Ice cores from Greenland indicate that the last "little" ice age
came on in 7 years. That was the one that killed people in N. Europe,
a couple of hundred years ago.
The University of Alaska Fairbanks sends a team over to Greenland
every year to drill the ice. If anyone wants to look this stuff
up, hit the UAF website. (Probably the geophysical dept.)
People moved over here to Alaska during the last "big" ice age.
They've found tools and stuff that date to 10K YBP up near Old Crow
in the Yukon Territory, right across the present Alaska/Canada border,
up above the Yukon River. (Up the Porcupine River.)
This little blue planet will revoke our permission to live on it
any damned time it feels like it, with no advance notice. So in
the mean time, grow a nice garden and try to be kind to people.
(Unless they're idiots, twits or trolls.)
The way to a man's heart is between the fourth and the fifth rib.
Oh, God, not cyclemania again :-( As with most other areas where
people have claimed to discover cycles (and the reason is not
obvious), there is damn-all evidence for them. Most of the time
the series is almost certainly an ARIMA model of sorts (think of
that as a correlated random walk).
Any extrapolation of climate change based only on around 100 years
worth of hard data of varying quality and reliabilty will
of necessity require a fair amount of conjecture.
If you're of the opinion that your conjecture is superior to that
of the meteorologists whose opinion I quoted then good for you.
All else is hand waving IMHO.
That is true, but is seriously misleading, because there is a LOT
more data of adequate quality - if you are up to handling it.
No, my statement is not conjecture. I am a statistician,
To repeat what I said, there is damn-all evidence for a cyclic
phenomenon in this case and, in situations like this one, almost all
cases of apparent cycles are created by something like an ARIMA
process. I could also add that the observations from previous
centuries are quite good enough in quality to debunk the theory
that there is a single predominant cycle.
While I am pretty rusty in this aspect of statistics, I could still
explain in more detail than I expect you want to know about this
Jolly good for you!
I do hope you're not looking for a round of applause or anything
at this juncture Mr McLaren. As one of the meteorologists I was
referring to, just happens to be Prof. Mark Saunders of the
Dept. of Space and Climate Physics at UCL.
< selective quotes >
Friday July 22, 2005
There are severe to moderate droughts affecting all of Portugal,
Spain and southern France, northern Italy, Austria, Hungary and
the northern parts of the former Yugoslavia," says Mark Saunders,
head of climate prediction at the department of space and climate
physics at University College London.
The real reason for the drought is essentially a lack of rainfall
over the past nine months. In winter and spring, most reservoirs
get replenished, but in the UK, for example, the past six months
have seen barely two-thirds of the average expected rainfall.
Professor Saunders says that the current situation is a result of
natural climate variability. Drought trends going back more than
100 years show this sort of natural cycle repeating itself time
and again. He also rules out global warming as a contributing
factor since it is expected to cause wetter winters.
I'm not in the habit of posting unsupported rubbish on NewsGroups
Mr McLaren, despite the fact that I don't provide cites for every
remark and opinion expressed, and I can only suggest you save the
condescension\obfuscation trolls for those who unlike myself, who
are more likely to be impressed by them.
< Snipped obfuscation and doomed attempt to impress >
If on the other hand you do really have serious concerns about
Professor Saunders' entire appproach to this question Mr McLaren,
then I can only suggest you raise the matter direct with him,
by possibly writing to him at UCL.
Or if he too shows little interest in listening to your detailed
argument, maybe making up some placards and chaining yourself to
the railings outside. Until the world shows itself ready to listen
to what you have to say.
I can't say fairer than that, now can I?
And you are regarded THAT as being an ACCURATE representation of
what he said? Have you NO experience of how scientific statements
get mangled in the press?
And there you can see it. Assuming that he knows his statistics,
the first sentence is likely to be an accurate representation of
what he said, but the term 'natural cycle' was almost certainly
introduced as a loose description by the reporter.
Then please don't do so again.
I know. We're all conspiring against you.
Newspaper reporters, posters on NewsGroups....
So if the drought trends aren't decribing 'cycles' precisely what are
they describing ?
And what is it, that's being "repeated" ?
Or again, is it possible for anything to be repeated without that
repetition representing a "cycle".
Or are you now going to claim that the words "drought trends" and
"repeated are total fabrications on the part of John Vidal as well ?
Total figements of his imagination, which totally misrepresent
what Professor Saunders work is all about.
Because basically to claim that an experienced and respected
Science reporter such as John Vidal is either deliberately or
inadvertantly misreprenting Saunders, just so as to get yourself
out of the hole you've dug for youreself, is pretty reprehensible
under any circumstances.
Especially as in this instance, its totallly poinless in any case.
As you should well know yourself. Cranks touting crackpot theories
demonstrating where all the experts have gone wrong, with page
upon page of calculations to prove it, are two a penny on Usenet.
So that thus far we have the evidence of -
a) Professor Mark Saunders, Head of Climate Prediction at the
Department of Space and Climate Physics at University College London.
b) as reported by "John Vidal who has been a journalist at the Guardian
for twelve years, as Environmental Editor for the past six years.
He has twice won Environmental Journalist of the Year in the national
To repeat, that's twice now he's won it.
c) Against the word of one Usenet crackpot who claims everyone
is conspiring against him.
Not too difficult a choice to make really, is it?
Attempting to discredit scientists is more your own, and Bush's
(advisors) speciality than mine, I'd have thought.
Although lying about people seems a particular speciality of
As it is with most Crackpots of course.
More especially once they start to feel the heat.
Michael, I can't help wondering why you use such an aggressive style
in discussion. It's awfully off-putting. I seem to remember having
been on the wrong end of it myself on one occasion (perhaps I started
it: I really can't remember). Surely if you have the evidence and
present it clearly, it will speak for itself: the issue is far too
interesting to get emotional about. Nick gets distinctly blunt at
times, but ratcheting up isn't the way to deal with it.
Then don't read my posts.
It really is as simple as that, isn't it?
If you want a forum which is run solely to suit your own
personal tastes Mr Lyle, then I can only suggest you start
up your own moderated chat board.
It isn't my function in life to provide you personally
with either entertainment or information. More especially
when you're not paying me anything to do so. And I find it
rather presumptuous on your part to assume otherwise.
If I ever require advice on how to conduct myself on NewsGroups Mr Lyle,
or in life generaly for that matter, you can rest assured that the first
person who I'll turn to for advice, will be somebody who clearly believes
themselves especially qualified to offer advice on such subjects,
such as yourself.
You seem to be succeeding admirably in the former, though failing rather
dismally regarding the latter. Perhaps it's a good thing that it isn't
your function in life.
I don't remember anyone assuming that you were being paid for your
Ah, good. I must say that I approve of your rating Mike as knowing how
to conduct himself in newsgroups, for I totally agree there.
<Book of Common Prayer>
Hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them.
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.