General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[Thundery wintry showers]

We are still waiting for a cold winter followed by a cold summer- the most recent occurrence happened way back in 1987. Last summer was not cold- the average maxima were below average in parts of NW and SW Britain but this was more than offset by high minima, while in the east both maxima and minima were above average.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Hasn't felt warm in the 'summer' here for the last 3 years. But anyway, as I said, it was pretty hypothetical, but the way most ice ages get going is a cold winter followed by a cold summer, as the ice doesn't retreat as much and so on and so forth.

[PeteG]

[quote name='Dartmoor_Matt' date='15 February 2010 - 17:54 ' timestamp='1266256493' post='17755

I'm not going to go and dig out the information, I've read it already, but I'd of thought it was entirely plausible to have one winter with cold temperatures and then a cold summer and hey presto.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

The year without a summer (1816) didn't trigger an ice age.

Hence the "so on and so forth"

Oh, and if you are going to quote me, do it properly.

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't think anyone's trying to have a 'go' Matt, it's just that we haven't had a succession of 'cold' seasons. AGW's continuation seems to rely upon high Min's not extreme max's and most of us are abed when the Min's occur.....

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I didn't think they were, but it was a mis-quote non the less

I guess I'm just intrigued to see two years with 1 in 30 year events in a row and whats been happening to 'buck the trend' in some parts of the NH.

[Gray-Wolf]

I didn't think they were, but it was a mis-quote non the less

I guess I'm just intrigued to see two years with 1 in 30 year events in a row and whats been happening to 'buck the trend' in some parts of the NH.

It's like Pittsburg with it's 2, '100yr snow storms', back to back over the last 4 weeks but then AGW is supposed to bring 'extreme' storms more frequently is it not???

When I ask the same about heavy rain storms over the UK folk don't seem that interested but turn it into snow and they imagine all kind of stuff......

The fact we are seeing '100yr' events a few years apart means ,to me, that we are starting to experience the start of the climate shift to come.

As I feel now a repeat of 03's summer (or 76's summer) is long overdue!!!

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I'd love a hot summer, if only because the last 3 have been rubbish for doing what we love best... camping and surfing down in Cornwall, well the surfs been fine, but the rain :lol:

We shall see though, I'm not going to hold my breath

[sunny starry skies]

Just read the last couple of pages of posts and had to laugh. I'm disappointed the whole discussion has degraded once more, and it has nothing to do with somebody's 'qualifications' on the subject. Strawmen and ad homs all over the place!

I thought we'd been over the whole 'weather is different to climate' thing properly by now . And I also thought that the people that should understand the difference between the weather you see "out of your own window" and the globally averaged temperatures... would be those you find on a 'weather' forum.

1) climate/weather anomalies are not spatially uniform. I liked TWS's analogy to increased snowiness on the land areas marginal for snow. What's the snowcover map you'd expect where cold areas are warmer than average (Arctic), marginal areas are colder than average (UK, N Europe, USA), and warm areas are warmer than average (tropics, Med). And what's the global temperature anomaly associated with that. I think you'd find that would be an unusually warm, but surprisingly white world (or NH)! Oddly enough, that's exactly where the cold and warm anomalies have been...

2) the climate is warming on a trend, but there is still the natural variation about the mean. This entirely allows for exceptional weather events, that break cold/snowy records. But we would expect that more warm records are being broken than cold ones if the climate is warming. And this is exactly what you find.

Been watching the Winter Olympics. All those people screaming about the cold weather... Funny that the snowboard cross track was flanked by bare and patchy pistes, considerably worse than the Scottish ski resorts. Must be they are having some warm weather

Anyways, all global temperature records are showing the unusual warmth of the last few months, and no they don't come from the same temperature datasets. So it's not really in question, just requires people to realise the globe is rather larger than their garden.

