« Previous | Main | Next »

How the Arctic may be impacting UK summers

Paul Hudson | 12:48 UK time, Monday, 17 December 2012

We may have to get used to wet summers like we've seen recently across the UK, according Dr Edward Hanna from Sheffield University in an interview which you can see on Inside Out and Look North tonight.

According to Dr Hanna and an international team of scientists, melting summer Arctic ice may be weakening the jet stream, leading it to meander and become slow moving.

This effectively means that weather patterns become locked in for long periods of time.

The jet stream is a ribbon of strong winds high up in the atmosphere, a result of the temperature contrast between northern latitudes towards the Arctic, and latitudes further south.

Because the Arctic is warming faster than any other region on earth, this temperature contrast is getting weaker, leading to a less powerful jet stream in summer.

Crucial to the UK and Northwest Europe is Greenland, a huge mountanous land-mass which can act as a barrier to the jet stream.

If the jet stream is weaker than normal, two things can happen.

It can either split, with one arm going northeastwards, with the other travelling southeastwards towards the UK.

Or the whole jet stream can be deflected southeastwards towards the UK.

The result in both cases would be wet, cool, unsettled conditions as we have seen since 2007.

Not every summer is likely to be poor.

The slow-moving jet stream may become positioned to the north of us, leading to warm settled conditions.

But because of our position relative to Greenland, these summers are likely to be the exception to the rule.

Dr Hanna says if this theory is correct and summer Arctic ice melt continues, there is also likely to be a higher risk of extreme rainfall events such as we have experienced in 2007 and again this year.

The research, which was carried out jointly by experts from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Rutgers University, University of Washington, and the University of Sheffield, was published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

You can see more on this on BBC Look North from Leeds, on BBC1 at 6.30pm, (Sky channel 956, Freesat 966) or on BBC1's Inside Out at 7.30pm (Sky 956 & 957, Freesat 966 & 967).

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Didn't we recently hear of something similar from the solar experts, (low activity influences jetstream) or am I getting this mixed up with Stephen Wilde's ideas?

  • Comment number 2.

    As far as I am concerned, there is a new theory, every time the weather refuses to follow the predictions from the previous theory.
    We were told that "global warming" would result in mild/wet winters and hot/dry summers, until we got the opposite, so a new theory is produced to match the latest weather pattern.
    We will go back to the old theory as soon as we have a hot summer.
    One day they will realise that there is no pattern and it's all just random.

  • Comment number 3.

    @2, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “ As far as I am concerned, there is a new theory, every time the weather refuses to follow the predictions from the previous theory. “

    This is a modest improvement on the behaviour of the true AGW hard-liners who claim the real-world data must be wrong if it doesn't agree with their models.

  • Comment number 4.

    #1 lateintheday

    Is this what you were thinking of?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15199065

  • Comment number 5.

    Looks like it ukpahonta. Thanks

  • Comment number 6.

    James Lawrence Powell of the National Science Board looks at 13,950 peer reviewed climate articles published between 1991-2012. 24 reject Global Warming. In other words, a whopping 0.017%.

    Strange then that those 0.017% should keep reminding us that 0.040 ppm is negligible.

    BTW Paul Hudson. Good article tonight. There's hope for humankind yet.

  • Comment number 7.

    My bad - 0.17%. Still?

  • Comment number 8.

    #6. - theelasticjesuz wrote:
    "James Lawrence Powell of the National Science Board looks at 13,950 peer reviewed climate articles published between 1991-2012. 24 reject Global Warming. In other words, a whopping 0.017%. "
    Which proves absolutely nothing.
    If you had asked most astronomers at the time of Galileo, whether the Earth went around the sun, the vast majority would have said that was not the case.
    Have you heard of "peer group pressure"?

  • Comment number 9.

    NCDC/NOAA global temperature anomalies for November:
    Global = 0.679c (+0.0578c)
    N.H. = 0.7653c (+0.1088c)
    S.H. = 0.5951 (-0.0024c)

    The changes are relative to the October figures published last month, although in the case of global and N.H. figures, they have been revised upwards since last month.
    The N.H. increase is similar to that in GISS, which showed a fall in S.H. compared to little change in NCDC/NOAA, resulting in a global increase in the latter, which means it is out of step with the other datasets so far published.
    The overall increase seems to be the result of an increase in NH and SH land surface temperatures, while sea surface temperatures have fallen in both hemispheres, at least according to the revised figures in the files.

    The above are equivalent to 0.541c, 0.675c and 0.419c, after adjustment to 1961-90.

    Still waiting for HadSST2 figures for November, but the MO site seems to have problems at the moment.

  • Comment number 10.

    Sorry, the full global figure should be 0.6795c.

  • Comment number 11.

    "According to Dr Hanna and an international team of scientists, melting summer Arctic ice may be weakening the jet stream . . . . . Dr Hanna says if this theory is correct".

    Is this 'looking for correlation to something . . . anything' or is there some really hard evidence - I rather doubt it is the latter the key word is IF - if only my lotto numbers would all come up at once!

  • Comment number 12.

    "Not every summer is likely to be poor. ..."

    In other words - we'll get mainly wet summers, with the occasional warm, dry one - or pretty much like the weather we've had for the last 100 years or so.

    My observations: (a) The long range weather forecasts (by the Met Office) are so vague and cover-any-possibility as to be worthless. (b) The times when researchers like these are bang on the nail are as rare as a hot British summer. The AGW fanatics have been so hopelessly out, these last few years that just about every alarmist headline now, is followed by a qualification such as that above - meaning the whole prediction could have just as accurately have been made by a five year old.

    I'll make my own forecast now: In future, every report of the dire consequences of predicted global warming (sorry - not used any more, is it?) 'climate change' will end with the qualification "... But much more research needs to be done...."

    Cui bono ...

  • Comment number 13.

    On the recent CH4 "propumentary" (I wonder if I can get that name to be popular?), Dr. Simon Boxall of Southampton University mentioned a theory that in the U.K., we might get "colder, harsher winters", as a result of increasing global temperatures, due to the changes or "wobbles" in the gulf stream as a result of melting arctic ice. This would result in a "scandanavian" climate, rather than a "tropical" one. However, immediately after this, the narrator said "Dr Boxall is keen to point out that this is by no means a certainty".

  • Comment number 14.

    Enjoyed and rather go along with #12 & 13

    Thought the inside out feature was mainly a review of 2012/2007 - didn't let the camera linger too long on the upper air charts!

