December 2010 was ‘almost certain’ to become the coldest since records began in 1910

andykn

CLAPTON wrote: »

the milanovitch cycles only included various wobbles in the earth passage around the sun;
it included NOTHING about CO2 or methane levels
it included nothing about icecaps
it included nothing about the atlantic pump
or about jet streams
it was an excellent but very basic work

the earth has existed for about 5,000,000,000 years
Milankovitch tried to explain about 100,000 years only i.e. 0.00005% of the earth's history

the broad thrust of a modest 100,000 is understood in terms of solar radiation falling on the earth but not in any detail
and do remember that his theory predicted an ICEAGE as the next major climate change
Presumably you must believe that the iceage has been diverted by man's production of CO2.

the earth has been warmer in the past the so I'm a little unclear why you say that no-one has any alternative theories about why the earth is in relatively warm patch
carbonifous times were warmer
10-11th century was warmer with greenaland growing wheat
vineyards on hadrian wall

Milankovitch may have only tried to explain the last 100,000 years but Milankovitch cycles have existed for far longer.

The next Ice Age was due when, tell us.

Lots of people have alternative theories, none of them tell us why the earth warmed in the last few decades of the last century, apart from CO2.

There are Vineyards near Hadrian's wall now, there weren't in Roman times AFAIK.

Linton

CLAPTON wrote: »

.....
10-11th century was warmer with greenaland growing wheat
....

Any reference for wheat in Greenland???? I have searched the net and the only reference to any form of agriculture I can find is the storage of hay as fodder.

Suspect this is one of many "facts" that the global warming doubters use to bolster their arguments.

andykn

Linton wrote: »

Any reference for wheat in Greenland???? I have searched the net and the only reference to any form of agriculture I can find is the storage of hay as fodder.

Suspect this is one of many "facts" that the global warming doubters use to bolster their arguments.

I do believe that this one's true, grain has been found in archeological digs. I suspect it will be grown in Greenland again soon, too, there is a lag between warming and improvement in all agricultural conditions - large ice masses take a while to melt and we've just come out of the LIA.

CLAPTON

andykn wrote: »

Milankovitch may have only tried to explain the last 100,000 years but Milankovitch cycles have existed for far longer.

The next Ice Age was due when, tell us.

Lots of people have alternative theories, none of them tell us why the earth warmed in the last few decades of the last century, apart from CO2.

There are Vineyards near Hadrian's wall now, there weren't in Roman times AFAIK.

You only need to google milankovitch to see the theory's prediction for the future
The theories graphs show us to be in a 'warm' period between two ice ages
The theory is not very well supported by the experimental facts which is not surprising as the theory only includes the 'three wobbles' and doesn't deal with CO2, methane, plate tectonics etc etc.
And you will also notice that I was incorrect about the last 100,000 years..in fact the graphs go back to about 1 million years

It seems to me that there is a correlation between CO2 and the earths temperature but the science doesn't seem very good to me.

I certainly know of not one single policitian or climate scientist that lives their lifes believing that climate disaster is a little way ahead (ie. they all still drive cars, go on foreign holidays, fly round the world on international jollies, turn the CH up in cold weather) (in fact just like the rest of us.. well except for the international jollies)

The fact that we can't explain the rise in temperature over the last few years is similar to why this winter was going to be mild and the summer before last was a barbeque one... the science is difficult and the fact that now all the funding for research is totally biased in favour of one answer does not inspire confidence. It doesn't make the answer 'wrong' as such but I would like to see a lot more open research and less propraganda.

I would also like to see the models explain why the 10-11 centuries were so mild and why the ice froze on the thames in 17th century too

andykn

CLAPTON wrote: »

The fact that we can't explain the rise in temperature over the last few years

We can.

is similar to why this winter was going to be mild and the summer before last was a barbeque one... the science is difficult and the fact that now all the funding for research is totally biased in favour of one answer does not inspire confidence.

It isn't. It's just that all the research into what's going on points to what's going on. CO2 causing temp rises.

It doesn't make the answer 'wrong' as such but I would like to see a lot more open research and less propraganda.

I would also like to see the models explain why the 10-11 centuries were so mild and why the ice froze on the thames in 17th century too

Solar activity. High during the 10-11th centuries and low during the 17th century.