7andY

...but you claim this shows clouds to be a positive feedback. I don't see it. I just see it saying clouds will be thinner if it gets warmer... 7&Y

I must be reading something different. I see an investigation into what the clouds will do in response to GW - not the effect clouds have on GW. A subtle but important difference! Unless you can persuade me otherwise!! To quote from the article: "Having evaluated the model's simulation of present-day conditions, the researchers examined the response of simulated clouds in a warmer climate such as it might be in 100 years from now." Cheers, 7&Y

..but greater volume. So the weight is the same. Just by water freezing doesn't change its overall weight (volume x density) Cheers, 7&Y

Bit of a long shot, perhaps, but you could try your local Lending Libray. If it's in their system in the UK, you can order it through them. 7&Y

Churchdown - heavy snow, no rain! Struggling to settle, though... 7&Y

Just received this via works email... "Wed 17th Feb - from information received via Police Contingency Group The forecast this morning from our Professional Partners Met Office Advisor - Arwyn Harris is that we are expecting substantial & disruptive snowfall during Thursday 18th. It will snow today, but this will not be significant and will thaw overnight. Rain early tomorrow will change to snow by 10.00 am, and it will continue snowing until approx 7.00 pm in the evening. This will result in up to 10 cm of snow even in low-lying areas through Gloucestershire and Gloucester City itself. It will not be windy so there will be no significant drifting. The forecast is then that the temperature will become very cold for 2-3 days, therefore thaw is unlikely and the icy conditions will lead to significant disruption. The Police are putting arrangements in place similar to during the snow event we had in January." Interesting stuff!! 7&Y

...if you have your network go down, it is designed wrong!!! My school network has NEVER gone down in over ten years!!! except for power cuts, of course!!! 7&Y

Don't know what WX you've got, but Weather Display (www.weather-display.com) seems to talk to most. OK it's payware (about 30 quid) but works really well. Cheers, 7&Y

...perhaps it refers to an increase in water vapour in air that is below the saturation point. You can add water vapour to air until this point is reached - or are we saying that the atmosphere is permanently saturated :lol: 7&Y

...Cheer up, SleepyJean, Oh what can it mean?... It just means that replies don't come thick and fast on this thread. You have to wait - but it is an interesting thread nonetheless!! Cheers, Andy E.

Curious. Last winter, it snowed somewhere every month from November to March!!!

...We're back to the fact that there's no demonstrable evidence that that Sun's variations are dominating global climate... If solar influence is so small, can I take it that the Maunder minimum and the associated downturn in temperature is a coincidence, and nothing to do with the absence if sunspots?... I learn something new every day!

Isn't it just the tiny bit curious that pro-AGW people are quite happy that a small change in overall CO2 can cause big climate changes, but a small change in solar output doesn't?? Hmmmm.... 7&Y

AIUI, you could have ten Hundred Year events in a decade. You should not get another for a thousand years, just to set the averages straight, but even that's not guaranteed - it depends how many you had in the previous thousand years... :blush: Cheers, 7&Y

I think - I hope - one has to read it with one's irony hat on full square Cheers, 7&Y

I'm going to dip my toe in here, very gingerly!! I am fascinated by RJS's input here. AIUI, the LI has a significant dependancy on sunspots, and RJS's theory seems to based around gravity fields and magnetic fields. Are the two not linked in some way. Do the changes in gravitic and magnetic fields impact on the Sun to regulate the number of sunspots? Is there some way to check if there is a relationship between these factors? Feel free to ignore this if it's not relevant!!! Cheers, 7&Y

Ah - just one small thing, I watched a different programme!! I watched Horizon about how many people Earth can sustain - so, forget all the above !!!

...a bit precipitous, I think!! Whilst some of the content was 'deabteable', I thought the broad thrust of the sustainability angle to be very relevant, even if you didn't agree with their starting point. The one issue that I thought was really interesting was about reducing birth rates. It has been found that the more educated girls become, the less likely they are to have babies young, and they are less likely to have many. Indeed in one state in India where education has been a major priority, the birth rate was well down, compared to a neighbouring state where education wasn't such a high priority, and the birth rate was higher. No matter what your starting point re: AGW, climate change, 'denier' et al, for a sustainable future, these things are vital to know. So, by fenestrating your TV after 30 seconds, you missed some very interesting information... :lol: Cheers, 7&Y

Perhaps the 'equilibrium' you seek is in reality a rolling average. If you drive along a hilly road, you go up and down the hills, so you come to expect more of the same, a sort of average of the ups and downs. Suddenly you start up a mountain. 'Hey', you think, 'I wasn't expecting that!' Thus the equilibrium is no more. You're still driving the same vehicle, but things have changed. Of course, if you are now in the mountains, perhaps you might come to expect more mountains - an 'equilibium' is re-established, but at a different level, and so on. So perhaps the 'equilibrium' is not a set level, but an average of the ups and downs over a set period. But should this be 30 years or 5 billion years? Ah, there's the rub :huh: Make sense?...or am I spouting my usual gibberish Cheers, 7&Y BTW Can we pick a different word to 'equilibrium'? It's a really awkward word to type

...American democracy is alive and well, then!

Watched 'Rain' on BBC4 last night. They came up with the oft-quoted 'as the Earth warms, we will see more rain', and I got to thinking (always dangerous, I find!) If the atmosphere is warmer, why should it rain more? We know that warmer air holds more moisture, but if that's the case, won't the air continue to hold more moisture even when it is raining, thus giving us roughly the same amount of rain as we have now??? Makin' my head hurt here...but if warmer air holds more moisture, surely roughly the same amount as currently will precipitate until the dew point (which will also be higher) rises past saturation point again, stopping the precipitation cycle, but at this higher temperature? Or am I totally wide of the mark? 7&Y

Moment: a definite period or stage, as in a course of events; juncture: at this moment in history. from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moment Try as you might, you can't force a physics only definition on us...

Does this mean that sea levels will rise more where the ice is melting? Interesting - water with hills!! I know the oceans differ in height across the globe, but these are caused by rotational forces, now we have ice-melt forces too!! 7&Y

...ahhh, yes. Emotional blackmail. When sound discussion fails, it's always a good one to fall back on... So you're telling me that goods should be cheaper for families just because they have kids? Your energy bill should be lower because of more cooking/heating for more people? Should a bigger car be cheaper because you have to transport more bodies? How about a rebate on your food shopping? No, thought not. Straw man argument... It would mean that driving job would reflect its true costs to the transport infrastructure and taxation requirement. Why should I subsidise those with a driving job. No-one does that for my job (Network Manager). 7&Y

I still can't see the problem with scrapping Vehicle Tax altogether, and putting it all on fuel. More fuel you use, more road you use, more tax you pay. Seems simple to me.