jethro

So, any ideas on if or when we can expect the Gulf Stream to be interrupted because of the extra melt water?

Welcome to the forum be cause.

How do you do that thing over the e, P?

I hope not, but nothing would surprise me when it comes to generating personal income from government policy.

Energy minister John Hayes says 'No' to any more onshore wind farms: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225531/Minister-signals-end-wind-farm-We-pepper-turbines-country--declares-energy-minister.html

Opinions change on whether things are looking good or bad depending upon the numerous aspects which contribute to the weather. Some signs like the AO may be in a phase conducive to cold weather, others like the Strat may not. There are countless things which have an impact on our weather here, they will never all point to cold or mild, they will always give mixed signals. I suggest you look at all the forecasts/predictions/observations as possible clues to what may lay ahead because no one, amateur or professional can give any guarantees. Oh, and keeping your fingers crossed wouldn't go amiss either.

No. You're jumping to conclusions. And as for impacts from ice loss impacting weather all around the globe......IMO and genuinely with the greatest of respect, it is this kind of nonsense which turns folk off from wanting to even listen to the argument in favour of AGW, let alone agree with it.

Bored with the whining and sniping now, stay on topic, without the moaning, or expect your posts to be deleted.

I know waiting for snow, or the slightest hint that we may have a chance of some this winter is frustrating but taking out that frustration on others won't help. Let's not descend into a sniping frenzy whilst we're all waiting for 1963 part two.

Well a quick glance through provoked a laugh, a smile and a naughty word or three......To sum my thoughts up briefly, coming up with a new buzz word or catch phrase " Systemic Causation" may win brownie points in quick fire journalism but it won't make it through the Peer Review system. When the data has been collected, when it has been analysed by the appropriate government departments and scientists, then and only then will I consider the cause. I'm surprised at you GW, if stuff from Watts and the like is unacceptable for the sceptical argument, why on earth are you peddling rubbish like that? Let's play on a level playing field eh.

Whoa, hold on a minute. It's not my 30 year period, it's the industry standard applied to climate science. It's also the period required by you, when anyone mentions the stagnant temps of recent years. Shifting goalposts to suit the mood doesn't make anything more accurate or true. As for when problems arise, I don't actually see anyone dismissing climatic impacts from mankind's contributions. What I see is folk questioning the degree of impact from mankind's contribution. It's all too easy to dismiss the questions from those sceptical as being in complete denial. It's also easy to dismiss claims that all climate change is down to AGW. However, ease of argument doesn't make it a correct or accurate argument. What seems to be absolutely impossible, is discussion on the impacts from AGW without both sides resorting to black versus white argument. I wish everyone would be a little more accepting of the idea that we really don't know anything for certain, or even anywhere near certain.

Actually, I rarely mention the PDO, except to question when you insist it has changed because of AGW. At no point have I ever said I don't accept the science on AGW, quite the reverse; on numerous occasions I've gone out of my way to state categorically that I fully accept the theory of AGW - time and time again. To say that I've said otherwise GW is merely a ploy to undermine my questions and add gravitas to your own opinions. My stance is quite simple - we don't know what's going on, and that applies to both natural and AGW. Taking the PDO as the example, theories abound as to why and how it happens, but there's no definitive answer. Ditto AGW and it's relevance/impact on this latest storm in the USA. When you, or anyone else talk in absolutes you're simply trying to add more weight to your argument than actually exists in science. I would say the same to anyone claiming that the Sun is responsible too. That's the joy of being where I am in this debate - firmly in the middle. I've no desire to see either side win the argument, no personal conviction that either side is right or wrong, if I have any affinity at all in any of this, then it's with Mark Twain.

Lots of stuff in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/us/hurricane-sandy-churns-up-east-coast.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121030

How is it possible to accept our impact when it is impossible to decipher what it is? As for the dominating or the possibility that we could dominate, that's just a reflection of man's desire to be in charge - there's more chance of me flying to the Moon on a toadstool.

I'm with you on that one. Truth is though, we're still a very long way from knowing so I can't see the point of jumping to conclusions. It's really inconvenient that the Sun decides on a go slow now, it's lousy timing IMO; it just confuses the issue further.

Since when has 10 years been an acceptable timespan to judge anything connected with climate? And again, how can any conclusions be made when it hasn't even happened yet, let alone been recorded and studied. All this speculation is bonkers, made even more bonkers by the fact that we have no way of distinguishing between the impact of a greatly reduced Solar output and lower ice levels on the jet stream. And before someone jumps up and says we're approaching Solar max, yes we are, but it's a max so low and a cycle which has been so quiet, that's it's hardly worth calling a max at all.

Info on other Autumn hurricanes to hit the NE coast of America: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Hurricane_of_1938 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hazel

IMO this leaping upon any kind of weather event which is notable and instantly connecting it to climate change, or ascribing less ice as the cause, does the AGW argument more harm than good. I would have thought the wise and scientifically correct approach would be to wait until it's actually happened, the data has been collected and analysed, before making conclusions. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

Stop bickering - it's so bleeding tedious. Any more sniping posts will be deleted.

I'm probably alone in not envying you one bit, it must be such a long winter up there.

Aren't all temperature records recorded as daily max/min? It's only after recording that info that you can ascertain an average.

Was it still foggy today? I thought it was me making all that gloom with the spray from the industrialised jet washer I've been using all day. Bored with the dank gloom now, wish the weather would do something, anything, just not this blinking murk.

Add these to your Christmas wish list, they're full of the most amazing, beautiful photographs. http://www.amazon.co.uk/landscape-photography-arctic-regions-Books/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=Landscape%20photography%20-%20Arctic%20regions.&page=1&rh=n%3A266239%2Ck%3ALandscape%20photography%20-%20Arctic%20regions.%2Cp_lbr_books_authors_browse-bin%3APatrick%20Hook http://www.amazon.com/Earthsong-Bernhard-Edmaier/dp/0714844519

How can any run be said to be accurate or spot on until judged after the event?

I'd love to say the Mendips but more often than not it's Dartmoor, then the Cotswolds, then the Mendips. An awful lot of the time snow around this area seems to stay above the M4 - I'm up for demolishing it if we can get a team together...