  • Comment number 15.

    #14. - chris wrote:
    "Thought the inside out feature was mainly a review of 2012/2007 - didn't let the camera linger too long on the upper air charts!"

    Are you referring to "Inside Out" on BBC t.v.?
    Different subjects in different regions.

  • Comment number 16.

    'James Lawrence Powell of the National Science Board looks at 13,950 peer reviewed climate articles published between 1991-2012. 24 reject Global Warming.'

    Wow, I'm impressed with the depth of authority and the extreme effort employed by that well payed individual.

    Lord Monckton cites 450 papers in his role as voluntary IPCC reviewer:
    http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/AR5_Expert_Review_Lord_Monckton_Foundation_20121216.pdf

    Perhaps Dr Powell wasn't looking in quite the right places?

  • Comment number 17.

    OVER THE LAST 14 YEARS WE HAVE BEEN CAMPING WITH A TENT.BEFORE WE BOOK OUR SITES WE HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHERE THE GULF STREAM IS GOING.WE FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S TAKEN A UNIVERSITY TO COME UP WITH THIS SOLUTION.
    JACKY
    Rotherham

  • Comment number 18.

    @16 ukpahonta

    Where does Monckton cite 450 papers? Can't be bothered to read through 79 pages to find the quote!

  • Comment number 19.

    If I have to make a choice between taking advice from Dr Edward Hanna and his international team of scientists on the one hand and Jacky from Rotherham on the other hand, to inform my choice on summer holiday destination, Jacky wins every time.

  • Comment number 20.

    #17. - finnerja wrote:
    "OVER THE LAST 14 YEARS WE HAVE BEEN CAMPING WITH A TENT.BEFORE WE BOOK OUR SITES WE HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHERE THE GULF STREAM IS GOING.WE FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S TAKEN A UNIVERSITY TO COME UP WITH THIS SOLUTION."

    Did you mean jet stream rather than gulf stream?

  • Comment number 21.

    #18 john_cogger

    Can't be bothered please provide the quote....Typical of post normal science the sound bite is king.

    All the papers are listed, dated, with authors and journals of publication.

    This is an example of why climate prediction is so far from reality, models running on a computer in a nice warm office without the need to put any real effort in.

    You should be totally ashamed, I really don't know why I continue with the effort, day in day out, 7 days a week, while you just sit there in front of that computer screen saying 'I can't be bofferred'.

    /sarc :-)

  • Comment number 22.

    Ahh I see now. By saying 450 cited papers you don't actually mean 450 papers that rejected global warming. You mean Monckton has referenced 450 different papers in his review.

  • Comment number 23.

    He references AR4 (2007)... I can't remember now, was that for or against global warming?

  • Comment number 24.

    #22 john_cogger

    Depends on how you play the words really, doesn't it.

  • Comment number 25.

    #15 Q'V'

    As per Paul Hudson's info in the body of his opening piece: BBC1 Inside Out, yorks region.

  • Comment number 26.

    Another university professor coming up with a theory, remember the hockey stick by another. These chaps need to get out into the real world and then they may learn a thing or so. Give me the University of life any day, Bill Foggitt rest in peace.

  • Comment number 27.

    9. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "NCDC/NOAA global temperature anomalies for November:
    Global = 0.679c (+0.0578c)...

    The changes are relative to the October figures published last month, although in the case of global and N.H. figures, they have been revised upwards since last month."
    ________________________________

    Thanks for that QV.

    Relative to previous November figures this places November 2012 as 5th warmest overall in NOAA's 133 year record. The ten warmest Novembers in the NOAA record have all occurred within the past 12 years. The warming trend for November over the past 30 years is +0.21 C/decade.

    And it makes autumn (fall) 2012 the second warmest in their 133 year global record, behind only 2005. Nine of the top ten warmest autumns have also occurred within the past 12 years. The autumn warming trend over the past 30 years is also +0.21 C/century.

    Adjusted to the 1981-2010 base period, November 2012 is actually slightly *cooler* in NOAA (0.26) than it is in both NASA and UAH (0.33 and 0.28 respectively). The only data set notably 'out of step' so far this month is RSS at 0.10. However, as NOAA points out, 2012 is still shaping up to overtake 2011 as the warmest calendar year on record during which La Nina conditions have been officially declared for any period.

  • Comment number 28.

    #25. - chris wrote:
    "As per Paul Hudson's info in the body of his opening piece: BBC1 Inside Out, yorks region."
    Oops, sorry I missed that bit.
    I'll have to watch it on iPlayer.

  • Comment number 29.

    #27. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Adjusted to the 1981-2010 base period, November 2012 is actually slightly *cooler* in NOAA (0.26) than it is in both NASA and UAH (0.33 and 0.28 respectively). The only data set notably 'out of step' so far this month is RSS at 0.10. "
    I make NOAA slightly above UAH after adjustment to 1961-90, but very little difference.
    When I said that NOAA was "out of step", I meant as far as the change is concerned.
    If it is "in step" with UAH & GISS now, then it must have been "out of step" last month, although it was probaly GISS which was "out of step" last month. I haven't compared the revised figures for past months yet.
    "However, as NOAA points out, 2012 is still shaping up to overtake 2011 as the warmest calendar year on record during which La Nina conditions have been officially declared for any period."
    Ah, that's the new criterion is it?
    I can see the MO using that argument when this year fails again to be warmer than 1998 according to HC3, or 2010 based on HC4.

  • Comment number 30.

    newdwr54,
    Actually, the Global State of the Climate report says:

    "If this anomalous warmth continues through the end of the year, 2012 will surpass 2011 as the warmest La Niña year since at least 1950, according to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center."

    I'm not entirely sure why they say "since at least 1950". I would have thought that it would be, as you said, the warmest La Niña year on record.

  • Comment number 31.

    I've a question for our warmist brethren that's been puzzling me for a while now, but first I need to set the scene a little

    Given, that I hope we can all agree that the planet hasn't warmed very much since 1998, we can argue over significance or not, but that's not point here. However you try and slice it's not really warmed a lot, and yet C02 had risen significantly since the turn of the century.

    If there are no other really significant forcings or feebacks, then where's the heat?

    There's aparently no significant solar forcing acording to you guys, so a quiet sun cannot explain the lack of heat. You've only really got Aerosols to play with, but with TSI being calculated watts/sq metre at ground level and with that being apparently largely unchanged, these cannot be contributing to a reduced solar input. So again, I'm left with the query where's the heat?

