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://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lobal-cooling-
myth/

It depends what time-scale you are talking about.
I think the Milankovitch cycle theory,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#100.2C000-year_problem,
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

In message , Pete Stockdale
writes


Try reading about the numbers, then tell me that man is responsible for
global warming: http://tinyurl.com/gtp6z


Granity

But the paper you quote is six years old.

The site he quotes repeats errors known to be errors long before 6 years
ago. For example it compares the magnitudes of the anthropogenic and
non-anthropogenic fluxes, and concludes that because the anthropogenic
fluxes are much smaller human influences are negligible (0.28%). The
flaw in the argument is that the natural fluxes are in equilibrium -
great amounts of CO2 are released and absorbed by the oceans, or by
vegetation, but they cancel out over the course of the year and the
surface of the earth. The relatively small anthropogenic fluxes are not
in equilibrium, and disturb the atmospheric CO2 concentration which has
increased by about 30% over the last few hundred years. If the
greenhouse effect was linear in CO2 concentration that would be a human
contribution of ~25%, not 0.28%. (I don't know offhand what the actual
figure is, but it would be nearer 25% than 0.28%.)

The site's treatment of water vapour is also flawed. In the terminology
of the field the water vapour greenhouse effect is a feedback not a
forcing. This is because that water vapour has a short atmospheric
residence time (it falls out as rain) and the concentration of water
vapour depends on atmospheric temperature. Add greenhouse gases with
longer residence times and the atrmosphere warms, allowing it to hold
more water vapour, resulting in additional warming. Remove the other
greenhouse gases, and the atmosphere will cool, and more water vapour
will condense and rain out, causing additional cooling. This water
vapour feedback should be included in the anthopogenic contribution to
the greenhouse effect.

Surely "expert" opinion has moved on since then.

The mistake that was made in the Copenhagen deliberations was that there was
too much emphasis on getting
a change of use agreement rather than a change of emphasis agreement.

The main resolutions should have been towards an early re-meet to sort stuff
out properly, as compared with fixing limits there and then.

IMHO.

After all - the next ice age will come anyway - fact of earthly natural
comings and goings.

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com



--
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.’

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 wrote:

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

It depends what time-scale you are talking about.
I think the Milankovitch cycle theory,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#100.2C000-year_problem,
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.

I haven't seen any such prediction; can you give a citation for it?

As it happens, the interglacial period has already extended
longer than the average over the past 800,000 years;
as I understand it, the average is about 10,000 years
while it has already lasted about 12,000 years.

I don't think the 3 Milankovitch cycles are at all precise.
But the fact is, we are in an interglacial period,
and this is likely to end in the next 2000 or so years.

But that is talking about thousands of years;
global warming is talking about the next 100 years.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

In message , Timothy Murphy
writes
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

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

It depends what time-scale you are talking about.
I think the Milankovitch cycle theory,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#100.2C000-year_problem,
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.

I haven't seen any such prediction; can you give a citation for it?

For a more recent instance of that prediction

"In this paper, we have shown the extended climate record back to
740 kyr, and that the pattern of climate before MIS 11 was different
to that which has followed for the past four glacial cycles. Although
the results from MIS 11 indicate that without human intervention a
climate similar to the present one would extend well into the future,
the predicted increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations make this
unlikely" (EPICA community members, Eight glacial cycles from an
Antarctic ice core, Nature 429: 623-628 (2004)) - URL:
http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/flueckiger/publications/epica04nat.pdf

There are other papers in the post-2000 time period.

When I was told that a prediction of an extended duration of the current
interglacial as current in the 1970s I wasn't give any citations. The
nearest I find on a cursory search is a 1972 paper saying (fide the
abstract) that a ten-thousand year estimate is unreliable - as the paper
is paywalled I can't tell whether it gives an alternative estimate.

As it happens, the interglacial period has already extended
longer than the average over the past 800,000 years;
as I understand it, the average is about 10,000 years
while it has already lasted about 12,000 years.

I don't think the 3 Milankovitch cycles are at all precise.
But the fact is, we are in an interglacial period,
and this is likely to end in the next 2000 or so years.

But that is talking about thousands of years;
global warming is talking about the next 100 years.


--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

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

On Dec 20, 1:58*pm, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"aquachimp" wrote in message

On Dec 20, 10:36 am, Stewart Robert Hinsley

wrote:
In message
,
aquachimp writes
Yes, well; funny thing about scientists... back in the 70"s they were
predicting a mini ice-age.

Actually, that is a myth.

