The first part says that climate change happens. Gosh! If you believe that carbon dioxide causes warming then maybe you whould wonder about what happend 4200 years ago. There's been peer-review papers published that say that the reductions in flow of water in the Nile correlates well with El Nino events in the Pacific, but of course no-one wants to mention that!

Little doubt that that the globe heated up SIGNIFICANTLY during the 20th century? Don't make me laugh!

Firstly I'm not sure that I would say it's a significant rise if it is less than most people can perceive. According to meteorologists. it's equivalent to the temperature change from the bottom to the top of a 100m high hill.

Secondly the CRU claims it's an 0.6 degree increase but also say that the error range is plus or minus 0.2 degrees. Should it be 0.4 of 0.8 ... but even then that's according to it's calculations which produce different results to two US agencies.

The claims of that temperature rise are based on average global temperatures but what exactly is the global average temperature when there are large regions with few observation points? The temperatures there are somehow derived from temperatures elsewhere - and I say "somehow derived" because no-one will say how it is done.

In one (in)famous example Phill Jones of the CRU was asked to disclose how he derived the figures and he said "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wronmg with it?". Sorry Phill, but that's what peer review is all about.

By the way the researcher who asked the question has found that the observation from many growing urban locations are included in the data. The data from those locations is probably distorted by the Urban Heat Island Effect. It's not just the data from one location that is affected but it's any data derived from it. As a simple example, sup

It's almost laughable. There are literally mountains of research papers all around the world which detail the various climatic changes in the Earth's history. The last 10,000 years since the start of this interglacial period is really well documented. Yet we have this sort of article resented as if nothing is known about this period. For what it's worth, a close look at the Sphinx shows signs of water erosion on some of the surfaces. In a modern desert why would that be ? The answer's obvious.

The period 6000 years ago was about 6 - 9 degrees warmer than today (the Atlantic period) and gradually cooled from then on but it was still warm enough to grow grapes in middle England 1000 years ago.

1300AD saw the start of the Little Ice Age where temperatures plummeted with three minima and then, from 1800 AD onwards, the trend is of a rapid recovery or rebound.

There is also evidence for global climatic change over the entire history of the Earth. Four Great Ice Ages, each lasting many millions of years, have been documented. The Second (and probably the First) was literally a Snowball earth with Ice from the Poles more or less to the Equator.

http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com (July and November posts)

Incidentally, yet again, that hoory old chestnut - the last Ice Age.

The present Ice Age started 40 milliion years ago and intensified during the last 3 million years. There have been glacial periods (with ice) and interglacial periods (less ice) on a cycle of approx 100,000 and 40,000 years.

We will have to wait for at least 100,000 years or more to say that the Ice Age has finished.

sorry, 'hoary' not hoory.

#4 Hoory will do MS!!

#2 MS
I repeat my questions from an earlier post:
“I am intrigued by your claim for temperatures 6-9C above present 6000 years ago. What evidence do you have for that? What do you understand were a) the atmospheric CO2 levels then b) the global sea level then?”
You state “it was still warm enough to grow grapes in middle England 1000 years ago.” I presume you are aware that grapes are growing in middle England at present?

#1 I see John M is still writing cleverly misleading posts whose main function appears to be to sow seeds of doubt but which don’t actually say anything. In this context I invite readers to examine the recently published report about ExxonMobil’s disgraceful campaign to do just the same. This from Indymedia:
“A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive
documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's
disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel,
to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998
and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public
on global warming science.
"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming
just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer,
the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective
investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government
action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."
For the complete article click the link below:”
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-G

The oceans were 30 degrees warmer 40 million years ago than they are now.

All this climate change nonsense is bollocks.

If only Pharoah had passed a law saying that no ancient Egyptians should drive SUVs they would have been ok.

Interesting that the end of this article does acknowledge that "a minority" of scientists doubt Anthropogenic Warming (& I think far more doubt Catastrophic Anthropogenic warming) which is definitely a small step closer to balance for the Scotsman, though, as the article shows warming need be neither anthropogenic or catastrophic.

these guy's aren't real scientists! they have to speculate all too much, same with archaeology, .....it's from 10 feet down it must be 40 million years old.

