The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Go Native 70]

I have been following the science surrounding the enhanced greenhouse effect since the mid '80's and studied it through my university degree. In recent years I have seen the science become totally hijacked by politics, propaganda and hysterical claims from both sides of what has become an emotional issue for many. And unfortunately many scientists have found themselves being dragged into this mess both willingly and not.

 

One of the things that amazes me is how people with little or no scientific training and little or no in depth knowledge of the climate (like Sapcefrog) can become so convinced about certain aspects of this debate from probably nothing more than reading a few pages of rubbish published on the internet (of course everything on the internet is true!!). For most of these people I suspect the science has very little to do with their beliefs, probably because they couldn't understand it even if they wanted to. They just take a view that falls within their own political beliefs.

 

The global warming debate of late has definitely been fought along party political lines, the pinko, tree hugging liberals on the left and the red neck, gun totting conservatives on the right (It should be noted though that it was the Clinton administration, one of the pinko liberals, that originally declined to ratify the Kyoto Treaty). And once this issue became a political football between these two sides the propaganda, spin and conspiracies, etc started to pour forth confusing the issue so much that it's damn near impossible anymore, for the average science illiterate public (meaning just about everyone), to distinguish the real science from the rest.

 

Personally I have just about given up trying to debate the science with people anymore because in the end the real science seems have been so clouded by the politics that a true intellectual debate is near impossible.

 

 

[spacefrog 0]

 Originally Posted By: Go Native

 Originally Posted By: spacefrog

And lastly the most shocking thing really is that people who consider themselves educated,well informed and have had the benefit of attending higher education so readily swallow the propaganda without trying to verify it. I admit it so cleverly and completely packaged that one would not even dream about researching the facts however I would expect those very people to have the analytical skills to be able to see right through it all.

Gee spacefrog aren't we all so lucky you've dedicated a lifetime of inspired research on this subject and after all those years of toil we can now breath a sigh of relief as you have definitively determined that CO2 has nothing to do with global climate change!! Phew we can all sleep well tonight.

Truly the arrogance of your ignorance is mind boggling. Please enlighten us with what scientific credentials you have that enable you to make a considered opinion on this subject. I majored in meteorology for my science degree at The University of Melbourne and can find nothing in your argument that doesn't seem to come straight out of the conspiracy theorists handbook.

To be so certain in your beliefs must be very comforting. The thing is you sound little different to a born again Christian. I guess as the saying goes 'ignorance is bliss'.

Just the response I expected having to resort to name calling and puerile insults as well as blindly insulting groups of people for their religious beliefs. Typical to take it as a personal insult, but natural as you obviously felt that it was referring to you personally.
The aforementioned analytical skills would have helped you to discern that it was not a personal attack but an attack on our peers belief system. Having your personal opinions sullied by some pseudo intellectual can provoke your response I know.

The problem really is are they your personal opinions or are you just mirroring the opinions we are told to believe. Now if they really were your personal opinions you would have responded in a more coherent fashion. You could have gone to IPCC branch on the UN site and have read their information that clearly is displayed and does not support their claims like we are to believe the media. No but instead we had to resort to name calling. This is what people in the misinformation industry count on that their jingoistic messages and plausible buzzwords will be regurgitated blindly like gospel and defended blindly. So in fact really it is you that sounds like your so called born again christian and it is you that is the conspiracy theorist, conspiring to blindly spew out propaganda that distorts the truth.

As for my academic credentials being relevant I have now idea why but I can assure that I hold multiple degrees in social science from an ancient University. I really don`t see why it is relevant anyway but if you think social science has nothing to do with this you are sadly mistaken.You can`t teach someone who doesn`t want to learn.


And Oyuki I am glad you adopted a rational approach, at least your awake. I might have sounded extreme but A lot of people need to be awakened to what is going on around them. I am not trying to hijack this thread but I feel that a lot of these social issues are under the same umbrella and will mess with our futures, Misinformation being the primary one on a collective group, climate,energy,health and food. The basics for human existence is being eroded by humans.

