On Feb 22, 5:33*pm, "Eskimo Will" wrote:
"Graham Easterling" wrote in message

...
On Feb 22, 3:58 pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:





On Feb 22, 11:10 am, Natsman wrote:

On Feb 22, 7:49 am, Dawlish wrote:

NOAA confirms that La Nina has peaked. Presently, most models are
showing ENSO neutral conditions over the Boreal summer and into Autumn
(slide 27), but things can change very rapidly as ENSO shifts phase
and predictions are pretty speculative. Some models are showing El
Nino conditions developing rapidly and the changes in these NOAA
graphics from last week are the greatest in a 1-week period for a long
time.

Monday update:

"• La Niña has peaked across the equatorial Pacific.*
• Sea surface temperatures (SST) are at least 0.5°C below average
across much of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean.
• Atmospheric circulation anomalies are consistent with La Niña..
• La Niña is expected to transition to ENSO-neutral conditions during
March-May 2012."

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/product...ng/lanina/enso...

There is a usually a 3-6 month lag between ENSO changes and global
temperatures. As a result, one muight expect global temperatures to
dip further for a couple of months. After that, however, one would
expect them to begin to rise to a peak soon after the next El Nino. If
the pattern of recent El Ninos (2005, 2010)is followed (no reason why
it shouldn't) a new global annual temperature record is very likely to
be set during the next one.

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option...iew&id=117 08

Thought I'd just drop this in en passant.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why? Professor Bob Carter is not a climate expert but a
professor of geology and paleontology according to Wikipaedia.
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
This entry is the subject of criticism in Wikipaedia, being
deemed too favourable. Even as it stood it is clear he is not an
expert in the field about which he says rather a lot.
Disturbingly, in his Wiki photo he bears a distinct resemblance
to me, but chubbier and younger. Rest assured the resemblance ends
there.
It confirms yet again that AGW deniers are not professional and
probably not even amateur meteorologists. I wonder why?
In the video he comes over as a politician, a job in which
assertive and imaginatively-based bollock-mongering is the norm and
was amply visible here.
Such desperate barrel-scraping would not be needed if there were
any substance to the deniers' claims.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What I find hard to understand is why some otherwise reasonably
intelligent people feel the need to be AGW deniers. I can understand
arguments over the degree of AGW, and possible outcomes, but to deny
it's occuring is like denying the sun rises.

I remember James May of Top Gear fame/infamy saying, in an allegedly
scientific program, that global warming wasn't a problem as when the
ice cubes melted in his drink the cup wasn't any fuller. The most
irritating thing about this sort of *statement is that he must know
about thermal expansion of the oceans, the fact that not all ice is
floating etc. but he chooses to be deliberately dishonest.

Graham
Penzance where it's particularly damp dismal and unpleasant
(weatherwise that is)
================================================== ===

================================================== ===

To me a "denier" is someone who does not accept the undisputed evidence that
the planet *as a whole* has warmed in the past 100 years.
However, a person is a "sceptic" if he does not accept that CO2 is to blame
for said warming.

http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------



No. A climate denier is someone who does not accept that CO2 is
*likely* to be the *main cause* of that warming. Thus your definition
certainly points to a climate denier and from what ou've said in the
past, it includes you, Will. That person denies what almost every
scientist, every single science institution and every single national
science academy in the world believes. It is also what the MetO, your
employers, most certainly believe.

What *evidence* is there that something else is more likely to be the
cause of the (undisputed, as you say) current 100-year+ warming? I
would be really interested to hear it, as, like the *actually*
sceptical IPCC and many sceptical scientists and scientific
organisations, I feel that there is a high likelihood of CO2 being
found to be the cause of the warming, but I am not 100%
convinced.........yet.

Someone is not a "sceptic" if he does not accept that CO2 is to blame
for said warming; he/she is a denier.