BornFromTheVoid

That was quick, confirmed as 12.5C (-0.15C correction), joint 10th warmest on record. Congrats to Polar Gael! http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_mean_2013

Seeing as the forecast is for ENSO neutral conditions during the Winter, I made a composite map based on all ENSO neutral Winters since 1950 (by using years with October to February Nino 3.4 average anomaly between -0.5 and +0.5). For the individual winter months ........ ........December................. ..................January............... ........................... February It is of course, just one factor among many, but interesting nonetheless.

Sea ice growth on the IJIS site has increased to above 100k per day for the last 3 days, so slightly above average.

Can you give some examples of theorised artificial feedbacks? I'm not sure I'm aware of any artificial feedbacks (they all seem quite natural to me) especially none that are just theorised and have no physical and evidential basis to them. CO2 doesn't rise and fall in the paleoclimate record without corresponding ups and downs in the temperature and other records, so large scale feedbacks in association with CO2 changes and other causes of temperature variations are quite well established.

What would you consider the fixed and assumptive opinions, over say, the evidence based ones?

SI, as has been said numerous times, to you, the scientists that contribute to the IPCC report do it voluntarily. Your continued accusations (assumptions) to the contrary do not put you in a positive light Who are the acclaimed scientists predicting cooling in 13 years? I'll take you silence on the topic as admittance that you were wrong about the climate models then. Please try and put some of your sceptical inquiry abilities to use when reading WUWT articles.

You make the assumption that the models don't show something, I show data showing some do. Where's the jiggery pokery? Is that the term for data you don't like? I bet no climate scientists said there be faster than expected warming from 1992 to 2006, or bet that we'd see cooling from 2010 to 2013, or that we'd see see rapid warming from 1999 to 2007, why? Because non of those are climate predictions, short timescales are dominated by natural variability, not long term climate drivers. In another 13 years, some of the climate trends will likely have become statistically significant if they continue as they are.

More (false) assumptions SI? I though you disliked those? On the low side currently? Yes Completely beyond the range of projections? No Where are the much more accurate "climate sceptic" predictions btw?

Open mindedness and all that. The IPCC published data regarding "the pause", it has been looked at, despite your claims. Remember, models do show slowdowns of a similar length to what we've seen. Refusing to learn a little climate science is burying ones head in the sand. Perhaps if you did the course, you might be able to explain some of those questions yourself? Calling out a blog for engaging in climate denial is like an extremist hate blog!? A little dramatic isn't it!? Yeah, $88,000 funding and payments for speaking at their denier conferences is nothing. So climate denier ="a high priest of denialist evil"! You really have a penchant for the dramatic. I bet you just love the balanced musings of James Delingpole

Sorry Stew, but anyone who thinks that WUWT provides a balanced view has at best, been seriously misled. I mean c'mon, they provide a platform for the likes of Monkton, Steven Goddard, Fred Singer and anyone who will deny, playdown, provide misdirection or confusion on climate change. What about the BEST temperature series? Watts claimed that he was "prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong". And when it did prove him wrong, he describes it as "post normal science political theater." That's as biased as you're going to find. If you want balance or to really call yourself a sceptic, look at the science, not a twisted, biased, ideologically driven interpretation of it. At the very least, RealClimate, where you have actual, actively publishing climate scientists discussing things. The former TV weatherman and his Heartland Institute buddies are not out there to provide balance, plain and simple.

Can you show me where the evidence is for this? Also, it's not particularly relevant to the paper on sea ice changes and summer precip, is it! Once again, measuring climate on a short time scale is pointless, and no statistically significant warming is different to no warming. So it ain't a fact SI!

The Mediterranean-like summer climate was predicted for the latter half of this century. Complaining that it hasn't arrived now is like whining that it hasn't stated snowing yet in September. That's just a straw man argument. As for the no mechanism claims, read the actual paper. It suggests several mechanisms. Because there may be a link between low sea ice and wetter summers here, that doesn't mean it overides everything else all the time. Yet another silly straw man arguments.