As you asked how unicef could be evil well, there are several things they actively engage in. I think maybe the one example(there are others) that might hit home is again purely misinformation. Telling young mothers not to use an infant preparation but instead to breast feed. How is this bad? considering a high percantage of mothers carry the retro virus they have a good chance of infecting their infant. Now how is is this commendable? Pampers teamed up with unicef to sponsor vaccinations for tetanus. How is this bad? well given the instance of tetanus in africa one could question if it was really necessary? Supposing it is then we only have to think back to the WHO hepatitis B vaccinations in the late 70`s that included the retrovirus as there is again plenty of evidence from US govt and military sources to suggest that aids is man made.Noone will ever confirm it from those sources. Of course this is like denying the holocaust because everyone knows aids came from monkeys right? Today BBC reports a drug the will inhibit the virus. Great tool to hold vast parts of africa hostage.

Next in plain view on the UN website is the codex alimentarius committee that wants to control world food sources and wipe out natural plants and replace them with GMO or GEO species that will be sold to us by monsanto and other huge pharma companies. Strange coincidence that people are reporting crops planted next to their gmo counterparts destroying the original crops. Coincidence that India & Pakistan GMO crops are being attacked by mystery fungus. Another tool to hold vast populations hostage.

Now the worlds bank is predicting huge food shortages for the worlds poor.

Anyway the pattern is emerging UNICEF,IPCC, UN, WHO,IMF all coming back to the de-population agenda set by Kissinger et al. So the global warming debate really is completely irrelevant to the survival of our planet. It is only relevant to the survival of the human species and having an environment we can flourish in. A sustainable world from a human perspective.

To label this all conspiracy shows narrow mindedness and really the only discourse is to keep trawling for information amongst the disinformation. I can assure you it is out there if you take care to look.

As for Dr Wunsch, I really feel the only reason he is reneging will probably be M.I.T. (with it`s close government and military ties) threatening to persecute him and or threaten his funding.

One more thing you people should be aware of in China, which I think had great deal to do with the unusual lack of snowfall in March, is their cloud seeding program. It was even mentioned on the mainstream TV news in Japan a few days ago. China is hell bent on having the perfect Olympics with the perfect weather. The US and China and god only knows who else have been experimenting with chemicals they launch into to atmosphere in an attempt to influence weather patterns. If one can perfect this technology then in conjunction with other tools( disease, food etc) the world will be a very scary place.

And yes ignorance is bliss and the people that adopt that attitude think none of this can ever happen to them. Well wake up people it can and it most likely will. Then debate will be too late. You can think of me what you like on a personal level, I really don`t care but I do care about people blindly propagating lies and influencing others and this is how we will lose.

[Go Native 70]

Spacefrog please advise what name did I call you? If I am calling you names I'd really like to know what they are.

 

You have several degrees in social sciences?? That's great, exactly what social sciences did you study and from what institution did you receive your degrees from? The field is large including such subjects (according to wikipedia) as, but not limited to, Law, History, geography, social work, and psychology.

 

The question still begs how any of these fields make you qualified to comment with such certainty on the subject of human enhanced global warming?

 

None of your arguments are based on the science but seemingly on some conspiracy theory about the inherently evil UN and you've thrown in some little tidbits about AIDS and breast feeding just to spice things up (those things have a lot to do with climate change by the way). You should note, as it appears you did not, that I have yet to state my own position on this debate so I don't think you could yet label me as "blindly propagating lies and influencing others" or "mirroring the opinions we are told to believe" or "conspiring to blindly spew out propaganda that distorts the truth". But you with no discernable credentials in the field of global climate change appear to be blindly propagating something (god only knows what) and attempting to influence others with no problem at all.

 

You are obviously convinced by the conspiracy theories that you have been trying to convince us of (as any good zealot should be) and I doubt very much anything I could ever say would change your mind on those issues. You may wonder though why I requested the name of the institution you received your degrees at? Basically it is to check the veracity and credibility of your claim. Because frankly in this day and age my cat can get a degree off the internet if I pay a bit of money (By calling it an "ancient university" I'm guessing you aren't referring to something like Oxford are you?) Similarly how far have you gone to check the veracity of your claims? (don't be afraid to use a dictionary if you don't know what veracity means, or are dictionaries tools of the evil oppressors as well?) Please post your sources so your peers can judge for themselves whether your claims come from credible or crackpot sources.

