Scanning through UKww reminded me of this.

This forecast was issued on Dec 30th 2008, while ENSO was still in a
La Nina phase.

"2009 is expected to be one of the top-five warmest years on record,
despite continued cooling of huge areas of the tropical Pacific Ocean,
a phenomenon known as La Niña. According to climate scientists at the
Met Office and the University of East Anglia the global temperature is
forecast to be more than 0.4 °C above the long-term average. This
would make 2009 warmer than the year just gone and the warmest since
2005."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20081230.html

Jan-June 2009 was 5th warmest Jan-June in the NOAA record despite the
La Nina's influence. The forecast is bang on so far and with the La
Nina now over and ENSO now showing El Nino conditions, I'd bet on this
forecast being correct at the year's end. So far, this is a big "well
done" to the Hadley centre forecasters.

What's the odds on 2009 actually now beating the record years of 1998
and 2005? Global temperatures in the last 6 months of this year could
be very interesting, especially if those recent UAH temps are repeated
in the July surface figures (UAH and RSS were much lower than the 3
surface measures in June and the satellite figures usually are). And
remember - we are in a year of low solar output and solar cycle 24
just does not want to get going.

A La Nina + a solar minimum and the first 6 months of the year in the
top 5 warmest since 1880. Now that has to make the sceptics question
their beliefs that GW has ended, surely. No snapshot there. The last
time any month was below the NOAA average was in the 1970s, as I said
on a different thread, the first 6 months of this year are just a
continuation of a long global warming sequence.

On Jul 19, 9:39*pm, Dawlish wrote:
Scanning through UKww reminded me of this.

This forecast was issued on Dec 30th 2008, while ENSO was still in a
La Nina phase.

"2009 is expected to be one of the top-five warmest years on record,
despite continued cooling of huge areas of the tropical Pacific Ocean,
a phenomenon known as La Niña. According to climate scientists at the
Met Office and the University of East Anglia the global temperature is
forecast to be more than 0.4 °C above the long-term average. This
would make 2009 warmer than the year just gone and the warmest since
2005."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20081230.html

Jan-June 2009 was 5th warmest Jan-June in the NOAA record despite the
La Nina's influence. The forecast is bang on so far and with the La
Nina now over and ENSO now showing El Nino conditions, I'd bet on this
forecast being correct at the year's end. So far, this is a big "well
done" to the Hadley centre forecasters.

What's the odds on 2009 actually now beating the record years of 1998
and 2005? Global temperatures in the last 6 months of this year could
be very interesting, especially if those recent UAH temps are repeated
in the July surface figures (UAH and RSS were much lower than the 3
surface measures in June and the satellite figures usually are). And
remember - we are in a year of low solar output and solar cycle 24
just does not want to get going.

A La Nina + a solar minimum and the first 6 months of the year in the
top 5 warmest since 1880. Now that has to make the sceptics question
their beliefs that GW has ended, surely. No snapshot there. The last
time any month was below the NOAA average was in the 1970s, as I said
on a different thread, the first 6 months of this year are just a
continuation of a long global warming sequence.

Silence from the sceptics on ths one. Hard to challenge folks really
isn't it?

Maybe one of you can dig up an area that's colder than usual? UK
anyone?

On 20 July, 14:46, Dawlish wrote:

Silence from the sceptics on ths one. Hard to challenge folks really
isn't it?

I know you are only trying to provoke a response from you know who,
but I don't think GW sceptics even doubt that warming is taking place.

However the jury *is* still out with respect to the mechanisms behind
this, and there can be no proof either way until long after we have
all long been forgotten.

Just my humble opinion of course.

Steve J

Steve J wrote:


However the jury *is* still out with respect to the mechanisms behind
this, and there can be no proof either way until long after we have
all long been forgotten.


Sorry, but the jury came in and confirmed CO2's guilt. There has been no
other theory that predicted the warming that has been going on for most of
the past eighty years, nor any that has explained it after the event. Some
people will carry on burying their heads in the sand and they'll never
believe the science, preferring it to be some big conspiracy theory, and
it's a total waste of time trying to get them to see otherwise. Mind you, it
can be fun on occasions.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 at 19:18:21, Graham P Davis
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

Steve J wrote:


However the jury *is* still out with respect to the mechanisms behind
this, and there can be no proof either way until long after we have
all long been forgotten.


Sorry, but the jury came in and confirmed CO2's guilt.

But certainly not on a unanimous verdict...

There has been no
other theory that predicted the warming that has been going on for most of
the past eighty years, nor any that has explained it after the event. Some
people will carry on burying their heads in the sand and they'll never
believe the science, preferring it to be some big conspiracy theory, and
it's a total waste of time trying to get them to see otherwise. Mind you, it
can be fun on occasions.

What about those of us who accept the warming trend, but believe it is
overwhelming a natural one?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

Paul Hyett wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 at 19:18:21, Graham P Davis
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

Steve J wrote:


However the jury *is* still out with respect to the mechanisms behind
this, and there can be no proof either way until long after we have
all long been forgotten.


Sorry, but the jury came in and confirmed CO2's guilt.

But certainly not on a unanimous verdict...

OK, a 11-1 majority verdict.


There has been no
other theory that predicted the warming that has been going on for most of
the past eighty years, nor any that has explained it after the event. Some
people will carry on burying their heads in the sand and they'll never
believe the science, preferring it to be some big conspiracy theory, and
it's a total waste of time trying to get them to see otherwise. Mind you,
it can be fun on occasions.

What about those of us who accept the warming trend, but believe it is
overwhelming a natural one?

