roasting. Last winter we were very mild; SE Europe was cold. The earth cannot be, simultaneously, everywhere hot or everywhere cool; not all teams that finish in the top five of the football league can win every game every week, but the latter is why we have leagues played over a long season, and the former is why we maintain long averages spread over many sites.

If you can't get your head around the maths there's little point persisting with the discussion, but I'm really not sure that we aren't all agreeing here. There will be dips in short term temperature trend, and it cannot yet be absolutely ruled out that this current (since the late 80s) climb is anything other than a very long period (i.e. occurring less frequently than the length of CET recordings) natural occurrence, however this is starting to look very very unlikely. This year proves nothing - not least (and this is a fact you're grossly ignoring) because at present we're ahead of where we were at the same point last year - well ahead - and last year broke all records. Even if, as looks possible, we have a cooler autumn, we would require another three or four cool years before there could be any robustness in the argument that things have peaked.

To extend the football analogy, the score right now is something like GW 7, blip 0. Blip have, not for the first time in the match got into GW's half, or at least they have broken out of their own penalty area after a long period of pressure on their own goal. Even if they do score from this attack (and they are far from doing so yet, even though GW might be caught with not many men back), it will still be 7-1 to GW.

To argue anything from this year, at this point in the year, other than that we were well overdue some form of correction, is without any real substance.

It's not an emotional argument by the way, it's purely based on the numbers and how they relate to the historical record. I just find it tiresome that the people who rail out the arguments for cold are the ones who tend to get most obviously excited by snow, and who also tend to fail to present any factual argument. It's all very well Laserguy saying "yeah, well argued", but that comment has all the validity of one skinhead smiling at another and saying "well done" to his mate who has just kicked some poor immigrant's head in.

If you're going to insist on persisting with the "plateaued" argument, please try to present some facts because all the ones I'm looking at don't say that - most particularly that last year was the warmest on record in the UK, and nine of the ten warmest have occurred since 1989.

[Bobby]

Jethro, first up, for the very simple mathematical reasons I laid out earlier it is certainly far too soon to suggest a peak or plateau has been reached. Using a ten year mean the first year in the series in the UK came in at 10.54: therefore, for the ten year trend not to climb this year we would need to finish <10.54. At the start of August we were 4C cumulatively higher than the same point last year, and last year came in just above 10.8. To get from where we are to where we would need to be to have plateaued would require an average of about 9.3C (46.7C cumulatively) for the remaining five months. That last happened as recently as 1993, and three more times in the years since 1925. So, a 1:20 chance overall, or 1:45 if you take the period covered by the last instance. For all intents and purposes it doesn't look likely.

The value for thirty years is even more scary. For the 30 year running average CET to fall this year we'd need to return lower than 1977's CET, 9.48C. Call that 114C cumulatively for the year. To the end of July we were at 74C. That has happened six times in the CET era, so around a 1:60 chance, however given that it happened most recently in 1829 when August landed at 14.3C I wouldn't be putting my shirt on it happening this year.

If you look at the plots I posted last week, admitttedly for CET, the long trend IS relentlessly upwards. The shorter the period average you use the more variable the data becomes because individual years carry more weight. Let me give you another example. Over a very long period the naional lottery main draw balls (6 of them) should have an average summed value of 6 x 25 = 150 (25 being the mean value of all the balls in the machine). The minimum draw is 21 (1,2,3,4,5,6), the maximum is 279. You can try this yourself; go see recent lotto draws and over a short cycle, say 2-3 draws, the total will fluctuate wildly, over ten this fluctuation will flatten, and over, say, 50, it will become very small indeed. Lotto, however, should trend flat, because the values in the machine are exactly the same every week, it is the equivalent of a stable total climate.

As the example graph I post below shows, the global climate generally has not been stable, it has been warming. Even so, we get annual variations. I don't undersand why you carry on saying things like the overall trend is relentlessly upwards. Indeed, in my earlier post I made the very point that this suggested argument is far more a myth created by those arguing against it (i.e. people like you) than it is the point of view of people yo're arguing against. Show me a post I put up where I've sugegsted the trend is remorselessly up. The long trend may be (say the 100 year movig average) but shorter series will fluctuate. If annual variation averages, say, +/- 0.5C (though the window is smaller thanthis recently) either side of it's thirty year mean, then unless the rate of change in overall average is greater than 1.0C per thirty years then across thirty years it is still perfectly possible for the last year to be colder than the firts but for averages and trends to be rising.

Annual variation is NOTHING to do with suddensurges of CO2, or dramatic declines. I really can't uderstand wh you argue as if CO2 is the only factor, not one person on here, of whatever belief re GW, has ever suggested that even though there are a few who seem to carry on as if it has been said.

And of course CET is temporal and spatial. We are enduring a miserable summer; SE Europe has been roasting. Last winter we were very mild; SE Europe was cold. The earth cannot be, simultaneously, everywhere hot or everywhere cool; not all teams that finish in the top five of the football league can win every game every week, but the latter is why we have leagues played over a long season, and the former is why we maintain long averages spread over many sites.