 

One of the main problems with conspiracy theories is there is generally no credible proof (something that could be argued in a court of law) at all to support the claims. There is generally a mismatch of half truths, events and comments taken completely out of context and downright lies that can never be truly refuted because the proof needed to prove or disprove the claims is being so efficiently covered up by governments and institutions! So Spacefrog we should just take it on faith that somehow you, our multi degree learned friend, have the inside story that the rest of us slow, dimwitted fools somehow missed? Give me a break and rush back to your bunker because governments and the UN monitor forums like these and they will be coming for you man!

 

(And if I insulted groups of religious people well that's because I believe religions have about as much credibility as the conspiracy theories you are tainting this forum with)

[soubriquet 0]

Yo GN!

 

The Vostok data are here.

 

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/o18nat.txt

 

They are archived by NOAA (the USA) but the data are Russian. A truly global conspiracy

 

My opinion of the IPCC report (I've read it, have you?) is that the conclusions don't match the data. The data are real though.

 

Spacefrog. My first degree is Environmental Science from the University of East Anglia. Check out the Climate Research Unit. We were dealing with climate change in 1980.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Following this emotion-packed debate with great interest - and you know...I don't know enough to weigh in on the climate change debate - but I do know breastfeeding.

 

 Originally Posted By: spacefrog

Telling young mothers not to use an infant preparation but instead to breast feed. How is this bad? considering a high percantage of mothers carry the retro virus they have a good chance of infecting their infant.

 

Ohhh please! There are babies in 3rd world countries dying every day because thier mothers have been given a starter pack of formula. They can not afford the formula, and when they have it they water it down to make it go further - the baby starves to death. However the mother had the perfect nutrition for the baby within her all the time. The chances of HIV infection through breastfeeding are way lower than the chances of malnutrition through 3rd world bottle feeding. There are also other health benefits for babies and mothers that we in developed countries are now aware of, hence a swing back to breastfeeding. And yes I have engaged in tertiary study on this topic.

 

 Quote:

IF a mother knows she is infected, and

IF breastmilk substitutes are affordable and can be fed safely with clean water, and

IF adequate health care is available and affordable,

 

THEN the infant’s chances of survival are greater if fed artificially.

 

HOWEVER,

 

IF infant mortality is high due to infectious diseases such as diarrhea and pneumonia, or

IF hygiene, sanitation, and access to clean water are poor, or

IF the cost of breastmilk substitutes is prohibitively high, or

IF access to adequate health care is limited,

 

THEN breastfeeding may be the safest feeding option even when the mother is HIV-positive.

 

Even where clean water is accessible, the cost of locally available formula exceeds the average household’s income. If families cannot buy sufficient supplies of breastmilk substitutes, they may:

 

over-dilute the breastmilk substitute,

under-feed their infant, or

replace the breastmilk substitute with dangerous alternatives.

In the 50 poorest developing countries, infant mortality averages over 100 deaths per thousand live births. Artificial feeding can triple the risk of infant death.

[gerard 6]

 Originally Posted By: spacefrog

And Oyuki I am glad you adopted a rational approach, at least your awake.

That should be "...at least you're awake."

[Rag-Doll 0]

As you asked how unicef could be evil well, there are several things they actively engage in. I think maybe the one example(there are others) that might hit home is again purely misinformation. Telling young mothers not to use an infant preparation but instead to breast feed. How is this bad? considering a high percantage of mothers carry the retro virus they have a good chance of infecting their infant. Now how is is this commendable? Pampers teamed up with unicef to sponsor vaccinations for tetanus. How is this bad? well given the instance of tetanus in africa one could question if it was really necessary? Supposing it is then we only have to think back to the WHO hepatitis B vaccinations in the late 70`s that included the retrovirus as there is again plenty of evidence from US govt and military sources to suggest that aids is man made.Noone will ever confirm it from those sources. Of course this is like denying the holocaust because everyone knows aids came from monkeys right? Today BBC reports a drug the will inhibit the virus. Great tool to hold vast parts of africa hostage.