I'm a physicist, we do tests to back up our hunches, if it's measurable then likely to be true. if reproducible then even more so. So of this stuff isn't measurable and if is it's got so much unknowns that you can't ever be sure.

i watched a BBC program about biblical fakes from Israel, all the experts (religious guys and historians) believed them to be cosher - physicists got involved, electron mincroscope - fakes!
I rest my case......

we need this type of research and archaeology as well (which i love) but guys, try and be less emotive and more scientific..

Slioch,

Yes I know that there are grapes growing in the south of England now but my understanding is that they were grown a fair bit further north in the 1100s.

As for temperatures there are so many papers, books and articles out there, you'll find plenty. The Atlantic Period of 6000 years ago is very well documented (try googling Holocene Climatic Optimum): you'll even find good graphs in Higher Geography textbooks apparently. Even the most conservative estimates, based on a wide range of data, state the period was at least 2 - 3 degrees Celsius warmer than at present. The 9 degree estimate applies to winter figures and 6 degrees to summer: it should be noted that these figures apply to mid and high latitudes.

In a previous post you said you - as have I - had a geological background. The points about sea-levels and the changes ? I'm sure you are aware of isostacy and eustacy..... Again there is a wealth of articles out there.

I also suggest you look up some of the more detailed research on Skara Brae. There is some evidence to suggest that 4000 years ago, the sea-level was quite a few metres lower (one suggestion is for 30 metres which does seem a little excessive) and Orkney may well have trees growing. Look at the analysis of the fish bones - and it certainly looks as though species more typical of warmer climes were there to be caught.....

*6 Slioch
Cassandra 's got nothing on you . You seem determined there is a big business conspiracy going on which suits your hair shirt Wee Free mentality.Instead of referring people to sites where p*** is manufactured by ever decreasing circles of fanatics try this for size,

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

You will go into denial as usual but some may get to the truth of this whole thing ......more tax.

Also forgot to say there is recent ice core data from the Southern hemisphere which points to this period being global rather than confined to the Northern Hemisphere as is sometimes claimed.

It would appear that the Equatorial regions continued to receive more or less the same amount of insolation during the Atlantic period so temperatures remained quite close to their 'normal' levels for this interglacial, albeit possibly a little warmer.

A thought: most of this research is well documented, goes back many years, has been subject to rigorous peer review and is well-founded. Thus it is credible: too much of the present 'official' position is predicated on an obsession with carbon dioxide levels and the last three hundred years. Minds are closed to the fact that the world's climate is subject to many, many variables.

Even if the figure for the Atlantic period was the minimum estimated - say 2 degrees Celsius, then it suggests very strongly that the 'official' position is seriously flawed. The problem is that those doing the shouting will be dead before they can be discredited and held to account.

Remember Copernicus.

*12
It's so unfair , you clearly know what you are talking about and poor Slioch doesn't go deep.You can expect an ad hominem soon.

Corrigendum

Even if the figure for the Atlantic period was the minimum estimated - say 2 degrees Celsius, then it suggests very strongly that the 'official' position is seriously flawed.

Should read :

Even if the figure for the Atlantic period was the minimum estimated - say 2 degrees Celsius warmer than today's figures, then it suggests very strongly that the 'official' position is seriously flawed.

Ad honinem ?

Not usually Slioch's style as far as I can tell.

More than likely he'll be googling furiously - not a bad thing.

Ad hominem, obviously - old fingers are not what they used to be. Going to need reading glasses too ..............

#10 & #12 MS

Well I’m sorry MS that you cannot furnish a reference for the 6 – 9C claim.
I live in the Scottish Highlands where anyone with their eyes open can see evidence of a more benign climate sometime in the past: roots of large old pine trees in the peat in areas now where the climate seems too harsh to allow trees to grow. So I have long had an interest in knowing about this period (though I wouldn’t claim to have studied it in detail), but I have never come across a claim for a temperature 6-9C above the present: that is why I asked you – I find that figure difficult to believe, but if there is evidence I would like to see it.
I agree that there are references to it being 2-3C higher than the twentieth century (the largest reference I’ve come across is 2.5C, but note that the Scotland is already 1.1C above 1900). Tree growth is also effected by rainfall, wind and growth of blanket bogs. There is no sign of a “warm” period 6,000 years ago in the Vostok ice core, nor (I think) in the recent Dome C (though I can’t find the graph at present), what is the recent ice-core evidence you think shows otherwise? Do you agree that the HCO seems to have been caused by solar cycles and that CO2 levels did not exceed 280ppmv at that time?