A: Oh good, so that means this bit of cold stuff we're now having will
end in a few days.
_______________________________
That 'cold stuff' is weather, not climate.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/

An interesting report: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/or...not_cause.html

And more in depth: http://landshape.org/enm/modeling-global-warming/

In message , Granity
writes

Chris Hogg;872490 Wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:54:44 +0000, (Larry Stoter)
wrote:
-
alan.holmes wrote:
-
It's a right pain, this global warming, we only had three inches of
snow
yesterday, and the temperature rose to 2 degrees!

Alan-

Indeed, and, if you bother to investigate some of the details, you will
discover that an increase in the average global temperature by 2 deg C
could still end up with pack ice in the straights of Dover and icebergs
off Newcastle.

That is what an average means - with 4 to 5 deg increases in parts of
Africa, it is going to get colder in other places. The real problem is
it is impossible to predict what is going to happen where ......

Anyway, with the total failure of the world's so-called leaders in
Copenhagen, you don't have anything to worry about - homo sapiens is
buggered without a doubt. Within 100 years, there will be unprecedented
climate change, unquestionably. My guess is that in climate terms, we
in
the UK won't do too badly, apart from the 100 million people from
southern Europe and N Africa moving North. If we think immigration is a
problem now, wait until 2110, when half the population of Portugal,
Spain, Italy and France will have decided that the warm, wet UK is a
better bet than than the deserts of their own countries.

The only consolation I can see is that lareg parts of the southern USA,
especially Texas will be under water .....

Personally, I don't care - I'll be dead long before then and have no
kids to worry about, so I'm going to keep generating CO2 and methane,
to
help the rest of you.

Larry -

LOL. My sentiments to a T! I could have written it word for word, but
probably less succinctly, with the exception that we're fairly modest
in our CO2 generation, and as for the methane....well, that depends on
what I had for lunch :-)

The only hope is a massive pandemic of Black Death proportions, that
removes about two-thirds of the world's population. But even that
might not work. It's the poorer countries that tend to suffer in those
circumstances, as they have poorer living conditions, are more
susceptible to disease and can't afford the medicines, unlike the rich
countries. But it's the rich countries that produce most of the CO2.

"We're doomed Mr Mainwairing, doomed I say".

--

Chris

Gardening in West Cornwall overlooking the sea.
Mild, but very exposed to salt gales

E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net

An interesting report: http://tinyurl.com/ye4n5bg

I take it that you are unaware of the upwards temperature excursion of
the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

And more in depth: http://tinyurl.com/yewwsgf

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On 2009-12-22 21:43:22 +0000, Stewart Robert Hinsley
said:

In message , Granity
writes

Chris Hogg;872490 Wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:54:44 +0000, (Larry Stoter)
wrote:
-
alan.holmes wrote:
-
It's a right pain, this global warming, we only had three inches of
snow
yesterday, and the temperature rose to 2 degrees!

Alan-

Indeed, and, if you bother to investigate some of the details, you will
discover that an increase in the average global temperature by 2 deg C
could still end up with pack ice in the straights of Dover and icebergs
off Newcastle.

That is what an average means - with 4 to 5 deg increases in parts of
Africa, it is going to get colder in other places. The real problem is
it is impossible to predict what is going to happen where ......

Anyway, with the total failure of the world's so-called leaders in
Copenhagen, you don't have anything to worry about - homo sapiens is
buggered without a doubt. Within 100 years, there will be unprecedented
climate change, unquestionably. My guess is that in climate terms, we
in
the UK won't do too badly, apart from the 100 million people from
southern Europe and N Africa moving North. If we think immigration is a
problem now, wait until 2110, when half the population of Portugal,
Spain, Italy and France will have decided that the warm, wet UK is a
better bet than than the deserts of their own countries.

The only consolation I can see is that lareg parts of the southern USA,
especially Texas will be under water .....

Personally, I don't care - I'll be dead long before then and have no
kids to worry about, so I'm going to keep generating CO2 and methane,
to
help the rest of you.

Larry -

LOL. My sentiments to a T! I could have written it word for word, but
probably less succinctly, with the exception that we're fairly modest
in our CO2 generation, and as for the methane....well, that depends on
what I had for lunch :-)

The only hope is a massive pandemic of Black Death proportions, that
removes about two-thirds of the world's population. But even that
might not work. It's the poorer countries that tend to suffer in those
circumstances, as they have poorer living conditions, are more
susceptible to disease and can't afford the medicines, unlike the rich
countries. But it's the rich countries that produce most of the CO2.

"We're doomed Mr Mainwairing, doomed I say".