Interesting thoughts about colder winters in a warming world though. We have on one side natural weather patterns (like those that have operated in the past, e.g. 1963), encouraging cooler winter weather (though summers seem just as warm, just without the exceptional highs) to our shores. The world is warmer, which is at least part of the reason why this year didn't break the low temp records or really match the great cold winteres of our past. Alternatively, and I think G-W posted this idea a while back, it may be that the warming Arctic is not as good at keeping the cold air locked up in the usual regions. When it spills out (even if it's not as cold as it once was), it gives the 'marginal regions' of the Northern Hemisphere cold winters. This would be tesatable if the weather patterns over the Arctic are unprecedented, and recur in coming years.

sss

Edited February 17, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Nothing to laugh about really. It was stated that weather is a measure of climate over time. A given trend in climate will determine the weather types and patterns experienced over time and it will either modify or enhance weather types and patterns at each end of the scale according to which direction the climate is going (warming or cooling) That is not the same as referring to specific weather events in isolation ie in the here and now which is what you have, rather, twisted it to have inferred.

However, with all that said, if the 'best science' points to potential doomsday warming scenarios on the one hand, but then still seeks to normalise disruptive freezes and snowfalls on the other, over time as part and parcel of blips in the assumed continued warming trend then where does that leave the future? How long, in the eyes of AGW, is it sustainable to continue over time? Perhaps it is the case, as Roger suggested in his very well set out post, that the type of extremes as seen of late, punch right through the suggested capping imposed by any superimposed runaway artificial assumed warming (ie over and above the assumed limited threshold of natural variablity) and the case for such superimposition is therefore, at the very least, much overstated? The half degree of warming over the last century afterall, has been almost entirely due to cyclical variations and much of the supposition regarding AGW assumed forcings and positive feedbacks is that the effects of man will accelerate this mainly natural trend in the future. On that basis it is assumed AGW will override changes in cyclical patterns that switch to exibit negative feedbacks. Even if we were to accept the premise of AGW, it additonally also assumes that a greater number of positive feedbacks exist within the forcings of AGW than maybe is the case in reality and relies on this to produce the runaway warming projections as suggested by the especially more bullish IPCC solutions. Even the lower one's of around 2c suggest something quite drastic quite soon which is going to surely eradicate the 'dying race' of winter freezes quite smartish if it is anywhere near the truth.

In further 'other words', such warming hasn't happened yet and requires the verification of the supposition and theory in terms of what might happen from now on to verify. Alas, perhaps the weather types and patterns and invidual weather events as seen over time will continue to obfuscate and frustrate the expectations of 'best science' ? Perhaps global freezes etc are not becoming as infrequent (nor will do in the future) as suggested purely because natural variation is playing a bigger hand than 'best science' believes is the case? That is a 'what if' no different to the supposition attached to artifical runaway warming.

So as stated - AGW creates lots of suppositions around a raft of theorised positive feedbacks (which may not exist) and creates 'what if' scenarios through the IPCC computer simulations as suggested evidence that man causes climate change. There is no obligation for others who do not subscribe to the theory that attempts to reinforce these supposed feedbacks to try and challenge what amounts to, just that,a supposition. Your answer repeats that best science supports AGW and as such that justifies such an obligation. Does it though? Is that not just an expected reinforcement statement to back the theory and try and force others into the same line? Much like any sales outlet business will advertise its brand name on the basis that everyone should buy the product? As long as the expectation exists that everyone should 'buy' into this unconditionally, then the circle will never stop (and it actually serves to put people off buying)

Disappointment works both ways you see.

Round and round it goes....

Edited February 17, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Solar Cycles]

Nothing to laugh about really. It was stated that weather is a measure of climate over time. A given trend in climate will determine the weather types and patterns experienced over time and it will either modify or enhance weather types and patterns at each end of the scale according to which direction the climate is going (warming or cooling) That is not the same as referring to specific weather events in isolation ie in the here and now which is what you have, rather, twisted it to have inferred.

