In message , Granity
writes

Stewart Robert Hinsley;872346 Wrote:
In message , Timothy Murphy
writes-
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
--
Yes, well; funny thing about scientists... back in the 70"s they were
predicting a mini ice-age.-

Actually, that is a myth. The (then weak) consensus in the scientific
press, rather than the popular media, was for warming.

http://tinyurl.com/yaltyg4
myth/-

It depends what time-scale you are talking about.
I think the Milankovitch cycle theory,
http://tinyurl.com/jd7cl,
is generally accepted,
and according to that we are near the end of an inter-glacial period
(in a 100,000 year cycle).-

The Milankovitch cycles are the summation of several independent cycles,

and while the length of a typical interglacial is 10,000 years, the
length of individual interglacials varies according to how the phases of

the cycles interact. The current interglacial is predicted, even sans
anthopogenic effects, to be an extended one. I'm told that this was
known to scientists by the 1970's, even though it hadn't filtered
through to the popular media.
-
But that is talking about thousands of years;
global warming is talking about the next 100 years.

-
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Oh dear they get it wrong yet again.

"19 Feb 09 – The ice is melting! The ice is melting! . . . Or is it?

In May, 2008, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) predicted
that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 melt season
because of ‘global warming.’

Citation please.

[BTW, a prediction of an ice-free North Pole is not the same as a
prediction of an ice-free Arctic Ocean.]

Today, they admitted that they’ve underreported Arctic ice extent by
193,000 square miles (500,000 square kilometers). They blamed the error
on satellite problems and sensor drift."


--
Stewart Robert Hinsley