Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

So what is an acceptable time period ? I have been asking you that for ages now . Any ideas yet ?

Why dont you choose a time period?

If the early evidence of a secular reduction in solar flare activity, comparable to the Maunder minimum of the 17th & 18th centruries proves true (something that isn't yet known), then it can be expected to set in motion a uniform cooling of the earth amounting to no more than 3% C. That's about enough to wipe out about 80 years of the warming predictions of the AGW fearmongers - but not more. If the past cycle is precedent, we should see a subsequent solar warming trend in about 150 years. Meanwhile, on a geological time scale we are headed for another ice age.

Perhaps it can be argued that we have been given another century in which to develop a less carbon intensive economy. Meanwhile the world appears increasingly to understand that the economic costs of correcting AGW are generally worse than the presumed climatilogical benefits of doing so. In addition we are seeing other fears and prejudices trump AGW concerns. Germany's actions to shut down some nuclear powerplants now and all the remaing ones in a decade or so have already increased coal fired plant output among the neighbors from whom they now buy replacement electrical power. They have spent a great deal on wind turbines, but don't get a proportional level of power output from the massive investment. What will they do next?

Invade a small, militarily weak but resource rich eastern European country.

The Poles might beat them this time.

Really? In 2010 Germany exported 59.1 TWh, imported 42.1 TWh.
But there are daily changes - that's why electricity is trade at the European Energy Exchange in Leipzig.

OK... lets choose a time period where the big factors affecting Global Climate Changes will actually themselves change, thus causing change in the climate .

The true shaker and mover of Ice Ages seems to be the solar systems movement up and down in the spiral arm of the galaxy . This puts a periodicity for Ice Ages of about 150 million years and a generally colder period lasting for 10's of millions of years .

Finger nails grow at the same pace as the continents move . So probably a 100,000 time period for those ... Ocean currents are dictated by the continents and temp differentials but are also suspected of being subject to rapid fluctuation through mechanisms not understood . So 100,000 yrs is a good start, but we should keep in mind it could be as little as a 100 period followed by an indeterminate period before it corrects itself and returns to the previous state . Also related to continental movement are mountain ranges . To make a measurable difference, these should also be taken as a 100,000 yr period .

The Milankovitch Cycle has its most effect on Glacial Advances and Retreats within an Ice Age and are due to variations in the Earth's orbit and axis that take it further or closer to the sun about every 20,000 and 40,000 years .

A solar cycle which does not affect climate, is roughly 11 years .

The Little Ice Age lasted about 300 yrs and may have been due to Ocean Currents or increased volcanic activity . The Medieval Warm period affected the Northern Hemisphere and has no known cause . Both these events go some way to discounting even talking about a Global Climate having minor variations as local variations of climate can be quite substantial and not affect the "Global Climate" .

So for Climate variation, the big picture is 150 million year period with the impact of that altered by "local conditions such as continents, oceans currents and mountains of the shortest possible time being 100,000 years . Within that, volcanoes as well as impact events can do whatever they want and have major effects, and on an even shorter scale, we have Milankovitch cycles of 40,000 and 20,000 years . Within those we have solar cycles of 11 years .

The smallest you can count on occurring regularly is a 100,000 year time period influenced by smaller peaks and troughs from those discussed above . How much would a 100,000 year cycle influence climate ? It may be so small as to be immeasurable . To have enough build up to make a difference GLOBALLY, we may need a million year time period .

30 years is the standard for climate. That was answered the first time you asked the question.

If you think you have been asking for "ages", how long do you think an ice "age" is?

So what is 30 years based on ? What climatic factor changes in 30 years ? Your grandmothers bedding ?

Don't mention Ice Ages, you are the one who didn't know there had been more than one till I educated you . Then you tried to obfuscate by claiming a glacial advance was an ice age .

30 years is considered long enough to average out the effects of weather.

All climate factors can change in 30 years.

My grandmothers bedding isn't a climate factor. But I find it interesting that you would think it is.

If you want to show where I claimed there was only one ice age then maybe you can make that statement. I never claimed it. We only have ice from one ice age but the geological record shows that there have been more.
Are you arguing you can find ice from the last 5 ice ages somewhere?