However, with all that said, if the 'best science' points to potential doomsday warming scenarios on the one hand, but then still seeks to normalise disruptive freezes and snowfalls on the other, over time as part and parcel of blips in the assumed continued warming trend then where does that leave the future? How long, in the eyes of AGW, is it sustainable to continue over time? Perhaps it is the case, as Roger suggested in his very well set out post, that the type of extremes as seen of late, punch right through the suggested capping imposed by any superimposed runaway artificial assumed warming (ie over and above the assumed limited threshold of natural variablity) and the case for such superimposition is therefore, at the very least, much overstated? The half degree of warming over the last century afterall, has been almost entirely due to cyclical variations and much of the supposition regarding AGW assumed forcings and positive feedbacks is that the effects of man will accelerate this mainly natural trend in the future. On that basis it is assumed AGW will override changes in cyclical patterns that switch to exibit negative feedbacks. Even if we were to accept the premise of AGW, it additonally also assumes that a greater number of positive feedbacks exist within the forcings of AGW than maybe is the case in reality and relies on this to produce the runaway warming projections as suggested by the especially more bullish IPCC solutions. Even the lower one's of around 2c suggest something quite drastic quite soon which is going to surely eradicate the 'dying race' of winter freezes quite smartish if it is anywhere near the truth.

In further 'other words', such warming hasn't happened yet and requires the verification of the supposition and theory in terms of what might happen from now on to verify. Alas, perhaps the weather types and patterns and invidual weather events as seen over time will continue to obfuscate and frustrate the expectations of 'best science' ? Perhaps global freezes etc are not becoming as infrequent (nor will do in the future) as suggested purely because natural variation is playing a bigger hand than 'best science' believes is the case? That is a 'what if' no different to the supposition attached to artifical runaway warming.

So as stated - AGW creates lots of suppositions around a raft of theorised positive feedbacks (which may not exist) and creates 'what if' scenarios through the IPCC computer simulations as suggested evidence that man causes climate change. There is no obligation for others who do not subscribe to the theory that attempts to reinforce these supposed feedbacks to try and challenge what amounts to, just that,a supposition. Your answer repeats that best science supports AGW and as such that justifies such an obligation. Does it though? Is that not just an expected reinforcement statement to back the theory and try and force others into the same line? Much like any sales outlet business will advertise its brand name on the basis that everyone should buy the product? As long as the expectation exists that everyone should 'buy' into this unconditionally, then the circle will never stop (and it actually serves to put people off buying)

Disappointment works both ways you see.

Round and round it goes....

Good Post Tamara, lot's for sss to ponder on. Though I doubt very much he will, after all being part of the AGW school of thought, leaves little in the way of backtracking. It's a case of, the evidence is indisputable, even when their bold past predictions of winters will become and warmer and wetter, fall by the wayside within a couple of years.

So we get the same old same old, global temps are rising, but the overall evidence for this shows no warming for over 13 years.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Nothing to laugh about really. It was stated that weather is a measure of climate over time. A given trend in climate will determine the weather types and patterns experienced over time and it will either modify or enhance weather types and patterns at each end of the scale according to which direction the climate is going (warming or cooling) That is not the same as referring to specific weather events in isolation ie in the here and now which is what you have, rather, twisted it to have inferred.

There have been plenty of posts in here which have pointed to various cold events over the Northern Hemisphere as "evidence" for a global cooling trend. Yet at best, the trend over the last decade has been level, and if we see record or near-record months globally this year despite a weaker El Nino than in 1998, it will strongly imply that the underlying trend is still upward.

However, with all that said, if the 'best science' points to potential doomsday warming scenarios on the one hand, but then still seeks to normalise disruptive freezes and snowfalls on the other, over time as part and parcel of blips in the assumed continued warming trend then where does that leave the future? How long, in the eyes of AGW, is it sustainable to continue over time? Perhaps it is the case, as Roger suggested in his very well set out post, that the type of extremes as seen of late, punch right through the suggested capping imposed by any superimposed runaway artificial assumed warming (ie over and above the assumed limited threshold of natural variablity) and the case for such superimposition is therefore, at the very least, much overstated? The half degree of warming over the last century afterall, has been almost entirely due to cyclical variations and much of the supposition regarding AGW assumed forcings and positive feedbacks is that the effects of man will accelerate this mainly natural trend in the future.

