On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 05:28:35 -0800 (PST)
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 18 January 2014 12:41:56 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:15:31 -0800 (PST)
"Keith (Southend)G" wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-25743806
Interesting reading and yet another spanner in the works. I know
many
put a lot of faith in the solar activity and it'd effects on the
weather, but as a weather forecasting tool I am a bit sceptical.
However, from a climate point of view, given the sun is basically
our
engine, this does make me think.
What I do find amuzing is how we can move from one scenario to
another one in a completely different direction, eg, AGW being a
certainty to this suggesting a mini iceage in the century ahead. I
still have that book upstairs "The Weather Machine and the threat
of
ice by Nigel Calder" published in 1974 ISBN 0 563 12646 9, I may
give
it another read as it may be coming back into fashion like much
of my
wardrobe LOL. Who knows it may be worth a fortune on ebay...
Again it appears to me that mother nature finds ways of balancing
the
books, maybe she should get a post in the treasurery :-)
Oh I do love this subject 
This was mentioned earlier in "possible Maunder minimum on the
cards?"
From what I remember of the broadcast, we may have to wait forty
years
to find out. I think some advances in medical science will be needed
for me to last that long.
Is "amuzing" shorthand for "amazingly amusing"? ;-)
I haven't read Calder's book but almost all of the predictions of a
mini ice-age that came out in the late 60s and early 70s were based
on
temperature cycles, both local and global. These suggested a cold
end
to the 20th century with winter conditions in UK similar to the
those
that had occurred a couple of hundred years earlier. Instead of
that,
winter temperatures were about 1.5C warmer. I wonder what went
wrong?
[That's a rhetorical question, by the way.]
Well I have read that book, back in the seventies when an ice age
returning was the climate weather scare story for about a period of
ten to fifteen years.
Of course there was nothing like the internet then so no blogs , no
hyperbole, no spin just scientific journals with the religion of AGW
not yet being born.
Er, it was born in the 19th century but I agree that not many people
knew about it.
So in that comparatively sober period the new ice age theories based
on post cooling fifties temperatures had some real clout. I clearly
remember the Sunday Mirror carrying a full front page story on the
Ice Age returning very soon and the Sunday Telegraph supplement also
carrying the same Ice Age return type of article.
The Daily Mail also carried the story in about 1969. The main scientist
who was quoted in the article rang me soon after I got into work to
ask if I'd seen the article and to say that none of the quotes
attributed to him bore any resemblance to what he'd said.
I've already explained why it was believed that a mini Ice Age was on
the cards. It was based on the science of climate cycles which you
AGW-deniers put forward as one of the reasons for global warming.
Now I've seen many a AGW disciple claim that , that was rubbish it
never happened , well thankfully those with memories know the truth ,
I would also postulate that if the internet had been available in
that period, then the 'Ice Age ' to return story would have been as
big as AGW. However AGW has one far bigger advantage as a scare
story; the left wing found it hard to blame the west for causing an
ice age, in fact in that scenario the 'big' oil producers would have
been hard to hate. No AGW was a wonderful device with which to attack
human progress pioneered through the west and therefore AGW is a
fantastic opportunity to say how much you hate your mum and dad and
the affluent life style they've given you.
I've no idea which "AGW-disciples" have said forecasts of a Little Ice
Age never happened. If any have, then they are pig ignorant.
You say the predictions of a Little Ice Age were front-page news but
weren't big news. Huh?
Although AGW scientists had not been listened to for decades, the tide
had turned in the mid-70s. Although there had been little evidence of
global warming since WWII, scientists were predicting a 3C increase in
global temperatures above pre-industrial levels for a doubling of CO2.
In 1975, they predicted a rise of 0.5C by the end of the century. They
got that right.
That last sentence bit could be boiled down to an accusation that all
climate scientists hate their parents. Interesting piece of
psychoanalysis.
Attempting to fix AGW doesn't necessarily involve losing an affluent
lifestyle. You use advances in science to generate power but in a
clean way. Also, as I've said before, you build energy-efficient houses
and improve new ones. I don't see where having a toasty house for a
weekly heating bill of less than the price of a pint of beer means
going back to the stone age.
--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.
The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write
with. - MARTY FELDMAN