    Aerosols have been used to pin back and restrain the largely CO2 and largely positive feedback based models, yet in reality there's been no appreciable solar dimming in terms of energy in, so again where the heat?

    Following on from that you could explain, where's the extra water vapour and again where's the heat that should be generated from this?

    If as is oft claimed, it's all simple science and simple physics, this is not a difficult question - so where is it?

    And, is it as Trenberth said "A travesty that you can't explain it"

    I'm just curious... those of you of a warmist persuasion, with a modicum of intelligence and scientific expertise, must be starting to realise that some of the more outlandish claims for C02 sensitivity are just that...... outlandish.....

    As I said, I'm just curious.

  • Comment number 32.

    ATTN UKPAHONTA
    You SAY: Wow, I'm impressed with the depth of authority and the extreme effort employed by that well payed individual.

    Lord Monckton cites 450 papers in his role as voluntary IPCC reviewer:
    http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/AR5_Expert_Review_Lord_Monckton_Foundation_20121216.pdf

    I SAY: WOW! I'm absolutely staggered by your naivete. Then again...

    So remind us: who Monckton DOESN'T WORK FOR; what qualifications regarding AGW he DOESN'T HAVE; what office he NEVER held under Thatcher; all the connections he DOESN'T HAVE with Heartland and every other spurious organisation set up by either Exxon or Koch to rubbish the science behind AGW.

    Monckton has been thoroughly investigated and his spurious claims re AGW have been found wanting in every dept. That said, Monckton is a master of the vernacular and that's why he continues to mesmerise the stupid. Amen.

  • Comment number 33.

    Blunderbunny the great insight is that science has little to do with the output of computer models. The great shame is that the vast amounts of money that have been spent on computer modelling of climate could have been spent on alleviating poverty and providing clean water and electricity to the billions on our planet that do not have such luxuries. The great crime is that we have leaders taken in by this nonsense.

  • Comment number 34.

    There are two major problems with such proposals:

    i) In the 1950s and 60s the jets behave in a similar fashion to current observations yet Arctic ice was much more extensive than now.

    ii) Despite Arctic ice having decreased for up to three decades since the mid 70s the change in jet stream behhaviour didn't happen until recently. I noticed it start to change around 2000 but the so called 'experts' have only just picked up on it.

    The correlation with the level of solar activity is far more compelling.

    I find it very puzzling that neither Dr Hanna nor his international team are apparently unaware of such obvious facts.

  • Comment number 35.

    #32 theelesticjesuz

    Just love the sophistication of your post although you did miss out on Satan in association. He must really get under your skin to compel such a fascinating response in the true vernacular. Thoroughly expected you to quote by Chapter, House of Lords position but I expect that will follow at some stage.

    A word of advice if your paths ever cross, don't attempt to debate him, the experience would probably stunt your growth.

  • Comment number 36.

    #34 Stephen Wilde

    Don't know how involved you may be with this but found it fascinating, not too far away from me:
    http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/physics/research/rspp/copy3_of_solar-terrestrial-physics

  • Comment number 37.

    #31. - blunderbunny wrote:
    "If there are no other really significant forcings or feebacks, then where's the heat?"

    A good question, I hope we get a reply from a "warmist".

    However, isn't the "missing heat" supposed to be in the deep ocean, i.e. below 700m, although how it got there I have no idea.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/apr/16/where-has-all-the-heat-gone
    Also, if correct, this would confirm that the climate models are wrong, since they didn't predict that the heat would end up in to the deep ocean.

    Another interesting question is, assuming CO2 emissions caused what warming there has been, how cold would it be if there had been no increase in CO2 emissions.
    I think the answer is about 0.75c colder.

  • Comment number 38.

    ATTN: QV
    YOU SAY: Which proves absolutely nothing.
    If you had asked most astronomers at the time of Galileo, whether the Earth went around the sun, the vast majority would have said that was not the case.
    Have you heard of "peer group pressure"?

    I love the way you GENUINE flat-earthers have twisted this so the IPCC appears to be a group of misguided religious fascists who refuse to listen to the OVERWHELMING evidence that is 24 dissenting articles - out of a staggering 13,950. Truth is not a democracy, especially a democracy that advocates minority rule.

    The only peer pressure here - as the overwhelming majority of people know - is that which comes from the multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel industry. End of. But if you think a climatolgist on 40k a year has more to lose than Fossil Fue Inc...?

  • Comment number 39.

    29. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “I can see the MO using that argument when this year fails again to be warmer than 1998 according to HC3, or 2010 based on HC4.”

    Now that would be interesting to see how they could square that with their DePreSys “ENSO” included forecasts?

    Mind, there seems to be some other issues in that direction, clear as mud at present but I am sure clarity will come through eventually

    http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/%7Eswr06jir/presentations/JIR_Utrecht_poster2.pdf

  • Comment number 40.

    QV - I can understand your perspective on events but I think your interpretation isn't completely correct. You're absolutely right the climate science in the early 1990s was pointing to hot dry summers and wet winters. Indeed the period from November 1988 to October 1990 looked like a very good template and I think there was a review commissioned by the then DOE entitled the hot summers and mild winters of 1989 and 1990. In fact there was a repeat exercise for the period November 1994 to October 1995 again commissioned by the DOE.

    Likewise the computer models must have been far too simplistic of the treatment of the Greenland ice cap with adiabatic cooling maintaining the low temperatures but look what has happened since 1998.

    I recall reading a book on atmospheric chemistry by PW Atkins in 1985. In it he mentioned the tantalising prospect of an ice free Arctic summer by 2100.

    The response to an increasing signal whether from increasing CO2 or from the other greenhouse gases is likely to be complex as we are still influenced by the last Ice Age. And you're quite right there are still many factors in the mix. The aim should be to measure, and review theory accordingly. That was the 'crime' of Climategate.
    To accept that there was good correlation between tree ring data and temperature up to about 1960 but then dismiss thereafterwards poor correlation as an inconvenience. It could be telling us something important or even useful to us not to be dismissed.

  • Comment number 41.