 

Ocean11 - Is that you?

[Oyuki kigan 0]

 Originally Posted By: spacefrog

Anyway the pattern is emerging UNICEF,IPCC, UN, WHO,IMF all coming back to the de-population agenda set by Kissinger et al. So the global warming debate really is completely irrelevant to the survival of our planet. It is only relevant to the survival of the human species and having an environment we can flourish in. A sustainable world from a human perspective.

We seem to be at odds on this point. I see the GW issue as EXTREMELY important to the survival of the planet. Perhaps then maybe we should start another thread to discuss your concerns, as i am hoping to focus on Global Warming in this one.

[Oyuki kigan 0]

 Originally Posted By: Go Native

Personally I have just about given up trying to debate the science with people anymore because in the end the real science seems have been so clouded by the politics that a true intellectual debate is near impossible.

i, for one, would like to hear your thoughts on the subject, particularily

a) what are reasonable outcomes of AGW, and

what should we be doing about it. froma scientific perspective

[soubriquet 0]

It's very testing. Baseline electricity is going to have to come from nuclear power. We're now into the third generation, so the technology is reasonably secure.

 

Transport will have to be powered by alcohol (in the shorter term) and then hydrogen fuel cells. Existing biofuels are robbing peter to pay paul. The trick will be to convert cellulose to alcohol. It's going to take some biotricknology to get there, but the genetic engineers are on the case.

 

Politically, your guess is as good as mine. The climate models don't include water vapour, and without cloud (albedo) they are pissing into the wind. We do know the measured heating is less than predicted, so the models are wrong in that sense.

 

I'm sympathetic with GN. It's very hard to have a debate when any critical examination is met with green propaganda. Oyuki, I specifically exclude you from the above generalisation, I'm very impressed with your interest on what is really going on

[Mantas 3]

I've just seen the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, I've read all of this thread, I've all but read Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers, now all I am is very confused.

 

 

 

.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

Thats the thing with Science, its only the facts until someone else runs a test and disproves it!!

 

What bugs me about issues like this is the political hiijacking. Nothing will improve until Governments just tell us the bare truth, no flashy diagrams, no skewing of facts, JUST THE FACTS! Then we can all work toward the common goal. Unfortunately this will never happen.

[soubriquet 0]

Facts are very slippery things, which is why scientists prefer to use "data".

 

Here are some data. The Earth is about 4.7 billion years old. What we recognise as an atmosphere is about 1.9 billion years old. These data are from Scotese. They are probably out of date, and are rather cryptic, but the pattern is clear. Over the past 600 million years, the default climate for the earth is greenhouse. There have been four excursions into ice ages however, and we happen to live in one of these rare events.

 

 

Ice ages aren't simple things. They comprise glacials and interglacials. There have been between 12-16 glacial/interglacial cycles over the past 2 million years, but we aren't sure because no-one was taking notes. Glacials generally last about 100,000 years and interglacials about 10,000. Right now we are at the end of an interglacial, a rare event in a rare event. The best data we have come from Vostok, and here they are. This diagram comes from the IPCC report.

 

 

They show quite clearly, four peaks (the interglacials) separated by four troughs (the glacials).

 

I've re-modelled the Vostok deuterium data, and coloured it at an arbitrary 2 degrees C cooler than present, to illustrate the past four glacial/interglacial cycles.

 

 

If we zoom in to the past 20,000 years (Vostok data, the same as the IPCC present) we can see the end of the past glacial, and a definite cooling trend for the past 10,000 years.

 

 

Oh dear. That won't keep my seat warm on a nice UN committee. Lets get out "How to lie with statistics 101" and pick a scale which supports my case. We'll show the past 1,000 years, and dismiss the previous 4,699,999,000 years as "Ancient History".

 

Here it is.

 

 

As a broken down ex-sedimentologist and part-time palaeo climatographer, I have seven recommendations.

 

2. Be very sceptical when people quote stats in order to run your life.

 

9. Marry a girl who will wear a short skirt and do as she's told.

[Oyuki kigan 0]

i think i understand what you are saying, Soubs. But as for the point, i am admittedly lost.