The article in question has many leading scientists in it, Jason Box, James Hanson, Brad Werner, Kevin Anderson, Alice Bowes and Clive Hamilton. And it makes sense. Of course, cherry picking and selectively ignoring the majority of the article might leave you struggling to reconcile things. Nothing wrong with calling out WUWT for what it is. It's not a science site, but a pro-fossil fuel, free market propaganda provider, that dishes out "sound bytes" and repeats long debunked myths for climate change deniers to spread throughout the internet. Watts ties with the Heartland Institute are well known. Odd that you expect others to act in such a more timid and respectful way than yourself 4?

Great article by Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine (great documentary too, available on netflix if you have an account). More here http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt And yes "sceptics", we know it's not up to the infallible standard of the oil funded beacon of truth, WUWT. Few things with leading scientists and especially things that make sense are...

Well, I suppose I should clarify that any suggested criteria to add should have records going back at least a few decades! Not every criteria has to match up though, so for the composite maps I might add a year once that had 5/9 matches, then twice for 6/9, and so on.

Minimum of 7.0C and maxima likely to be around the mid 11s, we should see a drop to 12.9C on tomorrows update. After that, the 06z GFS op run has the CET at 12.8C to the 30th (9.0) 12.7C to the 31st (10.8] So 12.6 to 12.8C before corrections, and 12.1 to 12.7C after methinks. Just 8 members in with a chance as far as I can see.

I've decided to seek suggestions for other criteria that I could use when developing the composite maps. Perhaps turn my forecasts into something of a crowd forecast. The criteria I consider are the previous 6-9 months trends, mean and variance in the AO NAO PDO AMO QBO Snow Cover Sea Ice 11 Year Sunspot Variation I've been toying with the idea of adding something for short term solar activity, but cannot find much in the way of peer reviewed studies to support it's impact on our weather. If anyone has any papers on the subject I'd appreciate a link. Also, if anyone has any suggestions for other criteria I could take into account, do suggest some! I've been trying out adding different weightings for different seasons to the criteria I consider too, such as increasing the weighting for sea ice and snow cover in winter, and generally having a reduced weighting for the AO and NAO as they can often be the result of some of the other criteria used. As this winter is likely to be ENSO neutral, another thing I'm considering, is after all the years have been matched up with the criteria mentioned above (so that each year since 1951 has a certain number of matching criteria with this year, e.g., say 1959 has similar AO, NAO, Snow Cover, Solar, AMO and PDO to this year, but dissimilar ENSO, sea ice, and QBO, so has 6/9 matching) the years with strong ENSO events would have their weightings further reduced (so 1959, if it had a strong El Nino, would be reduced from 6/9 to 5/9, and so might appear in the composite map once instead of twice). Anywho, suggestions are welcome!

Well, if the growth was relatively rapid, we might have changed from having the 6th lowest extent in September to something higher now, but we still have the 6th lowest extent for the time of year. The sea ice growth so far this month has been almost bang on the 2002-2012 average. People tend to get excited when they see 100k+ gains in October, but it's completely normal.

6.6C was the low here, 4th lowest of the Autumn. Blue skies and showers mix so far today, a nice change.

In the last 2 weeks, 10 days have had sea ice growth below the 2002-2012 average, with just 4 above (IJIS). Still no risk of dropping below 6th lowest before months end or early November. The SSMIS instrument used by the NSIDC and many others is experiencing problems, which is limiting the amount of sea ice data available too.

I was just using the storm as an example, I wasn't trying to attribute that to you. Proving a negative is something few rational people would attempt! As I've said, many things, including perhaps solar activity, need to be examined to work out the cause of events like individual volcanic eruptions (but I don't think we're close to figuring out exactly why eruptions occur when they do anyway!). I'm sure we both agree on that?

I'm sure solar variability can have an effect of volcanic/tectonic activity, but claiming that changes in the last week is responsible for a single eruption is pushing it a little. In a similar way, we can't say yesterdays storm was caused by the sun, climate change, the AMO or any other individual thing, as there's just too many factors involved! It's only by examining a broad spectrum of factors, can you begin to tease out the causes of such events.

Actually, without our atmosphere (mainly the greenhouse gasses) the Earth would be a ball of ice anyway! Nobody is disputing that the sun has an integral role in our weather and climate, but claiming that it's slight variations are the cause of every and any little thing, without presenting any evidence, is pointless.

Asking for evidence is neither accepting nor disregarding an idea!

Coldest max of the Autumn so far here, 12.1C. Just 7 maxima below 15C so far this month