If you can't get your head around the maths there's little point persisting with the discussion, but I'm really not sure that we aren't all agreeing here. There will be dips in short term temperature trend, and it cannot yet be absolutely ruled out that this current (since the late 80s) climb is anything other than a very long period (i.e. occurring less frequently than the length of CET recordings) natural occurrence, however this is starting to look very very unlikely. This year proves nothing - not least (and this is a fact you're grossly ignoring) because at present we're ahead of where we were at the same point last year - well ahead - and last year broke all records. Even if, as looks possible, we have a cooler autumn, we would require another three or four cool years before there could be any robustness in the argument that things have peaked.

To extend the football analogy, the score right now is something like GW 7, blip 0. Blip have, not for the first time in the match got into GW's half, or at least they have broken out of their own penalty area after a long period of pressure on their own goal. Even if they do score from this attack (and they are far from doing so yet, even though GW might be caught with not many men back), it will still be 7-1 to GW.

To argue anything from this year, at this point in the year, other than that we were well overdue some form of correction, is without any real substance.

It's not an emotional argument by the way, it's purely based on the numbers and how they relate to the historical record. I just find it tiresome that the people who rail out the arguments for cold are the ones who tend to get most obviously excited by snow, and who also tend to fail to present any factual argument. It's all very well Laserguy saying "yeah, well argued", but that comment has all the validity of one skinhead smiling at another and saying "well done" to his mate who has just kicked some poor immigrant's head in.

If you're going to insist on persisting with the "plateaued" argument, please try to present some facts because all the ones I'm looking at don't say that - most particularly that last year was the warmest on record in the UK, and nine of the ten warmest have occurred since 1989.

Very well said, everything said there is right. In my opinion.

[Rollo]

Stratos has got a point Tamara but at the risk of upsetting him I still think this coming winter will be a much colder one (maybe he will get snowed in on stratosmoor).

[laserguy]

Hey,I wasn't the only one to agree with Jethro y'know SF,so why single me out?! At times it seems as if this entire discussion is being approached with the fervour of religious zealots,desperately trying to convince the 'other side' that their viewpoint is the right one and that they won't be happy until the 'other side' has conceded defeat upon that one piece of evidence which settles the matter once and for all. We know that's not going to happen though,because as far as I can tell we're all aware of the facts and figures but it's such a close call that our eventual conclusion as an individual is decided upon by our bias and hunches. It's like being presented with four possible answers on WWTBAM,though you might not have a clue what the correct one is you may be inexplicably drawn to one of them.

The fact of the matter is this,and there's absolutely no point denying it whatsoever: no one is right,no one is wrong because we just don't know. Get all the world's supercomputers and multiply their power a hundred fold etc etc and the likelyhood is their predictions of any natural process will me wrong. Of course I understand your case regarding trends,but they are and can only be just that:trends. There's nothing to say that trend cannot be suddenly reversed. Or are you going to tell me that's never happened before?

This discussion should be fun,let's keep it that way instead of treating the matter of who is right and who is wrong as a matter of grave importance. SF,someone agreed heartily with your post. Does that mean that he too can be compared with the ridiculous analogy of the immigrant bashing skinheads,or does it only apply when someone has a different point of view?

Roll on the coming cool down. (I'm getting the crash helmet out right now)!

[Stratos Ferric]

Stratos has got a point Tamara but at the risk of upsetting him I still think this coming winter will be a much colder one (maybe he will get snowed in on stratosmoor).

If SSTs stay low, it could well be. The background warming in the climate in the last 100 years is about 1C, the range of inter-annual variation across thirty years is running at around 2C: short term variation ALWAYS (and will always) has a larger amplitude than long-term warming. Furthermore, the ten year running mean is at around its historic ceiling c.f. differential from the 30 year mean meaning that the current warming is too far ahead of trend and leaving only two possible conclusions. Either we're due a downward dip sometime soon (or at least a pause in the recent climb) OR we really are at a turning point where the rate of change in our climate is accelerating. It's not clear cut either way, but fornow, with lower SSTs to our SW than we've had for 2-3 years a cooler winter half is shorter odds than it's been since 2004.

[ribster]

This discussion should be fun,let's keep it that way instead of treating the matter of who is right and who is wrong as a matter of grave importance. SF,someone agreed heartily with your post. Does that mean that he too can be compared with the ridiculous analogy of the immigrant bashing skinheads,or does it only apply when someone has a different point of view?

Roll on the coming cool down. (I'm getting the crash helmet out right now)!

Couldn't agree more on the nature of what the forum should be about. I don't care what resources or tools someone has at their disposal, they can only make predictions, they cannot know without question, what will be happening in 100, 500 or 1000 years time. Yes, we appear to be warming for now, and the reasons for that are far from clear, no more to be said than that.

Very well said, everything said there is right. In my opinion.

Magpie, I don't want to be rude, but we would have got the message without quoting the entire post like that, bit of a waste of space and scrolling really.