    I wonder if these 'EXPERTS' are the same ones who said that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global warming. Remarkable that over the past 12 years carbon dioxide has doubled, but world temperatures have remained the same, in fact slightly decreased. Suddenly global warming has been renamed climate change, which is totally different and has happened since the world began.
    My theory is the bad summers and wet winters are caused by the delay in sunspot activity and my forecast is next year will be wet, but the following year will be a good summer. Trust me, it's as accurate as you so called experts.

  • Comment number 42.

    Not quite sure what these people are saying apart from climate models are not representing what is actually taking place and that the Northern Hem is going to get colder in the 21st Century. Might mean a little more to others:-

    “UMass Amherst Climate Model is First to Study Climate Effects of Arctic Hurricanes”

    “…Results point to potentially cooler conditions in Europe and North America in the 21st century than other models predict….”

    “Before polar lows were first seen by satellites, sailors frequently returned from the Arctic seas with stories of encounters with fierce storms that seemed to appear out of nowhere,” says Condron, a physical oceanographer. “Because of their small size, these storms were often missing from their weather charts, but they are still capable of producing hurricane-force winds and waves over 11 meters high (36 feet).”

    “He and Renfrew say that despite the fact that literally thousands of polar lows occur over the Arctic region of the North Atlantic Ocean every year, none are simulated by even the most sophisticated climate models. To understand the importance of these storms on climate, Condron and Renfrew therefore turned to a new, state-of-the-art climate model to simulate the high wind speeds associated with these “missing” storms.”

    Read it all:-

    http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/umass-amherst-climate-model-first-study-climate-effects-arctic-hurricanes

  • Comment number 43.

    Wow all the petrol heads of the earth on one site here it seems - no doubt few of you even spend a few minutes in the open air every day. Certainly few of you show any sense of responsibility for future generations but I guess that is par for the course in our times. Anyway I will leave you to carry on as you are regardless .....

  • Comment number 44.

    #38. - theelasticjesuz wrote:
    "I love the way you GENUINE flat-earthers have twisted this so the IPCC appears to be a group of misguided religious fascists who refuse to listen to the OVERWHELMING evidence that is 24 dissenting articles - out of a staggering 13,950. Truth is not a democracy, especially a democracy that advocates minority rule. "

    "The only peer pressure here - as the overwhelming majority of people know - is that which comes from the multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel industry. End of. But if you think a climatolgist on 40k a year has more to lose than Fossil Fue Inc...?"

    What about those who have something to gain from the renewables industry?

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/renewables-businessman-says-we-need-more-renewables/

    You seem to blame the fossil fuel industry for "climate change". They are only meeting a demand. If anyone it is the billions of motorists who use petrol who are to blame. Do you drive a car?
    Do you want the fuel companies to make less profit, by reducing the price of fuel?
    Surely if you are correct, that would only make things worse?

  • Comment number 45.

    #39. - greensand wrote:
    "Mind, there seems to be some other issues in that direction, clear as mud at present but I am sure clarity will come through eventually"

    Thanks for the link, but I am afraid that most of the terminology is unintelligible to me.
    What I do think is that trying to make the model "hindcasts" match reality may be futile, because even if they do, that doesn't guarantee that "forecasts" will be correct.

  • Comment number 46.

    #43. - KeithJ wrote:
    "Wow all the petrol heads of the earth on one site here it seems "
    Who are you referring to?

  • Comment number 47.

    #43. - KeithJ

    Why do you think that we're all petrol heads? Not that I post much these days, so maybe i shouldn't consider myself part of the collective we, but I'm certainly not a petrol head, you could call me a thorium head if you'd like.... it's not really got the same same sort of ring to it though......

    It's attitudes like yours and a those of a certain elastic religous figure that lead to me no-longer wishing to think of myself as being green.........

  • Comment number 48.

    #37 - QuaesoVeritas

    "However, isn't the "missing heat" supposed to be in the deep ocean, i.e. below 700m, although how it got there I have no idea."

    Yep, I'm with you. How it managed to pass through the top 700m with no appreciable effect I've no idea - Still that's a two box model for you..... sorry couldn't resist..... but it is a bit of a conundrum, isn't it?

    And, that's the general problem with climate science as it stands today, far too many conundrums and not very much joined up thought...... but all done in the name of saving the planet, so that's alright then................

  • Comment number 49.

    I don't know what you're all going on about, some other experts say the world is going to end in 3 days time, so I wouldn't worry, that's rubbish as well.

  • Comment number 50.

    @ elastic

    "I love the way you GENUINE flat-earthers have twisted this so the IPCC appears to be a group of misguided religious fascists who refuse to listen to the OVERWHELMING evidence that is 24 dissenting articles - out of a staggering 13,950. Truth is not a democracy, especially a democracy that advocates minority rule. "

    I think you'll find that the person in question wasn't actually looking too hard, I think you'll find that Pielke Snr has produced more papers than that on his own, add in Richard Lindzen and just 24 papers is looking ridiculous rather than just dodgy.

    Seriously, if you can't have an informed or sensible discussion just keep quiet, Trolls like you do not help your cause.

  • Comment number 51.

    31. blunderbunny wrote:

    "I've a question for our warmist brethren... Given, that I hope we can all agree that the planet hasn't warmed very much since 1998..."
    ___________________

    Let me stop you right there bunny. The evidence that the planet has warmed (i.e. gained heat energy) since 1998 is overwhelming.

    Most of this energy has been absorbed by the oceans and, as we now know, the deep oceans also.

    This energy uptake arises from the observation that more solar energy is being retained in the earth energy system than is being released at the top of the atmosphere.

  • Comment number 52.

    45. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "I am afraid that most of the terminology is unintelligible to me."

    Same here, though it would appear all is not well. When launched DePreSys came with:-

    "Verification"

    "Retrospective forecasts have been made from numerous dates in the past. Some of these are shown in the top global annual temperature forecast figure (white curves and red uncertainty regions from 1985, 1995 and 2005). Generally, the forecasts predict rises in temperatures similar to those observed (black curve). Many facets of the variability, such as the record warming caused by the large 1997-1998 El Niño and the cooling caused by the 2008 La Niña, are within the range of the predictions (red shading). An exception is the cool period after the large volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, which could not have been forecast years in advance."

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

    I have no doubt normal service will be resumed shortly.

  • Comment number 53.

    #51. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Most of this energy has been absorbed by the oceans and, as we now know, the deep oceans also."

    Although evidently not predicted in the climate models?

    What is the mechanism for the absorbtion of heat by the deep oceans?