The above points are “points of interest” that do not have a strong direct relevance to the present climate change debate. – but I disagree with you when you say a rise of 2 degrees Celsius at the HCO suggests very strongly that the 'official' position is seriously flawed.” - It is irrelevant. If the climate is sensitive to a change in solar forcing so as to produce a rise in temperature, why on Earth should that suggest that it is not also sensitive to a change in CO2 forcing to also produce a change in temperature? - but that is what your assertion implies.

# 11 & 13 Donny B

It is a shame you obviously haven’t studied the site I suggested, and that you refer us instead to the www.junkscience.com site. Frankly, anyone with any scientific knowledge can see the junkscience site for what it is: junk.

George Monbiot (19 Sept 2006) wrote a long article about this (based on his book “Heat”). Here are some of the points he makes (any mistakes in interpretation are mine):

The term “junkscience” appears to have been invented in 1993 by a public relations firm called APCO working for Philip Morris tobacco company.
APCO proposed to set up "a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science'.” "Junk science" meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive.
APCO also set up a fake citizens group called “The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition” [TASSC].
It was TASSC which later set up the www.junkscience.com website, using $30,000 from Exxon, to which you, Donny B, seem to have fallen for. As the Union of Concerned Scientists stated in my earlier post (#6), "ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming
just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer."
If you want actually to learn something about what has happened and how you have been duped, Donny, then go to the site I gave in #6 above.
If that is too painful for you then continue believing the nonsense junkscience promulgates.

It could have been the climate, or it could have been good old corruption, indolence and decadence that did for the pharaohs. After a few thousand years, a dynasty gets a bit jaded. (Or less, as we see nowadays). Or it might have been the arrival of better armed and more aggressive people, or human or animal disease (flu?), or overgrazing and desertification ... On the whole I believe that the climate was not the main cause, not least because there were other sources of food in the region. The Nile was, and remains, vital to Egypt (even more so now as its population spirals) but in those far off days, the population was very small and communication around the Med well established.

Slioch I don't understand your position. You "agree that there are references to it being 2-3C higher than the twentieth century" without any bad effects, indeed on balance the warmer periods were times of prosperity.

You believe that the Hockey Stick theory has not been disproven but does not predict further warming (I think both of these weird views but you are entitled to them).

In which case what is the problem? What justifies extra taxes, laws, government restrictions & the whole Kyoto paraphanalia which costs us $400 million every day to oppose a catastrophic warming when there is no evidence of catastrophe?

As I said, the evidence is extremely well documented for the Atlantic Period : I suggest that you go look for it for yourself. The evidence is there in tree-rings, varves, pollen analysis - you even mention the tree stumps that first drew attention to a milder/warmer past yourself.

As for the 6 - 9 degrees I've already told you where to find the figures if you choose to look and how they were arrived at. I can, if I so wish, wish give you chapter and verse on sources - I've suggested the first and most important thing to research. In my experience the only way to get people to make sense of things is to give them guides that they follow up themselves.

As for solar cycles, if you mean Milankovitch cycles, there is a wealth of evidence on that too and is, in fact, one of the postulated causes of the warm spell 6000 years ago.

You seem have found the 2 to 3 degrees warmer figures so I find it strange that you are querying the fact that the Atlantic Period is accepted as being warmer than the present. I have explained how the 6 - 9 degrees relates to those figures.

You state : "I agree that there are references to it being 2-3C higher than the twentieth century (the largest reference I’ve come across is 2.5C, but note that the Scotland is already 1.1C above 1900)." By most estimates of current changes, that would mean at least 200 years before we reach temperatures commensurate with 6000 BP. As I pointed out, from the wealth of research available, that is likely to be the minimum time because those are the minimum figures.

