Check the forum as well.

Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7295&page=1

To begin with, 'Global Warming' was and always will be a sham. The  
correct term is 'Global Climate Change', meaning the mean surface  
temperature of the planet is continually changing, and it will  
continue to change no matter what we do. Global Climate Change  
doesn't just take into account the warming of the planet, but also  
the cooling of the planet. In my opinion, an ice age, or an extensive  
period of colder than normal surface temperatures, is just around the  
corner.

The definition of an Ice Age is below:

"An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of  
the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in an expansion of  
continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

The above image shows a global cycle in ice core Temperatures in  
Antarctica. Noting we are currently at a high, with previous years  
peaking then quickly dropping off. I believe we are at the peak, and  
will start to drop off soon.

Any constructive comments are welcome

Regards,
ShaneE

On 05/05/2008, at 6:11 AM, Chas Osborn wrote:

At 06:11 AM 5/5/2008, you wrote:

Certainly a correlation between sunspot numbers and climate change
has been documented, the "Maunder Minimum" and the Little Ice Age
being a well known case.  I'd suggest that this concern might be a
little premature, but it is something interesting to keep an eye on.

The last sunspots seen several weeks ago were lingering Cycle 23
spots, if I recall.  I do take an interest in sunspots, due to their
effect on the ionosphere and HF radio propagation.

73 de VK3JED
http://vkradio.com

Re Phil's opinion
You have to be joking .What a silly thing to use the last five months of SOHO data to try to predict an eleven year solar cycle which really has to be taken over a full twenty two years anyway .The real accepted scenario is that if to much fresh melt water from the Artic causes the Gulf stream to stop its warming influence ,of cause there  will be rapid cooling in some areas regardless of sun spots.
Dennis Cottle

At 08:21 PM 5/5/2008, you wrote:

As I said.... Wait and see.  It's too early to tell IMHO.

73 de VK3JED
http://vkradio.com

Correct Tony
The "Maunder Minimum " is well recorded with total freeze up of the Thames
river ect. .I think there is a famous painting of people skating on the
Thames by an artist I should remember but cant.
Dennis Cottle

Hi all....There are a number of artists who painted 'ice' scenes from the
period of the Little Ice age, there are also a few books written but I
regard the book 'The Little Ice Age' by Brian Fagan as one of the best.
However if any list members want to read further back in climate history
there are some really excellent readings including 'Climate change in pre
history' by William j Burroughs this well set out book goes back tens of
thousands of years using ice core and sediment samples together with a host
of other related scientific facts about climate change, in one chapter a
description of how climate varied before 10.000 years ago will give you
double goose bumps...!.. Another rather heavy book (lots of pages) is After
the Ice by Steven Mithen has great text but a bias towards human
development.....Back to the freezing Thames river,   to put the events into
perspective the river did not freeze every year during the little ice age
there were actually intermediate warm spells however the frequency of
freezing was higher between 1670 and 1710. The last time the Thames almost
froze over from its source to the sea was during the winter of 1962/1963 a
winter I remember well.....best regards Clyve Herbert.

nlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7295&page=1

The 17th and 18th centuries were certainly significantly colder in northern Europe than the first half of the 20th (although the limited evidence available suggests this wasn't matched in the Southern Hemisphere). However, I wouldn't read anything into freezing of the Thames - the main reason it doesn't freeze now is because of warm water flowing into it from the drains of urban London (bridge configurations have also been important). It would certainly have frozen in 1962-63 - the coldest winter since 1740 - under 18th-century urban conditions, and probably in a number of subsequent winters too (like 1987).

I could document all the fallacies, factual flaws and misleading extrapolations in the Chapman article, but I've got better things to do with a couple of hours, and in any case David Karoly's already done it at www.onlineopinion.com.au.

Blair

G'day Shane and All,

I fully agree with Shane's opening statements - I think climate change is a natural part of life. Just looking at the daily weather patterns shows us that nothing is a 'given' - the weather is always changing, why wouldn't that happen on a larger scale over hundreds and even thousands of years? I feel "Global Warming" is a political issue not a real scientific one. How many times do we hear people saying it's never been this...'cold', 'wet', 'hot', 'windy' and so on when the real records show that it's nothing new, just rare. It seems to me that most 'uninformed' people, (who don't dig out the truth for themselves), think their little experience on this rock is all that counts, when in reality it's just their 'experience' in a certain, rather tiny, time frame - not sure if all that make sense? But I think politicians are using that short-sighted "fear" to push the, (in my opinion), false man-made warming message for an agenda, which may not be fully understood until too late. (?)

Enjoy!

Regards,

Andrew

--
www.tasmail.com

Hi Shane

Very interesting point of view indeed.

I have studied solar patterns, oceanic current patterns, and simple
temperature trends and have tried to tie all of these together in one
nice big ball of yarn here. Well, it has worked to some degree but one
thing I have looked more closely at recently is the Earth's orbital
changes over the hundreds of thousands of years. Yes according to data
we have been much closer to the Sun and also much further away from
the Sun. About 450,000 years ago or so there was a lot of CO2 around
but yet we were not around driving our cars. I guess one could
attribute a lot of that CO2 to volcanism on the Ring Of Fire and in
other places in the World but if the Earth was much closer than it is
in it's current obrit then that would allow more methane to escape
from far Northern Tundra as well far Southern Tundra areas. Yes a bi-
product of methane is good old fashioned CO2 and that has been proven
by Russian Scientists in Siberia and other places in the far north of
Russia.

Anyway I think you hit it right on if you are refering to the Earth's
orbital ecentricity for the cause of the cooling and warming patterns
of the planet. Coupled with the solar variation and oceanic currents
that give us La Nina and El Nino, it all makes for interesting weather
which eventually makes for an interesting climate record base.

Keep up the good thinking Shane

Greg Carstens
Spanaway, WA. U.S.A.
Atmospheric Sciences Major

On May 4, 1:11 pm, "Chas Osborn" <chasosb...@bigpond.com> wrote:

Hi all,
I beg to differ,
I have been studying weather seriously for nearly 45 years and have good records for the Canberra Region for 25 years as well as access to other data  ..I have...I  hope a reasonably good memory. The evidence is pointing to Climate Change which is happening faster than the natural trends.Sure climate varability is natural, it's the rapid rate of change that woories me plus the increasing numbers of extreme weather events(even making allowance for the lack of reliable records much older than a few hundred years.Increased rates of melting of glaciers, the ice caps etc are a sure sign taht all is not well with Gia.
I think , for the sake of my kids who will be around long after I am gone, that it is imparative that we cut back our extaordina