What exactly are disruptive freezes and snowfalls proving when the global mean temperature continues at near record levels? Simply that the weather sees short-term natural variability either side of the average. Regarding "the half degree of warming over the last century has been almost entirely due to cyclical variations" - evidence please? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that cyclical factors have contributed, but very little to suggest that they account for a large percentage of the warming, I'm afraid.

On that basis it is assumed AGW will override changes in cyclical patterns that switch to exibit negative feedbacks. Even if we were to accept the premise of AGW, it additonally also assumes that a greater number of positive feedbacks exist within the forcings of AGW than maybe is the case in reality and relies on this to produce the runaway warming projections as suggested by the especially more bullish IPCC solutions. Even the lower one's of around 2c suggest something quite drastic quite soon which is going to surely eradicate the 'dying race' of winter freezes quite smartish if it is anywhere near the truth.

A warming of 3 to 6C would certainly require an acceleration of the current trend, but not so much 2C. The recent trend has been roughly 0.15C per decade.

So as stated - AGW creates lots of suppositions around a raft of theorised positive feedbacks (which may not exist) and creates 'what if' scenarios through the IPCC computer simulations as suggested evidence that man causes climate change. There is no obligation for others who do not subscribe to the theory that attempts to reinforce these supposed feedbacks to try and challenge what amounts to, just that,a supposition. Your answer repeats that best science supports AGW and as such that justifies such an obligation. Does it though? Is that not just an expected reinforcement statement to back the theory and try and force others into the same line? Much like any sales outlet business will advertise its brand name on the basis that everyone should buy the product? As long as the expectation exists that everyone should 'buy' into this unconditionally, then the circle will never stop (and it actually serves to put people off buying)

Round and round it goes....

Sunny Starry Skies addressed the point regarding "theorised positive feedbacks" pretty well, but I guess you would rather ignore those points SSS made, instead preferring to restate and restate your position until SSS finally gives up, as they pose a significant threat to the viability of some of your theories on AGW? To complain about being challenged on one's views (claiming that they are being "forced"), yet be very dismissive of other views at the same time, is a rather hypocritical stance. This isn't about finding the truth, rather protecting personal opinions against the possibility of them being proven wide of the mark.

This kind of opinionated stance, on both sides, is why the debate goes around in circles- if we have two sides entrenched in strong views where neither side are willing to give an inch to the other, or to anything in between, and prefer to ignore, or address strawman misrepresentations of, any views that challenge the viability of their own stances, then of course debate never gets anywhere. The solution is for both sides to become a little less opinionated and more objective.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Thundery wintry showers

[Gray-Wolf]

If the cold we have been experiencing was an expansion of a cold pole you may have a point NSSC but ,seeing as we've had temps across the pole of 10 to 15c above normal, it would appear that our 'cold' cost the pole its 'cold'.

If we did not need the pole to act as our air con unit then no harm done.Sadly we do need the pole as our planetary air con unit and the poor refreeze/fragmented mobile ice that the -ve AO brought with it has lurched us closer to a seasonal pack. This, in my humblest of opinions, is far too greater price to pay for a bit of winter fun in Europe/U.S.

The record global temps we have been logging the past 8 months do not, in any way, point to a cooling planet. Are we to play the 'blind men and the elephant' game and call our back yard 'the world' or are we to look at the broader picture?

[Gray-Wolf]

This kind of opinionated stance, on both sides, is why the debate goes around in circles- if we have two sides entrenched in strong views where neither side are willing to give an inch to the other, or to anything in between, and prefer to ignore, or address strawman misrepresentations of, any views that challenge the viability of their own stances, then of course debate never gets anywhere. The solution is for both sides to become a little less opinionated and more objective.

Surely this is only true were we are not in the process, via our science, of expanding our understanding of the climate and measuring the ongoing changes we see there?

In time it will be most obvious whose personal projection of the future was the better one.

The skeptics may well wish to say the debate is circular but that is only a 2 dimensional view of what, in reality, is a spiral. Week in, week out we recieve more and more data on the changes that are occuring and the processes that we feel most likely drive them. Week by week, month by month, we draw closer to a definative answer.