    Presumably CO2 heats the atmosphere, then that heats the sea surface, then that heats the lower ocean depths?

  • Comment number 54.

    #52. - greensand wrote:
    "Retrospective forecasts"
    Surely a contradiction in terms?

  • Comment number 55.

    @newdwr54

    Firstly, didn't say it hadn't warmed... so sorry about that.... as i understand it there's a set of results that unreliably show that the deep ocean may have warmed, but the top 700m has not really warmed.

    So, please try a little harder and really dont use the word "overwhelming" at the end of a point that no-one, well at least me, was disputing.

    The planet has warmed, but only a little and not by anyway near enough to lend any weight at all to your case.

    So, solar constant, aerosols negligible, CO2 massively increased, sea temp increased a little, but not much and not the top 700m.... So I ask again, where's the heat?

    If the theory as espoused by both the team and the IPCC is in anyway accurate, there should be a lot more of it and it's simply not there and is continuing to be not there. As I said it's not supposed to be complicated.

  • Comment number 56.

    54. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Retrospective forecasts"
    Surely a contradiction in terms?

    Yup, after a few discussions with the MO I got confirmation that they are "hindcasts"

    Figure 1 on the same page has "...Previous predictions starting from June 1985, 1995 and 2005 are shown as white curves...".

    The MO person agreed that this was misleading and said they would talk to the people responsible for the page. Heard no more.

  • Comment number 57.

    Addendum:

    Not to invoke old Albert, but I'm afraid I cant help myself.

    Einstein, said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong"

    I'm just pointing out that currently, this extra large thermodynamic, physics and chemistry experiment that we all inhabit, is not playing ball or even oblate spheriod ;-)

    Personally, I find that very interesting

  • Comment number 58.

    #50 blunderbunny

    It's the way they tell 'em!

    You will probably find that the statement is in fact correct that only 24 articles were found against 'global warming' in the sense that the planet has warmed.

    That obviously is not the intention of the headline grabbing statement that infers 'global warming' to anthropogenic release of CO2 as the reason that temperatures have risen.

    The clarity of definition between the two being obscured, some would say intentionally to provide sensationalism, much in the same manner of my earlier posts about Lord Moncktons 450 papers as an example of such but with reverse intention.

  • Comment number 59.

    #58. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "You will probably find that the statement is in fact correct that only 24 articles were found against 'global warming' in the sense that the planet has warmed."

    Yes, taken literally, that would imply denial of the data which supports the premise that global temperatures have increased. In fact, I think it is remarkable that as many as 24 articles would deny actual warming. That would suggest some sort of belief that ALL of the datasets were either wrong, or had been manipulated in some way, which would be an extreme viewpoint.
    While there is some evidence that terrestial data may have been manipulated, either by "adjustment" of the figures, or careful selection of sampling locations, that is not the case for satellite data.

  • Comment number 60.

    Oops, that was obviously oblate spheroid

    Mea Culpa

  • Comment number 61.

    #59 QV

    Covering 1991-2012, it's believable from the earlier years reference hockey stick and climategate etc.

  • Comment number 62.

    "While there is some evidence that terrestial data may have been manipulated, either by "adjustment" of the figures, or careful selection of sampling locations, that is not the case for satellite data."

    That's only because climate skeptic blogs have refused to approach the satellite records in the same manner as the surface records. If they had they'd easily be able to create the same "evidence".

    For example many adjustments are been made to raw satellite record data, major revisions have altered trends significantly, there are calibration problems and data has to be filtered out and extrapolated. None of the source code for any of the adjustments has been released.

  • Comment number 63.

    Re 31:
    AR5 actually has a large section devoted to the flat trend since 1998. See Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 for one possible explanation. Solar forcing is only small on a long timescale because the GHG forcings accumulate so over a long period of time the solar forcing becomes relatively smaller and smaller. Also the solar forcing oscillates so given enough time it returns back to where it starts (similar to how recent solar output is now thought to be near early 20th century levels) and the trend shrinks, but over a short period of time the trend can be signficant. Same with ENSO really.

  • Comment number 64.

    59. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "While there is some evidence that terrestial data may have been manipulated, either by "adjustment" of the figures, or careful selection of sampling locations, that is not the case for satellite data."

    But there is considerable short term disagreement between the two main satellite data providers, even though they both use data from the same satellites. So clearly it's not only surface data that undergoes 'adjustment'.

    Furthermore, based on 30 years data, the warming trend observed in both surface and satellite data is virtually identical.

  • Comment number 65.

    @quake #63

    The supposed balance of opinion is the ENSO is neutral, I know Bob Tilsdale disagrees with that. But that wasn't really point I was trying to make, the models have significantly broken away from the world that they are trying to model and at what point do we all, sceptics and warmists say, Hang on a minute, there's something wrong here.

    The shut up shop, closed door approach is really not working for either side of this discussion and there are surely there are now enough holes in both the theory and data to be concerning to everyone.

    I'm not saying that CO2 doesn't have a role, but I am saying it's been over hyped.

    What should be a rather dull scientific debate has been hijacked by all sorts of interested parties and it's time for those on both sides to take a stand against that.

    The idea of sensitivity being on the high side of the estimates is looking untenable at the moment. Just out of curiousity, what do you think it is?

    In the absence of some searched for and missing large positive feedbacks, I fall into the 0.8 - 1.2 degrees for a doubling of pre-industrial C02. So far, all attempts(with one or two team related outliers) at actually measuring this would indicate that sensitivity is actually quite low.

    Measurements and observation should always trump theory.

    We've chatted and debated a lot about this stuff in the past, so you already know my position and I know generally know yours. When you really come down to it, there's only really a few papers here and there that separate our opinions - That and some suspiciously "winey" terraces in Romanno Bridge ;-)

  • Comment number 66.

    53. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Most of this energy has been absorbed by the oceans and, as we now know, the deep oceans also."

    Although evidently not predicted in the climate models?
    ____________________________________________

    I assume you mean the surface temperature models? Possibly the models underestimated the amount of heat that would be absorbed by the oceans? As you know, the models treat ENSO, etc as 'neutral' over the longer term.

    As far as I know the ocean surface, like all surfaces, is heated by a combination of direct solar energy and re-radiated LW radiation from the atmosphere. This heat is then circulated within the ocean system.

    What is the mechanism for the absorbtion of heat by the deep oceans?

    Presumably CO2 heats the atmosphere, then that heats the sea surface, then that heats the lower ocean depths?