--

Chris

Gardening in West Cornwall overlooking the sea.
Mild, but very exposed to salt gales

E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net

An interesting report: http://tinyurl.com/ye4n5bg

I take it that you are unaware of the upwards temperature excursion of
the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

And more in depth: http://tinyurl.com/yewwsgf

Do they sell those in Marks? ;-)
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
Shrubs & perennials. Tender & exotics.
South Devon

On Dec 23, 10:53*am, Chris Hogg wrote:

I take it that you are unaware of the upwards temperature excursion of
the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

And more in depth:http://tinyurl.com/yewwsgf

Do they sell those in Marks? * ;-)

They've sold out. There's been a run on thermal maxima recently,
especially the Palaeocene-Eocene ones. Must be the cold weather.


Shame, and to think they were on sale with a free edit-snip added to
help cut down on all that weedy bandwidth.

On 2009-12-23 09:53:17 +0000, Chris Hogg said:

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:07:03 +0000, Sacha wrote:

On 2009-12-22 21:43:22 +0000, Stewart Robert Hinsley
said:
snip
I take it that you are unaware of the upwards temperature excursion of
the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

And more in depth: http://tinyurl.com/yewwsgf

Do they sell those in Marks? ;-)

They've sold out. There's been a run on thermal maxima recently,
especially the Palaeocene-Eocene ones. Must be the cold weather.

;-))
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
Shrubs & perennials. Tender & exotics.
South Devon

"Sacha" wrote in message
...
On 2009-12-22 21:43:22 +0000, Stewart Robert Hinsley
said:

In message , Granity
writes

Chris Hogg;872490 Wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:54:44 +0000, (Larry Stoter)
wrote:
-
alan.holmes wrote:
-
It's a right pain, this global warming, we only had three inches of
snow
yesterday, and the temperature rose to 2 degrees!

Alan-

Indeed, and, if you bother to investigate some of the details, you will
discover that an increase in the average global temperature by 2 deg C
could still end up with pack ice in the straights of Dover and icebergs
off Newcastle.

That is what an average means - with 4 to 5 deg increases in parts of
Africa, it is going to get colder in other places. The real problem is
it is impossible to predict what is going to happen where ......

Anyway, with the total failure of the world's so-called leaders in
Copenhagen, you don't have anything to worry about - homo sapiens is
buggered without a doubt. Within 100 years, there will be unprecedented
climate change, unquestionably. My guess is that in climate terms, we
in
the UK won't do too badly, apart from the 100 million people from
southern Europe and N Africa moving North. If we think immigration is a
problem now, wait until 2110, when half the population of Portugal,
Spain, Italy and France will have decided that the warm, wet UK is a
better bet than than the deserts of their own countries.

The only consolation I can see is that lareg parts of the southern USA,
especially Texas will be under water .....

Personally, I don't care - I'll be dead long before then and have no
kids to worry about, so I'm going to keep generating CO2 and methane,
to
help the rest of you.

Larry -

LOL. My sentiments to a T! I could have written it word for word, but
probably less succinctly, with the exception that we're fairly modest
in our CO2 generation, and as for the methane....well, that depends on
what I had for lunch :-)

The only hope is a massive pandemic of Black Death proportions, that
removes about two-thirds of the world's population. But even that
might not work. It's the poorer countries that tend to suffer in those
circumstances, as they have poorer living conditions, are more
susceptible to disease and can't afford the medicines, unlike the rich
countries. But it's the rich countries that produce most of the CO2.

"We're doomed Mr Mainwairing, doomed I say".

--

Chris

Gardening in West Cornwall overlooking the sea.
Mild, but very exposed to salt gales

E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net

An interesting report: http://tinyurl.com/ye4n5bg

I take it that you are unaware of the upwards temperature excursion of
the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

And more in depth: http://tinyurl.com/yewwsgf

Do they sell those in Marks? ;-)

lolol

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:00:44 -0000, "Ophelia"
wrote:

An interesting report: http://tinyurl.com/ye4n5bg

I take it that you are unaware of the upwards temperature excursion of
the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

And more in depth: http://tinyurl.com/yewwsgf

Do they sell those in Marks? ;-)

This is not just an ordinary P-E Thermal Maximum, this is an
M&S P-ETM



--
®óñ© © ²°¹°-°¹

"®óñ© © ²°¹°-°¹" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:00:44 -0000, "Ophelia"
wrote:

An interesting report: http://tinyurl.com/ye4n5bg

I take it that you are unaware of the upwards temperature excursion of
the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

And more in depth: http://tinyurl.com/yewwsgf

Do they sell those in Marks? ;-)

This is not just an ordinary P-E Thermal Maximum, this is an
M&S P-ETM

Who could argue with that? )