Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Oh My Gosh! 4 Deg C Warming!

All the scaremongering that goes around claims that global warming is something that we have never seen. 'Unprecedented!' we are told. but of course, those who know geology know what a crock of, well you know what, that is.

"Radiocarbon dates of peat from the top and base of a bog exposed by recent retreat of Rutor Glacier show that the glacier front terminated upvalley from the bog from 8400 until at least 6000 B. P. The evidence is consistent with botanical data that point to a high tree line during the interval and to reconstructed mean July temperatures at least 4oC warmer than present temperatures."
Stephen C. Porter and Giuseppe Orombelli, "Glacier Contraction During the Middle Holocene in the Western Italian Alps: Evidence and Implications," Geology, 13(1985), p. 296

Consider that for 24 years we have known that the the Alps were significantly warmer 6000 years ago than at present. But 4 degrees? Lets put that in perspective. The IPCC says that the world will warm 2 to 5 deg C per doubling of the CO2. Since the world has already seen that much warming just as civilization started, we really have little to worry about. Life on earth won't end just because we once again warm by 4 deg C.

"This evidence supports the hypothesis that mountain glaciers were in a contracted state for several millennia during the middle Holocene Hypsithermal interval. It is also consistent with results of recent paleoclimatic reconstructions of Europe that, on the basis of pollen data, indicate the mean July temperature in the western Alps was at least 4o C warmer about 6000 B.P. than it is today." Stephen C. Porter and Giuseppe Orombelli, "Glacier Contraction During the Middle Holocene in the Western Italian Alps: Evidence and Implications," Geology, 13(1985), p.298

If only the hysteriacs and Holocene deniers would actually look at the scientific data they would understand how silly they sound.


  1. Hi,

    I just found your blog through a link from Tom Nelson's blog.
    Your point of view on the anthropogenic global warming question is much appreciated. We all need to speak out on this before the prophets of doom drive us all into a much more severe economic crises.


  2. Well, you are comparing apples and oranges. Porter et al are talking about summer temperatures in one region of the world, the IPCC is talking about GLOBAL average temperatures. Those are different things.

  3. To Tacano, thanks for the encouragement.

    To Thermo:

    I see that you are a Holocene Denier. Your lack of knowledge of geology shines through in your statement above that the warming was only in one small area of the world. Go see my Holocene Denial Syndrome post

    This post in April, shows that the warmth was everywhere. Trees were growing in places that are now permafrost. Today, trees don't do well where the roots are frozen and they didn't do well back then in regions where the roots would be frozen. Thus, the logical conclusion for having trees all the way at the Arctic coast line is that the land wasn't permafrost at that time, merely 5,000+ years ago.

    You also seem to be utterly unaware that the ice shelves of Antarctica were melted as much as 80 km further south at that time and that the seas were 2 meters, yes, that is 2 meters higher then than now. And you say that this article only shows one tiny, teensy area of Europe was 4 deg warmer. What a display of geological ignorance you are engaged in.

    I give references to everything I write. If you would but work a bit you could verify what I say that all the things you hysteriacs fear has already happened to the earth and there was no grand catastrophe--and it happened without a single automobile being built 5000 years ago. We are not beyond the level of natural climatic variation for even the past 10,000 years.

    You guys just fear your shadow.

  4. Here's an interesting article from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s paleoclimate program (they should know a thing or two about the climate of the earth in the past:

    Some interesting quotes about the Mid-Holocene warming:

    "These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter. The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes, however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today's temperatures."
    "In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. "

    Maybe instead of taking on Thermo you should take on NOAA.

    It is somewhat of a strawman argument to assume that those of us who believe in anthropogenic global warming think that it will be a catastrophe for all life. Indeed the earth has had different climates in its history. But that doesn't mean that our society or for that matter some current species will survive it. The catastrophe may be in the eyes of those who are most impacted and perhaps that will be us.

  5. Hi Hagiograph, I would suggest that you are not reading the literature produced by global warming leaders. James Hansen had a New Scientist article which can be downloaded. He says all sorts of scary things in the article. so,I would suggest that maybe YOU don't think there is going to be a catastrophe but many are saying it.

    And of course there is the alarmist Prince Charles

    Here is another one by Hansen

    Ah yes, the ever alarmist Time Magazine:
    "If we cross those thresholds, the effects could be too swift and terrible for us to cope — the ice on Greenland alone contains enough water to raise global sea levels by more than 20 feet, which would swallow the coasts. Passing a tipping point would be irreversible and that is why the possibility keeps climatologists up at night.",8599,1885804,00.html

    If it is a strawmen, there are plenty of straws with which to make that man out there in the news

    Now as to the warmth. If it were not warmer then, than now, why were arctic trees growing where trees can't grow today? Why were the antarctic ice shelves 80 km south of their present position. It is silly to say it wasn't warmer in the mid-Holocene, when everything was melted and trees lived where they don't live today because it is too cold for them. Logic should dictate at least that conclusion, Hagiograph. Do you think by being colder in Siberia 5000 years ago, than it is today, that that would help the tree line move 600 miles further north?