Would that be mountains growing or plate tectonic movements ?

Oh but I have..twice in fact... and each time you claim a Glacial Advance is an Ice Age . Your knowledge of the subject leads me to believe I would have more intelligible opposition from a pre-schooler...at least they know ice is caused by cold and not by Global Warming as some on your side claim .

Are you arguing there is no evidence for them ?

not an unreasonable discussion. Im actually surprised. Mustnt forget that the Chandler wobbles and axial "nutation" occur at 14 month cycles, 16.2 yer cycles and 18.6year cycles. THese are different than many of the other axial precession rates and can pile up "wobble effects" over a series of math "master" combinations.Milankovitch's cycles were computed to be 100K,41K, and 23K respectively.

ALso, all bets are off when it comes to long term climate because we are seeing a sunspot projected minimum that could drop us into anothersunspot minimum(which has real climatological effect and is probab;y what all the Global Warming bullshit is about).THis next projected minimum could be at least a s great as the Dalton or as big as the MAunder.In any effect , it will probably drop global temps for several decades at least. This will have one good result, it will shut all the anthropogenic global warmists down until Im dead.
(The little Ice Age was a combination of effects fromsun spot minima that included the MAunder AND the DAlton sunspot minima)

___________________________________________________________

Anus is correct in that an "Ice AGe" is of epochal length and includes (possibly ) more than just one Ice sheet advance. In the Pleistocene (which was so defined by the rocks that were deposited in the time from 1.75 My to 11.5THOUSAND years ago. It happens that most of these rock (or sediments) deposited were ice related (moraines etc, glaciofluvial, glacio lacustrine , etc).
Depending what area of the planet you live on, there were four or five actual ice advances with uniquely local names (In US the names we use are Nebraskan, KAnsan, Illinoian (the biggy) and theWisconsin),in Europe its the Gunz,Riss, Mindel- riss,Wurm).

You boys are arguing two different things here.
1There is some teeny bit of ice left over from the Illinoian as well as the Wisconsinian within the Greenland Ice cap and in the Antarctic Ice sheet.

2The evidence for the NEbraskan Kansan Illinoian and Wisconsinian are all over the map
rock scratches overtop older rock scratches, moraines atop older moraines, polygon swamp deposits and permafrost soil zones underlying younger noraines. All these can be read as dynamic evidence of multiple ice sheet advances. Same thing is true in Asia, Europe and Africa and Southern South AMerica.

Those statements are mutually exclusive Ionus.

If someone argues there have been multiple ice ages they can't also argue there has been only one.

re ionus:

A GLACIAL ADVANCE IS IN FACT AN ICE AGE. THE TERM "ICE AGE" IS USED IN TWO DIFFERENT SENSES, DEPENDING ON WHO IN WHAT DISCIPLINE IS USING IT IN WHAT CONTExT. BOTH ARE CORRECT. JUST MAKE IT CLEAR WHICH SENSE YOU'RE USING IT AND STOP THE GODDAMNED ARGUING ABOUT IT AND GET ON WITH THINGS.

Not so. According to the AGI "Glossary of Geology (vol 5)" An ICE AGE is an epochal length event defined by terminal sedimentological or other geological events.AN "Ice advance" is just a feature of that Ice Age.
The Pleistocene "Quaternary" Ice AGe actually contained four separate ice advances . The last ice sheet advance of the Pleistocene was the Wisconsinian which ended and retreated 11.5 thousand years ago. Even Websters New Collegiate Dictionary deferes to (geology) as the source for this definition. In fac, the dictionay defines Ice AGe as a "Glacial Epoch"

This is how geologists define it.

By heck fm is one gump. Jack specifically said it depends on who is using the term and in comes this Charlie to spout "Not so" as an excuse to strut his scientific expertise and claim for geology the right to define words and he can't even understand the post he's responding to.

And "epoch" means a turning point to many people and that can be defined as an infinitessimal period of time.

I agree . Nevertheless, that was part of the smoke screen you threw up when you stammered about how you had been referring to the last Glacial Advance as an Ice Age and when you said the ONLY Ice Age you meant the last one .

re : Your Last Post

No.