 

The fact that climate changes naturally is not being challenged by anyone i know of. And from the EXTREMELY limited knowledge i have, they were caused by Milankovitch cycles, which for a variety of reasons, allow the earth to absorb more or less energy from the sun.

 

The problem here is that at this particular point in time, the Milankovitch cycles don't apply. The Earth is warming with no other plausible explanation than the thickening of the atmosphere by man-made emissions, particularily CO2 and methane.

 

which i think is why the long-term data is not usually applied.

 

Even you yourself admitted to the man-made element, so i am lost as to why you are digging back into climate changes that don't relate to our current predicament.

 

The actual word 'climate change', as i undersand it, was used by people (government, big buisness) who wanted to downplay the implications of the word 'Global Warming'. It became regular circulation in the media, and people started using it instead, despite the different connotations

[Rag-Doll 0]

Oyuki,

 

I think the point is that the warming started before CO2 became an issue. Well, that's how I understand the info in Soub's post. But then I could be completely wrong!

 

 

On the Vostok graph that covers the 400,000 year range, why do we see massive temp swings in the last 20,000 year period? that red squiggle at the end? Does this reflect more info available during this period or greater variability or what?

[Oyuki kigan 0]

 Originally Posted By: Rag-Doll

Oyuki,

I think the point is that the warming started before CO2 became an issue. Well, that's how I understand the info in Soub's post. But then I could be completely wrong!

I realize that, but it seems irrelevant because the warming we are experiencing today can only be adequately explained by CO2. The whole point of this whole dialouge is to determine whether or not GW is human-produced. And if it is, that leads to the obvious question of what we should be doing about it.

Soubs has conceded that the thinks the current warming is due to humans, so unless someone else has a coherent theory of why the Earth is suddenly warming in the absence of historical triggers, then we should be cutting to the chase and talking about what it means, and hat we can do about it.

 Quote:

On the Vostok graph that covers the 400,000 year range, why do we see massive temp swings in the last 20,000 year period? that red squiggle at the end? Does this reflect more info available during this period or greater variability or what?

Judging from the rest of the climate patterns, it looks as if we should be cooling, not warming. From what i have read, scientists have called the long, relatively warm anomoly the "Long Summer", which some anthropologists feel was stable enough to allow us to give up nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestlyes, settle down and start agriculture (which directly leads to current civilization).

I hope someone alse who has more education about it than me can talk about the reasons why, as i have not read much about it, nor am i a scientist.

One theory i've read, according to the Gaia hypothosis, is that as nature diversifies, it becomes more flexible to deal with outside disturbances and retain an equilibruim. Some think that the current environment was diverse enough to retain an unusal amount of balance, leading to this "long summer".

But all aside, we are experiencing a VERY fast rate of warming (much faster that would be predicted by natural cycles), which is threatening all life on the planet. The only coherent theory being put forward (as far as i know) is human-caused Global Warming.

So just for now, politics aside, what should we do if this theory is true

[Rag-Doll 0]

>But all aside, we are experiencing a VERY fast rate of warming (much faster that would be predicted by natural cycles), which is threatening all life on the planet. The only coherent theory being put forward (as far as i know) is human-caused Global Warming.

 

I'm coming at this from complete ignorance, but there are two things that I struggle to understand on the GW issue - actually there are many but here is two of them. The first is the rapidity of the temp change. The medieval warm period and the little ice age that followed must have displayed changes at speeds comparable to or even faster than the current measured rate of 0.6c over the past century. No? These changes weren't anthropogenic were they? Such rapidity would seem to possible without AGW. It's fine to say, we observe this and we explain it thus and therefore the hypothesis stands until another, better explanation comes along. But if we have seen temp changes of similar speeds in the past (that have no ready explanation) that can not be brought within the AGW framework doesn't that undermine the validity of AGW?