  • Comment number 67.

    55. blunderbunny wrote:

    ".... as i understand it there's a set of results that unreliably show that the deep ocean may have warmed, but the top 700m has not really warmed."

    That's wrong, I'm afraid. The top 700 m has warmed most of all. Levitus et al. (2012) found that between 1955-2010 2/3 of all ocean heat increase occurred in the top 700m layer (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051106.shtml ).

    "The planet has warmed, but only a little and not by anyway near enough to lend any weight at all to your case."

    The planet has warmed at a huge rate. From the above paper, the amount of heat energy absorbed by the oceans between 1955 - 2010 "corresponds to a rate of 0.27 Wm2 per unit area of earth's surface." It has been calculated that this is the equivalent energy to exploding two Hiroshima sized bombs in the oceans every second since 1960.

    "So, solar constant, aerosols negligible, CO2 massively increased, sea temp increased a little, but not much and not the top 700m.... So I ask again, where's the heat?"

    In fact, since 1955 solar has been in decline and ocean heat content has risen by by an enormous margin, *especially* in the top 700m layer. In total, 93.4% of the additional heat has been absorbed by the oceans. Much of the rest of it has melted ice caps, glaciers and Arctic sea ice. Only 2.3% has been absorbed by the atmosphere.

  • Comment number 68.

    65. blunderbunny wrote:

    "... the models have significantly broken away from the world that they are trying to model and at what point do we all, sceptics and warmists say, Hang on a minute, there's something wrong here."

    If you're referring to the surface temperature models, then these are one of the more accurate IPCC modelled predictions. Don't forget, these ignore ENSO variations (because ENSO is assumed to balance out over the longer term). So when comparing modelled projections to real world temperatures it's necessary to factor in ENSO variations. Several papers have done this recently (e.g. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article ; http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1763.html ) and they find very good agreement with the IPCC projections. (Note: even ignoring ENSO, global temperatures are still with 95% of IPCC AR4 model runs.)

    However the IPCC sea level models are way off; far too low. Likewise the Arctic sea ice melt model is running far more slowly than Arctic sea is has actually been observed to melt.

  • Comment number 69.

    Arctic summer temperatures don't vary much, and have tended below average since 2004: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
    There is undoubtedly a link between a stronger negative NAO, and wetter UK summers, which has been the case regularly since 2007 (especially with a strong easterly QBO phase as in 2007 and 2012).
    It would be safe to say that under such conditions that there would be considerably more summer ice drift from increased circulation causing large reductions in ice extent (summer 1958 is also a classic example), but reduced summer ice extent does not cause the negative NAO conditions.
    It is also a complete waste of time modelling this as internally forced, when the cause of the NAO and AO variations that are shifting the jet stream, are short term solar changes.

  • Comment number 70.

    #67. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "That's wrong, I'm afraid. The top 700 m has warmed most of all. Levitus et al. (2012) found that between 1955-2010 2/3 of all ocean heat increase occurred in the top 700m layer (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051106.shtml ).

    The planet has warmed at a huge rate. From the above paper, the amount of heat energy absorbed by the oceans between 1955 - 2010 "corresponds to a rate of 0.27 Wm2 per unit area of earth's surface." It has been calculated that this is the equivalent energy to exploding two Hiroshima sized bombs in the oceans every second since 1960."

    Thanks for posting that link. I must admit that it isn't an area of the subject to which I have paid a great deal of attention.

    On the face of it, that is a lot of heat energy, which of course makes me sceptical. At first I questioned how extensive the coverage was, but I see from Wikepedia, that the there are about 3200 Argo probes, which seems fairly extensive. I see that the Argo data is supposed to be freely available, so there is a whole new potential area of study.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_%28oceanography%29
    What made me sceptical is that it seems a very large amount of heat energy to be simply caused by CO2, given that the heat energy gain has to start out in the atmosphere and then be transmitted into the oceans. It is possible, of course, that one reason for any decrease in the atmospheric temperature may be that the heat has been taken up by the oceans.
    No doubt, this has all been considered in the scientific literature.

  • Comment number 71.

    DW & QV

    A few comments and questions re Levitus et al

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/an-ocean-of-overconfidence/

    Given past reactions I doubt that the location will meet with DW's approval but that does not make the comments/questions any less pertinent.

  • Comment number 72.

    newdwr54 . . .you appear to have missed this from the last thread which is still open btw.
    "What I see newdwr54 is that there were 10 solar peaks in the 20thC and six of the last seven were higher than the first three. According to you (and climate science consensus) those first three were strong enough to cause warming and yet for some inexplicable reason, the later six cycles (which were clearly higher peaks) cannot cause warming. That's ridiculous.

    As for the one lower cycle of those latter seven - that would be around the time when temps flattened would it not? Around the time we were told the next ice age was on the way. And this current flat 15 year trend seems to have coincided with half a low solar cycle also.

    Your point that cycles since the 80's have been trending down is simply irrelevant. Those cycles show higher peaks than those which have already been acknowledged to cause warming."

  • Comment number 73.

    Blunderbunny, on the question of sensitivity, I think you will be interested in this http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/12/19/why-doesnt-the-ar5-sods-climate-sensitivity-range-reflect-it.html

    "In the light of the current observational evidence, in my view 1.75°C would be a more reasonable central estimate for ECS than 3°C, perhaps with a 'likely' range of around 1.25–2.75°C.

    Nic Lewis"

  • Comment number 74.

    Newdwr54 states @51 "Most of this energy has been absorbed by the oceans and, as we now know, the deep oceans also."

    But if this is the case then clearly a two year 'time lag' as in (F&R) doesn't go anywhere near accounting for ocean lag. We're talking years to decades for meridonal transport for uppermost ocean layers and upto 1600 years for the thermohaline?

    As you know, oceans are stratified by temperature, salinity and density into discrete layers which do not mix or transfer heat effectively. It is thought that mixing occurs primarily when they reach underwater ridge points and through the thermohaline circulation process initiated at polar latitudes. There is precious little data to show that the 700-2000m ocean has actually warmed and no observational evidence (through the argo buoys) which indicates a gradual transfer of heat from upper to lower layers, which by all known accounts would be unlikely in any case.

  • Comment number 75.

    @newdwr54

    We were specifically talking about TSI, whilst this did have a peak in the 50's and then a decline into the 60's/70's it rose again in the 80's and 90's to peak slightly higher than the one in the 50's - have you maybe been looking at the wrong graph?

