It's a right pain, this global warming, we only had three inches of snow
yesterday, and the temperature rose to 2 degrees!

Alan

"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!

I didn't see it get above freezing here today, it was - 4.5°C first thing
and the highest was only 0°C at 2 pm.
More snow due in the early hours according to the forecast.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

On Dec 20, 12:21*am, "Bob Hobden" 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!

I didn't see it get above freezing here today, it was - 4.5°C first thing
and the highest was only 0°C at 2 pm.
More snow due in the early hours according to the forecast.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

Yes, well; funny thing about scientists... back in the 70"s they were
predicting a mini ice-age.

In message
,
aquachimp writes
On Dec 20, 12:21*am, "Bob Hobden" 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!

I didn't see it get above freezing here today, it was - 4.5°C first thing
and the highest was only 0°C at 2 pm.
More snow due in the early hours according to the forecast.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

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/
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Dec 20, 10:36*am, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message
,
aquachimp writes



On Dec 20, 12:21*am, "Bob Hobden" 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!

I didn't see it get above freezing here today, it was - 4.5°C first thing
and the highest was only 0°C at 2 pm.
More snow due in the early hours according to the forecast.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

Yes, well; funny thing about scientists... back in the 70"s they were
predicting a mini ice-age.

Actually, that is a myth.

Oh good, so that means this bit of cold stuff we're now having will
end in a few days.

As for the "myth" bit, well, I've read through much of the rather good
link you've given and see why it's called a myth; though at the time,
listening to various "experts" on the radio and on telly talking it up
quite assertively didn't give an impression of "myth" and, what with
being rather young at the time, I would not have been best placed to
know stuff, such as being able to ask them were their comments "peer-
reviewed".

The (then weak) consensus in the scientific
press, rather than the popular media, was for warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...he-global-cool...
myth/

Great site for info. Thank-you; I particularly like how it tackles
issues in relatively bite-sized moments and in a layman's language.
And the "Will-Full ignorance" article was most revealing.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"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.

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).
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:

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 article ,
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. The (then weak) consensus in the scientific
press, rather than the popular media, was for warming.

It depends on whether you mean the 1870s or 1970s :-)

More seriously, I despair at the way our rulers are selling us down
the river, and the way that the Merkin-dominated gutter press is
playing the warming aspect. Rising sea levels will cause major
problems, including the loss of a large chunk of our best farming
land, but the real killer comes from the near-certainty that the
North Atlantic Drift will stop.

At best, we are looking at the temperature dropping by about 5
degrees Celsius, summer and winter, causing the collapse of our
agriculture and most of our infrastructure. If the drift reverses
(which is considered unlikely, but what do we know?), I should be
surprised if more than 10% of the population survives the resulting
chaos.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

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!

Just looked out the window and there are big fluffy white chunks floating
down again. That's just over 24 hours relatively snow free till now!

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

Try reading about the numbers, then tell me that man is responsible for global warming: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

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.

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

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

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:13:31 -0500, Granity
wrote:


'Larry Stoter[_2_ Wrote:
;872269']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

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

That is just one man's selection from very old data.
Anyone can find figures to support their own personal preconceptions.

When I see the pictures of receding ice I can accept the view of the
great majority of scientists that the climate is changing much more
rapidly than it has ever done before.