 

The second issue is the reliance on use of average global temps to define the framework of global warming. The people that know these things obviously reckon its an ok thing to use, but doesn't it leave open the prospect of local non-CO2 derived anomalies distorting the CO2 model? By way of example, Australia in 2007 (I think it was) had above average rain fall (largely because a couple of cyclones crossed the coast in the North that year) even while large parts of the country was still in a very severe drought. The the average rainfall figure is therefore largely meaningless to the conditions. Aren't there similar issues with Global modeling and issues of AGW?

[soubriquet 0]

Oyuki you are right, I do believe the current warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2. Milankovitch cycles sort of do the trick of explaining climate change, but not quite. The patterns are there but sometime they fit the observations, and sometimes they don't.

 

Rag-doll. The data we have get more and better, the closer we are to present time. That's why the Holocene has the most variation. There's less averaging.

 

Palaeo-climatology is an inexact science. The data we have are the data we can find. Vostok is very important because it is the longest continuous ice core. There are many others though, from Greenland as well as Antarctica. They are all archived at NOAA, and you can download and model them in Excel. Camp Century (Greenland) is probably the best set after Vostok. What they show are the same trends and patterns as Vostok. In other words, that the Vostok data show truly global phenomena.

 

The rates of change are intriguing. They are very hard to resolve from geological evidence, but what we have show that changes can be very rapid. When the major ice caps finished melting about 12,000 years ago, sea level rose about 25 metres in less than 1,000 years. That rise was too rapid for shore deposits to form, or for coral reefs to respond. Instead we have a gap where things jumped from their earlier positions to their present ones.

 

I think it is important to understand that that climate change (including global warming) is normal, and that the Earth is robust. Change can be very rapid: too fast for the environment to respond. Accepting these forces of nature is the key to managing change. Talk about "preventing climate change" is futile.

 

And I still stand in my opinion about girls in short dresses

[HelperElfMissy 42]

 Quote:

That rise was too rapid for shore deposits to form, or for coral reefs to respond. Instead we have a gap where things jumped from their earlier positions to their present ones.

Soubs, following all you are saying - and very interested, but I don't understand this statement...can you explain a bit more for me?

[Mantas 3]

 Originally Posted By: Rag-Doll

I'm coming at this from complete ignorance, but there are two things that I struggle to understand on the GW issue - actually there are many but here is two of them. The first is the rapidity of the temp change. The medieval warm period and the little ice age that followed must have displayed changes at speeds comparable to or even faster than the current measured rate of 0.6c over the past century.

I am far from any serious intellectual opinion on all this (except the girls with short skirts), but I am a wiling student. What I do raise doubt on, is the 'medieval warm period' or the 'little ice age'. Surely they are not using these isolated incidents to support their argument? One thing I have learnt so far is that GW is extremely complex. different parts of the planet are effected in different ways at different times. I doubt anyone was taking satellite images of polar caps in 1342 or studying plankton cycles in the South pacific in 1562. All they can tell us is stories of ice skating on the Themes and vineyards flourishing in Europe.

It seems that any scientist with half a theory can get it to fly so long as they 'select' the right piece of 'data' to support it.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Move to Perth.

 

According to a temperature change map that I saw a few weeks back pretty much the only place that remained the same was Perth - ohh and the vast massive area around it.

A few places saw a drop in temperature, but they were all southern hemisphere too - mostly in the sea.

The biggest increases were seen the further north you travelled.

 

It is all interesting.

 

It is all good to reduce waste (just been swapping a few more standard globes for long life globes)and consumption. I now use green bags for most of my shopping. We are investigating solar energy (although the man we had a meeting with was a tosser)and think we will go ahead when we find the right deal/salesman. And I yell at the kids to turn the blasted air con off more than I used to.

 

I don't know if it is making a difference to our future or not. But IF there is a great human created catastrophe coming it makes me feel better to know I am doing my bit - regardless or not whether if makes a difference to the final outcome.

[soubriquet 0]

I'll try to, but sea level rise is very complex. There are many uncertainties and the science debate can be somewhat robust.

 

During the last glacial maximum, sea level was about 120 metres lower than at present. Between about 17,000 and 8,000 before present, sea level rose about 100 metres. Simple arithmetic gives us about 9 metres rise per thousand years, but it wasn't a smooth event. That's where the 25 metres in 1,000 years comes from. FWIW, sea levels have continued to rise to this day and are still rising albeit at lower rates.

