I find the following article very interesting.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994464

The conventional wisdom is that, because the current interglacial has lasted
so long it has allowed mankind to develop agriculture and civilisation.
IMHO This article says that agriculture has extended the interglacial so that
civilisation has developed.

When it was first proposed that a meteorite had wiped out the dinosaurs there
was similar opposition to that theory, as there is to this one!

Cheers, Alastair.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:25:28 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:


When it was first proposed that a meteorite had wiped out the dinosaurs there
was similar opposition to that theory, as there is to this one!

It can be very difficult for scientists to adjust to a new hypothesis.
Many of them work intently on specialised details and "can't see the wood
for the trees". That is not a criticism - just a fact.

There is also the problem that specialists can form incorrect views of
matters outside their specialisms. They can be remarkably ignorant of
*anything* other than their own subjects[1]. (I spent about 30 years in
universities and saw this first-hand!)

Look at one paragraph in the NS article:

quote
Geochemist Jeff Severinghaus at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in
San Diego, California, is wary. "I think it's very interesting," he says,
"but very speculative. I doubt that ancient humans could have done that."
/quote

The man is a geochemist. He possibly has no worthwhile knowledge of the
activities and effects of ancient humans. It is a big mistake to
underestimate the power of humans given enough time and need.

[1] They usually have a second specialised skill - filling in application
forms for grants. That is a survival skill.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
news

There is also the problem that specialists can form incorrect views of
matters outside their specialisms.


Specialists often have incorrect views of matters within their
specialisations. To get promotion in the field you have to have a reputation
of have a 'sound' knowledge of the topic. Which generally means
conservative opinions, or being the leader in the field. There is no place
for radical thinkers yet to achieve status.

There is a possible problem with this hypothesis though.

Previous Warm and Cold Climatic Periods

975bc-250bc Subatlantic cold period ( lasted approx 725 years )
250bc-450ad Roman warm period ( lasted approx 700 years )
450ad-950ad Dark ages cold period ( lasted approx 500 years )
950ad-1400ad Medieval warm period ( lasted approx 450 years )
1400ad-1850ad Little Ice Age ( lasted approx 450 years )
1850ad-2003ad Modern warm period ( 153 years so far )

These are just the periods that have a specific name. Notice the gradually
reducing time scales between cycles.
It should also be noted that warm and cold phases, just like those above,
have been detected in ice cores going as far back in time
as is currently feasible, even during the last several ice ages!!

I do agree however, that all avenues of research need to be explored.

The problem I have is this: If CO2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas
Methane and Water Vapour are much worse ) , then why is Mars so cold?

Shaun Pudwell.


"Hamish" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
news

There is also the problem that specialists can form incorrect views of
matters outside their specialisms.


Specialists often have incorrect views of matters within their
specialisations. To get promotion in the field you have to have a
reputation
of have a 'sound' knowledge of the topic. Which generally means
conservative opinions, or being the leader in the field. There is no place
for radical thinkers yet to achieve status.

"Shaun Pudwell" wrote in message
...

The problem I have is this: If CO2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas
Methane and Water Vapour are much worse ) , then why is Mars so cold?

Probably simply because it's much further from the sun than the Earth.

It would be even colder if it didn't have the CO2.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk

In article ,
Col writes:

"Shaun Pudwell" wrote in message
...

The problem I have is this: If CO2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas
Methane and Water Vapour are much worse ) , then why is Mars so cold?

Probably simply because it's much further from the sun than the Earth.

It would be even colder if it didn't have the CO2.

I think that it's at least as much because the atmosphere is very thin,
so that even though a large proportion is CO2 there still isn't all that
much of it.
--
John Hall
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he shall end in certainties." Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Shaun Pudwell writes
There is a possible problem with this hypothesis though.

Previous Warm and Cold Climatic Periods

975bc-250bc Subatlantic cold period ( lasted approx 725 years )
250bc-450ad Roman warm period ( lasted approx 700 years )
450ad-950ad Dark ages cold period ( lasted approx 500 years )
950ad-1400ad Medieval warm period ( lasted approx 450 years )
1400ad-1850ad Little Ice Age ( lasted approx 450 years )
1850ad-2003ad Modern warm period ( 153 years so far )

These would be considered short random fluctuations over the time
periods dealt with in the article.

It should also be noted that warm and cold phases, just like those above,
have been detected in ice cores going as far back in time
as is currently feasible, even during the last several ice ages!!

Yes, but it's the longer term pattern that is being broken this time.
best to see the graph that comes with the article.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

I wonder if people said in 1851 " Hey its bloody hot this year"

lol

Home Page: http://bellsouthpwp.net/k/h/khogue22/index.htm
Join in chat at #ukweather on undernet and #usweather on Austnet.
K2MAH

In article , "Shaun Pudwell" writes:

The problem I have is this: If CO2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas
Methane and Water Vapour are much worse ) , then why is Mars so cold?

Average atmospheric pressure on Mars is 6 millibars.

Cheers,

keith

Mars Express.




---
Iraq: 5 thousand million pounds, 50 lives, and counting...

In uk.sci.weather on Tue, 16 Dec 2003 at 16:05:23, Keith Dancey wrote :
In article , "Shaun Pudwell"
writes:

The problem I have is this: If CO2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas
Methane and Water Vapour are much worse ) , then why is Mars so cold?

Average atmospheric pressure on Mars is 6 millibars.

Enough to generate big dust storms though!

BTW, I've always wondered what the surface temperature of Venus would be
if its atmosphere was the same composition as Earth's.

Hotter obviously, since it's a lot closer to the sun, but by how much?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Email to pahyett[AT]activist[DOT]demon[DOT]co[DOT]uk