As many folk already know I adhere to the notion of 'tipping points' and rapid climate shift as a consequence of breaching them. We are warned that climate change will manifest first across the polar regions so maybe folk should look for data that shows change occuring there or for papers that show that it is not?

Edited February 17, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Solar Cycles]

If the cold we have been experiencing was an expansion of a cold pole you may have a point NSSC but ,seeing as we've had temps across the pole of 10 to 15c above normal, it would appear that our 'cold' cost the pole its 'cold'.

If we did not need the pole to act as our air con unit then no harm done.Sadly we do need the pole as our planetary air con unit and the poor refreeze/fragmented mobile ice that the -ve AO brought with it has lurched us closer to a seasonal pack. This, in my humblest of opinions, is far too greater price to pay for a bit of winter fun in Europe/U.S.

The record global temps we have been logging the past 8 months do not, in any way, point to a cooling planet. Are we to play the 'blind men and the elephant' game and call our back yard 'the world' or are we to look at the broader picture?

13 years and no GLOBAL warming, only static temps. So it's the blind leading the blind then!

[Thundery wintry showers]

If the cold we have been experiencing was an expansion of a cold pole you may have a point NSSC but ,seeing as we've had temps across the pole of 10 to 15c above normal, it would appear that our 'cold' cost the pole its 'cold'.

I agree with much of what you say re. warming planet, but the bit in bold is an exaggeration- it was true in the winters of 2005 and 2006, but this winter, the anomaly has been more like +5C. Still large, but not as large as the 10-15C quoted, hence the fact that our northerlies have been colder than that of 13 February 2005.

[Gray-Wolf]

I agree with much of what you say re. warming planet, but the bit in bold is an exaggeration- it was true in the winters of 2005 and 2006, but this winter, the anomaly has been more like +5C. Still large, but not as large as the 10-15C quoted, hence the fact that our northerlies have been colder than that of 13 February 2005.

http://explorersweb.com/polar/news.php?id=19105

Only an article but the meteorologist says;

"Having made his decision Jim asked for a comment from Wayne Davidson, Resolute Bay's chief meteorologist working for Environment Canada and this was his reply:

"One word, horrible. These are the worst conditions since I have been in the Arctic, (going on 30 years, now).

The entire thing is falling apart; sea ice extent at present is less than 2007 (the worst year ever for the ice).

As you can see from the satellite image, the leads are everywhere over the Arctic Ocean; at all locations. There is probably loose pack ice all throughout the NW passage, which is highly unusual at this time of year! Especially when it's windy. Temperatures are way off the charts; warmish. + 10 to +15 C above normal. At times seasonal, but reverting always to crazy warm." "

[Thundery wintry showers]

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_90b.fnl.html

+4-6C over most of the Arctic over the last 90 days.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_30b.fnl.html

More like +3C on average over the last 30 days.

There are very specific areas, notably Svalbard, that genuinely have been 10-15C above normal, but the 10-15C anomalies are nothing like as widespread over the Arctic as they were in the winters of 2004/05 and 2005/06.

However the article does make reference to the strongly negative AO as a major contributory factor to the poor ice conditions there, which it may well be.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Aside from that, as far as I know, the only things being said on here regarding areas of the NH being colder are just that. Is it/It is possible for these areas to trend colder without the rest of the globe doing so.

Accelerated warming in the last 60 years can be linked to a much more active sun in the sametime period, so there is one 'other' possibility without even engaging half of a braincell.

Funny, was talking about this at work, and a straw poll suggested 100% of peope didn't believe in our being responsible for the warming, and even if we were seeing much of said warming in the UK.

[jethro]

The forum has an option to send personal messages to other members, threads are for general discussions; please use the pm option for the more personal conversations directed at individuals.

Many thanks

[Thundery wintry showers]

Aside from that, as far as I know, the only things being said on here regarding areas of the NH being colder are just that. Is it/It is possible for these areas to trend colder without the rest of the globe doing so.

Accelerated warming in the last 60 years can be linked to a much more active sun in the sametime period, so there is one 'other' possibility without even engaging half of a braincell.

