temperatures

Yosemite was filled with ice not that long ago; there's really not much question that the earth's warming. Has been for a long time.

When I was in Alaska they had poles marking the size of a glacier over time. It had been melting forever, and its most rapid retreat was roughly 100 years ago.

So was New York. Is that what we're shooting for again?

Since the Little Ice age or the last glaciation? Thank goodness it's warmer.

Of course, if you mean since the last 'warm' period it's damn cold now.

Is that measured in worm years, dog years, or period of galactic rotation?

I hate to burst your bubble but mankind hasn't existed "forever."

That's about right for recovering from the Little Ice age, which turned the corner about 1850 or so.

What about the advancing glaciers all over the world?

But what makes you think it 'unusual'?

It's covered with tourists now. They melted all the ice.

advertisers,

spew

work.

It seems that you did NOT learn the lessons of the crystal spheres model. When AGW models are asked to explain the past they fail miserably and repeatably.

For models that fail so, it does not matter if their adherents do:

(1) submit their work to peer review, (2) have a professional, ethical, reason to be accurate, and (3) also sign their work.

Proper experts have credibility from explaining the past clearly. See NFPA 101 and NEC for examples.

Irrelevancy masquerading as insight?

?-)

being

and

Photography has been around little over 100 years, that time is in between weather and climate and thus proves little or nothing. Remember climate is millinea or longer, not yearly. It helps to retain proper scope and perspective.

I suspect that the time periods for the oceans coincide with the Milankovich cycles ~22k years.

peak cold at

extreme

"global

Interesting hypothesis. So go find out when each of several stations got repainted with latex instead of whitewash and check the data for those stations and tell us what you find out. Your hypothesis has been put forward, test it or admit you have nothing.

?-)

te:

air

he

ry

to

GW.

being

and

ween

mate

and

ble

Ah OK I think we are talking about different things. I was speaking of the characteristic time scale for ocean temperature change.... assume a step change in the solar output... how long till the ocean's catch up with the new 'surface' temperature.

web&cd=2&...

th

Oh I didn't read the paper either. I was just looking for a value for the thermal diffusivity of sea water. From that you can guesstimate the time scale... The convection number was a bonus. I have no idea if the numbers are any good. But thosuands of years doesn't sound unreasonable. After all we all know that 4-5 feet of earth has a time scale greater than one year. (once you dig down that far the temperature is fairly constant throughout the year.)

George H.

Oh. Yes. I couldn't even hazard a guess because i know that i do not understand heat transport across the thermocline (a flow and temperature transition at some hundreds of feet depth).

web&cd=2&...

with

Just the same, i suspect that it will be at least hundreds of years.

?-)