I find it truly amazing that you are willing to accept that global temperatures were (at least, in your own words) 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer than the present and - still- you cannot see that that challenges the current orthodoxy about climate change.

Slioch, can I suggest you download the following pdf, based on research carried out by Ohio State University. which contains the results of ice cores freom the Antarctic Peninsula ?

http://www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/Icecore/Abstracts/Publ...

You'll find some interesting things to contemplate. Firstly the confirmation of the points I made about the Holocene Climatic Optimum, confirmation of the Little Ice Age and, very interestingly indeed, some data which queries just how much warming actually took place in the 20th Century.

*18 Slioch (Is this a name?)
Buried in the highlands as you claim , your grasp on logic is failing you. Observations on what has happened in your short time on earth ,especially in a maritime climate such as the British Isles , can only be weather. Your earlier discussions of up to four ice ages in earths history with MS indicate you understand that the earth was once very cold , so why do you find it so difficult to understand that it heated up in between?
George Monbiot , affectionately known by many as as Moonbat , is not a clever reference point in these discussions .He is a journalist , mainly Guardian , who has NO qualifications in this field . Sorry, he is has no scientific credentials at all and writes mostly to excite folks like you who want to believe "we're doomed".
As for the Union of Concerned Scientists ,WTF (please excuse) . I suggest you do as MS suggests and get Googling to read some alternative views without the specks in your eyes.

Actually I've just used Wikipedia to see what they have on the Holocene Climate Optimum and - guess what - there are the 6 and 9 degrees that I mentioned in an earlier post ! They have the same suggested minimum figures that I've always undestood to be the case.

My figures came from work done in the 1970s and 1980s and which I've seen in various cademic publications on a number of occasions since.

*23

'Slioch" is, I've always understood to be beside Loch Maree, and is a Munro, so perhaps that's Slioch's surname and his wife's Marie !

*23

Clearly I'm having one of those days today :

'Slioch" is, I've always understood to be a mountain beside Loch Maree, and is a Munro, so perhaps that's Slioch's surname and his wife's Marie !

My mate ,Philip Morris , told me that Exxon Mobil have a secret James Bond style island in Loch Maree where they manufacture ice cores and wonky thermometers so as they can take over the world.
Is this perhaps the source of Slioch's disquiet , his wife Maree has been taken hostage by them on condition of his unconditional support until EM have total control .At which point they will make us eat muesli and go everywhere by bus , a fate worse than global warmi... climate change!
Send the coded message , Slioch , what do you need - frogman submarine , missile spitting one man helicopters or more wind turbines.

PS Guess what you're getting.

The science of climate change is now beyond reasonable doubt. Any remaining doubters can follow links to the authoritive organisations below, none of which are tofu-eating greenies, yet all recognise climate change as a significant problem that we need to address:

New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html

Meteorological Office
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/education/higher/climate_cha...

HM Treasury
http://hm-treasury.gov.uk./independent_reviews/stern_revi...

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/what/climate.htm

United States Environment Protection Agency
http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

Royal Society
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761

The Royal Society has a useful guide to facts & fictions about climate change. This leading scientific body also recently critiqued the US Oil industry (in particular ExxonMobil) for funding organisations which misrepresent scientific evidence about climate change.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is a reality which will have a significant impact upon us. The sooner we make meaningful progress on emissions, the less severe that impact will be.

Just looked in to see what’s been happening in my absence …

I see Donny B is indulging in puerile comments, and MS has joined in.

Sorry folks, I don’t respond to such posts.

The organisations you quote may not be tofu eating greenies but they all have one thing in common ,they cannot PROVE your first statement that climate change is beyond reasonable doubt.

As Einstein once said of his detractors " it only needed one of them to be right" so your numbers and names game does not impress. All of your referred sites rely on people who benefit from the woes of climate change.

You must give me proof of this "overwhelming scientific consensus " you talk of , my impression is that it consists of government who want to tax us more and pseudoscientists(Moonbat et al) who take a healthy living out of perpetuating the myth.