Funny, was talking about this at work, and a straw poll suggested 100% of peope didn't believe in our being responsible for the warming, and even if we were seeing much of said warming in the UK.

It is definitely possible for some areas of the world to cool while the world as a whole warms- this is why many speculate that the Medieval Warm Period might have been specific to the Northern Hemisphere (which of course ties in with the questions over whether the recent global warmth is without precedent for at least a thousand years). But the fact is, the global temperatures have at best stayed consistent over the last decade so we are not yet experiencing any global cooling.

VillagePlank posted some links and papers regarding the solar activity over the 20th century. The solar activity showed a marked rise early in the century (more than 60 years ago) and then it stayed at a high level ever since. The solar activity peaks correlated fairly well with the warming events of 1910-1940 but not with the last 30 years, but VP (and C.Bob) are looking into the possibility of that being explicable using the leaky integrator- with regards which I am reserving judgement but looking on with interest.

[sunny starry skies]

Nothing to laugh about really. It was stated that weather is a measure of climate over time. A given trend in climate will determine the weather types and patterns experienced over time and it will either modify or enhance weather types and patterns at each end of the scale according to which direction the climate is going (warming or cooling) That is not the same as referring to specific weather events in isolation ie in the here and now which is what you have, rather, twisted it to have inferred.

However, with all that said, if the 'best science' points to potential doomsday warming scenarios on the one hand, but then still seeks to normalise disruptive freezes and snowfalls on the other, over time as part and parcel of blips in the assumed continued warming trend then where does that leave the future? How long, in the eyes of AGW, is it sustainable to continue over time? Perhaps it is the case, as Roger suggested in his very well set out post, that the type of extremes as seen of late, punch right through the suggested capping imposed by any superimposed runaway artificial assumed warming (ie over and above the assumed limited threshold of natural variablity) and the case for such superimposition is therefore, at the very least, much overstated? The half degree of warming over the last century afterall, has been almost entirely due to cyclical variations and much of the supposition regarding AGW assumed forcings and positive feedbacks is that the effects of man will accelerate this mainly natural trend in the future. On that basis it is assumed AGW will override changes in cyclical patterns that switch to exibit negative feedbacks. Even if we were to accept the premise of AGW, it additonally also assumes that a greater number of positive feedbacks exist within the forcings of AGW than maybe is the case in reality and relies on this to produce the runaway warming projections as suggested by the especially more bullish IPCC solutions. Even the lower one's of around 2c suggest something quite drastic quite soon which is going to surely eradicate the 'dying race' of winter freezes quite smartish if it is anywhere near the truth.

In further 'other words', such warming hasn't happened yet and requires the verification of the supposition and theory in terms of what might happen from now on to verify. Alas, perhaps the weather types and patterns and invidual weather events as seen over time will continue to obfuscate and frustrate the expectations of 'best science' ? Perhaps global freezes etc are not becoming as infrequent (nor will do in the future) as suggested purely because natural variation is playing a bigger hand than 'best science' believes is the case? That is a 'what if' no different to the supposition attached to artifical runaway warming.

So as stated - AGW creates lots of suppositions around a raft of theorised positive feedbacks (which may not exist) and creates 'what if' scenarios through the IPCC computer simulations as suggested evidence that man causes climate change. There is no obligation for others who do not subscribe to the theory that attempts to reinforce these supposed feedbacks to try and challenge what amounts to, just that,a supposition. Your answer repeats that best science supports AGW and as such that justifies such an obligation. Does it though? Is that not just an expected reinforcement statement to back the theory and try and force others into the same line? Much like any sales outlet business will advertise its brand name on the basis that everyone should buy the product? As long as the expectation exists that everyone should 'buy' into this unconditionally, then the circle will never stop (and it actually serves to put people off buying)

Disappointment works both ways you see.

Round and round it goes....

Care to support any of your conjecture with evidence?

TWS has dealt with most points. You make so many statements suggesting that AGW is 'assumed' on this or that or the other, yet it's based on very solid physics and direct observation, and observation of predicted effects. Future projections are uncertain, and nobody has hidden that, but there is excellent agreement from both palaeocliamte and modelling on the sensitivity range to doubled CO2. Remind me, again, how you get the observed glaciations without having a world sensitive to CO2 changes?

