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


Keith (Southend)
http://www.southendweather.net
"Weather Home & Abroad"
twitter: @LawnscienceEssx

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.]

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.
The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write
with. - MARTY FELDMAN

On Saturday, 18 January 2014 11:15:31 UTC, 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





Keith (Southend)

http://www.southendweather.net

"Weather Home & Abroad"

twitter: @LawnscienceEssx

DENIER ;-)

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.]



--

Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.

The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write

with. - MARTY FELDMAN



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.

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.


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.


By the way nit pickers: Nigel Calder also in the 90's published the 'Manic Sun' which brought Svensmark's theories to the public; hover by then the MSM, IPCC and those of a left persuasion were in full steam ahead AGW mode and nothing was gonna stop them. So Svensmark's theory and Calder's book wasn't exactly in fashion.

Calder does have a blog but http://calderup.wordpress.com/

But it hasn't been updated for some time which leads me to believe Calder is in poor health as he is getting on a bit now at 82.

On Saturday, 18 January 2014 13:03:49 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

DENIER ;-)

I just sit on the fence Lawrence, as I haven't got a clue what's going on or what's causing it, but find it laughable that some do...

Keith (Southend)
http://www.southendweather.net
"Weather Home & Abroad"
twitter: @LawnscienceEssx

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

On Saturday, 18 January 2014 14:31:11 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
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)





"You say the predictions of a Little Ice Age were front-page news but
weren't big news. Huh? "

Climate science and scientists back then just very a very narrow subject with a handful of climate scientists.

There was no internet and if there was, it would have reached the attention of far more people especially the 'doomsayers' and lets face it the seventies was full of doomsayers. However another very key important point is this: Global cooling that is out of the hands of human cause and therefore totally natural is a completely different proposition to AGW which is has wholly been blamed on the human C02 released by the use of fossil fuels.
In fact if the earth cycles, generally seen to be the cause of a genuinely held concern that the earth may have been on the brink of a cooling planet then any greenhouse gas like C02 would have been welcomed to try and slow the impending disaster. As I've said those extracting fossil fuel would have been seen as heroes.
So not a lot of political capital there for those that hated the whole western way of life industrialisation process. AGW however was a totally different kettle of fish where there was clearly global warming that followed the post WWII cooling and although all of that warming could have been natural(as before) those with a beef against capitalism now found a perfect weapon with which to vent their spleen against everything they despised.

Now there is the science that yes C02 is a green house gas and there are the well observed global temperatures that have risen but the left who decided to use this issue have fully supported the case that only the human increase in the nominal many parts per million of Co2 are wholly responsible for all of the warming observed. What I'm saying is that because of the internet and the championing of the AGW scenario for the use of politics has made the AGW scare far more global and seen to be important far more then the seventies global warming scare.

So yes the ice age scare was big news but never had the same effect on tens of millions of human minds in the same way as AGW.

Lawrence, this site, along with so many others is infested with global warming zealots, who, as on other sites push their agenda for all they are worth, even to the extent of rubbishing everyone else who may have their own doubts as to the "settled" nature of their "science". They, in the end, will be proved wrong, but it won't stop their caterwauling - it's what they do.

That's why I have little to do with this site any more.

Good luck, even though you're wasting your time with them.

CK

On Saturday, 18 January 2014 15:21:18 UTC, Natsman wrote:
Lawrence, this site, along with so many others is infested with global warming zealots, who, as on other sites push their agenda for all they are worth, even to the extent of rubbishing everyone else who may have their own doubts as to the "settled" nature of their "science". They, in the end, will be proved wrong, but it won't stop their caterwauling - it's what they do.



That's why I have little to do with this site any more.



Good luck, even though you're wasting your time with them.



CK

I think that some here have stayed out of it which is understandable where the science and the reality of global temperatures are concerned , but what I can't abide is the way it's as obvious as Jimmy Durante's 'snoozle' the hypocrisy of those that say do as I say and not as I do, always seem to get a free pass.

Keith (Southend)G wrote:
On Saturday, 18 January 2014 13:03:49 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

DENIER ;-)

I just sit on the fence Lawrence, as I haven't got a clue what's going on or what's causing it, but find it laughable that some do...

Keith (Southend)
http://www.southendweather.net
"Weather Home & Abroad"
twitter: @LawnscienceEssx
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the fact that the atmosphere is currently warmer it doesn't
preclude that other factors may come into play at some point causing a
reversal or a mini-ice age. It is just at the moment there is evidence
of one and not of the other. Tomorrow may be different but with proper
science you have to use the current evidence - not the future
speculation of possible evidence. I hope the deniers turn out to be
"right" because it will be much better for us all (provided it is a new
stable scenario and not something worse)but unfortunately there is
little current evidence to suggest they will be. I use "right" in
inverted commas because I stll find the most frustrating thing all round
is that the proper(and I use that word knowing that on both sides they
are not all of the same calibre) Scientists will not have any qualms or
concerns whatsoever if new evidence appears that shows global cooling
and they won't and shouldn't feel any sense of being "wrong" before
because that isn't what the evidence was then. It's how it has always
been but the majority just can't seem to grasp that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
Dave