For those that want a healthy critique of matters like this and want to know what is really going on from a British perspective ,then check out www.numberwatch.co.uk where you will find out how the science has been twisted to suit Gordon Brown.

Good thread , why break it Slioch. You surely don't expect your Private Frazer outbursts to go unchallenged .Here's something to muse on in your huff. http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=...

Oh well, just one point, since it pertains to what I asked earlier.

MS #24 states, “I've just used Wikipedia to see what they have on the Holocene Climate Optimum and - guess what - there are the 6 and 9 degrees that I mentioned in an earlier post !”

No it doesn’t MS.
It says “in one study, winter warming of 3-9C and summer of 2-6C in north central Siberia.”

But it also says “In terms of the global average, the typical shift was probably between 0.5 and 2 °C warmer than the mid-20th century”

The global average temperature in the mid-20th century was c0.5C cooler than at present (and it was c1.0C cooler at the beginning of the twentieth century than at present) thus making global average temperature during the HCO according to this source between 0 and 1.5C warmer than at present. (and between 1 and 2.5C warmer than the beginning of the twentieth century – I mentioned in #17 above “the largest reference I’ve come across is 2.5C, but note that the Scotland is already 1.1C above 1900”)

This site also shows a compilation graph giving the average temperature derived from multiple sources showing only a modest (<0.5C) above present global levels.

My enquiry to MS in#6 above was in response to your claim on 4th Jan that “The world's average temperatures still have at least 6 - 9 degrees to climb to reach the temperatures of 6000 years ago.”

Your statement (or at least the implication in it) was false according to the reference you have eventually given.

I would be grateful MS if you would not get distracted from an otherwise factual debate by Donny B’s comments as in #25 & #26 above

I'll get my coat then.

I have listened to the global warming debate for years and we now have overwhelming data. Global warming is here and we must take a good look at the information. So lets use our powers of reasoning and clean up our act. Just do it...and forget the debate, get on with your responsibility to take responsibility and be part of the solution and not more of a problem. Debate has been mentioned but I haven't heard any competent rebutal from the detractors yet.

A small correction to my reference to the compilation graph in the Wikipedia Holocene Climatic Optimum. The dotted horizontal line in the graph is apparently the mid-twentieth century global average temperature. The position of the global average for 2004 is shown on the left hand axis. Thus, my statement should have read:

“This site also shows a compilation graph giving the average temperatures derived from multiple sources showing the Holocene Climatic Optimum slightly below present global temperature levels.”

Clearly, there is some disparity between the graph and the statement in the Wikipedia site that the HCO was between 0.5 and 2.0C warmer than mid-twentieth century. But as far as yesterday’s thread is concerned, two things stand out from this.

1. MS’s statement that “the world's average temperatures” were “6-9C above present 6000 years ago” is untrue.
2. Donny B’s uncritical acceptance of MS’s statement (#13 “you clearly know what you are talking about”) because it fitted what Donny wanted to hear is typical those who deny climate change. That is why garbage sites like www.junkscience.com flourish: they are used by those who aren’t actually interested in investigating the truth, but merely want their prejudices reinforced.

When the Ice Age ended, much less rain fell in the middle latitudes, so Egypt dried out, and sea level rose because of the melting Ice Age icepacks, submerging Herakleion and Menouthis, now on the seafloor just northeast from Alexandria, four miles from shore.

Those cities were on the Canopic branch of the Nile, which was flowing during the Ice Age, but which was reduced to a trickle after the Ice Age ended, circa 1500 B.C.

Read about the Ipuwer Papyrus which chronicled the calamitous times circa 1500 B.C. when the land became parched (when the heavy rainfall of the Ice Age ended).

It still rains on the Giza plateau where the Sphinx is, and its weathering could have been caused by salt exfoliation, so it shouldn't be used as an argument in this debate.
'IceAgeCivilizations' is aka GenesisVeracity (give you a clue where he is coming from), aka James I. Nienhuis and needless to say the last Ice Age ended long before he claims it does.
Ipuwer dates before 1500 BC, probably well before.
Herakleion on the other hand was founded at the earliest around the 7th century BC and didn't sink until around the 6th or 7th century AD, nothing to do with a sea level increase either.