"global freezes", NSSC? You mean the last two record and near record warm months globally?

Please point me to where climate scientists are suggesting that it's impossible to have cold weather/cold winters regionally? I am aware of no such research. Record-breaking cold is less likely, while record-breaking warmth is more likely, but it does not preclude the possibility of a perfect weather set-up producing remarkable cold. I do believe that the amount of drooling on the model output discussions would be a decent indicator of just how good the weather set-up was for UK-wide cold and snow.

See my previous postings on feedbacks. You really don't like the idea that positive feedback may operate faster than negative feedbacks, but you're unable to suggest why those feedbacks shouldn't operate, or what the mythical negative feedbacks are that will magically prevent us from warming the planet (beyond the century-scale reabsorption of CO2). But some evidence of some sort would be nice to support your stance?

Global temperatures aren't warming, SC? Funny, that I can't find a graph that shows this. Please show me a graph of temperatures in which the last 10 years of temperature observations (2000-2009) fall outside the expected range, given a linear projection, through the previous 20 years (1980-1999). We've not broken any records since 1998 (or 2005 if you include the Arctic), but that is also precisely what you would expect of a rising temperature that does not rise smoothly, year-on-year. Here's the answer, BTW:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/

You only have so long that you can hold onto an exceptional El Nino as your origin point, so enjoy it while you can, because the underlying trend hasn't changed in 15 years.

sss

[Dartmoor_Matt]

This isn't some kind or competition, its just various people giving various opinions on what they see/think/believe is happening.

For example, I go surfing in the sea off Cornwall and have done for many years, I can't say I've noticed the sea getting any warmer, nor the temperatures on shore likewise, ergo, from my point of view there is little to suggest this warming is taking place, indeed 12 years ago when I was taking my GCSEs it seemed a lot warmer than it has over those last 12 years, IMBY I know, but isn't that the point, MBY does make up part of this globe.

[sunny starry skies]

This isn't some kind or competition, its just various people giving various opinions on what they see/think/believe is happening.

For example, I go surfing in the sea off Cornwall and have done for many years, I can't say I've noticed the sea getting any warmer, nor the temperatures on shore likewise, ergo, from my point of view there is little to suggest this warming is taking place, indeed 12 years ago when I was taking my GCSEs it seemed a lot warmer than it has over those last 12 years, IMBY I know, but isn't that the point, MBY does make up part of this globe.

Yes, but opinion gets us nowhere, and runs the risk of seriously misinforming other people. Even some sort of evidence to back up some of the spurious claims of 'no warming' or, 'CO2 not responsible' would be nice, after all, people should have some solid basis for having their opinion. If your opinion is based on whether you feel cold when you jump into the sea, then please forgive me for not taking your opinions as seriously as others! Hopefully your opinion is based on more than just that.

For example, looking at:

http://www.cefas.co.uk/data/sea-temperature-and-salinity-trends.aspx

http://www.cefas.co.uk/data/sea-temperature-and-salinity-trends/presentation-of-results/station-24-weymouth.aspx

There's not much evidence for significant cooling post-1998, and the Weymouth data (the nearest one with a long enough timeseries) contradicts your 'feel'.

I think Edinburgh feels colder over the last few years, but I'm not taking into account overnight minima, or instrumental observations that are far superior to "it feels colder" or "it feels warmer". And of course Edinburgh's temperatures over a few years have a fractional effect on global climate. It may have been remarkably warm in Yellowknife, Borneo and Timbuktu, but I can't see them outside my kitchen window, but I understand that to get a picture of global climate, I need to know what's been going on in other regions of the world far beyond MBY.

sss

Edited February 17, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I'm pretty sure the point being made was that its not the "jumping in the sea" once that counts, but the 16 years of it. Had I known that sometime in the future I would be posting on some forum about climate change I would of made sure to take the temperature, but I didn't, so I can't.

Oh, and it's always pretty warm in Timbuktu, being in the middle of the Sahara n all, but its really dull there.