    The magnitude of the solar magnetic field has behaved as you indicated, but not TSI. Whilst the output varies a lot in terms of wavelengths it varies little in terms of TSI fractions of a watt per square metre from decade to decade.....

    Plus, as lateintheday points out, solar activity changes cannot be accredited with the warming in the early part of last centrury, without also contributing to warming in the latter part of it.

    Truth be told, I'm playing with you a little, as I personally think the wavelength is much more important than the total irradiance figure, but it's TSI that we're talking about at the moment. Largely because the models assume it varies very little.

    Anything logically starting to sink in yet?

  • Comment number 76.

    QV the reference to the Hiroshima bombs is just to scare the children. Typical alarmists' tactics. As you know the oceans are the heat batteries of the climate system. At times the batteries are charged and at times they are discharged. Bob Tisdale has a lot on this if you are interested in a scientific view as opposed to the Hiroshima view. As with a lot (most) of climate science there is a lot more that we don't know than we do. In spite of that, the science is settled and we all agree that we should deindustrialise the West and force more and more of our fellow citizens into fuel poverty.

  • Comment number 77.

    Quake and newdwr54 . . some thoughts about that F&R paper.
    For what it's worth, I've read the paper and here is my take on it.

    Firstly, this paper is unashamedly a statistical exercise which seeks to quantify and remove known short term natural climate variations from a snapshot time period in order to determine an underlying AGW warming signal. The paper doesn't apply the same technique to any other time periods that I can see. I would have thought that a necessary check in order to test your results. Do the numbers stack up if you take your results for natural variation and then run the model at varying start dates say from 1910 or 1950 for example?

    Not surprisingly, the maths are out of my league but the logic looks decidedly dodgy. How can they purport to have accurately quantified the natural variations whilst using extremely short and unlikely time lags, completely ignoring the AMO, misrepresenting both ENSO and the solar trend (see post above). Nevertheless, they then assume that the remaining signal is purely anthropogenic and by clear implication, that most of this is caused by CO2 rather than say, land use change, deforestation or UHI.

    F&R also assume that outside of their very selective short term 'forcings', earths climate is essentially stable. That in itself is absurd. Both weather and climate display chaotic tendencies which are manifested in positive and negative feedbacks over different timescales. For example, on this blog it has been noted that summer Arctic sea ice is gradually reducing by extent and volume. That is, this year's new record summer low is not simply the result of this year's temperature, but a consequence of longer term sustained 'higher than average' temperatures. The albedo change alone is proof that climate can and does have lagged responses over longer timescales than two years. This may prove to be a positive feedback mechanism for spring/summer but a negative feedback in autumn/winter. The actual net gain (or loss) of heat due to albedo change cannot be determined simply by geometry because ocean-atmosphere heat transfers are heavily influenced by specific, but ever changing thermal conditions, evaporation, windspeed, atmospheric pressure etc.

  • Comment number 78.

    @Many

    I was referring to the Levitus et al paper when I mentioned one unreliable paper in my original comments above. My problems with it are along those outlined by Willis in the link helpfully provided by greensand in post 71#

    Again, I should point out I'm just seeking some logical consistency here - A little clarity, how does one square the round peg of the world not behaving.

    If all the other inputs to models other than C02 are remaining neutralish/constant, then where's the heat? What mechanism, is abating or hiding it?

    If it's in the deep ocean, how did it get there, as it seems to have mostly skipped the top 700 metres

    You can't have it all ways, models are not just for Christmas, they cant just work for one set of hindcasts if I tweek the @#?/*@& out of them. If the real world experiment is running way too cool, then you need to take a look at the models.

    I'm just trying to ascertain, when reasonable people from the other side of the debate, might actually start to admit that at least something is not quite right.

  • Comment number 79.

    And finally . . . the F&R paper is based a non physical model which does not attempt to explain any real climate process. Another footballing analogy (apologies in advance) on its way . . . some years ago, a well known coach (think it was Don Howe, not sure) was convinced by the stats which showed that most goals were scored when only three passes or less had been involved in the build up play. It thus became part of the coaching plan - long ball from the back, knock down and shoot quickly. In Spain however, they had noted that statistically, you were more likely to score more goals than your opponent if you kept possession of the ball for long periods. So which of the two is the most successful model for football? Neither. At times, both systems have dominated because in the real world, the outcome depends on the small details which were never part of the analysis.
    The stats do not represent the physical process of a football match or an underlying 'truth'. They are simply an artefact of the choices made when conducting the analysis.

  • Comment number 80.

    Actually, now I re-read this:

    "That's wrong, I'm afraid. The top 700 m has warmed most of all. Levitus et al. (2012) "

    As I understand it the figures since 2003, show that the top 700m has hardly changed at all - any comment of that?

    Prehaps, you'd like to shoot for - Has the extra LWR from all the extra C02 in the atmosphere suddenly disappeared? If so, why? and where's it gone?

    How many holes in your logical deductions do you in fact need, before you say......

    Well anything really, something sensible and logically self consistent would be nice if I'm allowed to vote

  • Comment number 81.

    Lateintheday

    "F&R also assume that outside of their very selective short term 'forcings', earths climate is essentially stable."

    Roy Spencer picks up on this theme at his blog

    http://www.drroyspencer.com where he says

    "Over the last quarter century, mainstream climate science has changed dramatically, from a paradigm where climate changes naturally to one where climate forever remains the same unless humans meddle with it"

  • Comment number 82.

    71. greensand wrote:

    "... I doubt that the location will meet with DW's approval..."

    Let's just say that if Willis Eschenbach feels he has something meaningful to add to the scientific literate, such as a reviewed rebuttal to Levitus et al., then nothing is preventing him from doing so.

  • Comment number 83.

    72. lateintheday wrote:

    "What I see newdwr54 is that there were 10 solar peaks in the 20thC and six of the last seven were higher than the first three. According to you (and climate science consensus) those first three were strong enough to cause warming and yet for some inexplicable reason, the later six cycles (which were clearly higher peaks) cannot cause warming. That's ridiculous."
    _______________________________

    All I've said on this is that since the 1950s the solar influence has been in decline. That's clear from the data, whether you use sunspot numbers or TSI. Over this period of solar decline, global surface temperatures and (more significantly) ocean heat content have increased. So it's straightforward as far as I can see; something other than solar variation has caused the planet to warm up.