It's up to you, but where are the believers in "natural trends" who forecast
this rise in temperature? It's all very well to thrash around after the
event, desperately and vainly looking for excuses other than CO2 but it's a
pointless exercise. The reason for the rise was put forward in 1896, several
decades before it started. Where is the equivalent natural explanation?

In 1975, a comprehensive research into natural cycles by GARP (Global
Atmospheric Research Project) was published. According to that, global
temperatures now should be 0.5C lower than in 1940. Is this the sort of
natural explanation for global cooling - sorry, warming - that you prefer?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

On Jul 20, 6:04*pm, Steve J wrote:
On 20 July, 14:46, Dawlish wrote:

Silence from the sceptics on ths one. Hard to challenge folks really
isn't it?

I know you are only trying to provoke a response from you know who,
but I don't think GW sceptics even doubt that warming is taking place.

However the jury *is* still out with respect to the mechanisms behind
this, and there can be no proof either way until long after we have
all long been forgotten.

Just my humble opinion of course.

Steve J

The jury is still out. You are absolutely right. I'm not fully
convinced myself of the mechanism behind the recent warming trend, but
the lack of demonstrable cooling during a solar minimum and with a La
Nina has strengthened my feeling that CO2 is probably responsible and
that GW is a reality that is most likley to continue.

PS Lol steve! There are many more capable sceptics than dear Lawrence
and all would struggle to counter that particular combination of
evidence, short of criticising the scientists, the recording
mechanisms, or citing conspiracy and collusion to bury the real data.
Last Boreal winter we were in a solar minimum, ENSO was in a La Nina
and there really ought to have been monthly global temperatures
recorded that were far lower than were actually recorded, if a warming
trend was no longer underpinning global temperatures. In not a single
month during the last 12, during the La Nina and the solar minimum,
have the global land + sea temperatures in the NOAA series been out of
the top 10 warmest for that month since 1880.

However the jury *is* still out with respect to the mechanisms behind
this, and there can be no proof either way until long after we have
all long been forgotten.

Steve,

You do understand that if you are correct, by the time it is proved
that it is caused by burning fossil fuels, then it will be too late to
do anything.

It is already too late to save the the Arctic sea ice, and in twenty
years time it will be too late to save the Greenland ice sheet (that
is if it is not already too late to save it.) That means a 7 metre (20
ft) sea level rise, enough to turn London into Venice, and Venice into
the lost city of Atlantis.

But Coventry will be safe :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

On 21 July, 11:27, Alastair wrote:

You do understand that if you are correct, by the time it is proved
that it is caused by burning fossil fuels, then it will be too late to
do anything.

Hi Alastair, you are right, and that is why I run both a junior and
senior environmental group at Bablake.

With the youngsters, we measure ecological footprints and it is very
much a fun club with education on the concerens we all have about the
Planet uppermost in our work. They are so enthusiastic and believe all
the hype in the media and even in textbooks!

With the sixth form, it is much more of a practical group - they have
just completed an audit of the school's energy consumption, waste
recycling, water useage etc, writng a report with recommendations for
the headmaster and governors, They have already persuaded the school
to put in more loft insulation, fit energy saving light switches and
bulbs, install a cover for the simming pool, fit more thermostats on
the heating sysyem, investigat wind and solar power units etc.

So we aren't just waiting for proof, we are very active in the
Geography Department in trying to make a difference, even if it is a
drop in the ocean!

However, if our pupils grow up with concerns about the environment,
and actively practise what they preach, then that drop in the ocean
might become a puddle, a pond or a lake in future.

Surely even GW sceptics want to live a sustainable life?

Don't we all want a pollution free atmosphere, cleaner rivers, lakes
and seas, and a future for our grandchildren?

Just because some of us are sitting on the fence, it doesn't mean we
don't care about wasteful, dirty fossil fuel burning, though I'm not
sure I'm in favour of nuclear energy either, is that sustainable?
That's another debate however.

Oh well, back to lesson preparation - this welcome diversion has been
fun:-)

Steve J

theres silence because everyone has kill filed you.
stupid idiot.


Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 19, 9:39 pm, Dawlish wrote:
Scanning through UKww reminded me of this.

This forecast was issued on Dec 30th 2008, while ENSO was still in a
La Nina phase.

"2009 is expected to be one of the top-five warmest years on record,
despite continued cooling of huge areas of the tropical Pacific Ocean,
a phenomenon known as La Niña. According to climate scientists at the
Met Office and the University of East Anglia the global temperature is
forecast to be more than 0.4 °C above the long-term average. This
would make 2009 warmer than the year just gone and the warmest since
2005."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20081230.html

Jan-June 2009 was 5th warmest Jan-June in the NOAA record despite the
La Nina's influence. The forecast is bang on so far and with the La
Nina now over and ENSO now showing El Nino conditions, I'd bet on this
forecast being correct at the year's end. So far, this is a big "well
done" to the Hadley centre forecasters.

What's the odds on 2009 actually now beating the record years of 1998
and 2005? Global temperatures in the last 6 months of this year could
be very interesting, especially if those recent UAH temps are repeated
in the July surface figures (UAH and RSS were much lower than the 3
surface measures in June and the satellite figures usually are). And
remember - we are in a year of low solar output and solar cycle 24
just does not want to get going.

A La Nina + a solar minimum and the first 6 months of the year in the
top 5 warmest since 1880. Now that has to make the sceptics question
their beliefs that GW has ended, surely. No snapshot there. The last
time any month was below the NOAA average was in the 1970s, as I said
on a different thread, the first 6 months of this year are just a
continuation of a long global warming sequence.

Silence from the sceptics on ths one. Hard to challenge folks really
isn't it?

Maybe one of you can dig up an area that's colder than usual? UK
anyone?