 

Carbonate systems like coral reefs can grow up at something like 1-10 metres per thousand years in optimal conditions. They couldn't keep up, so they drowned. If you poke about at around 120 metres depth, you can find all kinds of old shorelines, including, in the tropics, coral reefs. What the reefs did was to re-establish themselves in their new positions rather than migrate slowly. In many cases this meant re-colonising old reefs which died when sea level went down.

[Rag-Doll 0]

>vineyards flourishing in Europe.

 

I for one can attest from personal experience that this is still going on!

 

I suspect part of the difficulty the layperson has with GW and emotive issues is that there is a fair amount of distortion and miscommunication mixed in with the solid and demonstrable facts. The nonsense undermines the legitimate information and detail and as a layperson struggle to separate the two, he/she tends to be suspicious of the entire cause. Both sides (or is that all sides?) are guilty of this.

 

The thing about the medieval warm period and little ice age is that firstly, a warm Northern Europe and warmish Greenland and the resultant reduction of its ice cap clearly didn't bring about the end of the world that we're lead to believe is immanent now. Secondly, even if the events were localised -from what I can gather they may have been - such events would undermine the notion of a meaningful average global temperature, i.e. the North Atlantic heats up but there is little or no change elsewhere, we have a rise in the global average temperature but no meaningful global warming. I don't think anyone is saying today that the global temperature rise is consistent around the world and that there are not places experiencing a cooling. Of course, the energy to warm the North Atlantic needs to come from somewhere so presumably it means that more heat was being carried north by the gulf stream which means there would be a reduction in the temperature in the Caribbean. The opposite situation would be true for the little ice age, I guess. But then this all assumes that the energy input into the global environment is constant, which it probably isn't given the normal fluctuations in rainfall and cloud cover and droughts and snowfall and ionosphere and sun activity and the Richmond Football Club's general inability to kick goals. All this means that it is possible to get changes in average global temperatures and significant and fairly rapid changes in long term local environments that are not AGW related. And oh dear, I'm back where I started and stuck with the dilemma that whilst I can't come up with an explanation better than AGW, I still find that I can't embrace it with any real enthusiasm.

[Mantas 3]

>And oh dear, I'm back where I started and stuck with the dilemma that whilst I can't come up with an explanation better than AGW, I still find that I can't embrace it with any real enthusiasm.<

 

Well. I wont be relying on you any more information then

[soubriquet 0]

You are right, Mantas. Geo-this and palaeo-that are very slippery things because of the methods we use, and the nature of the geological record. That is why we talk about data and evidence, and not "facts".

 

Direct instrument readings only take us back about 150 years or so. Prior to that we have to infer from indirect evidence, known as proxies. Geological data tend to be patchy in distribution, and incomplete in time. How we arrange the pieces of the incomplete jigsaw is very much a matter of interpretation, and is always open to re-interpretation as new information comes to light.

 

However, let us not despair. What we find is that un-related methods (e.g. pollen analysis, beetle stratigraphy) tend to show consistent patterns. Some methods give a picture of local conditions, while others are more regional or global in scale. This is where the ice cores are so valuable. They give us continuous records, and we can demonstrate that the patterns from the northern and southern hemispheres match. They are recording truly global phenomena.

 

Rag-doll, you are correct about the Holocene fluctuations. What the Vostok 20K data show are matched by much more detailed local studies. Climate is in a constant state of flux, some of it very rapid and quite extreme. A 2 degree cooling in less than 50 years for the little ice age, for example. That had profound social consequences for hill farmers and other occupants of marginal areas, and it is something that we will have to face and manage. It can't be prevented.

 

Mamabear. If you go to Rottnest Island you can see the consequences of climate change. On the north shore of Herschel lake are a couple of shell beds. These are beach deposits from about 6,000 and 4,000 years ago when sea level was about 2 metres higher than at present. At the base of the cliff at Salmon point is a 120,000 year old coral reef that formed during the last interglacial, died when sea level fell, and is now back at just above sea level.