    "As for the one lower cycle of those latter seven - that would be around the time when temps flattened would it not? Around the time we were told the next ice age was on the way. And this current flat 15 year trend seems to have coincided with half a low solar cycle also."
    ____________________________

    Eye-balling that Wiki chart, I would say that solar influence peaked around 1955 and has declined since. Would you agree? The low cycle was around the early 1970s?

    "Your point that cycles since the 80's have been trending down is simply irrelevant. Those cycles show higher peaks than those which have already been acknowledged to cause warming."
    ___________________________

    No, because the theory is that reduced solar output causes greater GCRs in the atmosphere. This (it is said) means more clouds, less insolation, and therefore "cooling".

    But we haven't seen any cooling LitD. That's the problem with GCR theory.

  • Comment number 84.

    #71. - greensand wrote:
    "Given past reactions I doubt that the location will meet with DW's approval but that does not make the comments/questions any less pertinent."

    Thanks for posting that, it's interesting to read the comments, but I haven't been able to get through them all yet.

  • Comment number 85.

    82. newdwr54 wrote:

    "Let's just say that if Willis Eschenbach feels he has something meaningful to add to the scientific literate, such as a reviewed rebuttal to Levitus et al., then nothing is preventing him from doing so."

    Usual MO DW, nothing to say about the actual subject.

  • Comment number 86.

    84. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Thanks for posting that, it's interesting to read the comments, but I haven't been able to get through them all yet."

    Glad you found it of interest.

  • Comment number 87.

    85. greensand:

    I don't have that much time GS. As I'm sure you don't.

    If the man's arguments are so compelling then, if I were you, I'd be wondering why he doesn't submit them to peer review.

    Why do these unnaturally enlightened folk not submit their evidence and arguments to people who actually know what they're talking about?

    Why do they always and only publish them on weblogs and to sympathetic audiences?

    If I were you, I'd be much more concerned about those questions.

  • Comment number 88.

    87. newdwr54 wrote:

    "If I were you, I'd be much more concerned about those questions."

    Well, no DW, I am not.

    Not all in peer review is correct, not all rebuttals are correct, not all blogs posts/comments are wrong. I take everything I read on merit not reputation. A lot of what I read I do not have the ability to comprehend, so I do not comment. Hence I try very hard to confine my involvement to the actually observational data.

    If you are saying that because you are short of time you are willing to let the peer reviewed literature formulate your conviction then so be it, your choice to be led by authority. But to "champion" a cause on such a brief is also beyond my comprehension.

    The meme that only articles in the scientific literature warrant consideration is illogical, indicative of restrictive practices and tantamount to censorship.

  • Comment number 89.

    QV

    You and others may also find the comments interesting from here:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/argo-the-mystery-of-global-warmings-missing-heat/

  • Comment number 90.

    Sorry chaps, but where are you getting your TSI information from?

    When I look at the data, I do not see a decline from the 50's, you might be able to get a declining trend by picking the peak(1365.97) before the last peak(1366.08), but with the best will in the world its not really been in decline, that's just cherry picking, especially as the most recent peak was higher, if only by a little.

    A lot of other solar indicators are in decline, but I dont think that you could count TSI as one of them. Are you working from Hoyt perhaps?

  • Comment number 91.

    oops, should have finished that thought.... Hoyt, spliced with another dataset?

  • Comment number 92.

    Ah...Ha.... Leif 2007 maybe?

  • Comment number 93.

    88. greensand:

    An argument from authority is only a fallacy if the source does not possess legitimate expertise or does not represent the consensus of expert opinion.

    You can go around the internet and pick up posts from people who tell you, on their own reckoning, that the world is considerably less than 10,000 years old. Or you can find people who will tell you, on their own reckoning, that the oceans aren't really gaining heat.

  • Comment number 94.

  • Comment number 95.

    93. newdwr54 wrote:

    “An argument from authority is only a fallacy if the source does not possess legitimate expertise or does not represent the consensus of expert opinion.”

    Or if the recipient does not possess the intellect to disseminate the flaws within the “consensus of expert opinion”. Example mid 20th Century European history

    “You can go around the internet and pick up posts from people who tell you, on their own reckoning, that the world is considerably less than 10,000 years old. Or you can find people who wil

    And that is when you use your brain and intellect to disseminate the information into comprehensible partitions. Make your decisions, based on your own understanding.

    Spin it, as you usually do, but your position is and always has been an argument from authority. That is why you feel the need to decry every single, even minor issue that might not meet the AGW play sheet. Tis not possible for one homo sapien, but maybe for the new homo superbus?

  • Comment number 96.

    94. ukpahonta wrote:

    And that is an excellent illustration of why we should celebrate the ability to access the real, none sanitised, world of climate science. How it will turn out I know not, but I do know, if I keep my mind open I will have the opportunity to learn

  • Comment number 97.

    Still no HadSST2/3 let alone HadCRUT3/4 for November.
    Last year they were published by the 14th and 20th.
    I wonder if everyone at the MO has started their Christmas holidays?

  • Comment number 98.

    On the other hand, maybe they are all preparing for the end of the world tomorrow!

  • Comment number 99.

    @ukpahonta #94

    Excellent, those are exactly the points I've been trying to make. The normal excuses for explaining the current lack of warmth Areosols etc. Are now shown to be invalid, so the estimates of sensitivity especially the highers ones 3+ degrees and over are now looking to be untenable - The models, no matter how you slice it, are most definitely running too hot and where is the Heat? Should be our most often asked question. It's not hidden, it's simply not present.

    This show is finally starting to come to an end and I think we should all be thankful for that - Science will, in the end, win out and our more alarmist comrades will eventually have to come back into the fold.

    I hope the rhetoric and the politics will also calm down, but as that's mostly driven by activists, we may have to wait a while longer for that.

    Deniers, if that's what we are can all be proud that we stood against these people and science and it's practice can start to getting back to normal.............

    Reasonable people on all sides eventually have to face facts

  • Comment number 100.

    # 99

    Take the science, maths and stats aside for a moment.

    The whole issue of GW has been a bumper bonanza to politicians the world over incapable of managing but quite capable of over-spending copious funds from taxed-out folk. As long as the political wing of society has a hook to gather more revenue with apparent ease we can all rest - assured that all will be well !

    If everything returns to normal where will the next gravy train come from ?

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.