Re: OT: Wild Weather

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:09:33 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

> I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Jones <abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> (in <yeCdnWZ659r3TUPcRVn-tw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>) about 'OT: Wild
> Weather', on Fri, 7 Jan 2005:
>> What doesn't make sense is the last few thousand years of the graph. It

>>clearly should have started going into a colder period, but instead the 
>>global temperature has stayed almost constant. So what we perceive as 
>>being "no change" in global warming might actually be a "big deal."
>>
>> Disclaimer: I'm no climatologist. :)
> 
> Who is? But the Milankovic cycle is quite irregular (at least three
> uncorrelated periods - almost as bad as audio!), and it *seems to me*
> not to be very well quantified (odd for a near-Earth astronomical
> effect), so it *seems to me* to be difficult to be sure exactly what we
> should 'expect'. For example, are we in an interglacial or has the
> latest glaciation cycle ended, so that we should expect several million
> years with no ice ages?

Rather like the stock market.  If you look at its history there are
obvious cycles.  ...just try to catch them right each time.  I think this
is another manifestation of our image recognition wiring.  "Past
performance is no guaranty of future results."

-- 
  Keith